FYI - GM Crops Create Herbicide-resistant 'Superweed'

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

FYI - GM Crops Create Herbicide-resistant 'Superweed'

Postby anotherdrew » Sat Dec 31, 2005 11:30 pm

"According to this article GM crops under test in the UK have cross pollinated to weeds, giving them the same resistance to herbicide as the GM crops. The article also mentions that this has been reported as occurring in Canada, which like the US is well past the test stage and allows widespread use of GM crops. What's worse, in Canada crop rotation has conferred multi-herbicide resistance to some of the weeds!"<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,,1535428,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/gmdeba...28,00.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Well, this is not good. Not good at all. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=anotherdrew>anotherdrew</A> at: 12/31/05 8:30 pm<br></i>
anotherdrew
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 6:06 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: FYI - GM Crops Create Herbicide-resistant 'Superweed'

Postby Floyd Smoots » Sat Dec 31, 2005 11:46 pm

Mebbe we's kin smoke de weeds, den we'uns jus' won' keer ennymore!!! But reallyl, GM crops have not been a good thing for anyone except Monsanto, and the PTB. Why does that not surprise you?<br> <p></p><i></i>
Floyd Smoots
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:50 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

no surprise here

Postby anotherdrew » Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:12 am

I just think it's yet another outrage that they were able to get away with this. The GM crops are growing everywhere. The genes are contaiminating other plants, natural corn may be on it's way out of existence... <p></p><i></i>
anotherdrew
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 6:06 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: no surprise here

Postby Floyd Smoots » Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:32 am

Monsanto, in 2005, applied for a patent on any porcine product that "may" contain any of it's already patented genetic manipulated garbage. It amounted to applying for a patent on any and all pigs that "may" be born containing any characteristics of pretty much any pig that was ever born. Does this surprise anyone here?<br> <p></p><i></i>
Floyd Smoots
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:50 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: no surprise here

Postby chiggerbit » Sun Jan 01, 2006 2:48 pm

Do you think the decline in vitamin and mineral content in vegetables has anything to do with farm chemicals? Or maybe with genetic modification?<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.soilandhealth.org/06clipfile/0601.LEMag/LE%20Magazine%2C%20March%202001%20-%20Report%20Vegetables%20Without%20Vitamins.htm">www.soilandhealth.org/06c...tamins.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>clip<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>Imagine the surprise of going online and discovering that the vitamin and mineral content of vegetables has drastically dropped. <br><br>That’s what happened to nutritionist, Alex Jack, when he went to check out the latest US Department of Agriculture food tables. The stunning revelation came after Jack compared recently published nutrient values with an old USDA handbook he had lying around. Some of the differences in vitamin and mineral content were enormous-a 50% drop in the amount of calcium in broccoli, for example. Watercress down 88% in iron content; cauliflower down 40% in vitamin C content-all since 1975.<br><br>Jack took his findings to the USDA, hoping for a reasonable explanation. That was two years ago. He’s still waiting. So is Organic Gardening magazine, which published an open letter, seeking an explanation from Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture. Glickman didn’t respond, but USDA employee, Phyllis E. Johnson did. Johnson (who is head of the Beltsville area office), suggested to Organic Gardening that the nutrient drain should be put in context. According to her, the 78% decrease in calcium content of corn is not significant because no one eats corn for <br>calcium. She further explains that the problem may not even exist at all; that the apparent nutrient dips could be due to the testing procedures. For example, “changes in the public’s perception of what the edible portion is may determine what parts have been analyzed over time.” In other words, back when the old food tables were made up, people may have been eating the cobb too, so they got more nutrients.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to Health

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest