Your Garage botysf16 Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Recess Monkey Fire TV Stick Subscribe & Save Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer roadies roadies roadies  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis UniOrlando Segway miniPro
Customer Discussions > Health forum


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 176-200 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2011 5:25:38 AM PDT
"If all farms transitioned to organic, there would be no problem with carbon levels."

And there would not be enough food to feed the population either.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2011 5:37:11 AM PDT
Karen says:
Actually, studies have been done that dispute your statement that there would not be enough food to feed the population. If you care to take a look, here is one:

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2011 5:43:14 AM PDT
Hahaha! Natural News posts false information. Can't believe people are still believing their crap.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2011 5:58:51 AM PDT
Karen says:
Well, then here is from another study. (you know there are hundreds out there to confirm this)

"A team of scientists led by Catherine Badgley at the University of Michgan Ann Arbor in the United States has now refuted those common misconceptions about organic agriculture. Organic agriculture gives yields roughly comparable to conventional agriculture in developed countries and much higher yields in developing countries; and more than enough nitrogen can be fixed in the soil by using green manure alone [1].

The research team compared yields of organic and conventional agriculture (including low-intensive food production) in 293 examples, and estimated the average yield ratio (organic versus non-organic) of different food categories for the developed and the developing world. With the average yield ratios, they modelled the global food supply that could be grown organically in the current agricultural land base. The results indicate that organic methods could produce enough food to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base.

They also estimated the amount of nitrogen potentially available from nitrogen fixation by legumes as cover crops. Data from temperate and tropical agroecosystmes suggest that they could fix enough nitrogen to replace all of the synthetic fertilizer currently in use.

The report concluded: "These results indicate that organic agriculture has the potential to contribute quite substantially to the global food supply, while reducing the detrimental environmental impacts of conventional agriculture."

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2011 6:14:52 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 21, 2011 6:15:52 AM PDT
Crop yields are only part of the story.

For example, where would all that green manure come from? We are not talking about small farms here. We are talking about 1000's of acre commercial farms.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2011 7:55:59 AM PDT
That's the thing, the study doesn't extrapolate globally and only looks at regions.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2011 1:55:47 PM PDT
D.R.P. says:
You're right about that. And this maty sound kinda odd, but to me it's the truth. When we're wholistically/holistically healthy, as a species, then these things happen: Organic farming will be the norm and Monsanto mentality will be kinda rare and a bit strange. For some reason the old order is still the norm. People in America are horribly unhealthy and the really healthy folks are kinda rare. Life-affirming trends in our big institutions would be common and Coca-Cola/Monsanto/McDonalds/Pharmaceuticals-mentality would be rare. But right now to get to where we want to go we need to step out from this place we are at. We're really unbalanced and Monsanto is just a symptom, just an expression of the whole.

Thank God, therefore, for the people who have already woke up. They are the healthy seeds we need to rely on to nourish the species.

Posted on Oct 21, 2011 10:40:39 PM PDT
Georgina says:
Organic farming can feed the world. The yields could be there. The catch is the cost. People are in business to make money, the organic wave has occured because big business can finally make money at it - demand is there. They haven't all of a sudden grown a conscience. Many organic/natural major labels are owned by bigger conventional companies.

If you were willing to pay $8/dozen eggs, $10 carton strawberries, and $4-5/head of lettuce...all farms would start being organic. But most people aren't therefore major companies still use conventional methods to eek out every penny of profit. It will be interesting in the years to come, about yield levels. You can only add chemicals and toxins to soil for so long before they just can't take it anymore. Monsanto must pay off media, government and anyone else they can - I never see them on major tv networks or have any links to them nothing on NPR (yes I said NPR)...

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 22, 2011 5:27:05 AM PDT
Forina says:
Because of this sentence :"I said their products are safe to eat, via context ", I do not want to read the rest of your post.Lies,lies,lies

Posted on Oct 22, 2011 9:06:27 AM PDT
Lydia Diaz says:
There are many ways that we can fight back against these chemical giants like Monsanto and ConAgra. For starters, why not visit or They post much information about what's going on with gmo's, and consumers can advocate for labeling of gmo products, which these companies don't want to see. Write to President Obama urging him to express your disappointment at the appointment of Vilsack to the USDA; he's been a long-time friend of agribusiness and Monsanto. Having him oversee the USDA is a conflict of interest. Pressure should continue to be brought to bear on his policies, which support the rights of the people who eat as well as Big Agra. We as consumers have the right to know what products are used to make our food, where it is grown, etc. Consumers can also support small local farms, where many grow food using heirloom seeds and without toxic chemicals. Finally, grow your own food! I do, it's simple to do, and there's nothing better than fresh-picked tomatoes, potatoes, squash, and kale.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2011 9:00:43 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Oct 24, 2011 9:11:56 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2011 2:02:17 PM PDT
Dogly says:
The horror of these frankenfoods is that they do not produce fertile seed. The farmer must buy seed each year from Monsanto, rather than using the free seeds from his last crop. This impoverishes farmers and makes them dependant on and slaves of Monsanto. Does "hummingbirder" work for Monsanto?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2011 2:06:32 PM PDT
Dogly says:
Hummingbirder, You obviously work for Monsanto. Ignore this company troll.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2011 2:48:20 PM PDT
Dogly says:
We've outed Hummingbird, so they send in Jon Maberry - Mayberry! - He's got to be kidding. The name just personifies wholesome small town America. Thanks Monsanto. No,w go away and let us (actual people) talk, please.

