|
peter banana posted:Hahaha, it's not my podcast. It has thousands of listeners and has won several awards and takes on various left wing issues every 3 days. This episode is specifically about the industrialized food system, though it doesn't mention GMO's at all, just in general the industrial food system and its environmental and animal welfare effects. The youtube is telling me "chemical farming" requires expensive inputs, more water and more minerals and organic farming produces as much if not more food without it. Then there's clearly no problem - start an organic farm and outcompete all the conventional farmers by selling your food cheaper. Of course organic food is generally more expensive so... what's up with that?
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 05:54 |
|
|
peter banana posted:well, whatever, do whatever. Thought some self-professed scientifically minded people might be interested in hear evidence that opposes their already entrenched hypothesis, but apparently not. Nice scientific approach "Combating Scientific Ignorance" thread People are interesting in hearing views that oppose theirs, but you know, actual good ones, not some random podcast. If they raise good points, link to the sources of those points, not some people talking about them. Podcasts are not a source nor credible in any way. Even if podcasts have qualified scientists in them you can still just link to the actual research or studies that those qualified scientists are discussing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
If there were practices organic farmers were using that allowed higher yields than conventional practices then why wouldn't conventional farmers adopt those practices as well as using chemicals? Are they all incredibly stupid? efb
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Is there a single peer reviewed journal in that list? I don't recognize any of the names, but I'm not that familiar with agroscience journals. Yes, Rodale's matching yield studies have been peer-reviewed: http://www.tgdaily.com/trendwatch-brief/59171-study-touts-benefits-of-organic-farming http://www.strauscom.com/rodale-release/ Also, source 5, 10, 11& 28 is are from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service which requires peer-review : http://www.ers.usda.gov/about-ers/peer-reviews.aspx The National Academies Press which is the source for 8 & 23 is a collection of peer-reviewed journals in science. Source 15 is from Science, so yes. Source 19 is from the National Institute of Health, which I assume requires peer review. Source 20 from is peer reviewed: http://www.researchgate.net/publica...ley_in_Ethiopia Source 21 is from a peer reviewed journal: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayMoreInfo?jid=RAF&type=eb&sessionId=FEC6664203CBC3E703D8F21D1DD95F50.journals Source 22 is from BioScience, a peer-reviewed journal: http://www.aibs.org/bioscience/ You'll notice that the other sources are UN, government organizations or reputable universities. I won't hang my hat in saying they are absolutely peer reviewed, because they might not be, but at the very least those organizations are standing behind the findings. peter banana fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Mar 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:The youtube is telling me "chemical farming" requires expensive inputs, more water and more minerals and organic farming produces as much if not more food without it. Then there's clearly no problem - start an organic farm and outcompete all the conventional farmers by selling your food cheaper. Of course organic food is generally more expensive so... what's up with that? The systems require capital input and not everyone is able to make that switch. That's why people who are going into farming from a non-farming background grow organic by the hundreds: http://www.tesh.com/story/health-and-well-being-category/organic-farming-is-the-newest-trend-among-young-people/cc/6/id/11873. Also this: https://www.mint.com/blog/trends/organic-food-07082010/ ghetto wormhole posted:If there were practices organic farmers were using that allowed higher yields than conventional practices then why wouldn't conventional farmers adopt those practices as well as using chemicals? Are they all incredibly stupid? And no, conventional farmers are not stupid, they're just trapped in a cycle of debt and currently conventional crops are more profitable: http://www.producer.com/2015/01/consumers-want-organic-so-why-are-farmers-wary/ peter banana fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Mar 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
peter banana posted:
There is no "opposing viewpoint" to be had, just marketing hogwash buddy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Can someone more familiar with this topic explain how this study posted by peter banana: http://rodaleinstitute.org/assets/FSTbooklet.pdf compares with this? quote:A meta-analysis of 147 studies on the impact of GMO's that found, among other things, that GMO crops: Specifically this portion on GM crops quote:
I'm inclined to doubt it because the whole thing looks more like marketing than science but there is also a lot of data in it. Curious if it's actually reliable. If so, there's quite the gulf in results between these two.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
Taffer posted:Can someone more familiar with this topic explain how this study posted by peter banana: http://rodaleinstitute.org/assets/FSTbooklet.pdf At the very least, a meta-analysis of many studies is generally far more useful than a single study. edit: I will acknowledge that many of those studies included in the meta-analysis may have been industry funded and thus might skew the results some, but I'd still be far more inclined to trust the results of the meta-study than a single study that appears to have been conducted by an organisation that is very "pro-organic" to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
