View Full Version : Monsanto... why are they bad?
I don't get all the hate they're receiving. They really don't seem bad compared to any number of companies that people love. Can someone enlighten me?
polymorpheous
01-07-14, 15:35
Suing farmers for cross pollination.http://www.cbsnews.com/news/agricultural-giant-battles-small-farmers/
Suing farmers for cross pollination.http://www.cbsnews.com/news/agricultural-giant-battles-small-farmers/
Here's another perspective on that issue:
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/gm-seed-accidentally-in-farmers-fields.aspx
They control a HUGE % of the seed banks/food supply.
The fact that Monsanto is genetically engineering other organisms & chemicals into our food/seeds without knowing what the consequences are or what the future will hold is reason enough for me.
A lot of evidence suggests the pesticides they developed and employ in GMO foods and sprays are responsible for CCD/bees dying off, butterfly's dying off and recently birds are also starting to decline. I cannnot say 100% they are cuplable, but the evidence suggests they are.
GMO's scare the shit out of me. Eating food with genetic material such as pesticides and insecticides written into the genetic code of the plant and other genetic material writtin in to make the plant resistant to the insecticides/pesticides is stupid, and we have no clue of the short term let alon long term consequences or what it is doing to us or our DNA.
Scientific studies have linked the chemicals in Monsanto’s Roundup pesticides to Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimers disease, autism and cancer.
They are creating a farming monopoly. The worst monopoly we could ever allow to be created- monopolizing our food supply and seed banks. Putting family farmers out of business any way they can- it is bad news bears...
They created non-repeater seeds for ****s sake!!??!!??!!??!!??!!?? Who in their ****ing right mind would modify genetics of a seed to get it to stop repeating and only be viable as a single crop seed?
I am biased though and have no issue admitting it- as I am old school heirloom grower all the way, all organic, no chemicals ever. The food is SO MUCH BETTER than the food coming from monsanto seeds. And I don't have to worry about gentically modified organisms that could have serious consequences on our food supply, the future of seed banks and our health.
GMO's are not a good thing in my opinion. Really scary stuff...
polymorpheous
01-07-14, 16:31
Here's another perspective on that issue:
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/gm-seed-accidentally-in-farmers-fields.aspx
Seems legit.
Moose-Knuckle
01-07-14, 16:35
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/kissinger_zpsba325973.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/AKS-74/media/kissinger_zpsba325973.jpg.html)
GMOs don't bother me. So that side of the equation doesn't factor in. What does bother me is the idea of being able to patent life. And that is exactly what they have been doing. Farmers can no longer save seed. They are forced every year to purchase more of it. And despite their claims otherwise they have indeed sued people who disagree with their thuggery.
They control a HUGE % of the seed banks/food supply.
The fact that Monsanto is genetically engineering other organisms & chemicals into our food/seeds without knowing what the consequences are or what the future will hold is reason enough for me.
A lot of evidence suggests the pesticides they developed and employ in GMO foods and sprays are responsible for CCD/bees dying off, butterfly's dying off and recently birds are also starting to decline. I cannnot say 100% they are cuplable, but the evidence suggests they are.
GMO's scare the shit out of me. Eating food with genetic material such as pesticides and insecticides written into the genetic code of the plant and other genetic material writtin in to make the plant resistant to the insecticides/pesticides is stupid, and we have no clue of the short term let alon long term consequences or what it is doing to us or our DNA.
Scientific studies have linked the chemicals in Monsanto’s Roundup pesticides to Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimers disease, autism and cancer.
They are creating a farming monopoly. The worst monopoly we could ever allow to be created- monopolizing our food supply and seed banks. Putting family farmers out of business any way they can- it is bad news bears...
They created non-repeater seeds for ****s sake!!??!!??!!??!!??!!?? Who in their ****ing right mind would modify genetics of a seed to get it to stop repeating and only be viable as a single crop seed?
I am biased though and have no issue admitting it- as I am old school heirloom grower all the way, all organic, no chemicals ever. The food is SO MUCH BETTER than the food coming from monsanto seeds. And I don't have to worry about gentically modified organisms that could have serious consequences on our food supply, the future of seed banks and our health.
GMO's are not a good thing in my opinion. Really scary stuff...
Do you have a link to the studies that can link Monsanto to those conditions?
Every blind test I've seen rates gmo foods equal to or better than organic foods, but it was a while ago.
Creating seeds that don't reproduce seems like good capitalism and smart business to me.
Farming monopoly? I don't know about that, Monsanto seems to be about equal to Dupont and both combined are like 10% of the farming market. But isn't becoming bigger and more powerful part of being American?
Moose-Knuckle
01-07-14, 16:53
And despite their claims otherwise they have indeed sued people who disagree with their thuggery.
Before the Blast, West Fertilizer’s Monsanto Lawsuit
http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2013/04/18/before-the-blast-west-fertilizers-monsanto-lawsuit/
GMOs don't bother me. So that side of the equation doesn't factor in. What does bother me is the idea of being able to patent life. And that is exactly what they have been doing. Farmers can no longer save seed. They are forced every year to purchase more of it. And despite their claims otherwise they have indeed sued people who disagree with their thuggery.
Farmers cannot legally save seed from Monsanto... Which is what they agreed to via contact. There are other seed providers. They aren't forced to do anything they haven't agreed to in the first place.
GMO's and aspartame. If that doesn't solve it for you, I don't know what will.
Inkslinger
01-07-14, 17:29
Farmers cannot legally save seed from Monsanto... Which is what they agreed to via contact. There are other seed providers. They aren't forced to do anything they haven't agreed to in the first place.
But they can be sued for copyright infringement if their crop happens to get cross pollinated by a near by Monsanto crop.
I don't remember the source, but I read somewhere that Monsanto is responsible for 98% of soy beans sold in the US, if not the world. So basically they have farmers over a barrel. Buy from us or if any of your crop has genes from our seed we sue you out of business.
Oh, and Agent Orange too. Kinda f'd a lot of people with that as well.
Moose-Knuckle
01-07-14, 17:34
Are Governments attempting to stop citizens from growing their own food?
The first thing I read that started the alarm bells ringing for me was the two Bills S.425 and H.R.875 which were introduced both in the House and Senate of the US Congress by Democrat Rosa DeLauro, this caused immediate controversy as Rosa De Lauro is married to Stanley Greenberg, who is Chairman and CEO of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, who have carried out work for Biotech company Monsanto.
Outwardly these Bills that are currently before the Senate in the US are masquerading as a set of new food safety standards, however these Bills are so vague and open ended that if they were fully implemented there would be a high risk of Organic and Heirloom seeds, and the general production of organic food being banned.
One of the central aims of the Bills is to completely industrialise all food production in America. If implemented it would be illegal to grow food in your garden, and also illegal to give that food away to your friends and family. Other parts of the Bill attempt to restrict and control the usage of valuable minerals and vitamins that have proven beneficial effects on peoples well being.
http://www.permanentculturenow.com/are-governments-attempting-to-stop-citizens-from-growing-their-own-food/
ForTehNguyen
01-07-14, 17:37
heavily protected by the FDA
GMOs don't bother me. So that side of the equation doesn't factor in. What does bother me is the idea of being able to patent life. And that is exactly what they have been doing. Farmers can no longer save seed. They are forced every year to purchase more of it. And despite their claims otherwise they have indeed sued people who disagree with their thuggery.
So you are immune to pesticides? you do realize GMO plants produce their own pesticides and insecticides these are not things you can just wash off.
Moose-Knuckle
01-07-14, 17:51
Not only are GMOs toxic, but they do not produce "heirloom seeds". So instread of collecting seeds from the crop you just harvested for next season you have to buy new GMO seeds from Big Ag.
Made made food shortages anyone?
http://rt.com/news/monsanto-rats-tumor-france-531/
Http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/420365
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1896115
Do you have a link to the studies that can link Monsanto to those conditions?
Every blind test I've seen rates gmo foods equal to or better than organic foods, but it was a while ago.
Creating seeds that don't reproduce seems like good capitalism and smart business to me.
Farming monopoly? I don't know about that, Monsanto seems to be about equal to Dupont and both combined are like 10% of the farming market. But isn't becoming bigger and more powerful part of being American?
I'll post the studies/info tomorrow. Don't have time to search them out tonite. One thing that raises a red flag is Monsanto buying out some of these research firms and killing the studies. That's a clue right there...
There is a big difference between Monsantos GMO seeds and heriloom seeds and the resultant food, how could a taste test even be apples to apples? Especially when the "taste" in GMO foods is reshaping most peoples palattes unknwingly- who for the most part unknowingly eat that shit every day.
The heriloom seed stock my family has been keeping since before my great grand parents were born yields food nothing like what you buy at most grocers. Aesthetic, taste, texture, color, size, shape etc are all different.
"Organic" in the grocery market is just marketing, the only way to confirm things are grown without use of chemicals and/or non-organic materials is to grow them yourself. Period.
"Organic" is about as succinct and accurate a term in the food world as "milspec" is in the firearms community. Both terms get thrown around and used incorrectly.
Let's get off the "flavor" tangent for a moment and consider the consequences of non-repeating & GMO seed crops for a second, as you find them attracitve and money-makers, which is definitely true in a sense, I find them abhorrent and potentially/extremely dangerous in the long term and the lifecycle of our species.
What would happen if the biodiversity of our seed banks was diminshed and genetic modification of our seeds causes only certain strains to be viable/living in the future?
What is happening to the evolution of these seeds/foods genomes? What are the consequences and future possibilities of creating these hybrids?
Do you believe we could gentically modify human beings or any organism without consequences and severe changes to our genome, mutation rates, evolution, etc?
We cannot begin to take into account or fathom all of the variables involved with modifying genetic materials and the genome of a species to know if these practices are safe.
Do you really believe we can cross a gene from one kingdom with another gene from a different kingdom altogether and everything is all butterflies and lilly-pads forever, no problems could possibly arise from playing god with the genetic material of our food supply???
It just seems very naive and short sighted to me to have such faith in modifying genetic material and ****ing with several genomes and there not being negative consequences.
And then we get into intellectual property rights debate with all of these organisms being patented and owned.
The potential for hazard is just too great.
So what if all of these companies keep modifying food until there are no heirloom seed banks with enough stock to re-supply and keep them viable? The cost of food and seeds will SKYROCKET and the control that could be exerted in a scenario such as this is absolutely terrifying.
I hear arguments all the time along the lines of: "without GMO foods we couldn't feed the worlds population; the children would die..."- well isn't that a good hint that the world population is too large and unsustainable for this planet?
Playing god with nature only leads us down drak paths. Nature finds a balance, the more we try to impose our own will on nature, the harder it fights back. We shift this way, it shifts that way in response.
Reminds me of the foibbles of using "introduced species" to try and control native species- it always backfires and the introduced species cannot be controlled, it gets out of control the introduced species becomes damaging and migrates/multiplies.
What about GMO's do you find so admireable & desireable may I ask? "Money" is probably one answer, are there any others?
montanadave
01-07-14, 18:21
Nothing to see here, folks. Everything's jake. And a little bird told me they've got something really tasty in the pipeline.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zAFA-hamZ0
Creating seeds that don't reproduce seems like good capitalism and smart business to me.
But isn't becoming bigger and more powerful part of being American?
No, it's called being a ****ing asshole. Since when is greed and monopoly a good thing in the name of the almighty dollar, that's really sad man.
Moose-Knuckle
01-07-14, 18:58
No, it's called being a ****ing asshole. Since when is greed and monopoly a good thing in the name of the almighty dollar, that's really sad man.
Greed is one thing . . . manufactured famine and population control are another.
Cagemonkey
01-07-14, 19:06
I'll post the studies/info tomorrow. Don't have time to search them out tonite. One thing that raises a red flag is Monsanto buying out some of these research firms and killing the studies. That's a clue right there...
There is a big difference between Monsantos GMO seeds and heriloom seeds and the resultant food, how could a taste test even be apples to apples? Especially when the "taste" in GMO foods is reshaping most peoples palattes unknwingly- who for the most part unknowingly eat that shit every day.
The heriloom seed stock my family has been keeping since before my great grand parents were born yields food nothing like what you buy at most grocers. Aesthetic, taste, texture, color, size, shape etc are all different.
"Organic" in the grocery market is just marketing, the only way to confirm things are grown without use of chemicals and/or non-organic materials is to grow them yourself. Period.
"Organic" is about as succinct and accurate a term in the food world as "milspec" is in the firearms community. Both terms get thrown around and used incorrectly.
Let's get off the "flavor" tangent for a moment and consider the consequences of non-repeating & GMO seed crops for a second, as you find them attracitve and money-makers, which is definitely true in a sense, I find them abhorrent and potentially/extremely dangerous in the long term and the lifecycle of our species.
What would happen if the biodiversity of our seed banks was diminshed and genetic modification of our seeds causes only certain strains to be viable/living in the future?
What is happening to the evolution of these seeds/foods genomes? What are the consequences and future possibilities of creating these hybrids?
Do you believe we could gentically modify human beings or any organism without consequences and severe changes to our genome, mutation rates, evolution, etc?
We cannot begin to take into account or fathom all of the variables involved with modifying genetic materials and the genome of a species to know if these practices are safe.
Do you really believe we can cross a gene from one kingdom with another gene from a different kingdom altogether and everything is all butterflies and lilly-pads forever, no problems could possibly arise from playing god with the genetic material of our food supply???
It just seems very naive and short sighted to me to have such faith in modifying genetic material and ****ing with several genomes and there not being negative consequences.
And then we get into intellectual property rights debate with all of these organisms being patented and owned.
The potential for hazard is just too great.
So what if all of these companies keep modifying food until there are no heirloom seed banks with enough stock to re-supply and keep them viable? The cost of food and seeds will SKYROCKET and the control that could be exerted in a scenario such as this is absolutely terrifying.
I hear arguments all the time along the lines of: "without GMO foods we couldn't feed the worlds population; the children would die..."- well isn't that a good hint that the world population is too large and unsustainable for this planet?
Playing god with nature only leads us down drak paths. Nature finds a balance, the more we try to impose our own will on nature, the harder it fights back. We shift this way, it shifts that way in response.
Reminds me of the foibbles of using "introduced species" to try and control native species- it always backfires and the introduced species cannot be controlled, it gets out of control the introduced species becomes damaging and migrates/multiplies.
What about GMO's do you find so admireable & desireable may I ask? "Money" is probably one answer, are there any others?Great stuff. Don't forget to add GMO's being a factor in the Honey Bee die off. I can't see why anybody would won't to defend the "Indefensible"?
If GMO was so good why do most of the 1st world countries have zero tolerance for GMO food. Japan just recently lifted a ban on US imported wheat as a GMO strain was found in some imported wheat from the US. Secondly ask yourself why cancer rates are skyrocketing across all ages, autism rates are something like 1 in 45 these days. Now I would not attribute these numbers and increases to just GMO but many chemicals that the United deems safe for our consumption but are banned world wide. I wont bother listing these chemicals as many here have made it a point to call it tin foil instead of doing the research.
http://www.babble.com/babble-voices/mamapop-all-access/80-of-pre-packaged-foods-in-american-grocery-stores-banned-in-other-countries/
Top these off with a slice of GMO and enjoy your cancer.
The anti GMO trope is reaching the levels of the Anti Vaccination hysteria.
In fact so far there has not been a single credible study that shows any harmful effects from GMOs on people or animals.
The problem is the people that know just enough to not know what they are talking about but sound like they know something.
Now if you do some searching you will see claims like "There is no consensus." However when you look what you see is the following:
more than 200 scientists, physicians, and legal experts signed the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility's group statement “No scientific consensus on GMO [genetically modified organism] safety"
Notice the details there? 200 Scientists, physicians, and legal experts. This is a common tactic to try to spread doubt where there really is none. Even if half that number were scientists, you have to ask what their field is. I would bet that not all of them(and maybe not even more) are in fields that are relevant to the topic at hand. So we have what? 50 Scientists? 75 maybe? Put that against the thousands who have published papers on the subject and made it through review. Data is king and so far there isn't really much showing there are any dangers.
Now, someone earlier mentioned pesticides being produced by the plants. This sounds terrifying. However this relates back to what I said earlier. People that know just enough to be dangerous and then write a story about it. However the fact that a plant is anti insect does not me it is producing the same chemicals that we find in spray on insecticides. Nor does it mean that the levels found are dangerous.
Let me go back to the vaccination comment I made earlier for an example. There are many ingredients in vaccinations that sound terrifying. And can in fact be poisonous. What most people don't realize though is that you also get those same ingredients, and in larger quantities from eating an apple. And I am not talking about a GMO apple either. The same applies to GMOs. Make sure you look beyond the buzzwords and fear mongering.
In the end, making a crop hardier, more resistant to insects, and more nutritious is not a bad thing. Making it so that the crop doesn't produce seeds, and putting other negatives in there. Well that is a whole different can of worms.
Inkslinger
01-07-14, 20:00
The tactic of paying credited individuals on either side of the fence only panders to people with like minded ideals. Look back at things that were once deemed safe. Hindsight is an amazing thing. Sure one side will tell you GMO's are the tits. Someday when you grow those tits on your back you might feel different.
As far as being more nutritious, I don't know where you're hearing that. A while back there was an article stating organic was no more nutritious than GMO or non-organic. No shit! I don't choose organic because it has more in it. I choose it because there's less in it. Less pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and it wasn't coded with jellyfish genes.
The anti GMO trope is reaching the levels of the Anti Vaccination hysteria.
In fact so far there has not been a single credible study that shows any harmful effects from GMOs on people or animals.
The problem is the people that know just enough to not know what they are talking about but sound like they know something.
Now if you do some searching you will see claims like "There is no consensus." However when you look what you see is the following:
Notice the details there? 200 Scientists, physicians, and legal experts. This is a common tactic to try to spread doubt where there really is none. Even if half that number were scientists, you have to ask what their field is. I would bet that not all of them(and maybe not even more) are in fields that are relevant to the topic at hand. So we have what? 50 Scientists? 75 maybe? Put that against the thousands who have published papers on the subject and made it through review. Data is king and so far there isn't really much showing there are any dangers.
