Trying to Get GMO Alfalfa into Canada Now

Farmers are already concerned. No approval yet but it's hard to be hopeful when politicians are involved.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Fowler wrote:Farmers are already concerned. No approval yet but it's hard to be hopeful when politicians are involved.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Of all the stupid ideas, GMO grass has to be darn near the top.

Its criminal!

Alfalfa is not a grass, it is a legume, and one I am highly allergic to.

I wonder how this alfalfa has been 'improved' with GMO modification. I hate it when an article lacks important information.

I think it's a 'Roundup Ready' type. As I recall, I got pushed through in the States without proper testing.

A protest is planned.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I was thinking about this on the way to school and suspected it was a roundup ready variety. To play devil's advocate, roundup ready alfalfa would be a very useful crop.

Schipperkesue wrote:I was thinking about this on the way to school and suspected it was a roundup ready variety. To play devil's advocate, roundup ready alfalfa would be a very useful crop.

I don't agree that round-up ready anything is useful. My water sources are contaminated with it, soil degredation is a problem around here and Round-up also causes an imbalance of metals in the soil including aluminum and Boron, essentially, slowly, steralizing the soil, creating a dependance on petro-chemical fertilizers in order to keep the ground able to grow something.

Not to mention, if for no other reason, my pasture is Alfalfa, and I don't need people growing GMO Alfalfa around me, giving monsanto's goons the 'right' to do testing on the alfalfa in my field, suing me to death if they find any cross contamination as I'm not 'authorized' to grow their product without purchasing the rights and entering into contract. There is so much evidence against all this that it is completely ludicrous that ANY government, let alone ours, is even considering this. However, I suppose, when you're backed by Big Ag and Major Pharmaceutical companies, you'll do whatever the money says you'll do, the health of your people be damned.


"Concerns are growing, though, about the potential
adverse impacts of RR alfalfa. Studies are just now
revealing the health fallout of too much GMO corn,
soy, canola meal, and cottonseed cake in livestock
feed. Monsanto uses the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus
(CMV) to insert RR traits in its GMO crops, and this
same promoter virus in alfalfa could have the
potential to disrupt the balance of intestinal
microflora and reactivate other dormant pathogens."

From: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

For myself, I'm not interested in use. They can make purple with pink polka dot alfalfa for all I care. Just as long as it is properly tested for environmental impact before it is released. Time and again, they fail to do that.

Schipperkesue wrote:I was thinking about this on the way to school and suspected it was a roundup ready variety. To play devil's advocate, roundup ready alfalfa would be a very useful crop.

Who sprays roundup on alfalfa?

Country Thyme Farm wrote:

Schipperkesue wrote:I was thinking about this on the way to school and suspected it was a roundup ready variety. To play devil's advocate, roundup ready alfalfa would be a very useful crop.

Who sprays roundup on alfalfa?

If you had roundup ready alfalfa but a lot of undesirable weeds were also in the field, you could spray the field with round up, kill the weeds, and leave your alfalfa field intact. I have an alfalfa field full of thistles. I don't even want to touch that dry hay. Ouch! I go through the field each year and selectively kill the weeds. The field is only an acre and I can do this. It would not be possible on a larger field. If it were roundup ready alfalfa I could spray the field, kill the weeds, but not the alfalfa.

Schipperkesue wrote:

Country Thyme Farm wrote:

Schipperkesue wrote:I was thinking about this on the way to school and suspected it was a roundup ready variety. To play devil's advocate, roundup ready alfalfa would be a very useful crop.

Who sprays roundup on alfalfa?

If you had roundup ready alfalfa but a lot of undesirable weeds were also in the field, you could spray the field with round up, kill the weeds, and leave your alfalfa field intact. I have an alfalfa field full of thistles. I don't even want to touch that dry hay. Ouch! I go through the field each year and selectively kill the weeds. The field is only an acre and I can do this. It would not be possible on a larger field. If it were roundup ready alfalfa I could spray the field, kill the weeds, but not the alfalfa.

