Jump to content

Gordon Bakke

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    182

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Gordon Bakke

    2nd Great National Day of Reforestation - 80,000 Trees to be Planted

    in Deforestation, Reforestation, Timber, Logging Operations, etc.

    Posted

    Lofty goals, and I wish them the best of luck. For areas like Boquete and Volcan, I have serious doubts that many reforesters have a real understanding of what plant species have been lost over the years in the highlands, as former forests have turned to pasture, and I have seen very little to give me confidence that these species are even available for re-planting.

    Still, good intentions are appreciated.

    2nd Great National Day of Reforestation - 80,000 Trees to be Planted

    in Deforestation, Reforestation, Timber, Logging Operations, etc.

    Posted

    I noticed that Volcan is one of the communities that is benefiting from this program. This raises a number of questions for me that perhaps someone can answer. Not trying to be critical of this program, but I AM curious. Some questions, off the top of my head:

    Is this program designated strictly for publicly held property, and/or public right of way, or are private properties designated as well?

    IF private properties are included, how does one qualify for this program?

    What plant species are being designated for specific ecosystems?

    IF we we are using locally adapted plants, WHO is growing them?

    Are we using native, ornamental, or food producing plants? And which kind, specifically?

    Any thoughts?

    2nd Great National Day of Reforestation - 80,000 Trees to be Planted

    in Deforestation, Reforestation, Timber, Logging Operations, etc.

    Posted

    I can't help but think that this is one of those feel good stories that is sorely lacking in good facts. According to the story, Panama is losing 20,000 hectares of forest per year. And then, we celebrate the replacement in trees of roughly 2,000 hectares? And of the trees that are replaced, they are not exclusively native species, but rather coffee and cacao?

    Normally, coffee and cacao are not planted on public lands, so I have to conclude that this is primarily to benefit private landowners.

    Maybe someone can ferret out some facts about this story that make a little better sense.

    The stupid mindset of (most) merchants!

    in Shopping and Store Resources

    Posted · Edited by Gordon Bakke
    additional info

    I tend to agree with Dottie. If people demand better customer service (and return policies), some merchants in Panama will likely respond eventually. Its just one more area of commerce in which stores can compete for customer loyalty. Lets not forget that in North America, liberal return policies were not the norm until a few forward thinking folks (the Nordstrom family comes to mind) offered this as something they thought was both right, and would appeal to consumers.

    • Upvote 1

    GMO Findings

    in Restaurants, Food / Groceries, Recipes, Food Supply Channels, Health Inspections / Suspensions, etc.

    Posted

    From the Slate artical I linked to above:

     

    "GMO labels won’t clear this up. They won’t tell you whether there’s Bt in your food. They’ll only give you the illusion that you’ve escaped it. That’s one lesson of the Non-GMO Project, whose voluntary labels purport to give you an “informed choice” about what’s in your food. Earlier this year, Slate interns Natania Levy and Greer Prettyman contacted the manufacturers of 15 corn products bearing the Non-GMO Project label. They asked each company whether its product included any ingredients sprayed with biopesticides. Five companies didn’t reply. Two told us, falsely, that their organic certification meant they didn’t use pesticides or anything that could be harmful. One sent us weasel words and repeated them when we pressed for a clearer answer. Another told us it adhered to legal limits. Three confessed that they didn’t know. None of the manufacturers could give us a clear assurance that its product hadn’t been exposed to Bt.

    That’s the fundamental flaw in the anti-GMO movement. It only pretends to inform you. When you push past its dogmas and examine the evidence, you realize that the movement’s fixation on genetic engineering has been an enormous mistake. The principles it claims to stand for—environmental protection, public health, community agriculture—are better served by considering the facts of each case than by treating GMOs, categorically, as a proxy for all that’s wrong with the world. That’s the truth, in all its messy complexity. Too bad it won’t fit on a label."

    GMO Findings

    in Restaurants, Food / Groceries, Recipes, Food Supply Channels, Health Inspections / Suspensions, etc.

    Posted

    Just about every reputable scientific organization in the world has made statements to the effect that GMO foods are no more dangerous than their non-GMO counterparts.The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has made this statement:

    "The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe … The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques."

    Here are just a few arguments against the idea of mandatory labeling of GMO foods:

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea/

    GMO Findings

    in Restaurants, Food / Groceries, Recipes, Food Supply Channels, Health Inspections / Suspensions, etc.

    Posted · Edited by Gordon Bakke

    Yes, despite some of the information above being false or misleading, there ARE legitimate issues, as you point out with GMO crops, pesticide resistance among them. A number of people in the scientific community have suggested a best management practices protocol for both GMO & non-GMO crops that could alleviate these issues. Page 5 of the first link:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

     

    http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/genengcrops.pdf

     

    GMO Findings

    in Restaurants, Food / Groceries, Recipes, Food Supply Channels, Health Inspections / Suspensions, etc.

    Posted

    Exactly. It is a reaction against Monsanto (I am not here to defend their business practices) that colors many people's opinions and concerns about GMO foods. The bias against Monsanto can be confirmed by the fact that on forums such as this, we RARELY hear the same kind of invective's tossed at the other "big six" producers of GMO - BASF, Bayer, Dupont, Dow, & Syngenta.

×
×
  • Create New...