Now, someone earlier mentioned pesticides being produced by the plants. This sounds terrifying. However this relates back to what I said earlier. People that know just enough to be dangerous and then write a story about it. However the fact that a plant is anti insect does not me it is producing the same chemicals that we find in spray on insecticides. Nor does it mean that the levels found are dangerous.
Let me go back to the vaccination comment I made earlier for an example. There are many ingredients in vaccinations that sound terrifying. And can in fact be poisonous. What most people don't realize though is that you also get those same ingredients, and in larger quantities from eating an apple. And I am not talking about a GMO apple either. The same applies to GMOs. Make sure you look beyond the buzzwords and fear mongering.
In the end, making a crop hardier, more resistant to insects, and more nutritious is not a bad thing. Making it so that the crop doesn't produce seeds, and putting other negatives in there. Well that is a whole different can of worms.
The anti GMO trope is reaching the levels of the Anti Vaccination hysteria.
In fact so far there has not been a single credible study that shows any harmful effects from GMOs on people or animals.
The problem is the people that know just enough to not know what they are talking about but sound like they know something.
Now if you do some searching you will see claims like "There is no consensus." However when you look what you see is the following:
Notice the details there? 200 Scientists, physicians, and legal experts. This is a common tactic to try to spread doubt where there really is none. Even if half that number were scientists, you have to ask what their field is. I would bet that not all of them(and maybe not even more) are in fields that are relevant to the topic at hand. So we have what? 50 Scientists? 75 maybe? Put that against the thousands who have published papers on the subject and made it through review. Data is king and so far there isn't really much showing there are any dangers.
Now, someone earlier mentioned pesticides being produced by the plants. This sounds terrifying. However this relates back to what I said earlier. People that know just enough to be dangerous and then write a story about it. However the fact that a plant is anti insect does not me it is producing the same chemicals that we find in spray on insecticides. Nor does it mean that the levels found are dangerous.
Let me go back to the vaccination comment I made earlier for an example. There are many ingredients in vaccinations that sound terrifying. And can in fact be poisonous. What most people don't realize though is that you also get those same ingredients, and in larger quantities from eating an apple. And I am not talking about a GMO apple either. The same applies to GMOs. Make sure you look beyond the buzzwords and fear mongering.
In the end, making a crop hardier, more resistant to insects, and more nutritious is not a bad thing. Making it so that the crop doesn't produce seeds, and putting other negatives in there. Well that is a whole different can of worms.
Why dont you go tell that to Dan Spitz who was the lead guitarist of the band Anthrax. Tell that to him and his wife whos child became autistic within 24 hours of receiving the 1 year cocktail vaccinations.
Ya the FDA also thought that Aspartame was not safe for human consumption, until Monsanto bought the rights to it. Oh ya and the former head of G.D. Searle & Company got a top job with the FDA.....funny how their opinion changed.....
Way too much money to be made.
The anti GMO trope is reaching the levels of the Anti Vaccination hysteria.
In fact so far there has not been a single credible study that shows any harmful effects from GMOs on people or animals.
The problem is the people that know just enough to not know what they are talking about but sound like they know something.
Now if you do some searching you will see claims like "There is no consensus." However when you look what you see is the following:
Notice the details there? 200 Scientists, physicians, and legal experts. This is a common tactic to try to spread doubt where there really is none. Even if half that number were scientists, you have to ask what their field is. I would bet that not all of them(and maybe not even more) are in fields that are relevant to the topic at hand. So we have what? 50 Scientists? 75 maybe? Put that against the thousands who have published papers on the subject and made it through review. Data is king and so far there isn't really much showing there are any dangers.
Now, someone earlier mentioned pesticides being produced by the plants. This sounds terrifying. However this relates back to what I said earlier. People that know just enough to be dangerous and then write a story about it. However the fact that a plant is anti insect does not me it is producing the same chemicals that we find in spray on insecticides. Nor does it mean that the levels found are dangerous.
Let me go back to the vaccination comment I made earlier for an example. There are many ingredients in vaccinations that sound terrifying. And can in fact be poisonous. What most people don't realize though is that you also get those same ingredients, and in larger quantities from eating an apple. And I am not talking about a GMO apple either. The same applies to GMOs. Make sure you look beyond the buzzwords and fear mongering.
In the end, making a crop hardier, more resistant to insects, and more nutritious is not a bad thing. Making it so that the crop doesn't produce seeds, and putting other negatives in there. Well that is a whole different can of worms.
I agree with this sentiment. When taken in context with Monsanto, I just see another big company doing what every single big company does, from Apple to GE to any number of huge companies.
No, it's called being a ****ing asshole. Since when is greed and monopoly a good thing in the name of the almighty dollar, that's really sad man.
Greed drives capitalism. Capitalism drives innovation and economic growth. Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. And the end goal of every company is a monopoly. It's up to the government to stop that, not the company to decide to throttle back.
But they can be sued for copyright infringement if their crop happens to get cross pollinated by a near by Monsanto crop.
I don't remember the source, but I read somewhere that Monsanto is responsible for 98% of soy beans sold in the US, if not the world. So basically they have farmers over a barrel. Buy from us or if any of your crop has genes from our seed we sue you out of business.
Oh, and Agent Orange too. Kinda f'd a lot of people with that as well.
You can be sued for anything. You can't be successfully sued because patent (not copyright) infringement requires intent. There is no intent if a crop is accidentally cross pollinated by a nearby Monsanto crop. A judge would throw out the lawsuit because it's frivolous unless Monsanto had evidence that the crop wasn't accidentally cross pollinated, but rather it was an intentional breach of contract on the part of the farmer. In which case Monsanto deserves to win because the farmer willfully went back on his word.
Monsanto wasn't the only company that made Agent Orange. None of them knew it was bad until later, then everyone stopped. It's not like they intentionally made it to mess up people... it's bad business practice to kill your customers.
And it does look like Monsanto is at least somewhat involved in 90% of soy beans sold in the US, whether it's via licensed IP used to produce the seeds or actual seeds sold directly.
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2013/05/26/environment/pesticides-suspected-in-minnesota-bee-deaths
The bee problems seems to be partly due to neonicotinoid insecticides.
"Beekeepers have asked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to restrict the use of neonicotinoid insecticides. Earlier this year, the European Union imposed a two-year ban on three neonicotinoid insecticides after the European Food Safety Authority identified "high acute risk" to bees."
Monsanto wasn't the only company that made Agent Orange. None of them knew it was bad until later, then everyone stopped. It's not like they intentionally made it to mess up people... it's bad business practice to kill your customers.
Thought it funny the way it was presented. Messing people up and killing the customer was kind of Agent Orange's purpose (being that it was used in warfare).
Sorry Koshinn, just a bit of dark humor...
Why dont you go tell that to Dan Spitz who was the lead guitarist of the band Anthrax. Tell that to him and his wife whos child became autistic within 24 hours of receiving the 1 year cocktail vaccinations.
Not to get too off topic, but that's just coincidence and bad luck. Autism symptoms generally show up around the same time that vaccinations are recommended. Studies with children who are and aren't vaccinated showed that autism appears independently of vaccination and at the same time.
Spitz does have identical twins and only one is autistic, but the rate of identical twins both having autism if one of them does is about 90%, meaning it's not very rare for one of a set of identical twins to be autistic while another isn't.
Spitz fell into the classic causation vs correlation fallacy. It's unfortunate that one of his children is autistic, but blaming it on vaccinations which save maybe 4-5 million children a year is irresponsible.
Thought it funny the way it was presented. Messing people up and killing the customer was kind of Agent Orange's purpose (being that it was used in warfare).
Sorry Koshinn, just a bit of dark humor...
haha
No but seriously. Agent Orange was designed as an herbicide, it's not intended to be a chemical weapon used to kill people. What happened is one of the chemical components of Agent Orange can be accidentally contaminated with a toxin as part of the production process. Apparently Monsanto told the US Government in the 50s that this was happening but the US Govt still ordered the product and used it. The US Govt wasn't concerned because Agent Orange was used on the enemy, so any toxic byproducts of the defoliant were ignored.
Monsanto and others were producing a product for a customer to use, and the customer had all the information. It's like demonizing a gun company because guns can be used to kill innocent people, either intentionally or accidentally.
Moose-Knuckle
01-07-14, 21:37
I agree with this sentiment. When taken in context with Monsanto, I just see another big company doing what every single big company does, from Apple to GE to any number of huge companies.
OP, after reading your responses I’m left to wonder as to why you created this thread in the first place? It appears that your mind is already made up on the matter.
Why dont you go tell that to Dan Spitz who was the lead guitarist of the band Anthrax. Tell that to him and his wife whos child became autistic within 24 hours of receiving the 1 year cocktail vaccinations.
I am more than happy too. Although I am not sure if he is out of jail yet so I may have to wait. Every attempt to tie Vaccines with Autism has been soundly debunked. The one study that is often cited that does try to draw a correlation was found to be a fraudulent piece written by a person of dubious character with the intend of furthering his own agenda. The real danger out there are not Vaccines, or GMOs. The real danger are the people who push an agenda with no real knowledge. People like Spitz or Jenny McCarthy. (By the way, did you hear the news. Turns out her son doesn't have autism after all. Ooops). Those people who have no skills, no real knowledge. And yet they try to convince people that what they say is right. They are the same hollywood hypocrites who get on TV and Youtube and make Public Service announcement about how evil gun owners are.
OP, after reading your responses I’m left to wonder as to why you created this thread in the first place? It appears that your mind is already made up on the matter.
Not really, I just haven't seen anything yet that justifies the hate of Monsanto over any other corporation. I don't buy the GMO, monopoly, lawsuit, and agent orange arguments because from what I've seen, they aren't persuasive or aren't any worse than companies that many people love.
If the hate is just "they're a huge and successful company that exists to make money" then I can accept that as differing world views and just point out that most huge companies that are loved by many do the same thing.
If the hate is based on uncertainty that GMOs might possibly be dangerous... You really need to bring peer reviewed scientific studies to the table.
If the hate is based on Agent Orange, do you also hate Glock for making a product that kills people at the request of the customer?
But maybe there is another angle that hasn't been presented yet or that I missed and that is very persuasive.
Greed is one thing . . . manufactured famine and population control are another.
Yes manufactured famine and population control would be evil. Are they doing it? I've never seen that allegation before.
Here's another perspective on that issue:
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/gm-seed-accidentally-in-farmers-fields.aspx
and you believe everything about obama and yes you can keep your plan and your doctor ! cause its the truth
you are just looking for a fight with people ! do your own research
look up the lawsuits that are happening to farmers and what they go through ! they are a horrible company and they are flat out LYING on that page just like obama flat out lied about keeping your plan and your doctor
look up what they tried to do in Mexico
and GMO is scary stuff and some of the stuff that is happening now in corn is all because of GMO corn
for sure when plants can only grow when given certain things like there seeds and there poisons wipe out all other plants but won't harm theres what will be left ? its that simple
look up what round up is and was and decide how great it is
They are evil. Probably the most evil corp in the world.
There is a documentary called "Food Inc." that has some interesting interactions between Monsanto and farmers out in the midwest. Check it out for another perspective......
http://www.impawards.com/2009/posters/food_inc_xlg.jpg
People mention that there are no credible studies linking various things to various things. GMOs, aspartame, fluoride, vaccinations, etc., not causing cancer, autism, erectile dysfunction, the two-party system, etc.
So what is causing them?
In all seriousness: we do know, for a fact, that chromosomal disorders are on the rise. The trisomies, autism, cancer, et al. Also a number of nasty neurological and autoimmune disorders... something is going on, and it's something that's happened in the last generation or two of our species.
Everyone has their own theory. Some are better supported than others. But no one's got the goods, I'm afraid. We just don't know which of these horrible things we're doing are causing the problems, and "no credible studies" seem to be able to link any of it to anything. Don't you think if "credible studies" could tell you what the problem was, they would be?
Big corporations being all corporation-ey.
Robb Jensen
01-08-14, 03:02
http://youtu.be/exBEFCiWyW0
I'll stick with organic.
You're living in a dream if you think a multinational conglomerate wouldn't enslave you for profit. You're living in a dream if you think they aren't generally always working on better ways to force you to need their products. There's no chance in hell Monsanto is not trying to create a monopoly on the world food supply. They probably don't believe they'll completely succeed, but where is the end of the line? When have they made enough profit for their shareholders? I'm afraid that day will never come. They will continue to consolidate wealth for personal gain, and that means taking their products farther and farther.
Capitalism is great, when it's set up correctly. Corporations are an insane misapplication of capitalism. Corporations should not exist. It's mind-boggling to me that anyone can think a mindless, soulless entity given the legal protection of a human being and existing for no purpose other than to increase profit for shareholders will ever bind itself to any kind of law, ethic, rule, or standard. A man can, a corporation cannot. Men who work for or represent corporations will always fall back on the ability to deny accountability. "I'm just doing my job," whether it's manufacturing, managing, board-sitting, researching, scheming, scapegoating, denying, or whatever- everyone is just a company-man, serving their master. Serving a master who has all the constitutional protections of a man, but cannot be brought up on charges, because it doesn't actually exist outside of the mental construct of other men.
Not to get too off topic, but that's just coincidence and bad luck. Autism symptoms generally show up around the same time that vaccinations are recommended. Studies with children who are and aren't vaccinated showed that autism appears independently of vaccination and at the same time.
Spitz does have identical twins and only one is autistic, but the rate of identical twins both having autism if one of them does is about 90%, meaning it's not very rare for one of a set of identical twins to be autistic while another isn't.
Spitz fell into the classic causation vs correlation fallacy. It's unfortunate that one of his children is autistic, but blaming it on vaccinations which save maybe 4-5 million children a year is irresponsible.
haha
No but seriously. Agent Orange was designed as an herbicide, it's not intended to be a chemical weapon used to kill people. What happened is one of the chemical components of Agent Orange can be accidentally contaminated with a toxin as part of the production process. Apparently Monsanto told the US Government in the 50s that this was happening but the US Govt still ordered the product and used it. The US Govt wasn't concerned because Agent Orange was used on the enemy, so any toxic byproducts of the defoliant were ignored.
Monsanto and others were producing a product for a customer to use, and the customer had all the information. It's like demonizing a gun company because guns can be used to kill innocent people, either intentionally or accidentally.
Is there really any hard proof that vaccines save 4-5 million children. Over the past 50 years so many factors of our lives have changed in both health, hygiene and technology to draw a conclusion that vaccines is responsible for our well being.
So you are immune to pesticides? you do realize GMO plants produce their own pesticides and insecticides these are not things you can just wash off.
They do not produce on their own chemical pesticides. Not happening. False.
They are naturally resistant to the pests that would eat them so that chemicals are not needed....Humans have been modifying crops since we've been agricultural.
Is there really any hard proof that vaccines save 4-5 million children. Over the past 50 years so many factors of our lives have changed in both health, hygiene and technology to draw a conclusion that vaccines is responsible for our well being.
Wow....just wow....
Is there really any hard proof that vaccines save 4-5 million children. Over the past 50 years so many factors of our lives have changed in both health, hygiene and technology to draw a conclusion that vaccines is responsible for our well being.
Let me ask this before digging up research I read a while back: If I found said proof, would it honestly change your mind at all?
and you believe everything about obama and yes you can keep your plan and your doctor ! cause its the truth
completely off topic, irrelevant, and inflammatory. next.
you are just looking for a fight with people ! do your own research
If you've read the thread, I've obviously done my own research and from that research, I personally haven't seen anything any worse than any other large corporation. Which is why I made the thread because obviously others see something I'm not seeing.
look up the lawsuits that are happening to farmers and what they go through ! they are a horrible company and they are flat out LYING on that page just like obama flat out lied about keeping your plan and your doctor
And a court could not find any evidence of said lawsuits.
for sure when plants can only grow when given certain things like their seeds and their poisons wipe out all other plants but won't harm theirs what will be left ? it's that simple
ftfy.
So you're claiming Monsanto is intentionally trying to wipe out all crops besides the ones they create? Have a source for that?
look up what round up is and was and decide how great it is
Looks like an herbicide to me.
I understands Kewlz last post, like every subject matter misinformation can be spread swaying opinions amongst a large number of people. This still does not answer why a large number of countries around the world ban GMO. If it were so inconclusive as to whether or not it is bad for humans and or animals wouldn't these bans not exist?
Inkslinger
01-08-14, 08:56
Tell you guys what, let's pick up the conversation in 40 years and we'll see how good these miracles of modern agriculture are for us.
Tell you guys what, let's pick up the conversation in 40 years and we'll see how good these miracles of modern agriculture are for us.
agree
I don't get all the hate they're receiving. They really don't seem bad compared to any number of companies that people love. Can someone enlighten me?
As you know, it's very difficult to find objective info on this topic. This author appears to have done a good job of tracking down the various claims and examining them:
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/08/why-is-monsanto-the-most-hated-company-in-the-worl/
To start, using the term "genetically modified" to people who have an instant bias to the term is like saying "AR Rifle" to a staff member of the Brady Bunch. All rational and objective discussion ends as they can't get past that term. The fact is, humans have been genetically modifying our food supply on all fronts since the day we started to grow things to eat, be they plants or animals. The crops we eat for food look nothing like they did 10,000 or so years ago. Why? Genetic modification through selective breeding. It was simply done externally vs internally.
But, most people have not even a basic understanding of genetics much less science/bio, and freak out when the term "genetically modified" is used where there's virtually not one thing they stick in their mouth - which includes anything grown on an organic farm - that has not been modified.
One route gives people the warm and fuzzy, one does not. However, per usual, the truth usually falls in the middle some place and Monsanto has been accused of some very questionable business practices, and although I have not spent a lot of time digging into them, some appear legit and companies with that much power and lobby power and (seemingly) secretive, scare the hell out of people.
Some times for good reason.
Tell you guys what, let's pick up the conversation in 40 years and we'll see how good these miracles of modern agriculture are for us.
No. Let's have it before it's too late.
Is there really any hard proof that vaccines save 4-5 million children. Over the past 50 years so many factors of our lives have changed in both health, hygiene and technology to draw a conclusion that vaccines is responsible for our well being.
