You have no idea what I have no idea about.
I do know that we are NOT healthier.
I do know that genetic engineering is NOT necessary to transport produce.... or can tomatoes.
I paid attention in school.
You are a hard act to follow.
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Monsanto's Really needs to be STOPPED HELP
- Thread starter HighDesertJoe
- Start date
- Status
You have no idea what I have no idea about.
I do know that we are NOT healthier.
I do know that genetic engineering is NOT necessary to transport produce.... or can tomatoes.
I paid attention in school.
You are a hard act to follow.
from the organic seed aliance...
A Brief History of the Development of the Seed Industry –
The Shift from Public to Private Seed Systems
One hundred fifty years ago the United States did not have a commercial seed industry; today we have the world’s largest.* Some view this as real progress, a form of genetic Manifest Destiny. A nation once a ‘debtor’ in plant genetics now supplies the world. In 1854, seeds were sourced in the U.S. by way of a small number of horticultural seed catalogs, farmer (or gardener) exchange, on-farm seed saving, and through the beneficence of the United States government. Specifically, beginning in the 1850s, the U.S. Patent and Trade Office (PTO) and congressional representatives saw to the collection, propagation and distribution of varieties to their constituents throughout the states and territories. The program grew quickly so that, by 1861, the PTO had annual distribution of more than 2.4 million packages of seed (containing five packets of different varieties). The flow of seed reached its highest volume in 1897 (under USDA management) – with more than 1.1 billion packets of seed distributed.
The government’s objectives in funding such a massive movement of seed stemmed from the recognition that feeding an expanding continent would require a diversification of foods. To the early colonies, the introduction of wheat, rye, oats, peas, cabbage and many other vegetable crops was as critical to food security as was the adoption of the corn, beans and squash. Immigrants were encourage to bring seed from the old country, founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson engaged in seed-exchange societies, and by 1819 the U.S. Treasury Department issued a directive to its overseas consultants and Navy officers to systematically collect plant materials.
The first commercial seed crop was not produced until 1866—cabbage seed produced on Long Island for the U.S. wholesale market. The industry flourished to some degree, but early seed trade professionals felt their growth was stymied by the U.S. government programs as well as the self-replicating nature of their product (that is, the factory contained within that product). In 1883, the American Seed Trade Association (ASTA) formed and immediately lobbied for the cessation of the government programs. The organization developed powerful allies, such as Grover Cleveland’s Secretary of Agriculture, J. Sterling Morton, who wrote that the government giveaway was “antagonistic to seed as a commodity-form and in direct competition with the private seed trade.” But the program was very popular with constituents, and the USDA’s seed budget was kept intact – at one point counting for a full 10 percent of the agency’s overall annual expenditures.
In the early part of the 20th century, the first wave of hybrids began to provide seed companies with a potential increase in product profitability (as farmers would now need to return to the seed distributor for materials each year). However, most of the hybrid development was occurring at Land Grant Universities, and these universities refused to give the companies exclusive rights to the seed. Once again, the industry felt its growth hindered by federal programs and complained of unfair trade practices. Mounting data also indicated a slowing in yield increases from seed developed in government programs. The industry used this last point to strengthen its argument for the privatization of seed development in order to foster greater food security.
In 1924, after more than 40 years of lobbying, ASTA succeeded in convincing Congress to cut the USDA seed distribution programs. The USDA still supported breeding at the state agricultural schools, and for a time these programs continued to compete with seed companies by developing ‘finished’ commercial varieties. Associations such as the American Society of Agronomy and American Society of Horticulture Science eventually convinced the public programs that their appropriate role was in training plant breeders, performing fundamental research, and creating raw materials and technologies for private industry to capitalize on. The LGUs began to increasingly serve in this capacity, developing inbred parental lines and breeding stock that the seed trade would use to create proprietary varieties.
These changes in the public role, along with improvements in hybrid techniques, led to the growth of the seed trade following World War II. The trade was well represented during this period by regional companies. The conversion to monocropping and large-scale corporate agriculture had not yet moved into full swing. The Santa Clara Valley grew vegetables and fruit and not internet startups, and Americans still planted their Victory Gardens. The seed trade reflected this diversity in food production.
