"Soul Food May Be 'KILLING' African-Americans" - NBC News Study (2018)

[Deuterion]

I'm not sure about that. What I do know is that the research has shown, African-Americans tend to have poor diets, in comparison to other races - and it leads to a variety of health issues.

The cause of this poor diet, is the result of a myriad of things, including slavery and racism.

NEWSFLASH: Some of the poorest people in the country have the poorest diets.

 

[King Poetic]

My grandmothers both live to be 95 and 96 down south in Arkansas and Louisiana eating soul food

My grandfather lived to be 94

They cook their food from the ground up, not like today soul food and other foods with all these chemicals in it..

Just eat in moderation

 

[Black Panther]

The most common genetic modification is just herbicide resistance, so Monsanto can dump as much Roundup as it wants onto fields and the crops still survive.

This sentence makes no sense.

Think about what you just said.

If a crop is GM'ed to be herbicide- resistant, that means you use less herbicide, not more:mjlolhairfade:

 

[Dad]

how many black people have reached 100 from living off soul food?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

This sentence makes no sense.

Think about what you just said.

If a crop is GM'ed to be herbicide- resistant, that means you use less herbicide, not more:mjlolhairfade:

No it doesn't.

You put the herbicide to kill the weeds, not the crops.

If your crop is herbicide-susceptible, as most crops naturally are, then you can only apply herbicide in careful, limited amounts in certain places, or when your crop is not in the ground. Otherwise when you're trying to kill the weed, you'll kill the crop too.

But if your crop is herbicide-resistant, you can apply more herbicide all over the place because you are confident you will only kill the weeds, not the crops.

Savvy?



The problem being, of course, that if you start applying lots of herbicide, that fact mixed with the fact that you've introduced a GM gene into the environment means that some weeds will eventually pick up that herbicide resistance gene from your crops, forcing you to use greater quantities of herbicide or new and more deadly varieties, leading to new resistance, and so on. It's a stupid cycle to enter into, but Monsanto is doing it with all their might because short-term profits matter more to them than negative side effects 20-30 years down the road.

GM crops created superweed, say scientists

 

[Black Panther]

No it doesn't.

You put the herbicide to kill the weeds, not the crops.

If your crop is herbicide-susceptible, as most crops naturally are, then you can only apply herbicide in careful, limited amounts in certain places, or when your crop is not in the ground. Otherwise when you're trying to kill the weed, you'll kill the crop too.

But if your crop is herbicide-resistant, you can apply more herbicide because you are confident you will only kill the weeds, not the crops.

Savvy?

Has the use of GM HT crops increased use of herbicides and what does this mean for the environment?

A key impact of GM HT crop use has been a change in the profile of herbicides typically used. In general, a fairly broad range of, mostly selective herbicides that target grass weeds or broad-leaved weeds have been replaced by one or two ‘broad-spectrum’ or general herbicides (mostly glyphosate - that target both grass and broad-leaved weeds) used in conjunction with one or two other (complementary) herbicides. This has resulted in:

· Aggregate reductions in both the volume of herbicides used (in terms of weight of active ingredient applied) and the associated environmental impact (in terms of toxicity) when compared to usage on conventional (non-GM) crops in some countries, indicating net improvements to the environment;

· In other countries, the average amount of herbicide active ingredient applied to GM HT crops represents a net increase relative to usage on the conventional crop alternative. However, even though the amount of active ingredient use has increased, in terms of the associated environmental impact, the environmental profile of the herbicides used with the GM HT crop has commonly been better than its conventional equivalent

Do GMOs increase herbicide use? | GMO Answers

 

[Piff Perkins]

We need to practice that Dr. Sebi diet

No you don't. Stop elevating con men who believe broccoli isn't healthy...

Soul food can be fine. The issue is that a lot of black people won't replaced fried foods with baked foods, and pour salt on everything. Everytime I went to a funeral with a family/friends get-together at a church, the food was laughably unhealthy. The most sugary yams, the saltiest greens, friend chicken, etc. And then you'd see people add salt to food that was already salty. It's retarded.

Add garlic, rosemary, tarragon, cloves, peppercorns...there are so many ways to add seasoning to your food without using a fukking cup of salt.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

That industry site admits "in a few places herbicide use has gone down, in most it has gone up, and in many the environment has deteriorated as a result."