Posted on Oct 24, 2011 3:58:13 PM PDT
Debbie Abold says:
Check out the book "Meat is for Pussies" by John Joseph.

Monsanto is disgusting.

Posted on Oct 24, 2011 7:44:01 PM PDT
Alyssha says:
Monsanto killers of life!

Posted on Oct 24, 2011 7:45:01 PM PDT
Alyssha says:
MONSANTO killers of life!

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2011 8:21:27 PM PDT
Perhaps you should read all the articles written over many years on all the good things Monsanto did/does. If only I were younger and could go back to school for Ag...

Posted on Oct 24, 2011 9:49:38 PM PDT
Georgina says:
I sure hope that's full on sarcasm (B.S. Diederich) matter how many food drives & money you donate to any charity that all really comes undone when you purposely kill people. If you knowingly dump chemicals into waterways that town's use and then the town all gets cancer rates exceeding 80% and some die, the "good things" are trumped by this. Just what I want in my society a "good" company that can kill people, pay a fine and nobody held criminally negligent for their behavior...must be nice... (that my friend is sarcasm)

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2011 10:05:52 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 23, 2011 10:11:29 AM PST
Bricktop says:
Both the IAASTD's JAN 2008 Global Report and the Union of Concerned Scientists' April 2009 report (Failure to Yield) agree with your assessment, except for the part about organic. It's chemical farming that can't feed the world.

While crop GE has been hailed by some as critically important for ensuring adequate food supply in the future, it has so far produced only small increases in yields in the United States. Our review of available data on transgenic Bt corn, as well as on transgenic HT corn and soybeans, arrives at an estimated total yield benefit of about 3-4 percent for corn. Individual farmers may achieve substantially higher yields from Bt corn under certain circumstances, such as when corn borer infestations are high, and they may also use Bt corn to reduce exposure to chemical insecticides and for other reasons. But when considering the benefits to society as a whole, the contribution of Bt genes to overall yield in corn has been modest; it is also significant that the yield increases have been from operational yield-reduction in yield losses-rather than from the intrinsic yield of the crop. Moreover, there have been no apparent overall yield increases, operational or intrinsic, from HT corn and soybeans.

This record, compiled over the 13-year period since transgenic crops were first commercialized in the United States, compares unfavorably with the historical and current trends of major-crop yield enhancements that have been achieved by other means. For example, corn yields over the past several decades have increased an average of about 1 percent per year-considerably greater than the increase that can be attributed specifically to GE. Corn yields have increased about 28 percent since Bt corn was first planted commercially (as determined by comparing the average yield for the five years preceding the introduction of Bt corn with the average yield over the past five years). But the 4 percent yield enhancement contributed by Bt varieties constitutes only about 14 percent of this overall corn yield increase, with 86 percent coming from other technologies or methods.

The failure of GE to increase intrinsic yield so far is especially important when considering food sufficiency. Substantial yield increases can be achieved through operational yield, and there is room for achieving huge operational yield increases in much of the developing world. But intrinsic yield sets a ceiling that is proving difficult to surpass. So far, the only technology with a proven record at increasing intrinsic yield is traditional breeding, which now includes genomic methods.

Although GE may have something to contribute to intrinsic yield in the future, it would be foolish to neglect proven breeding technologies while waiting to see if such possibilities materialize. Similarly, sustainable agro-ecological methods are already showing considerable promise for contributing to operational yield, especially in the developing world, where GE has had limited impact so far. It would be better to provide more resources for more promising technologies-traditional and marker-assisted breeding methods and agro-ecological approaches such as organic and low-external-input methods-which currently suffer from meager financial and research support. This does not mean that GE should be abandoned but rather that public resources be shifted to more propitious methods. Such a change in public policy is especially indicated for agro-ecological approaches, which, because they are knowledge-based rather than capital-intensive, are not usually attractive to large companies.

The lack of substantial yield increases has not been due to lack of effort. The several thousand field trials over the last 20 years for genes aimed at increasing operational or intrinsic yield 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 small increases from Bt corn.

The modest past performance of GE crops in enhancing yield suggests caution when considering laudatory claims for the future, although it is always possible that advances in transgenic technology may ultimately produce better results. Still, when evaluating the potential of GE crops to increase yields in coming years, an important factor to consider is that many genes under consideration for yield enhancement have multiple effects on plant phenotypes and development, unlike the relatively straightforward effects of currently commercialized genes. Perhaps most challenging will be avoiding the potentially numerous harmful side effects that may be associated with many of these genes.

