HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » GMOs are bad for biodiver...

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:07 AM

 

GMOs are bad for biodiversity, bad for non-corporate farming, bad for the public's right to natural

produce which is not owned by a monopolistic corporation.

Ignore the puff pieces posted by curiously pro-GMO apologists; here is some real research about the impact of GMOs on independent farms:

Liability for Damage Caused by GMOs: An Economic Perspective

Genetically Modified Organisms: Who Should Pay the Price for Pollen Drift Contamination?

Seeds of Dispute: Intellectual-Property Rights and Agricultural Biodiversity

Remembering the “Big Five”: Hawaii's Constitutional Obligation to Regulate the Genetic Engineering Industry

 

246 replies, 36671 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 246 replies Author Time Post
Reply GMOs are bad for biodiversity, bad for non-corporate farming, bad for the public's right to natural (Original post)
Vote2016 Jun 2016 OP
Coventina Jun 2016 #1
Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2016 #2
Vote2016 Jun 2016 #8
Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2016 #18
hankthecrank Jun 2016 #20
NickB79 Jun 2016 #71
yellowcanine Jun 2016 #92
hankthecrank Jun 2016 #120
HuckleB Jun 2016 #122
hankthecrank Jun 2016 #126
HuckleB Jun 2016 #127
yellowcanine Jun 2016 #129
hankthecrank Jun 2016 #132
yellowcanine Jun 2016 #148
larkrake Jun 2016 #178
NickB79 Jun 2016 #180
yellowcanine Jun 2016 #130
hankthecrank Jun 2016 #133
NickB79 Jun 2016 #177
womanofthehills Jun 2016 #186
Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2016 #202
Scientific Jun 2016 #3
GaYellowDawg Jun 2016 #5
Vote2016 Jun 2016 #9
GaYellowDawg Jun 2016 #11
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #21
Corporate666 Jun 2016 #236
JohnyCanuck Jun 2016 #4
NickB79 Jun 2016 #74
Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #6
Vote2016 Jun 2016 #17
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #22
Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #28
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #36
basselope Jun 2016 #83
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #150
basselope Jun 2016 #159
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #163
basselope Jun 2016 #165
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #167
basselope Jun 2016 #169
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #172
basselope Jun 2016 #173
Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #86
HuckleB Jun 2016 #128
womanofthehills Jun 2016 #135
HuckleB Jun 2016 #139
womanofthehills Jun 2016 #187
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #153
HuckleB Jun 2016 #155
womanofthehills Jun 2016 #191
HuckleB Jun 2016 #203
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #151
womanofthehills Jun 2016 #192
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #197
womanofthehills Jun 2016 #190
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #198
womanofthehills Jun 2016 #231
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #239
villager Jun 2016 #226
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #39
larkrake Jun 2016 #179
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #182
larkrake Jun 2016 #183
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #184
TipTok Jun 2016 #7
truebluegreen Jun 2016 #10
TipTok Jun 2016 #12
truebluegreen Jun 2016 #13
Vote2016 Jun 2016 #16
HuckleB Jun 2016 #45
truebluegreen Jun 2016 #50
HuckleB Jun 2016 #51
womanofthehills Jun 2016 #188
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #23
truebluegreen Jun 2016 #25
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #26
lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #54
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #68
lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #70
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #72
lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #73
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #77
lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #78
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #80
lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #81
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #82
lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #87
HuckleB Jun 2016 #91
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #152
HuckleB Jun 2016 #85
HuckleB Jun 2016 #46
Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #14
TipTok Jun 2016 #15
GreatGazoo Jun 2016 #19
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #24
truebluegreen Jun 2016 #27
Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #29
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #32
truebluegreen Jun 2016 #33
womanofthehills Jun 2016 #43
HuckleB Jun 2016 #47
Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #88
HuckleB Jun 2016 #89
Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #93
HuckleB Jun 2016 #94
Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #97
HuckleB Jun 2016 #98
Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #99
HuckleB Jun 2016 #106
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #156
womanofthehills Jun 2016 #232
HuckleB Jun 2016 #241
womanofthehills Jun 2016 #136
HuckleB Jun 2016 #140
womanofthehills Jun 2016 #143
HuckleB Jun 2016 #147
womanofthehills Jun 2016 #228
womanofthehills Jun 2016 #138
HuckleB Jun 2016 #141
womanofthehills Jun 2016 #142
HuckleB Jun 2016 #146
womanofthehills Jun 2016 #189
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #199
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #31
truebluegreen Jun 2016 #34
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #37
truebluegreen Jun 2016 #40
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #41
truebluegreen Jun 2016 #42
NickB79 Jun 2016 #30
truebluegreen Jun 2016 #35
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #38
HuckleB Jun 2016 #44
JohnyCanuck Jun 2016 #48
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #49
Scientific Jun 2016 #101
HuckleB Jun 2016 #107
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #108
womanofthehills Jun 2016 #229
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #238
HuckleB Jun 2016 #52
lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #53
Vote2016 Jun 2016 #55
HuckleB Jun 2016 #56
Vote2016 Jun 2016 #64
HuckleB Jun 2016 #65
womanofthehills Jun 2016 #227
womanofthehills Jun 2016 #230
lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #57
HuckleB Jun 2016 #58
Vote2016 Jun 2016 #59
lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #60
HuckleB Jun 2016 #61
Vote2016 Jun 2016 #62
HuckleB Jun 2016 #63
Vote2016 Jun 2016 #66
HuckleB Jun 2016 #67
womanofthehills Jun 2016 #194
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #200
HuckleB Jun 2016 #242
MisterP Jun 2016 #245
HuckleB Jun 2016 #246
basselope Jun 2016 #69
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #75
basselope Jun 2016 #76
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #79
basselope Jun 2016 #84
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #154
basselope Jun 2016 #160
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #162
basselope Jun 2016 #164
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #166
basselope Jun 2016 #168
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #170
basselope Jun 2016 #171
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #174
basselope Jun 2016 #175
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #176
basselope Jun 2016 #181
Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #90
basselope Jun 2016 #96
Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #102
basselope Jun 2016 #109
Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #111
basselope Jun 2016 #113
Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #114
basselope Jun 2016 #115
Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #117
basselope Jun 2016 #121
Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #123
basselope Jun 2016 #144
Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #157
basselope Jun 2016 #161
womanofthehills Jun 2016 #233
HuckleB Jun 2016 #112
Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #118
HuckleB Jun 2016 #119
progressoid Jun 2016 #100
basselope Jun 2016 #110
HuckleB Jun 2016 #116
womanofthehills Jun 2016 #234
HuckleB Jun 2016 #243
progressoid Jun 2016 #124
basselope Jun 2016 #145
progressoid Jun 2016 #149
basselope Jun 2016 #158
progressoid Jun 2016 #193
womanofthehills Jun 2016 #195
basselope Jun 2016 #196
progressoid Jun 2016 #207
progressoid Jun 2016 #206
basselope Jun 2016 #208
progressoid Jun 2016 #209
basselope Jun 2016 #210
progressoid Jun 2016 #211
basselope Jun 2016 #213
progressoid Jun 2016 #218
basselope Jun 2016 #225
progressoid Jun 2016 #237
basselope Jun 2016 #244
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #212
basselope Jun 2016 #214
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #215
basselope Jun 2016 #216
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #217
basselope Jun 2016 #219
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #220
basselope Jun 2016 #222
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #224
HuckleB Jun 2016 #125
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #221
Rex Jun 2016 #95
Vote2016 Jun 2016 #131
Rex Jun 2016 #134
valerief Jun 2016 #103
Bonx Jun 2016 #104
Rex Jun 2016 #137
progressoid Jun 2016 #105
Dont call me Shirley Jun 2016 #185
pediatricmedic Jun 2016 #201
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #204
CanSocDem Jun 2016 #205
Major Nikon Jun 2016 #223
womanofthehills Jun 2016 #235
Bonx Jun 2016 #240

Response to Vote2016 (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:09 AM

1. Here we go.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:22 AM

2. This article has about 100 links to different peer-reviewed research papers at the end.

 

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/science-gmo-safe/

Get back with me when you've read a couple of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:00 PM

8. Your article is about whether GMOs are safe. I'm not saying they are safe or unsafe. I'm saying that

 

GMOs promote monopolistic agribusiness corporate interests at the expense of independent farms and at the expense of greater agricultural biodiversity.

But thanks for the red herring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Reply #8)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 04:14 PM

18. GMOs don't promote any of that.

 

Farmers buy seeds from corporations. Period. Whether those seeds are GMO or not means dick. Farmers, in general, don't save seeds from prior crops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #18)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 04:34 PM

20. Soy beans and wheat are raised from last years crop

It's better because they adapt more to the area

Oats grown from last years crop

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hankthecrank (Reply #20)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:49 PM

71. No farmer I know (and I know dozens) uses last year's soy or wheat for seed

The ones who don't use GM soybean seed use hybrids, and you can't grow hybrids successfully from one generation to the next without significant yield loss. The same goes for wheat; all the fields I know of are planted with hybrids.

Oats are the only crop I know of where farmers do replant last year's crop; my father would frequently have me do germination tests on various bins of it in late winter so he could decide which bins of seed to pull seed from.

Are you a farmer who personally saves your own seed from year to year? And if so, how much acreage are you running?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hankthecrank (Reply #20)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 04:27 PM

92. It is not that easy to save soybean and wheat for field size production.

The seed has to be disease free and relatively weed free and it has to be cleaned and packaged. And germination needs to be checked. Very few farmers are able to do this on a large scale. Hardly any farmers who are actually making a living at farming do it. Wheat, soybeans, and oats are are all mainly self fertile (fertilization takes place before the flower even opens) so there will be very little out crossing and little potential for adapting to the area if one saves seed from year to year. And again, most farmers are not equipped to be doing their own variety development.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #92)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 08:14 PM

120. Farmers who farmed for living did plant from last year crop

Yes they did

Worked 3 different farmers they all used last year crop to plane next year crop

These were farmers who farmed for living

Packaged? Not going to happen

It always came up germination checked

Farmed for a living enough to hire extra help

I guess you should come and tell them they are doing it wrong (good luck with that)

Must coopts grain mills can clean up seed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to hankthecrank (Reply #120)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:02 PM

126. Also in your words (self fertile )

My words except () in between
If they are (self fertile ) than Monsanto can't take them to court claiming they are using their property. But they have when they get pollinated from a field next door.

