Random musings

The forum for ranting, raving, complaining and praising
Post Reply
User avatar
Schlich
Don't tone police me bro!
Posts: 10841
Joined: July 1 06, 7:24 pm
Location: Lost in the Cloud

Re: Random musings

Post by Schlich »

This is a good article by the way.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... rrors.html
I’ve spent much of the past year digging into the evidence. Here’s what I’ve learned. First, it’s true that the issue is complicated. But the deeper you dig, the more fraud you find in the case against GMOs. It’s full of errors, fallacies, misconceptions, misrepresentations, and lies. The people who tell you that Monsanto is hiding the truth are themselves hiding evidence that their own allegations about GMOs are false. They’re counting on you to feel overwhelmed by the science and to accept, as a gut presumption, their message of distrust.
...
If you’re concerned about pesticides and transparency, you need to know about the toxins to which your food has been exposed. A GMO label won’t tell you that. And it can lull you into buying a non-GMO product even when the GE alternative is safer.
...
Today the GE papaya is a triumph. It saved the industry. But it’s also a cautionary tale. The papaya, having defeated the virus, barely survived a campaign to purge GE crops from Hawaii. The story of that campaign teaches a hard lesson: No matter how long a GMO is eaten without harming anyone, and no matter how many studies are done to demonstrate its safety, there will always be skeptics who warn of unknown risks.
...
In the end, the papaya survived. Ford’s bill died. Wille’s bill was signed into law but was tied up in court. The new law makes an exception for papayas. But GMO labels don’t. They don’t tell you that the fruit you’re looking at in your grocery store was engineered to need fewer pesticides, not more. They don’t tell you about all the research that went into checking its safety. They don’t tell you that people have been eating it with no ill effects for more than 15 years. They don’t tell you that when you buy it, your money goes to Hawaiian farmers, not to Monsanto.

Some people, to this day, believe GE papayas are dangerous. They want more studies. They’ll always want more studies. They call themselves skeptics. But when you cling to an unsubstantiated belief, even after two decades of research and experience, that’s not skepticism. It’s dogma.

...
Twenty years after the debut of genetically engineered food, it’s a travesty that the technology’s commercial applications are still so focused on old-fashioned weedkillers. Greenpeace and Chipotle think the logical response to this travesty is to purge GMOs. They’re exactly wrong. The relentless efforts of Luddites to block testing, regulatory approval, and commercial development of GMOs are major reasons why more advanced GE products, such as Golden Rice, are still unavailable. The best way to break the herbicide industry’s grip on genetic engineering is to support the technology and push it forward, by telling policymakers, food manufacturers, and seed companies that you want better GMOs.

The USDA’s catalog of recently engineered plants shows plenty of worthwhile options. The list includes drought-tolerant corn, virus-resistant plums, non-browning apples, potatoes with fewer natural toxins, and soybeans that produce less saturated fat. A recent global inventory by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization discusses other projects in the pipeline: virus-resistant beans, heat-tolerant sugarcane, salt-tolerant wheat, disease-resistant cassava, high-iron rice, and cotton that requires less nitrogen fertilizer. Skim the news, and you’ll find scientists at work on more ambitious ideas: high-calcium carrots, antioxidant tomatoes, nonallergenic nuts, bacteria-resistant oranges, water-conserving wheat, corn and cassava loaded with extra nutrients, and a flaxlike plant that produces the healthy oil formerly available only in fish.

That’s what genetic engineering can do for health and for our planet. The reason it hasn’t is that we’ve been stuck in a stupid, wasteful fight over GMOs. On one side is an army of quacks and pseudo-environmentalists waging a leftist war on science. On the other side are corporate cowards who would rather stick to profitable weed-killing than invest in products that might offend a suspicious public. The only way to end this fight is to educate ourselves and make it clear to everyone—European governments, trend-setting grocers, fad-hopping restaurant chains, research universities, and biotechnology investors—that we’re ready, as voters and consumers, to embrace nutritious, environmentally friendly food, no matter where it got its genes. We want our GMOs. Now, show us what you can do.

User avatar
slide_into_first
is unaware that dangerous is the real Tyler Durden
Posts: 14433
Joined: June 10 09, 11:31 pm
Location: In Chula Vista hanging with the Surenos

Re: Random musings

Post by slide_into_first »

I saw a video of the CEO of Monsanto making the same statements and trying to look like a nice guy, which doesn't work after what they did to farmers. I never read anything in the Slate before but (disclaimer: random musing--) they must be the company magazine for Monsanto.

