Food for Thought

Posted by David Nelson
January 27, 2009

About the Author: David Nelson serves as Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs.Video Text

I am fortunate this week to be missing the snow back in Washington, as I lead the U.S. delegation to the High Level Meeting on Food Security for All held in Madrid, Spain, Jan. 26-27. I am even more fortunate to be working on a critically important issue that makes a real difference in people’s lives around the world.

On Monday, I had the honor to be joined “virtually” here in Madrid by our new Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. In a videotaped message to attendees, which you may also view in the player above, she stressed that the United States is committed to building a new partnership among donor states, developing nations, UN agencies, NGO’s, the private sector and others to better coordinate our policies on food security. Numerous delegations sought me out to express appreciation for the video, both for its content and for the concrete demonstration of how important this issue is to the U.S. government.

As Secretary Clinton made clear in her remarks, food security is critically important; alleviating hunger worldwide is a top priority of this Administration. Food insecurity and high food prices threaten the prosperity and security of many developing countries.

With the complex global challenges we share in this new century, we need the collaboration and coordination among nations that is evident at this meeting. The session was convened by the Government of Spain, and it has brought together a broad range of committed stakeholders and Ministers from more than 126 countries.

At this meeting, there are people from national governments, civil society, trade unions, private sector, academia, donor agencies and multilateral organizations. It’s rewarding to be a part of this diverse group, all working together to review progress achieved since the High-Level Conference on World Food Security in Rome in June of last year, to agree on ways to move forward quickly, and to establish mechanisms for better coordination.

I’m confident we are making important steps in our efforts toward furthering global efforts to find a long term solution to hunger. When I get back to Washington, I look forward to continuing to advance our work to decrease hunger and food insecurity.

And who knows, maybe the snow will have melted by the time my plane touches down.

Comments

Comments

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
January 27, 2009

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ David Nelson, Speaking of "food for thought", I'd invite you to review the following archived post and my comments.

Your thoughts on the solution posed to the Ambassador would be appreciated.

http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entries/cambodias_war_era_debt/

Best Regards,

EJ

Rosemary
|
New Jersey, USA
January 27, 2009

Rosemary in New Jersey writes:

This is pure Hillary: the agenda and the rationale for it. This is exactly the way we are used to hearing her think, speak, and work. Already, five days in and she is superb. I love her!

Wendy
|
California, USA
January 28, 2009

Wendy in California writes:

Dear Assistant Sec. Nelson,

Seeing as we're already direly at Peak Soil on the planet, how come people keep pushing corn ethanol and its cul-de-sac infrastructure as any kind of supposedly renewable solution? Using food soil as a fuel source is shortsighted lunacy. Is it because city people don't know that top soil is rare and fragile?

Also the idea that corn stalks etc are 'organic scrap' is a wrong-headed idea because those corn stalks must be plowed under to replenish the soil.

If we're to have food security, we must protect food soil from being pirated for fuel.

I hope you borrow my phrase Peak Soil because it's a meme shortcut for an emergency idea. Thanks for all your efforts.

Mindy B.
|
New York, USA
January 28, 2009

Mindy in New York writes:

"How Parsley Saved The Farm" is a story about what it takes to be a farmer. I don't know how yet, but I think the challenges small farms face in Suffolk County in developing countries are universal issues. I'd like to think that our efforts areontributing in some small fashion to food for thought campaigns across the world. We are in need of people who can help illustrate the story.

Enrico
|
California, USA
January 28, 2009

Enrico in California writes:

I love Hillary! Please, both you and President Obama keep your eye on the prize! Go for it! We may not have this chance again.

joe
|
Tennessee, USA
January 28, 2009

Joe in Tennessee writes:

1. Use farm supplements as subsidies and allocations to reinstate the small farmer in America, rather than not grow crops or rely on corporate farming to control all cost. The small farmer can Plant crops that will fulfill the underprivileged world needs and not be part of the futures market, yet get paid fair market with tax incentives or slightly less for the crops. Bigger farming is not better as we end up paying twice to feed the poor as it exist now -- and how is that beneficial to anyone? This can be done and rebuild the once honorable small farmer in America as the craft and need it fulfills for society.