How about the fact (Yes fact) that in almost every population without vaccinations, the diseases they prevent pop back up and run rampant.
Such as the case of the Mega Church in Texas that preached about the evils of vaccinations. Most of the people there were not vaccinated. Some of the members went out of the country and brought some "gifts" back with them. 23 people contracted Measles. By comparison less than 60 people get the measles on average in the US per year anymore.
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/measles-outbreak-tied-texas-megachurch-sickens-21-8C11009315
We also see a trend of many of these near eradicated diseases coming back because of the anti vaccination movement.
As you know, it's very difficult to find objective info on this topic. This author appears to have done a good job of tracking down the various claims and examining them:
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/08/why-is-monsanto-the-most-hated-company-in-the-worl/
TL;DR
Will read later, however.
After being brow-beat in elementary school in the 70s and 80s over "global cooling", proof that planetary oil reserves going to be depleted in 20 years, and how our population was going to outgrow our ability to grow enough food to feed everyone.... I have a hard time believing GMO absolutism without measured skepticism.
Did I mention I was assured that we were all going to have flying cars by this time? Is there someone I can sue since that didn't come true?
In my short lifetime I have already been noticing a trend of unabashed paranoia making predictions.... need to see more evidence.
No. Let's have it before it's too late.
What many feel about Global Warming, but the number of people willing to ignore the evidence and willing to wait to find out....just sayin'
Apply that thinking pattern to other topics as well.
As you know, it's very difficult to find objective info on this topic. This author appears to have done a good job of tracking down the various claims and examining them:
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/08/why-is-monsanto-the-most-hated-company-in-the-worl/
To start, using the term "genetically modified" to people who have an instant bias to the term is like saying "AR Rifle" to a staff member of the Brady Bunch. All rational and objective discussion ends as they can't get past that term. The fact is, humans have been genetically modifying our food supply on all fronts since the day we started to grow things to eat, be they plants or animals. The crops we eat for food look nothing like they did 10,000 or so years ago. Why? Genetic modification through selective breeding. It was simply done externally vs internally.
But, most people have not even a basic understanding of genetics much less science/bio, and freak out when the term "genetically modified" is used where there's virtually not one thing they stick in their mouth - which includes anything grown on an organic farm - that has not been modified.
One route gives people the warm and fuzzy, one does not. However, per usual, the truth usually falls in the middle some place and Monsanto has been accused of some very questionable business practices, and although I have not spent a lot of time digging into them, some appear legit and companies with that much power and lobby power and (seemingly) secretive, scare the hell out of people.
Some times for good reason.
Thanks for the good read. It reminded me of something that someone mentioned here earlier but I forgot - the creation of herbicide resistant "superweeds" because of the increased use of herbicide. It's similar to the creation of "supergerms/bugs" by the increased or over use of antibiotics. I don't know if that's Monsanto's fault, but they're a contributor to the problem. Again, it's the farmers who are actually using the herbicide and creating the superweeds, but Monsanto, Dupont, Bayer, and other chemical makers are definitely supplying the product.
But can we blame the manufacturer and developer for the use of the product? I'll use the example of companies like Glock and Colt regarding how their customers do rarely use their products to commit mass murder. Are they then responsible for the use (and misuse) of their product by informed customers?
If GMO was so good why do most of the 1st world countries have zero tolerance for GMO food. Japan just recently lifted a ban on US imported wheat as a GMO strain was found in some imported wheat from the US. Secondly ask yourself why cancer rates are skyrocketing across all ages, autism rates are something like 1 in 45 these days. Now I would not attribute these numbers and increases to just GMO but many chemicals that the United deems safe for our consumption but are banned world wide. I wont bother listing these chemicals as many here have made it a point to call it tin foil instead of doing the research.
If guns are so good why do most of the 1st world countries have zero tolerance for guns. :confused:
The point is only, don't jump on the bandwagon just because there's a bandwagon. They may have a point regarding GMOs. They may have a point regarding guns too.
The link Will posted actually shows that cancer rates are dropping. This also seems to echo the gun debate about skyrocketing murder rates when the reality is they're dropping too.
I don't have a source, but doing some research into autism a couple of years ago makes me vaguely remember something about how autism may not actually be on the rise, but diagnosis of autism is on the rise due to a more expansive definition of autism and better ways to diagnose it. I could be wrong though.
The higher numbers recorded in the new study suggest that officials are getting better at counting kids with autism – not that more have the condition, several experts said.
"I don't see any evidence that there's a true increase in the prevalence of autism," said Roy Richard Grinker, a professor of anthropology at George Washington University, Washington, D.C. - http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/20/children-autism-frequency/2000131/
Inkslinger
01-08-14, 10:21
My whole point on the GMO debate is I choose to air on the side of caution because of history. There was a time when cigarettes were considered medicinal. Margarine was a healthy alternative to butter. Fast forward and you have cancer and your arteries are full of plaque from the petroleum you've been spreading on your toast.
They can do a million lab test and tell you GMO's are perfectly safe. You can choose to believe what you want, because only time will tell. I just prefer steering my life towards a more natural less industrially manipulated state. Why? Because history tells me I'm a fool not to.
Am I a super crunchy granola vegan brah? No. I do though trust the eggs that come from my chickens or the vegetables I grow in my garden more than anything big Agra can do bigger or cheaper.
My whole point on the GMO debate is I choose to air on the side of caution because of history. There was a time when cigarettes were considered medicinal. Margarine was a healthy alternative to butter. Fast forward and you have cancer and your arteries are full of plaque from the petroleum you've been spreading on your toast.
They can do a million lab test and tell you GMO's are perfectly safe. You can choose to believe what you want, because only time will tell. I just prefer steering my life towards a more natural less industrially manipulated state. Why? Because history tells me I'm a fool not to.
Am I a super crunchy granola vegan brah? No. I do though trust the eggs that come from my chickens or the vegetables I grow in my garden more than anything big Agra can do bigger or cheaper.
I don't blame you at all for taking that view point.
So bringing this back full circle to Monsanto, how does it make Monsanto bad?
If guns are so good why do most of the 1st world countries have zero tolerance for guns. :confused:
The point is only, don't jump on the bandwagon just because there's a bandwagon. They may have a point regarding GMOs. They may have a point regarding guns too.
.
That's a major problem: internal consistency of critical thinking skills. Not applying internal consistency to all topics examined, be they guns, GMO, gay marriage, etc.
Applying critical thinking skills with internal consistency before applying emotional emotional knee jerk impression to a topic, would save us all a lot of trouble.
Inkslinger
01-08-14, 10:43
1. They are creating food that could potentially be harmful to humans, animals, and the environment.
2. They create an almost un-winnable scenario for farmers. Play ball or fold up shop.
3. Their domination of a very important industry that could negatively affect the world.
4. Agent orange is still killing people today. Did then know the long term affects? Probably not. GMO's anyone...
To their defense, they're not the only corporation that doesn't mind f'ing over the world for profits.
I don't blame you at all for taking that view point.
So bringing this back full circle to Monsanto, how does it make Monsanto bad?
1. They are creating food that could potentially be harmful to humans, animals, and the environment.
Potentially. There are a lot of things created by a lot of companies that could potentially be harmful to humans, animals, and the environment.
2. They create an almost un-winnable scenario for farmers. Play ball or fold up shop.
I still don't get this. Unless you're in the soybean industry, there are other sources of seed. And even if you are in the soybean industry, it probably isn't impossible to get non-Monsanto seed. Do you have problems finding seed that doesn't come with a contract?
3. Their domination of a very important industry that could negatively affect the world.
This is true. They could negatively affect the world with dominance over the ag industry. They could also positively affect the world. It's speculation on what they will do and honestly, governments will come down hard on them if they try to leverage their (future) monopoly in a negative way. Hell, they might split up Monsanto anyway when it gets a bit bigger.
4. Agent orange is still killing people today. Did then know the long term affects? Probably not. GMO's anyone...
According to internal memorandum, Monsanto knew Agent Orange was poisonous to humans and told their customer, the US Government. The US Government accepted that and used it anyway. So again, are we demonizing the producer of a product for the use or misuse of their product by an informed customer?
Inkslinger
01-08-14, 11:13
Not sure how to do the multi quote, bold type thing. Hope this come out readable.
Potentially. There are a lot of things created by a lot of companies that could potentially be harmful to humans, animals, and the environment.
Yes, and if they do it in the name of profit I have a problem with them.
I still don't get this. Unless you're in the soybean industry, there are other sources of seed. And even if you are in the soybean industry, it probably isn't impossible to get non-Monsanto seed. Do you have problems finding seed that doesn't come with a contract?
If you control over 90% of something you make it very difficult to have options. What if there are no non-Monsanto seeds sold in your area? Pay shipping? Hope you're not planting much.
This is true. The auto industry and oil industry most likely are very negatively affecting the world, but they don't see anywhere near as much hate. Is it because of their relative dominance versus Exxon's, for example? One big target is easier to hate vs a bunch of smaller ones?
Ever hear stories of environmentalist burning SUV's on car lots? I have. Big oil? They're on my f you list as well. The reasons are so apparent Stevie Wonder could see them.
According to internal memorandum, again, they knew Agent Orange was poisonous to humans and told their customer, the US Government. The US Government accepted that and used it anyway. So again, are we demonizing the producer of a product for the use or misuse of their product by an informed customer?
Again they didn't mind profiting at the expense of human lives. US government? They're real swell too...
GMOs don't bother me. So that side of the equation doesn't factor in. What does bother me is the idea of being able to patent life. And that is exactly what they have been doing. Farmers can no longer save seed. They are forced every year to purchase more of it. And despite their claims otherwise they have indeed sued people who disagree with their thuggery.
GMO should bother you. Study up you have a computer. Monsanto the company that marketed Agent orange as safe. Look up round up ready crops. Them if you don't understand the problem with then buy some round up and take orally a 1/4 tsp daily and get back to us in a year.
Not sure how to do the multi quote, bold type thing. Hope this come out readable.
(quick off topic, BB Code is basically surrounding the part you want with brackets [] with the word QUOTE in it and closing it with a /QUOTE in brackets. you can see that when you reply with quote to someone's post. So just add more of these "tags" everywhere to multiquote.)
Again they didn't mind profiting at the expense of human lives. US government? They're real swell too...
So do defense contractors and weapons manufacturers. Monsanto actually was a defense contractor in the context of creating Agent Orange.
So what I get from your response is that Monsanto is bad, but a lot of other companies are bad too. Which I also accept. I was actually more asking, why is Monsanto worse than everyone else because they seem to get a disproportional amount of hate compared to other corporations.
GMO should bother you. Study up you have a computer. Monsanto the company that marketed Agent orange as safe. Look up round up ready crops. Them if you don't understand the problem with then buy some round up and take orally a 1/4 tsp daily and get back to us in a year.
This doesn't make sense. You first assert that GMO is bad, then you assert that it's the Round Up (an herbicide) that's bad for you. Which is it, the GMO itself or what can be sprayed on it? Not-organic isn't the same thing as GMO. A plant can be organic in every single way except a chemical pesticide is used, making it ineligible for the classification of "organic", even though its genetics were not modified artificially.
Inkslinger
01-08-14, 11:35
(quick off topic, BB Code is basically surrounding the part you want with brackets [] with the word QUOTE in it and closing it with a /QUOTE in brackets. you can see that when you reply with quote to someone's post. So just add more of these "tags" everywhere to multiquote.)
So do defense contractors and weapons manufacturers. Monsanto actually was a defense contractor in the context of creating Agent Orange.
So what I get from your response is that Monsanto is bad, but a lot of other companies are bad too. Which I also accept. I was actually more asking, why is Monsanto worse than everyone else because they seem to get a disproportional amount of hate compared to other corporations.
They are not any worse in my book than many TNC's. Maybe they're just coming to the forefront because food is such a hot button topic.
Is you assertion about defense contractors and weapons manufactures that they have never been involved in shady deals? That's a whole other thread....if the entire population of the globe needed PSC's or large quantities of weapons the way the needed food I'm sure Monsanto would have some company.
Heavy Metal
01-08-14, 11:59
They do not produce on their own chemical pesticides. Not happening. False.
They are naturally resistant to the pests that would eat them so that chemicals are not needed....Humans have been modifying crops since we've been agricultural.
Exactly. They are using a gene sequence from the Bacillus Thuringiensis Bacteria that works basically constipating insects to death by exploiting conditions unique to their digestion process in their alkaline Insect guts.
People and higher Animals have acidic guts and could drink BT by the gallon without harm. BT has been used as a Green Pesticide for decades now so we well-understand how it works.
They work NOTHING like old-fashioned chemical pesticides.
If someone does not understand the difference between how BT and Organo-Phosphates work, they really shouldn't be offering scientific opinions on subjects beyond their understanding like Genetic Engineering.
Exactly. They are using a gene sequence from the Bacillus Thuringiensis Bacteria that works basically constipating insects to death by exploiting conditions unique to their digestion process in their alkaline Insect guts.
People and higher Animals have acidic guts and could drink BT by the gallon without harm. BT has been used as a Green Pesticide for decades now so we well-understand how it works.
They work NOTHING like old-fashioned chemical pesticides.
If someone does not understand the difference between how BT and Organo-Phosphates work, they really shouldn't be offering scientific opinions on subjects beyond their understanding like Genetic Engineering.
Surely you jest sir! Doing so is a time honored tradition on the 'net.
WickedWillis
01-08-14, 12:34
I have not seen this mentioned throughout this thread yet, but what was the purpose of Monsanto acquiring Acedemi (Blackwater) http://earthfirstjournal.org/newswire/2013/07/01/yes-monsanto-actually-did-buy-the-blackwater-mercenary-group/ In august of last year? What would a food company need to hire a PMC group for? Also, what was the purpose of Obama signing the "Monsanto protection act" in the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013? I'm really trying to educate myself here because looking at the facts and GMO's on paper, this could give one company rule over our food supplies as a country.
I have not seen this mentioned throughout this thread yet, but what was the purpose of Monsanto acquiring Acedemi (Blackwater) http://earthfirstjournal.org/newswire/2013/07/01/yes-monsanto-actually-did-buy-the-blackwater-mercenary-group/ In august of last year? What would a food company need to hire a PMC group for? Also, what was the purpose of Obama signing the "Monsanto protection act" in the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013? I'm really trying to educate myself here because looking at the facts and GMO's on paper, this could give one company rule over our food supplies as a country.
That article is a mess. It's pretty much stating "I don't know who purchased Academi, but I'm going to guess it was Monsanto because Monsanto once did business with Blackwater." That's a ridiculous leap of logic that has no proof whatsoever.
The "monsanto protection act" was part of the larger CFCAA. If Obama didn't sign it, the government would have shut down again because Congress is retarded. Line item vetoes no longer exist, so Obama or any POTUS can't decide to sign 99% of a law and not sign 1% that he may disagree with.
Inkslinger
01-08-14, 13:26
Plus, I don't know if I would trust earth first as being a creditable source. Not that I couldn't believe that Monsanto is capable of what the article says, but I question it's validity when it's written by those treehugging terrorists.
That article is a mess. It's pretty much stating "I don't know who purchased Xe, but I'm going to guess it was Monsanto because Monsanto once did business with Blackwater." That's a ridiculous leap of logic that has no proof whatsoever.
The "monsanto protection act" was part of the larger CFCAA. If Obama didn't sign it, the government would have shut down again because Congress is retarded. Line item vetoes no longer exist, so Obama or any POTUS can't decide to sign 99% of a law and not sign 1% that he may disagree with.
WickedWillis
01-08-14, 13:29
Plus, I don't know if I would trust earth first as being a creditable source. Not that I couldn't believe that Monsanto is capable of what the article says, but I question it's validity when it's written by those treehugging terrorists.
It's just the 1st article I found through Google. I remember hearing about it when it went down a few months ago and the anti-Monsanto people in the know were outraged but I wasn't sure if it was speculation or what because there has been silence about it since then.
Here is a snippet from the research paper PDF linked below (Citation/link #1 & #2):
“Terminator” crop varieties. These seeds are genetically engineered to produce only infertile seeds, which farmers cannot replant, also to mention that the bees that are trying to collect pollen, found to have their digestive tract diseases, such as amoeba and nosema disease” . These diseases are mainly located in the digestive tract system. After studies of the autopsy, the most alarming trait is that the lower intestine and stinger have discolored to black vs. the normal opaque color, Synominus with colon cancer in humans.
Figure 1: Extreme discoloration of intestinal tracts of bees.
22596
‘When thoracic discs were cut from sample Georgia A-2 the musculature of bees was notably soft and discolored (A) when compared to healthy thoracic cuts (B).
This discoloration suggests that the bees were dead upon collection. When questioned the beekeeper confirmed that the bees were alive at the time of collection. Further, the tracheal system of these bees did not show signs of desiccation usually associated
with the collection of dead bees. Thoracic discs from this sample, after being placed in KOH for 24 hours, revealed peculiar white nodules” (2)
As seen above, it is certain that the digestive shutdown is due to hard material in the digestive tract that compromises the immune system. Circulatory problems would without doubt. Could it be that humans are going through the same process with the rise of Colon Cancer? As seen below in the comparison of the healthy Bee and the unhealthy bee, it is obvious that the bees that are ingesting GMO pollen are having severe digestive problems, so severe that the disease is terminal.
Figure 2: Digestive shutdown of the Honey Bee
22597
22598
22599
The rectal contents of Georgia bees (A) were distinctly different then the contents of Pasadena bees (B). The rectal walls of GA bees were notably transparent revealing contents that looked like small stone packets (C). While Fyg (1964) describes similar stone like contents in poorly laying queens, the stones observed in the GA bees were not attached to the epithelium layer as Fyg (1964) describes. When these packets were ground and mounted, some unidentified floating objects (UFO’s) were observed. A cubic particle that resembles the cubic bodies of polyhedrios viruses (this viruses attacks wax moths) excepting that the cube observed was ~10x too big for a virus particle. There were fragments of pollen grains husks in all samples examined. All PA samples were found to have nosema spores in their rectal contents while none of the GA samples did. In two samples, epithelial cells were packed with spores.(3)
1 Fall Dwindle Disease: A preliminary report (LInks to PDF Download)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.beekeeping.com%2Farticles%2Fus%2Fccd.pdf&ei=TqTNUtvIA8LgqwHSlYHIAw&usg=AFQjCNHfikvC1z2BK-45OOS8vJ9SGATjVQ&bvm=bv.59026428,d.aWM
2 Fall Dwindle Disease: A preliminary report (Link to PDF Download)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.beekeeping.com%2Farticles%2Fus%2Fccd.pdf&ei=TqTNUtvIA8LgqwHSlYHIAw&usg=AFQjCNHfikvC1z2BK-45OOS8vJ9SGATjVQ&bvm=bv.59026428,d.aWM
^A lot more detail and info can be found in the PDF document linked above...
