gmos, and im the luddite?

canndo · Apr 23, 2014

tokeprep said:
That's it? Now how many scientists said the study was total bullshit? Improper sample sizes. Blaming cancer on GM foods when 70%-80% of the test subjects would normally be expected to get cancer anyway during the course of the study. How much were the cancer-prone rats fed? We have no idea, which is rather interesting considering that it has a direct relation to cancer rates in the rats.

The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Health Canada, the French Haut Conseil de biotechnologies, the National Agency for Food Safety, the Vlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie, the Technical University of Denmark, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, the Brazilian National Technical Commission on Biosafety, and the European Food Safety Authority, the French Académies nationales d’Agriculture, de Médecine, de Pharmacie, des Sciences, des Technologies, et Vétérinaire were in universal agreement: the Seralini study was hopelessly flawed. But those Europeans and other non-Americans are all in Monsanto's pockets, right? Monsanto paid them to say that, right?

Like who?

It's a logical fallacy to presume that company studies cannot possibly be accurate ever, under any circumstances, because some company's past study on some other subject was inaccurate.

Not that it matters. You're back to talking about company studies and ignoring all of the independent and publicly funded studies that have made exactly the same conclusions.

I have to stop here because you mentioned patents. In cases of legitimate cross-pollination there is no threat whatsoever of a successful law suit from a patent holder. Testing of the crop would make it obvious whether a farmer intentionally tried to violate a patent or not. In Canada, it was blatantly obvious that the farmer was a liar in his claim of cross-pollination because his crop was 90-something percent Monsanto seed. There's just no way. It was impossible.

In cases of legitimate cross-pollination the courts have concluded that there is no patent violation. Period.

Now then...how do organic farmers not have a problem with this right now if it's such a substantial issue? I'm genuinely ignorant. Are you telling us that supposedly organic food is actually already substantially contaminated by GM crops?

I think the rest of what you're saying makes my case. If that GM corn becomes less economical than its rival and it's impossible to grow the rival, it would make sense to replace all of the infrastructure to plant something else, wouldn't it? Doesn't that eliminate or at least vastly reduce the risk of cross-pollination? The cost would certainly be justified if the profits to be made from GM corn decline over other possible alternatives, counting the necessary refurbishments or improvements, if the rival cannot possibly be produced. That's the market working with no magic required. It happens all the time already.

Yes, it is a logical falacy to presume that if a company's previous studies are inaccurate than it's present studies are as well. But it tends to indicate a certain willingness to cheat on the part of that company. The Serilini study used the same strain of rats as the Company studies used. Yet they got significantly different results. Go figure.

The problem is not the individual study so much, as we know that people aren't getting cancer at the rate or of the type that the rats got them, and they have been eating this stuff for a while now. The problemis the grounds and particulars of all of the studies, Is there a problem with the glyphosate? The Roundup? the GMO itself? Nobody knows. We also don't know or cannot correlate the nation's delcining health with GMOs - or transfats, or sugar, or preservatives, or pollution, or pesticides? Nor are there many if any studies that test combinations of f pollutants in concert. Another problem is the term GMO. Perhaps the transgenetic product BT corn is absolutely safe, BT breaks down quickly in sunlight and soil or over time - it is after all - (organic), But there are other aspects of GM products that are not so easily identified. The process is not nearly as precise as most presume. We don't really know what portions of DNA are affected by the implantation, at some point in the sequence, of a transgenic snipet. We know that misfolded proteins can have serious consequences - prion creation in other life is not beyond the realm of possibility and as you know it takes many years for prions to affect human beings.

Are you going to claim that placing the future of our food in the hands of a few companies and the regulatory agencies that depend upon those companys testing is wise? Especially, as I have said, when at least one of these companies has intenitonaly misled the public and the government?

How do you prove "legitimate" cross pollination when the marker breeds true? Monsanto does indeed have teams of people - Pinkertons - in the truest sense of the word, looking for genetic markers in fields. And they do indeed at least threaten lawsuits.

I would really like to see a case where a farmer was absolved of having transgenetic plants in his crop because of cross pollination. I've not come across that yet.

I do know for a fact that the Brazilians are in the pocket of monsanto. The others? I'll have to look.
Organic farmers DO have a problem with contaminaton, as do Mexican farmers who have inadvertantly used GM corn as seed - something they have been doing for thousands of years - taking what they presumed is the best seed stock for next year's planting. Estimates range from 10 perdent to 40 percent of all corn in Mexico (my recollection), is contaminated, even in national heritage of diversity regions where there are hundreds of varieties of corn.