In the 1960s, a few larger seed firms began to purchase smaller companies (mostly to acquire strong hybrid holdings). But the consolidations of this period were minor compared to the frenzy that would come with a Supreme Court ruling on June 16, 1980, in the case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty. Prior to the Chakrabarty decision, a plant (or animal) could be owned, but the genetics could not. This case cleared the patenting of life forms on the bases of their genetic coding. The PTO granted more than 1,800 such patents following the ruling. Companies that had no historical seed interests—primarily chemical and pharmaceutical firms—began purchasing seed companies. In a few short years, there were billions of dollars in mergers and acquisitions—with little to no regulatory oversight—creating for the first time a majority ownership of plant genetics by a few multinational companies. No other natural resource (marine, timber, minerals) has ever shifted from public to private hands with such rapidity, such intensity of concentration, and so little oversight.
A Brief History of the Development of the Seed Industry –
The Shift from Public to Private Seed Systems
One hundred fifty years ago the United States did not have a commercial seed industry; today we have the world’s largest.* Some view this as real progress, a form of genetic Manifest Destiny. A nation once a ‘debtor’ in plant genetics now supplies the world. In 1854, seeds were sourced in the U.S. by way of a small number of horticultural seed catalogs, farmer (or gardener) exchange, on-farm seed saving, and through the beneficence of the United States government. Specifically, beginning in the 1850s, the U.S. Patent and Trade Office (PTO) and congressional representatives saw to the collection, propagation and distribution of varieties to their constituents throughout the states and territories. The program grew quickly so that, by 1861, the PTO had annual distribution of more than 2.4 million packages of seed (containing five packets of different varieties). The flow of seed reached its highest volume in 1897 (under USDA management) – with more than 1.1 billion packets of seed distributed.
The government’s objectives in funding such a massive movement of seed stemmed from the recognition that feeding an expanding continent would require a diversification of foods. To the early colonies, the introduction of wheat, rye, oats, peas, cabbage and many other vegetable crops was as critical to food security as was the adoption of the corn, beans and squash. Immigrants were encourage to bring seed from the old country, founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson engaged in seed-exchange societies, and by 1819 the U.S. Treasury Department issued a directive to its overseas consultants and Navy officers to systematically collect plant materials.
The first commercial seed crop was not produced until 1866—cabbage seed produced on Long Island for the U.S. wholesale market. The industry flourished to some degree, but early seed trade professionals felt their growth was stymied by the U.S. government programs as well as the self-replicating nature of their product (that is, the factory contained within that product). In 1883, the American Seed Trade Association (ASTA) formed and immediately lobbied for the cessation of the government programs. The organization developed powerful allies, such as Grover Cleveland’s Secretary of Agriculture, J. Sterling Morton, who wrote that the government giveaway was “antagonistic to seed as a commodity-form and in direct competition with the private seed trade.” But the program was very popular with constituents, and the USDA’s seed budget was kept intact – at one point counting for a full 10 percent of the agency’s overall annual expenditures.
In the early part of the 20th century, the first wave of hybrids began to provide seed companies with a potential increase in product profitability (as farmers would now need to return to the seed distributor for materials each year). However, most of the hybrid development was occurring at Land Grant Universities, and these universities refused to give the companies exclusive rights to the seed. Once again, the industry felt its growth hindered by federal programs and complained of unfair trade practices. Mounting data also indicated a slowing in yield increases from seed developed in government programs. The industry used this last point to strengthen its argument for the privatization of seed development in order to foster greater food security.
In 1924, after more than 40 years of lobbying, ASTA succeeded in convincing Congress to cut the USDA seed distribution programs. The USDA still supported breeding at the state agricultural schools, and for a time these programs continued to compete with seed companies by developing ‘finished’ commercial varieties. Associations such as the American Society of Agronomy and American Society of Horticulture Science eventually convinced the public programs that their appropriate role was in training plant breeders, performing fundamental research, and creating raw materials and technologies for private industry to capitalize on. The LGUs began to increasingly serve in this capacity, developing inbred parental lines and breeding stock that the seed trade would use to create proprietary varieties.
These changes in the public role, along with improvements in hybrid techniques, led to the growth of the seed trade following World War II. The trade was well represented during this period by regional companies. The conversion to monocropping and large-scale corporate agriculture had not yet moved into full swing. The Santa Clara Valley grew vegetables and fruit and not internet startups, and Americans still planted their Victory Gardens. The seed trade reflected this diversity in food production.
