Monsanto/GMO woo vs science

[thfcsteff]

I'm gonna do you a big favour here and advise you never to listen to a single word said or written by Joseph Mercola. The man is the very definition of quack. Just google "mercola skeptic" and click on any of the thousands of links you see there.

Here's a good one:
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/9-reasons-to-completely-ignore-joseph-mercola-and-natural-news/


The myth of Monsanto ruthlessly suing innocent farmers is just that. They are very assertive about their patent rights as well they should be, but do not go after those who haven't stolen from them.

Here was a case where some very well-funded anti-GMO types tried to prove that it happened and massively failed:
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=156

I am aware of Mercola and he is certainly a controversial figure (I am not an anti-vaxxer and think his stance on that is off-base). However his point on Monsanto is both clear has been reported by multiple outlets for some time.

Your second point? What can I say. I think you are wrong. They control 80% of the GM market in the US. They can afford to win. And crush. They are the Walmart of Big Ag. They have an incredible system and doubtless some fantastic lawyers; in fact, perhaps Ched Evans can get a job with them. The perfect couple. Bless.

 

[scaramanga]

This has been seen with escaped GMO salmon where the natural systems they escape into can't cope with the larger super-predator.

Link? Can't find anything about this and I've googled for all of 20 seconds!

 

[scaramanga]

Well a Muslim wouldn't appreciate eating a salmon that contained elements from a pig for a start.

Firstly, it's a ridiculous belief, so fudge'em.

Secondly, and most importantly, that comment goes to show how little you understand about what GMOs are and how they're created.

In some cases, you could, at a stretch, suggest the very first stage lab salmon have a bit if pig in them, but that's really pushing it. After that point, it's just salmon.

Really opposition stems from this, that companies can dictate what we eat.

No they don't, they just produce some food. If you choose to be a fool and avoid it then you don't eat it.

Also, these companies have no bio security. For example salmon that have been genetically modified have escaped and pollute wild strains of fish.

Do you have a link?

Why are companies genetically modifying food? well the answer is obvious-greed! Splicing a growth gene from a pig into salmon was all about boosting the growth rates of fish, so as to boost profit. Now that came as a surprise didn't it.

There's nothing wrong with profit - it has driven our race forward in every way. Without the expectation of profit, who pays for the research?

So what about golden rice? How do you feel about that?

 

[scaramanga]

fudgeing with nature never leads to anything bad, right? Your in deep water here my friend!

Sometimes fudging with nature is problematic - especially if you're building a theme park full of dinosaurs.

So far GMO food isn't. There's been somewhere between 1700 and 1800 safety studies and (other than the same, poorly performed studies that end up promoting alternative medicine) they all conclude that GMOS food is safe.

 

[scaramanga]

The cost of growth is the same. We haven't worked out a way to make photosynthesis, respiration or assimilation any more efficient, we just have ways to make animals and plants do it quicker. It still needs the same amount of raw materials, just over a shorter time period.

.......

Until we invent Photosynthesis 2.1 then the actual cost remains the same.

There was some research that came to light in around March this year where someone had managed to increase the rate of photosynthesis in wheat.

Not sure what happened, I didn't follow it up as biology bores the fudge out of me.

 

[scaramanga]

Hmmmm, yes, I am aware that food cultivation modification has been taking place (in some form) pretty much since feudal times. I am further aware that thanks to the environmental damage done around the world, many crops need to be modified in some sense so as they can be grown. But what I do not, and will not, accept, is the accelerated modification companies such as Monsanto aggressively push not in the interests of anything other than profit. OR the fact that they can put whatever the fudge they want into these 'modifications' and most people have not on scooby dooby doo what the hell said-'ingredients' are.

We are all victims of it unless we live off the grid, but it is possible to make efforts to avoid having as little of that bricke in your system as possible.