Which is it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hankthecrank (Reply #126)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:14 PM

127. You just responded to your own post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hankthecrank (Reply #126)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:31 PM

129. Well soybeans wheat and oats are self fertile. That is a fact.

Not really up for debate, any more than whether the earth is flat or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #129)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:50 PM

132. So how was Monsanto able to win court

Against farmers who planted last year crop and some blow over field next door

Another question is why is Monsanto suing anybody

I guess they are just doing wrong

I guess judge should have said you are just wrong because you used unpackaged seed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hankthecrank (Reply #132)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 06:50 AM

148. You are mixing up a couple of issues.

If you save Roundup Ready seeds and replant them yes Monsanto will sue you and win, which is their right under current law. If you don't like it you will have to change the law. Good luck with that.

Unpackaged seed is not the issue. If it is a traditional variety not under the Plant Variety Protection Act you can save and replant all the soybeans you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hankthecrank (Reply #132)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 06:06 PM

178. bribes

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hankthecrank (Reply #126)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 06:12 PM

180. Now you're (mistakenly) talking about Terminator seed technology

It was never introduced to market; all GM and non-GM hybrid seed available today is self-fertile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology

I'm really starting to question your knowledge of farming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hankthecrank (Reply #120)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:36 PM

130. Key word being "did." Not so much anymore.

Not saying it never happens but it is nowhere near the norm in U.S. or Europe and in many other parts of the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #130)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:57 PM

133. I still talk to the guys I worked for

They still planting last year crop for this year

So it's not did it's still do

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hankthecrank (Reply #120)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 06:05 PM

177. If all a farmer cares about in his seedstock is germination, he's a piss-poor farmer

How were the yields per acre on those saved soy and wheat fields? I'm serious, how many bushels per acre? Because you can "farm for a living" and still be poor as dirt if you do it wrong, or you can "farm for a living" and have enough money to retire before you're completely broken (like my grandfather, dad and 7 uncles who are all good farmers). Being able to hire help is a bad indicator of success; there's always teenagers and guys down on their luck willing to work all day for $20 and a case of beer (hell, I used to be one of those kids).

If you know some farmers getting anywhere near the yields hybrid soy and wheat seed delivers with open-pollinated, saved seed, you better find the nearest university nearby with a strong ag sciences department and get them out there pronto, because you just discovered the Holy Grail of farming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 11:50 PM

186. the skeptical raptor - you have to be KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Skeptical Raptor

Last update on November 2, 2015 under Uncategorized

This pro-GMO and pro-“Junk-Science” internet shill from California can be found in his den of iniquity (Wikipedia) under User:SkepticalRaptor. He self-describes and says he is a member of the “Worldwide Conspiracy” and outright (and appropriately) calls himself a “shill” and an “amateur” under the occupation description he provides. Under his name it says he is “Fighting the good fight, making sure that everyone knows that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, that Tennesseee is still full of sh#t, that pure water potions are useless, and that vaccines do not cause autism.” (1) This is not a doctor or scientist, but someone who studied science and is very dogmatic, selling allopathic philosophies and GMOs as sound science. Skeptical Raptor wants the public to believe that all chemicals are healthy to consume as long as “peer reviewed” articles tell us that they are. He equates the highly experimental and often fraudulent science of vaccines to the cold hard facts of science – like dinosaurs existing or the world being round. Of course, climate change is one of his favorite “straw man” topics, along with chemical pesticides helping feed the world and vaccines saving humanity from infectious diseases. Under his profile, he also self-describes as a “Scoundrel” and a “Jackass.” (2)

Wikipedia’s dominating moderator describes himself as a shill

He’s all over RationalWiki telling the public it’s safe to eat MSG (monosodium glutamate) and HFCS–High Fructose Corn Syrup, and that all the health nuts are going way overboard worrying about it. They’re both GMO, by the way. It’s reverse psychology wrapped up in propaganda, and the “raptor” trolls the internet, especially Wikipedia and RationalWiki. Here are the links if you care to read more hypocrisy and propaganda, where the writers and “moderators” encourage you to try sodas in different countries:

“From a taste perspective, though, the human tongue can distinguish between sucrose and a fructose-glucose mixture. To some, HFCS tastes like sweetened poop. Try a Coca-Cola from or while visiting somewhere besides the United States and see what you think. In the last several years, Pepsi has released “Throwback” versions of Pepsi, Mountain Dew and Dr. Pepper, sweetened with sucrose and (sometimes) featuring previous-generation labels on cans and bottles.”

Sporting his usual tag line: “Stalking pseudoscience in the internet jungle” – Skeptical Raptor goes after what he calls the “anti-vaccination cult,” and he made up the word “Manufactroversy” – where he claims anyone debating about the dangers of carcinogens in vaccines is creating a “false debate” or a “false balance” between sides of a discussion, which doesn’t even make sense. A true debate is where you listen to and give consideration to two or more sides. In his attempt to sound scientific and intellectual, Skeptical Raptor makes a fool of himself and leaves a trail of nonsense strewn across the worldwide web. (3)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #186)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 09:20 AM

202. I notice you left off the link to where you pulled this bullshit from.

 

TruthWiki, a site that DEFENDS that asshat Andrew Wakefield, amongst other discredited scientists.

If you're going to criticize my links, use a reputable source. Not a tinfoil hat source.

On Edit: I just realized who you are. All you have it tinfoil hat sources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:42 AM

3. RED ALERT: Calling all corporate apologists

Please hasten to the scene with a bucket of corporately funded "studies" performed by "researchers" at corporately funded universities.

We are going to need a vat of corporate BS to "refute" the OP.

RED ALERT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scientific (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:33 AM

5. RED ALERT: Calling all conspiracy theorists

Please hasten to the scene with a bucket of labels for tagging anyone who disagrees with you as a corporate apologist.

We are going to need a vat of labels for all the science and facts you want to deny. Please be sure to label your vat carefully so that some other species of science denier like "creationists" or "climate change skeptics" doesn't accidentally dip into it.

RED ALERT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GaYellowDawg (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:02 PM

9. Would you be more comfortable with the label "Monsanto apologist"? It's a little more precise.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:19 PM

11. Would you be comfortable with the term "circumstantial ad hominem"?

It describes your argumentation precisely. Attempt to discredit any other opinion besides your own by labeling someone as a "GMO apologist" or "Monsanto apologist." Labeling someone as the dangerous "other" in order to discredit the person, thereby discrediting anything they have to say. It's a tactic that is done by people who are too lazy and stupid to argue any other way, or by people who want to disguise their own shaky stances. You know, like conservative radio hosts and fundamentalist preachers. But good for you for joining in!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 04:54 PM

21. Would you be more comfortable with "charlatan". It's a little more precise.

You've posted the exact same thing numerous times and have failed to answer your critics with anything other than crazy conspiracy theory allegations. The fact that your very best retort is wholly composed of this level of silliness is quite telling and provides a very strong indication that you are much more concerned with the unfettered promotion of bullshit than you are about actually having anything remotely resembling discussion on the topic.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.
--Carl Sagan

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scientific (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:29 AM

236. GMO haters

are the global warming deniers of the left.

Just goes to illustrate that refusal to accept facts, data and science is not a characteristic of the right. It transcends all groups.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:00 AM

4. A switch to ecological farming will benefit health and environment – report

The world needs to move away from industrial agriculture to avoid ecological, social and human health crises, say scientists

A new approach to farming is needed to safeguard human health and avoid rising air and water pollution, high greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss, a group of 20 leading agronomists, health, nutrition and social scientists has concluded.

Rather than the giant feedlots used to rear animals or the uniform crop monocultures that now dominate farming worldwide, the solution is to diversify agriculture and re-orient it around ecological practices, says the report (pdf) by the International panel of experts on sustainable food systems (IPES-Food).

The benefits of a switch to a more ecologically oriented farming system would be seen in human and animal health, and improvements in soil and water quality, the report says.

SNIP

It is not a lack of evidence holding back the agro-ecological alternative. It is the mismatch between its huge potential to improve outcomes across food systems, and its much smaller potential to generate profits for agribusiness firms.” (my emphasis /JC)

More:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/02/a-switch-to-ecological-farming-will-benefit-health-and-environment-report

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnyCanuck (Reply #4)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:56 PM

74. Bingo. If we can't do this, all our bitching about GM/non-GM are for nothing

The core problem isn't the seed we're planting; it's the corporate, industrialized, monocropping agricultural system that has supplanted the small, diversified family farm system that we relied upon for centuries.

You could incorporate GM crops into an ecological farming method quite well and protect the ecosystem at the same time.

However, you could remove every GM crop from the industrialized farming method we currently use and still continue to destroy the ecosystem around us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:51 AM

6. Agreed. The GMO problem is about Monsanto and others monopolizing agribusiness at the expense of

independent farmers and at the expense of agricultural biodiversity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 04:09 PM

17. It seems suspicious that there is so much "pro-GMO" astroturf

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Reply #17)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 04:56 PM

22. Even more suspicious is the missing element of reality in the anti-GMO astroturf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #22)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 07:09 PM

28. What does that even mean? Monsanto has a financial interest in creating an agribusiness monopoly and

an interest in funding astroturf support for its monopolistic model.

Who - exactly - is going to fund a pro-consumer-choice movement? Consumers Union? Hippies at the farmers market? Gardeners?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #28)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 07:36 PM

36. Good question

Who is funding all the bullshit misinformation?

You do realize the vast majority of anti-GMO stuff on this site comes from sources that also promote anti-vax, chemtrails, homeopathy, fluoridation conspiracies, AIDS denial, and all sorts of other forms of the nuttiest crankery imaginable, yes?

Some of the darlings of your so-called "pro-consumer-choice movement" are Globalresearch, Naturalnews, Seralini, Vani Hari, OCA, Mercola, and several others many of which are making millions from the organic industry at best or selling outright snake oil. So it just isn't that hard to follow the money which goes far behind "Hippies at the farmers market".

So what does it mean when someone pulls the predictable and overused to the point of cliche Shill Gambit® card when someone dares to call bullshit on obvious bullshit? Do you think that actually strengthens their position or weakens it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #36)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 03:29 PM

83. The strawman argument.

 

Because some people who believe in A, also believe in B, A has no validity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #83)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 02:01 PM

150. Strawman doesn't mean what you think it means

So you might actually want to look that one up.

While you're at it, you might want to have a gander at non sequitur.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #150)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:15 PM

159. Actually, it does.

 

Please use a dictionary in the future, it will help you look less foolish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Major Nikon (Reply #163)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:29 PM

165. Thank you for proving my point.

 

Did you bother to read the link?