Given the tremendous resources being devoted to developing yield-enhancing and other new transgenic crops (as reflected in the considerable increase in field trials aimed at improved yield), it would not be surprising if some of them succeed. It is therefore important to consider the contribution and potential of GE compared to other technologies and methods, such as organic and low-external-input methods, which not only show promise for increasing yield but also provide other significant benefits. These benefits include better soil moisture retention (which improves crop performance during drought), reduced water pollution, and boosts to rural economies and farmers. Putting too many of our crop-development eggs in the GE basket, thereby depriving these other methods of adequate resources, could lead to lost opportunities for improving yields and enhancing other critical aspects of a healthy agriculture.

In order to better ensure that major crops have adequate yields in the coming years, the Union of Concerned Scientists makes the following recommendations:

Public discourse on GE should carefully distinguish between operational yield and intrinsic yield, noting that GE crops to date have not contributed traits that would increase the latter.

* The U.S. Department of Agriculture, state and local agricultural agencies, and public and private universities should redirect substantial funding, research, and incentives toward approaches that are proven and show more promise than genetic engineering for improving crop yields, especially intrinsic crop yields, and for providing other societal benefits. These approaches include modern methods of conventional plant breeding as well as organic and other sophisticated low-input farming practices.
* Food-aid organizations should work with farmers in developing countries, where increasing local levels of food production is an urgent priority, to make these more promising and affordable methods available.
* Relevant regulatory agencies should develop and implement techniques to better identify and evaluate potentially harmful side effects of the newer and more complex genetically engineered crops. These effects are likely to become more prevalent, and current regulations are too weak to detect them reliably and prevent them from occurring.


Researchers from the University of Michigan found that in developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could double or triple using organic methods, said Ivette Perfecto, professor at U-M's School of Natural Resources and Environment, and one the study's principal investigators. Catherine Badgley, research scientist in the Museum of Paleontology, is a co-author of the paper along with several current and former graduate and undergraduate students from U-M.

In addition to equal or greater yields, the authors found that those yields could be accomplished using existing quantities of organic fertilizers, and without putting more farmland into production.

Corporate interest in agriculture and the way agriculture research has been conducted in land grant institutions, with a lot of influence by the chemical companies and pesticide companies as well as fertilizer companies-all have been playing an important role in convincing the public that you need to have these inputs to produce food.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2011 1:56:32 PM PST
C. Yingling says:
No, no, no and no!
MONSANTO is the creator of AGENT ORANGE and NAPALM from VIETNAM, who I have known many family members that have died from AGENT ORANGE. This is not a trust worthy company. Let alone do your research and their GMO products only work with MONSANTO proprietary fertilizers and pesticides, etc. So when you begin growing your GMO crops they will not work unless you have the packaged deal. Not to mention how the crops spread like wildfire in areas they are not meant to grow, but fall short because of lacking the pesticides/fertilizers. Along with cross pollinating with native species, which ruins another farms crop who is using non-monsanto seed/crops.
MONSANTO is also the creator of aspartame, and phenylalanine the most cancerous substances that man puts in their bodies. Which is basically a plot for people on a "DIET" fad. Instantly making diet food poisonous. All diet foods are poisonous thanks to MONSANTO, at least anything commercially packaged. People, aspartame is really flipping bad for you, really flipping bad. If your not sure, listen to your body. As soon as you TASTE something that is like "Wtf....?" spit it out.
Obviously MONSANTO has a bad track record.
ALSO look into MONSANTO and FOX NEWS Case. MONSANTO creating RBST to inject into dairy cows, causing hormones and antibiotics to be passed into dairy products. fox news was going to make a headline about the new controversial health wary product, until Monsanto threatened to sue the news company....

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2011 2:39:54 PM PST
Right on. They are in controling our food. The gov supports them because the gov wants about 2/3rds of us eliminated anyway. It would be nice if the rest of the sheeple would wake up, but, it is too late anyway. It has progressed too far.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2011 2:56:15 PM PST
Karen says:
The problems always come back to money. If large companies get into organics, after a bit they want a bigger profit, so they start skimping on quality. They will fudge and twist standards and cheat until consumers will no longer be able to rely on "organic" labels. Big business and government mess everything up in the name of $$$

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2011 6:02:42 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Nov 23, 2011 6:21:51 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2011 11:25:58 PM PST
Joanna_050 says:
Are you crazy? It now takes 6 times the amount of round-up to kill the resistant bug growth. You obviously have not researched the side effects, the killing of roots (because GMO's cannot reproduce or germinate after the first time). Have you not seen what it has done to farms in the mid-west? the GMO's are actually killing the roots (via air debris) and killing the crops. You have NO idea what you are talking about...and maybe feed this crap to your kids; but not my family! Our farmers now have to take precautions that prevent ONE single grain from destroying their crops. The equipment used, if it comes into contact with ANY GMO must be cleaned atleast 4 times (once per day for 4 days) just to "try" to kill this poison.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Health forum


This discussion

Discussion in:  Health forum
Participants:  182
Total posts:  9653
Initial post:  Sep 23, 2010
Latest post:  13 hours ago

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 17 customers

Search Customer Discussions