peter banana posted:Yes, Rodale's matching yield studies have been peer-reviewed: Beware the huckster who refuses to provide direct links. These are a loving press release from the originating institute and a blog post, you idiot. The blog post links to a Newspaper article. You're being sloppy as poo poo, dude "Peer-reviewed" is such a low bar of integrity that it's hilarious whenever a "groundbreaking" study can't even achieve it. The Rodale PDF that you linked to is not peer reviewed. Even The Rodale Institute doesn't claim that it is peer-reviewed; they refer to it properly as a white paper. quote:Also, source 5, 10, 11& 28 is are from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service which requires peer-review : http://www.ers.usda.gov/about-ers/peer-reviews.aspx You're confused. Those aren't citations, they're footnotes. The fact that this "paper" doesn't actually have a list of citations is telling, although some of these footnotes do refer to other papers. As an example, the start of footnote 5 reads "To learn about the consolidation of the livestock industry and the growth of factory farming, see: James M. MacDonald and William D. McBride, “The Transformation of U.S. Livestock Agriculture: Scale, Efficiency, and Risks,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, January 2009". But if you go and look up this paper, you find that it doesn't suggest that Organic livestock agriculture is more efficient or less risky, or that it's even feasible on a large scale. As another example, footnote 10 refers to the Department of Agriculture website here: [url]http://[/url] https://www.farmland.org/resources/fote/default.asp. This is done in an attempt to prove that Contract Farming is causing us to lose farmland, but the website doesn't mention Contract Farming at all: it blames the spread of urban and suburban areas, or "developed uses": roads, malls, homes, etc. quote:Source 15 is from Science, so yes. Oh poo poo, really? Let's look... okay yes, after a paragraph of bullshit they do mention a Science article. And it even describes that this page says it describes: soil erosion is a threat to our agricultural resources. However, it doesn't blame farming practices, but rather farm location, so switching to organic wouldn't help. It also describes a number of non-organic techniques that would reduce soil erosion on poorly located industrial farms to sustainable levels. The article is also 20 years old, so who knows whether soil erosion is as bad now as it was then (probably?) Needless to say, this is all shady as poo poo. They're "citing" a list of their own footnotes. That's not good research, that's sloppy bullshit. They try to reinforce this by occasionally injecting an actual citation, but usually to something that actually disagrees with their conclusions. That is hosed up. In no professional field would it be considered acceptable to pass of footnotes as a type of citation, and it's especially unacceptable to cite things and then claim that they say something that they don't say. This isn't a sign of good scientific research or integrity e: tl;dr this poo poo isn't peer-reviewed, it's linked to by a lot of organic blogs though and they cite some authoritative sources that actually disagree with their claims QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:edit: I will acknowledge that many of those studies included in the meta-analysis may have been industry funded and thus might skew the results
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 08:41
|
|
|
peter banana posted:The systems require capital input and not everyone is able to make that switch. That's why people who are going into farming from a non-farming background grow organic by the hundreds: Now waitaminute that link tells me something that's different from what the youtube told me Mint Life posted:In the organics market, production costs are typically higher due to alternative production practices (higher animal welfare standards, restricted use of chemicals, and soil fertility enhancement), smaller yields and greater manual labor. Without the use of agrochemicals – designed to make food cheaper to produce – an organic grower must spend far more time working crops to prevent disease and destruction. An organic farmer will also lose a far greater percentage of the crop than a chemical farmer. That link similarly states that "Subsidies are mostly geared towards large-scale, chemically intensive agriculture and artificially lower the price of conventional products." Well the "large-scale" bit is irrelevant because organic farming can be large-scale and the "chemically intensive" bit is simply untrue insofar as subsidies are production oriented and organic farming - as we know - produce as much, if not more, food as conventional farming. Further your link keeps referencing the labor intensive nature of organic farming and the economies of scale of conventional farming. The thing is though, we want the economies of scale and we don't want our food production to be labor intensive. Food should be cheap so it's available to everybody. If a TV or a yacht is labor intensive and expensive to make then that's fine - this is very much not true of food. It might not be significant to an upper middle class person that spends 5% of their income on food but it matters a lot to a poor person that spends 20-30% of their income on food.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:This is a common tactic in a variety of controversial areas. That's really the wrong word to describe corporate R&D, unless you mean to say that it's a common tactic to erroneously suggest that the source of research funding automatically makes that research wrong
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 10:22
|
|
|