2. Find a mutually secure country within a nation in which basic crops can be grown and then distributed. Establish a method in which secure employment for farming can exist. This will lower the distribution cost of goods and develop National identity, such as in Africa.

3. Build new cities on the secure locations of Refugee camps rather than have them move back to war zones and then move back again. Security already exists and a developed city benefits both the people and the area it is located. It would not be a detriment to the county which harbors them.

Donald
|
Virginia, USA
January 29, 2009

Donald in Virginia writes:

29 January 09

I think we all know what happened to the corn in the world when gas prices went up. This is not rocketscience that farmers realized they can get more money for the crops making fuel then selling corn at the local stores. How many Governements in the world today pay their farmers NOT to grow crops?

It's just like in Africa for generations they receive a shipment of food, what does this really do to help those people? It does not educate them on how to farm, it doesn't give them farm equipment to turn the soil nor does it provide them with seeds to grow food.

If people really want to make a difference and help, you have to get down to the dirt and have the experience to know what your doing. Meaning, send them what they need to start growing their own food, so they can make it.

Otherwise they will continue being a dependent on other peoples Government and will always need a hand out from the people. When they can do it, if they have the tools to accomplish the job! Teach a man to fish, he can eat for a lifetime, Give a man a fish and he only eats that meal. We have been providing the fish but not the tools to help people!

David N.
|
District Of Columbia, USA
January 30, 2009

DipNote Blogger David Nelson writes:

Thank you all for your comments and questions. I wanted to provide a brief response to the issues you have raised. Many of you commented that you were impressed that Secretary Clinton gave a video address to the Madrid meeting as one of her first public pronouncements. I can confirm that many of our international partners were also grateful for the strong signal she sent of this Administration's commitment to tackling global hunger and food insecurity.

As Joe in Tennessee points out, it is true that many of the problems facing American small farmers are shared by smallholders around the world. In addition to our common problems, developing country smallholders frequently face bigger obstacles in terms of transportation, storage, and marketing.

In terms of Africa, the U.S. government recognizes that improving African agriculture is fundamental to improving food security and more cost effective than emergency food assistance. African farmers need better access to modern technology, seeds, fertilizer, information and transportation. We are encouraging adoption of stronger sanitary and phytosanitary standards (such as those developed by Codex Alimentarius, International Plant Protection Convention, and the World Organization for Animal Health) to increase market opportunities and facilitate greater international trade in agricultural goods. We are also focusing our efforts on what happens to agricultural products after harvest, because much of what is grown in Africa (and Asia) is lost to spoilage through inadequate processing, storage and transportation. These problems are complex, and we continue to develop our strategies alongside other agencies including USAID and USDA.

As for specific questions on U.S. subsidies, I would like to refer you to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack's news conference, where he discusses this issue in greater detail.

In response to Wendy in California, I want to emphasize that like others, we are paying close attention to the potential impact of biofuels on food prices. Increased biofuels production is but one contributing factor to increased food prices, and in our judgment a relatively small one. The U.S. is actively working to minimize food security concerns associated with biofuels. In addition, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) mandates that an increasing share of the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard must come from non-corn-based biofuels. By 2022, at least 58 percent of the 36 billion gallons of biofuels mandated under EISA must be next generation/advanced biofuels (non-food sources). The U.S. is also developing cost-effective cellulosic biofuels made from plant fiber (not food or feed crops) which will minimize food security and environmental concerns. Our R&D efforts are intended to make this next-generation technology cost competitive by 2012.

Thank you again,
Dave Nelson

Jordan M.
|
South Dakota, USA
February 2, 2009

Jordan in South Dakota writes:

"And governments and nations, as you know so well, are more likely to be unstable when their populations are hungry and unfed." - Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton

This statement is so true, not only for foreign nations, but our own. With fragmenting political parties, dissidence within and out, rising unemployment, and a collapsing economic system, President Obama summarized it in saying, "a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable." I only hope that the corrective actions that are being taken, are correct, and are not too late.

