It's going down again...quality of life is not as good...we hook up people to machines and and give them drugs and perform advanced medical procedures to correct the ravages a western diet is having on their bodies.  Chemical fixes for chemical problems. 

Perhaps we have reached the genetic limits of a normal human lifespan.  Regardless, the present life expectancy is about 35 years longer than it was at the turn of the last century when diets were far simpler.  of course food poisoning was also far more prevalent back then too.

Life expectancy is sort of a poor argument because, alone, it says virtually nothing about how long a person can truly be expected to live under standard circumstances. This is because life expectancy is a gross average calculated based on total deaths in a population, including death by accident, murder, infectious disease, childbirth, etc.

Human life expectancy has been as low as 45 years as recently as 150 years ago. Why? It's not like people only lived to about 45 then keeled over and died.

Rather, even in Paleolithic times, a person could reasonably be expected to live to at least 70, but only if she avoided accident and infection.

Life expectancy is only useful if placed in cultural context. i.e. average life expectancy of an Afghani: very low. Why? war.

Similarly, today's children are the first generation in quite some time expected to live fewer years than their parents. Given childbirth, infection and accident are no longer leading causes of death, we must look elsewhere to determine why we are growing less and less robust as a species.

Many well-respected, reputable people and scientists have suggested that GMOs may be among the factors causing chronic illness across a wide segment of our population. And they'd like to study further, meanwhile preventing any potential harm by pulling questionable products from the market.

This seems like very little to ask. I don't know why this is such an issue for GMO proponents. I guess you have to follow the money. In the U.S. (unlike Europe) money nearly always trumps public health and precautionary good sense.

Alarmingly, I think you're serious.

Do I really need to point out that since the dawn of the 20th century, medicine and science have come impressive leaps and bounds?

Even the introduction of refrigeration in the home has undoubtedly reduced food poisoning instances significantly.

I'm not saying the report is accurate, but c'mon, there are dozens of reasons attributing to the increase in life expectancy. Don't bury your head in the sand with ignorance and write off credible reports based on irrelevant factors.

The increase in life expectancy is from many factors.  With this increease comes increases in overall cancer rates but because cancer is vastly a disease of the aged the overall cancer rates are age corrected to showe most specific xancer rates are dropping.

Pateurization of milk has saved countless lives.  A century ago it was called white death with good reason.

To borrow a phrase: "c'mon there must be dozens of reasons attributing to " chronic diseases.

It is the author of this report who is claiming without evidence.  I continually show you HOW and WHY world food safety experts do not agree with this hypothesis. 

 I guess we disagree on what is credible then.  i will side with the UN-FAO, WHO, UN-OECD, EFSA, ANZFA, FDA, Health Canada, virtually every National Academy of Science in the World and 25 Nobel Laureates, etc.

cheers

May I suggest you go to my website and read the European Food Safety Agency report on feeding trials of GM foods.  It is very long but is comprehensive wrt the different aspects of food safety testing.

Cheers

You all have totally missed my point, which is:

- Life expectancy increases have nothing to do with GMOs. Life expectancy has gone up simply because accidents and infections have gone down with the advent of modern science. However, the archaeological record shows that Paleolithic man lived just as long as we do today, only if he avoided accident and infection. So life expectancy numbers are skewed by cultural circumstances, and should not be used as evidence without the context to back them up. So saying humans used to have a lower or higher life expectancy without explaining why says nothing.

- Life expectancy decreases MAY have something to with GMOs as recent evidence in the article above (as well as many, many other studies) suggests. Life expectancy, according to several major newspapers, is going down for the first time in many generations, due to chronic disease brought about largely by the poor quality food and toxins that we consume daily, including possibly GMOs.

- Scientists would like to study further, particularly since GM companies are intentionally using IP laws to fight independent, non-industry, double-blind, long-term placebo studies--or even independence analysis of their own industry data.

- No long-term, independent, double-blind, publicly-funded human feeding study has ever been done on GMOs. This is an outrage!

- Most other things we ingest have a far tougher clearance process than GMOs do. This should change immediately. The FDA has had a revolving door with the chemical/GM industry for waaaaay too long, and cannot be counted on to protect public health. (Just look at BPA.)

