|
FRINGE posted:The problem was the number of rats used, not the length of the study or the type of rat. The length of study and the type of rat are the ones advised by the the US Department of Health and Human Services Toxicology Program. As Ive pointed out three times now. The incidence of tumors in the rats were not higher than the normal incidence of tumors for those rats. In the 'control' group, totally unsuspiciously, they reported zero tumors at a time point where you'd generally expect a significant percentage of the rats to have tumors, which points to fabricated results. quote:Kalman I dont even think youre a smart person who likes to troll anymore. I think you are functionally illiterate. In a variety of threads you try to find something you can "misread" and then fixate on it for pages claiming you found "a lie" and then assign the person the job of writing an essay for you explaining it. Maybe you have non-ironic autism or something. You are bad at statistics, terrible at science, and tedious to read.
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
FRINGE posted:The problem was the number of rats used, not the length of the study or the type of rat. The length of study and the type of rat are the ones advised by the the US Department of Health and Human Services Toxicology Program. As Ive pointed out three times now. Still waiting for you to explain why you posted Monsanto's marketing budget as evidence that their lobbying budget would have any effect on nutrition (which was your assertion, not mine.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:The problem was the number of rats used, not the length of the study or the type of rat. The length of study and the type of rat are the ones advised by the the US Department of Health and Human Services Toxicology Program. As Ive pointed out three times now. Hey dipshit, tell me what you think about vaccines. Tell me what you think about flouridation. Tell me what you think about Alex Jones. Tell me what you think about the New World Order. Tell me what you think about Jews. Tell me what you think about chemtrails. Respond to the point about the 1,783 real studies that have found no health impact from GMO foods. Explain why you keep defending a retracted study that literally made up its data. Explain why every time it's shown that you're nothing but a caveman who is afraid of fire and is willing to murder children to keep the light away, you ignore it and go back to a previously discredited point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
FRINGE, take a break.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:FRINGE, take a break. Well I guess wraps up the thread then.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 10:45
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:The incidence of tumors in the rats were not higher than the normal incidence of tumors for those rats. In the 'control' group, totally unsuspiciously, they reported zero tumors at a time point where you'd generally expect a significant percentage of the rats to have tumors, which points to fabricated results. I can totally believe Seralini didn't find tumors in those rats. If you really believe in one of the possible outcomes, confirmation bias can become amazingly strong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
blowfish posted:I can totally believe Seralini didn't find tumors in those rats. If you really believe in one of the possible outcomes, confirmation bias can become amazingly strong. True. And his measure was 'palpable' which just absolutely lends itself to confirmation bias.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:True. And his measure was 'palpable' which just absolutely lends itself to confirmation bias.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
blowfish posted:We should ask him whether he felt up the rats blinded or knowing which cage they came from to make sure. If it's not specified, go ahead and assume it's not blinded.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:If it's not specified, go ahead and assume it's not blinded. Well, yeah, but let's be generous.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 13:41
|
|
|
I've found out Monsanto's real crime: treason!
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
What the everliving gently caress does 'swearing allegiance to the constitution' even MEAN for a corporation? A nation at least could kinda sorta make sense but yeesh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Gorelab posted:What the everliving gently caress does 'swearing allegiance to the constitution' even MEAN for a corporation? There's a big crossover between the people who want to tell you about how Monsanto is at the root of all evil in the world and people who fetishize the word "constitution" as opposed to the actual meaning of constitutional government. Think Alex Jones.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Thanks to whoever posted that journal article about transportation phase in food production and the percentage of life-cycle GHG emissions. It seems my neighbourhood, and my general circles of friends are all caught up in this anti-GMO, pro-organic, pro-local thing. Would it be alright to speak to the whole eating locally? Up until I read that journal article, I understood that eating food produced locally made sense from an "ethical" point of view because of the less resources needed to transport it, and the generation of income for local businesses. Can anyone speak to this and shed some light on the actual research behind it? Thanks btw for those posting lots in this thread, I've been lurking since the beginning and I've learned a lot, and even though it reads a lot of times like beating a dead horse, it actually is quite informative.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