Again, when it comes to infrastructure, it isn't all that easy. Much dent corn is used exclusively for animal feed, trucked to animl "factories". We have so much corn that it growing it in the absence of federal support would be unwise for farmers who are barely making the payments on their equipment now.

canndo · Apr 23, 2014

It occurs to me that the flood of information and logic from either of us might result in either of us conveniently skipping unconvenient portions of the other's posts. I will try to address everything you say, but when the blocks of type grow too large I may neglect something. It isn't intentional.

canndo · Apr 23, 2014

On the other hand, we see that Serrilini was funded by... as you say . . . those who would see GMOs universaly discredited.

"
Seralini’s research campaign (reported to be more than 5 million Euros was funded in part with more than 3.2 million Euros by French organic food giants Auchan and Carrefour. Publicity for the release of his GMO rat feeding study claims was coordinated by the Sustainable Food Trust (SFT) lead by former UK organic industry Soil Association executive director Patrick Holden. Former SFT staffer Henry Rowlands, now an organic marketing exporter and publisher, hosts and maintains the GMO-Seralini official websites.
"

tokeprep · Apr 23, 2014

canndo said:
We should look at the retraction of the serilini study.

I am not qualified to judge the validity of the study itself but some are:

http://www.endsciencecensorship.org/en/page/press-release

http://www.endsciencecensorship.org/en/page/press-release

Allow me to go back to global warming for comparison here. I can give you a list of dozens of scientists who deny that it's man-made. The overwhelming majority of scientists studying the issue, though, express either uncertainty or a totally opposite conclusion.

The number of people critical of the study is far greater than the number defending it in that press release.

"The journal did not retract the study. But just a few months later, in early 2013 the FCT editorial board acquired a new “Associate Editor for biotechnology”, Richard E. Goodman. This was a new position, seemingly established especially for Goodman in the wake of the “Séralini affair”.
Richard E. Goodman is professor at the Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, University of Nebraska. But he is also a former Monsanto employee, who worked for the company between 1997 and 2004. While at Monsanto he assessed the allergenicity of the company’s GM crops and published papers on its behalf on allergenicity and safety issues relating to GM food (Goodman and Leach 2004).
Goodman had no documented connection to the journal until February 2013. His fast-tracked appointment, directly onto the upper editorial board raises urgent questions."
http://www.earthopensource.org/index.php/news/147-the-goodman-affair-monsanto-targets-the-heart-of-science#

By my count there are 66 members of the Food and Chemical Toxicology editorial board. Richard Goodman is neither the Editor-in-Chief nor a managing editor of the journal. To suggest that he is responsible for the retraction is perplexing. To suggest that he was appointed to the "upper editorial board," implying some special kind of management authority, just seems inaccurate.

What about the other 66 members of the board...?

If this were the only coincidence regarding the possible manipulation of appearances then I would have simply a conspiratorial "what if". But it goes much deeper. Remember also that we can easily find concrete motivation for this sort of thing and not so concrete a motivation other than "well, those scientists want more grants". Monsanto alone reaps billlions from the status quo and the expansion of their method of farming. Not so with even the most biased of researchers.

The journal doesn't reap billions. The members of the editorial board aren't employees of Monsanto. Many of them are tenured professors who are almost totally immune from losing their jobs for any reason. I doubt even Richard Goodman, apparently the only suspect person out of sixty six, had a financial interest in Monsanto at the time.

Also, I don't beleive that YOU believe that universities are free from pressure, economic and political. I don't think it would be difficult for you to believe that universities vet their scientist's intended work. The pressure would be enourmous if a researcher used university money and happened to discover that some transgenic product was indeed unfit for hman or animal consumption.

I'm sure there is pressure but that's not necessarily meaningful. Many of the universities in question have large endowments and/or receive research funding from a variety of sources that have conflicting interests. And I guarantee they don't vet their scientists' work in the way you're trying to claim. One of the justifications of tenure is that it allows freedom in publishing.

canndo · Apr 23, 2014

And this:

“t becomes a ‘Get (out) of Jail Free Card’,” he writes. “t becomes an excuse for dismissing strong evidence and sound analysis. It leaves you lost in a hall of mirrors, surrounded by industry-funded research, revolving door regulators, and defending bad research that confirms your biases. It leaves you lost in a fever swamp of paranoia without firm footing. … “Fugh-Berman and Sherman level charges of conflict of interest while dismissing the questions about the quality of Séralini’s work. This is upside down and backwards. They should know better.”