...never heard of anyone spraying Alfafa ? but maybe those who just grow to sell do ? less transfer of unwanted seeds from other plants I guess ? Around here it all goes for feed or silage so what grows gets mowed

prairie dog wrote:

Schipperkesue wrote:

Country Thyme Farm wrote:

Schipperkesue wrote:I was thinking about this on the way to school and suspected it was a roundup ready variety. To play devil's advocate, roundup ready alfalfa would be a very useful crop.

Who sprays roundup on alfalfa?

If you had roundup ready alfalfa but a lot of undesirable weeds were also in the field, you could spray the field with round up, kill the weeds, and leave your alfalfa field intact. I have an alfalfa field full of thistles. I don't even want to touch that dry hay. Ouch! I go through the field each year and selectively kill the weeds. The field is only an acre and I can do this. It would not be possible on a larger field. If it were roundup ready alfalfa I could spray the field, kill the weeds, but not the alfalfa.

...never heard of anyone spraying Alfafa ? but maybe those who just grow to sell do ? less transfer of unwanted seeds from other plants I guess ? Around here it all goes for feed or silage so what grows gets mowed

I said Roundup, not spraying. There are already about five different post-emergent sprays that are doing just fine on alfalfa (not that I'm endorsing them) and haying at appropriat times provides its' own control. Going roundup ready would just be lazy.

Country Thyme Farm wrote:I said Roundup, not spraying. There are already about five different post-emergent sprays that are doing just fine on alfalfa (not that I'm endorsing them) and haying at appropriat times provides its' own control. Going roundup ready would just be lazy.

So it seems from the links provided that the GMO quality for the alfalfa would be it's roundup readiness. Why do you think it is being introduced?

Schipperkesue wrote:

Country Thyme Farm wrote:I said Roundup, not spraying. There are already about five different post-emergent sprays that are doing just fine on alfalfa (not that I'm endorsing them) and haying at appropriat times provides its' own control. Going roundup ready would just be lazy.

So it seems from the links provided that the GMO quality for the alfalfa would be it's roundup readiness. Why do you think it is being introduced?

It's the largest produced forage legume in the world. Logical that they would go after it first.

Schipperkesue wrote:

Country Thyme Farm wrote:I said Roundup, not spraying. There are already about five different post-emergent sprays that are doing just fine on alfalfa (not that I'm endorsing them) and haying at appropriat times provides its' own control. Going roundup ready would just be lazy.

So it seems from the links provided that the GMO quality for the alfalfa would be it's roundup readiness. Why do you think it is being introduced?

Money.

Farmers know they don't need it, but once it's introduced, it will be a lot cheaper for most conventional farmers to spray round-up once or twice a year rather than spending two years tilling and applying pre-emergent's before seeding, then rotating through two or three post-emergents to maintain good control every year.

While I may think it's poor decision making, I can certainly understand as a farmer why the temptation will be there.

Well, as a few of those farmers on the video in one of my links stated, organic farmers will be highly impacted. Even Non-Organic farmers say they don't need it because they farm alfalfa in with grasses for custom feed -- it'd be pointless to spray the Alfalfa because it'd kill everything else they planted.

It's completely a money thing. And remember, this cross polinates with every other legume, so now you have GM beans and peas and so on as well. And guess who gets to walk on your property and sue your face off That's right, big ag.

I have to say in Australia they do spray the grasses out of alfalfa (lucerne down there) to have a staight feed with no grass. It is tough to find horse hay that is not straight lucerene. Grass hay is obsolete in some areas. They like no grass in it so it dries evenly. Man, the hay down there is like candy to horses!!! I used to feed straw to some of our performance horses along with the rich hay when the pastures were all burnt off in the summer.
I don't know why you would need it round up ready, there are lots of things you can use to spray grass out of lucerene that will only burn the luceren a bit. It is like a bloody weed really!

