Counting on Season Four, Part 6

[justoneoftwo]

Just now, Dugg@rTime said:

There's definitely more to the whole GMO debate than just whether it's safe to eat or not.

monsanto have developed GMO crops which are sterile, meaning farmers (including those in the developing world who can ill afford to) cannot save some seed to plant next year. They are stuck buying expensive seed from Monsanto every year.

There's also the issue of GmOs designed to be resistant to certain pesticides and herbicides. This means that farmers can drench the crops in poisons without risking damaging the crop itself. Residues are then found in the food we buy. Not an advancement I'd want IMO.

They have also been known to sue farmers who use the seeds from their heirloom plants the next year if the plant was polarized by their plants.  The new seeds now have their IP in them.  You basically cannot ensure you get to keep your own seeds.  

I don't like the idea of a company owning the rights to all our food supply.  I get the benefit of GMOs but there are things about it that concern me.

[Rachel333]

14 minutes ago, Greendoor said:

As I understand the process, the GMO seeds have pesticides and herbicides in them.  Ie: you are eating Round-up.  There is a whole lot wrong with that.  

The insectides originally used were good til the pests worked up immunity, pesticide stronger got to where it killed the plants.  So they injected the pesticed into the plants as part of their biological make up - the pests die (and then the immunity builds in the bugs so the plants get more in them). 

I plant and gather seeds from my home garden.  I am not prepared to eat toxic chemicals where and when I can avoid it.  

Yeah, that's not really how that works. They have some genes to make the plants naturally pest-resistant, but that's not the same as eating Round-Up at all. GMO crops actually require less pesticide, though herbicide use has gone up. "Pesticide" doesn't mean "dangerous to eat" anyway, there are lots of natural pesticides.

I do agree with concerns on how Monsanto business practices affect farmers, but that's a totally different discussion from whether GMO's are safe to eat, which almost all scientists agree they are.

[geergirl]

6 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

Yeah, that's not really how that works. They have some genes to make the plants naturally pest-resistant, but that's not the same as eating Round-Up at all. GMO crops actually require less pesticide, though herbicide use has gone up. "Pesticide" doesn't mean "dangerous to eat" anyway, there are lots of natural pesticides.

I do agree with concerns on how Monsanto business practices affect farmers, but that's a totally different discussion from whether GMO's are safe to eat, which almost all scientists agree they are.

This is where I'm at.  

I am curious how many anti-GMO advocates are more than 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon removed from a farmer or food scientist.  I feel so removed from the business and my dad is still farming.  Our disconnect from our food supply does us no favours as a society IMO.  

[KelseyAnn]

35 minutes ago, Dugg@rTime said:

There's definitely more to the whole GMO debate than just whether it's safe to eat or not.

As a couple of examples:

monsanto have developed GMO crops which are sterile, meaning farmers (including those in the developing world who can ill afford to) cannot save some seed to plant next year. They are stuck buying expensive seed from Monsanto every year.

There's also the issue of GmOs designed to be resistant to certain pesticides and herbicides. This means that farmers can drench the crops in poisons without risking damaging the crop itself. Residues are then found in the food we buy. Not an advancement I'd want IMO.

There is also the bullshit that Mansatoa is allowed to sue whatever poor farmer happens to wind up with thier crops in thier fields. Which happens through no fault of thier own. 

[Greendoor]

My family gardened in a large way, we grew the vegetables we need for the year.  Bushels of carrots etc.  My  mother bought lettuce in the winter and at Christmas, brussell sprouts.  We grew darn near everything else.  Canned, froze, pickeled, made preserves and jams.  

I don't think I am "6 degress from Kevin Bacon" (not sure what that means), I am an organic gardner.  I have a much smaller yard than my family had growing up, but I still feed us over summer and early fall with some frozen.  

[Rachel333]

3 minutes ago, KelseyAnn said:

There is also the bullshit that Mansatoa is allowed to sue whatever poor farmer happens to wind up with thier crops in thier fields. Which happens through no fault of thier own. 

Yeah, I agree, it's ridiculous that Monsanto can do that.

[justoneoftwo]

1 minute ago, Rachel333 said:

Yeah, I agree, it's ridiculous that Monsanto can do that.

And, because the plants are sterile they can eliminate the ability of the farmer to get his or her old heirloom plants back.  What I do in my yard has a huge impact on what happens to my neighbors plants, people should keep that in mind.