Taffer posted:Can someone more familiar with this topic explain how this study posted by peter banana: http://rodaleinstitute.org/assets/FSTbooklet.pdf The article itself mentions that not all of the studies are peer-reviewed, hilariously to "give it a broader perspective." Sure, of studies where industry has positioned results to be higher, I guess. Many GM studies will compare potential yield with operational yield, which are different measures ad the studies don't have to differentiate between the two. Also many studies are done in the short term, in which the gains present early on in the application of the GM foods. Over a 13 year period however, for some GM crops the gain is negligible or can be attributed to non-GM genetic variance, like all organisms, great article about it here from Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/failure-to-yield.pdf Additionally this report from the The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development from 400 scientists and 58 governments showed "GM crop yields were "highly variable" and in some cases, "yields declined." The report noted, "Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable." http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5967/812.short QuarkJets posted:Beware the huckster who refuses to provide direct links. These are a loving press release from the originating institute and a blog post, you idiot. The blog post links to a Newspaper article. You're being sloppy as poo poo, dude Uh yeah, it's a 30 year study and parts of it have been peer-reviewed. Obviously the entire study of 30 years of organic growth over 333 acres has not been replicated in its entirety. Do you require 30 year multi crop studies to prove GMO's are fine for production? I hope so. The articles I've posted state that parts of their experiments have been peer reviewed to be published in journals such as Nature. Do you really need the actual peer reviewed study or the fact that it appears in a journal which requires peer review from publication? Because I hope you're holding any pro-GM studies to that standard too. You're the one getting sloppy and moving the goal posts of what you consider good science because it doesn't fit your entrenched narrative. QuarkJets posted:
QuarkJets posted:
QuarkJets posted:
That citation to to back up the claim that "Over the last fifty years, millions of desperate farmers have had to sign contracts with corporations that dictate their every move or have lost their farms altogether." Which the paper from the USDA ERS does, though the paper talks about the benefits of contracting, this transcript has used this paper to get the raw numbers. http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/184479/eib66_1_.pdf QuarkJets posted:
Not a paragraph of bullshit. Context. And again this transcript is not, nor was it ever claimed to be a peer reviewed article. And if you actually read that Science article (I can't copy paste for some reason) you'll see on the end of the first paragraph in the third column the researchers cite farmers intensifying their practises as contributing to soil erosion. Again, this is to back up the transcript's claim that "Industrial farms degrade and erode precious topsoil –64 tons per acre are being lost every year in some spots in our heartland." in terms of the numbers of tons of topsoil lost. QuarkJets posted:
The sources of the article, not the article itself, are peer reviewed. And they are not citing footnotes, they are citing actual studies if you actually searched for what they've cited and which claims they are backing up using those studies. And The USDA ERS, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and Tufts University are not "organic blogs" despite what you may have heard. And again, I hope you're holding any and all GMO articles to the same standard. Or else you're just looking for reasons to discredit actual science to support you narrative that the status quo of industrial farming is good for some reason. Anosmoman posted:Now waitaminute that link tells me something that's different from what the youtube told me Anosmoman posted:The youtube is telling me "chemical farming" requires expensive inputs, more water and more minerals and organic farming produces as much if not more food without it. Then there's clearly no problem - start an organic farm and outcompete all the conventional farmers by selling your food cheaper. Of course organic food is generally more expensive so... what's up with that? Anosmoman posted:That link similarly states that "Subsidies are mostly geared towards large-scale, chemically intensive agriculture and artificially lower the price of conventional products." Well the "large-scale" bit is irrelevant because organic farming can be large-scale and the "chemically intensive" bit is simply untrue insofar as subsidies are production oriented and organic farming - as we know - produce as much, if not more, food as conventional farming. Mint is not a scientific source, it's an economic one and the question was about economics. Anosmoman posted:Further your link keeps referencing the labor intensive nature of organic farming and the economies of scale of conventional farming. The thing is though, we want the economies of scale and we don't want our food production to be labor intensive. Food should be cheap so it's available to everybody. If a TV or a yacht is labor intensive and expensive to make then that's fine - this is very much not true of food. It might not be significant to an upper middle class person that spends 5% of their income on food but it matters a lot to a poor person that spends 20-30% of their income on food. Yes? And to bring down the cost of organic farming, Rodale's principles (which should be impossible according to many in this thread, as in any organic farming should not show an increase in yield) should be implemented on a wider scale to create those economies of scale. What you're saying is, "economies of scale make this unaffordable, so let's not expand or encourage their growth and blame organic growers for not bringing down their prices." It's a tautology. It takes time, just because organic has not solved all of the world's problems now or has even been studied enough to create a suitable database of answers, it's not valid. QuarkJets posted:That's really the wrong word to describe corporate R&D, unless you mean to say that it's a common tactic to erroneously suggest that the source of research funding automatically makes that research wrong Look, I'm not here to say GMO's are bad, but organic farming is not all bad and in some experiments it has been shown to match or exceed yields which I have red many time in this thread should be impossible. Here is evidence saying that that is not the case and you can discredit the organizations and journals you hear it from or even say that somehow that peer review is not a scientific sniff test, but that doesn't change the findings. And if you're not going to alter your hypothesis based on the available evidence then you are very definitely not combating scientific ignorance, you're defending it. peter banana fucked around with this message at 13:24 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 12:29