With our current situation within the United States, another compelling component to political stability, "no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land." The faith of the American people in the United States government, is diminishing, if not completely dieing out. This administration may sit on one of the most volatile times in American history. Like Abraham Lincoln, we should not forget that President James Buchanan's administration set the staging grounds for one of the most virulent insurrections in American, and world, history, known as the Civil War. History may remember this as an administration that while "Presiding over a rapidly dividing Nation, ... grasped inadequately the political realities of the time." (Biography of James Buchanan, White House site) However, and hopefully, this administration may reflect the ideas of Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural address:

"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds."

I hope the best for other foreign countries, but I believe it is time to take the time to look at our own.

Zharkov
|
United States
February 5, 2009

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

There is no "food security" as long as genetically-modified plants are contaminating the food chain. Thousands of farmers in India have committed suicide because of their GMO crop failures.

Genetically-modified plants should be kept in the laboratories where they belong. It should be illegal to plant GMO crops in open fields as they are now and I think the corporate officials who released them into the environment belong in prison -- or at least on the "no fly list".

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
February 6, 2009

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Here's one example of the value of cross breeding various strains of rice to create a flood resistant variety that could solve a lot of hunger on the planet.
http://members.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/f511fc45316d24c3ce8fdd...

"Geneticly modified" is often misunderstood, when in fact it occurs in nature all the time.

When farmers first discovered they could graft one branch of a fruit tree to that of another variety and get something completely different, man and nature were working together.

This may be one of the most misunderstood terms ever invented, and since "you are what you eat" in some respects, the terminology has created a certain paranoia that is completely unfounded in assuming humans will become "geneticly modified" as a result of consuming such products.

I'd worry more about the effect on human evolution of radionucleotides released into the envioronment through atomic testing over the years, but that's a very long term study indeed.

Zharkov
|
United States
February 6, 2009

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

Genetically-modified plants are lab experiments and not "cross-breeding". It's not the same thing, and not done for the same reasons, and it's definitely not safe.

Why do you think the Food and Drug Administration refuses to allow GMO foods to be labelled as such? Do you think consumers want to buy such foods? Of course they don't, and nobody does and the FDA officials who formerly worked for Monsanto and other genetic experimenters know that.

GMO foods have been banned in several countries and deserve to be banned world-wide because there are literally no controls and no scientific tests on the population to see what effects GMO foods are having on them. There are no GMO adverse reaction studies conducted for people sickened from eating them, no studies regarding their immune systems, their health, nothing whatsoever.

GMO foods are one giant, unregulated medical experiment on our population, and nobody knows what the outcome will bring, but we do know that GMO pollin infects other crops, causes other changes not anticipated, and guess what - our bees are dying off.

If you will please do minimal research on GMO food experiments, you will quickly understand why the introduction of these GMO plants into the environment should be a crime against humanity.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
February 6, 2009

Eric in New Mexico writes:

www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/01/29/waterproof.rice

(Excerpt)

Normal rice dies after three days of complete flooding. Researchers know of at least one rice variety that can tolerate flooding for longer periods, but conventional breeding failed to create a strain that was acceptable to farmers.

So Ronald and her colleagues -- David Mackill, senior scientist at the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines and Julia Bailey-Serres, professor of genetics at the University of California-Riverside -- spent the last decade working to find a rice strain that could survive flooding for longer periods.

Mackill identified a flood-resistant gene 13 years ago in a low-yielding traditional Indian rice variety. He passed along the information to Ronald, who isolated the gene, called Sub1, and introduced it into normal rice varieties, generating rice that could withstand being submerged in water for 17 days.

The team relied on something called precision breeding, the ability to introduce very specific genes into plants without the associated baggage of other genes that might tag along in conventional breeding.

"This can be a problem for farmers," Ronald said. "The varieties that were developed from conventional breeding were rejected by farmers because they didn't yield well or taste good."

Using precision breeding, scientists introduced the Sub1 gene three years ago into test fields in Bangladesh and India. The subsequent rice harvests were a resounding success.

