|
Count Chocula posted:These people are idiots, and we should be protected from their backwards notions and attempt to remove the choice from You literally want to hide information from people so that they have no ability to choose. Then you complain about their choosing not being what you want. Do you not see a problem? Count Chocula posted:Basically, I don't want the mob to prevent me from having access to the most advanced food available. If you want to defend the research to get your scifi food, it would be best to stand against the companies that will sell anything they can market and are willing to buy-out complaints against their products after-the-fact. Those companies will continue to breed enemies of the stuff you want. Some of those enemies will end up being completely untrusting of all related work forever.
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 15:17 |
|
|
Cool beans there Count Chocula, its good to get your rabid authoritarianism out in the open. Its not surprising that a fascist with a god complex supports divide and conquer methods that devastate millions upon millions of innocent people, the emperor needs his loving magic beef! You're an actual psychopath whose amoral, white supremacist ramblings have no part in civil discussion of any sort. Meanwhile, I did a quick search for PCBs and nothing came up from this thread so I apologize if this was linked already. Monsanto knowingly dumping mercury, PCBs and covering it up, via the Washington Post (establishment pro-capitalist rag for the unfamiliar) http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0101-02.htm quote:They also know that for nearly 40 years, while producing the now-banned industrial coolants known as PCBs at a local factory, Monsanto Co. routinely discharged toxic waste into a west Anniston creek and dumped millions of pounds of PCBs into oozing open-pit landfills. And thousands of pages of Monsanto documents -- many emblazoned with warnings such as "CONFIDENTIAL: Read and Destroy" -- show that for decades, the corporate giant concealed what it did and what it knew.. This is but a glimpse into the destruction wrought by Monsanto (and other corporations!!! mind you) on a constant basis without apology or serious consequences. FRINGE posted:Then you should start studying permaculture and intensive rotations Mr. Self Destruct fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Jul 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I think if you required a label that says Maybe that will be the next consumer awareness pursuit. One thing at a time now! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 00:14
|
|
CONTAINS DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE
|
Puddums posted:Scientists are unsure weather or not rBST milk can cause adverse reactions is humans..that doesn't mean it's not bad for human health. There have been studies that say both yay and nay. At the end of the day, you can always find a study or two that supports your argument. According to norton_l and the following link, http://www.agbioforum.org/v3n23/v3n23a14-collier.htm, rBST is found in cows milk at levels of ~1 parts per billion both for cows treated with rBST and not treated with the hormone. After pasteurizing the milk, rBST is undetectable in cows milk. Whether rBST is bad for humans is a moot point, because it isn't found in detectable levels in pasteurized milk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:You can't have choice without information. Food isn't the only use for GMO crops as I've previously pointed out with poplar trees. Also, your complaint just doesn't make sense in my experience. I can trash Monsanto all I want and yet members of the anti-GMO refuse to learn the process or look at the data. What good is trashing Monsanto when you're trying to defend publicly funded research that has nothing to do with them?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:What good is trashing Monsanto when you're trying to defend publicly funded research that has nothing to do with them? There are plenty of people that are research-friendly that are not fans of "the market" deciding what is healthy, especially when the regulators are working for the market controllers. The nominal (and never honestly intended) point of this thread was communication. I am claiming (from experience) that it is possible to garner sympathy for research while (rightfully) making GBS threads on Monsantos massive collection of bad practices. The fact that Monsanto fudges/suppresses parts of their research should make the honest/actual research-sympathetic avoid them like the plague. http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/suppressing-research.html Even when something judges in favor of proposed for-market GM products, it is very hard to trust the sources, because of entities like Monsanto. http://truth-out.org/news/item/12284-inside-the-controversy-over-a-french-gmo-study-and-the-monsanto-information-war quote:When it comes to getting the facts