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:At the very least, a meta-analysis of many studies is generally far more useful than a single study. Can I just state that before this poster determined the meta-analysis "more useful" not a single one of the studies in the meta-analysis was cited in the article? Not. One. Additionally the actual meta analysis itself only cites ~30 references, a far cry from the 147 the article states. If I came in here with something like that to support organic farming I'd get eviscerated and rightly so. But I have to defend every source from mine and bring the peer reviewed ones to people who don't know how to read footnotes. And that's after a page of people automatically dismissing the content without even reading it. Honestly, when does the thread title get to be changed to "Defending Scientific Ignorance." peter banana fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 13:01
|
|
|
peter banana posted:The @FoodMythBusters section is what I think everyone should really listen to (it's 6:29 and can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TRI7yeeYQQ) It weighs the environmental effects of industrial agriculture as well as the fact that in the right systems organic can match or even overtake conventional yields. That's some nice conjecture you have there, be a shame if someone were to test it. peter banana posted:The article itself mentions that not all of the studies are peer-reviewed, hilariously to "give it a broader perspective." Sure, of studies where industry has positioned results to be higher, I guess. The UCS has been called out in the past for basically ignoring scientific evidence to push an agenda. Its an ideology group, not a scientific group. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That's some nice conjecture you have there, be a shame if someone were to test it. Criticized by Jerry Falwell for accepting climate change? Yeah okay. http://www.wnd.com/2007/02/40332/
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
peter banana posted:Criticized by Jerry Falwell for accepting climate change? Yeah okay. No, for their stance on nuclear and GMOs specifically, but nice strawman. http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/05/06/video-union-of-concerned-scientists-blames-gmos-for-superweeds-but-issue-more-complex/ http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/response-to-ucs-science-dogma-and-mark-lynas/ CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No, for their stance on nuclear and GMOs specifically, but nice strawman. Oh cool, the genetic literacy project which is 100% objective and totally not funded by Sygenta and led by an agribusiness shill: http://www.propagandists.org/propagandists/jon-entine/ http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/02/atrazine-syngengta-tyrone-hayes-jon-entine
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
peter banana posted:Uh yeah, it's a 30 year study and parts of it have been peer-reviewed. Obviously the entire study of 30 years of organic growth over 333 acres has not been replicated in its entirety. Do you require 30 year multi crop studies to prove GMO's are fine for production? I hope so. Have you actually done any peer reviewed research? I ask because you don't seem to understand what peer review even means. If your answer to "has this been peer reviewed" is "yes, but only parts of it" then the answer is actually no, it's not a peer reviewed publication. Peer review does not entail repeating a study in its entirety; it's a review process by which the content is examined by outside experts before even being considered for publication, and you're not supposed to have direct contact with or ability to choose the experts. Rodale self-published the 30 year study, so by definition it is not peer reviewed. The peer review process is meant to prevent cases where someone "publishes" something bogus and then "confirms" it in a bunch of subsequent studies without ever subjecting their results to criticisms from outside peers. Failing to submit your work to the peer review process, especially when making groundbreaking claims as the Rodale Institute does, raises a huge red flag in any professional researcher's mind, and with good reason. Do not let followup studies fool you into believing that those studies mean that this work is peer reviewed. If I wrote up a white paper declaring that I've discovered Cold Fusion and then had a colleague write up a confirmation study, that wouldn't make my work peer reviewed. quote:The articles I've posted state that parts of their experiments have been peer reviewed to be published in journals such as Nature. Do you really need the actual peer reviewed study or the fact that it appears in a journal which requires peer review from publication? Because I hope you're holding any pro-GM studies to that standard too. You're the one getting sloppy and moving the goal posts of what you consider good science because it doesn't fit your entrenched narrative. Nope, that's not peer review. And as I pointed out already, one of the "articles" was a loving press release from the same