User avatar
slide_into_first
is unaware that dangerous is the real Tyler Durden
Posts: 14433
Joined: June 10 09, 11:31 pm
Location: In Chula Vista hanging with the Surenos

Re: Random musings

Post by slide_into_first »

Are company magazines still called house organs?

User avatar
IMADreamer
Has an anecdote about a townie he overheard.
Posts: 12905
Joined: December 6 10, 1:09 am
Location: Illinois

Re: Random musings

Post by IMADreamer »

slide_into_first wrote:I saw a video of the CEO of Monsanto making the same statements and trying to look like a nice guy, which doesn't work after what they did to farmers. I never read anything in the Slate before but (disclaimer: random musing--) they must be the company magazine for Monsanto.
Monsanto hasn't done anything to farmers. I assume you are talking about the suing of a farmer who intentionally stole Monsantos traits for his own crop.

As someone who farms I can tell you there is no worry Monsanto is coming to get us. We work pretty closely with them, although more so Dow Agriscience. Representatives are a phone call away if we have a problem and sometimes, like in the drought of 2012 when we have a big problem their agronomists are around quite a bit to monitor the situation and advise on how to handle things better in the future. In fact the Dow rep was just out at the farm this week taking a look at the flood damage.

GMO crops have meant the world to modern farming. It means better yields, it means less fuel and nutrient usage, which leads to better profit. More importantly it leads to a better lifestyle because it's allow us to take a little bit of the hard work out of farming. We used to spend our summers cultivating crops. It was a hot, dirty, and tiring job. Now we don't do it at all. It means instead of working dawn to dust in June and July in the fields we can work maybe 6am to 5pm and have something of a normal life.

Here is one big thing for all of you to consider. The organic folks have done a great job of flat out lying to people. Many people means organic farming means no chemicals. In fact organic farming just means old chemicals. They are using the stuff my grandfather used in the 50s to control pest and weeds then have the balls to say that our newer more researched, created with better science chemicals are somehow bad, but the stuff they use is ok. The organic anti GMO people have no credibility at all. What they are doing hasn't been studied, it isn't science, and a lot of time it's flat out lies.

User avatar
Joe Shlabotnik
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 24288
Joined: October 12 06, 2:21 pm
Location: Baseball Ref Bullpen
Contact:

Re: Random musings

Post by Joe Shlabotnik »

Could you talk to my wife please?
IMADreamer wrote:
slide_into_first wrote:I saw a video of the CEO of Monsanto making the same statements and trying to look like a nice guy, which doesn't work after what they did to farmers. I never read anything in the Slate before but (disclaimer: random musing--) they must be the company magazine for Monsanto.
Monsanto hasn't done anything to farmers. I assume you are talking about the suing of a farmer who intentionally stole Monsantos traits for his own crop.

As someone who farms I can tell you there is no worry Monsanto is coming to get us. We work pretty closely with them, although more so Dow Agriscience. Representatives are a phone call away if we have a problem and sometimes, like in the drought of 2012 when we have a big problem their agronomists are around quite a bit to monitor the situation and advise on how to handle things better in the future. In fact the Dow rep was just out at the farm this week taking a look at the flood damage.

GMO crops have meant the world to modern farming. It means better yields, it means less fuel and nutrient usage, which leads to better profit. More importantly it leads to a better lifestyle because it's allow us to take a little bit of the hard work out of farming. We used to spend our summers cultivating crops. It was a hot, dirty, and tiring job. Now we don't do it at all. It means instead of working dawn to dust in June and July in the fields we can work maybe 6am to 5pm and have something of a normal life.

Here is one big thing for all of you to consider. The organic folks have done a great job of flat out lying to people. Many people means organic farming means no chemicals. In fact organic farming just means old chemicals. They are using the stuff my grandfather used in the 50s to control pest and weeds then have the balls to say that our newer more researched, created with better science chemicals are somehow bad, but the stuff they use is ok. The organic anti GMO people have no credibility at all. What they are doing hasn't been studied, it isn't science, and a lot of time it's flat out lies.

User avatar
IMADreamer
Has an anecdote about a townie he overheard.
Posts: 12905
Joined: December 6 10, 1:09 am
Location: Illinois

Re: Random musings

Post by IMADreamer »

Joe Shlabotnik wrote:Could you talk to my wife please?
IMADreamer wrote:
slide_into_first wrote:I saw a video of the CEO of Monsanto making the same statements and trying to look like a nice guy, which doesn't work after what they did to farmers. I never read anything in the Slate before but (disclaimer: random musing--) they must be the company magazine for Monsanto.
Monsanto hasn't done anything to farmers. I assume you are talking about the suing of a farmer who intentionally stole Monsantos traits for his own crop.

