text:
Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums
GMO issue.
Joined: 4/19/2009
Msg: 51
GMO issue.
Page 3 of 7
, 3,
Well, perhaps the matter is very important to him. How does this thread impact you?
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 52
view profile
GMO issue.
I feel its an overblown issue- I feel the results of GMO has saved billions of lives, unintentually fought government courption and exploitation, and helped fight poverty all over the world. Everything this user does outlines the danger of GMO, and yet, they are unable to present one example where a GMO actually harmed someone. They claim that its wrong to patent plants- but patenting plants has been going on for nearly a century now, and was introduced solely with the intent of creating better, stronger, and more productive plants.
And I feel he is working to undermine all that good, out of a paranoid fear. Some African countries like Zambia have refused to accept GMO aid- which means these people are starving and dying for no reason- that people are dying for a risk that doesn't exist. Better Dead than Fed, it seems.
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 53
view profile
GMO issue.
Its a revival for the sake of revival, not a revival because other users expressed interest in it.
Not at all it is a revival because it is in the headlines today that a medical association of physicians and scientists have asked for a moratorium be placed on GMOs due to growing evidence showing this as a threat to public health. If you read the article from Democracy Now! and then read the article published by the association that requested the moratorium you will see the evidence they cite as well as their recommendations as doctors and scientists. They give point by point well laid out information.
To the man whom said grow your own. Oh I do have a rather large heirloom garden, no fertilizers, no pesticides, I do not even use compost. I practice a modified style laid out by Masanobu Fukuoka. It has been quite successful in feeding myself and my lady for a number of years now. My neighbors are starting to take note as well and have begun their own gardens in the city as well. Most of them have stopped with the chemicals also. Seems no one wants to waste their money on that crap once they see it is not needed.
The issue here is they are putting into the wild something that has not been properly tested for long term effects into the wild where it can cross with natural plants.
They claim it is all for some noble purpose to increase yields and fight hunger but, even that has been proven to be a lie in a study. They only wish to be able to patent this product and increase sales of their other silly products.
The issue is man disrupting nature to begin with that causes problems like a plauge of pests. Or lack of fertility due to mismanagement.... Don't practice monoculture and you dont have these issues. Practice companion planting.
If you no longer wish to have problems with weeds simply stop digging and use mulch. Mulch everything you do not eat and even mulch the weeds. As the years go by you will see less and less weeds. The ground will also become more and more fertile from the decomposing plants. If you allow chickens or ducks to roam free range in your field the loop will be complete. They will help eat the insects and will leave nutrient rich presents in small enough doses as to not be harmful to you or the plants.
The issue here is you have a group of idiots whom do not understand how to interact with the natural order or they simply wish to keep everyone ignorant so that they can profit off of their foolishness. They offer a product such as a pesticide which kills not only the "pest" but, also all of the things that eat the pest thereby making a situation where you have no choice but, to spray. Same goes for digging/tilling. You dig and the weed seeds that were buried deep in the ground that would have never germinated now grow. The more you dig the more you have weeds and the more you need to dig. You are sowing the seeds of your own future senseless work.
The thing that blows my mind is mankind in order to adjust for the folly of thinking themselves above nature or at war with it, keeps thinking of ever more foolish ways to tamper with the natural order instead of truly becoming a student of nature and learning how it even works. Mostly science only puts a spot light on what man does not know. For every so called "breakthrough technology" we require an even crazier one to cover for the damage it does.
Instead of taking on a problem like vitamin A deficiency in a sane and useful manner they would rather spend billions on something not needed. It would be far more cost effective to grow food that is naturally high in vitamin A or in many cases eat what is already all around them in the cases of a great number of edible plants that grow as weeds all around us.
There are so many plants people are not eating that are edible especially ones high in Vit A.
A very good example of a highly nutritious plant that is often dug up and thrown out as a weed and or ignored is purslane (Portulaca oleracea)
Instead of growing something already in nature and perfectly edible and tasty these nuts want to invent a Frankenstein plant. So ask yourself why they would rather make up something instead of teaching people how to properly feed themselves with natural plants. It's all in the money. They want to be able to patent food to control it and exploit further those in misery and hunger.
Nature gives us for free everyday all we need and more. It is not nature that is broken. It is man whom needs to be fixed. When we finally wise up and decide to humble ourselves enough to actually study how nature works we will realize these companies have been looking to take advantage of peoples ignorance of how nature works and fears of famine.
Why is it no one needs to fertilize and pesticide forests yet, they remain one of the most productive habitats on earth? Why is it that people in the USA dont need this rice that is tampered with to produce vitamin A? What is so different in Asia that they cannot grow something besides rice?
Why is it that we have a SURPLUS of food compared to the population of the world and we have so many malnourished. It has nothing to do with yields. It has to do with inadequate distribution.
There is no legitimate need for any of these genetic experiments they are performing on the public whom are being used as guinea pigs against their knowledge as it stands right now..
Joined: 7/10/2008
Msg: 54
GMO issue.
I think GMO is legitimate where it helps improve crop productivity. Improving agriculture will be very important and we should use every means possible to improve the efficiency and productivity in agriculture, if only for the reason that the world's population is going to increase by 3 billion this century (and perhaps more) and they will need to be fed. I also think GMO will be needed to help deal with climate change.
Intellectual property is a fairly complex area of law. I think the worries about patents may be overblown; as another poster mentioned, recognition and protection of intellectual property has been around for more than a century. I think the law needs to be careful to balance the interests of the creators and owners of IP and the consumers. There may be issues especially where powerful and rich corporations engage in conduct which is unconscionable, especially towards the poor and vulnerable and ignorant. One the other hand, most countries have a wide array of laws regulating corporate practices in many different ways and unless a place is totally corrupt, corporations usually can't run amok. Regard also has to be had for the often very high capital costs of researching and developing new technologies. This is often why corporations are insistent on their legal rights.
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 55
view profile
GMO issue.
>>> it is in the headlines today that a medical association of physicians and scientists have asked for a moratorium be placed on GMOs due to growing evidence showing this as a threat to public health.
Again, no actual evidence of people being harmed, though.
I've said it before, but since you seem to like to revive topics, I guess I'll repeat myself so the issue is clear to you once again; Give me the name of the person harmed by GMO. Otherwise, you're chasing the boogie man again.
As for your medical association;
Wikipedia says;
<div class="quote">Clinical ecology is not a recognized medical specialty.[5] Critics of clinical ecology charge that multiple chemical sensitivity has never been clearly defined, no scientifically plausible mechanism has been proposed for it, no diagnostic tests have been substantiated, and not a single case has been scientifically validated. Well-conducted studies establishing the theories and practices of clinical ecology were not found in reviews of evidence supporting its practices by the American Medical Association in 1992[6], the American College of Physicians in 1989,[7] the Canadian Psychiatric Association, the International Society of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology in 1993,[8] the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology,[9] and more recently by the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine in 1999.[10]
Seems your organsation is sketchy, as they are unable to define, explain, test, or verify their supposive area of expertise.
>>> Seems no one wants to waste their money on that crap once they see it is not needed.
Again, thats an elitist way to look at this issue- you can afford the time, space, and money to develop your own food like that. Not everyone has that freedom, esspecially people in impoverish countries.
>>>The issue here is they are putting into the wild something that has not been properly tested for long term effects into the wild where it can cross with natural plants.
Define properly tested- because I honestly believe you've never given thought as to at which point GMO's would be acceptable- they simply are not in your eyes, and never will be, reguardless if they're proven healthy or not.
>>>They claim it is all for some noble purpose to increase yields and fight hunger but, even that has been proven to be a lie in a study. They only wish to be able to patent this product and increase sales of their other silly products.
Again, we've been over this again and again(and again)- I never stated that people invented these plants because they love their brother- I've stated numerous times in this thread, they are acting in self-interest- they want to make money. And they do it by offering a product that produces more money for the farmer. Theres a shocker- people are working to profit off their work! But reguardless of their intent, they still achieve some of the greatest deeds in human history- I mean, over a billion people saved? Aside from the discovery of insulian, is there any other human achievement thats saved so many lives?
And why should their intent be an issue at all? If someone rescues you from a burning building, does it somehow lessen the effect if they get paid doing it? Why do you wish to dictate that they must act out of pure altruistic intent in order for their food to be acceptable?
>>>The issue is man disrupting nature to begin with....the natural order.... It is not nature that is broken.
Exactly- to you, its not an issue of whether or not the food is safe- you decided long before you received any reports that genetically modified foods is wrong, regardless if it could save lives. You have an issue not with the health, but rather you have a problem with the premise- and are attempting to terrorize people with unsubstantiated and vague claims that they will be harmed if they eat these plants, not because they may be, but because you feel the entire process was wrong from the get-go.
>>>they would rather spend billions on something not needed.
Who is 'they'? And why are you the judge and jury on what is and is not needed? Shouldn't need be dictated by the market, not some random persons whims?
>>>fears of famine.
Its not fears! Famine is very real, and these advancements are combating it. Again, nothing more than self-rightious elitism- that its okay to condemn the food so long as you aren't the one going hungry.
>>>Why is it no one needs to fertilize and pesticide forests yet, they remain one of the most productive habitats on earth?
Because no one harvests forests- we harvest crops- and when we do harvest trees, yes, the land under it often times becomes under threat, unless properly managed.
