Farmwithjunk
Super Member
Or should you just wrap your head in a double layer of tin foil and run out in the street yelling "The Sky is falling....the sky is falling"
Maybe Santa will bring you a clue for Christmas since you don't have one...
The world according to Monsanto II
- Thread starter Don87
- Start date
- Views: 16101
Or should you just wrap your head in a double layer of tin foil and run out in the street yelling "The Sky is falling....the sky is falling"
Maybe Santa will bring you a clue for Christmas since you don't have one...
charleyfarmall
Platinum Member
Just because you haven't read it yet doesn't mean it's a conspiracy...
Colony Collapse: Are Potent Pesticides Killing Honeybees?
Colony Collapse: Are Potent Pesticides Killing Honeybees?
Farmwithjunk
Super Member
An unfounded opinion published by someone with ties to a university IS NOT a study that is attributed to that university.....It is simply an unfounded opinion....just like YOUR unfounded opinion....
As of this point, you have still FAILED (miserably I might add) to list a valid UNIVERSITY sanctioned STUDY.....Since you OBVIOUSLY can't, as well as DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE, it is apparent that your lack of credibility IS well founded.
Last edited:
Farmwithjunk
Super Member
The above is just a long winded way of explaining (A) you have no idea what you're talking about, and (B) You have no answer for the question posed....
Farmwithjunk
Super Member
College kid? You're kidding right? I'm 64 years old Sparky..... I have degrees from 4 Universities, working on a 5th. In the last 40 years, there's only been a couple short spans of less than 2 years each where I wasn't enrolled in some sort of degree program. I have farmed most of my life, and have actual hands on experience with regards to GMO crops, and LEGITIMATE lab studies on such.
I have no problem with this thread surviving...I DO have a problem with people posting lies, deception, erroneous information, rumors, innuendo, and simple "bad science" to promote a personal agenda. If you cannot use REAL FACTS to base one's opinion on, EXPECT me to point out the shear lunacy of the contrived nonsense.
What you perceive as "Smart-***" is simply someone with actual knowledge of the subject pointing out the foolishness of those who do not have a clue what they're talking about. If that strikes a raw nerve with you, so be it. Seems a few of your collegues want to dish out insults, but when they get a dose of their own medicine, they whine and cry like a cat with it's tail caught in a car door. If you want to play hardball with the big boys, learn to take your lumps.....If you want this to be a mutual admiration society for tree huggers, start your own website and collect up all the nut jobs and take them with you.
Nature "modifies" itself every second of every day. What scientist are doing is to target "modifications" in a controlled manner rather than the willy nilly random adaptations so as to sustain life on this planet. Without the work done to "modify nature" as you put it, we would still be at the same production rates as we were in the 1800's. Food would have ran out for most of the worlds populous decades ago. Whether you like it or not, whether you UNDERSTAND it or not, the newest technology is FAR SAFER than allowing the vast majority of the world to starve to death. Cross breeding of crops has been around since the beginning of agriculture. The SCIENCE of cross breeding plants was begun in earnest about 65 years ago. What we are experiencing NOW is that same science taken to a whole new level. In spite of what some may think, we cannot turn back time and return to the stone age.
Last edited:
Farmwithjunk
Super Member
Yes...Learn to use a computer......Learn to disseminate info given, as well as how to follow links provided to text of reports. In other words, get an education BEFORE attempting to act like you know what you're talking about.
Last edited:
Farmwithjunk
Super Member
More accurately, someone who sees what they want to see regardless of what is actually there to see.....
This group of anti-gmo's has shown on just about every reply that they have no idea what they're reading, how to disseminate data they're presented with, nor are they willing to view ANY information objectively. Their closed minds were made up long ago, with or without the bogus "non science" propaganda they're doling out.
I printed out the thread as it was when I left for class yesterday and showed it to a couple professors.....We spent the next hour rolling on the floor, howling with laughter. As one said, "This is proof that people never know just how much they don't know".
Gotta go....I'll be back in a while. Gonna put a deposit in on my order for NEXT YEARS Liberty Link seed corn, and then spend a little time spot checking my weed free, healthy, SAFE RoundUp Ready soy beans. Science is a wonderful thing when you understand it, and apparently quite horrifying to those who don't understand.
