Azienda Agricola La Torricella

GMO

Q&A: What does Organic mean, and is it good or bad for us?

Question by : What does Organic mean, and is it good or bad for us?
Does Organic ensure that the animals are treated humanely? Furthermore, could a nation really survive on Organic farming, or are GMOs necessary? Why are GMOs bad in the first place, and what makes organic farming any better?
Also, couldn’t you just avoid the bad effects of GMO if you regulated what was modified and what wasn’t?

Best answer:

Answer by Jason
organic just means that it has not been treated with chemicals. I dont necessary know if it has anything to go with the animals being cruelty free. I dont think a nation could survive ONLY on organic farming alone, due to the increased costs, and lowered volume of products.

What do you think? Answer below!

Government-Funded Institutions Have Been Hiding GMO Information for Years, but Who Is Lying to Who?

For related articles and far more data, please pay a visit to OCA’s Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto web page.

Whilst Monsanto and other Huge Ag and Big Pharma giants have been telling us GMO meals is secure, quoting numerous industry-backed research on the efficacy of their food production by way of biotech science model, the lies they have been telling us are reaching epic proportions. In the meantime, they continue to accuse anti-GM activists of performing the identical.

Take for instance, the allegations of Piero Morandini of the University of Milan, who, way back in 2005, identified that GM maize contained one hundred occasions significantly less fumonisin per kilogram than in standard crops, supposedly far much less than its makers had been telling government agencies. In his findings, GM maize contained much less of this fungal toxin notorious for causing Spina Bifida. These field trials would have been a favorable overview of GM crops. Had been they suppressed?

Fumonisins (FB) are mycotxoins which currently infect corn and other grains in the world, but which are used by biotech businesses to attempt to make crops impervious to pests. The food and agricultural industries already lose millions due to mycotoxins annually, but they have now been bred into our food supply with Bt crops – and Round Up Ready Chemicals.

“Due to the fact FB might have acute and chronic effects, we hypothesize that even in the absence of debilitating acutely toxic amounts of FB in the swine diet program, sustained exposure to little concentrations may possibly negatively have an effect on herd wellness and production efficiency.” (JournalofAnimalScience.org)

The institute which was supposed to conduct unbiased research on the GM maize crop was none other than the government-funded National Institute for Investigation on Food, a component of the National Agriculture and Food Study Organization. This exact same organization is accountable for an anti-GMO report published at EarthOpenSource.org that really clearly explains many problems with GM food.&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp

GMO Food Labels Getting Deemed by Mass. Lawmakers

For connected articles and more details, please go to OCA’s Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto web page and our Massachusetts web page.

BOSTON/State Property – The Massachusetts legislature is at the moment reviewing 3 bills this session that might lead to meals goods containing Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) to carry identifying labels.

In a public hearing Tuesday the Joint Committee on Public Well being deemed testimony for and against the bills, even though about 150 anti-GMO protestors filled the hearing space following a brief rally outside the State Residence.

Jack Kittredge, policy director at the Northeast Organic Farming Association, told Open Media Boston, “the concern of labeling GMO food has been about for quite a even though. GMO food&nbsp&nbsp started getting into the marketplace nearly 20 years ago, and a number of folks have been associating that with a quantity of human health problems ever given that, and much more and far more people are now concerned .”

In testimony to the Committee, Gregory Costa, director of state affairs at the Grocery Manufacturers Association, stated, “offered that the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] and several other scientific and regulatory bodies have determined that food products containing genetically-modified components are secure, and that their material are no different from their standard counterparts, a mandatory label [stating] there’s genetically modified ingredients in the product does not provide the consumer with any helpful info or actionable details .”

The FDA at the moment does not need mandatory labeling, but it does situation recommendations to industry on voluntary labeling of goods containing GMOs, where:

• A bioengineered meals is significantly different from its traditional counterpart,
• If an issue exists for the food or a constituent of the food regarding how the meals is used or consequences of its use,
• If a bioengineered food has a considerably various nutritional house,
• If a new meals consists of an allergen that customers would not expect to be present based on the name of the food.