Trees have a natural cycle- but trees can live anywhere from hundreds or thousands of years. Crops live 3-10 months- so naturally, we have to step in to cultivate the land
>>>What is so different in Asia that they cannot grow something besides rice?
Difference in habitat. I mean, you cannot really be this dense, can you? They get different levels of rainfall, different PH balances, different altitudes, and a different culture and different market demands.
>>>It has to do with inadequate distribution.
Exactly- there are areas in the world where there simply is not enough land to feed everyone, while other parts of the world where the opposite is true. If we produce plants that produce more and are more able to survive different enviroments, then the issue will become resolved.
Joined: 3/24/2008
Msg: 56
view profile
GMO issue.
Let's not forget that a global population of nearly 7 Billion people is anything but "natural." If "nature" ran its course, global population would have stabilized around a fourth of that amount, or less, due to famine and disease- both "natural" kinds of events.
Vaccines aren't "natural."
Antibiotics aren't "natural."
Surgery isn't "natural."
Aspirin isn't "natural."
Death from disease and starvation and accident are all "natural."
"Natural" isn't necessarily "good."
"Artificial" isn't necessarily "bad."
And yet we still have discussions like this...
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 57
view profile
GMO issue.
Give me the name of the person harmed by GMO.
The industry has purposefully made this next to impossible. They have gotten the politicians involved to make sure they never label it. Since GMOs the numbers of food allergies have skyrocketed. No way to check if what they ate is GMO. It is not labeled EVER in the USA. No one knows what they are eating. That is point number one and even from a person whom believes in this issue from a pure capitalist perspective this is beyond wrong. Consumers should always have a choice to eat or not eat these things. They should know 100% every ingredient in a product. They should be able to make a choice to eat Frankenstein or not.
Further this comes straight from the group whom asked for the moratorium maybe you can have a look at this small part of it and you will see where they have concerns. I believe they are more than legit.
Natural breeding processes have been safely utilized for the past several thousand years. In contrast, "GE crop technology abrogates natural reproductive processes, selection occurs at the single cell level, the procedure is highly mutagenic and routinely breeches genera barriers, and the technique has only been used commercially for 10 years."3
Despite these differences, safety assessment of GM foods has been based on the idea of "substantial equivalence" such that "if a new food is found to be substantially equivalent in composition and nutritional characteristics to an existing food, it can be regarded as safe as the conventional food."4 However, several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.
There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill's Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility.5 The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.2,6,7,8,9,10,11
Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation, including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation. 6,11 Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid and carbohydrate metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging and possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). 7,8,10 Changes in the kidney, pancreas and spleen have also been documented. 6,8,10 A recent 2008 study links GM corn with infertility, showing a significant decrease in offspring over time and significantly lower litter weight in mice fed GM corn.8 This study also found that over 400 genes were found to be expressed differently in the mice fed GM corn. These are genes known to control protein synthesis and modification, cell signaling, cholesterol synthesis, and insulin regulation. Studies also show intestinal damage in animals fed GM foods, including proliferative cell growth9 and disruption of the intestinal immune system.6
Regarding biological gradient, one study, done by Kroghsbo, et al., has shown that rats fed transgenic Bt rice trended to a dose related response for Bt specific IgA. 11
Also, because of the mounting data, it is biologically plausible for Genetically Modified Foods to cause adverse health effects in humans.
In spite of this risk, the biotechnology industry claims that GM foods can feed the world through production of higher crop yields. However, a recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists reviewed 12 academic studies and indicates otherwise: "The several thousand field trials over the last 20 years for genes aimed at increasing operational or intrinsic yield (of crops) indicate a significant undertaking. Yet none of these field trials have resulted in increased yield in commercialized major food/feed crops, with the exception of Bt corn."12 However, it was further stated that this increase is largely due to traditional breeding improvements.
Therefore, because GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health and are without benefit, the AAEM believes that it is imperative to adopt the precautionary principle, which is one of the main regulatory tools of the European Union environmental and health policy and serves as a foundation for several international agreements.13 The most commonly used definition is from the 1992 Rio Declaration that states: "In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."13
Another often used definition originated from an environmental meeting in the United States in 1998 stating: "When an activity raises threats to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken, even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context, the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof (of the safety of the activity)."13
With the precautionary principle in mind, because GM foods have not been properly tested for human consumption, and because there is ample evidence of probable harm, the AAEM asks:
* Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.
* Physicians to consider the possible role of GM foods in the disease processes of the patients they treat and to document any changes in patient health when changing from GM food to non-GM food.
* Our members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.
* For a moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term independent safety testing, and labeling of GM foods, which is necessary for the health and safety of consumers.
(This statement was reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine on May 8, 2009.)
Submitted by Amy Dean, D.O. and Jennifer Armstrong, M.D.
Again, thats an elitist way to look at this issue- you can afford the time, space, and money to develop your own food like that. Not everyone has that freedom, esspecially people in impoverish countries.
No you are the one being elitist here you think people from here somehow better suited to farming than just regular folk. I see it in reverse. I know personally people whom are going to places in Africa teaching people things to make their lives better.
Go ahead and google Permaculture Africa etc. You will see the list of people doing something sustainable about the issue taking the governments and middle men whom screw up the distribution and make these people starve out of the equation. Nothing is more powerful than putting the food back into the peoples hands. It has nothing to do with them not having the time nor land. It has to do with people taking advantage of people. Again it's far more cost effective to even give them seeds and training than to make a Frankenstein plant. One does not even need to own land to farm, any vacant spot with decent water will do.. 1/4 acre can feed two for a full year easily. We do it here at my house all the time.
Its not fears! Famine is very real, and these advancements are combating it. Again, nothing more than self-rightious elitism- that its okay to condemn the food so long as you aren't the one going hungry.
No they play on their fears and dont do a damn thing to help. The number of hungry in the world since these magical Frankenstein plants have been around has steadily climbed not gone down. Further this technology has been the death of many farmers due to the fact that it costs a HELL of a lot more to produce the same amount of yield and you have to buy everything every year. There have been plenty of farmers in India whom lost everything and decided to commit suicide by drinking Monsanto poisons that they peddle. They aren't drinking that stuff to celebrate record breaking profits from those supposed incredible yields.
PS they is the biotech industry whom are selling this trash with their empty promises.
Because no one harvests forests- we harvest crops- and when we do harvest trees, yes, the land under it often times becomes under threat, unless properly managed.
Trees have a natural cycle- but trees can live anywhere from hundreds or thousands of years. Crops live 3-10 months- so naturally, we have to step in to cultivate the land
Nice try but incorrect. Plants only get about 2% of what they need from the soil itself. The rest comes from the air and sun. So what happens is you plan in your management to act like a forest. You cover the ground with mulch which protects the ground from the rain and sun which will wash away the nutrient in the case of water and it protects from compaction as well as the suns rays which can sterilize the soil. You first and foremost stop digging/tilling. Also a completely destructive practice. You then return to the field all parts of the plants not used. Since those plants have more energy stored in them than they got from the ground they feed the ground what they took and then some. The reason no one has to fertilize the forests is because no one is clearing them. Has nothing to do with harvesting. It has to do with the foolish practice of trying to be tidy. Imitate the forest floor if you never want to have to fertilize again. All those leaves and stems and other parts of the plant you throw away need to go back into the soil they are the best fertilizer there ever was.
Secondly the reason no one has to pesticide the forest is because it is not monoculture. ie they are not growing in an unnatural fashion one crop by itself. ANYTIME you grow too much of one crop in one spot nature steps in and balances your foolery. Insects of course that eat that one type of plant will swell in numbers you just made their job easy. If left alone so too with the number of predators rise and you still could find a balance but, you will pay the price by losing some crops.
If you again imitate the forest and inter plant following companion planting. (putting plants together that benefit or otherwise like to be together.) There are even ways to trap a certain insect on what to them is like a delicacy to keep them off of something else you do not want them on. A good example is Aphids LOVE Nasturtiums I plant them near other leafy greens they would tear apart under normal situations and they stay on the nasturtiums and leave my other plants alone. Amaranth acts as a trap crops equally with cucumber beetles etc etc.
Look by spraying pesticides you kill everything beneficial as well as those whom at times act as a pest. When you knock out this balance you become dependent on the chemical.
The same goes for fertilizers, tilling, (insert foolish human practice here.) What happens when we run out of oil? When they can no longer make petrol based fertilizers? All those people whom have been using them and are now dependent on the will go belly up.
Best to prepare now and use sustainable methods now.
Difference in habitat. I mean, you cannot really be this dense, can you? They get different levels of rainfall, different PH balances, different altitudes, and a different culture and different market demands.
LMAO!! Nice try! Though I believe you made yourself sound foolish. You do know that the carrot comes from Asia originally. It is a native there. There are many many many greens that come from as in NATIVE to Asia as well high in Vitamin A. You make it sound like all they can grow is rice. Have you ever even been to Asia? It's HUGE and so vastly different from region to region they can grow EVERYTHING we can and then some of what we can grow in the USA. Because they have every climate the world has to offer where we do not.
Market demands has nothing to do with people growing things high in vitamin A so they dont die of some malnutrition. The problem here is we are dealing with life and death while trying to bolster capitalism. People are caring more about making money than caring for each other and nature which is what really sustains us all. The issue is not a lack of science experiments. The issue is a screwed up value system. GMOs will not fix this defective value system. They will add to the problem.