Think roundup ready is harmless, read this article and then talk to me.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

There are many many articles to be found, stating GMO/Monsanto/roundup use and ill health effects. Many use inflammatory language and march out the sad and damaged children or animals that are apparently hurt by the GMO/Monsanto/roundup. Very few have any scientific evidence one way or another. No, I am not saying there is no evidence, I am saying SOME ARTICLES are manipulative.

Now, don't get me wrong here. I am not pro GMO, but I am pro science, and when I read so many biased articles and have great difficulties finding unbiased ones I am suspicious that someone is trying to manipulate me. Those articles are not good journalism the same way they talk about GMO is not good science. Good journalism is unbiased, states both sides of an argument and provides evidence. Good science is based on data gathered where there is only one variable changed.

I just want that evidence in an article. Good scientific evidence so I can think and make up my mind for myself. I have a very low tolerance for others telling me what to think especially when there is an obvious bias.

I respect your beliefs, please respect mine. I believe in science.

Therein lies the problem. The scientific evidence that supports GMO goods is primarily done by their proprietary companies and inventors or based on short term research. The long term, non-proprietary research has lead to Europe banning many, in some parts all, GMO from import. The same research was conducted and released hundreds, if not thousands, of times in North America, however it was sequestered, the scientists behind it defaced and often let go, including Shiv Chopra, former Microbiologist for Health Canada. He was told to support the science despite his findings or he'd be run through the mud. He flipped them the bird, resigned and his science was made out to be unsubstantial, inconclusive and unfounded.

Sally Fallon promotes a diet that is entirely against the FDA's recommendations and sites sequestered science that can be extremely hard to find doing a google search if someone is trying to find 'the other side' to figure out their own middle. Since I have started adapting her diet to my life, I feel better, have lost weight and have more energy.

Theres an article called [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] which sites unmistakeable evidence from the very organizations that 'support' Monsanto now. With big ag and biotech holding major positions in government, both in Canada and the US, and running the FDA, I think it's entirely unrealistic to think their agenda isn't being pushed through. When an organization's original founders have a meeting about destroying all natural seed and creating ownership and dependance, patenting life, it says a lot, to me, about the sinister intentions behind them.

Another thing to consider, which is undeniable, science or not, is the effect this is having on organic farmers. Farmers who are losing their organic certification because their crops have been tainted with genetics from big ag and biotech, entire families destroyed, dragged through the mud, sued and raided because big ag and biotech have the 'right' to willy nilly test things and keep them held up in the court system, locking down their ability to make money.

The very fact that science, in order to create GMO plants, starts with a plant cancer in order to get the mutation, sets me off kilter. Starting with Cancer can only end with one thing, and the spiked cancer, diabetes, heart problems and so on since the introduction of all the biotech and chemical industry only really leads me to one conclusion.

When I lived in the US, My ex's Stepdad, former military man of 30 some odd years with high end security clearances told me something that has stuck with me ever since. "It's not about the news they tell you, its about the news they don't."

I support science as a vessel for understanding. I believe, however, humans don't have enough of a grasp on nature to be playing with it. The environmental impacts are being seen every day. Superbugs that are roundup resistant, destroying roundup crops which are being doused with more and more of the chemical with no success. Roundup ready Canola is invading other roundup ready crops and those farmers are asking what in the world they do, because they can't spray round up on it! Big ag's answer? Lets spray it with -agent orange-, because that's a most excellent idea. They argue that their science says it'll be fine, however there are still children in vietnam that would tell you otherwise.

I respect your choice, however passionately disagree. For those who didn't get to see Genetic Roulette when it's free, it's worth buying or finding a copy of it.

So sadly true, Sweetened. On top of the lack or research from neutral sources is the fact that Scientific reports are written in such a way that they can be very difficult to read by the layperson so they are either not read or they are badly misinterpreted.

I have found there are maybe two well written pieces of information to every 40 that are hype and conjecture.

Never mind if its proven harmful or not. Use your own brain. Is it logical or ethical to alter nature's design and then let it loose on the whole world to do what it may? The simple fact is, once the genes are spread through pollination into the wild, we cannot turn back the clock. We have changed the world forever, for better or worse. How arrogant can human beings be as a species?