So, at question then, is the quality of Monsatnto's research, which may well be just as flawed, and in my findings, usually is.

tokeprep · Apr 23, 2014

canndo said:
What does Monsanto say about the occurence of a revolving door between it and the EPA and the FDA?

Myth: Monsanto has undue influence on governments through lobbying and the hiring practices of governments.
Fact: Opponents have leveled this accusation against Monsanto to discredit the broad, scientific and global support that exists for GM crops. It is true that Monsanto, like our opponents, advocates our position before governments. Specifically, we advocate for supportive policies, regulation and laws that are based on the principles of sound science. In addition, we thoroughly follow local laws and conduct routine audits to ensure our efforts are transparent, appropriate and legal.
Second, governments have occasionally hired a person who – at some point in his or her career – worked at Monsanto or at a company that was a vendor. Instead of the obvious conclusion that these are experienced and highly skilled individuals though, critics will suggest it is instead a quite complicated, global governmental conspiracy.

I am posting this for a reason. See that Monsanto uses the "we always follow the law" argument, as though it has nothing to do with the laws and as though they have... always followed the law.

In that sentence they mean that they follow local laws on lobbying. Lobbying has been permitted since this country was founded, so yes, Monsanto has nothing to do with lobbying being allowed.

canndo · Apr 23, 2014

Unfortunately, much of what I have that is germain to our discussion is not available on the internet.

tokeprep said:
In that sentence they mean that they follow local laws on lobbying. Lobbying has been permitted since this country was founded, so yes, Monsanto has nothing to do with lobbying being allowed.

Did I miss something? the sun is reflecting off of my monitor. Are you implying that the "local laws" pertain only to lobbying? Where did it say that? I don't recall either, your addressing the Monsanto law, that says that they may continue to sell and farmers cotinue to plant and harvest even in the face of judicial objection on any level, state, local or federal. What could be the honest reasoning for this law? Save that Monstanto may indeed have information to which the public is not privy. This state of affairs is not new to monsanto, if you will look at leaked information on PCBs and agent orange (dioxin). They did lose, or rather "settle" with a town that was literaly poisoned. I do not have enough redily available information on the serilini study online to do anything more than what you have already stated "well, MY scientists are smarter than yours", or "I have more scientists than you do". But I am looking, at the risk of moving the goal posts, looking at the entire complexion and culture of this company.The more we find that they knew of a problem and did nothing, the more their behaivior is suspect. "oh, but not this time" is reminicient of a battered wife claiming that her husband has finally seen the light and will no longer batter her.

canndo · Apr 23, 2014

Hartmut Meyer, one of the authors of the new review, said, “Use of such double standards is a common response from scientists calling for GMO deregulation and, somewhat surprisingly, also from some government authorities, to studies that show negative environmental and health effects of GMOs. Only those studies that find problems are subjected to excessive scrutiny and rejected as defective. This approach appears to be a tactic to avoid dealing with ‘inconvenient’ results, whilst selecting for ‘convenient’ results.”

http://www.gmoseralini.org/end-double-standards-in-evaluating-gmo-safety-studies-say-scientists/

As I have found as well, even though I approach it from a lay position.

Monsanto studies tend to be of the same structdure. Curious.

canndo · Apr 23, 2014

Pull back for a moment. Do you really think it is wise to be having a discussion over the validity of one study over another, the proponent of one outcome over another with regard to our FOOD? worse, with regard to food that has been on the tables and plates of the public for 20 some odd years? Isn't this discussion an indicator that perhaps something is wrong with the process itself? It is incumbent upon those who have introduced these unnatural plants into our environment and our dinners to prove unquestionably and for all time that their products are safe. Such debate should have happend long before we were overpowered by these products. This "oh well" attitude that is demonstrated on the part of Monsanto over other of their products is dangerous and indicative of a disregard of our health and welbeing in favor of profit alone.