Exactly- there are areas in the world where there simply is not enough land to feed everyone, while other parts of the world where the opposite is true. If we produce plants that produce more and are more able to survive different enviroments, then the issue will become resolved.
Again the issue is not a lack of land. There is plenty of land in Africa. The issue is the people are being taken advantage of. They are not being given a chance to feed themselves. I absolutely know for certain that if given even just a minute amount of training in natural farming and the seeds to do it Africa could be flourishing again. Even in places where the land turns to desert from overgrazing and other causes. That land can be reclaimed. There is a group of guys whom have proved that they can turn even the saltiest land no one thought could be grown in able to sustain life again using a natural system.
Look I am not opposed to the use of technology always. I am opposed to the foolishness of making something not needed simply for the purpose to make a buck when you are dealing with life. I think it quite unwise to tamper with genetics on the level in which they are doing so in the wilds. I have no issue with people studying these things in isolation. I think it could lead to better understanding of genetics and that is not inherently a bad thing. To put these things out into the wild and into the food chain based on an assumption that is really quite flawed is asking for trouble. The worst part about this is there are perfectly effective and tried and proven ways to work with nature to get the desired results. These are being left behind not because they new technology is so much better but, because people wont get rich off of other people by teaching them to grow their own food naturally. They do get rich off of this new technology. That is the bottom line some people will sell their own mother out to make a buck even though they cant take it with them when they go back to decompose in her.
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 58
view profile
GMO issue.
>>>The industry has purposefully made this next to impossible.
Luckily for you, having no way to prove something exists hasn't stopped you from claiming it exists. Why should evidence get in the way of forcing an idealogy?
>>>They should know 100% every ingredient in a product.
Part of me knows this a reasonable request- but part of me also knows that you're attempting to maniplulate the situation- you've made it very, very clear that even if GMO's were perfectly safe, you'd still oppose it, and are constantly calling for the ban of these foods- so you're not attempting to give people freedom of choice- you're attempting to create a target to call for a boycott.
>>>I am opposed to the foolishness of making something not needed simply for the purpose to make a buck when you are dealing with life.
And in your opposition of people profitting off creating more productive plants, you ensure the deaths of millions. Great that you've taken such a brave stance.
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 59
view profile
GMO issue.
I can't believe there are some people who favour GMO's.
Like the pharmaceutical corporations, Monsanto (IMHO the antichrist of corporations) and one or two other agro corporations control the planet's food supply. Their patented GMOs had disastrous consequencess for all concerned (except them of course), yet they continue to market the crap, vigorously.
Who's been harmed? Well Percy Schmeiser for one:
How about some farmers in India? I'm sure you heard about all the suicides by farmers devastated by their move to Monsanto's cotton, but did you also read about this?:
Are the employees at Monsanto worried about GMOs? Well the current ones probably aren't, or they're keeping mum because they know who butters their bread (hopefully still natural whole wheat). They probably remember the examples of guys who raised their voices in concern about the safety of it:
Monsanto has been trying to get a foothold in Europe and they've been making some headway, but Germany remains unconvinced about GMO safety. Monsanto's reaction? Lawsuit!
What a wonderful service they provide to humanity! Where would we be without them?
We should all eat organic, but there's a problem with that. Most organic foods are being contaminated by virtue of being grown downwind of GMO crops. So even eating organic doesn't really guarantee protection against the "Frankenfoods."
Joined: 9/28/2004
Msg: 60
GMO issue.
I do not want to eat food that has been tampered with EVEN MORE. It already has been played with so much that it tastes weird, has much less nutriets, has strange unpleasant texture, etc. And now this? I do not trust their ability to make a good product! First shot at genetics! HAHAHA! We are at such an infantile stage of development and they want to feed this stuff to us? What am I a guinea pig? No! I believe that (some) of this food should be grown in labs alone and fed only to animals for LONG TERM study. That way we can really do it right... instead, greed...
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 61
view profile
GMO issue.
Part of me knows this a reasonable request- but part of me also knows that you're attempting to maniplulate the situation- you've made it very, very clear that even if GMO's were perfectly safe, you'd still oppose it, and are constantly calling for the ban of these foods- so you're not attempting to give people freedom of choice- you're attempting to create a target to call for a boycott.
I find it strange that people claim they are for free markets until they wish to cram something down someones throat without their knowing about it. What should it matter to a believer in free markets if people decide to boycott any product for any reason. They are the ones whom should have the choice to buy or not buy but, they should first and foremost ALWAYS know 100% everything they are going to put into their body.
It is simply not safe what they are doing. They are feeding things that have been crossed in a lab with other things that could potentially cause serious problems for people whom have allergies. Food allergies have sky rocketed since the introduction of GMOs into the food supply. No one can say if it is due to or not due to GMOs they are not labeled no one knows if they are eating products containing GMO or not. This is plain wrong.
People should have a choice to put something into their body or not. No matter what they base that choice on. No matter if you agree or disagree or I agree or disagree. You claim that I should let the market decide if these things have a purpose or not. I am saying you should let the market decide if they wish to knowingly ingest these things or not. They should be labeled. In this case I believe soon as they are labeled the market will be able to correct the problem. People will be able to make a choice.
That is what I am here about as well as to point out that the only excuse the industry likes to use is how they believe GMOs will save the world from itself. They claim all these noble goals of saving starving people. Yet, they go about destroying family farmers, and destroying organic farmers then suing them in court after they destroyed the mans farm be cross pollination via the wind of their frankenfood garbage to real plants.
The issue once again being that their is no food shortage to claim a need to take such a crazy drastic step. The cause of malnutrition is one of politics and distribution of already existing and wasted food supply.
Instead of bringing heirloom seed that they can collect seed and replant year after year and teaching them how to sustainably feed themselves without need to worry about the governments or other forces getting in the way, the biotech industry wishes to try to control them yet again by selling them something they will have to buy (with what money) year after year that they cannot collect seed from where they will also have to buy a ton of chemicals (with what money.)
You bring up the market and think that it will fix the starvation situation and then disregard the market where it would correct a problem in so far as the consumer has the right to know every ingredient in a product and to know if it is GMO or not. They should have a choice to ingest it or not. No matter what their reason is. The market is a part of the cause of why people are starving so in that case it is not going to fix that. In this case we need people to go into these areas and supply heirloom (open pollinated seed) So the people in those nations can at least fight off malnutrition without having to rely on "falling food from the sky."
The Biotech merely wishes to cash in on their suffering by, getting anyone to claim their product has some use other than laziness and lack of concern about wanton chemical spraying to make up for laziness and lack of knowledge in regard of how to interact with the organism we call the earth.
If you know how to interact with it instead of always being at war with it, you realize it is not so difficult, that all the obstacles are in your head, placed there so unneeded industries can come set up shop and take advantage of your ignorance as well as try to control the food supply.
That is what this is about my dear brothers and sisters in the end. This industry wants to be in complete control of food. They want you to buy their frankenfoods, their toxic chemicals, seeds from them every year.... They claim they will make farmers more money but, it is a lie. The farmers spend more money than they would have had to if they chose "natural/organic methods" and the yields are no better according to studies done. So the farmers lose money. Ask the farmers of BT cotton in India. Oh wait, I am sure Monsanto would tell you that those farmers drank their poisons and pesticides to celebrate such record breaking yields. Those people obviously did not commit suicide because things went so good by using the biotech industries products. They lost their livelihood because of it. First hand evidence of the damage these frankenfood products cause. They destroy family farmers to be replaced by corporate farms whom care less about making nutritious and sustainable food and only care about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. All to the benefit of the biotech industry and to the loss for the rest of us.
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 62
view profile
GMO issue.
RE Msg: 52 by Jiperly:
And I feel he is working to undermine all that good, out of a paranoid fear. Some African countries like Zambia have refused to accept GMO aid- which means these people are starving and dying for no reason- that people are dying for a risk that doesn't exist. Better Dead than Fed, it seems.
The African nations have a genuine concern, Jiperly. They already have problems due to famine. As bad as things are, they don't want to make things worse. They only have a few crops that are viable in their countries. They fear that if there is any problem unforeseen by science, such as the problems with Thalidomide, or the problems with Seroxat, or the problems with the introduction of the African bee to make more honey, there might be similar unforeseen problems with GM crops that might cause the few crops they have left to fail, which would cause everyone in those countries to starve to death, rather than just some. That's a good reason to follow our principle of being scientifically cautious, isn't it?
However, our own knowledge of GM crops suggests that they might have a point. AFAIK, GM crops use twice as much water as non-GM crops. That's not a problem for a rich country like America with a temperate rain-filled climate. But for countries in Africa, who don't get a lot of rain, and don't have the money to just import water from countries like Canada, don't you think that's just being prudent? If America had very little rain like African countries, and if America couldn't afford to import large quantities of water like African countries, don't you think using GM crops that would use double the water, and so produce only half the grain, which would slice their food in half, don't you think it would be better to stick with more efficient crops?
Now, when science makes solutions like crop rotation, which have been proved and tested scientifically, then Africans would probably take them up.
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 63
view profile
GMO issue.
Patents expire and are not enforced in many countries. If you don't like the GM crops, simply don't use them or wiat unitl the patents expire. Most of the crops we have used for centuries have been modified from their wild state through selective breeding. As pointed out early in this thread, that is not natural. The comment that GM crops use more water is not accurate. The modifications could be used to improve drought resistance, yield, and/or disease resistance and insect resistance.