"The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man" and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man" instead of the original proposition"

This is exactly what you tried to do.. and got called out on it.

tsk tsk tsk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #165)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:35 PM

167. "Because some people who believe in A, also believe in B, A has no validity."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7878277



Obviously your claim doesn't come within a cab ride of the definition.

Speaking of which, what position exactly did I misrepresent?

You do realize claiming something I did, but didn't actually do and then proceeding to argue on that behalf is textbook strawman nonsense, right?

As you say, you don't really have to answer my questions and support your position, but your dodges provide all the information anyone really needs to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #167)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:42 PM

169. LOL.

 

Do I really need to draw you a map?

YOU tried to prove your point by naming some people who are critical of GMOs. You then used their other positions to attempt to disqualify them in general. Because their position on A is incorrect, their position on B must also be incorrect.

Exactly a straw man argument.

Let me guess. Clinton supporter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #169)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:50 PM

172. I see where you fucked up

Apparently context means exactly jack shit to you.

This is the question I was answering:

"Who - exactly - is going to fund a pro-consumer-choice movement? Consumers Union? Hippies at the farmers market? Gardeners?"


To which I answered:

Some of the darlings of your so-called "pro-consumer-choice movement" are Globalresearch, Naturalnews, Seralini, Vani Hari, OCA, Mercola, and several others many of which are making millions from the organic industry at best or selling outright snake oil. So it just isn't that hard to follow the money which goes far behind "Hippies at the farmers market".


To save yourself future embarrassment, if you want to jump in the middle of a discussion, then at least try to figure out what is being discussed first. Making half fast allegations you can't even begin to prove does you no favors.

Feel free to have the last word because I'm quite done here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #172)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:51 PM

173. Are you dizzy with the spin?

 

Of course you are done.

You lost.

Sorry it didn't work out for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #36)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 03:45 PM

86. How is anything so full of shit able to withstand without bursting? GMO is a legal calamity visited

on farming by rapacious monopolies.

You want a source? How about the Supreme Court of the United States:

Emphasizing “the undisputed concentration of alfalfa seed farms,” the District Court found that those farmers had “established a ‘reasonable probability’ that their organic and conventional alfalfa crops will be infected with the engineered gene” if RRA is completely deregulated. App. to Pet. for Cert. 50a. A substantial risk of gene flow injures respondents in several ways. For example, respondents represent that, in order to continue marketing their product to consumers who wish to buy non-genetically-engineered alfalfa, respondents would have to conduct testing to find out whether and to what extent their crops have been contaminated. See, e.g., Record, Doc. 62, p. 5 (Declaration of Phillip Geertson in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment) (hereinafter Geertson Declaration) (“Due to the high potential for contamination, I will need to test my crops for the presence of genetically engineered alfalfa seed. This testing will be a new cost to my seed business and we will have to raise our seed prices to cover these costs, making our prices less competitive”); id., Doc. 57, p. 4 (Declaration of Patrick Trask in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment) (“To ensure that my seeds are pure, I will need to test my crops and obtain certification that my seeds are free of genetically engineered alfalfa”); see also Record, Doc. 55, p. 2 (“There is zero tolerance for contaminated seed in the organic market”). Respondents also allege that the risk of gene flow will cause them to take certain measures to minimize the likelihood of potential contamination and to ensure an adequate supply of non-genetically-engineered alfalfa. See, e.g., Geertson Declaration 3 (noting the “increased cost of alfalfa breeding due to potential for genetic contamination”); id., at 6 (“Due to the threat of contamination, I have begun contracting with growers outside of the United States to ensure that I can supply genetically pure, conventional alfalfa seed. Finding new growers has already resulted in increased administrative costs at my seed business”).Such harms, which respondents will suffer even if their crops are not actually infected with the Roundup ready gene, are sufficiently concrete to satisfy the injury-in-fact prong of the constitutional standing analysis.


Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 153-56, 130 S. Ct. 2743, 2754-56, 177 L. Ed. 2d 461 (2010)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #86)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:15 PM

128. You might understand the law, but you don't understand the first thing about the scientific process.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027878871

Oh, and the fact that you ran and posted a BS OP instead of continuing discussion tells me you might not be all that great at argument either.

Whoops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #128)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:50 PM

135. HuckleB's "scientific process" links always written by MONSANTO SHILLS

You posted 2 articles written by Keith Kloor on another GMO thread today. Keith openly says he is in bed with Monsanto. You also posted a link from a Monsanto lobbyist on the same thread. You are on a Democratic site and all you post are links from Monsanto shills.


MONSANTO CHEERLEADER Keith Kloor



MONSANTO CHEERLEADER Heather Hanson

Than You posted a HUGE link from "Washington Friends of Farms and Forrests" -who only has 200 members - Monsanto being a member. run by another Monsanto shill - Heather Hanson -
She’s a contract lobbyist from the William Ruckelshaus Center at WSU10. And, William Ruckelshaus11 was a board member for — you guessed it — Monsanto...

From Heather Hansons Linkedin's page "Well known and respected in Washington State. The “go to” lobbyist on agricultural issues. Also experienced in media relations and grassroots development.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #135)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:59 PM

139. And more fictions from the fantasy gallery.

Not cool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #139)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 11:56 PM

187. He's your guy - Keith Kloor - He DEFINITELY IS NOT KOOL





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #128)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 03:19 PM

153. I'm not even convinced of that much

Lots of people anonymously claim to be lots of things on DU. Not all of them are telling the truth. That's why I just say I have a red phone to the almighty and have checked the matter with the ultimate authority. It's equally as verifiable.

I'm much more impressed by someone who has some sort of substance to their assertions rather than some sort of unverifiable claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #153)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 04:02 PM

155. Indeed.

It's why I find it bizarre when people want know my education and career. That's irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #155)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:29 AM

191. Wannabe Monsanto shill sounds like a possible career choice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #191)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 09:42 AM

203. Which organic industry front pays you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #86)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 02:03 PM

151. You realize Monsanto won that case, yes?

They also prevailed in the case where the organic industry tried to sue them for something they had never done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_Seed_Growers_and_Trade_Association

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #151)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:39 AM

192. One name - Clarence Thomas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #192)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 02:26 AM

197. Five names - Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer, Stevens

Are they also included in your conspiracy fantasy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #36)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:27 AM

190. The anti-GMO community winning the public relations war

So far, the anti-G.M.O. community has been winning the public relations war. Major brands like Chipotle and original Cheerios have moved to reduce or eliminate their use of genetically engineered ingredients, based in part on a marketing judgment that this is what the American public wants. That poses a threat to companies like Monsanto, which had $15.9 billion in global sales last year.


Accademics - now lobbying instead of researching

There is no evidence that academic work was compromised, but the emails show how academics have shifted from researchers to actors in lobbying and corporate public relations campaigns.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html?_r=0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #190)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 02:33 AM

198. Scientists promoting science. Who woulda thunkit?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #36)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:40 AM

231. Monsanto and Dow are funding all the bullshit misinformation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #231)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:34 AM

239. Great job of reading the question that was actually asked

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Reply #17)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:56 AM

226. You mean from "skeptics" who have never seen a corporate press release worth "questioning?"

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:26 PM

39. What exactly has Monsanto monopolized?

Can you explain this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #39)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 06:09 PM

179. farming, chemical weapons- I assume what has it monopolized historically

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to larkrake (Reply #179)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 06:36 PM

182. Monsanto doesn't farm anything, so zero market share hardly makes a monopoly

I'd be curious to know if Monsanto makes a single chemical weapon, much less enjoying a significant market share of it, let alone all of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #182)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 06:54 PM

183. They made and patented dioxin, actually and their GMO product has harmed many many farmers

 

try to keep up, just google

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to larkrake (Reply #183)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 07:01 PM

184. Try harder to post something relevant

Actually follow your own advice and use google. Dioxin isn't patented, and it isn't a chemical weapon.

This is what my google says, YMMV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dioxins_and_dioxin-like_compounds

Making the specious claim "GMO product has harmed many many farmers" does not articulate an answer to the question.

"try to keep up, just google"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:56 AM

7. Easy to say from a comfy western nation...

 

Millions of folks who use it to avoid the whole starvation thing might disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TipTok (Reply #7)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:13 PM

10. "The whole starvation thing" gets a whole lot worse

 

when farmers commit suicide because they can't subsist under the rules of corporate ag: can't buy seed, can't buy equipment, can't by fertilizers and pesticides, can't survive.

The whole starvation thing gets a lot worse when farmers and their families have to leave their land because of competition with corporate ag...but maybe that's not as obvious because they move to cities with no jobs and starve there. Leads to other problems as well: social unrest, rise of criminal activity, refugees, you name it.

The idea that corporate ag is doing what it does out of sense of humanitarian concern for mankind--especially the poor people starving in Africa or Asia--is straight up nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #10)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:19 PM

12. Who suggested they were doing it for humanity?

 

They are in it for a buck.

It's a question of capacity to feed 6 billion people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TipTok (Reply #12)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:25 PM

13. We have the capacity now.

 

What we don't have is a way to distribute it to ensure everyone gets enough.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100893540

Btw, moving from subsistence agriculture to cash-driven corporate agriculture didn't help anyone except those who pocket the bucks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #13)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 02:02 PM

16. this ^

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #13)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 01:22 AM

45. So much for growing it locally, according to you.

Now how are you going to keep everyone in Africa occupied if you're going to just fly food to them?

Yes, you are ignoring so much. Just stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #45)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 10:13 AM

50. Did you miss my comments about the downside

 

of switching from subsistence to commercial farming?

You are ignoring so much. Just stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #50)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:50 AM

51. No, I'm not.

You are the who is working to try to keep technology that can help farmers around the world from them.

http://globalfarmernetwork.org/2016/06/open-letter-to-the-eu-parliament-from-a-kenyan-farmer-leave-africa-alone

You need to stop promoting bad practices and ugly fictions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #45)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:09 AM

188. speaking of Africa - $900 to eat a GMO Bill Gates banana


17th February 2016
The Gates Foundation has received a 57,000 strong petition denouncing its support for a 'biopirated' GM banana program in Africa, and calling on it to suspend a feeding trial on US students, writes Vanessa Amaral-Rogers. The banana threatens both the health of the students, say campaigners, and the future of African agriculture.

n Monday this week Iowa State University graduate students delivered 57,309 petition signatures to ISU's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences opposing human feeding trials for a genetically modified (GM) banana.

At the same time AGRA Watch members in Seattle, Washington delivered the same petition to the headquarters of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, denouncing plans to introduce the GM banana to Uganda and other African countries.