Imagine this taking place in Rome several centuries ago. One side claiming that the lead in all of the pipes of Ancient rome was certainly safe, after all, no one has died and we have been drinking the water for some time now. Imagine the disruption should we discover that lead was detrimental to our welbeing. Why we would have to uproot all of the infrastructure of our city state and replace it with who knows what? People all over the city will go thirsty, babies will go unwashed and we will all eventually stink. Studies would most certainly be challenged and the studiers be ridiculed.

tokeprep · Apr 23, 2014

canndo said:
In short then, Monstanto cannot or need not break the law because it wrote the law. Yes, other industries have participated in writing laws that pertain to that industry but we see in this instance that Monsanto has indemnified itself against loss of business at the possible cost of its consumer's health and welfare to say nothing of the farmers who raise their crops. They may continue planting, havesting and selling products even if a judge, state or federal attempts to halt that process based upon any concerns, health or environmental. EPA and FDA have been effectively neutralized, at least for the short term.

Should such a situation come to pass, and Monsanto continue in the face of eminent danger to our environment, finally putting a halt to their practices will likely be too late and Monsanto knows this as it has had experience in other countries in just such a manuver.

HR 933 expired on September 30th, 2013. Section 735 of HR 933 necessarily expired with it. Nonetheless, all that law ever did was prevent an approval of GM crops from being reversed until all legal challenges had ceased.

tokeprep · Apr 23, 2014

canndo said:
So far as the freely available alternatives that you claimfarmers have - we can start with seeds:

1. The great seed monopoly
2. The Multiple Ways Monsanto is Putting Normal Seeds Out of Reach
NOTE: Two pieces on the ruthless concentration of corporate power in the seed industry that's allowing Monsanto to drive up costs and aggressively undercut the rights of farmers.
------
1. The great seed monopoly

Extracts from ETC Group's report 'Who Owns Nature?'
http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pu...

In the first half of the 20th century, seeds were overwhelmingly in the hands of farmers and public-sector plant breeders. In the decades since then, Gene Giants have used intellectual property laws to commodify the world seed supply - a strategy that aims to control plant germplasm and maximize profits by eliminating Farmers' Rights.

Today, the proprietary seed market accounts for a staggering share of the world's commercial seed supply. In less than three decades, a handful of multinational corporations have engineered a fast and furious corporate enclosure of the first link in the food chain.

The world's largest seed company, Monsanto, accounts for almost one-quarter (23%) of the global proprietary seed market.

The top 3 companies (Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta) together account for $10,282 million, or 47% of the worldwide proprietary seed market.

ETC Group conservatively estimates that the top 3 seed companies control 65% of the proprietary maize seed market worldwide, and over half of the proprietary soybean seed market.

Based on industry statistics, ETC Group estimates that Monsanto's biotech seeds and traits (including those licensed to other companies) accounted for 87% of the total world area devoted to genetically engineered seeds in 2007.

"The lack of competition and innovation in the marketplace has reduced farmers' choices and enabled Monsanto to raise prices unencumbered." - Keith Mudd, Organization for Competitive Markets, following Monsanto's decision to raise some GM maize seed prices by 35%.

I'm confused as to why developers of proprietary having high market shares in the proprietary seeds they developed is damning. They applied for patent protection on the seeds they developed precisely to prevent other people from using them. There's nothing negating the idea of choice here. You choose to use proprietary seeds. Everyone using them has chosen to do it.

------
2. The Multiple Ways Monsanto is Putting Normal Seeds Out of Reach
By Linn Cohen-Cole
http://tinyurl.com/db7fnf

People say if farmers don't want problems from Monsanto, just don't buy their GMO seeds.

Not so simple. Where are farmers supposed to get normal seed these days? How are they supposed to avoid contamination of their fields from GM-crops? How are they supposed to stop Monsanto detectives from trespassing or Monsanto from using helicopters to fly over spying on them?

Monsanto contaminates the fields, trespasses onto the land taking samples and if they find any GMO plants growing there (or say they have), they then sue, saying they own the crop. It’s a way to make money since farmers can’t fight back and court and they settle because they have no choice.

And they have done and are doing a bucket load of things to keep farmers and everyone else from having any access at all to buying, collecting, and saving of NORMAL seeds.

1. They’ve bought up the seed companies across the Midwest.

2. They've written Monsanto seed laws
<http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/news/10040.htm> and gotten legislators to put them through, that make cleaning, collecting and storing of seeds so onerous in terms of fees and paperwork and testing and tracking every variety and being subject to fines, that having normal seed becomes almost impossible (an NAIS approach to wiping out normal seeds). Does your state have such a seed law? Before they existed, farmers just collected the seeds and put them in sacks in the shed and used them the next year, sharing whatever they wished with friends and neighbors, selling some if they wanted. That's been killed.