- The precautionary principle must apply. Unlike bad meat, you can't recall a gene, especially one known for pollen contamination of other plants. Once there is a problem, (pollen drift, contamination, genetic accidents (like the recent GM recall in Africa), pest resistance, etc.) it's TOO LATE.

- It makes no good sense why GMO supporters wouldn't be interested in long-term, independent, double-blind, publicly-funded human feeding studies prior to their release in the environment.

-The only thing that can explain it is money, just like with DDT, alar, PCBs, Roundup, and all those other great illness-causing chemicals GM companies said were perfectly safe for human consumption.

I fully understand your position Dawn.

"Life expectancy decreases MAY have something to with GMOs as recent evidence in the article above (as well as many, many other studies) suggests."

Or too much food and the epidemic level of obesity may be more likely.  Further the abouve listed International Food safety Authorities which have looked at the so-called evidence all agree there is no evidence of harm from food containing GM ingredients.

"due to chronic disease brought about largely by the poor quality food and toxins"

Are you aware of the many documented research results that show Bt corn has greatly reduced fumonisin B1 levels compared to conventional corn or organic corn.  I suspect not.

Somehow you seem to unaware that what safety tests, including what controls, must be done before commercialization are determined by food safety authorities and not the companies that produce the GM crops.

You seem to be unaware that it is impossible to do longterm feeding trials on humans.  Those that have been done on test animals show GM crops are as safe or safer than conventionally bred crops.

"- Most other things we ingest have a far tougher clearance process than GMOs do."

You have that completely backwards.  GM crops must go thru 10-50 times the regulations that non-gm crops go thru.

Cheers

1

UNION OF THE GERMAN ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES

COMMISSION GREEN BIOTECHNOLOGY

Proposed document of the IAP initiative on Genetically modified Organisms

Are there hazards for the consumer when eating food from genetically

modified plants?

Abstract

On the basis of existing scientific literature this report examines the potential risks for people who consume

products of genetically modified (GM) plants. Taken into account are toxicity, the potential of causing cancer

and food allergies, and the effects of consuming foreign DNA, including the DNA of antibiotic resistance genes.

The report reaches the conclusion that in consuming food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and in the

USA, the risk is in no way higher than in the consumption of food from conventionally grown plants. On the

contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior in respect to health.

That last sentence goes directly to the safer Bt corn prodcuts I spoke of.  The entire paper can be read on my website.

cheers

 

Mr. Wager you have discredited yourself when you say that pasteurization of milk has saved lives... when in fact it was refrigeration.

 

Wow, it's like beating a completely dead horse.

I'm sure (at least some of) what you're saying has some valid truth to it, but you're entirely missing the mark with a lot of your argument.

And to state things like: "Pateurization of milk has saved countless lives.  A century ago it was called white death with good reason." is just ludicrous. Before giving up milk, I drank only unpasteurised milk, and thanks to advances in science and practice (primarily being: sterile environments for milking, and commonplace refrigeration - both in transport and in the home) I wasn't even close to danger.

(In fact, a study from the Australian government on areas that allowed the sale of unpasteurised milk discovered that only three deaths were a result of consumption of unpasteurised milk)

Though, if you want to play this silly game.. a century ago, AIDS was not prevalent in humans. Therefore GMO is bad. (..what?)

On a more serious note, though, is that mistakes can be made, and it's not a bad thing to admit that. I'd rather be aware of current knowledge than rely on rushed anaylisis from when something is brought to market.

And again, I state that GMO *may* be fine. I remain unconvinced though. And by that, I mean in more ways that 'fine for human consumption', but in a greater sense - from germination to consumption.

On a more personal note, and I don't know your entire agenda/stance, but your argument feels to lose credibility as some kind of fanatic - like a Christian that believes the Bible without having read all of it, but only the parts that they want. You seem to be only addressing parts that are arguable, whilst brutally ignoring some very valid truths.

Ack, forgot to state that the three deaths were over about thirty years.

(compare that to red meat!)

Also considering cross pollenation, if the GMO crops were put out there, and cross pollenate (which is already happening with corn) then we would have to have vaulted seeds and greenhouses to prevent contamination of organic crops.

I guess, we'll have to wait until the politicians children run out of true organic food and begin to injest the pesticide laden GMO's.