Finally, we should be looking at how the GMOs are impacting the bee populations.  We don't know what is causing the hives to die, but its a problem and various pesticides appear to be related to it.

[keen23]

24 minutes ago, KelseyAnn said:

There is also the bullshit that Mansatoa is allowed to sue whatever poor farmer happens to wind up with thier crops in thier fields. Which happens through no fault of thier own. 

ONCE in 1999. Monsanto sued ONE farmer, in Canada, who intentionally saved seed from Canola plants that were growing next to his neighbor's field of Monsanto Canola. But there was no financial settlement in favor of Monsanto, since no one profited.

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted

[Rachel333]

5 minutes ago, keen23 said:

ONCE in 1999. Monsanto sued ONE farmer, in Canada, who intentionally saved seed from Canola plants that were growing next to his neighbor's field of Monsanto Canola. But there was no financial settlement in favor of Monsanto, since no one profited.

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted

I wasn't aware of that so that's good to know, thanks!

It seems like that might have become a thing that people (including myself!) like to talk about being awful without knowing all the facts, like the lady who was ridiculed for suing McDonald's for spilling coffee on herself when the facts were not so mockworthy.

[ark]

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/mississippi-farmers-lose-monsanto-seed-saving-case/article_cbc0a689-c2c7-5f7e-840a-86b21aee04ef.html

 

This suit was in my neck of the woods...

[keen23]

34 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

And, because the plants are sterile they can eliminate the ability of the farmer to get his or her old heirloom plants back.  What I do in my yard has a huge impact on what happens to my neighbors plants, people should keep that in mind.

Finally, we should be looking at how the GMOs are impacting the bee populations.  We don't know what is causing the hives to die, but its a problem and various pesticides appear to be related to it.

There are only 8 types of GMO seeds available, and they are only sold to commercial growers. Corn, soybeans, canola, alfalfa, sugar beets, papaya, squash and cotton. Your neighbor's backyard garden isn't growing GMO crops.

Just now, ark said:

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/mississippi-farmers-lose-monsanto-seed-saving-case/article_cbc0a689-c2c7-5f7e-840a-86b21aee04ef.html

 

This suit was in my neck of the woods...

In this case, the farmers were intentionally trying to avoid paying royalties to Monsanto. They were not alleging that their crops were accidentally infected from the fields next door.

Also, doesn't this negate the claim that GMO plants are sterile?

[Rachel333]

From the article @keen23 linked to, here's another myth that has been discussed on this thread.

Quote

Myth 1: Seeds from GMOs are sterile.

No, they'll germinate and grow just like any other plant. This idea presumably has its roots in a real genetic modification (dubbed the Terminator Gene by anti-biotech activists) that can make a plant produce sterile seeds. Monsanto owns the patent on this technique, but has promised not to use it.

Now, biotech companies — and Monsanto in particular — do seem to wish that this idea were true. They do their best to keep farmers from replanting the offspring from GMOs. But they do this because, in fact, those seeds will multiply.

 

[Irene]

When does the next season starts?

[brookeb82]

1 minute ago, Irene said:

When does the next season starts?

Sept 11

[Daisy0322]

2 hours ago, bananabread said:

Oddly, the more they show of Jinger, the less I like her. She just seems ditsy and extremely sheltered. On the flip side, Jessa has become more nurturing/mature/self-aware over time. So interesting.

Yes! 100% agree. Jinger is coming off more and more childish and like a lost little girl with no thoughts or opinions of her own. Where Jessa on the other hand is in my opinion blossoming into adulthood more gracefully. Even if she doesn't believe what I do or live the way I'd live I can respect that she has independent thoughts and opinions and I think she's kinda the brains behind most the counting on operation. 

2 hours ago, RhythmicSkater said:

My impression of Jinger is that she doesn't enjoy the spotlight, but this is her 'job'. It was most likely TLC money that bought them the house, and I'm sure they like the extra income. I also think she's trying to distance herself from the family somewhat, and that comes off as annoying and ditzy. I get the same vibe from Alyssa Bates, minus the fact that she clearly enjoys the spotlight. 

Hey if Jinger wants off TV she's a grown married women lol I agree that she seems to look at her family like RET are the circus sideshow act though. 

[Greendoor]

30 minutes ago, brookeb82 said:

Sept 11

Lol!  I was think to plant a fall veg garden!  End of July to harvest in Nov.