Last edited:
WM75Guy
Elite Member
Don87 has a valid concern. Sir, I share his concern. While some Internet sites are propaganda and slanted to the ideologies of the owner, it does not mean all the information is wrong. I agree some of of his sites are junk science or left wing opinion.
As a Registered Nurse I daily see patients with symptoms, diseases, and syndromes that were none existant 30 years ago. Is it GM products, who knows. Thats the purpose of research.
Diseases take time to be diagnosed and then researched. An example is Parkinsons, which not seen until the Industrial Revolution and the widespread use of chemicals and plastics. Chemical induced Parkinsons from the use of Ecstacy (MDMA), a common street drug, was then documented. It's hard to do research on humans, most will not volunteer if the odds are you get a horrible disease. Now we are working on prevention, treatment and cures.
I learned a long time ago, it's not whether you are right or wrong, it's the other persons' perception that matters. My perception is you need to focus on the message, not the messanger.
And before you dismiss me, I too have 4 degrees, over 250 college hours, and am working on my Masters in Nursing Education. We lease out my wife's land in West Texas for cotton, and yes, it's Roundup Ready.
Farmwithjunk
Super Member
First off, let me say I DO NOT "dismiss" anyone who has the ability and background to discuss INTELLIGENTLY and with knowledge of the subject. That HAS NOT been the case with most of the anti-gmo advocates so far in this thread. Concerned? yest they are. Educated and knowledgible in the subject? Not so much....Pretend to know what your talking about even though it's obvious you don't and I'm kicking the trap door open under you.... As is apparently the case, you have chosen to speak with a fair amount of intelligence, so I'm hoping to do the same. My only request is to see HOW my point of view is formed. Very simply, there is no CREDIBLE evidence of GMO's being any less safe than non gmo crops.
And there is a valid point that has been glossed over by certain factions....Food safety is a concern with CONVENTIONAL crop as well as GMO's.... They BOTH share the same risk's. Only difference is, one is tremendously more productive than the other, which seems to instill fear in some people.
I could go on and on about how test data has been manipulated by many anti-gmo "researchers" to get the end result they desire. No doubt some of the pro GMO's have used the same tricks. The dat I'm interested in are the INDEPENDENT, UNBAISED, OPEN MINDED, LEGITIMATE testing. Of which, NONE of them have been able to find links to any risk above what conventional crops of the same species have been found with. In other words....Feed a lab rat a diet of nothing but GMO corn and you get problems....Feed the same lab rat a diet of nothing but conventional corn and you get the SAME problems. It's a common ploy to test with a diet of GMO corn vs a balanced and varied diet known to be healthy to lab rats....By doing so, you create your own results according to the "scientists" agenda.
Again, there is no credible link between GMO crops and any disease. 3 of my degrees are in crop science, soil science, and crop genetics. I'm 4 credits shy of a Masters in plant genetics. (the 1st was structural engineering/pre architecture...many years ago) I feel that gives me at least a leg up on most everyone else in this discussion. I actually have a background in the subject, not a casual observer. I've seen all the pro GMO data available, as well as the antiGMO data. ALL that is offered against GMO's are time lines..and "correlations"....Of which most are meaningless at best.... .NO direct link. Certain disease and GMO's are no more linked by timelines that the same comparison that rap music and certain diseases made their way into everyday life at the same general time period. So do we blame that God awful rap music? As much as I don't like it, no we don't.....
I'm all for INTELLIGENT, FACT BASED DISCUSSIONS. But the mere fact that the lions share of anti GMO sentiment is based on pure conjecture, false information, and for- profit internet blogs that allow innuendo based articles (that many of these anti-gmo's seem to mistake as "university studies") Show me facts and we'll talk. Show me ridiculous contrived nonsense and I'm poking fun at you. It's that simple.
And part of the "numbers game" with regards to increased REPORTED incidence and identification of certain diseases is more attributable to better diagnostics in todays medical world. Much of what was once written off as "dying of old age" now comes with an accurate diagnosis of exactly what the cause is/was. The increase in occurence is just as likely the use/misuse of drugs and medicines in the past as it is any other potential cause. Without knowledge as to that being a fact or not, should we pull the plug on all medicines? I think not...