As for some unforseen negative consequence, that is the nature of all human plans. We are not perfect but our population could not be supported without planning ahead and planning cannot be error free. We deal with the consequences when we encounter them. Fear and paranoia are our worst enemies as they deliver us to tyrants. You would think someone who teaches martial arts would realize that. It is the fear of the unknown that is driving this thread and in this case, the unknown is the "corporation". Corporations are the creation of government to pool capitol, technology, talent, and labor to serve society. Part of serving society is the creation of more capitol. One tool for that endevour is the patent.
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 64
view profile
GMO issue.
Most of the crops we have used for centuries have been modified from their wild state through selective breeding. As pointed out early in this thread, that is not natural.
It is perfectly natural to select something because of like or taste or color or size and through the perfectly natural state of plants method of sex you have the new generation that is different from the old. Perfectly normal relationship with a food plant. It is giving the organisms that feed off of its fruit what it needs by feeding on said fruit humans plant it in their way and animals do so in theirs. This is all natural.
Taking a syringe and through the an use of a virus breaking into the DNA of something and injecting randomly dna alien to the original from another species all together is what they are doing.
What they are doing with this frankenfood is a HUGE difference than selective breeding.
Yes man is having an effect by selecting certain varieties to breed but, it is VASTLY different than injecting DNA from another species randomly, and forcefully into the DNA using a virus and a syringe.
How you cannot see a difference is beyond me.
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 65
view profile
GMO issue.
>>> What should it matter to a believer in free markets if people decide to boycott any product for any reason.
Because its a legitmate product, and you wish to spread lies and misinformation on it, in the guise of "consumer freedom". People won't be boycotting it because its a flawed product, or because the food will cause them harm- by your own admittion, you cannot even prove that any harm can be caused by GMO's- but thats not going to stop you from claiming they do.
>>>They are the ones whom should have the choice to buy or not buy but, they should first and foremost ALWAYS know 100% everything they are going to put into their body.
Again, I agree, this is a reasonable requestion- and again, I do not believe the reason you are asking for this is to give the consumer the freedom to say no- you're asking for this to make a physical target for your misinformation.
>>>They are feeding things that have been crossed in a lab with other things that could potentially cause serious problems for people whom have allergies.
And thats my problem with your actions- potentially. You have no evidence. You have no interest in proving your claims. You only have interest in fear mongering. Even if GMO's were found to be 100% safe all the time for everyone, you would still reject them, and claim they have the potiental to be killers.
>>> They claim all these noble goals of saving starving people.
Its not a claim. Its a fact- More food has been produced, stronger food has been produced, and in harsher climates, because of GMO's- oddly enough, you accept facts without any evidence, and ignore facts that have evidence.
>>>destroying organic farmers
Exactly- this is an issue of politics to you- you believe YOUR personal preference should be protected, while other cheaper, more effient farming techniques should be condemned. And you're okay with this, because you can afford to not have a more effienct farm.
>>> The cause of malnutrition is one of politics and distribution of already existing and wasted food supply.
Exactly- and if these foods create more effiencent farms, then it will make the issues of distribution not an issue at all, since all local farms can support their local needs.
>>>from where they will also have to buy a ton of chemicals
Actually, GMO's need less pesticides than typical seeds.
>>>so far as the consumer has the right to know every ingredient in a product and to know if it is GMO or not.
Again, I'm not saying the consumer doesn't have the right to know- I'm saying you are misrepresenting your position, since you are not fighting for consumer rights so everyone has the right to know- you are fighting for consumer rights because you want to call for a national ban, and you cannot do that unless they are identified as such.
>>> This industry wants to be in complete control of food.
Again, your unstated premise is showing- you aren't fighting for consumer rights- you are fighting against the big bad evil corporations- your message is not one of individual rights, but a wolf in sheeps clothing- claiming you are fighting for rights, when in reality your intention is being anti-corportation.
>>>The farmers spend more money than they would have had to if they chose "natural/organic methods" and the yields are no better according to studies done.
And if it earns farmers more, doesn't that mean the cost of food goes up?
>>>As bad as things are, they don't want to make things worse.
Exactly- you are promoting the ideal of "Better Dead than Fed"
>>> the problems with the introduction of the African bee to make more honey
And weren't the problems in that example instantly noticable? And yet, people are incapible of proving GMO's hold the same threat.
>>>That's not a problem for a rich country like America with a temperate rain-filled climate.
Maybe I wasn't clear in my assertions- African countries are rejecting aid- we aren't offering them seeds- we are offering them food- and they are rejecting it, because people spread lies and paranoid delusions
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 66
view profile
GMO issue.
RE Msg: 65 by Jiperly:
>>>As bad as things are, they don't want to make things worse.
Exactly- you are promoting the ideal of "Better Dead than Fed"
Sorry, but I have never heard of such an expression. Do you mean "better to kill your own starving baby child, than give it food that you have plenty of?" I'm sorry, but the people I know who do that, are many supermarkets in the UK, who'd rather chuck out good food that's past its sell-by date, but NOT past its use-by date, rather than give it to the homeless. Looking at the military history of North America, which has had well over 200 conflicts in a little over 200 years, I'd expect to see such an attitude there more than Africa.
>>> the problems with the introduction of the African bee to make more honey
And weren't the problems in that example instantly noticable?
Unfortunately, people DIDN'T notice right these changes right away. It took quite a long while until there was clearly a problem. At the time, many scientists were dumbfounded, and for years, it was a real concern that Anerica would be totally colonised by killer bees, because no-one knew how to stop them.
And yet, people are incapible of proving GMO's hold the same threat.
As I said, rich and obese Americans don't really need to worry about not having enough food, as they have far more than they need, so if they want to play with GM food, no-one is that bothered, and really, no-one wants to fight Americans, not after Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada, etc. It's Africans who don't have enough food, and need to play cautious, and they do play cautious.
>>>That's not a problem for a rich country like America with a temperate rain-filled climate.
Maybe I wasn't clear in my assertions- African countries are rejecting aid- we aren't offering them seeds- we are offering them food- and they are rejecting it, because people spread lies and paranoid delusions
Americans could eat their own grain, and just use the money to buy non-GM grain from other countries, and give them that instead. After all, Americans don't believe in forcing other people to eat MacDonalds, and worship Jesus, at the point of a gun, do they? If not, then why should they try to force people to eat GM food? Why not just take a simple option, that costs them nothing, and gives others the one thing that Americans prize above all others, the freedom to live as you want?
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 67
view profile
GMO issue.
Jiperly it is you whom is ignoring the evidence. There are numerous studies that point to not only health consequences, but economic, and lower yields. Not to even bring up terminator genes and the potential dangers they pose.
You keep babbling the Biotech industries lines like you are a shill. I do know they hire many people to come into debates like this and spew their propaganda.
Let's be quite frank here shall we?
You keep bringing up the issue in Africa of how they turned down GM food and that some how this in your view made people starve. What you fail to tell is that they bought local grain that was not GM instead with the aid of the UN and Europe. There is more than enough food in the world to feed our human population double. It has never been a lack of natural foods that causes hunger. It is poverty, distribution and political. Part of the politics is the US aid will only support US corporate farms that grow GM food. I do not blame the government of Zambia for not going along with this. There are a whole host of reasons why they should not accept free GMO grain.
First, they may not wish to have GMO grain. It has never undergone human studies ever. It has been proven to cross with natural unmodified plants, there have been no long term tests on what damage this can cause but, already there are super weeds that have sprung up, as well as other farmers whom lost their livelihoods completely due to contamination of their fields through no fault of their own by GMO crops. Some of these farmers were then to add insult to injury sued for having GM crops in their field without buying the seed! They were the victims of cross contamination and already lost everything then they were sued on top of it!
I would not let these thugs nor their poisons and trash into my country either, especially when there is more than enough local food being grown in the nation to begin with.
Second, there is the issue of economics which I do not think you can possibly be so woefully ignorant of. IF a country has some starving people and some not which is the case of Zambia and you flood the nation with free grain, you destroy ALL of your local farmers. Whom is going to buy grain from their farmers if they can get it for free? You have just taken a problem and made it worse. If they took that grain they might have likely destroyed all hope of ever fixing the situation internally. They would have been 100% dependent on foreign corporate GMO aid. I wonder why these thugs wanted to make such a stink about them not taking the bait for their little trap? They try to come across as they are doing this to save the world but, nothing could be further from the truth. Someone needs to save the world from the biotech industry.
They like to say things like better dead than fed but, they dont tell the truth. The truth is the people were fed with locally purchased non-gmo grain, with the aid of the UN, from local farmers, so as not to cause a greater catastrophe economically and politically speaking.
Again the Biotech industry and their shills act like people cant put 2 and 2 together and wont figure this stuff out.
3. How the US violates the Food Aid Convention
The US is a signatory of the 1999 Food Aid Convention, which recognises that food aid should be bought from the most cost effective source, be culturally acceptable and if possible purchased locally so that regional markets do not suffer. Despite this...
*The US is refusing southern African governments loans that are not tied to the purchase of GM contaminated grain from the US.