Here is a link to medline plus and the natioanl institutes of health, it posits that "GMOS do not present safety concerns" and then goes on to posit that "There has not been adequate testing to determine if these GMOS present safety concerns"
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002432.htm
No shit there hasn't been adequate testing to determine if these GMO's are safe or not, short term or long term. Pretty telling that the same institutes that say GMO's are safe admit that adequate testing has not been conducted to back up these claims...
*TO WILLBRINK-
Selectively breeding plants & animals for desired traits thus altering the genes over long periods of time VS. inserting foreign DNA into the genetic code of plants are COMPLETELY different.
One is selecting desired traits within the genome, the other is splicing other genetic material from genomes of various kingdoms; animals, plants, bacteria, microorganisms, etc.
WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY DIFFERENT.
It's like comparing apples to cell phones....
*TO WILLBRINK-
Selectively breeding plants & animals for desired traits thus altering the genes over long periods of time VS. inserting foreign DNA into the genetic code of plants are COMPLETELY different.
I didn't say they were the same. I said people who are freaked out over the concept of GMO fail to understand they eat GMO every single day in every single meal, if if they purchase from organic farms. That's a fact. I didn't weigh the value of one method vs the other per se, but wanted to expose how clueless most are regarding that reality of human intervention in the genetic makeup of all the plants and animals we consume.
One is selecting desired traits within the genome, the other is splicing other genetic material from genomes of various kingdoms; animals, plants, bacteria, microorganisms, etc.
WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY DIFFERENT.
It's like comparing apples to cell phones....
False and all caps don't change that. Again, no statement of value of one method vs the other was made or implied. It does not change the fact GMOs are part of our current food supply and there'd be mass starvation if that were not the case.
I didn't say they were the same. I said people who are freaked out over the concept of GMO fail to understand they eat GMO every single day in every single meal, if if they purchase from organic farms. That's a fact. I didn't weigh the value of one method vs the other per se, but wanted to expose how clueless most are regarding that reality of human intervention in the genetic makeup of all the plants and animals we consume.
False and all caps don't change that. Again, no statement of value of one method vs the other was made or implied. It does not change the fact GMOs are part of our current food supply and there'd be mass starvation if that were not the case.
Please elaborate on how my statement is false.
I guess I could have been more specific and added the caveat of interbreeding/pollination of plants and animals; but that happens naturally as well as controlled by man, gene splicing doesn't.
There is a big difference between breeding two similar species together and splicing genetic material from multiple creatures from different kingdoms together no?
Here is a link to medline plus and the natioanl institutes of health, it posits that "GMOS do not present safety concerns" and then goes on to posit that "There has not been adequate testing to determine if these GMOS present safety concerns"
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002432.htm
No shit there hasn't been adequate testing to determine if these GMO's are safe or not, short term or long term. Pretty telling that the same institutes that say GMO's are safe admit that adequate testing has not been conducted to back up these claims...
You're intentionally misquoting the article.
"Genetically engineered foods are generally regarded as safe. There has been no adequate testing, however, to ensure complete safety."
Please elaborate on how my statement is false.
I guess I could have been more specific and added the caveat of interbreeding/pollination of plants and animals; but that happens naturally as well as controlled by man, gene splicing doesn't.
There is a big difference between breeding two similar species together and splicing genetic material from multiple creatures from different kingdoms together no?
The fact that gene splicing doesn't happen in nature doesn't equate to it being bad. Sure it's not "natural."
Neither is communicating at nearly the speed of light across the planet.
Please elaborate on how my statement is false.
I guess I could have been more specific and added the caveat of interbreeding/pollination of plants and animals; but that
That's quite false and a warm and fuzzy "natural" view of mans tinkering with the genomes of plants and animals which has lead to both positives and negatives. Many crop plants are breed for yield, but not for hardiness and losing their ability to fight off various insults, so massive amounts of chemicals of all kinds are needed to keep them producing. Mans "well controlled" manipulations of genomes has been problematic to many animal species also. And, it takes generations to find out what harm or good was achieved, and so forth. The "happens naturally" is totally false, and a forced evolution of sorts has been had on the plants and animals. No cow, no chicken, no plant we eat, no dog we own (many of whom have man made genetic problems), etc, is anything like they were, and they didn't get that way due to any "natural" process.
Lets call a Spade a Spade. We are just getting to the point where the knowledge of genetics may in fact allow for rapid changes and improvements to the betterment of us all.
No, we should not simply accept modern GMO as defacto safe, but it's a technology that could do more good than harm, but like all technologies, it has to be managed and understood to do that.
You're intentionally misquoting the article.
"Genetically engineered foods are generally regarded as safe. There has been no adequate testing, however, to ensure complete safety."
And nothing, zip, nadda, be it air or water, is ensure to be completely (100%) safe. As always, a risk/benefit assessment has to be made.
Heavy Metal
01-08-14, 14:49
Circulatory problems would without doubt. Could it be that humans are going through the same process with the rise of Colon Cancer?
Could it be? No, it can't because there are VAST differences between the workings of Mammilian and Insect digestive tracts. As I noted above, one is acid and the other is alkaline for starters. Like the differences between a steam engine and a rocket engine.
Stuff like this sounds impressive to somebody without a significiant Scientific background but to anybody with a scintilla of knowledge, it appears as patently absurd.
GMO's scare the shit out of me.
No offense, but you do know that humans have been genetically model fine foods for thousands of years? We did not get edible corn or beans naturally.
And it's been done scientifically and aggressively for at least 200 years
Eating food with genetic material such as pesticides and insecticides written into the genetic code of the plant
Sorry, you cannot code chemical pesticides into DNA. You can work toward pesticide resistance, possible hybridize with plants that have natural repellents. Same effect as the sq ft gardeners have been doing for years by planting adjacent.
Roundup is a salt. Some plants are naturally heavily resistant. Others are not. Its the equivalent of hybridizing with blackberries to get their resistant traits. Way more complicated than that, of course.
Scientific studies have linked the chemicals in Monsanto’s Roundup pesticides to Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimers disease, autism and cancer.
Care to name one? Its a salt! Better not live near the ocean!
worst monopoly we could ever allow to be created- our food supply and seed banks.
This is not a good thing. But the heirloom types will rule the world after the GMO triggered apocalypse!
who in their ****ing right mind would modify genetics of a seed to get it to stop repeating and only be viable as a single crop seed?
Nature! Many hybrids are not viable. (Mules)
am biased though and have no issue admitting it- as I am old school heirloom grower all the way, all organic, no chemicals ever.
Ah, so the seeds genetically modified by UV radiation, "sports" from natural but improper DNA combination, and aggressive hybridization are ok?
Because that's how you got your heirlooms
That and the fact that our early ancestors discovered that seeds grown where they poop had thinner hulls than the ones out in the wilderness. Natural selection at its best. (They did not eat the thick hulled ones)
I'm not a fan of big agribusiness for many reasons. GMO is not one of those reasons!
Sent from my PRC-104 using phonetics
Nature! Many hybrids are not viable. (Mules)
Also Ligers.
ETA: Nevermind, in 2012 a Liliger was made. Apparently the male ligers are sterile but females are not.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Liligre.jpg
That article is a mess. It's pretty much stating "I don't know who purchased Academi, but I'm going to guess it was Monsanto because Monsanto once did business with Blackwater." That's a ridiculous leap of logic that has no proof whatsoever.
Did anyone read the retraction?
Did anyone read the retraction?
Didn't even notice the retraction.
Well that settles that.
WickedWillis
01-08-14, 16:22
Koshinn, you sure have some love for Monsanto. Did you start this thread just to spread that or what?
morbidbattlecry
01-08-14, 16:25
I'm just going to let you guys know. If you hate GMO food. You are championing a Ultra liberal cause. And i don't think any of you guys what that lol.
I'm just going to let you guys know. If you hate GMO food. You are championing a Ultra liberal cause. And i don't think any of you guys what that lol.
Hmm.... but I am ultra liberal...
Koshinn, you sure have some love for Monsanto. Did you start this thread just to spread that or what?
Nope, no love for Monsanto, just trying to stay objective. I have no money in monsanto, I do not know a single person who works for monsanto or any other large chemical or seed corporation, and in fact I don't have any family in the farming industry either.
I'm trying to find the truth. If the truth equates to "love for Monsanto", I think you're the one who's biased. Like I wrote in the first post, they don't seem any worse than any other large corporation, and no one so far has posted anything that challenges that. That is anything but "love." In fact, it's disdain for Monsanto's business practices. But they're not illegal business practices and they're well within the norm of other corporations, so why don't I see people posting their unbridled hatred of Apple or Chevron or any other company?
I didn't know about the alleged buyout of Academi by Monsanto that your brought up for example. But digging into it and finding that even the author of the article you cited retracted the allegation is not "love for Monsanto", it's finding the truth. To do anything besides try to find the truth is intentionally blinding yourself.
MMmmmmm Aspartame.....delicious and nutritious!.....better than high fructose corn syrup, the GMO corn variety of course. Who cares if it eats holes in the brains of the lab rats and monkeys! It tastes delicious!
Who cares if it took four or five tries to pass FDA regs, that's neither here nor there....don't be a kook...enjoy all the "diet" drinks you want!
Inkslinger
01-08-14, 17:17
I don't understand why they need to be any worse than any other unscrupulous corporation. People have no problem pointing out corrupt companies. What about Halliburton, KBR, Apples practices have definitely been called into question, Exxon(by your own admission), in fact any corporation in the oil producing business, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, pretty much any pharmaceutical co, walmart (everybody hates walmart).
Nope, no love for Monsanto, just trying to stay objective. I have no money in monsanto, I do not know a single person who works for monsanto or any other large chemical or seed corporation, and in fact I don't have any family in the farming industry either.
I'm trying to find the truth. If the truth equates to "love for Monsanto", I think you're the one who's biased. Like I wrote in the first post, they don't seem any worse than any other large corporation, and no one so far has posted anything that challenges that. That is anything but "love." In fact, it's disdain for Monsanto's business practices. But they're not illegal business practices and they're well within the norm of other corporations, so why don't I see people posting their unbridled hatred of Apple or Chevron or any other company?
I didn't know about the alleged buyout of Academi by Monsanto that your brought up for example. But digging into it and finding that even the author of the article you cited retracted the allegation is not "love for Monsanto", it's finding the truth. To do anything besides try to find the truth is intentionally blinding yourself.
Also Ligers.
ETA: Nevermind, in 2012 a Liliger was made. Apparently the male ligers are sterile but females are not.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Liligre.jpg
Kill it, genetic man made freak!!! Seriously, was up close to a Liger at the Kins Richards Fair and what an amazing animal, and huge. Biggest damn cat I ever saw.
Kill it, genetic man made freak!!! Seriously, was up close to a Liger at the Kins Richards Fair and what an amazing animal, and huge. Biggest damn cat I ever saw.
But he just wants a hug!
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.pawnation.com/media/2010/11/aries-liger-cub-hercules-picture.jpg
http://youtu.be/exBEFCiWyW0
I'll stick with organic.
I support "organic" agriculture, not for health reasons, but to put Malthus' theory to the test...
But he just wants a hug!
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.pawnation.com/media/2010/11/aries-liger-cub-hercules-picture.jpg
Yup, that's how freakin' huge it was. As I'm assuming there's not many of them, might have been that very kitty.
WickedWillis
01-09-14, 10:56
Yup, that's how freakin' huge it was. As I'm assuming there's not many of them, might have been that very kitty.
It's considered "Unnatural" for Tigers and lions to breed. It's never been documented in the wild, due to the fact they do not live geographically close to one another. Most of the young are healthy, but some of the litters have suffered from an odd symptom where their head uncontrollably shakes, these died very young. Liger's have predominantly been bred by irresponsible handlers, and most wild life care facilities, rescues and Zoos do not condone the breeding.
RancidSumo
01-09-14, 11:38
I don't know that much about Monsanto in particular but I am opposed to being able to patent things like a plant strain. That is bullshit no batter how you slice it.
That said, we will not be able to sustain the global population without GMO crops. They have the potential to essentially eliminate famine due to ridiculously higher yields. That is going to be even more important as land for farming becomes more scarce or in years of drought. These crops need to be looked at with a hefty dose of scrutiny to make sure they are safe and the government needs to not be the muscle for the companies that are making them but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.
I'm sure all of you saying that all GMO crops are bad are the same types that would have been diehard flat-earthers. The amount of anti-science drivel that's been going around lately is frightening.
It's considered "Unnatural" for Tigers and lions to breed. It's never been documented in the wild, due to the fact they do not live geographically close to one another. Most of the young are healthy, but some of the litters have suffered from an odd symptom where their head uncontrollably shakes, these died very young. Liger's have predominantly been bred by irresponsible handlers, and most wild life care facilities, rescues and Zoos do not condone the breeding.
I can understand why. It's a designer animal and has no benefit to the animal and exists to entertain human beings. It serves no purpose to us (as as dogs have) nor the animal. Tinkering with genes via a lab or selective breeding, should be undertaken for reasons that balance the +/- it presents.
I don't know that much about Monsanto in particular but I am opposed to being able to patent things like a plant strain. That is bullshit no batter how you slice it.
That said, we will not be able to sustain the global population without GMO crops. They have the potential to essentially eliminate famine due to ridiculously higher yields. That is going to be even more important as land for farming becomes more scarce or in years of drought. These crops need to be looked at with a hefty dose of scrutiny to make sure they are safe and the government needs to not be the muscle for the companies that are making them but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.
I'm sure all of you saying that all GMO crops are bad are the same types that would have been diehard flat-earthers. The amount of anti-science drivel that's been going around lately is frightening.
Yes it is. An excellent vid on the nature and NEED for critical thinking:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OLPL5p0fMg
thopkins22
01-09-14, 13:45
That said, we will not be able to sustain the global population without GMO crops. They have the potential to essentially eliminate famine due to ridiculously higher yields. That is going to be even more important as land for farming becomes more scarce or in years of drought. These crops need to be looked at with a hefty dose of scrutiny to make sure they are safe and the government needs to not be the muscle for the companies that are making them but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.
Exactly. I pay more attention to organic vs. conventional when I purchase food, but it's outright immoral to want GMO banned. At this point it would be an immediate death sentence for millions if not tens of millions of people.
Kill it, genetic man made freak!!! Seriously, was up close to a Liger at the Kins Richards Fair and what an amazing animal, and huge. Biggest damn cat I ever saw.
Biggest cat anyone saw, since they're the biggest cats on the planet at 900 lbs! Liligers I think are smaller though.
Wow we're off topic.
That said, we will not be able to sustain the global population without GMO crops. They have the potential to essentially eliminate famine due to ridiculously higher yields.
From what I've read, the "fact" that GMOs actually increase yields by additional drought, pest, and disease resistance isn't exactly proven.
What I've seen, yields per acre have been going up far before 1996 (the introduction of GMOs) and continued at roughly the same rate after 1996 until now. It could be that GMOs are simply sustaining the growth rate or are not affecting it all.
From what I've read, the "fact" that GMOs actually increase yields by additional drought, pest, and disease resistance isn't exactly proven.
What I've seen, yields per acre have been going up far before 1996 (the introduction of GMOs) and continued at roughly the same rate after 1996 until now. It could be that GMOs are simply sustaining the growth rate or are not affecting it all.
I can speak to part of that. I have personally observed incremental improvements in all levels of farming, including local farming (100 acres or less)... over the course of that same time period. Seems to me as better equipment and methods are adopted they have a very long after-effect.
For example, GPS planting is going to have something like a 15 year gradual effect as it moves through the system and is used on an ever-increasing number of acres.
Every farmer I happened to talk to about the topic says that their yields have increased as a result of seed improvements..... now whether or not that translates into an improved financial benefit to the farmer is a separate discussion....
Granted the number of farmers I talk to is probably under 20 per year, but all I can speak of is my own limited discussion with guys that are growing in their own patch of soil.
Personally, I won't eat GPS planted crops. It causes all sorts of digestive problems and brain cancer. Hey, I heard it is true on AllCorporationsAreEvil.com so it must be true.
I can speak to part of that. I have personally observed incremental improvements in all levels of farming, including local farming (100 acres or less)... over the course of that same time period. Seems to me as better equipment and methods are adopted they have a very long after-effect.
For example, GPS planting is going to have something like a 15 year gradual effect as it moves through the system and is used on an ever-increasing number of acres.
Every farmer I happened to talk to about the topic says that their yields have increased as a result of seed improvements..... now whether or not that translates into an improved financial benefit to the farmer is a separate discussion....
Granted the number of farmers I talk to is probably under 20 per year, but all I can speak of is my own limited discussion with guys that are growing in their own patch of soil.
Personally, I won't eat GPS planted crops. It causes all sorts of digestive problems and brain cancer. Hey, I heard it is true on AllCorporationsAreEvil.com so it must be true.
Here's one study:
http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/YieldTrends.html
"Some question whether the yield trend line has shifted again in recent years due to the advent of transgenic hybrid technology in the mid-1990's, but the data show little evidence that a third significant shift in corn productivity has occurred (Fig. 1). "
Data from the USDA from April 2013:
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1593
You can plug the data into excel yourself (copy-paste is wonderful), but the growth is roughly linear. Even soybeans, which are like 90% controlled by Monsanto now, didn't show an increase in growth rate...
http://i.imgur.com/sCoSIBm.jpg
What other factors contributed to the change in yield? Crops are something that see wide shifts due to weather impact such as rain, seasonal temperatures, early frost, sunlight differences, etc.