Kittredge explained the push for meals labeling further, saying “the concept is that people want to be able to have it clear on any kind of food that they get no matter whether it is genetically modified or not, in which case I expect most of them would refuse to acquire it, or get something else, and that would alter the whole marketplace about.”

Prominent Anti-GMO Activist and Environmentalist Sells Out Soon after Being Brainwashed by Frankenscientists

For associated articles and a lot more information, please check out OCA’s Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto web page.

The mainstream media is abuzz with unrelenting fervor and excitement more than the recent conversion of former anti-GMO (genetically-modified organism) scientist Mark Lynas, who now openly embraces GMO technology and insists that he was wrong to oppose GMOs all these years. A self-proclaimed founder of the so-known as “anti-GMO movement,” Lynas now claims that a thorough examination of “science” woke him up to a new reality in which GMOs are no longer an evil solution of the income-grubbing biotechnology business, and are instead the answer to virtually all of mankind’s food and environmental difficulties.

This sudden and virtually schizophrenic shift in opinion by Lynas is getting embraced with open arms by media groups of all political persuasions, which includes each the neoconservative magazine National Review and the traditionally “liberal” New York Instances (NYT), as well as every little thing in amongst. This is hardly surprising, of course, as most of these news sources are straight funded by the likes of each the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, which just so occur to handle huge segments of the American media machine.

Lynas’ conversion hinged on his indoctrination into pro-GMO propaganda

So what precisely persuaded Lynas to make such a dramatic adjust? In a speech he not too long ago gave at the Oxford Farming Conference in the U.K., Lynas explained that he “discovered science,” which undid a lot of years’ worth of “false” beliefs he had about the nature of GMOs. 1 of the first examples Lynas gave as a supposed scientific revelation however, was his discovery that GMOs do not require the increased use of pesticides, a claim also produced by the biotechnology sector, but one particular that does not in fact hold water scientifically or factually by any stretch of the imagination.

As it turns out, GMOs do need far more pesticides and herbicides than standard crops, in spite of what the GMO industry and its media lackeys portend. A 16-year study on crop chemical use that was published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe back in 2012, for instance, identified that the introduction of GMOs into the meals supply has led to a drastic increase in the quantity of herbicide chemicals utilised on crops. According to the information, total herbicide use has enhanced by a whopping 527 million pounds considering that 1996 when GMOs have been 1st introduced. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com)

Canada Might Permit Genetic Traces in Imports

For associated articles and more info, please go to OCA’s Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page, Canada News web page.

Canada is set to unveil to the world its proposal to permit traces of unapproved genetically modified organisms in imported foods, even as government officials admit they don’t trust all countries “equally” when it comes to how they approve use of the organisms.

The federal government’s draft program for managing the low-level presence of GMOs in food and feed products, to be submitted to the Globe Trade Organization in September, will undergo a lot more consultations in Canada.

The initial proposal was to permit the presence of GMOs in food to a maximum level of .1 per cent of any batch or lot tested, what it refers to as a “redefinition of zero” because it believes staying away from trace levels of GMOs altogether will become impossible more than time.

Feedback from industry, organic producers and food authorities throughout a very first round of consultations raised numerous questions, internal records obtained utilizing access to information show.

The records also reveal issues of government officials about how other nations manage their regulatory more than-sight of GMO crops.

The biotechnology industry says these typical traits of GM crops imply they generally have higher yields. Opponents, wary of even trace amounts in foods, raise well being and environmental concerns they really feel warrant mandatory food-labeling guidelines to let consumers know of the presence of GMOs. Without having research tracking the lengthy-term well being effects, they be concerned GMOs could incorporate exposure to allergens, or lead to antibiotic resistance and endocrine disruption.

The explosion of GMO-accepted crops about the world, estimated by the European Commission Joint Investigation Council to jump from about 30 in 2009 to far more than 100 by 2015, implies the accidental low-level presence of GMOs in imported crops is emerging as a main international trade situation.