In the 1960s, a few larger seed firms began to purchase smaller companies (mostly to acquire strong hybrid holdings). But the consolidations of this period were minor compared to the frenzy that would come with a Supreme Court ruling on June 16, 1980, in the case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty. Prior to the Chakrabarty decision, a plant (or animal) could be owned, but the genetics could not. This case cleared the patenting of life forms on the bases of their genetic coding. The PTO granted more than 1,800 such patents following the ruling. Companies that had no historical seed interests—primarily chemical and pharmaceutical firms—began purchasing seed companies. In a few short years, there were billions of dollars in mergers and acquisitions—with little to no regulatory oversight—creating for the first time a majority ownership of plant genetics by a few multinational companies. No other natural resource (marine, timber, minerals) has ever shifted from public to private hands with such rapidity, such intensity of concentration, and so little oversight.
People can help others by helping themselves.
The fritillary seed collective have been aware of Monsanto for many years (it good to see other catching on) and have made active steps in-breed rare heirloom varieties of food crops for future generation of organic growers to grow, eat and enjoy.
Harvesting healthy food is a birthright
Click the butterfly below for information about fritillary collective veggie seed multi-packs at seedbay.
The fritillary seed collective have been aware of Monsanto for many years (it good to see other catching on) and have made active steps in-breed rare heirloom varieties of food crops for future generation of organic growers to grow, eat and enjoy.
Harvesting healthy food is a birthright
Click the butterfly below for information about fritillary collective veggie seed multi-packs at seedbay.
E
elmanito
Flavor is not only genetics, but the cultivation method is also important.Tomatoes cultivated on rockwool contains more water and less sugar than the ones cultivated on soil from the same variety.The use of Sea-Crop for instance showed in different researches that the TDS increased but also sugarcontent, phytonutrients, vitamins etc.
Durood Bar Shoma
Well if you don't know that we are healthier then look it up.
Genetics play a large part in produce shipping as does other science (for example, Muscat grapes have a distinct and desired flavor. Problem was that Muscats, once cut from the vine, deteriorated rapidly and the variety died. Now science is bringing back the flavor of Muscats in new varieties that have a much longer shelf life.) And Science (war science) brought you canned tomatos.
Pay attention.
Where do you get your information?
We are not healthier.
Muscats are not extinct.
Breeding isn't genetic engineering.
DNA manipulation is one facet of science... the facet you were upholding as the answer to the world's problems.
Now you are just saying "science" like those who aren't proGMO are against science.
Get your facts straight and clean out your ears.
N. Accumbens
Member
Science or religion or both???
Someone must be blamed!!!!
...or do we need to stop posting and start growing more food and meds methinks...
Id like to mention this is the exchange which brought europe things like tomatoes and corn... and which brought to the americas, such fine things as grapes.
Joy!
No matter which choice is accounted for, there will always be pros and cons, its a matter of priorities. Money or health, since I have become firmly rooted in the belief that money will not buy me health... it seems like it could but its a trick... be aware!
I choose non manipulated, yummy, locally bred veggies grown organically in my garden... and Id also ask we stop putting nasties in the air. Gosh theres so much more to say, but even more to grow...
Take care folks...
Oh and cheers to Frit, and Doc. Noticing their amazing idea we have adopted similar strategies to include veggie seeds as part of a sustainable program for replenishing genetic commodities, I would urge others to do the same
Someone must be blamed!!!!
...or do we need to stop posting and start growing more food and meds methinks...
Id like to mention this is the exchange which brought europe things like tomatoes and corn... and which brought to the americas, such fine things as grapes.
Joy!
No matter which choice is accounted for, there will always be pros and cons, its a matter of priorities. Money or health, since I have become firmly rooted in the belief that money will not buy me health... it seems like it could but its a trick... be aware!
I choose non manipulated, yummy, locally bred veggies grown organically in my garden... and Id also ask we stop putting nasties in the air. Gosh theres so much more to say, but even more to grow...
Take care folks...
Oh and cheers to Frit, and Doc. Noticing their amazing idea we have adopted similar strategies to include veggie seeds as part of a sustainable program for replenishing genetic commodities, I would urge others to do the same
I didn't say we weren't living longer.
But if living longer with obesity, heart disease, strokes, cancer, dementia, and alzheimer's is healthy then we should be healthy and happy well into our tenth decade soon.