Wondering what "market demand" does to yield per acre as a crop hits market high prices or market low prices.
That graph is alarmingly consistent until 1972, then the numbers seem to be bouncing all over the place. What gives?
Also, don't forget the effect of global warming!
At this point 100% agreement from local guys that seed improvements have increased yield... I am going to have to side with their assessment at this point.
I do not have the time currently to respond to every reply to my comments. But I will make one final post in this discussion and then go eat some good old fashioned food that is not genetically modified via "synthetic biology".
I'm very confused as to how people on this board; very intelligent and well learned/researched people I might add- cannot make the distinction between GMO's derived from selective breeding, cross breeding, classical eugenics, etc and GMO's derved from synthetic biology created in the lab by splicing genes together. There is a distinction, although we use them both for similar reasons/end results, they ARE different.
Regarding the Very real difference between GMO's resulting from selective breeding and GMO's resulting from synthetic biology/Genetic modification in the laboratory:
The major risk associated with GMOs is due to the lack of "familiarity". This term means that if natural breeding product are similar to each other ("familiar"), GMOs aren't - and this is especially true in the cases of crossing between plant and animal genes.
This is a generic known principle which also applies to completely natural phenomena, like the introduction of the cold virus in central America in the XV century. So - lack of familiarity can introduce severe disruptions in the ecosystem.
This said, we do not know if there are any real risks with GMOs. But entities like the European Union have decided to take a very careful approach due to the possible consequences (And this is where my comments stem from, the need to understand and test more before we find out the consequences GREATLY outweight the benefits in real time).
Where there is a threat of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to avoid or minimise such a threat
Furthermore some direct risks are the following:
The ecological probabilities of harm focus on weediness, spread of the transgene by either vertical or horizontal gene flow, and the potential for any unintended, or pleiotropic, effects.
To know more you can refer to the following (presumably peer-reviewed) very complete and referenced paper:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.0960-7412.2002.001607.x/full
There's almost a 0% chance that GMO is better in every single way than selective breeding without introducing any new risks at all, so what are the new risks?
There is a specific risk of litigation with GMOs (particularly ones bred through pollination) that does not exist with classical eugenics, or selective breeding.
Case in point would be the various lawsuits documented in Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers, wherein as of 2005 more than 15 million dollars had been awarded to Monsanto for infringements of their products (not counting the 525 settlements as of 1999). Obviously these numbers are dated, but I doubt the occurence of these lawsuits have declined.
A frequent case for consideration is Percy Schmeiser whose case focused on Monsanto's claim of patent infringement and (the counter-claim) "whether Monsanto would be held responsible for 'genetic engineering crop contamination'". Essentially, genetic dangers aside, there is a danger of growing a field of non-GMO corn next to a field of GMO corn insofar as, if the two cross-pollinate, and you replant the seeds, Monsanto may show up with a cease-and-desist letter.
What worries me though is how many people reject offhand the possibility of there being risks. Sure there is a lot of alarmism, but we can't reject legitimate concerns based purely on contempt for anti-GM activists. I think GM can be used responsibly, but only if we respect the power that we hold and the limits of our knowledge.
I never intended to imply in my posts that ALL GMO's are 100% bad and we should not be utilizing them at all. I merely posit that we have not done enough research to know if they are safe yet and that I avoid them like the plague as I am not PERSONALLY comfortable with them given our current knowledge and understanding of how they interact with us, our environment, etc...
Here's a good "Synthetic biology debate" for anyone who is interested:
http://longnow.org/seminars/02008/nov/17/synthetic-biology-debate/
What other factors contributed to the change in yield? Crops are something that see wide shifts due to weather impact such as rain, seasonal temperatures, early frost, sunlight differences, etc.
Wondering what "market demand" does to yield per acre as a crop hits market high prices or market low prices.
That graph is alarmingly consistent until 1972, then the numbers seem to be bouncing all over the place. What gives?
Also, don't forget the effect of global warming!
At this point 100% agreement from local guys that seed improvements have increased yield... I am going to have to side with their assessment at this point.
I have no idea, and that's only soybeans. When I get more time I'll plug more data in for other types of crops and see what's going on, maybe correlate it to price as well. I'm no statistician, however.
Where there is a threat of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to avoid or minimise such a threat
That happens with both modern "GMOs" and traditional selective breeding "GMOs".
What worries me though is how many people reject offhand the possibility of there being risks. Sure there is a lot of alarmism, but we can't reject legitimate concerns based purely on contempt for anti-GM activists. I think GM can be used responsibly, but only if we respect the power that we hold and the limits of our knowledge.
No one is rejecting offhand the possibility of risks. Or at least, I don't know of anyone.
GMOs are not inherently bad, like many people here assume. They have an inherent possibility of being more good than bad because that's what they're designed to do. However, testing should be more strenuous on GMO food. But they SHOULD NOT BE BANNED.
\
I never intended to imply in my posts that ALL GMO's are 100% bad and we should not be utilizing them at all. I merely posit that we have not done enough research to know if they are safe yet and that I avoid them like the plague as I am not PERSONALLY comfortable with them given our current knowledge and understanding of how they interact with us, our environment, etc...
And I, nor anyone here, has stated or even hinted at GMO's being 100% "good" nor deny additional research warranted. No one, zip, nadda. But, there' lots of people, who will indeed, out of ignorance and fear, reject out of hand all GMO of any kind, no matter how much research ever exists. That's a fact. The second fact is, GMOs have existed in the food chain since wt stopped being hunter gatherers. That to, is a fact. That does not mean, nor did I or anyone else, state they the process was identical, but wanted to point out the failure of critical thinking happening here.
What I see, is you reading what you wish to see through a very biased lens, vs using critical reading/thinking skills to see what's actually being said in this thread.
I'm just going to let you guys know. If you hate GMO food. You are championing a Ultra liberal cause. And i don't think any of you guys what that lol.
They're right in this case for many reasons.
Inkslinger
01-09-14, 16:30
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Lots of things have the possibility of being good. Just look at the world of modern medicine. Many studies deem medications as safe. Then years go by and the long term affects are revealed. Not everyone needs to take medications, but everyone needs to eat.
I have no idea, and that's only soybeans. When I get more time I'll plug more data in for other types of crops and see what's going on, maybe correlate it to price as well. I'm no statistician, however.
That happens with both modern "GMOs" and traditional selective breeding "GMOs".
No one is rejecting offhand the possibility of risks. Or at least, I don't know of anyone.
GMOs are not inherently bad, like many people here assume. They have an inherent possibility of being more good than bad because that's what they're designed to do. However, testing should be more strenuous on GMO food. But they SHOULD NOT BE BANNED.
Inkslinger
01-09-14, 16:33
But why risk it? The world has survived this long without GMO's. I imagine we could continue to survive without them.
Edit: And by GMO's I don't mean cross breeding or cross pollinating.
And I, nor anyone here, has stated or even hinted at GMO's being 100% "good" nor deny additional research warranted. No one, zip, nadda. But, there' lots of people, who will indeed, out of ignorance and fear, reject out of hand all GMO of any kind, no matter how much research ever exists. That's a fact. The second fact is, GMOs have existed in the food chain since wt stopped being hunter gatherers. That to, is a fact. That does not mean, nor did I or anyone else, state they the process was identical, but wanted to point out the failure of critical thinking happening here.
What I see, is you reading what you wish to see through a very biased lens, vs using critical reading/thinking skills to see what's actually being said in this thread.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
But then, so is the road to heaven.
And I, nor anyone here, has stated or even hinted at GMO's being 100% "good" nor deny additional research warranted. No one, zip, nadda. But, there' lots of people, who will indeed, out of ignorance and fear, reject out of hand all GMO of any kind, no matter how much research ever exists. That's a fact. The second fact is, GMOs have existed in the food chain since wt stopped being hunter gatherers. That to, is a fact. That does not mean, nor did I or anyone else, state they the process was identical, but wanted to point out the failure of critical thinking happening here.
What I see, is you reading what you wish to see through a very biased lens, vs using critical reading/thinking skills to see what's actually being said in this thread.
I never said you or anyone else posited that GMO's are 100% safe either. Yeah, GMO's have been in existence for a VERY LONG time, that doesn't change the fact that the way we are currently modifying the genetics in the lab via synthetic bilogy/gene splicing is different and presents different and new risks- most of which we most likely wont even understand for some time.
i'ts kind of like travel, we have been doing it for thousands of years, but there are different and sometimes greater risks associate with travelling in a car than walking.
That's the way I see the new modifications. We are moving faster and the risks are greater. Does that make sense?
And what is it that you believe I am "seeing" through my biased lens and non-critical reading/thinking skills instead of what is being "said" in this thread? Please elaborate on what I am "seeing" versus what is being "said"- I am quite curious...
I posited that the way that these modifications are being made via synthetic biology/gene splicing is WAY different than classical selective breeding and eugenics. My last post hits upon this to a greater extent (Familiarity, etc...)
And therein lies the problem for me, the way this is physically being done is speeding up a process and doing it in MUCh different ways that we have little understanding of on a grand scale and a in the long term. Opening ourselves up to potential risks we might not even be thinking about at this point in time.
Just because the food supply is made up of almost 100% GMO foods, doesn't mean that the methods being used don't have different risks associated with them.
My last post summed up pretty well where I stand on this topic. I'm fine with classical modifications of genes if that hasn't been made clear enough. The new laboratory splicing/synthetic biology/mixing genes from different kingdoms together- it's these types of modifications that have me worried and make me question the safety of these organisms/methods for several reasons, which I have previously stated.
Comments regarding the lack of critical thinking & reading skills aside, I enjoy and appreciate the discussion we're having.
http://www.edgeonthenet.com/technology/science/News/153835/government_might_deregulate_corn,_soybean_seeds
"The new generation of plants "allowed us to do a better job of controlling the weeds, and therefore, we’ve been able to do a better job of preserving the soil, which is our primary natural resource," said Ron Moore, who grows 2,000 acres of corn and soybeans with his brother in western Illinois."
"Freese said he would rather see farmers use organic means to control weeds, perhaps by using cover crops that go into the ground after the harvest to hold soil in place and deter weeds until the next growing season.
Among its critics, 2,4-D is best known as a component of the Vietnam War-era herbicide Agent Orange, which has not been produced since the 1970s."
Inkslinger
01-09-14, 17:58
Ultimately for me it boils down to choices. I don't like the idea of having a future where a corporation dictates my choices.
I'll use fluoridated water as an example. There are just as many studies saying its detrimental as it is beneficial. We still have the ability to choose what we drink though. I have a well for my water (which I also filter). When I had public water I bought bottled water. Would you be comfortable with a corporation that moved mountains to get fluoride in every source of water available for human consumption? I wouldn't.
We know that Monsanto has their hand in a majority of the most common crops consumed by humans. That maps out a potentially scary future. To me the organic movement is the sliver of hope that allows me to have a choice in what goes into my body. Monsanto also happens to be the biggest opponent to organics.
Like I said, only time will tell what a life of consuming their products will lead to. Thankfully I still have the ability to hedge my bets on the side of caution. At the rate they're going I won't have the option. Nobody will. To me that is what makes Monsanto and any corporation with a business model like there's bad.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/01/06/agent-orange-gmo-after-usda-backs-24-d-seeds-michael-pollan-marion-nestle-lead-activist-hype-of-discredited-link/
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.12?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103225268121
2 Sides of the debate.
VooDoo6Actual
01-09-14, 20:28
This thread is a joke right ?
Moose-Knuckle
01-09-14, 20:54
This thread is a joke right ?
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/pre-sweetened-kool-aid_zps6e472ecc.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/AKS-74/media/pre-sweetened-kool-aid_zps6e472ecc.jpg.html)
Inkslinger
01-09-14, 21:02
Something with your drink.
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/01/10/vyquha8u.jpg
Monsanto also happens to be the biggest opponent to organics.
Cite a source?
I'm not going to say that they're cheerleading the organic movement, as it's counterintuitive to the way they make money, but I have not yet read about them suing organic farmers/markets/grocers/producers for being organic.
Quite frankly, I don't know a single "opponent" to the organic movement. Only people vested in it that act as though they're somehow persecuted...
Sent using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Inkslinger
01-09-14, 22:57
Maybe my statement would be more accurately phrased this way. Monsanto is the biggest threat to organic and non-GMO farmers. As far as them suing farmers for being organic, why would they? How could they?
As far as sources, it's mostly connect the dots, read between the line kind of evidence. Most notably a lawsuit brought against Monsanto by organic farmers. The farmers wanted protection against possible lawsuits for potentially cross pollinated crops. The case was overturned in favor of Monsanto. The only semblance of protection the farmers received was Monsanto's word that they wouldn't sue, not that they couldn't sue.
It's basically a strong arm situation. The fear of being put out of business makes a lot of farmers cave to the pressure. There are around 150 cases of Monsanto suing for patent infringement. Were some of those cases instances where farmers were in breach of contract by saving seeds? I think it's safe to say yes. Were they all? I would really be interested in the number of cases that never made it to court. Most farmers have nowhere near the funds to go toe to toe in court with a company like Monsanto.
Again it comes back to my point about options. Big Agra is notorious for limiting farmers options. You basically have to play buy their rules of sell the farm. Big Agra has a tactic of keeping you beholden to them and the banks in order to continue to make a living. It happens throughout the farming industry.
Cite a source?
I'm not going to say that they're cheerleading the organic movement, as it's counterintuitive to the way they make money, but I have not yet read about them suing organic farmers/markets/grocers/producers for being organic.
Quite frankly, I don't know a single "opponent" to the organic movement. Only people vested in it that act as though they're somehow persecuted...
Sent using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Moose-Knuckle
01-09-14, 23:33
Something with your drink.
I prefer to enjoy a Camel with my fluoride laden beverages. The goverment and even doctors say there safe . . . what could happen!?
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/doctorscamelcigarettes2_zps7f9117f0.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/AKS-74/media/doctorscamelcigarettes2_zps7f9117f0.jpg.html)
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/doctorscamelcigarettes_zps19422e38.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/AKS-74/media/doctorscamelcigarettes_zps19422e38.jpg.html)
It's considered "Unnatural" for Tigers and lions to breed. It's never been documented in the wild, due to the fact they do not live geographically close to one another. Most of the young are healthy, but some of the litters have suffered from an odd symptom where their head uncontrollably shakes, these died very young. Liger's have predominantly been bred by irresponsible handlers, and most wild life care facilities, rescues and Zoos do not condone the breeding.
Yep. It is actually a pretty interesting study in my opinion. They are far enough apart on the evolutionary tree to pose issues when they breed, but not quite far enough to not be able to interbreed at all. Almost like a ring species on a very large scale.
GMO allows the plants to be roundup tolerant. Some plants are genetically altered with animal DNA to be poisonous. I don't want my food bathed in roundup nor do I want some hybrid animal genetic plant on my ****ing plate. And I can't find out if the food I'm eating is GMO'd because monsanto has paid off every politician they can to keep it that way. For **** sake FDA chief and Chief Justice Scalia is a damn Monsanto board member. Wake the **** up.
Moose-Knuckle
01-10-14, 00:36
For **** sake FDA chief and Chief Justice Scalia is a damn Monsanto board member. Wake the **** up.
Shhh . . . you'll spoil the surprise!
RancidSumo
01-10-14, 01:09
Well if he isn't going to spoil the surprise, I will.
Neither Margaret Hamburg nor Justice Scalia are members of Monsanto's board of directors. Additionally, Scalia is not the Chief Justice. In the age of the internet I would hope people would be able to research a little better. This little episode doesn't make me too inclined to believe much of what you have to say on the subject...
http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/Pages/board-of-directors.aspx
Chief Justice Scalia is a damn Monsanto board member. Wake the **** up.
I'm not even finding conspiracy theories that make this link. Can you provide a source?
Justice Thomas did work for Monsanto for a few years, which I believe is fairly common knowledge. Not finding any link between Scalia and Monsanto, though.
For **** sake FDA chief and Chief Justice Scalia is a damn Monsanto board member. Wake the **** up.
Oh really??
http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/Pages/board-of-directors.aspx
I hate the company as well but lets stick with the truth.
Moose-Knuckle
01-10-14, 01:26
Well if he isn't going to spoil the surprise, I will.
Neither Margaret Hamburg nor Justice Scalia are members of Monsanto's board of directors. Additionally, Scalia is not the Chief Justice. In the age of the internet I would hope people would be able to research a little better. This little episode doesn't make me too inclined to believe much of what you have to say on the subject...
http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/Pages/board-of-directors.aspx
If this post is in response to mine then light'n up Franics as I was being facetious in my response to Javelin's.
Moose-Knuckle
01-10-14, 01:41
As for Monsanto and the .gov . . .
In an interview with The Daily Ticker, Parker describes in detail how connected Monsanto is to Washington lawmakers, a feat accomplished by spending $70 million in lobbying since 1998 and $10 million in campaign contributions in the past decade. Earlier this year Michael Taylor, the former vice president of public policy at Monsanto, was named by President Obama as deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine at the Food and Drug Administration. Parker says this appointment underscores two things: how deeply embedded Monsanto has become in the higher ranks of government and how the company has been able to quietly influence national food policy.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/monsanto-controls-government-chris-parker-135253110.html
Then there is this (note the ties with the DNC, so much for "liberals want to ban GMOs") . . .
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/monsanto-employees-government-revolving-door_zps3f9afe66.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/AKS-74/media/monsanto-employees-government-revolving-door_zps3f9afe66.jpg.html)
I never said you or anyone else posited that GMO's are 100% safe either. Yeah, GMO's have been in existence for a VERY LONG time, that doesn't change the fact that the way we are currently modifying the genetics in the lab via synthetic bilogy/gene splicing is different and presents different and new risks- most of which we most likely wont even understand for some time.
i'ts kind of like travel, we have been doing it for thousands of years, but there are different and sometimes greater risks associate with travelling in a car than walking.
That's the way I see the new modifications. We are moving faster and the risks are greater. Does that make sense?
