The world according to Monsanto II

[Don87]

IMO, education (degrees) mean absolutely nothing when trying to prove intellect. It's what you take and make from an education that counts.
College curriculums are mostly set by people that can't or didn't make it in the private sector. Granted there are many dedicated educators out there but a majority of "college professors" are mainly there to try and influence students with their own often biased agendas and ideals.In my experience in academia there are more "educated idiots" at the college teaching level than most other fields.

Just keep in mind that there is one............that found the first 'superbug'

Monsanto GM Corn in Peril: Beetle Develops Bt-Resistance - Bad Seed News


While I agree that this is probably the fault of the farmer(bad farming practices), nonetheless..........the bug has been created, and there will be more.

 

[Don87]

www.tractorbynet.com/forums/1101166-post17.html

An interesting old post I just came across that sheds a little light on things.
Rick

OMG...........WOW.............where do we go from here............

Almost has to be 'government money' driving the debate.(or should I say...........defeat the observed opponent at all costs contest).


At least I've been honest..............


Edit: I shoulda started at the end of the thread and went backwards (but since I started the thread, I wanted to answer as many posts as possible). I've been out for a couple days due to canning, and thunderstorms.

When tomatos, beans and corn are ready to be put up..........we know what comes first.

Pulled the white pumpkins, the cooking pumpins, the zuccihni, the butternut squash, and put up 20 bags of frozen sweet corn today.

Tomato juice yesterday, spaghetti sauce tomorrow.:confused2::confused2:


Heck of a way to spend my 2 week vacation from my truck driving job!

 

[Don87]

that think they know something about agriculture and feeding the world

And what makes you think we gotta 'feed the world? Most people can be pretty much 'self sufficient' if given the chance...........maybe you should check out that aspect of your debate.

 

[Short Game]

And what makes you think we gotta 'feed the world? Most people can be pretty much 'self sufficient' if given the chance...........maybe you should check out that aspect of your debate.

There was a whole continent full of mostly self sufficient people here 500 years ago.

Most of these folks aren't so all about feeding the world as making a buck under that false banner.

They can have their bowl of rice, but it should be our patented rice.

 

[Don87]

There was a whole continent full of mostly self sufficient people here 500 years ago.

Most of these folks aren't so all about feeding the world as making a buck under that false banner.

Never a truer word spoken. Thank you.

 

[rd_macgregor]

The OP seemed to think that the executive branch has long tried to give GM crops a free ride. Despite a framework to use a science-based approach, the government bureaucracy has for years stretched the guidelines (and credibility) to extend their purview (eg, EPA considers DNA to be a "pesticide").
EPA is now moving to further expand regulatory hurdles to the industry; some will applaud this and some don't think it makes sense at all.
EPA's Proposed Biotech Policy Turns a Deaf Ear to Science

I always chuckle when folks denigrate the profit motive. Ever the optimist, I put my retirement savings into investments (stocks and bonds, mostly) rather than stuffing it into a mattress. If the companies in which I am invested do not make a profit, I'd just better forget about ever retiring; I do not want to buy shares in a company that doesn't intend to make a profit. Even individuals strive to maximize income; who wouldn't like to get a raise now and again? I don't see why it is a bad thing for a company or an individual to seek to make money off legal, voluntary transactions.
BOB

 

[rd_macgregor]

Bob, I noticed some of your links lead to Aknowledgements, and nothing more. Is there a way you can fix that?

I only included the aknowledgements link so that interested readers could see that these were, indeed peer reviewed. At least on my computer, all the links worked, though the ask-force.org links are my preferred source, since they almost always give the whole paper, rather than just an abstract.

Also, recent posts have mentioned the rise of resistant weeds and insects. The next-last link that I provided in post 34 has an interesting table of the progressive adoption of glyphosate herbicide. With such intensive and widespread use of glyphosate nowadays, it is surprising that we haven't seen more resistant weeds...I'm sure more will be showing up over the coming decade, though...that's what nature does!

Using the rise of pest or weed resistance to criticize GM crops seems illogical to me, though. After all, Bt resistance appeared in diamond-back moth years before any Bt crops were developed...when the majority of Bt sprays were being applied to organic crops. For that matter, any chemical treatment, if used long enough, is likely to lead to development of a resistant population...only mechanical removal of weeds and insects has any prospects of circumventing that natural, evolutionary process for any great length of time...although some stacked-gene crop varieties (ie, multiple pesticidal traits in the same variety) have prospects of delaying development of resistance for a very long time.

BOB

 

[Dr_Zinj]

I have no idea whether I have any stock in Monsanto or not. I certainly never told my broker to preferentially buy any.

As far as GMO crops are concerned, it is indeed true that millions have lived longer healthier lives by growing and eating those crops than would have occurred with standard non-directly modified crops. It is even probable that far more human life years have been added than have been subtracted by problems with GMO foods.

However, unlike traditional crop breeding, GMO foods don't have that kind of longevity testing. Yes, they are tested, but in spite of meeting FDA or whatever other government requirements there are, in my not so humble opinion (I AM a statistical analyst after all), their sample sizes are too small to identify subtle or long term problems. Both methods of breeding work, both have pluses and minuses. But GMOs are too new for ordinary folks to be able to objectively and critically evaluate the negatives; and the experts tend to be biased in their favor.

And that's just with the crops themselves, that says nothing about the growing environment itself. I think what we're seeing is long term negative effects of the herbicides starting to manifest themselves.

As for Monsanto itself. I don't have a problem with their being in the GMO business. I have a problem with how they've treated farmers who didn't choose to buy their products or who's crops were contaminated with their products. "They" being senior leadership and management. The ordinary employees are just fine.

 

[Don87]

The OP seemed to think that the executive branch has long tried to give GM crops a free ride. Despite a framework to use a science-based approach, the government bureaucracy has for years stretched the guidelines (and credibility) to extend their purview (eg, EPA considers DNA to be a "pesticide").
EPA is now moving to further expand regulatory hurdles to the industry; some will applaud this and some don't think it makes sense at all.
EPA's Proposed Biotech Policy Turns a Deaf Ear to Science

I always chuckle when folks denigrate the profit motive. Ever the optimist, I put my retirement savings into investments (stocks and bonds, mostly) rather than stuffing it into a mattress. If the companies in which I am invested do not make a profit, I'd just better forget about ever retiring; I do not want to buy shares in a company that doesn't intend to make a profit. Even individuals strive to maximize income; who wouldn't like to get a raise now and again? I don't see why it is a bad thing for a company or an individual to seek to make money off legal, voluntary transactions.
BOB

A whole lot of people had stock in Enron also, that didn't make them a good company, turns out they sold hype.

Some of us have a fear of the large corporations, because their end game is the almighty dollar. And a lot of those corporations 'like Monsanto' will go to extremes for that almighty dollar.

If they will take farms, that they contaminated with their product........who's to say they won't purposely harm the environment..........or for that matter...........people, to make that almighty dollar.

They have a track record, and people are suspicious.

And yes, G.H.W.Bush, did basically give then the green light to do as they please, and that Executive order has been upheld by every successive president.

And G.W. Bush was instrumental in forcing the UK, into using GMO's, via the WTO.

And remember, the operative word in that last sentence was 'forcing'. So that tells most individuals that indeed our executives, were, and still are in bed with the GMO producers.

 

[Don87]

They now have the GMO sweet corn available, it sold for a buck a dozen at the produce auction I was at last week. The farmers markets that most people frequent will probably have it on sale for 7 bucks a dozen.