 

[LuckyShot]

52 minutes ago, Dugg@rTime said:

There's definitely more to the whole GMO debate than just whether it's safe to eat or not.

As a couple of examples:

monsanto have developed GMO crops which are sterile, meaning farmers (including those in the developing world who can ill afford to) cannot save some seed to plant next year. They are stuck buying expensive seed from Monsanto every year.

There's also the issue of GmOs designed to be resistant to certain pesticides and herbicides. This means that farmers can drench the crops in poisons without risking damaging the crop itself. Residues are then found in the food we buy. Not an advancement I'd want IMO.

I am a farmer. My farm has been in the family for over a century and land stewardship is very important to us. Because of the advent of GM crops we are able to actually spray less chemical, and what we do spray is less toxic. No farmer is going around drenching a crop in chemical just because they can. Chemical is expensive and we only use it when necessary. Having GM crops just means we have more options for chemicals and can manage weeds and pests more effectively. It's been a great advancement for our farm.

It is true that Monsanto owns the patent on their GM crops, which is within their rights. Every farmer who buys seed from them signs an agreement that says the will not save seed to grow the next year. Since Monsanto put a lot of time and money into developing the seed I think it's fair that I agree not to steal their technology. The seed is not sterile and some farmers do keep it and reuse it, which is illegal. Those are the farmers who end up in court. Monsanto has never sued a farmer over accidental cross contamination. I don't agree with all of Monsanto's practices but they aren't the devil that so many make them out to be.

There are also options for farmers who don't want to deal with Monsanto. There are other companies who produce GM seed. They require you to sign a similar agreement to Monsanto agreeing not to reuse seed, which again I think is fair. There are also still nonGM varieties of seed available from various companies for farmers who don't want to grow them. Many farmers who don't grow GM crops still buy seed every year though, either because they're growing hybrids or because they want to be assured of varietal purity in their seed.

I hope this is helpful at least to some. There is so much misinformation spread about GMOs and conventional farming practices nowadays, the gap between producer and consumer just seems to keep growing. 

[MadeItOut]

5 hours ago, Queen said:

That is, indeed, a scary thought. 

I hope his army turns on him!

I don't think we have to worry. I'm reminded of a quote from Thora Herd in 'Last of the Summer Wine': "Feed 'em on stodge. The'll not get far on stodge".

2 hours ago, Rachel333 said:

Dr. Phil never had a medical license to begin with, he's a psychologist. Dr. Drew and Dr. Oz still have theirs, though. Dr. Oz is actually a very talented cardiac surgeon and still does surgeries, but he's also chosen to peddle bullshit on tv. He reminds me of Ben Carson in that they're both really good at what they do but do and say really dumb stuff outside of surgery because they've apparently gotten addicted to fame.

Doesn't a psychologist require a medical degree in the states?

[Rachel333]

11 minutes ago, MadeItOut said:

I don't think we have to worry. I'm remixed of a quote from Thora Herd in 'Last of the Summer Wine': "Feed 'em on stodge. The'll not get far on stodge.

Doesn't a psychologist require a medical degree in the states?

Nope, a psychologist has a PhD while a psychiatrist has a medical degree (MD or DO).

[BlessaYourHeart]

I have TLC UK on in the background here and I heard a familiar voice and looked up. Well if it wasn't an advert for counting on. 

Says the 'new series' starts Monday at 8pm but looks to be the series of Jingers wedding prep so not the new season the US has 

[Carm_88]

15 minutes ago, MadeItOut said:

Doesn't a psychologist require a medical degree in the states?

A psychiatrist requires a medical degree, a psychologist does not. 

[MadeItOut]

Wow.

[Bad Wolf]

A psychologist can't prescribe meds.

[kachuu]

4 hours ago, VBOY9977 said:

does someone know what actually went on in that picture? I wanna if Joy threw herself at him lol or maybe he was just turning to kiss her??

They were being playful and I think she just darted in quick.

 

Jessa had a 'TUDE when it came to the game. She was NOT happy about some of those answers!!

[Snarkle Motion]

12 minutes ago, Carm_88 said:

A psychiatrist requires a medical degree, a psychologist does not. 

Psychologists still need a license to practice. Dr. Phil is actually controversial in the field because he practiced without a license. Someone I went to grad school with was weirdly obsessed and always made a big deal about it. But yeah, you still need credentials to practice therapy but some people get around it by calling it something like "life coaching" and not billing insurance.