The petition was initiated in response to an email sent to the ISU student body in April 2014 inviting young women (ages 18-40) to eat genetically modified bananas in return for a $900 payment.

n addition, there are already hundreds of banana cultivars that are naturally high in beta carotene and grown around the tropics in Africa, the Americas, Asia and the Pacific. Promotion of these existing cultivars could provide a simple answer to addressing the Vitamin A deficiency with no need to resort to genetic modification and the use of patented plant varieties.

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2987194/gates_foundation_stop_biopirated_gmo_banana_feeding_trials.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #10)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 04:58 PM

23. Woo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #23)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 06:45 PM

25. Bt-COTTON. Tasty! Woo yourself.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #25)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 06:53 PM

26. Not much need with all the woo freely available here

The farmer suicide myth never had any traction and was debunked years ago. Meanwhile the actual causes of farmer suicides remain unaddressed. But hey, at least repeating a well debunked myth gives us the satisfaction of patting yourself on the back for naming a convenient scapegoat while not actually doing anything about the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #26)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:00 PM

54. Has Monsanto patented the term "woo"?

As they have patented the DNA of living organisms?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #54)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:42 PM

68. As have a lot of grandmas cultivating new rose variatles

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #68)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:47 PM

70. Grandma can't patent a DNA sequence unless she has a PCR machine in the basement.

And breeding is not similar to artificial recombinant DNA.

Nice try though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #70)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:51 PM

72. Plant patent laws existed before anyone knew what DNA was

Nice try though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #72)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:54 PM

73. Plant patent is not a DNA patent per se, for the reason you yourself admit.

And it's not the same as patenting DNA of an existing organism, which (sadly) seems to extend even to human beings in our twisted courts. I'll be damned if any corporation is going to claim a patent on MY genetic heritage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #73)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 03:05 PM

77. Sure, we should just go back to using methods far less precice and more ambiguous

Just so the reactionaries who think DNA has some kind of magical properties don't completely freak out.

Nice try though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #77)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 03:08 PM

78. If Monsanto didn't think DNA is powerful, they wouldn't spend billions on shuffling it.

Your argument really makes no sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #78)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 03:16 PM

80. You stole my line!

All breeding methods shuffle DNA. Transgenic methods shuffle them the least, and it just isn't even close.

Nice try though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #80)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 03:18 PM

81. OMG you don't think I'm that gullible right?

There is a big difference. It's the difference between shuffling a deck of cards (chromosomes), and throwing the deck in the blender.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #81)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 03:20 PM

82. No, I'm sure of it

Fell free to provide even more evidence. You last one was a real knee slapper.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #82)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 03:54 PM

87. Off to the ignore-bin. It's cruel to fight with an unarmed opponent and I won't do it any more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #87)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 04:15 PM

91. You lost, again.

And you pretend otherwise.

That's hilarious!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #87)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 02:48 PM

152. Oh that really hurts!

Now when I point out you are channeling the right wing crank, Mercola, you won't be responding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #81)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 03:35 PM

85. I do, and you just proved it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #10)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 01:24 AM

46. You are pushing a fiction and you know it.

You have disqualified yourself from any further discussion.

Ethics matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TipTok (Reply #7)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:31 PM

14. You could make the same argument about any private monopoly. Often people need the product which a

private monopoly provides. The illusion that only the monopoly can provide that product is based on a self-fulfilling business model.

This is poor justification for a private monopoly. It is an especially poor justification for allowing a monopoly to grow unchecked in the US or Europe or other parts of the industrialized world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #14)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 01:12 PM

15. GMOs and monopolies are separate issues...

 

... With a lot of overlap.

The OP comes off as dismissing GMOs as a whole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TipTok (Reply #7)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 04:28 PM

19. GMO crop systems do not increase output

Weeds rapidly become Round Up Ready then you have the worst of all worlds -- high costs for patented seeds and chemicals PLUS Roundup Ready palmer amaranth in your field.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2014/06/22/superweeds-choke-farms/11231231/

The chemical industry's answer is double down on the pesticides:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-epa-pesticides-dow-met-20160214-story.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreatGazoo (Reply #19)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 05:05 PM

24. Yeah, "rapidly" over 40 years



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #24)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 07:01 PM

27. Less than that. Monsanto introduced Round-up Ready seeds in '97.

 


Nearly half (49 percent) of all US farmers said they had "glyphosate resistant weeds" on their farms in 2012, according to the most recent review from agri-business market research firm Stratus.

That's up from 34 percent of farmers in 2011.

<snip>
Benbrook described a vicious cycle, saying "resistant weeds have become a major problem for many farmers reliant on genetically-engineered crops, and are now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each year by about 25 percent."

"Many experts in the US are projecting that the approval of new multiple herbicide tolerant crops will lead to at least a 50 percent increase to the average application of herbicide," he added.

(my bold) And the New, Improved Multiple Herbicides will apparently include my favorite 2,4-D. Yea! Something to look forward to. You, and Monsanto, need to remember the first rule of holes.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-01-superweeds-epidemic-spotlight-gmos.html#jCp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #27)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 07:12 PM

29. What's with all the pro-GMO stuff? You'd think this was CorporateMonopolist Underground.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #29)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 07:16 PM

32. Or WooUnderground

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #29)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 07:18 PM

33. It's a mystery to me.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #29)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:01 PM

43. It's unbelievable - it's the troll DU Monsanto lovers -



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #29)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 01:27 AM

47. I'm sorry, why do you think science is bad?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #47)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 03:57 PM

88. Science is good but the tobacco companies misled with a false veneer of science just as you mislead

about GMOs.

You pick a strawman argument you can win (e.g., GMO beat sugar is no worse for you to consume than non-GMO cane sugar) and pretend that winning such a strawman argument validates your position on issues where you are dead wrong (e.g., notwithstanding your blather, GMOs are terrible for independent farming and worse for biodiversity or consumers should be entitled to know what they are buying).

I suppose that may work on children, but adults are not misled by such simple and transparent deceptions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #88)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 04:12 PM

89. Newsflash: It's the anti-GMOers who are practicing tobacco science.

http://fafdl.org/blog/2015/05/19/anti-gmo-activists-are-the-ones-practicing-tobacco-science/

"...

I would actually argue that there is a strong analogy between GMOs and tobacco. What obscures the analogy is that the roles are reversed in ways that obscure the parallels. Instead of big business twisting, cherrypicking and manipulating the science relating to tobacco to confuse the public and provide cover for policy makers, what we see today is the twisting, cherrypicking and manipulating the science relating to biotech crops in order to confuse the public and drive policymaking.

Except that instead of Big Ag, the source of misinformation and misconceptions is environmental and public interest watchdog groups. For those of us used to turning to these groups to sift through the scientific research and make sense of it, let us know the policy implications can be disorienting to say the least. If you are an environmentalist or any sort of liberal or lefty it can really throw you off your bearings to realize that they guys you thought were wearing the white hats are the ones blowing smoke, muddying the waters, sowing confusion.

I can’t say that I fully understand what’s going on here. I understand that we all tend to rationalize the facts to fit what we want to believe more often than we follow the evidence as the basis for our opinions. That better explains why people with casual interest in a subject cling to just so stories. I have a harder time understanding how someone who does policy work can stay so stubbornly ensconced in a bubble for years and years on a subject that they work on. It would seem that after a while of working in the field; naive, knee jerk anti-corporate attitudes and the desire to return to a pastoral fantasy of agriculture that never existed would eventually give way to reality.

With groups like Food and Water Watch and the Environmental Working Group, I’ve long been disabused of the thought that they based their agenda on the facts. Their facts are almost invariably retro-fitted to their agenda.

..."



-------------------------------

Not only is GMO sugar the same as any other sugar health wise, it is better for the environment, as you would know if you had bothered to read the links I provided in that discussion. Why would you want to harm the environment just because your marketing plan is all about the false demonization of GMOs? That's just ugly to the core.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #89)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 04:51 PM

93. You are wrong and you know you are wrong. My anti-GMO views are based on the ill effect it has on

independent farming and on consumer rights.

That preference is unrelated to the science about whether GMOs are more or less healthful to consume than non-GMOs.

If I prefer to buy fair-trade coffee, you may share that view or you may disparage that view. I don't care. My preference wouldn't be based on your approval or disapproval and science about the similarity of coffee labeled as fair-trade and coffee without that label doesn't enter into the picture.

You may prefer free-range chicken and you may hate the idea of eating veal, and I may or may not share your views. But it does not matter if I post articles that free-range chickens taste the same as factory-farm chickens or veal is not as healthy as a lean cut of pork because that would not be the basis for your preference.

I might be someone who boycotts conflict diamonds, and you can offer industry sponsored articles arguing that the conflict diamonds are the sparkliest, but that would have no bearing on my decision.

As consumers, you and I are entitled to prefer fair-trade coffee and free-range chickens or not, to boycott veal and conflict diamonds or not. As consumers we are entitled to such information to inform our decisions.

Likewise, I prefer non-GMO products because of the horrible damages inflicted on independent farming. There have been billions of dollars in settlements from GMO monopolists paying independent farmers who have been bankrupted because the GMO pirates have violated laws by their misbehavior.

On the topic of whether you agree or not about my preference for non-GMO foods, I have no fucks to give you. My preference is based on two things: (1) the lawsuits involving financially ruined farmers which I am personally familiar with and (2) my knowledge of consumer rights to such information about whether a food is GMO or not.

You are aware of the billions the GMO industry has paid for the damages it has wrongfully inflicted on the independent farmers and don't pretend that you are not. No one defends such shitty business practices with your zeal without acquiring some knowledge of the hell wrought by the industry you defend.

The tobacco industry also had defenders like you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to HuckleB (Reply #94)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 05:21 PM

97. You keep posting arguments that GMOs are "safe." I'm not saying GMOs are unsafe. GMOs illegally

undermine independent farming. That has nothing to do with whether the GMOs are safe to eat or not.

You are completely wrong that the same arguments apply to other patented seeds.

As several others have pointed out already, GMOs are created to be dependent on specific pesticides and herbicides - that's great if you're the company that holds the exclusive right to market those specific pesticides and herbicides. When pollen drift affects a neighboring independent farmer's crop, his crop becomes dependent on those proprietary pesticides and herbicides. Plus, when the independent farmer's crop is contaminated by his neighbor's GMO, the independent farmer has lost access to the gigantic market share for non-GMO produce and he can only sell his contaminated crop into a much more limited market.