In Illinois, which has such a seed law, Madigan, the Speaker of the House, his staff is Monsanto lobbyists.

3. Monsanto is pushing anti-democracy laws (Vilsack's brainchild, actually) that remove community control over their own counties so farmers and citizens can't block the planting of GMO crops even if they can contaminate other crops. So if you don't want a GM-crop that grows industrial chemicals or drugs or a rice growing with human DNA in it, in your area and mixing with your crops, tough luck.

Check the map of just where the Monsanto/Vilsack laws are <http://www.environmentalcommons.org/image/seed-preemption...> and see if your state is still a democracy or is Monsanto’s. A farmer in Illinois told me he heard that Bush had pushed through some regulation that made this true in every state. People need to check on that.

4. For sure there are Monsanto regulations buried in the FDA right now that make a farmer's seed cleaning equipment illegal (another way to leave nothing but GM-seeds) because it’s now considered a "source of seed contamination." Farmer can still seed clean but the equipment now has to be certified and a farmer said it would require a million to a million and half dollar building and equipment … for EACH line of seed. Seed storage facilities are also listed (another million?) and harvesting and transport equipment. And manure. Something that can contaminate seed. Notice that chemical fertilizers and pesticides are not mentioned.

You could eat manure and be okay (a little grossed out but okay). Try that with pesticides and fertilizers. Indian farmers have. Their top choice for how to commit suicide to escape the debt they have been left in is to drink Monsanto pesticides.

5. Monsanto is picking off seed cleaners across the Midwest. In Pilot Grove, Missouri, <http://www.grain.org/bio-ipr/?id=548> in Indiana (Maurice Parr), and now in southern Illinois (Steve Hixon). And they are using US marshals and state troopers and county police <http://www.opednews.com/articles/MONSANTO-investigator-in...> to show up in three cars to serve the poor farmers who had used Hixon as their seed cleaner, telling them that he or their neighbors turned them in, so across that 6 county areas, no one talking to neighbors and people are living in fear and those farming communities are falling apart from the suspicion Monsanto sowed. Hixon’s office got broken into and he thinks someone put a GPS tracking device on his equipment and that’s how Monsanto found between 200-400 customers in very scattered and remote areas, and threatened them all and destroyed his business within 2 days.

So, after demanding that seed cleaners somehow be able to tell one seed from another (or be sued to kingdom come) or corrupting legislatures to put in laws about labeling of seeds that are so onerous no one can cope with them, what is Monsanto's attitude about labeling their own stuff? You guessed it - they're out there pushing laws against ANY labeling of their own GM-food and animals and of any exports to other countries. Why?
http://nonais.org/index.php/2008/02/15/monstersanto-in-ka...

We know, and they know, why.

As Norman Braksick, the president of Asgrow Seed Co. (now owned by Monsanto) predicted in the Kansas City Star (3/7/94) seven years ago, "If you put a label on a genetically engineered food, you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it."

And they've sued dairy farmers for telling the truth about their milk being rBGH-free, though rBGH is associated with an increased risk of breast, colon and prostate cancers.
http://www.keepmainefree.org/suesuesue.html

I just heard that some seed dealers urge farmers to buy the seed under the seed dealer's name, telling the farmers it helps the dealer get a discount on seed to buy a lot under their own name. Then Monsanto sues the poor farmer for buying their seed without a contract and extorts huge sums from them.

Here’s a youtube video that is worth your time. Vandana Shiva is one of the leading anti-Monsanto people in the world. In this video, she says (and this video is old), Monsanto had sued 1500 farmers whose fields had simply been contaminated by GM-crops. Listen to all the ways Monsanto goes after farmers.
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/CFSMOnsantovsFarm...

Do you know the story of Gandhi in India and how the British had salt laws that taxed salt? The British claimed it as theirs. Gandhi had what was called a Salt Satyagraha, in which people were asked to break the laws and march to the sea and collect the salt without paying the British. A kind of Boston tea party, I guess.

The reason you might have a hard time finding conventional seeds is that no one wants them. Do I really need to explain supply and demand to you? If no one wants to buy your product, yeah, you're going to go out of business.