Given the explosion in Type II diabetes, not just a huge increase, but a scary future because children as young as 12 are being hit with this disease. It's one thing like in the past when Type II was an 'old person's disease' and you knew that you probably could pull out 10 years and maybe even 15. The number of years that these 'healthy children' will loose is truly sad.
Let's hope that the new and improved modified Muscat grapes fare better than Calgene's Flavr Savr disaster.
Calgene was later acquired by Monsanto - of course.
Even the rats in the testing labs at UC Davis wouldn't eat these tomatoes - they literally had to be force-fed. We sat out Flavr Savr deal and were rewarded in spades with increased business & revenue from grocery store chains not wanting to get involved in the crap being promoted and pushed by the kids at Calgene. It's fitting that Monsanto bought them - it fits into their business model(s).
CC
Let's talk about Wal-Mart milk for a moment you know the Family Value's crap thats on average 2-2.35 cheaper per gallon than say anything else.
rBST is a growth hormone that is given to dairy cows to make them give more milk and has FINALLY been proven to upset the minstrel cycle of women. It wasn't until a DR published a thesis ONLINE that anybody knew about it and when this said DR went to his next convention he was shocked to find it harmed THOUSANDS of women across the country.
We can play god to a certain point imho. But when we do something out of simple greed is when MAN as a whole will always fail.
rBST does absolutely nothing to improve the taste of the milk. It does not make it better for you it simply allows a cow to provide on average 20% more milk and in the end causes infections of the udders. Instead of the obvious answer of getting more cows.
Women have had cycles of 2-3 years going from Dr to Dr to find out why they were sick and damn near bleeding to death all because Suck-Mart was able to keep it under wraps as long as they did.
For fact of this farce simply google Wal-Mart milk and or rBST and you will find hundreds of story's all having the same symptoms and all going away once they stop drinking it.
So lets bottom line this for a moment.
I have a synthetic (man made drug) that I can inject into my cow to make her give me 20% more milk but it will hurt her and some of those who drink it BUT I do it anyway.
If that's not Corporate Greed I have no idea what is.
Oh and I say Corporate greed because Wal-Mart own the farms,they bought them from the bankruptcy court AFTER they refused to sell their milk anymore and they went udders up. (sound familiar?)
Have A Nice Day
Mr.Wags
Well sayd MrWags......
Do you remember BSE???? no more mad cow!!!!
Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy
Do you remember BSE???? no more mad cow!!!!
Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy
Sadly we lost some of the finest ancient breeds of dairy and beef herd at that time. One day we will wake up and all beef will taste like mcdonalds.. lol
I would feel like a force fed rat everytime I didn't have a choice that I'd like to choose.
We need to maintain lines because soon many will have less and less of a choice.
Choosing entirely nonGMO products is becoming very difficult... especially for those with lower incomes.
I feel that we are subject to trickery moreso than progress... label it how you may.
Terminator genes should show you what Monsanto considers the future.
Shipping Tomatoes
In the retail produce sector there are 5 items that comprise 75% of total sales with bananas being the #1 revenue source in the entire supermarket.
Tomatoes are another one of the "Heavy 5" and setting aside the boutique tomatoes like Cherry Toms, Grape Toms, et al. the major thrust is in what consumers mistakenly refer to as 'Beefsteak Tomatoes'
Between 18-20% of this market is in what are called 'Layered Tomatoes' and these are of uniform size and you buy them and specify the size - like 4 x 6 means that there are 4 tomatoes across the box and it's 6 rows deep. This is the largest size generally available with 5 x 6 and 6 x 6 being the sizes most often ordered.
These tomatoes are picked when they hit a light pink color - kinda like pulling your cannabis flowers in Week 4 or 5. It looks like the real deal (sort of) but not much benefit.
The rest of the industry buys tomatoes in 25# lugs and these are picked green. Extremely green. They're referred to as 'gassed greens' because when they hit the wholesale distributors, grocery store distribution centers, et al. they have to be processed for several days in the gas chambers.
Both types will be placed in what are called ripening rooms where ethylene gas is injected into the sealed room and this brings them 'to color' - these are the same rooms used to ripen bananas. Produce managers order bananas according to an established color chart. A #1 banana is solid green and a #5 is completely yellow and is showing a large number of sugar spots (the brown ones). Avocados are another commodity that requires some time in the ripening room.