Yes, but I also don't see overwhelming, or even terribly convincing evidence that's the case either. Again, most will just say GMO is "bad" because of ignorance and fear vs any real understanding of it.
And what is it that you believe I am "seeing" through my biased lens and non-critical reading/thinking skills instead of what is being "said" in this thread? Please elaborate on what I am "seeing" versus what is being "said"- I am quite curious...
I posited that the way that these modifications are being made via synthetic biology/gene splicing is WAY different than classical selective breeding and eugenics. My last post hits upon this to a greater extent (Familiarity, etc...)
And therein lies the problem for me, the way this is physically being done is speeding up a process and doing it in MUCh different ways that we have little understanding of on a grand scale and a in the long term. Opening ourselves up to potential risks we might not even be thinking about at this point in time.
Just because the food supply is made up of almost 100% GMO foods, doesn't mean that the methods being used don't have different risks associated with them.
And I'd agree. But the amount of objective evidence based info and discussion to hyperbole and hysteria ratio on the the topic makes it difficult to assess those risk in a objective manner. It's talking to people about synthetic sweeteners or anti gun types about guns.
My last post summed up pretty well where I stand on this topic. I'm fine with classical modifications of genes if that hasn't been made clear enough. The new laboratory splicing/synthetic biology/mixing genes from different kingdoms together- it's these types of modifications that have me worried and make me question the safety of these organisms/methods for several reasons, which I have previously stated.
Yes, it raises important questions that will need to be answered, but it's here to stay and there's an incredible amount of benefit that can come from it also.
Comments regarding the lack of critical thinking & reading skills aside, I enjoy and appreciate the discussion we're having.
VooDoo6Actual
01-10-14, 08:30
Let's shuffle the cards a little w/ our Board, no one will know. Americans have a short term memory anyways. Funny how some of you bought the Global Warming fool aid argument as well. It's really no wonder we are in the mess.
BT Barnum was spot on.
Inkslinger
01-10-14, 08:42
Will, what's your argument in favor of Monsanto and GMO crops?
More nutrition? Highly debatable, if not blatantly false.
Ending world hunger? I think not. Monsanto is engaging in a "give a man a fish" mentality. God forbid they teach them to fish. I think the main thing causing starvation in the world is not the seed, but everything involved of bringing that seed full cycle. Monsanto could easily help third world nation develop a sustainable agricultural infrastructure, and providing them with seeds that can be replanted for generations. Instead they make it so farmers are forced to add to Monsanto's profits yearly. Ask the families of Indian farmers who committed suicide because of GMO's. Are they developing a strain of crop where say, one soybean can feed a family of four? Every see pictures of record breaking fruits or vegetables? Selective breeding was all we needed to achieve that feet.
I'll say it again. Only time will tell. The way I see it we've survived this long with out them. Who knows how long we'll survive with them.
Inkslinger
01-10-14, 08:53
Thankfully companies like Monsanto have no ability to manipulate our ever evolving climate. Give them time though ;)
Let's shuffle the cards a little w/ our Board, no one will know. Americans have a short term memory anyways. Funny how some of you bought the Global Warming fool aid argument as well. It's really no wonder we are in the mess.
BT Barnum was spot on.
In the age of the internet I would hope people would be able to research a little better.
It's shocking really. Too many people repeating what others post on FB and believing it is fact...."They can't put anything on the internet that isn't true...."
More nutrition? Highly debatable, if not blatantly false.
I'm pretty sure the current generation of GMOs weren't developed to be more nutritious, just to survive better. However, saying they're less nutritious would require a lot of studies, none of which I've seen anyone provide.
Ending world hunger? I think not. Monsanto is engaging in a "give a man a fish" mentality. God forbid they teach them to fish. I think the main thing causing starvation in the world is not the seed, but everything involved of bringing that seed full cycle. Monsanto could easily help third world nation develop a sustainable agricultural infrastructure, and providing them with seeds that can be replanted for generations. Instead they make it so farmers are forced to add to Monsanto's profits yearly.
It would be nice for a company to spend millions or billions in development, then just give it away for free to everyone. We'll see how long such a company lasts though, when their profits are always in the negative. It would be nice of them though.
Again, how are they forced? They can use another company's seed probably just as easilly.
Ask the families of Indian farmers who committed suicide because of GMO's.
Source?
Are they developing a strain of crop where say, one soybean can feed a family of four?
One soybean feeding a family of four? I don't think anyone is developing a soybean that can feed a family of four. That's just ridiculous.
Every see pictures of record breaking fruits or vegetables? Selective breeding was all we needed to achieve that feet.
Selective breeding has limitations. It can only really enhance or depreciate existing genes, rarely finding a helpful new gene via mutation. So getting to the same end result via selective breeding as gene insertion may take decades, if not hundreds or thousands of years. Or it could take one year and we'd be at the same place. Why waste time besides paranoia? You can then spend years on testing and still save decades of time.
I'll say it again. Only time will tell. The way I see it we've survived this long with out them. Who knows how long we'll survive with them.
The counter argument is "842 million people in the world do not have enough to eat. This number has fallen by 17 percent since 1990."
http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats
I don't know if that can be attributed to the introduction of GMOs or not. Perhaps the number was falling before the 90s. It probably was.
But saying "we've survived" only makes sense if you are referring to the species as a whole or people in first world countries who could survive even with terribly inefficient farming methods because of wealth. And if you're referring to the species as a whole, you could say "we've survived without" any technology. Why shouldn't we move back to Africa and subside off of hunting with stone spears and gathering berries and fruits? We've survived hundreds of thousands of years doing it.
It's shocking really. Too many people repeating what others post on FB and believing it is fact...."They can't put anything on the internet that isn't true...."
... someone in my office quotes that stupid commercial every day. Every single day.
Let's shuffle the cards a little w/ our Board, no one will know. Americans have a short term memory anyways. Funny how some of you bought the Global Warming fool aid argument as well. It's really no wonder we are in the mess.
BT Barnum was spot on.
Perhaps because we read beyond the hype and try to fully understand a subject. Also Board members current and past are public knowledge. People can't just randomly claim someone is a member.
Will, what's your argument in favor of Monsanto and GMO crops?
Wishing to have a balanced, objective, rational, science based discussion on the topic does not = "in favor of"
If you actually read my comments objectively, you'd see I mentioned there's legit concern over some of Monsanto's business practices.
More nutrition? Highly debatable, if not blatantly false.
Current crops are designed for yield, not nutrition. As already discussed, many only able to survive with tons of chemicals used on them because of the selective breeding that focused on yield over hardiness and the ability to resist disease, etc. Two, there's no reason GMO can't also develop more nutritious crops if that was the goal.
Ending world hunger? I think not. Monsanto is engaging in a "give a man a fish" mentality. God forbid they teach them to fish. I think the main thing causing starvation in the world is not the seed, but everything involved of bringing that seed full cycle. Monsanto could easily help third world nation develop a sustainable agricultural infrastructure, and providing them with seeds that can be replanted for generations. Instead they make it so farmers are forced to add to Monsanto's profits yearly. Ask the families of Indian farmers who committed suicide because of GMO's. Are they developing a strain of crop where say, one soybean can feed a family of four? Every see pictures of record breaking fruits or vegetables? Selective breeding was all we needed to achieve that feet.
I'll say it again. Only time will tell. The way I see it we've survived this long with out them. Who knows how long we'll survive with them.
But that's the problem with all big corps that are not in business for humanitarian reasons, but $$$. Pharma could develop drugs and give them away at cost to treat or prevent disease say, but they don't. No different than any large company. Hence, it's important to do research, have unbiased groups monitoring them, etc.
But, most people simply don't like the GMO due to simple fear and ignorance and will reject GMO regardless of the amount of data because its scary and "not natural" which only makes the ability to have that objective conversation on the topic close to impossible.
One last time: GMO's are here to stay, period. They have the potential to do a HUGE amount of good for mankind in general, and genetics in general is the future for treatment and or prevention of disease, etc, etc.
Finally, Monsanto is not GMOs. They are two separate topics and I have tried to keep them separate best I could.
So with that reality, what now? What is the logical, science based, non hand ringing, rational next step?
Inkslinger
01-10-14, 09:44
I'm pretty sure the current generation of GMOs weren't developed to be more nutritious, just to survive better. However, saying they're less nutritious would require a lot of studies, none of which I've seen anyone provide.
So it's a push. So again, how are Monsanto products better for the world.
It would be nice for a company to spend millions or billions in development, then just give it away for free to everyone. We'll see how long such a company lasts though, when their profits are always in the negative. It would be nice of them though.
Who said they had to do it for free?
Source?
Use the search button. ;)
Here's the first story that came up.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-seeds-of-suicide-how-monsanto-destroys-farming/5329947
One soybean feeding a family of four? I don't think anyone is developing a soybean that can feed a family of four. That's just ridiculous.
So is the notion Monsanto is staving world hunger.
Selective breeding has limitations. It can only really enhance or depreciate existing genes, rarely finding a helpful new gene via mutation. So getting to the same end result via selective breeding as gene insertion may take decades, if not hundreds or thousands of years. Or it could take one year and we'd be at the same place. Why waste time besides paranoia? You can then spend years on testing and still save decades of time.
We have reaped the benefits of selective breeding since man learned to produce his own food. If it ain't broke don't fix it. GMO is the gas piston to conventional agricultural DI. Except it has the potential to be harmful to human existence.
The counter argument is "842 million people in the world do not have enough to eat. This number has fallen by 17 percent since 1990."
http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats
Didn't see where in they link it's stated Monsanto is responsible for the decrease.
... someone in my office quotes that stupid commercial every day. Every single day.
This is really a two way street when you think about it....
As far as sources, it's mostly connect the dots, read between the line kind of evidence. Most notably a lawsuit brought against Monsanto by organic farmers. The farmers wanted protection against possible lawsuits for potentially cross pollinated crops. The case was overturned in favor of Monsanto. The only semblance of protection the farmers received was Monsanto's word that they wouldn't sue, not that they couldn't sue.
So organic farmers sued Monsanto, their suit got thrown out (probably for being completely baseless, as Monsanto had taken no legal action against them), and Monsanto is "going after organic farmers." The farmers sued them, not the other way around. Your incredibly convoluted "proof" is nothing more than a case of organic farmers attacking Monsanto, and if you can't see that I can help you.
Sent using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
So it's a push. So again, how are Monsanto products better for the world.
Ask the farmers.
Who said they had to do it for free?
Fair point. They'd be undeniably vastly reducing their profits though.
Use the search button. ;)
Here's the first story that came up.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-seeds-of-suicide-how-monsanto-destroys-farming/5329947
I actually did, I was just wondering where your particular source was.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/26/the-myth-of-indias-gm-genocide-genetically-modified-cotton-blamed-for-wave-of-farmer-suicides/
"The issue of farmer suicides first gained media attention in 1995 as the southern state of Maharashtra began reporting a significant rise in farmers killing themselves.
Other states across the country began noticing an increase in farmer suicides as well.
But it wasn’t until seven years later — in 2002 — that the U.S.-based agribusiness Monsanto began selling genetically modified cotton seeds, known as Bt cotton, to Indian farmers."
Just look at the numbers: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/sainath/farm-suicides-rise-in-maharashtra-state-still-leads-the-list/article3595351.ece
It's similar to crop yields - you can't single out GMOs for increasing crop yields since they've been increasing since the 20s and there isn't an appreciable increase in yield growth post-GMO introduction. You also can't single out Monsanto as causing an increase in farmer suicides in India since suicides have been going up nearly a decade before GMO introduction. It's possible Monsanto is a contributing factor, but to say they are the cause is either ignorant or intentionally deceiving.
So is the notion Monsanto is staving world hunger.
... what? My head hurts from the logical grand-canyon-spanning leap you just took.
We have reaped the benefits of selective breeding since man learned to produce his own food. If it ain't broke don't fix it. GMO is the gas piston to conventional agricultural DI. Except it has the potential to be harmful to human existence.
Again, "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is the rallying call (or battle cry?) of those who live in fear of progress (and also preventative maintenance).
I so do enjoy the baseless claims thrown about (board members, farmer suicides, etc...) all rapidly refuted with credible sources...
Sent using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Inkslinger
01-10-14, 10:07
So organic farmers sued Monsanto, their suit got thrown out (probably for being completely baseless, as Monsanto had taken no legal action against them), and Monsanto is "going after organic farmers." The farmers sued them, not the other way around. Your incredibly convoluted "proof" is nothing more than a case of organic farmers attacking Monsanto, and if you can't see that I can help you.
Sent using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
What about what is said in the rest of my post? I take it you don't know many farmers.
Inkslinger
01-10-14, 10:08
I so do enjoy the baseless claims thrown about (board members, farmer suicides, etc...) all rapidly refuted with credible sources...
Sent using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Ok. Where are your sources?
I so do enjoy the baseless claims thrown about (board members, farmer suicides, etc...) all rapidly refuted with credible sources...
Sent using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
They are funny. However they show a much deeper problem. I hate Monsanto, however I find myself having to defend them in situations like this because of false information. There are plenty of reasons to hate them. But when you start throwing around baseless accusations and half truths you hurt your side if the argument. It is similar to the Obama situation. There are so many thing he is doing that are illegal and hurt our country. Yet instead of going after him on that people choose to scream about him secretly being a Muslim or being born in Kenya. It detracts from the real discussion and makes the opposition look like idiots. Monsanto (Or Obama) doesn't even have to do anything to defend themselves because the opposition becomes a joke.
Inkslinger
01-10-14, 10:22
Ask the farmers.
Fair point. They'd be undeniably vastly reducing their profits though.
I actually did, I was just wondering where your particular source was.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/26/the-myth-of-indias-gm-genocide-genetically-modified-cotton-blamed-for-wave-of-farmer-suicides/
"The issue of farmer suicides first gained media attention in 1995 as the southern state of Maharashtra began reporting a significant rise in farmers killing themselves.
Other states across the country began noticing an increase in farmer suicides as well.
But it wasn’t until seven years later — in 2002 — that the U.S.-based agribusiness Monsanto began selling genetically modified cotton seeds, known as Bt cotton, to Indian farmers."
Just look at the numbers: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/sainath/farm-suicides-rise-in-maharashtra-state-still-leads-the-list/article3595351.ece
It's similar to crop yields - you can't single out GMOs for increasing crop yields since they've been increasing since the 20s and there isn't an appreciable increase in yield growth post-GMO introduction. You also can't single out Monsanto as causing an increase in farmer suicides in India since suicides have been going up nearly a decade before GMO introduction. It's possible Monsanto is a contributing factor, but to say they are the cause is either ignorant or intentionally deceiving.
... what? My head hurts from the logical grand-canyon-spanning leap you just took.
Again, "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is the rallying call (or battle cry?) of those who live in fear of progress (and also preventative maintenance).
So how has the agricultural business faltered to point it needs to redesigned by the likes of Monsanto? Crop yields on the rise prior to Monsanto involvement, check. No ability to definitively calculate potential long term affects of a product they deem "safe".
You know what? **** it. We're all going to die someday. I'm glad I don't have children so they and their offspring can be the yardstick which the long term effects of Monsanto products are judged.
Ok. Where are your sources?
Yes, because biased articles with zero citations or sources written by " ...a philosopher, environmental activist, and eco feminist" you posted should be considered legit. Reads like an articles written by...well... a philosopher, environmental activist, and eco feminist.
This article for example, objective, balanced, with sources examines the topic:
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/08/why-is-monsanto-the-most-hated-company-in-the-worl/
You're not interested, perhaps not capable, of viewing the topic with any objectivity or trying to really parse out the facts from the emotional hyperbole.
Q: do you even shoot? Do you own an AR or other guns? I ask only because there's a few here to debate endlessly and don't even shoot or own guns. Hence they just come here to shove their views or troll (but I don't think that's what you're doing) on the members here.
So how has the agricultural business faltered to point it needs to redesigned by the likes of Monsanto? Crop yields on the rise prior to Monsanto involvement, check. No ability to definitively calculate potential long term affects of a product they deem "safe".
You're making the same logical misstep as before, that things only need to be improved when they fail. Things should be improved because they can be improved, not because they need to be improved. Otherwise we'd all be using 20" AR-15s with integrated carry handle. Sure, a free floating rail to attach accessories, an optic, and collapsing stock are nice, but has the 20" AR failed? No it hasn't. It still works perfectly. So why change it?
Because it can be better. Optics, lights, lasers, free floating rails, two point adjustable slings, better FCGs, better charging handles, better furniture, and even better bolts, bolt carriers, gas systems, barrel lengths, and buffer tube assemblies (like the A5) all around improve the weapon system. But it definitely wasn't broke to begin with, after changes to chrome lining and powder were implemented.
They are funny. However they show a much deeper problem. I hate Monsanto, however I find myself having to defend them in situations like this because of false information. There are plenty of reasons to hate them. But when you start throwing around baseless accusations and half truths you hurt your side if the argument. It is similar to the Obama situation. There are so many thing he is doing that are illegal and hurt our country. Yet instead of going after him on that people choose to scream about him secretly being a Muslim or being born in Kenya. It detracts from the real discussion and makes the opposition look like idiots. Monsanto (Or Obama) doesn't even have to do anything to defend themselves because the opposition becomes a joke.
This hits my thoughts exactly. I have zero love for Monsanto per se, but am forced into what seems a defense of the company.
VooDoo6Actual
01-10-14, 10:39
Perhaps because we read beyond the hype and try to fully understand a subject. Also Board members current and past are public knowledge. People can't just randomly claim someone is a member.
There is no perhaps about it. Your as misinformed here as you were on the Global Warming scam as well & got spanked there as well by the facts & evidence.
Your indolent on your research as are other's here & make assertions on your limited media perusal & research.
All the cancerous research was confirmed & conclusive & posted earlier but you'll ignore those facts.
No need to respond as I'm not going to tie half my brain behind my back for you again or anymore. Your a limbic brained reactionary trying to be a "HIPSTER", instead of a critical thinker.
Carry on, as you'll drink the Fool Aid very time hook, line & sinker.
Inkslinger
01-10-14, 10:46
This hits my thoughts exactly. I have zero love for Monsanto per se, but am forced into what seems a defense of the company.