people who both conducted and published the study and the other was from a news aggregator so small that they don't even have a wikipedia entry. The original 30-year Rodale study was not peer reviewed. A study by a Cornell professor that is related to the Rodale study was peer reviewed. And yes, obviously I hold all of my references to the extremely easy-to-meet standard of peer review, which is why it's so shocking that the Rodale study doesn't even meet that standard. quote:I never said that this transcript was a scientific paper? I was very clear that it's a transcript of a video and it gives its sources for its research. The research however are a number of peer reviewed studies. Just that it incorporates research from a number of peer reviewed papers, which are all detailed in title and source in yes, the footnotes. Have you looked at any of those papers in the footnotes? I'm saying that those are not sources, but you keep calling them sources. Many of those "sources" are literally just footnotes. Yes, clearly I have looked at a number of the papers in those footnotes. I quoted them at you while showing that the papers show the opposite of what is claimed in the video, fuckwit. You surely must have realized this at some point while typing out the rest of your responses. I'm catching a flight soon, I'm going to hammer out some responses to the rest of your post later. But that study is not loving peer reviewed just because someone repeated a single aspect of it later
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
peter banana posted:Oh cool, the genetic literacy project which is 100% objective and totally not funded by Sygenta and led by an agribusiness shill: Let's take a deeper look at these articles, specifically the Mother Jones writer Tom Philpott, surely Tom has no bias nor connection to anything that might skew his views: quote:Tom Philpott is the cofounder of Maverick Farms, a center for sustainable food education in Valle Crucis, North Carolina. He was formerly a columnist and editor for the online environmental site Grist and his work on food politics has appeared in Newsweek, Gastronomica, and the Guardian. Huh. That's very interesting. As for that second website, they link back to: quote:AN OMSJ PUBLIC SERVICE I wonder who those guys are? http://www.omsj.org/ Oh. Let's see. Anti-vax bullshit, chemtrails, huh. Lots of reputable information there, for sure. The site is run by Clark Baker, of JUNK SCIENCE right wing fame. Well done. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Let's take a deeper look at these articles, specifically the Mother Jones writer Tom Philpott, surely Tom has no bias nor connection to anything that might skew his views: I'm just saying the Genetic Literacy project is as flawed as any of those sources.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
peter banana posted:I'm just saying the Genetic Literacy project is as flawed as any of those sources. Your source for this is a stealth website run by the same guy that runs Junk Science, a Right Wing conspiracy theory investigation blog. Holy poo poo dude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Your source for this is a stealth website run by the same guy that runs Junk Science, a Right Wing conspiracy theory investigation blog. and the Genetic Literacy Project is funded by the GMO companies. Not sure what your point is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
peter banana posted:Can I just state that before this poster determined the meta-analysis "more useful" not a single one of the studies in the meta-analysis was cited in the article? Not. One. Additionally the actual meta analysis itself only cites ~30 references, a far cry from the 147 the article states. If I came in here with something like that to support organic farming I'd get eviscerated and rightly so. In the article reporting on the meta-analysis? No, why would they? The article is there just to gain attention for the analysis and report its general findings. For people who genuinely want to know the details, the link is provided to the actual meta-analysis, and it is not behind a paywall. And yes, the list of studies cited for the analysis is in a nice PDF right on that page. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?unique&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0111629.s004 You need to get over your persecution complex, nobody is holding your links to a higher standard than others. People are responding with skepticism to your claims because they run counter to known science on organic and GM crops, and to make claims that contradict established science, more robust evidence is needed. peter banana posted:and the Genetic Literacy Project is funded by the GMO companies. Not sure what your point is. You realize that's not comparable, right? There's conflict of interest, and then there's an actual crazy person.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Taffer posted:In the article reporting on the meta-analysis? No, why would they? The article is there just to gain attention for the analysis and report its general findings. For people who genuinely want to know the details, the link is provided to the actual meta-analysis, and it is not behind a paywall. And yes, the list of studies cited for the analysis is in a nice PDF right on that page. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?unique&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0111629.s004 And I totally agree, someone should look over Rodale's results to peer review them and the organization itself admits it is happy to let that happen. But clearly the first responses in this thread were to say that the research referenced was not peer reviewed before anyone had even read it (which even you must admit is not a scientific approach) which people can say over and over, but many of the sources from the @FoodMythBusters are peer reviewed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