A tomato in order to taste like a tomato requires that it ripen on the vine. Just like growing cannabis, monitoring the ripening of the flowers and moving forward with your 'nute schedule' will, hopefully, give you the results you're looking for.
So what are tomato shippers looking for? It's certainly not flavor. Mineral levels a concern? Nope! But the shelf life to take into consideration of moving the product from the sheds to operations on the East Coast - landed viability is the issue.
So that's why your tomatoes taste like crap and the ones you buy that are grown locally by people who actually give a sh*t on what they bring to the table (pun sort of intended) - now you'll be eating real food.
Given the level of technology that has gone into the hydroponic greenhouse operations in Europe and North America it would seem to me that one of these jamokes could produce a tomato that tasted like something other than lightly flavored water.
CC
In the retail produce sector there are 5 items that comprise 75% of total sales with bananas being the #1 revenue source in the entire supermarket.
Tomatoes are another one of the "Heavy 5" and setting aside the boutique tomatoes like Cherry Toms, Grape Toms, et al. the major thrust is in what consumers mistakenly refer to as 'Beefsteak Tomatoes'
Between 18-20% of this market is in what are called 'Layered Tomatoes' and these are of uniform size and you buy them and specify the size - like 4 x 6 means that there are 4 tomatoes across the box and it's 6 rows deep. This is the largest size generally available with 5 x 6 and 6 x 6 being the sizes most often ordered.
These tomatoes are picked when they hit a light pink color - kinda like pulling your cannabis flowers in Week 4 or 5. It looks like the real deal (sort of) but not much benefit.
The rest of the industry buys tomatoes in 25# lugs and these are picked green. Extremely green. They're referred to as 'gassed greens' because when they hit the wholesale distributors, grocery store distribution centers, et al. they have to be processed for several days in the gas chambers.
Both types will be placed in what are called ripening rooms where ethylene gas is injected into the sealed room and this brings them 'to color' - these are the same rooms used to ripen bananas. Produce managers order bananas according to an established color chart. A #1 banana is solid green and a #5 is completely yellow and is showing a large number of sugar spots (the brown ones). Avocados are another commodity that requires some time in the ripening room.
A tomato in order to taste like a tomato requires that it ripen on the vine. Just like growing cannabis, monitoring the ripening of the flowers and moving forward with your 'nute schedule' will, hopefully, give you the results you're looking for.
So what are tomato shippers looking for? It's certainly not flavor. Mineral levels a concern? Nope! But the shelf life to take into consideration of moving the product from the sheds to operations on the East Coast - landed viability is the issue.
So that's why your tomatoes taste like crap and the ones you buy that are grown locally by people who actually give a sh*t on what they bring to the table (pun sort of intended) - now you'll be eating real food.
Given the level of technology that has gone into the hydroponic greenhouse operations in Europe and North America it would seem to me that one of these jamokes could produce a tomato that tasted like something other than lightly flavored water.
CC
Thomkal Vwalaa
Member
The only way I see out of the GMO loop is CSA: Community Supported Agriculture.
jamesbrownghost
Member
I HATE MONSANTO!!! Soon it will be illegal to grow anything, not just MJ....
I agree that hydroponic production is environmentally friendly. It increases yields with reduced water and fertilizer usage. It also reduces fertilizer leaching and pesticide usage. However, I am not aware of a viable hydroponic method for the production of grains etc.
In my opinion with an increase in research into production organic farming techniques yield and commercial viability will increase. For example look at rodales covercrop roller. http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/no-till_revolution
These tools are mostly homemade as they are not cheap or readily available. They allow the farmer to quickly kill a cover crop, lay that crop as a durable mulch layer that will not blow away. Then with a modified seeder replant. A tool like that will make it possible for no-till farming methods to reach the commercial level. Imagine what else could be accomplished if half the effort and money spent of GMO's etc was used for organic research.
In my opinion with an increase in research into production organic farming techniques yield and commercial viability will increase. For example look at rodales covercrop roller. http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/no-till_revolution
These tools are mostly homemade as they are not cheap or readily available. They allow the farmer to quickly kill a cover crop, lay that crop as a durable mulch layer that will not blow away. Then with a modified seeder replant. A tool like that will make it possible for no-till farming methods to reach the commercial level. Imagine what else could be accomplished if half the effort and money spent of GMO's etc was used for organic research.
E
elmanito
Durood Bar Shoma
- Status