My main point in all of this is there is no way to accurately predict the long term effects the use of Monsanto's altered crops will bring. Where are the flaws in my logic? How am I wrong? Agriculture is not new to man. Monsanto's GMO's are. When you guys can show that Monsanto's products will bring no ill effects to they world I will gladly concede. It's obvious you see my opinion the same way I see yours. With that I believe I have exhausted any interest in this thread.
My main point in all of this is there is no way to accurately predict the long term effects the use of Monsanto's altered crops will bring. Where are the flaws in my logic? How am I wrong? Agriculture is not new to man. Monsanto's GMO's are. When you guys can show that Monsanto's products will bring no ill effects to they world I will gladly concede. It's obvious you see my opinion the same way I see yours. With that I believe I have exhausted any interest in this thread.
There's no technology on the planet that can be shown conclusively to bring "bring no ill effects to they world" and exposes a serious lack of critical thinking and or basic science knowledge. There's a risk/benefit to any tech introduced. What you can say is, you don' think the burden of proof has been met that there's a scientifically valid confidence of a low risk to this tech. And, many might agree with that assessment. However, you, like many, started with an emotional position (GMO = bad) then seeks any source you can to support it.
Again, like trying to discuss guns with anti guns types or synthetic sweeteners with people: not amount of data will change their mindset.
So long as we're only killing a few million people a year with bad product, the status quo will be maintained. After all, they could've been killed by any number of things anyway. Life is a risky affair.
If it ever gets to the point that we're killing tens or hundreds of millions of people, then woe be unto those who profited from it. Profit margins can only be sustained when the delicate balance of keeping your customers alive is taken into account.
they sue farmers for using the offspring of the crops they bought the season before, for cross pollinating and they ruin famrers and kill bees. I wasn't suspicious of them until they got their lawyer to be appointed by the FDA, and then we got the monsato protection act which was BS, and then they start buying the science firms that warned about monsato killing bees etc. Next they will buy th FDA LOL
Heavy Metal
01-10-14, 12:43
A couple of centuries ago, every kid was breastfed and ate organic food. Half of them died at a very early age.
WickedWillis
01-10-14, 12:46
A couple of centuries ago, every kid was breastfed and ate organic food. Half of them died at a very early age.
Yeah I'm not really sure exactly what this is trying to prove.
Heavy Metal
01-10-14, 12:51
Try reading the whole thread and it might come to you. I bet Will gets it.
Yeah I'm not really sure exactly what this is trying to prove.
The point is that just because things are the way we always did them doesn't mean they are the best. Many things are organic and natural. They also kill us or lead to a lower quality of life. Advancement in science and agriculture are two of the big things that have lead to better quality of life and longer life for people.
Heavy Metal
01-10-14, 12:54
Bingo.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Heavy Metal
01-10-14, 12:57
And using the precautionary principle to reject new advancements out of unthinking fear would have condemned us to those same mortalities.
It would have been a bad policy then and it is bad policy today.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
The point is that just because things are the way we always did them doesn't mean they are the best. Many things are organic and natural. They also kill us or lead to a lower quality of life. Advancement in science and agriculture are two of the big things that have lead to better quality of life and longer life for people.
Like Uranium?! :dance3:
And using the precautionary principle to reject new advancements out of unthinking fear would have condemned us to those same mortalities.
It would have been a bad policy then and it is bad policy today.
And turning away from a tech out of fear and ignorance is immoral when you look at the lived potentially saved.
Heavy Metal
01-10-14, 13:59
GMO's have the potential to greatly reduce pesticide use (which they already have begun to do) and in the future greatly reduce fertilizer consumption by adding the ability to fix nitrogen, something legumes can do, to things like corn that require heavy application of the same.
They carry the potential to greatly reduce the impact of agriculture on the environment. There are potential benefits that go well beyond increased crop yields.
http://www.ontariograinfarmer.ca/MAGAZINE.aspx?aid=402
Inkslinger
01-10-14, 14:36
I'll add one more thought to this. Say advancements in modern law enforcement through autonomous "robo cops" and a sky full of drones could "potentially" increase personal safety. Would you turn in your guns? Would you be fine with a constant police presence in your daily life? Many anti's can make an argument that you don't need guns. Food on the other hand, you kind of need that.
I think many of us are of the mindset the we are ultimately responsible for the protection of ourself and loved one. We can choose to be armed or rely on police to protect us. What if that choice was made for you? Monsanto is making that choice for you. If your fine with that, more power to you. Unfortunately it requires everyone else in the world to be fine with it.
You're right Will there is no testing to predict what the long term effects will be. Soon we'll have no choice, so what will it matter? You talk about science, where is the science that says we need GMO's ( so we're clear I'm not talking about inter-species selective breeding).
It strikes me odd that a site full of freedom loving, personal liberty loving individuals would so easily except something as having the things in there food dictated by a corporation. And you see my viewpoint as "irrational fear"....mind blowing....
And using the precautionary principle to reject new advancements out of unthinking fear would have condemned us to those same mortalities.
It would have been a bad policy then and it is bad policy today.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Somewhere, out there, a candlestick maker cries as he comforts an out of work cobbler listening to an 8 track of some forgotten song.
I'll add one more thought to this. Say advancements in modern law enforcement through autonomous "robo cops" and a sky full of drones could "potentially" increase personal safety. Would you turn in your guns? Would you be fine with a constant police presence in your daily life? Many anti's can make an argument that you don't need guns. Food on the other hand, you kind of need that.
I think many of us are of the mindset the we are ultimately responsible for the protection of ourself and loved one. We can choose to be armed or rely on police to protect us. What if that choice was made for you? Monsanto is making that choice for you. If your fine with that, more power to you. Unfortunately it requires everyone else in the world to be fine with it.
You're right Will there is no testing to predict what the long term effects will be. Soon we'll have no choice, so what will it matter? You talk about science, where is the science that says we need GMO's ( so we're clear I'm not talking about inter-species selective breeding).
It strikes me odd that a site full of freedom loving, personal liberty loving individuals would so easily except something as having the things in there food dictated by a corporation. And you see my viewpoint as "irrational fear"....mind blowing....
You're making a straw man.
That GMOs are not inherently bad, which is what many are arguing, is NOT the same argument as one company controlling 100% of all food production.
You also ask for science saying we need GMOs. Again, a straw man. No one claims science says we need GMOs. The human race obviously existed before the 90s. We don't need GMOs. We don't need fertilizer. We don't need refrigeration. We don't need canning. We don't need produce year round. But I think your life is better because of these advances.
Heavy Metal
01-10-14, 15:10
You're making a straw man.
That's exactly what he did.
There's an old legal aphorism that goes: "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."
RancidSumo
01-10-14, 15:26
Somewhere, out there, a candlestick maker cries as he comforts an out of work cobbler listening to an 8 track of some forgotten song.
Well that's just not true. My cobbler gets lots of work. Any local candlestick makers might soon as well when I run out of incandescent lightbulbs.
Hey TED Tv said Monsanto was cool, so they are trendy and awesome...
Inkslinger
01-10-14, 15:54
That GMOs are not inherently bad, which is what many are arguing, is NOT the same argument as one company controlling 100% of all food production.
Ok, how's 90%+? Chances are, most Americans consume or eat something that has consumed Monsanto soybeans on a regular basis.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_28059.cfm
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/09/18/soy-can-damage-your-health.aspx
You also ask for science saying we need GMOs. Again, a straw man. No one claims science says we need GMOs. The human race obviously existed before the 90s. We don't need GMOs. We don't need fertilizer. We don't need refrigeration. We don't need canning. We don't need produce year round. But I think your life is better because of these advances.
It's implied when statements are made about all the "potential good it could do". I have no fear of advancements in science, because I can choose to implement those advancements into my life or not(for the most part). There are medications that save peoples lives. They need them to survive. Why though, should I have to take them if I don't need them or want them? There are also countless lawsuits because of unforeseen side effects of medications.
Ok, how's 90%+? Chances are, most Americans consume or eat something that has consumed Monsanto soybeans on a regular basis.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_28059.cfm
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/09/18/soy-can-damage-your-health.aspx
You're entirely missing the point.
It's implied when statements are made about all the "potential good it could do". I have no fear of advancements in science, because I can choose to implement those advancements into my life or not(for the most part). There are medications that save peoples lives. They need them to survive. Why though, should I have to take them if I don't need them or want them? There are also countless lawsuits because of unforeseen side effects of medications.
You don't have to eat soy ever. You can raise your own chickens and goats, have a small little garden and live off of fresh eggs, fresh goat milk, and vegetables and fruits you yourself have grown. It's not being forced on you.
Hell, even if you live in an apartment in a city, you can live your life without GMO soy touching anything. It's not terribly hard, but it requires not eating fast food. But again, you do have the choice. It is unfortunate that one company controls so much of one type of crop, and they really should be forced to break up part of their near-monopoly on soy, regardless if their soy seeds are GMOs or not. However, the sky isn't falling yet.
And yes, there are countless lawsuits because of unforseen side effects of medications. But throwing all medications out because some are bad is inhumane and unethical. Medications have saved orders of magnitude more lives than they've ruined. They're by far a net win for society. Vaccines even more so. GMOs have the potential to do the same, but obviously I don't have a time machine and I obviously don't have a massive budget to run tests.
I'll add one more thought to this. Say advancements in modern law enforcement through autonomous "robo cops" and a sky full of drones could "potentially" increase personal safety. Would you turn in your guns? Would you be fine with a constant police presence in your daily life? Many anti's can make an argument that you don't need guns. Food on the other hand, you kind of need that.
I think many of us are of the mindset the we are ultimately responsible for the protection of ourself and loved one. We can choose to be armed or rely on police to protect us. What if that choice was made for you? Monsanto is making that choice for you. If your fine with that, more power to you. Unfortunately it requires everyone else in the world to be fine with it.
You're right Will there is no testing to predict what the long term effects will be. Soon we'll have no choice, so what will it matter? You talk about science, where is the science that says we need GMO's ( so we're clear I'm not talking about inter-species selective breeding).
It strikes me odd that a site full of freedom loving, personal liberty loving individuals would so easily except something as having the things in there food dictated by a corporation. And you see my viewpoint as "irrational fear"....mind blowing....
You added no new thoughts, just the same rehashed call to emotions and lack any useful intel on the topic. You pretty much gave up any and all credibility when you posted a source from a "philosopher, environmental activist, and eco feminist" to read.
I'll ask you second time: do you even shoot?
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/09/18/soy-can-damage-your-health.aspx
.
And here we go. Although Mercola is an improvement from the philosopher, environmental activist, and eco feminist source you used, he's a very poor source of factual health/med/sci information. He's a joke. Please go now, you've ended any chance of convincing anyone of anything at this point.
Inkslinger
01-10-14, 16:19
You added no new thoughts, just the same rehashed call to emotions and lack any useful intel on the topic. You pretty much gave up any and all credibility when you posted a source from a "philosopher, environmental activist, and eco feminist" to read.
I'll ask you second time: do you even shoot?
Your talking about me rehashing information? Did you cut and paste this from you previous post? Yes I shoot. What does that have to do with anything. Hit me with some of your ground breaking wisdom.
Inkslinger
01-10-14, 16:21
And here we go. Although Mercola is an improvement from the philosopher, environmental activist, and eco feminist source you used, he's a very poor source of factual health/med/sci information. He's a joke. Please go now, you've ended any chance of convincing anyone of anything at this point.
Wow! Didn't mean to piss in your supplements.
Your talking about me rehashing information? Did you cut and paste this from you previous post? Yes I shoot. What does that have to do with anything. Hit me with some of your ground breaking wisdom.
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b374/willbrink/4gy97_zpsf2cf4494.jpg (http://s23.photobucket.com/user/willbrink/media/4gy97_zpsf2cf4494.jpg.html)
Long term toxicology study done on pigs ( an animal that has a very similar gastrointestinal tract as humans)
The lead Dr. is Judy Carman from the Insititue of Health and Environmental Research in Kensington Park Australia. This study was peer reviewed and posted in the Journal of Organic Systems
http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf
Not trying to speculate but sometimes you have to connect the dots. Over the past 10 years it seems Crohn's disease awareness adds have become more frequent.
If I was a multiple multinational conglomerate board member deriving an average of around half of my income from the shares I own in each conglomerate, it would make perfect sense to me to genetically engineer food to give you health problems that appear to have no clearly defined cause nor cure, then sell you a life long prescription to drugs that will "treat" the problem (and that will likely cause other problems which only more drugs will "treat").
Let's not forget I also sit for chemical and defense companies.
Heavy Metal
01-10-14, 17:21
Long term toxicology study done on pigs ( an animal that has a very similar gastrointestinal tract as humans)
The lead Dr. is Judy Carman from the Insititue of Health and Environmental Research in Kensington Park Australia. This study was peer reviewed and posted in the Journal of Organic Systems
http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf
Not trying to speculate but sometimes you have to connect the dots. Over the past 10 years it seems Crohn's disease awareness adds have become more frequent.
But, that study doesn't stand up very well to some basic scrutny:
http://www.marklynas.org/2013/06/gmo-pigs-study-more-junk-science/
“The study’s conclusions don’t really stand up to statistical scrutiny. The authors focus on ‘severe’ stomach inflammation but all the other inflammation categories actually favour the GM-diet. So this selective focus is scientifically inappropriate.
“When analysed using appropriate methods, the stomach inflammation data does not show a statistically statistical association with diet. There are also 19 other reported statistical tests, which means we would expect one significant association just by chance: and so the apparent difference in uterus weight is likely to be a false positive.”
Prof Patrick Wolfe, Professor of Statistics at University College London, said:
“I am not an expert on animal health, husbandry, toxicology etc, and therefore I cannot comment on these aspects of the study. As a statistical methodologist I can however comment on the data analysis undertaken and presented in the article.
“The biggest issue is that the study was not conducted to test any specific hypothesis. This means that the same sample (in this case nearly 150 pigs) is, in effect, being continually tested over and over for different findings.
“The statistical tests employed assume that a single test is done to test a single, pre-stated hypothesis; otherwise the significance levels stemming from the tests are just plain wrong, and can be vastly over-interpreted.
“Thus there is a higher-than-reported likelihood that the results are due purely to chance. The number of pigs being in the low hundreds (instead of, say, the thousands, as is often the case in large medical studies) can make this effect even more prominent.
“Bottom line: a better-designed study would have hypothesized a particular effect (such as changes in stomach size), and then applied a statistical test solely to check this hypothesis. Perhaps another independent team of researchers will go down this path. Until then, this study definitely does not show that GM-fed pigs are at any greater risks than non-GM fed pigs.”
But, that study doesn't stand up very well to some basic scrutny:
http://www.marklynas.org/2013/06/gmo-pigs-study-more-junk-science/
Thus the utter futility of posting statistics or studies from the internet on the internet, and why I never bother. You will ALWAYS find refuting statistics and studies, going either way. The ones you accept will be those that support your biases.
Moose-Knuckle
01-10-14, 18:05
Thus the utter futility of posting statistics or studies from the internet on the internet, and why I never bother. You will ALWAYS find refuting statistics and studies, going either way. The ones you accept will be those that support your biases.
At the end of the day people are going to believe what they want to after first assigning some degree of emotion to "their" view hence all the personality. Abortion, homosexual marriage, global warming, so on and so forth . . . one group of "experts" will say this and another group will say that in a perpetual volleyball game.
Seriously what could possibly go wrong with a multi-national conglomerate that has officials appointed to key positions in government, has legislation passed to insulate itself from investigation, and is on its way to monopolizing global food production?
I don't get all the hate they're receiving. They really don't seem bad compared to any number of companies that people love. Can someone enlighten me?
Because no one company should be so big and powerful that they can destroy the family farm or threaten the food supply of the country. What happens when a Chinese govt shell company buys Monsanto and then holds our food supply hostage?
They are a prime example of Crony Capitalism.
What about what is said in the rest of my post? I take it you don't know many farmers.
Actually, my family goes back in corn and cattle for a couple centuries. I personally work in a couple different fields (finance and software), but was back on the ranch last July visiting. I would say that I'm damn familiar with the farmer's perspective. The ones I know don't happen to agree with you, either... Many get their seed from Monsanto.
While people in this thread have harped on increased yields, what they have not harped on is the cost per acre in time and resources to produce the SAME yield. If an acre of corn requires 20% less water, and 50% less fertilizer and pesticides (organic is another debate entirely, I have no beef with organic, I simply don't care enough), then the net economic benefit to the farmer is going to be as good as, if not better than, increasing the physical yield per acre.
I'm not going to change anyone's opinion of Monsanto in this thread, good or bad. All I really care about is that spending less to produce a crop takes less money out of a farmers bank account, which is money they lay out BEFORE a single ear of corn is harvested or a single pound of meat is harvested. There has not yet been one credible study of GMO produce showing detrimental effects of consumption, and as such, I'm not going to cower to the straw man argument that some unforeseen side effect is around the bend. You can take a small enough sample of the population and make just about anything look terrible through corollary assumption. Doesn't make it true...
Inkslinger, you're consistent in your assertions and have fought the good fight, but it's been nothing but emotional arguments about the bad that "could happen" and a few points that have been proven to be incorrect. Farmers didn't travel back in time in India to commit suicide before Monsanto began selling seed in their country. There are no Board Members of Monsanto in the Supreme Court, and the head of the FDA isn't one either. They're a company advancing their market share by selling a product that their customers want to buy.
Sure, there will be a bad story or two. I know people who've had a bad customer experience at Nordstrom, a place that's always made me feel like I own the joint. Sure they've sued people for breaking contracts. If you had an ink on paper deal for something that keeps the roof over your head, and someone went back on it, you would head for a lawyer too. Fact is that they're a company attempting to advance their market share by offering a demonstrably better product than their competitors. This enhances profit, and shareholder return. At the end of the day, people can buy seed/fertilizer/pesticides elsewhere. Monsanto grows because people CHOOSE to do business with them.