*The US says it is impossible for it to provide anything other than GM contaminated grain in spite of the fact that 50% of US elevators can and do segregate GM and non-GM grains
*The US refuses to mill the GM grain even though African countries facing famine have requested this
*The US boasts that "The principal beneficiary of America's foreign assistance programs has always been the United States"
*The US introduced Public Law 480 to ensure that food aid never interfered with "domestic production or marketing"
*USAID also states one of its roles is to "integrate GM into local food systems."
can be found here
Further you claim erroneously that organic farming has a higher cost than GM food. That is absolutely false. I have long been opposed to the high costs at the store of organic food. It should be cheaper than conventional not more expensive. The issue is people are so used to paying more that if you try to sell it for less they wont think it is organic.
It is FAR cheaper to farm Organic the thing that drives the prices high is two faceted. First in many locals it is supply and demand the demand outweighs the supply. Second it is what I stated above. I have seen it first hand where local farmers will try to sell organic food for cheaper prices and people start to not believe it is organic.
Tell me how you think organic is more expensive to produce than GM?
Can save your seed. no need for fertilizers nor pesticides no need for herbicide etc. Where do you see the HUGE costs that you can think that GM products save farmers money?
Then there is your constant yield claims which btw have been shown to be false in a Kansas study. In fact it came out that conventional or organic both have higher yields than GM. Yields are not modified in the products they have out there. The area of farming that has the most effect on yields is traditional selective breeding and not the syringe injected frankenplants.
There are many reasons for this but, most importantly is they are not concerned with really making yields higher, they are making herbicide resistant and BT products. This will have nothing to do with yields but, more with "pest" control and weed management.
Scientists and genetics people have said it is unlikely that any improvement to yields will come from GMOs. What they do claim is a good route to go for higher yields is what they call SuperOrganics which is where they study the genes of plants and find the best plants to cross naturally to get better yields. Sounds a lot smarter to me by far with far less potential for ill effects than haphazardly playing with things on the genetic level forcefully stuffing animal, virus and bacteria genes into plants.
Jiperly, I love how you try to tell me what or why I think something. You claim this is all about politics for me. You are wrong. I believe people have the right to choose what they put into their bodies. I believe no matter why they would choose not to eat something that it is their right to choose. Be it religious, health, political, or any other reason they have the right as a consumer to know exactly what they are buying.
I would not be calling for a boycott of anything if they labeled it. The people would do what they felt was right on an individual basis, and since things would be labeled they would be able to make that choice themselves.
Besides you think my one voice is going to be louder than the biotech industries propaganda machine that would claim all manner of lies to make people ok with it?
I am not here at all to fear monger but call for people to look into the history of these corporations. Look at the times they were busted with junk science when they got things like Dioxin, and agent orange allowed and called "safe" at one time.
Look how long it took for science to finally catch up look into these matters and determine they were not at all safe as the companies promised.
The same is going on here with these products. These companies are in no way regulated on this other than they have to prove that their product has the same nutritional value. If they do that it is considered safe! No inspection, no regulation, no long term studies, no long term or short term tests on humans. Nothing..... Just free reign to run amok as usual.
Again I am not opposed to the study of such things at all. I think they should have to find a way to prove that they have effective methods to keep these things from getting into the wild and permit them and regulate them.
It should not at this time be allowed for human consumption until it is proven without a doubt, that not only safety for consumption but, all of the other issues that deal with biodiversity, contamination of other types of farms, economic issues etc.
So far the research has shown serious flaws in the assumptions and promises of the companies responsible.
Google the studies read some of it.
Google the history of monsanto in particular and their getting busted red handed paying a company to do junk science for them with other products. Do you honestly believe they changed their tune and wish to now all of a sudden "save humanity?"
There is also the other issue of terminator genes/traitor genes... Google it!
To sum it up in a nut shell. It is a technology that purposely makes a plant seeds as they ripen die/become sterile on the genetic level...
Basically it further puts a noose around the necks of farmers and adds razor blades to it.
Lets think about this for a moment beyond just how bad of an idea it is to put a plant into the wild that purposefully terminates it's potential to reproduce completely and the probability that it will get into the wild and cause all kinds of havoc. Let's put that potential problem to the side for a second and think only about the farmers...
This sets up a scenario where poor farmers will have no choice but, to reap huge profits in order to be able to afford to buy the seeds every year and all the chemicals they require from the biotech industry whom, reaps the cash on the sales of the poisons as well as the frankenplants that live in the poisoned soil.
If they fail somehow to sell their crops for high enough profits they will not be able to continue the next year. They will loose their farms and in many instances of extremely poor areas and nations die.
Even if there is a spike in surplus food they could lose it all!
They will not being losing their lives because of a bad year and or crop failure but, if they cannot make a good enough profit. ie supply goes up prices crash and pow they cannot buy their seeds from Monsanto next year. The fields which they have likely inundated with round up will not grow other crops not genetically modified to live in the poisoned soil....
All of this makes it possible to kick poorer family farmers off their land because they cannot pay their debts to Monsanto..... This is all being established to benefit only the multinational corporations and the corporate farms.
There are a great many reasons to be opposed to GMO.
Study into it. I listened to both sides. Everything I was promised by people whom own stock in monstanto that I know personally, to people whom worked in the biotech industry that I spoke to have been either lies or broken promises.
I was told early on that there is no way these things will spread to the wild or to infect other farms via cross pollination. That was a lie they told me personally. It has been proven false. A farmer in Canada not only lost his farm and livelihood he was then sued by Monsanto whom won the case when their GM crops infected his farm.
Google it
Monsanto sued Schmeiser for growing Roundup Ready Canola
In a case where the farmer should have been able to sue Monsanto for contaminating his fields and destroying his business, the patent laws made it to where Monsanto sued him.
There is a long list of reasons to be opposed to GMOs and I can think of non to be for them unless you only care about big corporate profits and domination of the food supply.
Joined: 9/28/2004
Msg: 68
GMO issue.
Everything this guy said.
"Let's feed it to the africans!!!" (sarcasm)
Just another instance of the rich beating on the poor.
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 69
view profile
GMO issue.
One more thing while I am at it. Since I know you will likely harp of Organic price compared to conventional etc. If the US government would subsidize organic farms like they do conventional the price could be as low or lower than conventional..
The price of conventional produce in this country is artificially driven down by government subsidies. The fact of the matter is if the government stop subsidizing conventional farms they would spike in price and come to an equal level or higher than organics. It is a bit of a complicated matter to be sure but, I have always wanted to see Organics sold at a lower rate maybe we will see in the future subsidies of these kinds of sustainable agriculture as opposed to only subsidizing mega farms that use "conventional" and gmo products. Then things will be on a more level economic playing field.
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 70
view profile
GMO issue.
Jip you asking for people whom have been injured or died from GMOs
The Story of the food supplement L-Tryptophan that in 1987 was genetically engineeered for the first time and put on the market without any safety testing, resulting in the deaths of 37 people and permanently disabling 1500 more.
Tryptophan Summary
November 1997 John B. Fagan, Ph.D.
Food supplements, such as amino acids, are often manufactured by fermentative processes, in which large quantities of bacteria are grown in vats, and the food supplement is extracted from the bacteria and purified. One amino acid, tryptophan has been produced in this way for many years. In the late 1980's the company Showa Denko K.K. decided to use genetic engineering to accelerate and increase the efficiency of tryptophan production. They genetically engineered bacteria by inserting several genes that caused the bacteria to express certain enzymes at much higher levels than normal and to express other enzymes that are not normally present in the original bacteria.
The enzymes expressed in these bacteria through genetic engineering altered cellular metabolism substantially, leading to greatly increased production of tryptophan. These genetically engineered bacteria were immediately used in commercial production of tryptophan, and the product placed on the market in the USA in 1988. According to US law, Showa Denko was allowed to sell the tryptophan produced in genetically engineered bacteria without safety testing because they and other companies had been selling tryptophan produced in non-genetically engineered bacteria for years without ill effects. It was considered that the method of production (whether via natural or genetically engineered bacteria) was immaterial and that, since tryptophan had already been shown to be safe, the new material needed no testing. In effect they considered it substantially equivalent to the tryptophan that had been sold for many years.
This product was placed on the market, and within a few months it caused the deaths of 37 people and caused 1500 more to be permanently disabled (1). It took months to discover that the poisoning was due to toxin present in the tryptophan produced using Showa Denko's genetically engineered bacteria (1, 2). One factor that contributed to this time delay was the fact that the product was not labeled to distinguish it from tryptophan produced through conventional methods.
The disease caused by this toxic product was called eosinophilia myalgia syndrome or EMS, because the initial symptoms were elevated numbers of blood cells called eosinophils and myalgia (muscle pain). Over time many other symptoms developed in patients that led in some cases to death and in many other cases to serious long term disability. These symptoms included paralysis and neurological problems, painful swelling and cracking of the skin, heart problems, memory and cognitive deficits, headaches, extreme light sensitivity, fatigue, and heart problems (3,4).
It was later shown that the tryptophan produced in genetically engineered bacteria contained one or more highly toxic contaminants. The most prominent of these, called EBT, was identified as a dimerization product of tryptophan. It comprised less than 0.1% of the total weight of the product, yet that was enough to kill people (1). Based on fundamental chemical and biochemical principles, scientists have deduced that this compound was probably generated when the concentration of tryptophan within the bacteria reached such high levels that tryptophan molecules or their precursors began to react with each other (5). Thus, it appears that genetic manipulationsled to increased tryptophan biosynthesis, which led to increased cellular levels of tryptophan and precursors. At these high levels, these compounds reacted with themselves, generating a deadly toxin. Being chemically quite similar to tryptophan, this toxin was not easily separated from tryptophan, and contaminated the final commercial product at levels that were highly toxic to consumers.