 

Nicole

Are you aware there is no threshold limit of GM content in organic food that would cause decertification.  In fact I have repeatedly asked those who are afraid of organic farmers being decertified to give some examples of such.  So far I have yet to see a single example even though over the past decade both forms of agriculture have expanded tremendously.  Do you know that the IFOAM, the world organic body, has no threshold for GM content and does not advocate testing for GM content at all.

What would you thik of GURT to prevent GM pollen from being able to cross pollinate non GM crops?  You can read about on my website "The Good Fopund in GURTs"

Regardless of being "organic", it's a big problem when a) the seeds cannot be produced, due to Monsanto "Terminator" Technology (and similar), and b) Monsanto sues/bankrupts farms for patent infringement/stealing of a product that they didn't want in the first place.

There are bigger issues that what is labelled on a box with regards to certification. (And I sure can't wait for certified organic Coca Cola and motor fuel. Because a label of "organic" obviously means it's good for you. *rolls eyes*)

Please explain how a sterile seed and/or pollen technology can spread its sterile nature?

Are you aware all certified seed, hybrid seed can not be saved and must be purchased each year?

As for sueing bankrupt farmers, please give me some examples of how unwanted GM products got on farms that did not want them at levels that would cause the owner of the technology to claim fowl.  From my understanding of the lawsuits todate each and every one has the level on the farms being at or near commercial levels therefore hardly by accident.  Mr. Schmeiser is a prime example.  There are several articles on my website that explore this story.  The Goliath vs Goliath deals with this topic.

http://web.viu.ca/wager

cheers

Mr. Wager, you have a website that you fund from your own pocket to show everyone the benefits of Monsanto's GM crops?

So why would you spend money on a website just to advertise the benefits of GM crops?

Is it just something that is near and dear to your heart? Or your pockets?

Yes I have a website that talks about agricultural biotechnology, Monsanto is but one player.  In the coming years companies like the country of China will overtake companies like Monsanto.   GM crop technology is not going away.  Even the outwardly sceptical europeans are actively researching GM crops.

I do it (as mentioned on the front page) because I became fed up with pseudo-science influencing public policy and ecided it was time to speak up.  I am a trained in many biological sciences and as such understand the jargon of science.  I try to rewrite into language the average person can understand.  The science of GM crops and food is very clearly in favour of their use. The politics of food in general and GM containing food in particular is very murky.

Now having said that, it is very clear the world will need GM crop technology in the coming decades, that does not mean this technology is a pancea nor is the evil some here would have you believe.  Sometimes GM crops will be the best option, sometimes organic or agroforestry or IPM or none of the above will be the best answer for a given situation.  The world simply does not have to option of disregarding a proven technology for ideological reasons.

I hope that answers your question of why I do it, it most certainly is not for the money as that cheque seems to always be still in the mail.

cheers

I suggest you read "Tomorrows Table."

cheers

Feeding starving people is but a convenient excuse. There has been GM food since the '90's and it hasnt' been handed to the starving people by no means.

If GM food is such a good idea, then open it up to the free market and label the food. If it is so good, and does no harm, then let the PEOPLE decide what they want to eat.

But that is not the goal. The goal is to hide the GM foods.

Hmm.. I wonder why?

Is "Tomorrows Tables" another biotech/pharma industry funded "documentary" like the other one you suggested to me?

 

No google Tomorrow's Table.  It is written by a husband and wife team from UC DAVIS.  She help create the new flood tolerant rice that will help millions in places like Bangladesh and he teaches organic farming.  Worth aread by everyone interested in the future of food.

As for PBS being a biotech/pharma industry, well I have never heard that before.  Interesting point of view about the Public Broadcasting Service PBS.org

Agreed that there isn't much difference between sugar and HFCS in terms of being bad for you.  But HFCS is in EVERYTHING, unlike table sugar.  In foods you don't immediately associate with HFCS (such as soda), you will find it (bread, spaghetti sauce, etc.).  The GM crops have come to need more and more pesticides as insects grow resistance to the chemicals, thus putting a lot of these toxic chemicals into OUR systems.  I would argue that pesticides indeed have health effects on us and the animals we eat.  Not to mention, the animals fed GM corn need to be pumped full of antibiotics in order to subsist on a diet that is unnatural to them (cows are supposed to eat GRASS).  But GM corn they want since it fattens them up quicker.  So even if the nutritional component for GM crops is fine for us, the other things that are necessary to grow and harvest these crops make it unhealthy.