peter banana posted:and the Genetic Literacy Project is funded by the GMO companies. Not sure what your point is. That your argument against it is literally from the tinfoil conspiracy theory crowd. Nicely done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That your argument against it is literally from the tinfoil conspiracy theory crowd. Nicely done. Nope, my argument is from the UCS, which has been "called out" by a vested interest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
peter banana posted:Nope, my argument is from the UCS, which has been "called out" by a vested interest. No, you cited a conspiracy theorists stealth website. The UCS is a green ideology group, they really don't count and have been called out on obvious bias before. I mean, c'mon now, you can't cite a guy who is literally wearing a tinfoil hat and another guy who is the founding partner of a Organic farm as valid sources and expect to be taken seriously. https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/145-union-of-concerned-scientists/ quote:Among UCS’s many concerns, “the food you eat” is at the top of the list. More than a million dollars went to its food program in 2001. Genetically enhanced foods — dubbed “Frankenfoods” by opponents — have caused worldwide hysteria even though no reputable scientific institution can find anything to be afraid of. But that doesn’t stop UCS’s “experts” from playing cheerleader to these unfounded fears.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No, you cited a conspiracy theorists stealth website. The UCS is a green ideology group, they really don't count and have been called out on obvious bias before. I don't I'm with the UCS, maybe they have been called out before but by the people who would profit the most from discrediting them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
peter banana posted:I don't I'm with the UCS, maybe they have been called out before but by the people who would profit the most from discrediting them. What, like the Royal Society? Or the National Academy of Sciences? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:What, like the Royal Society? Or the National Academy of Sciences? this conversation has never been about the health effects and I have never disputed that GMO's are safe in terms of health. Just that some form of organic farming can match conventional yields. I didn't even mention GMO's when I first posted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
peter banana posted:this conversation has never been about the health effects? So let's just ignore the Crop Scientists and Seed Scientists on that poster, right? peter banana posted:Just that some form of organic farming can match conventional yields. I didn't even mention GMO's when I first posted. So, prove it. Thusfar it has not been proven, and all estimates point to significant decreases in crop yields and the inability to match market demand. There are rare cases where it is true, but it is not a blanket case for all crops. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So let's just ignore the Crop Scientists and Seed Scientists on that poster, right? No I would agree with them and support more research?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
peter banana posted:No I would agree with them and support more research? http://scienceblogs.com/webeasties/2013/05/14/union-of-concerned-scientists-failing-on-farming/ The UCS has some good stuff they are doing, I will give them that especially on climate change (despite the fact that they wholly ignore nuclear as a carbon neutral power generating system), however, their crop science and anti-GMO stance is not based on rational scientific reasoning. quote:Several years ago, UCS decided to branch out into the science of how we grow our food. This should be a wonderful thing – our agriculture system is badly broken, and there are scientific and technological solutions to help feed a growing human population while minimizing environmental impact. I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested we should not do proper research on GMOs and their safety, however, this is not the way to go about it. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://scienceblogs.com/webeasties/2013/05/14/union-of-concerned-scientists-failing-on-farming/ yep, which is why I specifically made no claims even with regards to UCS about health effects. I would agree that no pathology has been linked to them at this point. To be honest, the fact that nutritional enhancement is not a priority for GMO companies is a concern if these are all in our best interest, but companies are companies and they're here to make a buck, as are organic growers. I would never deny that. As for increased yields and environmental practices, I believe that there is still work to be done and inconclusive results and there are good alternate agricultural practices which are not getting the respect and credence they deserve. But I have those environmental concerns about the proven deleterious effects of conventional industrial agriculture in general, which often gets wrongly lumped in to the GMO issue itself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
peter banana posted:Just that some form of organic farming can match conventional yields. I didn't even mention GMO's when I first posted. Can you qualify this claim better, because every time you have tried to correct someone you keep weakening the strength of this claim to the point of crafting a strawman that no one has argued. Are you claiming that organic farms can have identical yields as conventional farms dedicated to maximizing yields under identical conditions with equal or lesser resources expended? Unless this is your contention, you are literally tilting at windmills and starting to sound more like a shill than an genuinely interested party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
So join us in getting GM research publicly accepted and funded instead of this veiled scaremongering that only results in politicians withdrawing public funds øeaving the entire field to big business...