"The results were really terrific," said Ronald. "The farmers found three- to five-fold increases in yield due to flood tolerance. They can plant the normal way. They can harvest the normal way and it tastes the same. Farmers had more food for their families and they also had additional rice they could sell to bring a little bit of money into the household.""The potential for impact is huge," agreed Mackill in a statement on the IRRI Web site. "In Bangladesh, for example, 20 percent of the rice land is flood prone and the country typically suffers several major floods each year. Submergence-tolerant varieties could make major inroads into Bangladesh's annual rice shortfall."

The researchers anticipate that the flood-tolerant rice plants will be available to farmers in Bangladesh and India within two years. Because the plants are the product of precision breeding, rather than genetic modification, they are not subject to the same regulatory testing that can delay release of genetically modified crops.

--end excerpt--

I think it you that needs to do your research Zharkov.

John
|
Greece
February 6, 2009

John in Greece writes:

GMO food or not? To be or not to be?

Tough question? No certain answers, but a humanitarian dilemma?

Let's make a rhetorical question: If anybody could make us God for 1 day and we had to choose whether we would provide GMO food in order to save hundreds of millions people in Africa or Asia, (providing peace in the world too), or leave them die, on the ground that we have no scientific proof if GMOs are "healthy" enough for "earth", what your decision would be?

I am not attempting to play the smart guy on this. Believe me that I am also thinking all the possibilities of such decisions, like all of you guys.

That's why I will be the first to answer, "opening" the podium to this tough parameter of our topic:

As a God for 1 day, I'd save the "guys" for a start, being prepared to face and give solutions to probable "bio-reactions" -- IF THEY COME.

What about you co-bloggers?

Nevertheless, please remember: It's a short time ("1 day") decision, having to do with millions of lives almost everywhere. "Earth" can not feed us anymore and I am sure that this will not be possible after (let's say) 1000 years from now. So, the decision is now!

And maybe, DipNote writes history!

Zharkov
|
United States
February 7, 2009

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

@ Eric in New Mexico: When you cut and paste, you might want to read your own posts:

"Because the plants are the product of precision breeding, rather than genetic modification..."

Mixing favorable breeding stock is an old tradition for centuries. Doing the same thing in a lab is no different, and that kind of plant is not what I'm talking about and I think you know it.

There have been dozens of failed GMO crops, poisonous corn varieties, deadly potatos, cotton that won't grow, etc., and they all have a similar feature - farmers cannot use the previous year's seeds to grow next year's crops -- they have to buy new seeds every year at much higher cost from the corporations who make them.

There are many new research articles on the internet warning of GMO food dangers, and numerous documentaries have been made on DVD concerning GMO danger. There is no reason to grow GMO crops when ordinary crops grow just fine almost everywhere.

If natural rice won't grow in one place, it will grow in another - that is the basis of international trade. The doctrine of comparative advantage is the basis of global trade. One nation may have favorable soil and grow food, while another nation may be unable to grow enough food but it can produce oil, so it may sell oil to buy food. This is why we have world trade.

GMO foods are astonishingly dangerous to normal food crops, as the GMO pollen can blow across an entire region, infecting normal crops. I think GMO experiments on the general public are the most diabolical plots ever unleased on a trusting, unsuspecting people.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
February 7, 2009

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ John in Greece, if I were "God" for a day, I'd start all over from scratch. So you'd have to give me at least a week.

Does this answer your general question?

But since we humans tend to create our own reality... which is an activity of the living... it would be well to take note that the dead become "geneticly modified" upon becoming fertilizer.

Whereas the question of "intelligent design" is concerned, we are in the infancy of "Terraforming" the planet.

For too long we've done so without a clue, and you're right...it's time to get serious about this before we make it uninhabitable.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
February 7, 2009

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Zharkov, It is my hope that someday you will actually read the full sentence. What about "regulatory testing" do you not understand?

"Because the plants are the product of precision breeding, rather than genetic modification, they are not subject to the same regulatory testing that can delay release of genetically modified crops."

Your assumption that... "GMO foods are one giant, unregulated medical experiment on our population" is patently false, and you beg for an education.

Field testing is not the blind commercial introduction of modifies crops you suggest, nor unregulated. "scientific method" is not guesswork.