In a similar thought process, I know that Autism and childhood vaccinations have been linked in certain medical circles. Those who stand to profit from that way of thinking conveniently forget to mention autism rates amongst children who were never vaccinated are almost IDENTICAL to that of children who WERE vaccinated. The simple (and deliberate) omission of that information would make the uninformed believe NOT vaccinating your children against known killer diseases is in the best interest of the children. Same methodology is being employed by most of the anti-GMO crowd. Just skip the facts and let the lies and innuendo do the talking.... The MAJORITY of anti-gmo sentiment is simply a witch hunt.....
The simple fact of the matter is, THERE IS NO, and has been no credible direct link between GMO crops and cancers, Parkinsons, ect.... That is verifiable information from the crop science world AS WELL AS the medical world. (My wife is has a very similar background as yours..She's a long time surgical nurse for a cardiovascular surgeon. I'm able to get quite a bit of info from sources she has provided to me)
Last edited:
rd_macgregor
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,874
- Location
- Prince Edward Island, Canada
- Tractor
- Kioti DK45SC, Kubota B2650
Colony collapse in bees was observed and reported before the introduction of GM crops. Also, it is occuring in Europe, where the production of GM crops is miniscule.
There were some pretty serious methodological problems with the Bt corn residue study, foremost among which was the failure to verify that Bt corn was actually grown in the watersheds studied. Note that Bacillus thuringiensis is a ubiquitous, naturally-occuring soil bacterium. Bt extracts (including live Bt sprays) have been used in organic agriculture for many decades and resistance to Bt arose in some pests long before the release of the first Bt-engineered crops. Any time an intense selective pressure is applied to nature, results will show up fairly quickly. The resistance that Glassman reports have been around for years and seem peculiar to certain specific field/crop conditions; most notably, the apparent resistance hasn't progressed (spread) from when it was first observed...a very unusual and unexpected result, given the widespread use of Bt crops. Similar observations have been reported for Bt cotton by Tabashnik (I think).
The issue of messing with nature is a tricky one, since agriculture itself has had the greatest adverse influence on the world's ecosystems...and long before the introduction of GM crops. FarmsWithJunk is correct to point out that, except for some wild fruit/berries and fish& game pretty much all our foodstuffs have been intensively genetically modified over many generations. He is also correct in saying that modern gene-splicing techniques are radically more accurate in improving crop charateristics than are other methods.
A typical GMO will have a "cassette" of several genes introduced into it using one of several methods (biolistics, agrobacterium-mediated insertion, etc.). To many folks, this sounds really unnatural (and maybe unsafe!), but a very large research study in the EU on the issue concluded that this technology was likely to be as safe as conventional breeding, and might be safer in some cases.
There are some pretty intrusive techniques included in "conventional breeding"...eg, mutation breeding treats seeds with ionizing radiation or mutagenic chemicals to induce random mutations, which are then screened for desirable changes (the problem is that many background mutations are never tracked at all)[Clearfield herbicide tolerant canola and some varieties of pink grapefruit were made this way] , wide crosses involve forced crossing of species that would not normally interbreed successfully in the nature (often using embryo rescue to get a viable plant). Agriculture and the plants in that system are not "natural". Most of our crop plants are dependent on humans for their survival; they would not last more than a few generations (if that) competing in the wild.
How about cancer rates? Worldwide, some cancer rates are increasing and others decreasing; this varies from country to country. Cancer stats always have to be age-corrected, too. I didn't have a comparison graph for colon cancer incidence handy, but here is a reference for overall cancers (note that several high-ranked countries are in areas where GMOs are effectively banned: Cancer rates: see how countries compare worldwide | News | guardian.co.uk
Pretty much everyone has big areas of ignorance. This is natural, after all, you don't really need to know how your cell phone works to be able to use it, nor do you need to know the genetic history of your lettuce or tomato to enjoy your salad. However, ignorance is a fertile field for misinformationists. It is easy for somebody to pull the wool over my eyes about areas I know little or nothing about. Every day we get another health scare (or three!); in a society of surplus, we have the luxury of spending the time to fret about our food, our medicines, our air and water quality. If you enjoy the conspiracy theories, or the frisson of disquiet from these scares (or for anyone else who wants an overview of the whole gamut of anti-GM arguments), pick up pretty much any book by Jeffrey Smith or visit a GreenPeace website Say no to genetic engineering | Greenpeace International , GMWatch GMWatch or any of a plethora of other (usually) interlinked sites. There is a parallel universe of sites presenting the other side of the coin (and usually spending a lot of time showing why the other stuff is junk science!), like David Tribe's GMOPundit siteGMO Pundit a.k.a. David Tribe or Dr. Prakash's AgBioWorld site AgBioWorld - Supporting Biotechnology in Agriculture. It quickly becomes a he-said/she-said kind of tennis game and each reader has to decide who has the most credibility.