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
I'm still waiting to find out how the Genetic Literacy Project is just as flawed as the website that claims that Vaccines cause Shaken Baby Syndrome and Chemtrails are real.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I'm still waiting to find out how the Genetic Literacy Project is just as flawed as the website that claims that Vaccines cause Shaken Baby Syndrome and Chemtrails are real. It's not. I never said it was. It's just funded by corporate interests, that's all. Doesn't mean their findings are wrong, just that they should be subject to skepticism and to think that they're above skepticism is equally wrong. One of the sources which said that was flawed, I'll admit. But you can't just discount someone's article because he's an organic farmer, that's an appeal to position in the opposition direction. Here's another article about John Entine from the New Yorker which mentions his relationship with Sygenta. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/02/10/a-valuable-reputation archangelwar posted:Can you qualify this claim better, because every time you have tried to correct someone you keep weakening the strength of this claim to the point of crafting a strawman that no one has argued. Are you claiming that organic farms can have identical yields as conventional farms dedicated to maximizing yields under identical conditions with equal or lesser resources expended? Unless this is your contention, you are literally tilting at windmills and starting to sound more like a shill than an genuinely interested party. This is a difficult question because the purpose of organic farming is not to necessarily use less or fewer resources. You're asking something from organic agriculture for which it was not designed. Organic agriculture can mean a lot of things. It can be a full permaculture systems-based approach to a small homestead or it can be a complete replication of an industrial farm just using copper sulfate for pest management instead of RoundUp. Both of those would win an organic certification in Ontario, at least. That's why it's so difficult to get a real answer on organic. We're comparing apples to orange to cantaloupes to Miley Cyrus. Maybe that means more stringent guidelines are needed. I would support that too. When I talk about organic I mean the practices which will be the most sustainable for the land, soil, plants, pests, environment, water and consumers in the long term. The purpose of organic agriculture is to limit as far as is practicable the reliance of agriculture on fossil fuels, excessive fresh water use and practice agriculture in a sustainable way long term. I would argue that since we can already produce enough to feed the world, but throw much of it away or store it inefficiently, producing more is a canard, and producing sustainably is a worthwhile challenge. Maybe GMO will solve that issue, maybe organic will, likely it will be a combination of the 2. Moreover, I would never say that all organic practices would yield more than all conventional practices. Not all solutions will work in all places for all crops. That's why more research is needed. Within these environmental systems, the effects good and bad can take decades to manifest, which is why Rodale's research is ongoing even though some experiments they have published have been peer reviewed. Now to take one of the studies cited in the @FoodMythBusters transcript: "Yield Gain and Risk Minimization in Maize (Zea Mays) through Cultivar Mixtures in Semi-arid Zones of the Rift Valley in Ethiopia" http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1608340 From the abstract: quote:The effect of mixtures of cultivars on yield and risk distribution in four maize cultivars grown at four different population levels was studied in semi-arid environments in Ethiopia. Mixtures yielded between 2 and 29% more than the pure stands, but late maturing pure stands produced more biomass than mixtures. Mixtures of cultivars with similar flowering periods yielded 60% more than the pure stands in dry growing seasons, but only 30% more when there was more rain. Note here that the researchers have taken the concept of biodiversity vs. monoculture to produce results. Monoculture being a practice typically found in conventional agriculture, though the cultivars may not have been strictly "organic." Even this study from Nature admits that in some situations organic yields are lower, but the results are contextual: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/nature11069.