How does that support your point? The reason you thought it supported your point was because that industry site highlighted the rare positive impact and made it first while burying the more common negative impacts in a huge paragraph below.

Do GMOs increase herbicide use? | GMO Answers

GMO Answers?

GMO Answers launched by the agricultural biotechnology industry in July 2013 to answer consumers’ questions about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in crops in the U.S. food supply.[1] GMO Answers was created in part to respond to public concern about the safety of GMOs.[1] GMO Answers “expert resources” include conventional and organic farmers, agribusiness experts, scientists, academics, medical doctors and nutritionists, and “company experts” from founding members of the Council for Biotechnology Information, which funds the initiative.[2] Founding members include BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto Company and Syngenta.[3]


Even the answer as given is juelzing.

Is increased herbicide use bad?

Not necessarily. The issues are complex and context is required.

propaganda blah blah blah

They basically say in their extended answer that increased herbicide use isn't bad if they can project that even more herbicide would have been used in some other hypothetical scenario.

Aggregate reductions in both the volume of herbicides used (in terms of weight of active ingredient applied) and the associated environmental impact (in terms of toxicity) when compared to usage on conventional (non-GM) crops in some countries,

Notice the "in SOME countries" buried at the end. Which countries? How many? For all you know, that unlikely scenario has only occurred in Lichtenstein. Of course the industry site you used doesn't give you actual figures, which they would have done in a moment if the figures had been favorable.

n other countries, the average amount of herbicide active ingredient applied to GM HT crops represents a net increase relative to usage on the conventional crop alternative

Ah, so they admit that in other countries the amount of herbicide has been going up. How many others? 190 out of 200? We don't know, because they haven't given the figures, which they DEFINITELY would have if the figures had been favorable.

Then they try to claim that even though the amount of herbicide has gone up, the environmental impact has gone down. You take that at face value?

Where GM HT crops have been widely grown (eg, the USA), incidences of weed resistance to glyphosate have occurred. This can be attributed to how glyphosate was originally used with GM HT crops, where because of its high effectiveness in controlling weeds, it was often used as the sole method of weed control. This approach to weed control contributed to the evolution of weed populations becoming resistant to glyphosate. As a result, growers of GM HT crops have been and, are increasingly being advised to include other herbicides (with different and complementary modes of action to glyphosate) in combination with glyphosate and in some cases to adopt cultural practices (eg, mechanical weed control) in more integrated weed management systems. At the national level, these changes have influenced the mix, total amount and overall profile of herbicides applied to GM HT crops in the last 10 years. Compared to a decade ago, the amount of herbicide active ingredient applied and number of herbicides used with GM HT crops in many regions has increased, and the associated environmental profile, deteriorated. This increase in herbicide use relative to several years ago is often cited by anti GM technology proponents as an environmental failing of the technology. However, what such authors fail to acknowledge is that the amount of herbicide used on conventional crops has also increased relative to several years ago and that compared to the conventional alternative, the environmental profile of GM HT crop use has continued to provide an improved environmental profile compared to the conventional alternative. It should also be noted that many of the herbicides used in conventional production systems had significant resistance issues themselves in the mid-1990s. This was, for example, one of the reasons why GM HT soybeans were rapidly adopted in the late 1990s, as glyphosate provided good control of these weeds.

Look at how the key sentence is buried as deep as possible in the biggest paragraph possible. GM use has INCREASED the amount and number of herbicides applied in "many regions" (how many? they won't tell us) and the environment has DETERIORATED as a result.

Then they claim that the amount of herbicide on conventional crops has increased too. Huh, I wonder why, maybe because YOU A$$HOLES INTRODUCED HERBICIDE-RESISTANT GENES INTO THE ENVIRONMENT!!!!

Not to mention the obvious fact that herbicide use has NOT increased among organic farmers, and they have NOT seen herbicide-resistant weeds develop, and the environment has NOT deteriorated around them. The "conventional farmers" that Monsanto and company refer to are solely the ones who had already bought the party line and were already using Monsanto's poisons on their crops.

Now, what is their long-term strategy? Now that herbicide resistance has increased, necessitating an increase in herbicide use, won't that continue to occur? What's the endgame, more and more GMOs that allow you to apply more and more chemicals in an ever-escalating war on weeds?

And you thought that supported your point. That's exactly why they wrote it that way.