BOB
There were some pretty serious methodological problems with the Bt corn residue study, foremost among which was the failure to verify that Bt corn was actually grown in the watersheds studied. Note that Bacillus thuringiensis is a ubiquitous, naturally-occuring soil bacterium. Bt extracts (including live Bt sprays) have been used in organic agriculture for many decades and resistance to Bt arose in some pests long before the release of the first Bt-engineered crops. Any time an intense selective pressure is applied to nature, results will show up fairly quickly. The resistance that Glassman reports have been around for years and seem peculiar to certain specific field/crop conditions; most notably, the apparent resistance hasn't progressed (spread) from when it was first observed...a very unusual and unexpected result, given the widespread use of Bt crops. Similar observations have been reported for Bt cotton by Tabashnik (I think).
The issue of messing with nature is a tricky one, since agriculture itself has had the greatest adverse influence on the world's ecosystems...and long before the introduction of GM crops. FarmsWithJunk is correct to point out that, except for some wild fruit/berries and fish& game pretty much all our foodstuffs have been intensively genetically modified over many generations. He is also correct in saying that modern gene-splicing techniques are radically more accurate in improving crop charateristics than are other methods.
A typical GMO will have a "cassette" of several genes introduced into it using one of several methods (biolistics, agrobacterium-mediated insertion, etc.). To many folks, this sounds really unnatural (and maybe unsafe!), but a very large research study in the EU on the issue concluded that this technology was likely to be as safe as conventional breeding, and might be safer in some cases.
There are some pretty intrusive techniques included in "conventional breeding"...eg, mutation breeding treats seeds with ionizing radiation or mutagenic chemicals to induce random mutations, which are then screened for desirable changes (the problem is that many background mutations are never tracked at all)[Clearfield herbicide tolerant canola and some varieties of pink grapefruit were made this way] , wide crosses involve forced crossing of species that would not normally interbreed successfully in the nature (often using embryo rescue to get a viable plant). Agriculture and the plants in that system are not "natural". Most of our crop plants are dependent on humans for their survival; they would not last more than a few generations (if that) competing in the wild.
How about cancer rates? Worldwide, some cancer rates are increasing and others decreasing; this varies from country to country. Cancer stats always have to be age-corrected, too. I didn't have a comparison graph for colon cancer incidence handy, but here is a reference for overall cancers (note that several high-ranked countries are in areas where GMOs are effectively banned: Cancer rates: see how countries compare worldwide | News | guardian.co.uk
Pretty much everyone has big areas of ignorance. This is natural, after all, you don't really need to know how your cell phone works to be able to use it, nor do you need to know the genetic history of your lettuce or tomato to enjoy your salad. However, ignorance is a fertile field for misinformationists. It is easy for somebody to pull the wool over my eyes about areas I know little or nothing about. Every day we get another health scare (or three!); in a society of surplus, we have the luxury of spending the time to fret about our food, our medicines, our air and water quality. If you enjoy the conspiracy theories, or the frisson of disquiet from these scares (or for anyone else who wants an overview of the whole gamut of anti-GM arguments), pick up pretty much any book by Jeffrey Smith or visit a GreenPeace website Say no to genetic engineering | Greenpeace International , GMWatch GMWatch or any of a plethora of other (usually) interlinked sites. There is a parallel universe of sites presenting the other side of the coin (and usually spending a lot of time showing why the other stuff is junk science!), like David Tribe's GMOPundit siteGMO Pundit a.k.a. David Tribe or Dr. Prakash's AgBioWorld site AgBioWorld - Supporting Biotechnology in Agriculture. It quickly becomes a he-said/she-said kind of tennis game and each reader has to decide who has the most credibility.
BOB