Andrea

You have that backwards. Bt corn allows the farmer to reduce or eliminate insecticdes on the crop. The Bt protein engineered into the corn plant protects the plant so insecticides are not used.

Nowhere in the world have pest insects developed resistance to Bt.  This is not to say they won't but with proper IPM practices it should greatly reduce the likely hood of resistance development to Bt.

Mr. Wager, it is the pesticide INSIDE of the corn that makes it poisonous to insects. Therefore they dont' consume it.

When animals are given bt corn, they REFUSE to eat it.

When they do eat it they die.

Because they have eaten corn that has been spliced with pesticide in it's makeup. There is no need to put pesticide ON it, if there is pesticide IN it.

 

Antibiotics - quick fattening, and early slaughter are responsible for less disease.

Wrong again, Mr. Wager.

Do you work for Monsanto, like the officials at the FDA?

 

Here is the opinion of the UN-OECD concensus document on the safety of Bt containing crops.

OECD Environment, Health and Safety Publications

Series on Harmonisation of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology

No. 42

Consensus Document on Safety Information on Transgenic Plants

Expressing Bacillus thuringiensis - Derived Insect Control Protein

 From page 33

These data show that the transgenic plant pesticides in current commercial use have relatively low levels of δ-endotoxins in edible plant parts.

4. Human Risk Assessment

 

 

 

65. The acute oral toxicity data on Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac, Cry9C, Cry3A, Cry1F, Cry2Ab2, Cry3Bb1, Cry34Ab1, and Cry35Ab1 supports the prediction that the Cry proteins would be non-toxic to humans.

When proteins are toxic, they are known to act via acute mechanisms and at very low dose level (Sjoblad et al., 1992). Therefore, since no effects were seen in the acute tests, even at relatively high dose levels, these δ-endotoxin proteins are not considered toxic to humans. Both the long history of safe use of B.and the acute oral toxicity data allow for a conclusion that these and other δ-endotoxins pose thuringiensis negligible toxicity risk to humans.

Asbestos, hydrogenated oils, msg, lead paint, etc.. were all certified to be non-harmful by the abc organizations.

Artificial food colorings and perservatives, once ran the show. At one point in time, people polished their hats with mercury. DDT was cited as "good for your health" along with PUBLISHED studies on how cigarettes were good for you lungs and teeth.

So what have we learned so far?

I learned that studies funded by people who stand the chance of making BILLIONS of dollars, and running monopolies... are inaccurate. And they pay people to run logic circles with people. Because.. the devil loves to confuse people.

 

Also, I would like to mention, when in doubt:  Go with God.

And God made the plants, and people are trying to modify them to their detriment.

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING that man has done can compare with what has been naturally created on this planet. Any attempt, leads to great suffering for humans and profits for evil people.

Robert,

I realize that GM crops have significantly more hoops to go through than non GM crops. But that's not what I said. I said GM crops have less rigorous standards than other things we consume, like antibiotics, aspartame or cough medicine.

However, I think GM crops should be held to the very same testing standard as pharmaceuticals, and the standards for approving both GM and pharmaceuticals need to go up 400-fold, independent testing needs to be mandated and funded, and the revolving door between industry (Big Pharma and Big Ag) and gov't needs to utterly destroyed.

History has taught us repeatedly that it is a dangerous fools game to rely on industry-funded studies. Aspartame remains on the market despite considerable evidence of its harmfulness. Most of the 75,000+ chemicals out there today have never been properly tested for harm to humans and the environment. This is why we now can find over 275 toxins and carcinogens in umbilical cord blood.

I still maintain that the utter lack of long-term, independent study of GMOs (human feeding and other independent studies) is an outrage.

I am also aware of the studies about Bt corn and fumonisin. We've been surviving just fine for millennia on organic corn, the accidental benefit of reduced fumonisin is not persuasive.

On the back of my package of Bt there are very clear warnings about consumption or contact with skin and mucous membranes, despite it being a "natural" product. I take great pains to wash it off my produce and am grateful that I can.

Why on earth would I want to eat something that has Bt in it systemically that I can't wash off? Why on earth would I eat something absolutely drenched in Roundup or atrazine (coming next)?