Sent using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
But, that study doesn't stand up very well to some basic scrutny:
http://www.marklynas.org/2013/06/gmo-pigs-study-more-junk-science/
I don't know whether this deserves a response. You sent me a link to a guy scrutinizing a science journal, regardless if it is posted to a small journal. The author of your article did not even read it he skimmed over it.
"I skimmed the paper first, and the conclusions seemed doubtful enough (see below) to try to find out who was behind it."
The author of this article began trying to find out who funded the research and what organizations the doctors were affiliated with. This has no weight what so ever as to the tests themselves and the findings.
You do realized what a science journal is correct? They are peer reviewed for validity and MUST provide enough detailed information so an independent researcher can repeat the experiment or calculations to verify the results. Nobody associated with this article attempted to do so.
Oh! How about this one, lets post a comment from a professor to give this article some pizazz. Well here is the first sentence of your scrutinizing professor.
"I am not an expert on animal health, husbandry, toxicology etc, and therefore I cannot comment on these aspects of the study"
By all means let's talk statistics.
Even the first professor's comments relate to statistics. What the hell do statistics have to do with the empirical data gathered from an experiment that is published in a peer reviewed science journal? You and I both know statistics can be manipulated to suit any agenda, example gun grabbers.
The whole point of publishing your findings is so that other scientists can test and replicate the experiments. If the data turns out to be false then they would publish their own findings in a journal detailing why. I'm guessing this is a rare form of scrutiny that does not require empirical data, testing or experimentation.
How about the fact (Yes fact) that in almost every population without vaccinations, the diseases they prevent pop back up and run rampant.
Such as the case of the Mega Church in Texas that preached about the evils of vaccinations. Most of the people there were not vaccinated. Some of the members went out of the country and brought some "gifts" back with them. 23 people contracted Measles. By comparison less than 60 people get the measles on average in the US per year anymore.
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/measles-outbreak-tied-texas-megachurch-sickens-21-8C11009315
We also see a trend of many of these near eradicated diseases coming back because of the anti vaccination movement.Or all the illegal / unscreened people in this country that shouldn't be here.
Heavy Metal
01-10-14, 19:33
Even the first professor's comments relate to statistics. What the hell do statistics have to do with the empirical data gathered from an experiment that is published in a peer reviewed science journal?
Seriously, I think the above is one of the most assinine statements I have read on this forum. Are you really tall enough to be posting in this thread?
Statistics have nothing to do with the study if you aren't trying to reach a valid conclusion but that kind of defeats the purpose of a study doesn't it? You cannot analyze the data without applying statistical methodology. THE WHOLE POINT OF GATHERING THE DATA IS TO SUBJECT IT TO STATISTICAL ANALYSIS!!! Without analyzing the data, there is really no point to doing the study is there? There is NO other way to reach a valid conclusion in a study of this nature without applying statistical methology to the results. If you are trying to present a conclusion to a study amongst two or more populations, they mean EVERYTHING!
Ask me how I know you have never had a statistics course.
You do realized what a science journal is correct? They are peer reviewed for validity and MUST provide enough detailed information so an independent researcher can repeat the experiment or calculations to verify the results. Nobody associated with this article attempted to do so.
And they don't have to, all you have to do is expose one or more fundamental flaws in their assumptions to invalidate a study. The group publishing a study has the ENTIRE burden of proof. A challenger does not share this burden. If he can expose a fundamental flaw in their methodology (and he exposes several in that piece) that pretty much does the trick. The study authors are like a baloon, he is like a pin. All he has to do is poke a single valid hole in their study and the whole thing collapses.
You do realized what a science journal is correct?
Why don't you enlighten us with what makes a valid scientific journal a valid scientific journal. I would love to hear it!
They are peer reviewed for validity and MUST provide enough detailed information so an independent researcher can repeat the experiment or calculations to verify the results.
So who peer-reviewed it? Give me their names. You are sure it was peer-reviewed how?
I don't know whether this deserves a response.
Irony. What is it?
GMO's have the potential to greatly reduce pesticide use (which they already have begun to do) and in the future greatly reduce fertilizer consumption by adding the ability to fix nitrogen, something legumes can do, to things like corn that require heavy application of the same.
They carry the potential to greatly reduce the impact of agriculture on the environment. There are potential benefits that go well beyond increased crop yields.
http://www.ontariograinfarmer.ca/MAGAZINE.aspx?aid=402round up ready allows the crops to be sprayed with roundup and I would rather not eat round up .Take a teaspoon of round up on a regular basis and report back. Monsanto is developing a 2.4.D. ready crop as well . Also a crop that produces BT toxin. Try eating that as well. Hybridization is a way different procedure that GME sorry to say..
Heavy Metal
01-10-14, 19:44
I thought this comment from the article was also instructive. You might want to look up what p-values and chi-squared signify too.
Good comments, Mark. To start off, so people know, the link to the list of studies in Mark’s post is currently broken, because we (at Biology Fortified, who maintain the list) are experiencing problems with our domain name transfer, which will resolve tomorrow. This link will take you to the page in the meantime:
http://50.62.76.192/genera/studies-for-genera/
There are lots of studies done on pigs in this list, including this study which found no such differences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23031560
As for the statistics, Mark makes some good points about how these results were reported, interpreted, and spun. They did, however, present statistics for each parameter (heart, liver, kidney, stomach inflammation, etc), and gave p-values on the right. Almost every single one is statistically insignificant. Almost, except for one – the figure for severe inflammation is the only one in that table which was significantly different by the chi-squared test that they did. However, having one different in this table is expected due to chance alone.
When you do multiple comparisons like this, you have to take into account that the more experiments you do, the higher the probability that a single one (or a few) will turn out to be different. Flip a coin ten times as an experiment, and count the number of times that you get heads and tails. Usually you will get in the 4-6 range. Maybe a few 3′s and 7′s. Occasionally 2′s and 8s, rarely 1 and 9, and very rarely 0 and 10, but it does happen. Most of the time, if you pick up a coin and flip it, you will not find a ratio that is significantly different from the expected 50% heads and 50% tails.
But if you flip a coin ten times – and then repeat this experiment 20 times, then something really interesting happens with the statistics. You will actually expect to find, on average, one coin flipping experiment to be statistically different from 50/50 heads and tails! This is because the probability of getting one different is multiplied by the number of experiments you do. If you were to do a 95% confidence interval, which means that you are 95% certain that the true value falls within a particular range, 95% of your coin flip experiments will be in that range. If you do 20 experiments, then 1 out of 20 will be expected, on average, to fall outside that range.
The same thing goes whether you are flipping a single coin, flipping different coins, or studying parameters of pigs or rats fed GMO and non-GMO foods. Table 3 has 18 comparisons, which is almost 20, and brings the likelihood of at least one parameter being different close to 1. They do not take this into account, which was precisely the same problem that has plagued Seralini for years. When you run multiple comparisons, you have to take into account the False Discovery Rate. Carman et al. did not apply any False Discovery Rate statistics.
The funny thing is that XKCD made a comic on this, and it is spot-on, and hilarious if you understand statistics. http://xkcd.com/882/ Concluding from this study that GMOs cause harm is just like concluding that green jelly beans cause cancer.
While the differences in heart conditions, etc, mentioned by Mark above were statistically insignificant, so too were the differences in uterine fluid, which was oddly a focus of attention in the paper. They actually discussed the biological meaning of statistically insignificant data! So this does open up the question of why they discussed the relevance of insignificant differences that were negative, and ignored insignificant differences that were positive? You can’t have it both ways. Insignificant results are just that – insignificant and indistinguishable from random noise.
One of the biggest problems with this paper, besides ignoring multiple comparisons, was the source of feed for the diet. They acknowledged that the corn and soy used in the experiment were a mixture of different varieties, and they did not know how much of each. The corn and soy that they compared it to were completely different varieties – not isolines, which would be required in order to pin down any effect as being due to the genetically engineered trait. An isoline is a nearly genetically-identical variety that differs essentially only by the presence or absence of the gene engineered into the plant. There is enormous genetic diversity between different varieties of corn and soy, so they are not so much as testing the differences between GMO and non-GMO crops, but the many genetic and biochemical differences between different genetics that vary through breeding. It would be like comparing a GMO bulldog to a non-GMO poodle. Are the differences due to being GMO or not, or being a bulldog vs a poodle? Maybe there are some genes bred into high-yield varieties of corn that irritate pig stomachs, and this could be ground-breaking research that helps uncover that — but it’s not because they are also GMOs.
Bottom line, the experiment was not set up to test the effects of GMOs versus non-GMOs. They did not address this shortcoming of their methodology in the discussion.
Mark also brings up a good point about the maladies afflicting these pigs, like pneumonia. I would be interested to find out what the actual expected rates of these diseases are in commercial pig operations, and whether these pigs fared better or worse. Not keeping healthy conditions increases the variability in your data, not to mention the issues of animal welfare.
So we’re left with an experiment that was not set up properly to test the effects of GMO vs nonGMO diets in pigs, and it found differences that were no greater than would be expected by chance.
Heavy Metal
01-10-14, 19:49
Also a crop that produces BT toxin. Try eating that as well. Hybridization is a way different procedure that GME sorry to say..
Give me a hundred bucks and I will swallow a teaspoon of it on video right out of the sealed container:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis
Take a teaspoon of round up on a regular basis and report back.
Get ma a teaspoon sample of Glyphosphate without the surfactant(soap) and I will swallow it for a hundred bucks too.
Give me a hundred bucks and I will swallow a teaspoon of it on video right out of the sealed container:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis
Get ma a teaspoon sample of Glyphosphate without the surfactant(soap) and I will swallow it for a hundred bucks too.
I bet you would, for pride. And you'd be an idiot for it, also.
What no one seems to take into account are the other side effects of these things. Will BT give you colon cancer? Probably not directly. Will it make other changes in your physiology that can have cascading negative consequences? Like changes in the digestive tract that allow other possibly natural environmental toxins, which previously would flow through without issue, bog down and sit in the nooks and crannies of the intestinal wall, and more specifically, diverticula, if present, in ways the human (or any other gastrointestinal type carbon-based digestive system... bees?) has not evolved to deal with, subsequently causing things like..... colon cancer? One hypothetical example of unpredictable secondary, tertiary, quaternary, quinary, etc., etc., effects. Nothing happens without a lot of other things also happening, especially in human physiology.
Nobody knows, so the default answer becomes "no," from those with loud voices in an absence of incontrovertibly refuting evidence. The evidence that suggests it does, or has other negative effects, are all correlation studies which aren't given credence; because, as we all know, "correlation can't prove causation." But it can sure as hell suggest it. It's this same problem that protected tobacco companies for decades. I can remember as recently as when I was in school (and I'm a fairly young guy) being told, "smoking might cause health problems, but it has never been proven to cause any."
Heavy Metal
01-10-14, 20:14
You are proabaly right since BT hasn't been used for around 90 years now and definately hasn't been scrutinized with hundreds if not thousands of animal tests of the ensuing decades.
Same with Round-Up(Glyphosphate) since it was invented in the early 70's.
Animal Safety
Bt products are found to be safe for use in the environment and with mammals. The EPA (environmental protection agency) has not found any human health hazards related to using Bt. In fact the EPA has found Bt safe enough that it has exempted Bt from food residue tolerances, groundwater restrictions, endangered species labeling and special review requirements. Bt is often used near lakes, rivers and dwellings, and has no known effect on wildlife such as mammals, birds, and fish.
I bet you would, for pride. And you'd be an idiot for it, also.
No, I would be doing it for a hundred bucks. The idiot would be the one out a hundred bucks.
Heavy Metal
01-10-14, 20:23
Glyphosphate(Round-Up)
TOXICOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Acute Toxicity
Glyphosate is a moderately toxic herbicide and carries the signal word WARNING on the label. Even though the LD50 values show the compound to be relatively non-toxic it can cause significant eye irritation. The toxicity of the technical product (glyphosate) and the formulated product (Roundup) is nearly the same. The acute oral LD50 in the rat is 5,600 mg/kg. Other oral LD50 values for glyphosate are 1,538 to greater than 10,000 mg/kg for mice, rabbits mg/kg, and goats (1, 5).
In a number of human volunteers, patch tests produced no visible skin changes or sensitization.
Chronic Toxicity
Subchronic and chronic tests with glyphosate have been conducted with rats, dogs, mice, and rabbits in studies lasting from 21 days to two years. With few exceptions there were no treatment-related gross (easily observable) or cellular changes (5). In a chronic feeding study with rats, no toxic effects were observed in rats given doses as high as 31 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested. No toxic effects were observed in a chronic feeding study with dogs fed up to 500 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested (8). Mice fed glyphosate for 90 days exhibited reduced body weight gains. The lifetime administration of very high amounts of glyphosate produced only a slight reduction of body weight and some microscopic liver and kidney changes. Blood chemistry, cellular components, and organ function were not affected even at the highest doses.
Hens fed massive amounts over three days and again 21 days later showed no nerve related effects.
And the eye irritation in Rabbits was caused by the surfactant they use to break down the organic wax layer on the leaf to allow the herbicide to penetrate, not the herbicide itself. The same as if you put dishwashing detegerent into their eyes.
Heavy Metal
01-10-14, 20:35
http://xkcd.com/882/
The patent is expiring.
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011/09/when-monsantos-patents-expire.html
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/roundup-ready-patent-expiration.aspx
http://rt.com/news/monsanto-rats-tumor-france-531/
Http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/420365
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1896115
This photo reminded me of this thread:
http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/photoshop/7/8/5/232785_slide.jpg
brickboy240
01-16-14, 10:28
Next to Haliburton and the Koch Brothers...there is nobody more detested by the left and Alex Jones types than Monsanto.
thopkins22
01-16-14, 11:15
Next to Haliburton and the Koch Brothers...there is nobody more detested by the left and Alex Jones types than Monsanto.
Which is so weird, because the Koch brothers donate massive amounts of money towards causes that advocate ending the drug war, legalizing gay marriage, reducing the amount of foreign intervention we as a nation do, and so many other causes that some view as being from the left. But they're billionaires and don't want to make their money via collusion with the government so they must be evil wing nuts. ;) They're imperfect, but they've done more to advance the cause of liberty than most.
Here's one negative thing about Monsanto and for that matter most corporations/universities that are dealing in genetics. You cannot patent a fact of nature(technically the courts have said that you can, but that's an opinion based out of ignorance.) You can patent a way to utilize a fact of nature, a way to to modify it, a way to harvest it, and so forth.
But I cannot say "I patent the maple tree." Nor can I own the genes that differentiate a maple tree from other trees. I can patent a way to cut it down. I can patent a way to modify the maple tree. I can patent a unnatural way to grow maple trees fast. But I cannot patent the tree itself.
There's a significant problem with this and the human genome. Universities and companies are literally patenting genes that fight cancer better...or genes that correlate to better vision etc.... If I come up with a cancer drug that helps people with that particular gene completely independently I can be sued because my drug uses their gene. There needs to be some reforms where many of these patents are revisited and rethought.
Moose-Knuckle
01-16-14, 16:18
Next to Haliburton and the Koch Brothers...there is nobody more detested by the left and Alex Jones types than Monsanto.
That's ironic . . .
As for Monsanto and the .gov . . .
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/monsanto-controls-government-chris-parker-135253110.html
Then there is this (note the ties with the DNC, so much for "liberals want to ban GMOs") . . .
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/monsanto-employees-government-revolving-door_zps3f9afe66.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/AKS-74/media/monsanto-employees-government-revolving-door_zps3f9afe66.jpg.html)
That's ironic . . .
It's been my observation that people on gun boards have very inaccurate perceptions of "the left," "liberals," and "Democrats."
VooDoo6Actual
01-17-14, 14:04
It's been my observation that people on gun boards have very inaccurate perceptions of "the left," "liberals," and "Democrats."
It's been my observation that people on gun boards have very inaccurate perceptions regarding Manufactured Consent, the Military Banking Industrial Complex (MBIC), Cult of Personality, Black Swan Events, Geopolitics, Geo-resources et alia & generally are indolent regarding their research.
brickboy240
01-17-14, 14:13
Very true.
In fact, many events, scandals and "market corrections" are not as accidental or unplanned as one might think.
Many are actually engineered a long time before they actually happen and the ensuing tragic results are actually what is expected to happen.
But if you mention this...many write you off as an Alex Jones type tinfoil hat kook.
-brickboy240
VooDoo6Actual
02-02-14, 19:37
I found this interesting & concerning...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U3hCR_yCvkk
VooDoo6Actual
02-04-14, 18:05
I'm gonna go w/ more non-fiction than fiction.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/06/09/monsanto-roundup-herbicide.aspx
Because no one company should be so big and powerful that they can destroy the family farm or threaten the food supply of the country. What happens when a Chinese govt shell company buys Monsanto and then holds our food supply hostage?
They are a prime example of Crony Capitalism. If I can watch the TV and root for MY TEAM nothing else matters. Hillary 2016 because we need a woman president.
Thread bump, and interesting article in Mother Jones on GMOs:
No, GMOs Won't Harm Your Health
There are two broad types of genetically modified organisms: transgenic and cisgenic. Cisgenic modification occurs between closely related plants—something that might have happened more "naturally" through crossbreeding. Transgenic modification involves transferring genes across disparate species, or even kingdoms—impossible if left to Mother Nature. It's this second type of modification that gives products the derogatory label of "Frankenfood." But compared with crossbreeding or mutation breeding, says Novella, genetic modification is "much more precise"—selecting only one gene or a part of a gene and inserting it into the target food.
What are people so worried about, then? Some have argued that new allergies could be induced by the creation of new proteins—Novella calls this a "legitimate concern" but says that GM foods undergo testing to prevent this from happening. Some fear that when GM foods are used as feed for livestock, there will be unintended consequences for humans who eat them. But again, there's no evidence that animals that eat GM foods pose any health risks to us. "To date," says Novella, "the reviews conclude pretty universally that there's just no health risk."
Cont:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/inquiring-minds-steven-novella-gmo
RogerinTPA
02-14-14, 15:03
I try and do organic as much as possible. I even have an app that scans barcodes for GMOs. I found that almost everything I like or have in my home is GMO. I'd feel better if they labeled foods GMO in plan labeling, then let the people decide on whether they want to consume it or not.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.