You have to always consider when you're really saving transportation costs versus when you're not. At the most basic example is buying local by having you and 10 friends each drive out to the local farm versus a less local farmer having the produce delivered to a system of distribution centers. The farm produce from 500 miles away could end up being more transportation usage efficent than the farm 10 miles away by there being much less driving in total going on for the more distant farm whose product turns up in regular stores close to where the people lived. There's also many cases where growing a lot of things locally to you may save transportation costs, but involve vastly increased resource costs for irrigation, fertilizers, even greenhouse structures and direct heating being needed. A canonical example might be trying to grow oranges in Minnesota or just about anything in Arizona.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You have to always consider when you're really saving transportation costs versus when you're not. At the most basic example is buying local by having you and 10 friends each drive out to the local farm versus a less local farmer having the produce delivered to a system of distribution centers. The farm produce from 500 miles away could end up being more transportation usage efficent than the farm 10 miles away by there being much less driving in total going on for the more distant farm whose product turns up in regular stores close to where the people lived. A glaring example of this kind of thing is the local organic food co-op moving from a location downtown, accessible by foot or bus to many, to another location in the sprawl that has no direct bus service.  On the other hand, a regional supermarket chain does note when produce and other products are manufactured locally, but they do take advantage of an economy of scale, so it's probably pretty good on environmental footprint.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Sorry for double-posting, but this is entirely different: a friend of mine who was a clinical and neurological psychologist posted the following:  The three links Frank provides are:
The only thing I can safely say is that in no. 2, one of the authors states a conflict of interest as they consult for Syngerta Crop Protection AG, while no. 3 is a study with a sample size of 13, and its own conclusion states that "[l]arger scale studies in different populations are required to confirm these findings and investigate their clinical relevance." What do the experts in the audience think? No. 2 having an agribusiness consultant seems to at least suggest lack of bias against "toxic" pesticides.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
That second one is entirely possible. It's talking about agricultural exposures though, the levels in food are far, far smaller than what farm workers get. I haven't read it closely though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
Not to mention organic farming uses Bt as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:Thanks to whoever posted that journal article about transportation phase in food production and the percentage of life-cycle GHG emissions. It seems my neighbourhood, and my general circles of friends are all caught up in this anti-GMO, pro-organic, pro-local thing. It's nice to have local farms, even if you put aside any potential environmental benefits. It's just a nice thing to have in your community. For one thing, it's cool to have a local producer where you can take kids to teach them about how food is grown. Some of the locavore stuff is being over emphasized, for the reasons you pointed out, but I think if you focus on buying products that are in season and appropriate crops for your area then the products are going to be mostly environmentally responsible and high quality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Sorry for double-posting, but this is entirely different: a friend of mine who was a clinical and neurological psychologist posted the following: I don't have journal access at the moment, but #2 is plausible on the face of it. #3 is an exercise in stating the obvious; organic farmers use pesticides, but mostly not organophosphates because those are rough on non-GMO crops. That doesn't mean that those 13 people weren't getting blasted with some other type of toxicity!
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
The way I read that first Facebook image ("gmo fact of the day"), it seems to be talking about RR Bt corn. Is that actually A Thing, a strain with both properties?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
 quote:Just as history needed to record the names and deeds of Nazi war criminals, so too must all those collaborators who are promoting the death and destruction caused by GMOs be named for the historical record. The true extent of their collaboration with an anti-human regime will all become readily apparent once the GMO delusion collapses and mass global starvation becomes an inescapable reality. http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/07/popular-conspiracy-site-likens-pro-gmo-journalists-nazi-collaborators quote:UPDATE: After this story was first published, someone has indeed launched a website that appears to be inspired by a suggestion from this story. The Monsanto Collaborators website lists the names of journalists and publications that the site says have contributed to the agricultural genocide of GMOs, comparing the 250,000+ suicides caused by GMOs to "genocide" and the Holocaust. The site looks new and somewhat sparse, but it does put special emphasis on people like Jon Entine, including a link to a rather detailed and shocking background on Jon Entine at Truth Wiki.   It's blatantly obvious this was all planned in advance: False Flag?FuriousxGeorge fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Jul 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
When exactly was the last time something that got accused of being a false flag turned out to actually be one?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:
The conspiracy theories have gone circular.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:
 And people wonder why anti-GMO idiots aren't considered worth taking seriously...