Especially when there are lots of superior, safer, and more eco-friendly ways to manage pests and conserve soil besides GM and herbicide no-till.

Most people feel the same way, which is why we want labelling, so we can choose. Yet most pro-GMO people are suspiciously anti-labelling.

Mr. Wager -That last point was absolutely ridiculous....."Data is also very clear how modern animal industry has the lowest level of disease in their animals."

 

There is humungus amounts of data that proves just the opposite. Just look at the recalls of the past two years - E-coli and Salmonella is rampant and has been documented that one of the greatest causes is because of factory farming of animals, Downed animals and feces attributed to the large farming practices.

 

You seem very much in what I have read of your responses to be right in line with the globalist agenda. You should really look at the practices of the WHO and UN. These Rockefeller funded agencies have an agenda, and unless you are one of the self proclaimed elite, you are not included. Therefore are really fighting for your own demise.

People really need to wake up and connect the dots as to what is happening around them - whether it be food, Vaccines, Healthcare or politics.everything is connected and if you open your eyes (escape the plague of tunnelvision) then all would be clear. Follow the money

 

 

May I ask why you feel this way Nicole?  Have youvisited my website that helps people distinguish between the science of GM crops and the pseudo-science so many put on the web.

http://web.viu.ca/wager

cheers

 

Europe didn't ban GMOs (http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/maize/633.docu.html), they choose not to plant them for political reasons, NOT for safety issues.  They did ban vitamins though: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article543055.ece

Aaron, have anything more recent than July 2005?

Aaron, have anything more recent than July 2005?

From the UN-OECD report on Bt crop safety:

Page 34

a. Effects on Non-target Mammals

 

67. Data available on laboratory rodents on microbial forms of B. thuringiensis do not indicate that there are adverse effects of B. thuringiensis preparations on the test animals (e.g. USEPA, 1998). Tests with cattle or swine, representing mammals with different digestive systems, are rare and not focused on long-term effects. However, due to the previous mentioned specific mode of action of δ-endotoxins, effects on non-target mammals can be considered quite unlikely. This conclusion is supported by the lack of effects observed for purified δ-endotoxins tested on rodents in support of commercial use of transgenic plants (Annex I). Furthermore, as previously mentioned, there are no known equivalent receptor sites for binding of the δ-endotoxins in mammals (Noteborn et al., 1995; Gill and Ellara, 2002; Broderick et al. 2006). The mode of action also appears to be insect specific due to the reliance of the lepidopteran midgut on unique ATPases for potassium influx regulation and the insect midgut‘s unique susceptibility to ionic stress (Knowles, 1994), plus the observations that even when Cry toxin binding site proteins are expressed in mammalian cells, the mammalian cells are unable to express them in a form that allows the toxins to bind to them (Keeton and Bulla, 1997; Gill and Ellar, 2002; Broderick et al., 2006).

I am a faculty member at Vancouver Island Universty in nanaimo BC Canada.  My entire income comes from VIU. I have received several outreach grants from the Council of Biotechnology Information to pay for students and conference fees I attended and rental fees for talks I have given.  I have never received any personal money from the biotech industry.

Who says anti-GM has the monopoly on sustainable.  I would argue using less water with drought tolerant GM crops, maintaining salinie soil in production, maintaining aluminum contaminated soil in production, using hundreds of millions of pounds less broad spectrum inssecticide with Bt crops, conserving soil and reducing ground water contamination with zero tillage from herbicide tolerant crops are all considered aspects of a more sustainable agricultural future.

http://web.viu.ca/wager

cheers

Robert, I say GMOs are unsustainable.

So are hybrid seeds.

In the coming future, where food insecurity will loom large because of climate change and lack of fossil fuels, the most sustainable system --in fact the system that grows most of the worlds food currently-- is the organic smallholding.

Sustainable - requiring few, if any, inputs to be sustained. Sorry GMOs (and even hybrids) don't fit. Nor do the fossil fuel-based machines, chemicals and fertilizers they are utterly dependent on.

In a truly sustainable agriculture, people must be able to save seeds, develop their own locally adapted breeds, trade seed varieties with neighbors, and develop local crop biodiversity without dependence on corporations or governments, and without threat from DNA/pollen contamination from GMOs.