Cite your souces for this following statement as I'd like to see you back this up with verifiable evidence from at least 3 reliable sources, not conjecture of conspiracy, not some religious crank on crack, nor political hack.

Then I'll look into it, I'm busy doing research in other areas at the moment.

"There have been dozens of failed GMO crops, poisonous corn varieties, deadly potatos, cotton that won't grow, etc., and they all have a similar feature -- farmers cannot use the previous year's seeds to grow next year's crops -- they have to buy new seeds every year at much higher cost from the corporations who make them."

I want to know who has been poisoned, who has died, the populations affected, etc. etc.

You are the one making this accusation, so prove it.

Otherwise it simply stands as "opinion".

I may cut and paste to save space, but I always provide the source.

Funny you never seem to provide one.

Wonder why....NOT.

Have a nice weekend.

John
|
Greece
February 7, 2009

John in Greece writes:

@ Eric in New Mexico -- I am not going to discuss if there is a GOD or not. According to me, THERE IS! Otherwise, someone must explain me how the "story" begun!

1. And this is not something that can do even the more expensive silly "machine" in Switzerland, because even if they make it to reach the very first "component" of Genesis (if the "machine" works someday, although "I" pay for this, tax citizens do) they will still have to face the question: who created this very first "something"?

I think my view is very clear!

They may be the best scientists in the world, however they are "idiots" searching for something they will never find.

2. We know nothing about GMOs and climate changes and I don't believe in Armageddon theories. Even the best scientist in the world is not a PhD on this, on the ground that he/she has no historical statistics at all to base any theory. Theories are not SCIENCE. They have to prove a "FINAL" Thesis and in order to do that they need statistical data and mathematics that they do not have, at least now.
Many people can say that if we continue "destroying" the North pole we will face problems. BUT, nobody knows if this is a historical circle of the planetãs behavior, BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY DETAILED DATA AT ALL of what was happening 1000 years ago, for example.

And many strange people have invested on this eco-commerce and the fears they create in order to sell a new market-platform.

And the worst, maybe, if we change the way Earth acts, WE CAN BE THE GUYS THAT WILL DESTROY IT IN ORDER TO SAVE IT. You see, there are no data...

3. Einstein would laugh at us concerning the 1 or 7 days creation (in terms of analyzing what "time" means). Do you think that God had an expensive Swiss gold clock on his hand when it made it?
So, no problem, with HIS permission, I now offer you 7-10 days to save the "guys" or let them "die"! But the decision is NOW!

P.S.: the example I attempted to use had to do with the famous movie.

If this makes it more comprehensive, I can rephrase: If anybody could make us SHERIFF for 1-10 days and we had to choose whether we would provide GMO food in order to save hundreds of millions people in Africa or Asia, (providing peace in the world too), or leave them die, on the ground that we have no scientific proof if GMOs are "healthy" enough for "earth", what your decision would be?

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
February 7, 2009

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ John in Greece, Einstien's general theory of relativity allows the possibility that 1 week to "God" may be 4.5 billion years to us.

"God" is in quotes simply because I am not, and not in quotes as a reflection of existance or non-existance.

You once told me you thought it dangerous to try to define "Evil" as existing from a lack of empathy at its root of existance.

Dangerous perhaps to investigate, but an abolutely correct conclusion.

Leave it to a Buddhist to redefine the Judeo/Cristian/Islamic construct of the nature of God and I'll show you "grinding dicipline and exhaustive investigation" which lies at the core of my belief structure. Which has for what it's worth to CERN, already discovered Buddhamind some 3000 years ago..

I am, therefore E=MC2. How fast does conciousness travel?

http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entries/gaza_cease_fire/

God is not a real estate broker.

And sure as heck isn't my landlord.

Realizing this has been like grasping a bright pearl in a pile of feces.

The promised land is within us, such is our potential to create reality.

As anyone knows who's witnessed the birth of one's children.

The milk and honey of creativity, are the gifts bestowed upon us.

Choose wisely their manifestation, lest they become beasts of burden.

Posted on Thu Jan 15, 2009

---end---

We actally know quite a bit about GMO's and no they are not responsible for decline in bee populations...air released pesticides and other toxins in the environment are the more likely culprit in this instance as GMO pollen have been test fed to bees in massive quantities with no ill effect.