This is not a damning case you're making. It reads like an irrational rant against the Jews.

tokeprep · Apr 23, 2014

canndo said:
Yes, it is a logical falacy to presume that if a company's previous studies are inaccurate than it's present studies are as well. But it tends to indicate a certain willingness to cheat on the part of that company. The Serilini study used the same strain of rats as the Company studies used. Yet they got significantly different results. Go figure.

Again, there are thousands of studies that say GM food is safe. There are meta-analyses of those thousands of studies that say GM food is safe. These were not all conducted and/or funded by seed or food companies. So it doesn't matter how flawed you think the corporate studies are because the conclusions aren't based solely on their studies' results.

As for the rats, the problem in that specific study was that it lasted for the two year lifespan of the rats. The longer the rats live, the higher the natural rate of cancer in the rats. If you let them live for two years, 70-80% of the rats normally, naturally, on any food develop cancer. That is why it would be improper to conclude that the GM food the rats were fed caused the cancer. If they didn't permit the rats to live for two years, the cancer rates would have been significantly different.

The problem is not the individual study so much, as we know that people aren't getting cancer at the rate or of the type that the rats got them, and they have been eating this stuff for a while now. The problemis the grounds and particulars of all of the studies, Is there a problem with the glyphosate? The Roundup? the GMO itself? Nobody knows. We also don't know or cannot correlate the nation's delcining health with GMOs - or transfats, or sugar, or preservatives, or pollution, or pesticides? Nor are there many if any studies that test combinations of f pollutants in concert. Another problem is the term GMO. Perhaps the transgenetic product BT corn is absolutely safe, BT breaks down quickly in sunlight and soil or over time - it is after all - (organic), But there are other aspects of GM products that are not so easily identified. The process is not nearly as precise as most presume. We don't really know what portions of DNA are affected by the implantation, at some point in the sequence, of a transgenic snipet. We know that misfolded proteins can have serious consequences - prion creation in other life is not beyond the realm of possibility and as you know it takes many years for prions to affect human beings.

The scientific consensus is that there's no problem with any of it. You're back to fear instead of scientific evaluation.

Are you going to claim that placing the future of our food in the hands of a few companies and the regulatory agencies that depend upon those companys testing is wise? Especially, as I have said, when at least one of these companies has intenitonaly misled the public and the government?

I'm certainly not claiming it's wise. I don't care. It was a free market choice.

How do you prove "legitimate" cross pollination when the marker breeds true? Monsanto does indeed have teams of people - Pinkertons - in the truest sense of the word, looking for genetic markers in fields. And they do indeed at least threaten lawsuits.

It's exceedingly easy to prove. Cross-pollination doesn't result in 90%+ GM purity.

I would really like to see a case where a farmer was absolved of having transgenetic plants in his crop because of cross pollination. I've not come across that yet.

My apologies, that was actually discussed in the Canadian case on looking into it. I did find that the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association actually sued Monsanto over the cross-pollination concern. The district court dismissed the case because they couldn't produce a single plaintiff who had been threatened by Monsanto over cross-pollination.

I do know for a fact that the Brazilians are in the pocket of monsanto. The others? I'll have to look.
Organic farmers DO have a problem with contaminaton, as do Mexican farmers who have inadvertantly used GM corn as seed - something they have been doing for thousands of years - taking what they presumed is the best seed stock for next year's planting. Estimates range from 10 perdent to 40 percent of all corn in Mexico (my recollection), is contaminated, even in national heritage of diversity regions where there are hundreds of varieties of corn.

I can't find any case of a farmer being sued by Monsanto as a result of cross-pollination. Again, go back to the Canadian case. Let's say you've got conventional seeds and GM seeds. If you spray Roundup all over your crops, the conventional plants die, right? How can you not know you're getting GM seeds?

If you're not spraying Roundup all over your plants, how can you distinguish between the seeds and end up magically selecting the GM seeds?

Again, when it comes to infrastructure, it isn't all that easy. Much dent corn is used exclusively for animal feed, trucked to animl "factories". We have so much corn that it growing it in the absence of federal support would be unwise for farmers who are barely making the payments on their equipment now.

Oh, I don't care about that at all. Cut them off. I don't believe in agricultural subsidies just like I don't believe in special corporate tax breaks.

tokeprep · Apr 23, 2014

canndo said:
It occurs to me that the flood of information and logic from either of us might result in either of us conveniently skipping unconvenient portions of the other's posts. I will try to address everything you say, but when the blocks of type grow too large I may neglect something. It isn't intentional.