Robert,

You said: "I would argue using less water with drought tolerant GM crops, maintaining salinie soil in production, maintaining aluminum contaminated soil in production, using hundreds of millions of pounds less broad spectrum inssecticide with Bt crops, conserving soil and reducing ground water contamination with zero tillage from herbicide tolerant crops are all considered aspects of a more sustainable agricultural future."

But Robert, we already have the technology to desalinate soils in one growing season, and the ability to mitigate or remove heavy metals without taking the land out of production.

we already have practices that do more to protect against drought than any seed variety ever could,

we already know how to prevent and kill pests without the use of toxic chemicals

we already know how to prevent soil erosion without the use of herbicide no-till. We even have the ability to build 1/4" or more of new topsoil per year!

and we already know how to create huge yields without the use of chemical inputs: Using agroecological and permaculture practices, from a quarter of an acre, you can harvest 1,400 eggs, 50 pounds of wheat, 60 pounds of fruit, 2,000 pounds of vegetables, 280 pounds of pork, and 75 pounds of nuts per year. And we can do it for FREE if we save seeds and breed animals in situ.

So, we just don't need GMOs.

Total propaganda...just like the Global Warming fraud. BS

The process is simple and the point was mentioned before.....take the crap off the market til it is deemed safe by a truly independent party.

The point is up until last year we were told - including by Bush that cloning was illegal. Last year we were told it is in the market.

When regulators and law makers start being honest - then we won't need to question everything they do.

Katherine Sebelius just before accepting her current position against humanity, and as last order as Governor of Kansas vetoed a bill that would have made GMO foods be labeled as such.

Why the secrecy and lack of transparency when it comes to GMO's? Anything that wishes to cloud the waters is inherently suspect.

Marker Assisted Selection (MAS), which uses the latest genetic knowledge to speed up traditional breeding is cheaper, faster and more effective than GMO.

Unlike GM technology, MAS can safely and predictably produce new varieties of crops with mulitiple valuable, genetically complex properties such as enhanced nutrition, taste, yield potential, resistance to pests and diseases, and tolerance to drought, heat, salinity, and flooding.

And because plants generated from this process haven't been artificially crossed with the genes of viruses, bacteria, and animals in a way completely impossible in nature, they have a less bureaucratic approval process (as they should).

Robert, you seem unaware that GMOs are touted as nothing less than a panacea. Huge sums of money are spent on promoting them nationally and internationally to the exclusion of all other seeds. This, combined with GMO pollen drift, is a huge threat to agricultural biodiversity.

Their ubiquity in the U.S. food system is a dangerous fools game: did we learn nothing from the Irish potato famine and all the other cautionary tales of planting vast region-wide monocultures.

The amount of research and development dollars spent on one GMO variety could train an entire country in permaculture, organic farming and agroecological BMPs, seed saving, plant breeding and the like.

GMO reduces farmers from repositories of evolving expertise and wisdom to mere technicians, which destroys traditional farming wisdom, reduces livelihood, displaces locally adapted seed varieties, and devastates ecological biodiversity on the farm and in the community.

Give a fish or teach to fish; you choose.

 

Nevermind that we can currently feed 9 billion people now, today...

Using simple "plant-hoe-water-harvest" agriculture, it's true, you can't grow a whole lot. But, neither you nor Dr. Borlaug were up on the latest scientific advances in permaculture and agroecology, so "my version" of agriculture is something neither you nor he knew enough about to judge.

Agroecological BMPs are increasing yields 2-10 times, generating topsoil at rapid rates, solving pest and disease problems without chemicals, and increasing ecological and nutritional diversity community-wide. Even barren desert soils not in use in hundreds of years are restored to fertility in just 1-2 years.

But feeding the world has never been a problem of resources, but rather one of politics, and this is where GMOs are most deadly.

During the food crisis two years ago what did biotech companies do? Raised prices on their seeds and chemicals. Any solution to food security in a post-fossil fuel age must be bottom up, not top-down. Nevermind what the overproduction and flood of heavily-subsidized GMO corn and soy onto the international commodity market does to destroy farmers and food security in the 3rd world.

Any food system dependent on yearly inputs of seeds, fertilizers or chemicals is inherently unsustainable-- ecologically, economically and socially.