on GMOs, it all depends on whom you talk to. Many of the study's alleged shortcomings that boomed through the media following its release also exist in the industry studies - including Monsanto's own studies - that form the basis of approvals of genetically engineered crops in Europe. Some of the loudest critics of the study, such as the UK-based Science Media Centre, have received funding from agrichemical companies such as Bayer, BASF and - you guessed it - Monsanto. Related to this kind of big-money subversion, there are warning patterns that can be observed in Pharma: http://earthopensource.org/index.php/news/147-the-goodman-affair-monsanto-targets-the-heart-of-science quote:... journal editors have a lot of power in science – power that provides opportunities for abuse. The life science industry knows this, and has increasingly moved to influence and control science publishing. There is no credibility in the Monsanto Defense League when even the supposed public watchdogs are on their payroll. The pro-Monsanto crowd answers this with: "well those Organic people spend money too!" in an eternal false-equivalency between the organic food industry, and the monster companies that can subvert the loving US State Department to do their bidding. I think that for the sake of communication/influence, it would be a better strategy to unify against the various evil biotech corporations and their various evil market pursuits, and educate on the longer-term value of real research. There will not be any credibility gained "for research" when the pro-research team is also shilling for Monsanto and friends.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 01:22
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:You can't have choice without information. No, I have no interest in hiding information from people. If companies wish for some reason to advertise that their products are GMO-free, they should be permitted to do so. But they are permitted to do that. quote:http://earthopensource.org/index.ph...eart-of-science quote:Fast forward to September 2012, when the scientific journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) published a study that caused an international storm (Séralini, et al. 2012). The study, led by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen, France, suggested a Monsanto genetically modified (GM) maize, and the Roundup herbicide it is grown with, pose serious health risks. The two-year feeding study found that rats fed both suffered severe organ damage and increased rates of tumors and premature death. - See more at: http://earthopensource.org/index.php/news/147-the-goodman-affair-monsanto-targets-the-heart-of-science#sthash.9anfn4AS.dpuf Your source is citing the Séralini study as valid, and declaring the fact that it's discredited to be an "orchestrated campaign". I do not trust anything else it has to say.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:Your source is citing the Séralini study as valid, and declaring the fact that it's discredited to be an "orchestrated campaign". I do not trust anything else it has to say. If you were not making GBS threads yourself to play "your side" you could have looked up the section I cited. http://www.bioethics.net/2009/05/merck-makes-phony-peerreview-journal/ http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27383/title/Elsevier-published-6-fake-journals/ http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v15/n6/full/nm0609-598a.html Your post is sadly lacking, and I am afraid that I have no choice but to feel that "I do not trust anything else it has to say".
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
Since this has come up I will leave this article here. Page 5-6 offer a point of view about several of the named arguments that recur in this thread. I cannot seem to post the Summary without it becoming garbled, but it is easily accessible. http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/Biotech_Report_US.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
I could have and did look it up. But in a world where "McDonalds had to pay millions for some dumb lady who spilled coffee!" is a serious thing that serious people discussed, I'm not willing to uncritically accept the idea that Elsevier would just straight up publish a fake journal. At the least, I'd need multiple primary sources; the fact that everyone who talks about it refers to The Scientist is fishy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 01:50
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Since I commented on that issue right before the Merck comment, and from the opposite side: "Even when something judges in favor of proposed for-market GM products", your dismissal is irrelevant (except to highlight your partisanship). If someone tries to promote the safety of GMOs based on an article in one of those fake journals, you are on firm ground in declaring their claim as bogus. It has no bearing on anything not published in those "journals", however. .