These concerns DO NOT APPLY to non-GMO patented seed for two reasons. First, the non-GMO patented seeds are not created to be dependent on proprietary pesticides and herbicides. Second, the non-GMO patented seeds ARE NOT BANNED in many markets around the world the way GMOs are banned by law or by the fact that lots of countries have consumers who just don't want the crap Monsanto is selling.

You fucking well know all of this so don't pretend this is news to you. Also, don't feel obliged to cut-and-paste more articles that tobacco isn't addictive, er ..., I mean don't feel obliged to cut-and-paste more articles that GMOs are safe to eat. I'm not saying GMOs are unsafe to eat (they are just an unscrupulous business model).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #97)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 05:24 PM

98. You keep ignoring the reality that GMOs do no such thing.

All of your arguments go just as much for all types of seeds, yet you keep ignoring that.

And reading just the titles of pieces means you missed a lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #98)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 05:31 PM

99. Compare the markets that ban GMOs with the markets that ban non-GMO patented seeds. Oh, wait, there

are no markets that ban non-GMO patented seeds.

So GMO pollen drift which contaminates an independent farmer's crop drives him out of countless markets, but pollen drift from a non-GMO patented seed does not get the farmer's crop banned from any markets.

You say that the two situations are the same. The facts say no person who is not pushing an agenda would reach the conclusion you are promoting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #99)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 06:01 PM

106. You're digging your hole deeper and deeper.

There is no justification for banning GMO seeds, so why even bring that up?

Fear mongering sucks, btw.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/528331/how-scare-tactics-on-gmo-foods-hurt-everybody/

Pollen drift happens with all types of seeds, and farmers deal with it, and have for centuries. Because someone wants a marketing label (organic) does not magically mean they should get protection that has never been a part of the equation. It's just baseless fear mongering.

I look forward to you spewing some of the usual anti-GMO nonsense.

BTW, if you think you can justify your beliefs, head on over to Food and Farm Discussion Lab on Facebook. There you will be able to discuss the issue with other lay people, as well as farmers, researchers, and scientists. It would be interesting to see if your beliefs can be justified there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #93)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 04:06 PM

156. So you compare tobacco to GMO, then freely admit the issues are completely different

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #89)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:43 AM

232. HuckleB above link by Marc Brazeau - pro GMO shill

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #232)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:38 AM

241. Marc Brazeau is a life-long progressive and labor activist who cares about science.

Last edited Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Your ugly attacks are despicable. You really have no justification for any posts you make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #47)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:52 PM

136. All the "science" you quote is from shills

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #136)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:00 AM

140. Your fantasies are rather sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #140)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:27 AM

143. This is who you always quote - your beloved Keith Kloor

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #143)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:32 AM

147. Aww. That's cute.

Too bad you can't actually support any of your claims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #147)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:18 AM

228. Keith Kloor admits he is a shill - what can I say - you love the guy!

He acts like a shill, he talks like a shill and he admits he's a shill !!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #47)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:54 PM

138. Monsanto shill science

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #138)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:01 AM

141. One fantasy troll post wasn't enough?

Why do you hate the planet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #47)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:25 AM

142. Sometimes, there’s a fine line between the rats and the scientists.

Yes, scientists are attacking the latest Monsanto study – but not because of the science

So, for instance, when a scientist attacks a GMO study as “using too few subjects”, it’s helpful to know that the study used the same sample size as Monsanto does in their own studies. This allows the listener to objectively deduce whether the objection is valid – or bunk.

Likewise, when a scientist attacks a GMO study, it’s useful to know whether the scientist is a dispassionate observer who is speaking out due to legitimate scientific concern… or the scientist has side-businesses in GMOs himself and therefor has a serious vested interest in Monsanto’s success. Or even one who has been on Monsanto’s payroll.

It’s also telling when scientists put out a press release denouncing a study the same day that the study comes out. This presents the appearance of a PR response, rather than a considered objective analysis.






The first expert quoted by the SMC is Prof Maurice Moloney, Chief Executive of Rothamsted Research. What the SMC fails to tell journalists is that Moloney doesn’t just drive a Porsche with a GMO number plate, but has a c.v. to match. It is in fact Moloney’s GM research that lies behind Monsanto’s GM canola (oilseed rape). He also launched his own GM company in which Dow Agro Science were investors. In other words, Prof Moloney’s career and business activities have long been centered around GM.

Another expert quoted by the SMC is Dr Wendy Harwood. Dr Harwood is a GM scientist at the UK’s John Innes Centre, which has had tens of millions of pounds invested in it by GM giants like Syngenta. In fact, a previous director of the JIC told his local paper that any major slow down or halt in the development of GM crops “would be very, very serious for us.”

Prof Anthony Trewavas of the University of Edinburgh is another of the experts that the SMC GMO corn caused increased risk of tumor risk in ratsquotes. They don’t mention that Prof Trewavas is also a GM crop scientist, as well as a fervent opponent of organic farming, or that he is notorious for his attacks on scientists who publish research critical of GM.

Prof Mark Tester is yet another GM scientist quoted by the SMC. He is described by the SMC as Research Professor, Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics, University of Adelaide. His University of Adelaide profile tells us: “His commercial acumen is clear from his establishment of private companies and successful interactions with multinational companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and Pioneer-DuPont.”

The SMC describes Prof Ottoline Leyser as Associate Director of the Sainsbury Laboratory, University of Cambridge. They don’t mention that the Laboratory is funded by the Gatsby Foundation of Lord Sainsbury, the well known GM enthusiast and biotech entrepreneur, who also set up and funds the GM-related work of the Sainsbury Laboratory at the John Innes Centre.

Prof Alan Boobis is described by the SMC as Professor of Biochemical Pharmacology, Imperial College London. They don’t mention that he is a long-time member of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), i.e the very body that approved the GM corn in question, or that he has also long been on the board of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) – a biotech and food industry lobby group whose backers include the GM giants BASF, Bayer and Monsanto.

Prof Tom Sanders is described by the SMC as Head of the Nutritional Sciences Research Division, King’s College London. Like Prof Trewavas, Prof Sanders was involved in attacking the Pusztai study that suggested concerns about GM. His criticisms do not appear to have been well founded. This was back in the late 1990s. According to an article in The Independent in 1996, Prof Sanders was at that time “Nutrasweet’s professional consultant”. Up until 2000, Nutrasweet was owned by Monsanto.




http://redgreenandblue.org/2012/09/30/yes-scientists-are-attacking-the-latest-monsanto-study-but-not-because-of-the-science/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #142)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:31 AM

146. Your fictions are many.

And you truly want others to believe the,.

That's sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #47)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:14 AM

189. Yea - I smell a lot of rats in your "science"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #189)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 03:10 AM

199. Sure, you just promote crank magnets like Michel Chossudovsky and Mae-Wan Ho

Why don't you smell a rat when you are promoting their nutbaggery?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch#Conspiracy_theories

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mae-Wan_Ho

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #27)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 07:14 PM

31. More than that

Monsanto brought it to market in 1974 under the trade name Roundup, and Monsanto's last commercially relevant United States patent expired in 2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #31)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 07:23 PM

34. I was talking about Round-up Ready crops,

 

which is why I said Round-up Ready and '97. Got anything germane to add?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #34)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 07:40 PM

37. The post I replied to was talking about Roundup

But I'm sure it's the seeds themselves causing weed resistance, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #37)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:30 PM

40. My post you replied to was talking about Round-up Ready and '97

 

but by all means, keep digging.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #40)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:32 PM

41. You are correct, that post was a non sequitur

The rabbit hole has already been dug and I'm done following you into it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #41)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:34 PM

42. bockbocbockbockBock

 

Such big words you use, and Latin too! I am so impressed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 07:13 PM

30. Most of your arguments can be applied to non-GMO, hybrid seeds as well

The environmental damage we're currently seeing is inherent in industrial agriculture as a whole, not specifically because of GM crops. It doesn't really matter all that much what kind of seed you plant when you're planting it on thousand-acre monocrop fields with almost no wild vegetation left in between the rows (either from cultivation or herbicide application). When you plow from fenceline to fenceline, biodiversity is non-existent no matter what crop you plant.

Agricultural biodiversity and property rights also apply to non-GM hybrid seeds: they are patented and have been since the Green Revolution of the 1970's. And just like GM crops, you can't plant hybrid seed from your fields the following year, but for different reasons. Where it is illegal to grow GM crops from saved seed, it is simply horribly uneconomical to grow saved seed from hybrid crops since they don't breed true from generation to generation and your yields would suffer greatly.

Even if all GM crops were to magically disappear tomorrow, the vast majority of food produced in developed nations today (the US, China, India, Brazil, and all of Europe) would STILL be controlled by seed monopolies, because the fallback from GM crops is patented hybrid seed. There are very, very few farmers who practice modern farming practices and use open-pollinated seed suitable for saving generation to generation, and the tradeoff for OP seed is a significant drop in crop yield over hybrids.

Our problems with how we generate food on this planet go far deeper than just GM seed. There are far too many of us, consuming far too many resources, and we have no idea how we can pull back from the precipice we've found ourselves on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #30)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 07:24 PM

35. ^^This^^

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #30)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 07:53 PM

38. The talking point goes something like this

First you have to accept that GMO is evil because of well, reasons. Next you have to understand that biotech companies are using this evil to force farmers into signing licensing agreements, because as we all know, farmers are just not as smart and knowledgeable about farming as the activists. Then if they reuse their seed, they will be sued for totally violating the very licensing agreement they must have been forced at gunpoint to sign in the first place, or something because as we all well know this never happened before GMO came along. If they don't sign, the biotech companies will totally infest their fields with GMO and then sue them for being involuntarily infested even though there's not a single instance of this ever happening.

Hope that clears this up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Original post)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 01:18 AM

44. Ignore the evidence base, because people who go with scientific consensus are "curious."

Say what? Is that supposed to be an affront of some kind?

It's a seed development technology.

Why are you supporting unethical fear mongering?

Sheesh.