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20120510 quote:Here we use a comprehensive meta-analysis to examine the relative yield performance of organic and conventional farming systems globally. Our analysis of available data shows that, overall, organic yields are typically lower than conventional yields. But these yield differences are highly contextual, depending on system and site characteristics, and range from 5% lower organic yields (rain-fed legumes and perennials on weak-acidic to weak-alkaline soils), 13% lower yields (when best organic practices are used), to 34% lower yields (when the conventional and organic systems are most comparable). Under certain conditions—that is, with good management practices, particular crop types and growing conditions—organic systems can thus nearly match conventional yields, whereas under others it at present cannot. To establish organic agriculture as an important tool in sustainable food production, the factors limiting organic yields need to be more fully understood, alongside assessments of the many social, environmental and economic benefits of organic farming systems. So this indicates to me, along with Rodale's research that it's not a matter of "cannot" when it comes to organic, it's a matter of finding what's going to work through scientific method. That's what I base my argument on. I think it's unscientific to throw out organic whole cloth. Has it been used as a marketing device when it shouldn't have? Absolutely. Do crazy anti-vaxxers like to hitch their wagon to organic (and does that piss me off)? Definitely. But to say that practices and systems which worked for thousands of years and are continuing to work today to meet yields should be wholly disregarded as pseudoscience (when they're demonstrably not) to make way for new biotechnology and only biotech, to me is unscientific. And it's not a strawman. I've presented these same studies including the one above earlier in the thread and for whatever reason posters found a way to declare them invalid. Keep in mind when I first started the discussion about organic, literally the first post was: Deteriorata posted:Are you seriously expecting anybody to waste an hour of their lives listening to a podcast so they can tell you how stupid it is? Certainly we can all agree that our current industrialized agriculture system of monoculture and CAFOs is not sustainable in the long term and steps need to be taken to find another way. I actually don't have a problem with GMO's based on the scientific research. I support organic agriculture and the transparency of the growers I buy from, so I will go with an organic label and as long as GMO's are kept off of it in terms of what I eat, that's fine. I would like to see further development of GMOs to increase nutritional benefits and vitamins, perhaps increase protein so we need less animal protein (or at least convince people we need less) and maybe even create new crops which can start to reverse much of the ecological damage we've already created (read into the heavy metal neutralizing effects of fungi, for example). So to summarize: Pro-organic based on research Neutral GMO's in their current form Anti industrial, cow-poo poo-Lake-Erie-algae-bloom agriculture. peter banana fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 05:54 |
|
|
peter banana posted:So to summarize: Ummmmmmm..... The Organic Industry is really heavy with the manure usage, its actually been a significant issue due the E. Coli outbreaks that it has been tied back to. peter banana posted:So this indicates to me, along with Rodale's research that it's not a matter of "cannot" when it comes to organic, it's a matter of finding what's going to work through scientific method. That's what I base my argument on. I think it's unscientific to throw out organic whole cloth. Has it been used as a marketing device when it shouldn't have? Absolutely. Do crazy anti-vaxxers like to hitch their wagon to organic (and does that piss me off)? Definitely. But to say that practices and systems which worked for thousands of years and are continuing to work today to meet yields should be wholly disregarded as pseudoscience (when they're demonstrably not) to make way for new biotechnology and only biotech, to me is unscientific. And it's not a strawman. EXCEPT ITS NOT, AND DID NOT. Organic has in no way been responsible for any of the food stability we see today, in fact you are literally making the argument that we should ignore the direct successes we got from the Green Revolution in favor of the previous thousands of years of farming, which was filled with successive crop failures and massive famine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug quote:During the mid-20th century, Borlaug led the introduction of these high-yielding varieties combined with modern agricultural production techniques to Mexico, Pakistan, and India. As a result, Mexico became a net exporter of wheat by 1963. Between 1965 and 1970, wheat yields nearly doubled in Pakistan and India, greatly improving the food security in those nations.[9] These collective increases in yield have been labeled the Green Revolution, and Borlaug is often credited with saving over a billion people worldwide from starvation.[10] He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 in recognition of his contributions to world peace through increasing food supply. quote:The Green Revolution spread technologies that already existed, but had not been widely implemented outside industrialized nations. These technologies included modern irrigation projects, pesticides, synthetic nitrogen fertilizer and improved crop varieties developed through the conventional, science-based methods available at the time. quote:He dismissed certain claims of critics, but did take other concerns seriously and stated that his work has been "a change in the right direction, but it has not transformed the world into a Utopia".[62] CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:54
|
|