As someone who farms I can tell you there is no worry Monsanto is coming to get us. We work pretty closely with them, although more so Dow Agriscience. Representatives are a phone call away if we have a problem and sometimes, like in the drought of 2012 when we have a big problem their agronomists are around quite a bit to monitor the situation and advise on how to handle things better in the future. In fact the Dow rep was just out at the farm this week taking a look at the flood damage.

GMO crops have meant the world to modern farming. It means better yields, it means less fuel and nutrient usage, which leads to better profit. More importantly it leads to a better lifestyle because it's allow us to take a little bit of the hard work out of farming. We used to spend our summers cultivating crops. It was a hot, dirty, and tiring job. Now we don't do it at all. It means instead of working dawn to dust in June and July in the fields we can work maybe 6am to 5pm and have something of a normal life.

Here is one big thing for all of you to consider. The organic folks have done a great job of flat out lying to people. Many people means organic farming means no chemicals. In fact organic farming just means old chemicals. They are using the stuff my grandfather used in the 50s to control pest and weeds then have the balls to say that our newer more researched, created with better science chemicals are somehow bad, but the stuff they use is ok. The organic anti GMO people have no credibility at all. What they are doing hasn't been studied, it isn't science, and a lot of time it's flat out lies.
I am glad to talk to anyone about how modern farming works. How it's better for the environment, and how it's improving lives. The last 20 years have been a revolution in farming. Partly because of GMOs and partly because of new technology. Things are so much better, cleaner, safer, and environmentally friendly now it's amazing.

User avatar
slide_into_first
is unaware that dangerous is the real Tyler Durden
Posts: 14433
Joined: June 10 09, 11:31 pm
Location: In Chula Vista hanging with the Surenos

Re: Random musings

Post by slide_into_first »

I'm surprised at you, Dreamer.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/05/monsanto200805
...like I was in another country.”

Gary Rinehart is actually one of Monsanto’s luckier targets. Ever since commercial introduction of its G.M. seeds, in 1996, Monsanto has launched thousands of investigations and filed lawsuits against hundreds of farmers and seed dealers. In a 2007 report, the Center for Food Safety, in Washington, D.C., documented 112 such lawsuits, in 27 states.

Even more significant, in the Center’s opinion, are the numbers of farmers who settle because they don’t have the money or the time to fight Monsanto. “The number of cases filed is only the tip of the iceberg,” says Bill Freese, the Center’s science-policy analyst. Freese says he has been told of many cases in which Monsanto investigators showed up at a farmer’s house or confronted him in his fields, claiming he had violated the technology agreement and demanding to see his records. According to Freese, investigators will say, “Monsanto knows that you are saving Roundup Ready seeds, and if you don’t sign these information-release forms, Monsanto is going to come after you and take your farm or take you for all you’re worth.” Investigators will sometimes show a farmer a photo of himself coming out of a store, to let him know he is being followed.

Lawyers who have represented farmers sued by Monsanto say that intimidating actions like these are commonplace. Most give in and pay Monsanto some amount in damages; those who resist face the full force of Monsanto’s legal wrath.
This story was just an easy one to find. There is much documentation to Monsanto's tactics.

User avatar
lukethedrifter
darjeeling sipping elite
Posts: 37260
Joined: October 17 06, 11:19 am
Location: Huis Clos

Re: Random musings

Post by lukethedrifter »

Liars

User avatar
slide_into_first
is unaware that dangerous is the real Tyler Durden
Posts: 14433
Joined: June 10 09, 11:31 pm
Location: In Chula Vista hanging with the Surenos

Re: Random musings

Post by slide_into_first »

The threat of tainted food -- whether by chemicals or through genetic manipulation -- is a cause that arouses outrage at a pitch few other causes will ever muster. The threat of a shadowy corporation with its fingers buried in the heart of our food supply only heightens this outrage, and Monsanto's heavy-handed efforts at control have done nothing to soften its public image. However, the science of GMOs has been carried out in a highly ideological way on both sides, which doesn't help when all you want is the truth.
http://m.fool.com/investing/general/201 ... n-the-worl

User avatar
lukethedrifter
darjeeling sipping elite
Posts: 37260
Joined: October 17 06, 11:19 am
Location: Huis Clos

Re: Random musings

Post by lukethedrifter »

Too big to fail

Post Reply