On the other hand, you are clearly a great student at the University of Google.
https://violentmetaphors.com/2016/06/03/how-to-flunk-out-of-the-university-of-google/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Original post)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 07:13 AM

48. The Precautionary Principle and GM crops

The Precautionary Principle (PP) Requires to be Interpreted Critically and Pre-emptively for its Proper Application to the Unique
Risks of GM crops


Aruna Rodrigues
Lead Petitioner (Public Interest Writ (PIL) in India’s Supreme Court)

The Fraud Of GM Crops
The Scientific Evidence


“Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety”.
FDA – Statement of Policy Foods derived from New Plant Varieties, 29 May 1992

“Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job”.
Phillip Angell: Monsanto Director of Corporate Communications: (Pollan: NY Times Magazine 25 Oct. 1998)

No national laws allow toxins to be put into food. Cry proteins or Bt toxins as also herbicides with their other
‘ingredients’ that form the construct are pesticides and /or toxins or injurious. Indian Law is clear on this point:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) and sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 15, no variety of any
genus or species which involves ‘any technology’ injurious to the life or health of human beings, animals or plants shall be registered under this Act. For the purposes of this subsection, the expression “any technology” includes genetic use restriction technology and terminator technology.” (Ref. Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001
section 29 (3)).


Yet this is precisely what has transpired in the 20 years since GM crops have been commercialised and released in open field trials. Cry toxins are claimed by Monsanto to harm only pests with alkaline gut systems, an explanation that was accepted without scrutiny or the test of time in rigorous studies, and so accepted safe for animal and human consumption. The claim for the safety of glyphosate was similarly ingenuous: glyphosate is claimed and advertised as a safe herbicide, safe enough to eat, based on its ability to block the shikimate pathway involved in the production of aromatic amino acids in plants and bacteria. It has to be admitted that it takes a certain kind of mind to contrive to transform a toxin into something altogether benign and even ‘magical’ for the benefit of agriculture and the food security of the world. Indeed it would take a miracle to truly achieve such a metamorphosis. That ‘miracle’ is now fraying.


http://foodsovereigntyghana.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/The-Fraud-Of-GM-Crops-%E2%80%93-The-Scientific-Evidence-Aruna-12-jun-section-5.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Major Nikon (Reply #49)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 05:43 PM

101. Actually the courts have overthrown the BS attacks on Seralini. He was right.

GMOs do cause tumors in rats.

The courts have backed him up.

So another GMO fact twist gets cashiered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Scientific (Reply #101)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 06:16 PM

108. Bullshit

Gotta love how the anti-science crowd thinks a civil defamation case makes seralini's bullshit golden. Way to completely ignore the link. Even the IARC called his study shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #49)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:33 AM

229. Skeptico blogs - give me a break - no one even signs the articles

Another pro GMO wacky site!! And you have the nerve to put down other people's links.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #229)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:30 AM

238. I get that someone who believes in homeoquackery doesn't have much use for things like facts

So far your methods of discrediting other people's sources is nothing short of totally hilarious.

Here's a short list of a few of the batshit crazy sources you have used and I'm sure will continue to use.

GlobalResearch
Whenever someone makes a remarkable claim and cites GlobalResearch, they are almost certainly wrong.
Globalresearch

Mercola
Joseph Mercola, doctor of osteopathy, is a popular guru of alternative medicine and a member of the right-wing quack outfit Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. He advocates and provides a forum for many classic crank medical ideas, such as vaccine hysteria and the belief that modern (sorry, "allopathic" medicine kills more people than it helps. His website is a veritable spring of pseudoscience, quackery, and logical fallacies. He is a promoter of the idea of an AMA/Big Pharma/FDA conspiracy.[1]
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola

Seralini
Gilles-Eric Séralini is a professor of molecular biology at the Institute of Fundamental and Applied Biology (IBFA) of the University of Caen in France. He is also President of the Scientific Board at CRIIGEN.[1] He was fairly well known in the biotech community for having a history of flawed studies,[2][3] but his controversial 2012 study on transgenic NK603 maize made him immensely popular among the anti-GM communities.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Seralini

Food Babe
Hari is maybe not quite as dangerous as Joseph Mercola (who endorses her) or Mike Adams, but that's not exactly comforting. Her standards of evidence are terrible and based on total nonsense, and rather than promoting moderation, she mostly just wraps up obsessiveness and scolding in an apparently well-meaning package. Is she incompetent or a liar? Well, it doesn't really matter. Most of her "investigative" process can be summed up as either "Joseph Mercola said so, therefore spinning water in a blender really does make it healthier" or "if I can't pronounce it, it must cause cancer."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/FoodBabe.com

Mae-Wan Ho
Ho has been criticized for embracing pseudoscience.[7][8][9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mae-Wan_Ho

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Vote2016 (Original post)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:57 AM

53. Good luck here!

Insulting Monsanto is more dangerous than insulting HRC.

I respect your courage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #53)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:07 PM

55. What's up with that?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Reply #55)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:09 PM

56. No one cares about Monsanto.

People do care about getting the science right. Unfortunately, the anti-GMO crowd does not like that, and pretends that those who care about getting the science right give a crap about Monsanto. It's a very disingenuous thing to do. It's not ok.

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/logical-fallacies/shill-gambit-logical-fallacies/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #56)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:32 PM

64. I'm not debating the science. It is an intellectual property scam, and the labelling issue is a

 

consumer rights matter.

Science doesn't enter into the legal problems with GMOs or the consumer rights issues, but thanks for the delicious red herring!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Reply #64)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:35 PM

65. All types of seeds are patented, not just GMOs.

So that goes out the window.

Labels should have a scientific basis, not just a preference basis. Halal and Kosher labels are not mandatory, for example. There is no science-based reason to justify labels of seed development technology, particularly when only one of the technologies is being labeled, and then after industry campaigns to demonize GMOs in order to con people into buying more expensive products for no good reason.

PS: 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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #56)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:07 AM

227. HuckleB posting Skeptical Raptor - Internet shill - links again

from Truth Wiki --



The Raptor’s obvious dedication to dogma and the “religion” of science

Dogma is defined as a set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true and serves as part of the primary basis of an IDEOLOGY (or belief system) that cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system’s paradigm or the ideology itself. (4) The “Raptor” puts in much time removing or altering content of objective balance on subjects of controversy in Wiki (5). He’s one of the most forceful vaccine advocates in the blogosphere, spreading fear and propaganda for anyone skeptical of Western medicine and the chemical violence push for dozens of inoculations (before age 6) and the full schedule of CDC recommended toxic jabs that are scientifically leading to neurological disorders in children, as even admitted by lead CDC scientist Dr. William Thompson. Since the mass media and Wikipedia are having a complete blackout of Dr. Thompson’s confession about the toxic MMR vaccine and it’s direct correlation to autism, pharma trolls like Raptor try to reinforce their stance and the fake “consensus” they say science has come to with regards to a handful of facts–mixed in with a couple HUGE lies. Basically the dogma is to state easy science facts first, then add in the safety of vaccines and genetically modified food. (12)

Via The Original Skeptical Raptor

The number one goal of a pharma/biotech shill is to remove people’s fear that chemicals in food and chemicals in medicine are dangerous and detrimental to your health. People like Skeptical Raptor use character attacks (aka character assassinations) to destroy the credibility of the health advocates making huge waves, like the Health Ranger and the Food Babe. The shills also try to make it sound as if synthetic chemicals are the answer to diseases, disorders, drought, starvation, crop profits, crop yields, the death of bugs and weeds, etc. They tell you how complicated science is and then they try to explain how chemicals are good for you to eat, drink, put on your skin and breathe in. (9)



Here is Skeptical Raptor trying to convince readers and consumers that genetically modified corn sugar processed in a manufacturing plant is no different than the natural version from sugar beet or sugar cane:

“There is simply no difference between the fructose and glucose in HFCS, and the one in cane sugar, sucrose. The chemical formulas are exactly the same. It’s the exact same carbons, the exact same hydrogens, and the exact same oxygens. No difference. Both sucrose from a sugar beet or sugar cane is chemically and scientifically identical to HFCS. Neither is more or less “natural” than the other. This is one of the major misconceptions of the pseudoscience of the natural food world, that someone how a sugar from a living organism is somehow different from a sugar from a manufacturing plant. I want to make this clear. There is simply no difference between the fructose and glucose in HFCS, and the one in cane sugar, sucrose. The chemical formulas are exactly the same. They contain the exact same carbons, the exact same hydrogens, and the exact same oxygens. They have the same chemical bonds. No organism on this planet could distinguish between them. Without a doubt, the human body cannot distinguish between sources of the sugar.”



Skeptical Raptors Education? According to his own bio, he has a couple decades experience marketing medical products. He has an undergraduate degree in biochemistry/endocrinology from a US university and has worked for a pharmaceutical company. He defines skeptic as “someone who requires extraordinary evidence before accepting extraordinary claims.” He doesn’t accept the existence of God. He says he’s an expert in medicine, but he is not a doctor. Online, the Raptor is not educating anyone but rather obfuscating important information that consumers would otherwise use to filter food and medicine toxins from their intake, including GMO, MSG and HFCS. He does the same with red meat/processed meats and colorectal cancer, trying to obfuscate the facts presented by the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer), which is the research group of the World Health Organization (WHO) – and their study on red meats and processed meats raising chances of getting colon cancer. In his same blogs he brags about his love for bacon and French sausage. Even in his arguments for the safety of consuming those meats, he gives credit to the IARC and anything that shows up in the Lancet or other “Peer Reviewed” publications, so he discredits his own argument. After all of this, he gives “recommendations” including “everything in moderation.” He uses PubMed science studies for sources: ie: Colorectal Cancer:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #56)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:38 AM

230. You love Monsanto - all your posts are from Monsanto shills

OMG! You are back to posting links by the Monsanto psycho skepticalraptor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Reply #55)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:13 PM

57. All I can tell you is my experience has been stunningly negative.

The response is typically powerful and swift. Almost as if there is a strong incentive of some kind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #57)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:19 PM

59. It almost seems that way, but why would anyone not being paid respond so swiftly defending Monsanto

 

on a website for people predisposed to be sceptical of corporate abuse of power?

I guess there is s bigger community of people who are enthusiastic about replacing our inefficient family farms with sleek agribusinesses to help march us in lockstep to a brighter and more homogenous future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Reply #59)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:25 PM

60. Yes, surely that must be it - a bright, shiny future.

Better living through chemistry. It's aaaallll about the public good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Reply #59)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:26 PM

61. No one is defending Monsanto.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #61)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:27 PM

62. Not ok with who? Your boss?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Reply #62)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:28 PM

63. Not ok with anyone who cares about honesty and ethics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #63)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:40 PM

66. Cool website. It's on the internet. It does not excuse the genetic piracy from pollen drift or

 

explain why consumers shouldn't be entitled to know what they are buying but they can push over a scarecrow with killer efficiency on your fancy internet website.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Reply #66)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:42 PM

67. You don't appear to know much about pollen drift.

Last edited Fri Jun 3, 2016, 01:50 PM - Edit history (1)

It is managed all over the country just fine, and many farmers grow several types of seeds, and do well with it. Organic is just a marketing term, so forgetting that reality does not help. Drift happens with all types of seeds, btw.