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
Mr. Self Destruct posted:Which in and of itself is highly criminal and unnecesarily destructive, and done to enable to said virtual genocide. I don't think you stopped to think what kind of impact destroying enormous swathes of jungle has on the ecosystem even ignoring the presence of human life. The government had been devastating the region for some time by this point and you can safely assume that such contracts are going to at best passively contribute to enormous loss of human life. Please don't abuse serious terms like genocide. It only cheapens them for when they're actually needed. Killing people is not always "virtual genocide," sometimes it's just killing people. It's bad enough just to say killing people or murdering civilians or whatever, you don't have to exaggerate and sound like a hysterical extremist. Boiled Water posted:You don't need to change peoples minds just look at different people. Like the ones in Asia who aren't dying from malnutrition due to GM foods. To be fair, this isn't really happening either. Golden rice hasn't actually left the test phase, and there's not that many GMOs that are even commercially available let alone successful or influential. The few that exist right now offer incremental benefits, but nothing revolutionary yet. FRINGE posted:Then you should start studying permaculture and intensive rotations, because those are the higher yielding methods that are most successful. Your blathering about "advanced food" is a mix of fantasy and marketing mis-information. The relevant work is in-lab. There is no scifi food that exists at this time. There is nothing that needs to be on the market at this time. There is no reason to defend the legal jockeying of dishonest companies like Monsanto at all. Permaculture is interesting but it's not really any more honest for you to tout it as "higher yielding" clearly superior magic because it's just as speculative and unavailable as dreams of golden rice advanced superfoods. Also, the GMO foods that are currently on the market are pretty low-key and benign, so I seriously doubt it's somehow breeding enemies on its own merits (or lack of them) considering that they're pretty uniformly harmless, undetectable, and uninteresting to end-users. GMOs have become symbolic of peoples' alienation from the current petrochem-driven food system and fear of giant corporations and new technologies, but they're not actually that big a deal and there are honestly bigger, scarier things to be worried about if you actually wanted to worry about food and/or giant corporations. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Jul 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 02:02
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Permaculture is interesting but it's not really any more honest for you to tout it as "higher yielding" clearly superior magic because it's just as speculative and unavailable as dreams of golden rice advanced superfoods.  You know that there have been yield studies done, the "greening the desert" project, classes, manuals, food forests etc etc ... and that these are actual things that really exist right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:If someone tries to promote the safety of GMOs based on an article in one of those fake journals, you are on firm ground in declaring their claim as bogus. FRINGE posted:Related to this kind of big-money subversion, there are warning patterns that can be observed in Pharma
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 03:44
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:I was very clear in the comparison. Which is meaningless guilt-by-association. When you have proof that there are bogus GMO studies being taken seriously, you'll have a point. The fake pharma journals were advertising vehicles for doctors' offices, not serious publications, anyway. The thing about fake studies is that they tend to be found out when others can't replicate the results. No one study means anything by itself. It's hard to hide fakery for very long.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 03:48
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Which is meaningless guilt-by-association. When you have proof that there are bogus GMO studies You know this, you just enjoy poisoning discussions that dont suit your purposes. I predict that you will employ this method again in the future, when some other ally of Obamas is under a spotlight. Oh noes! I cannot prove a future! What shall I do?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:You can keep re-posting this meaningless crap, and I will keep replying that looking at likelihoods and analogous practices/circumstances is a worthy pursuit when analyzing anything in a social, public, psychological, or political sphere. And my point is that I'll worry about it when it happens. It wouldn't be the first time someone has tried to get away with faking data. Science is pretty good at policing itself and outing bogus results. You're trying to impugn all GMO research because somebody made some fake journals to push pills in doctors' offices. There is no connection between the two.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 03:54
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:You can keep re-posting this meaningless crap, and I will keep replying that looking at likelihoods and analogous practices/circumstances is a worthy pursuit when analyzing anything in a social, public, psychological, or political sphere. Well, so what? If you're right, you've successfully demonstrated that GMO studies should get more scrutiny than studies about fish breeding or whatever. Which is fine, because they do get more scrutiny, including entire advocacy groups that attempt to explain why each positive study doesn't count.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:the Séralini study http://gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14514 quote:The following article by Jonathan Matthews of GMWatch was called "the definitive analysis of the Séralini affair" by John Vidal, environment editor of The Guardian, on Twitter. (Vidal is the same guy that called out the Bush State Dept for bending over for Exxon.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 03:57
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Uhh... I didn't say it's pure fantasy, but it's not at all scientifically well accepted and there is a lot more work before it's well supported, well understood, mainstream, or large-scale/long-term viable. To call it anything more than interesting preliminary work in need of more formal study is inaccurate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Also there was a piece in 2012 (that I just found) that is interesting in discussing the players in that game name by name. Why is this interesting? If someone releases a scientific study that has a potential to hurt my company, of course I'm going to sponsor some of my own guys to check it out. Of course if the scientists I sponsored find horrible flaws in it, they're going to get angry and demand something be done. What's troubling about this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:Why is this interesting? If someone releases a scientific study that has a potential to hurt my company, of course I'm going to sponsor some of my own guys to check it out. Of course if the scientists I sponsored find horrible flaws in it, they're going to get angry and demand something be done. What's troubling about this?  science utopia that people think Monsanto lives within.They simultaneously get to suppress findings they dislike, NDA scientists that work for them (and might know some of the failings/frauds), legally hamstring farmers from complaining about anything ever, and slap the US government around like a bitch now that they have planted people in the various agencies. Some people (I forget who was who in the other threads) are more scared of making willow-bark tea (its an unregulated herb!) than are concerned with the multi-level legal-trolling that Monsanto manages across a global market politically, and across the landscape physically. This thread is another reminder that people will white-knight Monsanto for any reason, even while mumbling that "well they might do something bad sometimes ... maybe". Amarkov posted:Of course if the scientists I sponsored find horrible flaws in it, they're going to get angry
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
Fake studies? Like computer science researchers publishing research showing that glyphosate may cause "inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, depression, ADHD, autism, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, ALS, multiple sclerosis, cancer, cachexia, infertility, and developmental malformations." http://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2013/04/discover-blogger-keith-kloor-stumbles-ne http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2013/04/26/when-media-uncritically-cover-pseudoscience/#more-11062
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 04:24
|
|
|
karthun posted:Fake studies? Like computer science researchers publishing research showing that glyphosate may cause "inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, depression, ADHD, autism, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, ALS, multiple sclerosis, cancer, cachexia, infertility, and developmental malformations." Did the bullshit article writers manifest a team of lawyers to take up their cause? Did their boys in the FDA and USDA start PRing for them? Did their State Dept contacts threaten someone on their behalf? I can see where it is exactly the same. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Okay? That lovely article is rightly calling some bullshit articles ... bullshit articles. Complete with ($yay$) links to all his favorite people from one blog to the other. And...? This was an actual published bullshit article in a pay-to-publish journal IIRC, not a claim of a published bullshit article.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:They simultaneously get to suppress findings they dislike, NDA scientists that work for them (and might know some of the failings/frauds), legally hamstring farmers from complaining about anything ever, and slap the US government around like a bitch now that they have planted people in the various agencies. I'm sure you can back up each of these independent claims with multiple, reputable sources, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:It is not a level playing field within the "Monsanto's money may allow it to do bad things, therefore it is doing bad things, therefore those bad things are tantamount to genocide" This is your line of reasoning. It turns out that in the real world, that's not actually true. There's no evidence for like half the stuff you're claiming Monsanto does, and the other half is significantly more innocuous than you make it seem. Nobody here is "white-knighting" Monsanto, I don't think you'll find a single poster who explicitly praises Monsanto. You've repeatedly failed to back up your claims of Monsanto's infant-devouring, genocidal evil, and people are simply not buying it. This comes back to the original point of the thread, that the hysteria surrounding Monsanto is blown many times out of proportion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
I am still waiting for evidence that Monsanto locks farmers into future contracts. This would be news for the farmers in my extended family. They switched from Dekalb to Pioneer this year because there was such a late thaw and pioneer has better short season crops.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
This thread, and especially these last few pages have been really frustrating for me. The anti-GMO researchers has far, far, far more provable corruption among their ranks. Every single noteworthy study that has claimed to find ANY negative effect from eating a food from a GMO crop has, at best, been impossible to reproduce, and at worst clearly deliberate attempts to mislead the media and the public to accomplish ideological goals. The most recent one I saw was ESPECIALLY egregious. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/11/us-gmo-pigs-study-idUSBRE95A14K20130611 Every mainstream news article on this study I can find with Google reports its attention grabbing "discovery" uncritically: GMO feed caused stomach inflammation in pigs! What none of them address is how absolutely atrociously bad the study was ran. First, it was only 80 pigs per group, on a single farm. Second, they were fed mixes of soy and corn, but the feed wasn't controlled beyond "GM" or "not GM." This is a huge issue, because the ratio between soy and corn is very important for the results: Diets heavy in soy result in increased estrogen levels, which matters because one of their two differences found between the groups was increased uterus weight: 0.12% body weight for GM-fed pigs, compared to 0.10% for non-GM (which itself is not a very important statistic: That tiny different in weight doesn't really matter to the pigs). Third, their major finding of increased "major stomach inflammation" in the pigs, when they were autopsied after about five months of study. That's not a very significant amount of time for the study, as pigs tend to be slaughtered between 6 months to a year: Other effects could have possibly manifested in the pigs, who knows? They also measured stomach inflammation by taking photographs of the stomach lining and judging them purely by coloration, dividing them into four subjective groups. They then put more GM pigs than non-GM pigs in the "very inflamed" category, but more non-GM pigs into "inflammed categories" overall. Most important, the vast majority of both sets of pigs had inflamed stomach linings. See, the pigs were raised in factory farming conditions, ie horrible, and apparently this farm was worse than most. Over HALF the pigs in the study showed signs of pneumonia, in both the test and control groups, and there was a 15% mortality rate, about three times higher than the industry average. If your test and control groups are getting sick and dying, then your evidence of cause and effect goes right out the window. There's no way to prove what caused anything. This study should never have been published, and the fact that they did, and publicized their results as a meaningful, significant damnation of GM feed is disgusting. I don't like Monstanto. I don't like corporations in general, I am in fact anti-capitalist. But you do no favors for your goddamn arguments when you support and defend junk science and fake scientists just because they happen to create bullshit that reinforces your preconceived notions. You're making yourself look the inane gibbering Luddites the OP and co portray you as. Edit: Mistyped a detail, the pigs had pneumonia, not influenza. Jetsetlemming fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Jul 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 05:55
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:You've repeatedly failed to back up your claims of Monsanto's infant-devouring, genocidal evil Slanderer posted:I'm sure you can back up each of these independent claims with multiple, reputable sources, right? The farmer agreements are already in the thread. The State Dept leaks are already in the thread. The information suppression has been the topics of a variety of threads here in the past. Are you trolling your own thread? Why dont you go ahead and make one with the title you actually wanted. "The Monsanto is The Best Thread, No Discussion, No Communication." For anyone else this is interesting, dont just stop at the "poor design" section in the wiki, read the politicking involved, the strange peer review, and the aftermaths of the thing. http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Dr_%C3%81rp%C3%A1d_Pusztai http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pusztai_affair http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/jan/18/didgovernmentinterveneinth http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/jan/15/academicexperts.highereducationprofile quote:Some of the disputed data did eventually see the light of day in October 1999, when Ewen and Puztai published a paper in the prestigious medical journal the Lancet. Because of its controversial nature, the data paper was seen by six reviewers - three times the usual number. Five gave it the green light. The paper - which used data held by Ewen and so was not subject to veto by James - showed that rats fed on potatoes genetically modified with the snowdrop lectin had unusual changes to their gut tissue compared with rats fed on normal potatoes. It has been criticised on the grounds that the unmodified potatoes were not a fair control diet. Weird. This stuff isnt on the posters? http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2013/02/do-gmo-crops-have-lower-yields quote:And in a new paper (PDF) funded by the US Department of Agriculture, University of Wisconsin researchers have essentially negated the "more food" argument as well. The researchers looked at data from UW test plots that compared crop yields from various varieties of hybrid corn, some genetically modified and some not, between 1990 and 2010. While some GM varieties delivered small yield gains, others did not. Several even showed lower yields than non-GM counterparts. With the exception of one commonly used trait—a Bt type designed to kill the European corn borer—the authors conclude, "we were surprised not to find strongly positive transgenic yield effects." Both the glyphosate-tolerant (Roundup Ready) and the Bt trait for corn rootworm caused yields to drop. http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v31/n2/full/nbt.2496.html (Refers to this I believe, if anyone can get to it) Since there is so much interest in awareness around here, why are people not expressing any concern for the fact that after thousands of failures, there are two widely marketed GMO products. Two. The various Bt stuff and the glyphosate resistant stuff. Thats it. That is Monsantos brave bold claims to *cough* "advanced food".  Poor Monsanto.  Will no one think of all those ads they bought. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0022629 quote:Field-Evolved Resistance to Bt Maize by Western Corn Rootworm http://www.stratusresearch.com/blog07.htm quote:Glyphosate-Resistant Weed Problem Extends to More Species, More Farms As far as worthwhile ideas that are non-scifi and immediately useful, maybe we should get back to rotations and permaculture? The MDL will never stop howling homage to their dark lords, so communicating with them is pointless.  http://blog.ucsusa.org/engineered-pest-problems quote:And long crop rotations reduce more than rootworm damage. They greatly reduce most pests, including other insects, diseases, and weeds, thereby greatly reducing pesticide use as well. Long crop rotations also improve soil fertility, and reduce fertilizer use, cost and pollution. And they can be just as productive as our current corn obsession. *
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 05:59
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Since there is so much interest in awareness around here, why are people not expressing any concern for the fact that after thousands of failures, there are two widely marketed GMO products. Two. The various Bt stuff and the glyphosate resistant stuff. Thats it. That is Monsantos brave bold claims to *cough* "advanced food". The first successful recombinant DNA experiments were performed 41 years ago. Trials for the first commercial transgenic plants began 26 years ago, and approval in Western countries began 19 years ago. I don't see why we would be concerned here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 06:15
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:The first successful recombinant DNA experiments were performed 41 years ago. Trials for the first commercial transgenic plants began 26 years ago, and approval in Western countries began 19 years ago. I don't even get why this is something to be concerned about, or why it even matters. It says to me that making a successful GMO is really hard, and getting them approved for public release is a slow and thorough process. There's nothing reckless or rushed about it at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 06:19
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:The farmer agreements are already in the thread. The State Dept leaks are already in the thread. The information suppression has been the topics of a variety of threads here in the past. Every single multinational company on earth has its fingers in the regulatory pie, abuses patent law, and attempts to obscure information through advertising. Explain to me why multinationals that deal with GMO crops are more dangerous than others. And don't bullshit with 'well I think the same for all multinationals', because otherwise why have a coherent anti-Monsanto / GMO movement, with marches and public awareness campaigns? The entire point of this thread is a critique of the idea that GMO food and Monsanto are an exceptional problem on their own, rather than simply one issue in a cluster of issues related to the weak regulatory state and environmental destruction. Yeah sure Monsanto are a bunch of shits, but this ranks so low on the totem pole of problems in the world that one has to ask why even bring it up? This is not something that is causing significant human misery, nor does it have a large probability of doing so in the future. But I guess everyone who points out that reality is a paid shill for Monsanto and wants to burn down the rain forest on the side. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Jul 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
I have no clue why anyone is surprised GM plants would have lower yields than their non GM hybrid parents. The plant only receives so much energy from the sun. Every bit of energy that is used to express bt and resistance to roundup is less sugar and starch for the plant. The question isn't if GMO seed is better than the top performing hybrid, it is if GMO seed is better than inbred seed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I don't even get why this is something to be concerned about, or why it even matters. It says to me that making a successful GMO is really hard, and getting them approved for public release is a slow and thorough process. There's nothing reckless or rushed about it at all. The two things they have manipulated into market are already creating worse problems than they solved. This should be a sign that maybe they are not the Wise Old Men who are trying to bring us to salvation. They are more the Greedy Bastards who will peddle anything they can leverage past the remnants of oversight we have, and the results be damned. karthun posted:I have no clue why anyone is surprised GM plants would have lower yields than their non GM hybrid parents. icantfindaname posted:don't bullshit with 'well I think the same for all multinationals', Do you have anything to actually say in this thread about (lol) communication?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 06:30
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:It matters in the face of the pro-Monsanto/industry belief that they are super-scientists who are beyond the ken of mere mortals. Nobody here believes that. They're scientists, like everybody else in the field. Anybody willing to invest the time can figure out what they're doing. So your first statement is complete nonsense. You second statement is unsupported fear-mongering. Please back up your claims with evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:I dont have to bullshit you, you troll. This is the problem. This right here. The reason why people are treating you and your compatriots like a bunch of hysterical loons. Any criticism of anti-GMO or anti-Monsanto positions, any critique of your position at all, is labelled as trolling, paid shilling for Monsanto, obviously not a good faith critique. This forum is titled Debate and Discussion. That means that you're supposed to discuss and attempt to get to the facts and reality of things. Unfortunately you're purposefully waging ideological war against a position and don't seem to really care about good faith attempts to figure out the truth. What's more, that position doesn't even really exist on these forums. There are no Dawkins/reddit style libertarians here. If you want to have a debate on whether that brand of ideology is having a negative impact on the world then I'd be happy to. I don't think it is, but if you can come up with some evidence that said people are causing bad things to happen through weak scientific regulation and environmental destruction, I'd love to see it. If it's not then what is the point of railing against it? As for the OP, you can argue that anti-GMO people aren't a significant problem, but they've actually had real world results, such as European rejections of GMO food, mandatory GMO labelling, and arson attacks on labs. What have pro-GMO people done with comparable effects? Be specific please. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Jul 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 06:44
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Kind of funny coming from you, right? Your OP was just full of useful things that were obviously not just made-up anecdotes for your troll thread right? My thread wasn't even meant to be about discussing Monsanto, as I explicitly stated in the OP. There was more confusion and contention about the issues than I had anticipated (too many people reading the same blog-spread memes without context popping in), which directed the conversation away from the original goal of determining how people get into certain irrational mindsets and if they can be argued with. From your contributions to this (and previous) threads, I can only conclude that Monsanto literally murdered your parents, and you have been driven by anger and insanity to become a crusader of D&D, fighting to clean up the streets. A symbol of revenge. You are the night. You are the bat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 06:47
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Nobody here believes that. Not to mention all the implicit belief that GMOs increase yield. quote:I can fully recognize that the science they do is critical to feeding a growing population. quote:More importantly, massive amounts of additional land would be required for crops to feed the world if we only had organic farming quote:GMOs are all but vital when it comes to feeding humanity Surely youve read the thread you are lazy-posting in? Deteriorata posted:You second statement is unsupported fear-mongering. Please back up your claims with evidence. FRINGE posted:http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0022629 I guess you arent reading the thread you are lazy-posting in. icantfindaname posted:
Slanderer posted:I can only conclude that Monsanto literally murdered your parents
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 07:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 15:17 |
|
|
Amarkov posted:The first successful recombinant DNA experiments were performed 41 years ago. Trials for the first commercial transgenic plants began 26 years ago, and approval in Western countries began 19 years ago. The slow pace of crop science is due to economics. The work being done has the result of turning bags of seed into slightly more valuable seed, which doesn't generate much of a margin. This is the opposite of what is seen in biologics manufacturing, where glucose syrup is turned into $5000/dose recombinant enzyme, funding faster paced research organizations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 07:13
|
|