Oh no, I read everything you said. All of it. I don't need to skip anything. You approach this issue with a religious fervor instead of objectively evaluating anything. That's why our conclusions are so very different.

I don't believe in ideology, only facts. I have no reason to prefer GM over non-GM--I'm totally disinterested. If the evidence said GM food was unsafe I'd be on your side. That's not what it says. I would assert that you are not disinterested. Your posts suggest that you genuinely fear this stuff. But your fear seems to come before your evidence; you seem to be selecting evidence that validates your existing fear.

tokeprep · Apr 23, 2014

Edit: Sorry, for some reason I thought this post came after my other posts. Ignore it if you address things elsewhere.

canndo said:
Unfortunately, much of what I have that is germain to our discussion is not available on the internet.

Then it's probably bullshit. Why wouldn't it be on the internet?

Did I miss something? the sun is reflecting off of my monitor. Are you implying that the "local laws" pertain only to lobbying? Where did it say that?

This was the claim: "Monsanto has undue influence on governments through lobbying and the hiring practices of governments." Their answer is that they comply with local laws. Obviously they must mean they comply with local laws on lobbying and hiring practices, whether that means in the 50 states or in the various countries they operate in.

I don't recall either, your addressing the Monsanto law, that says that they may continue to sell and farmers cotinue to plant and harvest even in the face of judicial objection on any level, state, local or federal. What could be the honest reasoning for this law?

I did. Section 735 of HR 933 expired on September 30th, 2013. It was only in effect for six months. Regardless, all it ever did was prohibit a ban on a GM crop if its status was changed, while legal challenges were still pending. As soon as legal challenges ceased the ban would take effect.

This is typical in court cases in the absence of such legislation. It's very common for courts to stay the effects of their rulings while appeals are pending.

Save that Monstanto may indeed have information to which the public is not privy. This state of affairs is not new to monsanto, if you will look at leaked information on PCBs and agent orange (dioxin). They did lose, or rather "settle" with a town that was literaly poisoned. I do not have enough redily available information on the serilini study online to do anything more than what you have already stated "well, MY scientists are smarter than yours", or "I have more scientists than you do". But I am looking, at the risk of moving the goal posts, looking at the entire complexion and culture of this company.The more we find that they knew of a problem and did nothing, the more their behaivior is suspect. "oh, but not this time" is reminicient of a battered wife claiming that her husband has finally seen the light and will no longer batter her.

I gave you plenty. The normal cancer incidence in the rats over their lifespans and the duration of the study scream about its validity.

Then there's the statistical problem with the number of test subjects that is undeniable. Think of it like a scientific poll. If you only poll 10 people, your results are going to be less reliable than if you poll 500 people. If you only put 10 rats in each group when the normal protocol is 60 rats per group, your results are going to be less reliable.

tokeprep · Apr 23, 2014

canndo said:
Hartmut Meyer, one of the authors of the new review, said, “Use of such double standards is a common response from scientists calling for GMO deregulation and, somewhat surprisingly, also from some government authorities, to studies that show negative environmental and health effects of GMOs. Only those studies that find problems are subjected to excessive scrutiny and rejected as defective. This approach appears to be a tactic to avoid dealing with ‘inconvenient’ results, whilst selecting for ‘convenient’ results.”

http://www.gmoseralini.org/end-double-standards-in-evaluating-gmo-safety-studies-say-scientists/

As I have found as well, even though I approach it from a lay position.

Monsanto studies tend to be of the same structdure. Curious.

You have examples of some studies that used statistically improper numbers of the same variety of lab rat with a two year duration? You're telling me Monsanto typically uses the same protocol, so I hope you have an example...

Pinworm · Apr 23, 2014

tokeprep said:
You have examples of some studies that used statistically improper numbers of the same variety of lab rat with a two year duration? You're telling me Monsanto typically uses the same protocol, so I hope you have an example...

Hey TP. Do you think I'm pretty?

tokeprep · Apr 23, 2014

Pinworm said:
Hey TP. Do you think I'm pretty?

Nope, sorry. Don't feel bad, I'm really hot. I probably reject 90% of the people who want some of this.

Pinworm · Apr 23, 2014

tokeprep said:
Nope, sorry. Don't feel bad, I'm really hot. I probably reject 90% of the people who want some of this.

You are female. I can fucking tell.

tokeprep · Apr 24, 2014

Pinworm said:
You are female. I can fucking tell.

Just a very hot gay man.

gmos, and im the luddite?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member