Drift happens with all types of seeds, btw. The topic is just used as a con routine of the anti-GMO movement.

Again, your desire for labels is a preference, not based in reason.

If you can disprove anything on that site, with a consensus of peer-reviewed evidence, let me know.

If you want to learn about the topic, for reals, this is a good place to start. It's written by an organic farmer and a genetic researcher.
http://base.dnsgb.com.ua/files/book/Agriculture/Organic-Agriculture/Tomorrows-Table-Organic-Farming.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #67)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 01:25 AM

194. Author of your above link on organic farming - Pamela Ronald - "SCIENTIFIC" research questioned

Can the Scientific Reputation of Pamela Ronald, Public Face of GMOs, Be Salvaged?


"This background is relevant because Pamela Ronald is now also fighting on her home front. Her scientific research has become the central question in a controversy that may destroy both careers. In the last year Ronald’s laboratory at UC Davis has retracted two scientific papers (Lee et al. 2009 and Han et al 2011) and other researchers have raised questions about a third (Danna et al 2011). The two retracted papers form the core of her research programme into how rice plants detect specific bacterial pathogens ."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #194)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 03:26 AM

200. Kinda funny how they question Ronald's reputation

She voluntarily retracted two papers after finding out the science was flawed, and the self-described Independant Science News questions her credibility. Meanwhile they promote Seralini after two of his papers were involuntarily retracted and discredited by a wide consensus of the scientific community.

Very telling that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #194)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:40 AM

242. Pamela Ronald is an honorable scientist.

Your link is from a despicable, scam site.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/food-matters/lab-life-the-anatomy-of-a-retraction/

Why is it that the only thing anti-GMOers have are fiction-based attacks on good scientists?

Do you have any shame at all?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Reply #59)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 01:48 PM

245. it's the same shiny vision from Wired or the nuclear industry

if you demur you're tripping up humanity itself in its upward climb to godhood
in the 50s they were even enthused about all the plutonium waste, since that was just fuel for the next generation of reactors! any day now ...
ESP research (when permitted) now has a better track record than fusion research
so it's the exact type of people that mocks the Rapture fundies but then gets excited because soon the machines will upload us into the computers and we'll be immortal, and even rewrite the laws of physics to live forever during the Big Rip, shaping universes at will

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterP (Reply #245)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:08 PM

246. Bzzt. Wrong answer.

It's about simple science, and a simple seed development technology that has been baselessly demonized by those who follow the natural fallacy in an attempt to con people into buying more expensive food that is also worse for the planet.

Your little fantasy has nothing to do with any of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Original post)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:43 PM

69. queue the anti-science pro-gmo people.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #69)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:57 PM

75. Sure, because they are the ones channeling Mike Adams, Mercola, Food Babe, ...

And all the rest of the batshit crazy crankosphere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #75)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 03:04 PM

76. Thanks for proving the point so well.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #76)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 03:12 PM

79. Sure, because pointing out other's use of pseudoscience is so anti-science

I'm not convinced you had a point to begin with, but let's pretend you did for a moment.

Do you actually have any specific and relevant examples of your half fast allegation? Because I have a shit load.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #79)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 03:30 PM

84. Its called a false equivalence.

 

And yes, I have TONS of specific relevant examples that I have posted many MANY times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #84)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 03:40 PM

154. False equivalence doesn't mean what you think it means

How about you present some of those examples, or would you like me to go first?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #154)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:16 PM

160. Don't really care what you do.

 

You have already proven your ignorance on this subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #160)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:21 PM

162. Your refusal to provide any relevant examples of your assertion is telling all on it's own

I never really expected you to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #162)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:28 PM

164. I did several times.

 

You chose to ignore it, which is pretty much what I expected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #164)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:30 PM

166. Where?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #166)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:39 PM

168. In this very thread.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #168)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:42 PM

170. Where?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #170)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:42 PM

171. In this very thread.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #171)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:53 PM

174. Do I really need to be that specific, or are you just being obtuse?

For your sake I hope it's the later.

Where in this thread?

Post # or link would be quite helpful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #174)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:53 PM

175. Thought you were "done".

 

In this thread. The very one you are reading.

Try looking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #175)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:56 PM

176. I was with that leg of the thread

Didn't read your response either, which is also true of this one.

I'm simply going to assume your usual refusal to back up your assertions means you can't. Sometimes a negative response tells one all that's really needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #176)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 06:16 PM

181. Use your eyes.

 

BTW, if you saw the response.. you read it.

Not a very good fibber, are you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #69)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 04:14 PM

90. The problem is that the focus of the anti-gmo people is very broad...

While the blame is very narrowly focused.

The OP is a classic example, the issues brought up are larger and unrelated to GMOs. They date back to the Green Revolution or even further back to the dawn of industrial agriculture 100 us years ago.

Also not seeing the antiscience on the pro-gmo side, that seems exclusive on the anti-gmo side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #90)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 05:17 PM

96. Not really.

 

The focus is fairly narrow and the blame broad.

The focus is mostly on labeling and HONEST testing.

The problem with the pro-gmo crowd is that their argument is often (as happened in this thread many times). Well.. the anti-gmo position is embraced by (insert name here), but they don't take responsibility for their own (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erin-e-bowman/no-ted-cruz-opposing-gmos_b_9468130.html)

Study after study after study has shown potential harm, but the anti-science pro-gmo crowd just ignores them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #96)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 05:44 PM

102. What studies? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #102)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 06:41 PM

109. Oh, I don't know.. pick any one of the thousands.

 

I've posted so many, so many times.

I could dig up reports on glyphosate, including the WHO's conclusion that it is likely a carcinogen.

The big problem is that this is a broad brush issue and the anti-science pro-gmo crowd want to paint with a narrow brush, declaring ALL GMOS safe, which is, of course, nonsense, since many have been introduced and then removed form the market after they proved unsafe.

Making the insane blanket statement that "GMO'S ARE SAFE" is like making the insane blanket statement that "PRESCRIPTION DRUGS ARE SAFE" or even "ALL VACCINES ARE SAFE" (look up the history on RotaShield for example).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #109)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 06:50 PM

111. Can you link to any one of those studies? In addition, the WHO may end up reversing its decision...

apparently there were conflicts of interest with the committee in question.

Can you link to any study that shows that GMOs are unsafe?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #111)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 06:56 PM

113. Yes

 

Here's one:

http://bmcnephrol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12882-015-0109-2

Or this one one:
http://mbio.asm.org/content/6/2/e00009-15


I wonder how much corporations will have to spend to get the WHO to "reverse its decision".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #113)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 07:05 PM

114. The first link didn't attempt to separate out whether it was glyphosate...

or the heavy metals causing the kidney disease. At best the link to glyphosate is speculation. Has there been a follow up to try to control for what chemicals/elements may be the culprit?

The second one isn't surprising, nor even much of a secret, I guess its a good thing we don't use glyphosate as an antibiotic. The pathways used to kill some bacteria isn't the same as current clinical antibiotics, so any resistance developed won't affect the effectiveness of current antibiotics.

And you go to the conspiracy theory gambit, there's a reason why so many people's credibility is questioned on this. Such speculation belongs on infowars, prisonplanet and globalresearch.ca.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #114)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 07:07 PM

115. As I suspected.

 

The anti-science, pro-gmo crowd refuses to accept actual science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #115)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 07:29 PM

117. What are you babbling on about? Now you are just making shit up.

No where did I deny anything in either of those studies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #117)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 08:27 PM

121. LOL. Read your post.

 

You dismiss the findings completely, ignoring the fact that this is just 2 studies, which have been replicated dozens and dozens of times.

This is why it is such anti-science BS. Anyone can pick apart a SINGLE study. But there are hundreds of studies showing the potential ill effects of glyphosate in both humans and lab animals.

Every study ever done can be nit picked for not accounting for EVERY variable, because we can't study these things in a vacuum. This is why there are still SOME DOCTORS who believe smoking does not cause cancer. (e.g. http://smokescreens.org/lungcancer.htm) ... it's just a minor risk factor increase.

Second hand smoke studies.. well, they didn't account for exhaust and other factors.

Been down this nonsense road before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #121)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 08:43 PM

123. I said none of those things, you are just making things up, for what reason I don't know...

and it would be a big variable to isolate out, for causation, heavy metal contamination versus glyphosate.

In addition, can you link to some of these dozens and/or hundreds studies you are hinting at?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #123)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:27 AM

144. LOL. Wow. That's some crazy spin you got going on.

 

Thank you for proving my point so well.

And no, I am done linking the studies. You can google them. There are hundreds of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #144)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 04:52 PM

157. What spin? I literally pointed out a shortcoming of the first paper that was pointed out...

by the authors of that paper themselves. Seriously, did you even read their conclusions?

The second one is largely irrelevant to human health. Oh, and neither paper had anything to do with GMOs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #157)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:17 PM

161. And then you make stuff up?

 

You've really gone off the deep end with this.

"nothing to do with GMOS"

LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #123)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:46 AM

233. Let's not forget - glyphosate is only 40 per cent of Roundup

It's the other "inerts" that make glyphosate 125 times stronger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #109)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 06:52 PM

112. You might want to clarify the difference between the IARC and the full WHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #112)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 07:30 PM

118. Good point, but it appears this poster isn't interested in honest discussion.

They just want to reinforce their bias.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #118)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 08:11 PM

119. I know.

I was just trying to go with hope, I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #69)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 05:43 PM

100. OK. Show us some science to back up what ever you're implying.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #100)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 06:46 PM

110. Posted lists too many times...

 


I could dig up reports on glyphosate, including the WHO's conclusion that it is likely a carcinogen.

The big problem is that this is a broad brush issue and the anti-science pro-gmo crowd want to paint with a narrow brush, declaring ALL GMOS safe, which is, of course, nonsense, since many have been introduced and then removed form the market after they proved unsafe.

Making the insane blanket statement that "GMO'S ARE SAFE" is like making the insane blanket statement that "PRESCRIPTION DRUGS ARE SAFE" or even "ALL VACCINES ARE SAFE" (look up the history on RotaShield for example).

The problem is the concept that "GMOS ARE SAFE" is anti-science, because it is a blanket statement that has already proven untrue.