John, life may not have started on this planet, but as long as we're here we have the ultimate responsibility to protect it , and nurture it's evolution.

That is exactly what these scientists are doing in a responsible endeavor to better the human condition and save lives.

It's not an either/or question when it becomes a necessity.

John
|
Greece
February 8, 2009

John in Greece writes:

@ Eric in NM -- As almost always we agree in a mysterious virtual way. Thank God, I'm not trying to define neither Evil, nor God. Really dangerous path.

Concerning GMOs though -- and this is my last comment on this issue -- I afraid that we started talking about it a little bit late. Not the two of us, or DipNote, but the whole thinking community. We should have started this debate many decades ago. Of course, it's never too late. According to my opinion GMOs are everywhere, but either we don't want to accept it, or we haven't understood it yet.

After all what GMO is? "I'm trying to affect the natural code".

It begun many many decades ago with the development of the agriculture science, technology and industry. Maybe it sounds very childish, but this was the first step: when the first scientist created the first pesticide he actually started the first GMO. When you engage in this very complicated natural simple equation between plants-animals/fishes you already have to deal with GMOs. It's exactly the same -- on the same basis -- when you fear that GMOs will affect eco-balance and the nature of earth in the future.

So, according to my opinion, GMOs are -- one way, or another -- in our lives. We did not have colored peppers in the past. Now we have peppers in all colors, but the worm is not physically attracted by these colors. As a result the worm will probably starve to death and the next "animal" that depends his food on warms will die too.

It's the same thing like your great game -- "nuclear chess". In this case we can call it "genetic labyrinth without an exit, except the entrance". But can we find this "entrance" to exit?

So, GMOs are here and everywhere, but we do not accept it. Is it bad? I do not know! Until now we didn't have to face huge problems. However, who knows about the future? Maybe this very time it works "underground".

Can we stop it? Not so easy, on the ground that it contains a "great amount" of economical and social parameters.

Can we blame for all these the first agricultural scientist or the others today that develop theories and practices which may have a very bad end? No, the same way we cannot blame Einstein if Iran take advantage of his theory and destroy the Earth.

Can we turn back the clocks and return to traditional, "pure" agriculture? Can we find the "entrance" to this labyrinth in order for us to get out of it? Not so easy, and it will take time and socio-economic risks, while meanwhile, we will have to sacrifice hundreds of millions of people who starve to death!

Wisely you stated: I am not a "God". Neither am I, to take such a decision, Eric. And this counts for this one too. If you ask me if I am pro or against the use of GMO food: I really do not know! And the problem is that since "God is not a real estate broker", we automatically become "smaller Gods" that have to take decisions and actions.

Best Regards Eric. Once again you brought to table great themes.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
February 8, 2009

Eric in New Mexico writes:

"This very mind is Buddha mind."
- Ma-tsu (8th century Ch'an Bhuddhist monk)

John, can a mirror be defiled by the images reflected on its surface?

Since the enlightened mind, like a mirror, is constantly reflecting and responding spontaneously to reality, all its functions are potentially instructive.

Trust me on this,

I am but a poor student of the human condition.

I tend to lack dicipline at times and I am exhausted.

The now 103 year old "student" monk who taught me would probably admonish me at this point, tap me with his walking stick and say, "Meo-shu! Less thinking, more sitting!"....(chuckle).

Zharkov
|
United States
February 9, 2009

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

@ Eric in New Mexico, please try any search engine with the phrase, "Seeds of Deception", to get the other side of the GMO story and begin to ask yourself some real questions, Eric.

What would motivate most of Europe has banned GMO crops.

Why are Indian farmers committing suicide over failed GMO crops?

Why does one company breed giant genetically-modified salmon despite its threat to natural fish populations?

Why do corporations working on GMO food manage to place corporate officials in charge of the FDA?

Why do biotech companies using GMO foods hide their mistakes from the public?

Why did the FDA approve GMO food that their own scientists said was not safe?

Why does the FDA refuse to allow GMO food to be labelled as such?

The facts are, the risks are far worse than you think, and the solution is in our hands - don't buy GMO foods, ever.

GMO foods are NOT everywhere except in America. Most of the world's crops have not been infected yet, and if the bans hold, they may never be affected.

It is not too late to stop GMO producers cold -- just don't buy their junk. When food processors begin discovering the public rejects their products, as they are beginning to do today, they begin phasing out that junk.

That is happening as we speak, but not fast enough, I think, to save the food supply from contamination with GMO pollin, and not fast enough to save our bee population.

Anyway, it is never too late to stop making mistakes.

Zharkov
|
United States
February 9, 2009

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

You might even start here:

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Home/index.cfm

John
|
Greece
February 10, 2009

John in Greece writes:

@ Zharkov in U.S.A. -- Z, you remind me of a phenomenon called "Mr Lambros" (Sean, I wish you write us again in here soon) Instead of 1 or 2 questions on a subject, "Lambros ph." uses/ed to make 10 in order to create a thesis statement just based on questions and not arguments.

Can we have only one or two rhetorical questions for each comment, in order for all the others to be able to answer back. Otherwise, it's like "billboarding" without an ethical, diplomatic "code" that inspires discussion. It's like putting posters!

Very interesting questions of yours! I do not disagree with you on the concept of our "thinking research". I wrote: I am not sure about the subject! But, how can Eric answer to all of these? [He'll become a Buddhist (LOL)] in order to have plenty of lives and it will take centuries for the answers back.

What I mean is: he said: "and I am exhausted". So, respect this and do not hit him with a thousand questions, especially when during the weekend wrote thousands of words and never "asked" a thing.

I do not know if I am wrong or right, I am just trying to help the dialogue procedure 'cause I like this place (DipNote).

P.S.: Of course I'm sure that this guy from the trees already answers back (at) you...

Best Regards Z

John
|
Greece
February 10, 2009

John in Greece writes:

@ Zharkov in U.S.A. and Eric in New Mexico -- Guys, sometimes, decisions on complicated issues are too difficult.

Things go bad: END. Things go well: I WISH!

Some issues are so difficult like this: http://www.newportharbor.us/computerworks.htm

GMO is not that simple!

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
February 9, 2009

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Zharkov,

I said, "Your assumption that... "GMO foods are one giant, unregulated medical experiment on our population" is patently false, and you beg for an education."

Well here it is...pulled strait from the bibliography references noted on the site you suggested I take a look at.

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/fr010118.html

Look, I tend to go to the source for a reason, and while there is much debate, much has been politicized and it's important to look beyond your own opinion for the truth.

This link took me all of five minutes to find.

We can compare university studies if you like, but also remember this;

This isn't some "medical experiment on populations", it's an effort to save lives in a hungry world.

So that being the focus, the truth matters.

Zharkov
|
United States
February 10, 2009

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

ACTION: Proposed rule. (Year: 2001)

A "proposed" rule would be nice, Eric, but the fact remains that a rule, even if enacted and I think this one was not, means nothing unless there is some research in compliance with the rule.

There are NO human studies of our general population concerning the genetic changes caused by GMO foods.

There is NO medical reporting of adverse effects of GMO foods because there are no labels on packages to identify GMO foods.

Read the book, Eric. Get the DVD and watch it. Do some research yourself besides going for any thin straw that might help your illogical argument.

What you are arguing in favor of, is to mess with the DNA of the world's population by experimenting with their food DNA. Not a sound position no matter what you or Monsanto believe.

They are experimenting with the basic things that make us human, and you are happy with that?

Did you know that researchers discovered that genetic changes in food transferred to bacteria in our digestive systems? Food altered to produce insecticide transferred that gene to stomach bacteria!

For genetic modification to work, an "activator" gene is included to turn them on continuously. When that activator gene gets into human cells, it can activate all kinds of dormant viruses, cancer cells, and nobody knows for sure what else.

I said it was a giant, unregulated medical experiment and that is exactly what it is. The fact that it has been going on for over 40 years and the FDA just recently in 2001 decided to offer a new rule suggests a lot of damage has already been done. This isn't for saving starving children, Eric, this is the genetic makeup of our grandchildren that they are playing around with for profit.

Perhaps you don't mind them experimenting on your children and their children, but I do, and the FDA scientists who agree that GMO is not safe also object.

Today there is no requirement to label GMO food sold to the public so how can ANYONE possibly know what illnesses might be traced to GMO food?

If you don't know that your food was tampered with, you won't know that it made you sick...or even worse...made your great-great-great grandchildren turn into tiny grotesque little creatures?

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
February 16, 2009

Eric in New Mexico writes:

If you don't see the existing regulatory process at work that the proposed adaptation to the law represented Zharkov, then you are simply in denial.

In the document, you find the government is indeed in process of studying the various research done, as well as stating clearly that future scientific studies may hold weight and therefore justify changes to the laws governing gmo's. (read the date on the document for starters please).

Clearly Zharkov, you really had no basis to make outrageous statements about unregulated experimentation on populations.

But that seems to be your "method operandi" on this blog in general.

I just showed you that your "bible" is as stuffed with balony as your rhetoric.

Proven false by the contents of its bibliography....and you'd think if the author was doing his research, he'd have looked more closely at at his references, especially this one.

End of discussion...

Zharkov
|
United States
February 16, 2009

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

If you see GMO labels on your food packages, Eric, then you are halucinating. They don't exist. No GMO food sold in America today is required to have a label.

If the food isn't labeled, then there is no way the public can trace slowly developing illness to their food. How convenient!

Eric, you already know you have no basis whatsoever to claim GMO foods are safe because the FDA has never required any tests for long term health consequences, or human genetic damage or alteration, environmental effects, effects on other organisms and bacteria, etc. FDA's own scientists have warned that GMO does not appear to be safe. A few independent research labs that have done such tests have raised all kinds of red flag warnings.

You obviously don't care what you eat, but most other people certainly do, and they want these GMO experiments to be properly labeled at the supermarket so they (and I) can avoid buying them.

According to the information in the GMO Trilogy, even pigs won't eat GMO corn because they can somehow smell the difference. Farmers don't like it because the corn won't reproduce itself.

Europe doesn't like GMO food because they had enough of human experimentation, and some of the world's richest people live in Europe and prefer natural, organic food. None of the wealthiest European elite would dream of eating GMO food, ever, and they don't want that stuff in their restaurant food when they go out to eat.

If you want to eat GMO food and become part of the experiment, perhaps you should apply for that job?

At least then, you could ask someone what they are feeding you.

John
|
Greece
February 16, 2009

John in Greece writes:

According to Zarkov, GMO stands for "General Menu of Orwell". Here is the "Z plan" of anarchy -- the best way for someone to "save" America:

-- Close every U.S. military base all over the world
(Especially in Germany)
-- Give Alaska and California to Russians
-- Give Texas to Spain
-- Give Guantanamo Bay and FL to Cuba
-- Give New York to England
-- Give Canada to France
-- Give Washington to Canada (why should we have two with the same name? Letãs keep only DC)
-- Give Idaho to Indians
-- Give Hawaii to the "Queen"
-- Don't eat at all, because rich people in Europe prefer Bios
-- And "replace" the United States Constitution with George Orwell's ideas.

Otherwise, the Big Brother will kill us! Give us a break Z!

P.S.: (some answers to some of what you have posted) Military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are just against TERRORISM and not an Empire movement. Do you understand that nothing can be achieved and no U.S. place alone can be strong, healthy and financially sober unless all these places are United. It's the lever giving blood to heart and the heart that provides brain.

What Detroit can be without Texas and what Texas without Calif? What New York is without Boston and what Massachusetts without Austin?

Why you cannot understand that such a big "baby" (America) can survive only within Fed hands? Don't you see how difficult it is for Europe to do just the 1/10th of what America has already created? And maybe (Europe) will never make it because they do not have a COMMON ideological background and FUTURE. America does!

Pages

.

Latest Stories

June 5, 2009

Buchenwald

Writing for the U.S. Department of State DipNote blog, DipNote Bloggers highlight the White House blog entry about President Obama's… more

Pages