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:
The best part is that it was a site likely setup by him: http://www.twipscience.org/news/2014/7/25/mike-adams-builds-a-naturalnews-nazi-time-machine So either he's loving nuts or incredibly dishonest. Considering it's Mike Adams, it's
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Taaaaaaarb! posted:The best part is that it was a site likely setup by him: FALSE FLAGS are the dumbest things 99% of the time, but this seems totally plausible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:FALSE FLAGS are the dumbest things 99% of the time, but this seems totally plausible. It's a meta-false flag. Or false meta-flag?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Taaaaaaarb! posted:The best part is that it was a site likely setup by him: Oh wow. I didn't think this would get more hilarious. Blatantly obvious that this was all planned in advance indeed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
It is fitting that a conspiracy theorist would try to play (and fail) 11-dimensional chess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
blowfish posted:It is fitting that a conspiracy theorist would try to play (and fail) 11-dimensional chess. I didn't move those pieces! They were moved by Monsatan/Big Government/NWO/Jews 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
d3c0y2 posted:I'm opposed to genetic foods because of how it's used to sue poor farmers into oblivion and support unethical business practices. I support the EU forcing GM containing foods to be labelled as such because I try to eat ethically and most GM food is part of a problem that treats farmers and small businesses terribly. I haven't even begun to read this thread and this is from the first page, but this is the kind of stuff that I'm looking for. I do not have a solid background in many of the topics needed to fully understand and am trying to play catch-up, but the things I have heard the most and read the most about are things like this. Lawsuits, crop contamination, the ability to make seed saving illegal and sue over it, the ability to replace natural crops with seeds which do not reproduce themselves at all. The thing about GMOs that seems to me, as someone who is slowly trying to actually know what he's talking about, is the potential for some sort of seed monopoly and the ability to patent and completely own a major source of food. The science of whether or not it's safe is a whole separate issue which I can worry about later, right now I guess my question for the thread is more of an economic one as to how bad exactly could this get in the US. Who are the sources you people trust when it comes to GMOs in general? Where are you all getting your information from? I was hoping for a link filled OP to start reading but there isn't one and googling brings up millions of website most of which seem like I don't want to trust them for factual information and competent analysis. :Edit: I know multiple countries have banned GMOs, why exactly? Like, I'd like to read the actual arguments made if possible, and I've tried to google it and cannot find any sources that have all the details I could want as to why these decisions are being made. :Edit2: I just finished the first page of the thread and it's alot of shouting back and forth without much sourcing going on and I really do not at this point have any idea how to sort out who knows what they're talking about. "This is what's going on!" "No, you're a complete idiot and misinformed this is what's going on" and so on. TheSpiritFox fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Aug 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
TheSpiritFox posted:
This isn't possible, though, because the market is large and diverse. I mean, you could have worried about this with non-GMO seeds too. quote:Who are the sources you people trust when it comes to GMOs in general? Where are you all getting your information from? I was hoping for a link filled OP to start reading but there isn't one and googling brings up millions of website most of which seem like I don't want to trust them for factual information and competent analysis. I'm not sure what you're asking. Do you mean a debunking of the standard myths? quote:I know multiple countries have banned GMOs, why exactly? Like, I'd like to read the actual arguments made if possible, and I've tried to google it and cannot find any sources that have all the details I could want as to why these decisions are being made. A lot of places ban certain GMOs for certain reasons. Some ban all of them, but I don't consider any of their reasoning good; one of the pieces of reasoning is that the genetic information can spread and drift. This is true, but it's true for non-GMO stuff too. quote:I just finished the first page of the thread and it's alot of shouting back and forth without much sourcing going on and I really do not at this point have any idea how to sort out who knows what they're talking about. "This is what's going on!" "No, you're a complete idiot and misinformed this is what's going on" and so on. Read more than the first page, I'd advise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:This isn't possible, though, because the market is large and diverse. I mean, you could have worried about this with non-GMO seeds too. Understand you're talking to someone who has no idea what other GMO companies exist besides monsanto or what the economics of agriculture for things like this entail. I have a firm base, but no experience or education when it comes to this specific realm of business. I've read articles stating that Monsanto is specifically pushing out non GMO seed stock in favor of it's own patented seed which it can monopolize. The conspiracy theory part comes in I guess with what they would do once they obtained the monopoly (bad things?). I have heard and read alot of poo poo and none of it up until now has been what I would consider reputable. It's all either GMO shill or Infowars style writing a story with sources that go back to websites it looks like someone threw up yesterday specifically to be a link in another article on a website someone just threw up today. quote:I'm not sure what you're asking. Do you mean a debunking of the standard myths? I'm sure I know some of the standard myths, but I don't know that they are considered "the standard myths" and I guess I was just looking for any links anyone had that would, if we had a standard link filled OP, be in it. quote:A lot of places ban certain GMOs for certain reasons. Some ban all of them, but I don't consider any of their reasoning good; one of the pieces of reasoning is that the genetic information can spread and drift. This is true, but it's true for non-GMO stuff too. I'm sure you can understand seeing people throwing up the names of countries that have banned GMOs and GMOs are bad because they got banned. What are some other pieces of reasoning besides genetic drift, if you don't mind? I'm sorry I'm basically asking to be handed information but I don't know enough about this stuff to be able to competently find accurate information. I've been googling on and off since about 9 am and it's 6 pm now. quote:Read more than the first page, I'd advise. I'm partway down page 2 and I finally found some people starting to post actual links and stuff. It's slow going, so I went ahead and posted at the end. 50 pages is alot to read and sort relevant information from repetitious "IDIOT!" posts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
TheSpiritFox posted:Understand you're talking to someone who has no idea what other GMO companies exist besides monsanto or what the economics of agriculture for things like this entail. Well, that's covered in this thread. Monsanto isn't even the biggest player. quote:I have a firm base, but no experience or education when it comes to this specific realm of business. I've read articles stating that Monsanto is specifically pushing out non GMO seed stock in favor of it's own patented seed which it can monopolize. The conspiracy theory part comes in I guess with what they would do once they obtained the monopoly (bad things?). How would they be able to do that if people didn't want to buy their seed? quote:I'm sure I know some of the standard myths, but I don't know that they are considered "the standard myths" and I guess I was just looking for any links anyone had that would, if we had a standard link filled OP, be in it. The thing is GMOs really aren't that strange or radical, so it's hard to provide you with what you want. This is complicated by the fact that GMO is often used to put pesticide into a plant, or do something else that people have a problem with. so often problems with a particular use of GMOs is conflated with general GMOs. quote:I'm sure you can understand seeing people throwing up the names of countries that have banned GMOs and GMOs are bad because they got banned. What are some other pieces of reasoning besides genetic drift, if you don't mind? I'm sorry I'm basically asking to be handed information but I don't know enough about this stuff to be able to competently find accurate information. I've been googling on and off since about 9 am and it's 6 pm now. Protectionism, worries about unforeseen environmental impact and as I said above, particular effects from particular GMOs. Like any plant, there's an environmental impact. GMOs can have bad effects, but so can normal plants. quote:I'm partway down page 2 and I finally found some people starting to post actual links and stuff. It's slow going, so I went ahead and posted at the end. 50 pages is alot to read and sort relevant information from repetitious "IDIOT!" posts. Well, I'm not sure what to tell you. There's nothing like skepticalscience that does a good job of debunking the scaremongering stuff. One problem is there's nothing at all that's common to all GMOs, not even a technique to make them, so talking about them as a class is hard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Well, that's covered in this thread. Monsanto isn't even the biggest player. Alright, I'll keep trying to process, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
TheSpiritFox posted:Understand you're talking to someone who has no idea what other GMO companies exist besides monsanto or what the economics of agriculture for things like this entail. I have a firm base, but no experience or education when it comes to this specific realm of business. I've read articles stating that Monsanto is specifically pushing out non GMO seed stock in favor of it's own patented seed which it can monopolize. The conspiracy theory part comes in I guess with what they would do once they obtained the monopoly (bad things?). To answer some of this: Seed patents have been around since the 1930s. There's nothing magical about GMOs in regard to that. All seed companies (and there are dozens of them) have their own patented seeds that they try to sell to the exclusion of others. What Monsanto does is identical to what every other company does. Nobody is required to buy GMO seeds. Farmers are free to buy whatever they want. GMO crops are specifically designed to yield more profit for the farmer, however - generally by reducing the tillage or pesticide requirements, lowering costs. Thus farmers prefer GMO seeds because they make more money by using them. Agricultural seeds marketing is just like anything else. Innovate and make a better product, and people will buy yours in preference to others.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
TheSpiritFox posted:Alright, I'll keep trying to process, thanks. I can try to pull out some particularly good posts from this thread later, but part of the reason I created this thread was to get some insight about why certain circles have latched onto Monsanto, and why a myth has been created around them as the "evilest company on earth". So, I'm not really surprised that Monsanto is the only GMO manufacturer you've heard of, and it still seems crazy that people haven't latched onto any of the other (bigger) GMO producers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Agricultural seeds marketing is just like anything else. Innovate and make a better product, and people will buy yours in preference to others. It also suffers from the same ills of any market, namely, the dangers of monopolies, regulatory capture, etc. But as people have said, none of these is unique to GMO's. It's a complete red herring. Each GMO is different, and the problems they raise can come up with other agricultural products. There is much to fight for, but GMO's as a unifying issue is definitely a bad focus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 00:56
|
|