SOME GMOS are absolutely safe. SOME GMOS are PROBABLY SAFE. SOME GMOS might not be safe and might get pulled from the market at some later date (as has happened in the past).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #110)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 07:21 PM

116. You do understand the difference between individual, cherry picked studies, and consensus, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #116)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:02 AM

234. Now you are posting articles by David Gorsky who blogged as a woman

DAVID GORSKI, M.D.

What if you also blogged as “SoCalGal” and pretended to be a woman?

He often speaks in the third person just like "The Donald".


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #234)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:41 AM

243. All you can do is attack people, but you can't support your claims.

That is very telling to everyone. The science is against you, so you attack scientists with ugly vigor.

Do you have any shame at all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #110)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 08:58 PM

124. OK.

The World Health Organization and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization published a report Monday contradicting several studies in the last few years, including one by the WHO itself, saying that although exposure to the chemical in other ways may be dangerous, ingesting it orally is likely not carcinogenic.

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2016/05/16/Dietary-exposure-to-glyphosate-unlikely-to-cause-cancer-UN-report-says/5001463424718/


I love science!

Of course, the original finding by the WHO was more politics than science. But those pesky scientists managed to get them to see the light.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #124)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:30 AM

145. I love science too.

 

Notice the use of the wiggle words.. "likely not carcinogenic"

Thank you, again, for proving my point so well.

The anti-science, pro-gmo crowed always makes me laugh.

Don't worry, it's LIKELY not carcinogenic, so it is safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #145)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 10:52 AM

149. Sure, wiggle words.

The same wiggle words the EPA used. And the European Food Safety Authority. Maybe they are all in on the same conspiracy to poison us.

Regardless, even if something is a likely carcinogen, that doesn’t automatically make it harmful. We are bombarded with carcinogenic radiation from the sun every day. Drink a glass of wine and you ingest carcinogens. It's part of life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #149)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:13 PM

158. So by all means, let's keep adding them.

 



This is why the anti-science, pro-gmo loons are so funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #158)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:46 AM

193. Show us the data where cancer rates are higher due to GMOs.

If you think adding is causing more cancer, surely as a pro-science person, you've got access to some of that pro-science data out there to back up such an implication.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #193)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 01:31 AM

195. WHO Publishes Full Probable Human Carcinogen Report on Glyphosate

WHO Publishes Full Probable Human Carcinogen Report on Glyphosate http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/07/30/who-publishes-full-probable-human-carcinogen-report-on-glyphosate/#.V1O4A2bXh-I

The World Health Organization’s cancer agency IARC has published the full report which caused a huge worldwide response, when they announced earlier this year that the World’s most sold herbicide, glyphosate, is a probable human carcinogen.
Roundup-008

Full IARC Report: monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/mono112-02.pdf

The assessment by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of glyphosate, which is used in herbicides with estimated annual sales of USD 6 Billion, is of special concern to Monsanto, the company that brought glyphosate to market under the trade name Roundup in the 1970s.

Over 80% of GM crops worldwide are engineered to be grown with the herbicide.

The IARC has no regulatory role and its decisions do not automatically lead to bans or restrictions, but use the report has put massive pressure on regulators and the Biotech industry, who rely on glyphosate for a large percentage of their profits.

The IARC reached its decision based on the view of 17 experts from 11 countries, who met in Lyon, France, to assess the carcinogenicity of 5 organophosphate pesticides.

Since the IARC report was released in March 2015 many countries have been looking at possible bans on glyphosate-based herbicides and Sri Lanka even announced a complete ban. Supermarkets across Europe have also removed glyphosate-based herbicides from their shelves.

http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/07/30/who-publishes-full-probable-human-carcinogen-report-on-glyphosate/#.V1O5D2bXh-K



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #195)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 02:00 AM

196. that

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #196)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 05:21 PM

207. That,

doesn't show that cancer rates are higher due to GMOs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #195)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 01:13 PM

206. Dietary exposure to glyphosate unlikely to cause cancer, U.N. report says

The World Health Organization and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization published a report Monday contradicting several studies in the last few years, including one by the WHO itself, saying that although exposure to the chemical in other ways may be dangerous, ingesting it orally is likely not carcinogenic.

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2016/05/16/Dietary-exposure-to-glyphosate-unlikely-to-cause-cancer-UN-report-says/5001463424718/


Glyphosate: EFSA updates toxicological profile

EFSA and the EU Member States have finalised the re-assessment of glyphosate, a chemical that is used widely in pesticides. The report concludes that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans and proposes a new safety measure that will tighten the control of glyphosate residues in food. The conclusion will be used by the European Commission in deciding whether or not to keep glyphosate on the EU list of approved active substances, and by EU Member States to re-assess the safety of pesticide products containing glyphosate that are used in their territories.

A peer review expert group made up of EFSA scientists and representatives from risk assessment bodies in EU Member States has set an acute reference dose (ARfD) for glyphosate of 0.5 mg per kg of body weight, the first time such an exposure threshold has been applied to the substance.

Jose Tarazona, head of EFSA’s Pesticides Unit, said: “This has been an exhaustive process – a full assessment that has taken into account a wealth of new studies and data. By introducing an acute reference dose we are further tightening the way potential risks from glyphosate will be assessed in the future. Regarding carcinogenicity, it is unlikely that this substance is carcinogenic.”

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/151112

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #206)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 10:38 PM

208. Non definitive.

 

Offer something DEFINITIVE.

use of words like "likely not" are similar to those used by the tobacco industry in the 1960s

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #208)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 10:57 PM

209. It is definitive. As defined through the EPA's rating system.

See Group E


The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintains the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), an electronic database that contains information on human health effects from exposure to certain substances in the environment. The EPA uses a rating system similar to that of IARC when describing the cancer-causing potential of a substance:

Group A: Carcinogenic to humans
Group B: Likely to be carcinogenic to humans
Group C: Suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential
Group D: Inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential
Group E: Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #209)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:02 PM

210. Not definitive.

 

Please present something definitive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #210)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:10 PM

211. Yeah, still waiting for you to do that too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #211)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:32 PM

213. Already did.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #213)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:03 AM

218. My mistake.

I thought you were interested in a serious discussion. This is just dismissive; bordering on trolling.

Goodnight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #218)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:48 AM

225. Your apology is accepted.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #225)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 07:23 AM

237. I didn't apologize.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #237)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:39 PM

244. Yes you did. And I accepted it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #208)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:10 PM

212. Sweet Jebus, is this really the best reply you could come up with?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #212)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:32 PM

214. Facts are good like that.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #214)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:40 PM

215. No, sometimes mentioning them are simply moronic

Can you name any substance, let alone a pesticide where such a determination is made?

In order to make such an absolute statement like you're demanding, one would have to test the substance under every conceivable situation which would approach infinity. Even if such a thing were possible (and it ain't), you still couldn't test for what might occur with each individual.

Regulatory agencies never make such determinations because even if it weren't moronic to conceive of such testing which could determine that (and it is), that simply isn't their job. Their job is to determine risk under reasonable conditions that are within the scope most call reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #215)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:40 PM

216. Yes. Many are safe.

 

Not this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #216)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:42 PM

217. I asked you to name just one substance that fufills your requirement

You can deflect all you want, but that alone provides an answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #217)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:07 AM

219. And I answered.

 

You always this lost?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #219)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:10 AM

220. This shit again?

No thanks. Point proven, time to let you go it alone.

Cheers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #220)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:40 AM

222. Your apology is accepted.

 

Next time read better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to basselope (Reply #110)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:01 PM

125. Where are all these lists?

A couple of crap, cherry picked studies are not lists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #125)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:31 AM

221. It's a fool's errand asking that one to prove any claim he's made.

Just makes shit up and when you ask for proof he says he's already posted it. When you ask him where he refuses to answer. After twice of the same bullshit you can safely assume it's all shit.

Take this nonsense for instance:

The big problem is that this is a broad brush issue and the anti-science pro-gmo crowd want to paint with a narrow brush, declaring ALL GMOS safe, which is, of course, nonsense, since many have been introduced and then removed form the market after they proved unsafe.


Nobody is "declaring ALL GMOS safe". The actual claim is GMOs are at least as safe as the alternative. Build strawman, burn strawman down, rinse and repeat.

Next is "many have been introduced and then removed form the market after they proved unsafe". Completely unsupportable bullshit.

The transparency page is enlightening also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Original post)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 04:53 PM

95. So okay then, what do we do about the other thousand or so conglomerates that run the planet?

 

Kinda late to the dance. I would like to start with the Military Industrial Complex, they seem to be the biggest monster on the planet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #95)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:46 PM

131. Your view is "we've been abused by Goldman Sachs and Haliburton so why complain about Monsanto?"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Reply #131)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:28 PM

134. No my view is why does it take this long? Why no out cry decades ago?

 

Some of us watched history unfold for more then a few years, thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Original post)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 05:46 PM

103. But they make some rich people richer and that's the most important thing in the world.

It drives everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Original post)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 05:47 PM

104. It's fun to be passionate. But you need to actually be right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonx (Reply #104)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:53 PM

137. Or have at least a basic plan and ambition to change everything.

 

Lots of money too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Original post)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 05:50 PM

105. No surprise that the last link doesn't even mention how GMO's saved the papya crops in Hawaii

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Original post)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 07:05 PM

185. GMOs suck the life out of life!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Original post)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 04:08 AM

201. Did anyone notice the articles cited in OP are not science related?

These are all by law professors and law school grad students. Not a single bio, medical, or chem related degree in any of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pediatricmedic (Reply #201)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 10:31 AM

204. This was really just a drive-by thread from another thread anyway

The OP claimed to be an expert on the subject because of posting 4 links that were totally found with a google search. Most of it goes back several years and the legal strategies contained within have been utter failures ever since because they just didn't line up that well with science or even reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pediatricmedic (Reply #201)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:25 AM

205. Sociology is a 'science', but.....

 

...many in this thread wilfully ignore the devastating social effects of putting profits ahead of people.From their little corner of industrial science, everybody is out to get them/take their profits. 'Specially those lawyers....



.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CanSocDem (Reply #205)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:42 AM

223. Sociology isn't a hard science

Bullshit and stupidity also has a high social cost. You know, like children dying and going blind not to mention starvation and all sorts of other ailments resulting from malnutrition that GMO can provide answers for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pediatricmedic (Reply #201)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:05 AM

235. Did anyone notice the links cited by the pro-gmo Monsanto people

Check out their links if you want crazy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #235)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:38 AM

240. Crazy is the OP's linkapalooza

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread