|
Think about how sick it would be if Monsanto paid you to post.
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 10:26 |
|
|
Politico Influence reported Wednesday afternoon that the agricultural giant Monsanto, the telecom titan Comcast and oil refiner Valero have all signed on as clients of the Lincoln Policy Group. Lincoln, a Democrat from Arkansas who left the Senate in 2011 after losing her reelection bid, announced in July that she was launching her own lobbying group. You guys are like BP. I'll give you that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
Ironed Idol posted:http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-firms/10558-the-worlds-top-ten-seed-companies-who-owns-nature This is a nonsensical point. As Install Windows pointed out, seed patents were first granted over 80 years ago. Nobody is forced to buy them. Farmers buy patented seeds because it allows them to make more money. You seem to be assuming that plant patents are inherently evil as an axiom. It is not an axiom. You need to demonstrate why this is so before your other arguments can be built on them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
Ironed Idol posted:Politico Influence reported Wednesday afternoon that the agricultural giant Monsanto, the telecom titan Comcast and oil refiner Valero have all signed on as clients of the Lincoln Policy Group. Lincoln, a Democrat from Arkansas who left the Senate in 2011 after losing her reelection bid, announced in July that she was launching her own lobbying group. ... Yes, Monsanto hired some new lobbyists. (They fired their old ones.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:This is a nonsensical point. As Install Windows pointed out, seed patents were first granted over 80 years ago. Nobody is forced to buy them. Farmers buy patented seeds because it allows them to make more money. http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/02/scotus-hears-monsanto-soybean-case What?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Ironed Idol posted:http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/02/scotus-hears-monsanto-soybean-case You did not even read that article, I can tell you just googled some random keywords.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
Ironed Idol posted:http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/02/scotus-hears-monsanto-soybean-case Perhaps you should stop quoting random articles and do a bit of actual thinking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Perhaps you should stop quoting random articles and do a bit of actual thinking. Ok, I'll just say monsanto isn't evil and kills things and causes cancer. Because i just can. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Ironed Idol posted:Ok, I'll just say monsanto isn't evil and kills things and causes cancer. Indeed you can. Congratulations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
Ironed Idol posted:Yeah, I'll get right on that. The paper the link references is actually kind of neat. Considering the chelating action of glyphosate, it being a carrier for heavy metals could be an actual serious issue. Rice of all the grains is also more predisposed to accumulating arsenic, so it may be an interesting relationship where glyphosate is able to extract more arsenic from the soil and increase the risk of exposure in the environment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Ironed Idol posted:Ok, I'll just say monsanto isn't evil and kills things and causes cancer. It is indeed easy to say true things backed with evidence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
Ironed Idol posted:http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/02/scotus-hears-monsanto-soybean-case I wish they would say if they were hybrids or not. They probably were but I don't work in soybeans so I cannot be sure. Replanting hybrids is a good way to eventually lose a year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Ironed Idol posted:Now that the Monsanto shills are out in force, it is kinda funny. Reading your post histories. Because when I think "credible news organization", I think "has Alex Jones on as a talking head" and "pushes 9/11 truther conspiracies". If you want to argue about abuse of the patent system, that's a perfectly valid topic which has absolutely no bearing on whether or not genetically modified crops constitute a carcinogen at levels typically consumed by humans or whether or not Monsanto killed the bees. Either pick a specific focus or stop throwing random scaremongering at the wall to see what sticks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
Ironed Idol posted:Yeah, I'll get right on that. Unironically citing RT takes either a lot of courage, or a severely altered mental state.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:This is a little dramatic. Bioremediation research has never, afaik, been targeted by anti-GMO protesters, and IIRC the last anti-GMO firebombing was the ELF at Michigan 15 years ago. I make transgenics for a living in a department with a revolving door to Monsanto and our biggest security threat is the dude who breaks in to masturbate to his iPad in the stairwell. The animal rights groups are totally ineffective but the anti-GMO folks make them look like special ops ninjas; the animal rights groups can find us on a map, and sometimes get past the front door, for instance. If you work on TG crops the usual worst case scenario these days is someone destroying your crop in the field, which really only happens long after the basic research is complete and they're into safety trials anyway. You need not shed a tear for the folks mucking around with poplar cyp450s in culture, really. The last GMO firebombing was at the University of Washington, and it was done because it was believed that the lab in question was trying to create the trees in question. I get your larger point, but most don't have to worry about people firebombing their workplace.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:The last GMO firebombing was at the University of Washington, and it was done because it was believed that the lab in question was trying to create the trees in question. I get your larger point, but most don't have to worry about people firebombing their workplace. Ah, wasn't aware of that, thanks for giving me the heads up. I suppose one does need to shed a tear for those mucking around with poplar cyp450s in culture then, particularly the PhDs whose projects died. Since ELF petered out no one's really taken up the torch, so to speak, so I guess I might be a bit blase about this stuff by now. My impression is that the Europeans have it a little worse, but I think in general the anti-GMO movement is so disorganised and so marginal at this point that the threat of violence rarely or never crosses the mind of your average benchworker in the kind of basic research lab where it could be a real problem. Lots of fields are still getting dug up though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/mpa.asp I am sorry your bill died. You can always throw more money at it, I mean try again. “Spending is not a problem” for organizations opposed to labeling requirements, said Colin O’Neil, director of government affairs for the Center for Food Safety, which backed the Washington state initiative. “These companies will spend whatever it takes to defeat labeling at the state level.” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-03/grocers-group-spends-record-lobbying-amid-food-labeling-fights.html If you have nothing to hide why are you fighting this. Ironed Idol fucked around with this message at 07:19 on Mar 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
Saw ~40 new posts and expected some sort of intesting debate, instead I get this  
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
Ironed Idol posted:If you have nothing to hide why are you fighting this. Good point. I demand labels that indicate whether my food has at any point been handled by black people or atheists. Or atheist black people. After all, if you have nothing to hide, why fight it? EDIT: Also the bill your Snopes link referred to was not only passed into law, but was even extended beyond when it was originally planned to expire. Just in case anyone else wasn't convinced yet that you don't bother to read your own links. Technogeek fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Mar 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
Ironed Idol posted:http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/mpa.asp It's really important to me to know the religion of the field worker who picked my lettuce. I demand to have a label telling me that. I also want to know if the tractor working the field was burning diesel fuel from Shell. I don't like them and want to boycott them, so I need to know that, too. This information should be provided to me, so I demand that product labels include it. I also want the phone numbers of any attractive women who were involved in the picking or processing of my asparagus, so I demand another label for that. It's all information about the food I'm consuming that is important to me. I have a right to know it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
Technogeek posted:
I'm convinced.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
Technogeek posted:Good point. I demand labels that indicate whether my food has at any point been handled by black people or atheists. Or atheist black people. After all, if you have nothing to hide, why fight it? The risk argument is exactly why I can't buy into labeling. Right now there is one mutation for every 10 - 100 million letters of DNA. Corn has 2 billion base pairs and 32,000 genes. Every generation of corn there could be as many as 200 new genes that have never been expressed in nature before. Yes I know that it is not likely that a single mutation will not lead to a new gene but lets just assume the worst case. If labels go on GMO food I want labels on all food, including organic, that say "The corn in this product may contain up to 200 new mutated genes that have never been expressed in nature before. These genes have never been tested for safety and you eat the product at your own risk."
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
I've got another question here, one of the reasons that some animal rights activists seem to argue for GMO's is that the less ridiculous the restrictions are on GMO testing, the less animals are tested on to gauge health effects. I'm wondering now what kind of tests are done on animals and on what kind of scale, and also if the argument holds up. Could anyone shed some light on this? EDIT: I found one of the sites http://www.vegangmo.com/?page_id=655 NeilPerry fucked around with this message at 08:38 on Mar 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
NeilPerry posted:I've got another question here, one of the reasons that some animal rights activists seem to argue for GMO's is that the less ridiculous the restrictions are on GMO testing, the less animals are tested on to gauge health effects. I'm wondering now what kind of tests are done on animals and on what kind of scale, and also if the argument holds up. Could anyone shed some light on this? You take lab rats (or other animals), feed them the GMO, and see if their health is affected negatively. Afterwards, since animals aren't reused because their physiology may have been affected by previous experiments, you kill your lab rats (usually by nitrogen or cervical dislocation). e: Ironed Idol posted:Ok, I'll just say monsanto isn't evil and kills things and causes cancer. Congratulations, you have discovered freedom of speech. It's too bad nothing of what you said make sense. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 09:05 on Mar 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 08:47
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
NeilPerry posted:I've got another question here, one of the reasons that some animal rights activists seem to argue for GMO's is that the less ridiculous the restrictions are on GMO testing, the less animals are tested on to gauge health effects. I'm wondering now what kind of tests are done on animals and on what kind of scale, and also if the argument holds up. Could anyone shed some light on this? Testing is done, but is generally a waste of time. You're starting with something that is already GRAS. You are either inserting a transgene expressing a molecule that you already have plenty of half-life and safety data for, or you are taking a gene already there and breaking it in a way that allows it to survive your herbicide of choice while still mostly doing its usual job.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
I'm not a biochemist by any means, but I was wondering what you guys thought of the homogenization of crops, especially with the more modern and widespread high gluten wheat we have now correlating with the huge surge of celiac cases. Blood samples preserved from the 50's show 1/4 the positive celiac markers that we have now in the general population, which I found very interesting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
Gumbel2Gumbel posted:I'm not a biochemist by any means, but I was wondering what you guys thought of the homogenization of crops, especially with the more modern and widespread high gluten wheat we have now correlating with the huge surge of celiac cases. Would you happen to have any references so we know just what you're talking about?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Gumbel2Gumbel posted:I'm not a biochemist by any means, but I was wondering what you guys thought of the homogenization of crops, especially with the more modern and widespread high gluten wheat we have now correlating with the huge surge of celiac cases. From all I've seen, the idea that gluten content in wheat has increased in the last century is an assertion by one book, and hasn't stood up well at all to independent scrutiny.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Would you happen to have any references so we know just what you're talking about? Yeah, I'll have to get to a laptop though. I pulled some of it from Mass General's Celiac Research center and also interviews with Dr. Fasano who is the head of the team there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Gumbel2Gumbel posted:Yeah, I'll have to get to a laptop though. I pulled some of it from Mass General's Celiac Research center and also interviews with Dr. Fasano who is the head of the team there. According to this interview with him, increasing celiac disease has nothing whatever to do with gluten in diet, and is probably linked to use of antibiotics which disrupt gut flora. He also makes the point that only a small fraction of the population who have the genetic markers actually get the condition, so the markers themselves don't mean a lot. I see nothing in what he says that has anything to do with crop homogenization or dietary gluten.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Seed companies make their money by having tons of different kinds of seed for every crop (both traditional hybrid derived and GM derived) and changing up what kinds they offer every year to attempt to drum up more business, it's the opposite of homogenization of crop strains.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Seed companies make their money by having tons of different kinds of seed for every crop (both traditional hybrid derived and GM derived) and changing up what kinds they offer every year to attempt to drum up more business, it's the opposite of homogenization of crop strains. Any links on this? It makes obvious sense in the ornamental plant world, but I'd love the additional ammo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Any links on this? It makes obvious sense in the ornamental plant world, but I'd love the additional ammo. My great uncle is still a farmer, and I've seen his seed catalogs and printouts of what seeds he's ordered from the major seed companies when I've been out to visit. They're definitely offering tons of varieties for each major crop individually, and many of them are different year to year. I don't know when I'll be by the farm again though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:My great uncle is still a farmer, and I've seen his seed catalogs and printouts of what seeds he's ordered from the major seed companies when I've been out to visit. They're definitely offering tons of varieties for each major crop individually, and many of them are different year to year. I don't know when I'll be by the farm again though. So I starting looking around the agricultural seed section of Monsanto's site, and it's loving nuts the amount of seeds for sale. Here are the results for corn on several of Monsanto's brands: Channel - 147 Dekalb - 170 Fontanelle - 38 Gold Country - 19 Hubner Seed - 56 Jung Seed Genetics - 47 That was just the first few links, there were tons more, and that's just Monsanto, no Syngenta or Bayer. The whole monoculture issue is a complete and total joke.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:The whole monoculture issue is a complete and total joke. Please note that being genetically diverse does not translate to being agronomically diverse. I know a few farmers who still grow the same crop year after year due to the financial incentive. From a disease standpoint, corn is still corn.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
Hypha posted:Please note that being genetically diverse does not translate to being agronomically diverse. I know a few farmers who still grow the same crop year after year due to the financial incentive. From a disease standpoint, corn is still corn. Unless you're talking about strain of corn that is resistant to the particular disease in question.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 13:22
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:According to this interview with him, increasing celiac disease has nothing whatever to do with gluten in diet, and is probably linked to use of antibiotics which disrupt gut flora. I definitely wasn't saying he said it, because if he did I would have just assumed it was true and gone with that. I was saying Dr. Fasano said celiac rates were skyrocketing. But you're right, I can't find any supporting evidence for the idea of increased gluten in wheat being a causative factor. I didn't know that was an idea I had somehow absorbed from Wheat Belly through the internet. In another interview, Dr. Fasano talks about early exposure to wheat being a huge trigger of Celiac disease in the predisposed and he recommends introducing it after a child is one year old (but that really isn't a monsanto or GMO issue).
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:The whole monoculture issue is a complete and total joke. I think you're wrong. Although monoculture and intensive farming supply us with greater yields and farmers can work less, it's actually very very bad for the soil. Soil is important for humans to have food. quote:Monoculture produces great yields by utilizing plants' abilities to maximize growth under less pressure from other species and more uniform plant structure. Uniform cultivars are able to better use available light and space, but also have a greater drain on soil nutrients. In the last 40 years modern practices such as monoculture planting and the use of synthesized fertilizers have greatly reduced the amount of land needed to produce much higher yielding crops.[2] A huge problem with growing any crop in a monoculture is that once the land has been used to agriculture for a single species, soil fertility diminishes greatly.[3]
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:I think you're wrong. Although monoculture and intensive farming supply us with greater yields and farmers can work less, it's actually very very bad for the soil. Soil is important for humans to have good. What he was saying is that the wide variety of seeds available for purchase shows their isn't a monoculture, or if there is, it's because of the choice of farmers, not of monsanto. You don't need scientific wizardry for monoculture, either; an orchard of apple trees made by graftings from a single tree is a monoculture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 10:26 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:What he was saying is that the wide variety of seeds available for purchase shows their isn't a monoculture, or if there is, it's because of the choice of farmers, not of monsanto. The availability of seeds has little to do with the problem of farming techniques. Since we're seeing the pronounced effects of monoculture in our soils now, it's evident that monoculture farming is causing problems. quote:The result of all these changes has been that agriculture has become more intensive, producing higher yields per acre by relying on greater chemicals use and technological inputs. It also has become more expensive, relying on purchase of machinery and chemicals to replace the heavy labor rcquirements of the past. To remain competitive, farmers have been forced to become more efficient, farming ever larger acreages with bigger equipment and more fertilizers and pesticides. Small farms growing a wide variety of crops have in large part been replaced by much larger farms consisting of extensive fields of a single crop. As a result, the number of farms has dropped by half since 1950, and average farm size has doubled (fig. 3. See fact sheet). Today only 2 percent of U.S. farms produce 70 percent of the vegetables, 50 percent of the fruit and nuts, and 35 percent of the poultry products grown in this country. From the liberal and discredited Cornell University. psep.cce.cornell.edu/facts-slides-self/facts/mod-ag-grw85.aspx This thread is so strange. People here have admitted that they have no problem with food grown with literall poison. They seem to think that our current farming methods are sustainable and that we should continue using chemical fertilizers and pesticides in great quantities. And that the millions of tons of chemicals that run off to the ocean or cause other problems in the environment are totally harmless. I have no issue with GMO's, but the effects of modern farming are being felt and seen by many all over the world. If we want to have a stable future for our food, we have to start taking care of the soil. I know it sounds crazy, but there is an alternative way of farming that does not destroy the quality of the soil, but rather improves it, and without using often poisonous chemicals! white sauce fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 14:45
|
|