Significant areas of ambiguity remain even today regarding this incident. Showa Denko has never released the genetically engineered bacterial strain that was used to produce the toxic tryptophan. Thus, independent scientists have been unable to study its characteristics and understand precisely the source of the toxin. Showa Denko claim that they destroyed all stocks of the bacteria when the toxicity problems first began to emerge (2). Such research would not only have provided data useful in assessment of the risks of genetically engineered organisms, but it would also have been useful to victims of tryptophan toxicity and their families, who eventually filed suits totaling over two billion dollars against this company.
I know some have tried to claim that it had to do with filtration to attempt to draw the blame away from the biotech industry but that has been shot down as well by scientists from the very company itself here is the quote of the lawyer whom represented the firm..
"That possibility is discounted by scientists at Showa Denko, says Richard Hinds, a Washington lawyer who represents the Japanese firm. The amount of powdered carbon used for filtration had varied before without ill effect, and it was not unusual for it to dip this low, Hinds says."
Can read a more in depth bit here
Further another GM product aspartame is well known to cause 92 reported medical issues 2 of those issues include blindness and death.
These GM substances are being allowed with zero oversight. They are letting companies that brought us and did junk science to say that dioxin was safe when we know full well today that it is not, to self regulate. These companies obviously do not care one bit about public safety.
Factsheet: Monsanto's Sordid History
From the Center for Food Safety
Monsanto, best know today for its agricultural biotechnology products, has a long and dirty history of polluting this country and others with some of the most toxic compounds known to humankind. From PCBs to Agent Orange to Roundup, we have many reasons to question the motives of this company that claims to be working to reduce environmental destruction and feed the world with its genetically engineered food crops.
* Headquartered near St. Louis, Missouri, the Monsanto Chemical Company was founded in 1901. Monsanto became a leading manufacturer of sulfuric acid and other industrial chemicals in the 1920s. In the 1930s, Monsanto began producing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). PCBs, widely used as lubricants, hydraulic fluids, cutting oils, waterproof coatings and liquid sealants, are potent carcinogens and have been implicated in reproductive, developmental and immune system disorders.
* The world's center of PCB manufacturing was Monsanto's plant on the outskirts of East St. Louis, Illinois, which has the highest rate of fetal death and immature births in the state. By 1982, nearby Times Beach, Missouri, was found to be so thoroughly contaminated with dioxin, a by-product of PCB manufacturing, that the government ordered it evacuated. Dioxins are endocrine and immune system disruptors, cause congenital birth defects, reproductive and developmental problems, and increase the incidence of cancer, heart disease and diabetes in laboratory animals.
* By the 1940s, Monsanto had begun focusing on plastics and synthetic fabrics like polystyrene (still widely used in food packaging and other consumer products), which is ranked fifth in the EPA's 1980s listing of chemicals whose production generates the most total hazardous waste.
* During World War II, Monsanto played a significant role in the Manhattan Project to develop the atom bomb.
* Following the war, Monsanto championed the use of chemical pesticides in agriculture, and began manufacturing the herbicide 2,4,5-T, which contains dioxin. Monsanto has been accused of covering up or failing to report dioxin contamination in a wide range of its products.
* The herbicide "Agent Orange," used by U.S. military forces as a defoliant during the Vietnam War, was a mixture of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D and had very high concentrations of dioxin. U.S. Vietnam War veterans have suffered from a host of debilitating symptoms attributable to Agent Orange exposure, and since the end of the war an estimated 500,000 Vietnamese children have been born with deformities.
* In the 1970s, Monsanto began manufacturing the herbicide Roundup, which has been marketed as a safe, general-purpose herbicide for widespread commercial and consumer use, even though its key ingredient, glyphosate, is a highly toxic poison for animals and humans. In 1997, The New York State Attorney General took Monsanto to court and Monsanto was subsequently forced to stop claiming that Roundup is "biodegradable" and "environmentally friendly."
* Monsanto has been repeatedly fined and ruled against for, among many things, mislabeling containers of Roundup, failing to report health data to EPA, and chemical spills and improper chemical deposition. In 1995, Monsanto ranked fifth among U.S. corporations in EPA's Toxic Release Inventory, having discharged 37 million pounds of toxic chemicals into the air, land, water and underground.
* Since the inception of Plan Colombia in 2000, the US has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in funding aerial sprayings of Monsanto's Roundup herbicides in Colombia. The Roundup is often applied in concentrations 26 times higher than what is recommended for agricultural use. Additionally, it contains at least one surfactant, Cosmo-Flux 411f, whose ingredients are a trade secret, has never been approved for use in the US, and which quadruples the biological action of the herbicide.
* Not surprisingly, numerous human health impacts have been recorded in the areas affected by the sprayings, including respiratory, gastrointestinal and skin problems, and even death, especially in children. Additionally, fish and animals will show up dead in the hours and days subsequent to the herbicide sprayings.
* In the 1980s and early 1990s, Monsanto was behind the aggressive promotion of synthetic Bovine Growth Hormone, approved by the FDA for commercial sale in 1994, despite strong concerns about its safety. Since then, Monsanto has sued small dairy companies that advertised their products as free of the artificial hormone, most recently bringing a lawsuit against Oakhurst Dairy in Maine.
* In August, 2003, Monsanto and its former chemical subsidiary, Solutia, Inc. (now owned by Pharmacia Corp.), agreed to pay $600 million to settle claims brought by more than 20,000 residents of Anniston, AL, over the severe contamination of ground and water by tons of PCBs dumped in the area from the 1930s until the 1970s. Court documents revealed that Monsanto was aware of the contamination decades earlier.
Sheldon Rampton, John Stauber, Trust Us, We're Experts (New York, NY: Penguin Putnam, 2002).
Brian Tokar, "Monsanto: A Checkered History," The Ecologist, Sept./Oct. 1998
CBS News, 60 Minutes: Herbicide Problems, January 14, 2002
Here are a bunch of actual internal FDA documents that were released showing the internal dialog and recommendation of scientists to regulate this industry that were for the most part ignored. This industry is not regulated at all. If they can prove the same nutritional values as a conventionally grown plant it is automatically considered equivalent and "safe."
Have a look for yourself that this was NOT the recommendations of the scientific community at all!
Here is a document that details how concerns about this industry are scientifically justified.
The name of it is..
by Steven M. Druker
can learn more here.
Joined: 10/22/2007
Msg: 71
GMO issue.
hi... thank God for the people who are looking out for us, like David Suzuki... if david is strongly opposed to GMO then I know its bad.... foods have a code, that is how the body uses it for nutrition... if they modify the code, how can we be certain that we are getting nourished or worse yet, that we are not being poisoned.... hybrid sweet food raise glycemic counts, what else can GMO do... calories no nutrition, no thank you..... no to GMO, warmly Mona
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 72
view profile
GMO issue.
This movie looks like it will cover the issues well enough..
There is a trailer there as well and ways to get involved on political level.
We need to get more involved in knowing what is going on with our food and think films like this that brings up the GMO issue among others is a good step forward to people getting informed enough to be able to make educated choices.. These products must be labeled.
This is what the site for the movie had to say on this issue.
Genetically Engineered Food
The genetic engineering of plants and animals is looming as one of the greatest and most intractable environmental challenges of the 21st Century. Already, this novel technology has invaded our grocery stores and our kitchen pantries by fundamentally altering some of our most important staple food crops.
By being able to take the genetic material from one organism and insert it into the permanent genetic code of another, biotechnologists have engineered numerous novel creations, such as potatoes with bacteria genes, "super" pigs with human growth genes, fish with cattle growth genes, tomatoes with flounder genes, and thousands of other plants, animals and insects. At an alarming rate, these creations are now being patented and released into the environment.
Currently, up to 45 percent of U.S. corn is genetically engineered as is 85 percent of soybeans. It has been estimated that 70-75 percent of processed foods on supermarket shelves--from soda to soup, crackers to condiments--contain genetically engineered ingredients.
A number of studies over the past decade have revealed that genetically engineered foods can pose serious risks to humans, domesticated animals, wildlife and the environment. Human health effects can include higher risks of toxicity, allergenicity, antibiotic resistance, immune-suppression and cancer. As for environmental impacts, the use of genetic engineering in agriculture could lead to uncontrolled biological pollution, threatening numerous microbial, plant and animal species with extinction, and the potential contamination of non-genetically engineered life forms with novel and possibly hazardous genetic material.
Despite these long-term and wide-ranging risks, Congress has yet to pass a single law intended to manage them responsibly. This despite the fact that our regulatory agencies have failed to adequately address the human health or environmental impacts of genetic engineering. On the federal level, eight agencies attempt to regulate biotechnology using 12 different statutes or laws that were written long before genetically engineered food, animals and insects became a reality. The result has been a regulatory tangle, where any regulation even exists, as existing laws are grossly manipulated to manage threats they were never intended to regulate. Among many bizarre examples of these regulatory anomalies is the current attempt by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate genetically engineered fish as "new animal drugs."
The haphazard and negligent agency regulation of biotechnology has had serious consequences for consumers and the environment. Unsuspecting consumers by the tens of millions are being allowed to purchase and consume unlabeled genetically engineered foods, despite a finding by FDA scientists that these foods could pose serious risks. And new genetically engineered crops are being approved by federal agencies despite admissions that they will contaminate native and conventional plants and pose other significant new environmental threats. In short, there has been a complete abdication of any responsible legislative or regulatory oversight of genetically engineered foods. Clearly, now is a critical time to challenge the government's negligence in managing the human health and environmental threats from biotechnology.
CFS seeks to prevent the approval, commercialization or release of any new genetically engineered crops until they have been thoroughly tested and found safe for human health and the environment. CFS maintains that any foods that already contain genetically engineered ingredients must be clearly labeled.
Seems a reasonable and sound approach to the issue.
Joined: 9/28/2004
Msg: 73
GMO issue.
GMOs as a matter of proper labelling and choice is a moot point when the altered genes spreads to neighboring fields and beyond.
Ultimately I believe that the place for GMOs right now is in tightly controlled labs and the Internation Space Station. We need to get on this right away because as the technology to create such organisms spreads the chaos factor of runaway stray modied genes will grow.
Joined: 8/12/2008
Msg: 74
GMO issue.
i see nothing wrong with geneticaly modifying plants in order to grow food in places that food canot be grown, to have large crop yealds...
but i believe in sustanability, and corparation having a monpoly of food production is a step backward to this, in this time of ressesion, comanies all over are failing and going broke, what if this one did.... would the entier earth be foreced to starve because our crops are unstastainable? i see somthing sieriously wrong with this.
soon i see not even being able to get water without paying for it, most of us allready do.. but emagion being punished for trying to collect rain water because your family is thiersty and you canot afford water food and rent all that the same time
"they give you what you need to get by, but never what you need to get ahead"
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 75
view profile
GMO issue.
It makes no difference how the modifications are achieved.
False. Terminator grain would be an impossibility using the ancient technique of selective breeding for traits.
The commonly used "shotgun" approach for genetic modification introduces much more than then the "target" trait and could (theoretically) produce prion proteins in organisms that could be transferred to those who eat such GMOs to devastating effect.
We are all by now familiar with the end result of "recycling" animals as feed for other food animals, so I won't go into "mad cow disease" except to mention that the latency period for a human getting it from eating these prions is ridiculously long (to the point that we may not see an epidimic of it for some years yet, for beef we ate in the 1980s. Unless we are vegetarians, we may well have ingested a time bomb that could go off at any time, killing us horribly.
This is only
of the problems involved when we tamper with the natural order, and all we did there was economize by feeding animals to herbivores in the interests of economy, efficiency and of course, profit.
Considering the projected 60 year mean latency period associated with Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis, the idea that prions that have yet to be detected (because nobody's looking for them) in GMOs could do a similar number on people (to include vegetarians this time) doesn't seem so outlandish. We may have already condemned ourselves to death by eating GMO grain in the 1990s (when it first became generally available).
Considering the risks and the deliberate lack of research into the safety of GMOs, I have long ago personally resolved to eat only certified organic foods. This is no guarantee of safety of course, especially when one considers that it is only in the last five or six years that I've been doing so, but I feel it does help to minimize my risk. The people I feel sorriest for are the ones who are forced to eat GMOs owing to the price of real organic food. If what I think will come to pass happens sometime in the next 10 or 20 years, these will be the people who will suffer most acutely from our society's pursuit of profit at all costs.
For Myself, I'll just be shorting Monsanto and some of the other evil food & drug corporatons. I'll be watching the news, and when the sh!t starts hitting the fan, short them for every nickel I can raise. I expect to make a tidy little bundle off their inevitable downfall.
Page 3 of 7
, 3,
Show ALL Forums
GMO issue.


text:
recipe reviews for:
"Delicious and attractive little cookies, with a thumb indentation filled with preserves. Fill with different colored preserves for an interesting presentation."
Cooking Level: Expert
My Profile | Cooks I Like Reviews | Photos | Recipes | Menus | Blog
Cooking Level: Professional
Cooking Level: Intermediate
A new recipe revealed each day until Christmas. Check it out!
Get time-saving recipes to save your busy life.
Get the season's best recipes for holiday feasting.
Your favorite thumbprint cookies, jazzed up with delicious glaze.
Decadent cookies that taste like eggnog are perfect for the holidays.
These little Polish cookies can be filled with your favorite jam.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
5 Data Center Shopping Tips For Cloud Providers
3:00 PM EST Fri. Mar. 01, 2013As some solution providers shift to becoming cloud providers, they often need to find a hosting facility. But looking for the right facility can be challenging, whether an MSP is seeking a partnership or looking to develop its own data center.
Paul Hilbert, owner of Network Doctor, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., offers private cloud services in his own data center, but as his cloud service grows, he's looking for a partner with a bigger facility that can handle more capacity.
Here are five tips from Hilbert on what to look for when shopping for a data center.
One of the attractions of cloud services is the cost savings it offers to businesses to migrate their IT from their internal data centers to the cloud. So the cloud hoster has to keep fees reasonable and, by extension, keep his own costs down.
And to reach low fees, the data center must be efficient, Hilbert said.
"The most obvious step is to reduce costs of everything -- power, Internet, cooling," Hilbert said. That means drilling down on the details.
Is the facility located in a place where you can get to it without effort? Is it accessible? That can be an important issue for a new partner wanting everyday access to the facility.
"Do they have the ability to receive equipment and racks for you?" Hilbert asked.
Is the facility's network security up to industry standards? In addition to a lineup of Web security features, is there traffic analysis, intrusion detection, prevention and analysis?
"Do they have the ability to tell me if my equipment was compromised or my client is spamming out?" Hilbert asked.
Make sure the staff is willing to go the extra mile to do what it takes to ensure constant uptime.
"You want staff available 24x7 to not only monitor the network but act as local eyes when you need on-site help," Hilbert said.
There's no sense getting into the hosting business if your facility is lacking adequate infrastructure to handle large workload demands.
"You want dense power," Hilbert said. "Most data centers give you only 20 to 30 amps per rack. You can maybe power a quarter of a rack on 20 amps. To fill a rack you really need four, 20-amp circuits."


text:
Vehicle standards information sheets for vehicle owners and operators in New South Wales.
To open or download documents, 'right-click' on the title for PC and 'control-click' on the title for Mac and choose an option.
Help with downloading and viewing files
Some of these documents do not comply with WCAG 2.0. If you are having trouble accessing information, please contact RMS by phoning 13 22 13 or emailing firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
This past weekend, I attended the 139th annual Kentucky Derby horse races. The event was exciting (and a little rainy!), and the red carpet was quite a spectacle as well. Everyone who went to the races was dressed to the nines. It is tradition to wear a big hat to the opening day of horse racing events. This custom actually began in England, where attending the races was just as much for fashion as it was for sport. Think My Fair Lady. I chose a champagne colored creation for my own hat and I had so much fun wearing it. Anyway, this is how I styled my two looks for the derby...
The dress in the photo below is a nude polka dot number from my Paper Crown line. I paired it with a neutral pair of LC Lauren Conrad pumps…and my fancy hat, of course.
Style Tip: Nude heels will give the illusion of longer legs and flatter your figure. For more silhouette-slimming style tips, click here.
The night before the races, I went to the Unbridled Eve Gala at The Galt House Hotel. It was a night filled with mint juleps and Southern hospitality. I wore a Paper Crown dress for this event as well.
Have you ever gone to the races? What would you wear to the Kentucky Derby?
XO Lauren
Source: The Examiner
Shoto: The Gloss, Zimbio
Join the Discussion!
33 comments
We love Kentucky Derby, Tomy B. is there every year celebrating his brithday and supporting blessings in a back..check out our blog for the latest on everything hair and fashion. I write for an upscale hair salon located in Old Westbury Long Island, and would love to know what you think of my blog posts! Please I encourage comments!http://tomybsalon.com/blog/
love love love. i think going to the kentucky derby at least once would be such a fun thing.
http://hooleywithaz.com -
Both looks are absolutely flawless (as usual). Does anyone know where to find the maxi dress? I can't find it on Paper Crown anymore!
GORGEOUS! I am inlove with both both and that MAXI is just stunning!
Need more fashion and beauty tips? Check out my blog: http://myfashavenue.com/ Today's post: How To Dress Chic On A Casual Friday…
Follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/myfashavenue & Instagram @MyFash Avenue
Deanne -
I went last year and unfortunately didn't make it this year, but I still dressed up and when to a nearby casino to gamble on the race :) I will take any excuse to wear a big hat, My Bridal Shower is actually going to be Kentucky Derby themed and everyone has to dress up and wear hats =)
You look gorgeous as always! I'm usually not a big fan of the hats that people where to the races, but it actually looks quite nice on you!
http://mystylediaryblogspot.blogspot.com/ -
You look gorgeous, Lauren! Well done! Love these looks.
Love from South Africa
http://arumlilea.blogspot.com -
Have never been but would love too! I'm from the south and have family in Tennessee so will definitely have to make it one year! You look gorgeous! Love the hat. Thanks for the tip on nude heels, need to get some of those!
I go every year! I live in Louisville so its a bit more convenient! I love making my hats each year! Hope you had fun and enjoyed your time here, although the weather wasn't too much fun!
Gorgeous! I would love to attend the races someday. If only to wear a fab hat. ;)
www.TheFashionPalate.com -
PS: can you disclose who the millner was who made that amazing hat? I wonder if they will post to Australia...
Absolutley stunning Lauren! I cant wait to go to the local raceday (country Queensland) next weekend. Fashions on the Field is a huge deal and I planned my outfit months in advance. I have chose neutrals also- yay! For those who havent been to a raceday- GO! The fashions are amazing!
I adore both Paper Crown dresses! I would LOVE to wear that nude polka dot dress! Pure perfection!
oh my god! i have always wanted to dress like julia roberts in pretty woman
with a that lovely brown polka dot dress <3
you look adorable lauren so stylish!! -
Going to the Kentucky Derby & wearing one of those gigantic luxurious hats is definitely on my Bucket List. I even want to go to the Verve Cliquot polo matches in California! This is right up my alley. For the Kentucky Derby, I'd wear an elaborate hat with grande detail and probably an asymetrical dress with stunning heels. For Verve Cliquot, I would wear a less severe hat and probably a strapless tea-length dress with small feminine details.
I love both dresses! The second one I would have loved with a hair accessory or jewelry. I have never been to the Kentucky Derby but I bet its fun. I would have worn something similar to what you wore because its classy and cute.
Both dresses are gorgeous and I adore your hat. If I could wear a hat like that everyday I wouldn't have a problem! Haha. I would love to go to the races someday. Glad to hear it was a great time.
http://allthatglitters.co.nr -
jaw-dropping head-turning reach for the stars world series kind of stuff right here WOW. the hat is stunning and im obsessed with the subtle polka dot print paired with the nude pumps (and will be wearing this shade much more often after hearing its slimming, who knew?!). the maxi is perfection i would die to have these pieces hanging in my closet. paper crown is truly everything xo
http://myotherclosetiscouture.blogspot.com -
Love it Lauren! We got dressed up and celebrated the Southern tradition in Boston too, have always loved watching the race on tv! Hope to make it down there to see it in person one day :)
This comment has been removed
Love your hat! And both dresses are so elegant. As a born-and-raised Kentucky girl, I'm always really proud of my state then the Derby rolls around!
This year, we had friends over for the Derby: http://tulleandtrinkets.com/2013/05/06/derby-day/


text:
2008 Lexus LS 460
Exterior Pictures
Below are pictures of the 2008 Lexus LS 460 Luxury Sedan. Select the type of pictures you want to view below.
View all pictures of the 2008 Lexus LS 460 Luxury Sedan
Sponsored Links
( What's this? )
Used Mercedes-Benz
Mercedes-Benz Certified Pre-Owned: Much More Than a Used Car. See Why.
www.mbusa.com/CertifiedPre-OwnedLexus® Official Site
Get Special Offers on a CPO Lexus. See Your Local Dealer for Details.
www.lexus.com/CPOFor Sale - Lexus LS 460
Search over 1930 pre-owned Lexus LS 460. Prices starting at $19,960
CarGurus.com/Lexus-LS-460What's Your LS 460 Worth?
Free Online Valuation. Fast Payment Sell Your LS 460 Fast, Safe, Fair


text:
100% Viscose. Printed boho top with button placket, encased elastic at sleeve opening, shirring at front yoke and metal logo badge.
Product Specs
The West Advisor
The West Advisor articles have answered boaters' questions and provided solutions to boating problems for more than 20 years. West Marine has compiled one of the Web's most comprehensive collections of technical boating information articles.


text:
A collection of news and information related to Steve Carell published by this site and its partners.
Top Steve Carell Articles
Displaying items 100-110
Box Office: 'Pacific Rim' Hovering $38 Million for the Weekend
Story | Jul 12, 2013 | 8:30 PMGuillermo del Toro's "Pacific Rim" may not be a "Lone Ranger" bomb but neither is it a monster performer at the box office, at least not in the U.S. Fanboys generated a husky $3.6 million Thursday night, similar to surprise hit "World War Z" ($66 mil... -
'Despicable Me 2' to beat 'Lone Ranger' at Fourth of July box office
Box Office: 'Despicable Me 2â² Should Ignite July 4th Weekend, Trouncing 'Lone Ranger'
Story | Jul 2, 2013 | 6:30 PMFourth of July moviegoing is about to get animated, with Universal's toon sequel "Despicable Me 2" expected to trample Disney's big-budget live-action tentpole "The Lone Ranger," both of which bow nationwide Wednesday. "Despicable Me 2," launching at 3,... -
Review: 'Despicable Me 2' takes refreshing risk with grown-up themes
Wednesday's TV Highlights: 'Family Tools' on ABC
'The Way, Way Back' review: Love this slice of summer
Box Office: 'Despicable Me 2â² Opens Strong Tuesday Night
Story | Jul 3, 2013 | 10:30 AMUniversal's "Despicable Me 2" kicked off the Fourth of July weekend in animated fashion Tuesday, earning $4.7 million from 2,563 locations. The toon sequel, starring Steve Carell, opened at 7pm nationwide, topping the $3 million performance of Disney/... -
Melissa McCarthy: Comedy's hottest star
Story | Jul 3, 2013Melissa McCarthy is the hottest name in comedy right now -- even hotter than the boys. With Fox's "The Heat" scoring an impressive $39 million Stateside debut this weekend, the comedic actress proved she can not only compete in a mostly male-driven... -
Emmy Comedy: What Will Happen?
Story | Jul 3, 2013 | 12:30 PMWe're enjoying the Interregnum between the first round of Emmy voting and the July 18 announcement of the nominations. Tuesday was spent speculating on the drama series category; today brings points of intrigue in comedy. Requiem for a champion? It ain't... -
Grab a sidekick and go see 'The Lone Ranger'
Despicable Me 2: Minions' new movie is anything but Despicable


text:
Jenny E. Clemens, MS, CCC-SLP
- Specialty:
- Neurology
- Special Interests:
- Stroke, Parkinson's & Movement Disorders, Multiple Sclerosis
- Accepting Patients:
- Yes
- Languages:
- English
Jenny Clemens is a Speech Language Pathologist at OHSU rehabilitation services. She completed her Bachelor's degree at the University of Calgary where she studied Linguistics and Speech and Hearing Sciences. She then earned her Master's of Science degree from Portland State University in Speech Language Pathology. Jenny has worked in a variety of medical settings where she has gained valuable experience working with individuals with neurological impairments. She specializes in cognitive communication deficits, which includes memory, problem solving, attention, planning, organization, slowed thinking and word finding. She enjoys working with her patients in a team approach to improve cognitive communication and function. In her spare time, she enjoys spending time with her family and dog. Together they enjoy camping, hiking, fishing and enjoying the outdoors.
Professional Education
Oregon Board of Audiology and Speech Language Pathology


text:
change configuration
Strada Statale 114, Km 38, Sant'Alessio Siculo, Italy
Book by Phone: 1800 666 2691
Featuring an outdoor pool and a heated Jacuzzi, the Capo Dei Greci Hotel Sant'Alessio Siculo offers modern and cosy rooms just a short drive from Isola Bella and the Ancient Theatre of Taormina. It has a fitness centre, a spa & wellness centre and a sauna.The Capo Dei Greci Hotel Sant'Alessio Siculo offers many services including a steam bath, air conditioning and tennis courts. Also available to the guests are a sun deck, family/oversized rooms and an express check-in and check-out feature. Guests can also find a beauty salon within the hotel.The luxurious feel of each room at the Capo Dei Greci Hotel Sant'Alessio Siculo is complemented by amenities like mini bars. Cable / satellite channels, a private bathroom and a hair dryer can be found in each room of the hotel. Also included in the rooms are a TV, a desk with an electrical outlet and a shower.To ensure your day gets off to a good start, the hotel serves a buffet breakfast each morning. For other meals, there are many restaurants and cafés located close by. For guests on the move, the hotel provides packed lunches on request.For those who enjoy discovering the local eateries, there is a wide range right on your door step. Forza d'Agro and Taormina are just a short drive away for those travelling by car.
Please enter dates of your stay to check availability
Restaurant, Air Conditioned, Mini Bar, Cable / Satellite TV, Hair Dryer, TV, Shower, En suite, Private Bathroom, Private Toilet, Coffee Shop/Cafeteria, Packed Lunches, Family Room
Fitness Room/Gym, Swimming pool, Massage / Beauty Centre, Tennis Courts, Sauna, Garden, Cycling, Hiking, Salon, Jacuzzi, Massage, Spa & Wellness Centre, Steam Bath, Beauty Salon, Pool Outdoor
Elevator / Lift, 24-Hour Reception, Babysitting / Child Services, Conference Room(s), Multilingual Staff, Safe-Deposit Box, Secretarial Service, Wake-up Service, Meeting Rooms, Laundry service, Bicycle Rental, Photocopier, Luggage Storage, Express Check-In/Check-Out, Self Laundry
There is an airport shuttle that runs from the hotel.
From 9:00 AM
Prior to 8:00 AM
204 guest reviews
Easily find the best price and availability from all travel websites at once. We guarantee it.
Access over 2 million hotel deals from 100's of travel sites.
Over 220 countries, over 40 languages and 120 currencies.
© 2013


text:
Meena Rajbansi
"I am proud of my knitting skills, and that I can work so quickly," Meena says ending her sentence with a shy smile. We can't help but be blown away by the courage demonstrated through that little gesture. Despite all of the hardships that she and the other master knitters face, Meena remains positive. She is fighting to fulfill her children's dreams—for her daughter to become a nurse and for her son to become a pilot. When we see Meena's initials on our gloves we think about those dreams coming true.