Errrrr, let me, ahhhh, put this, hmmmm, bluntly.
If you think fudgeing around with the world's food supplies simply to keep your investors happy and profit margins high, whatever the long-term effects might be to human beings OF that modification, then we have no further opinions to exchange. I will leave you with a phrase - you can these days get tits thanks to chickens. And I don't mean that macaron you might see stumbling out of KFC on the High Street at midnight.

Can I ask you what I've asked @Gilzeantoscore - how do you feel about golden rice?

 

[scaramanga]

Knock yourself out with some reading, providing two sides of the coin (although one is distinctly thinner than the other)...it is the New York Times, so barring an outburst from you proclaiming them closet-lefties, we should be able to agree their research/sources are half-decent.

http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2...isks-of-genetically-engineering-animals/?_r=0

Can you do me a favour and point out which parts of that article are critical of GMO or that suggest it is a bad thing?

The only suggestions I can find in there are that we need to be careful, which of course we do and we are.

One comment you made somewhere about 'pollination' led me to once again consider just how much the likes of Monsanto and big agriculture is fudgeing with the environment and causing the bee population to suffer big-time, which in turn affects natural pollination, which in turn makes big agricultural pollination necessary. Rather than wave your stick in the wind (!!!!!!!) asking for 'facts' and whatnot (as if they cannot be found with a few simple taps of a computer keyboard) go and read about the bee issues if you give a brick. And if you don't, trust me, it's a real issue.

It is a real issue, but it's nothing whatsoever to do with GMOs or Monsanto:
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/neonicotinoids-gmos-and-colony-collapse-disorder/

 

[scaramanga]

I am aware of Mercola and he is certainly a controversial figure (I am not an anti-vaxxer and think his stance on that is off-base). However his point on Monsanto is both clear has been reported by multiple outlets for some time.

There is no controversy about him in the world of science, he is universally regarded as a quack.

He is completely and utterly wrong on every subject he weighs in on, yet he might be right about Monsanto? I don't think the stopped clock theory is a robust method for choosing sources and you'll have to find someone who isn't ridiculed by the entire scientific community if you want me to regard what they write as having some factual basis.

http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html

Your second point? What can I say. I think you are wrong. They control 80% of the GM market in the US. They can afford to win. And crush. They are the Walmart of Big Ag. They have an incredible system and doubtless some fantastic lawyers; in fact, perhaps Ched Evans can get a job with them. The perfect couple. Bless.

They're good at what they do. They sue people who steal their IP, they sue people who steal their property. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and if they couldn't, there wouldn't be an industry as patent protection allows businesses to recoup their investment.

As it happens, I'm not a massive fan of patent law but it is currently the best method we have for driving investment in technology and it works.

You might be interested to know that they are 3rd on the CPA-Zicklin index. Whole Foods, one of the largest businesses to oppose Monsanto and GMOs, who are regularly regarded as the "good guys" by environmentalists, lefties and people with more spare cash than knowledge scored a whopping 10%.
http://files.politicalaccountability.net/index/CPA-Zicklin_Index_Final_with_links.pdf

 

[JerusalemMan]

Link? Can't find anything about this and I've googled for all of 20 seconds!

Of some relevance.

http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.or...197232bd2eaaa5969bde0823&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

http://science.sciencemag.org/conte...d4f641bdcc92dab24fa283f7&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

 

[scaramanga]

Of some relevance.

http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/55/5/427.abstract?ijkey=28997401ea25293c197232bd2eaaa5969bde0823&keytype2=ttf_ipsecsha

I've seen a lot like this, discussing a theoretical risk, but I've found just as many suggesting that escaped GMO salmon would lack competitiveness with regard to breeding in the wild.

http://science.sciencemag.org/conte...d4f641bdcc92dab24fa283f7&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

I've only read the abstract, but isn't that talking about farm salmon in general?

 

[thfcsteff]

There is no controversy about him in the world of science, he is universally regarded as a quack.

He is completely and utterly wrong on every subject he weighs in on, yet he might be right about Monsanto? I don't think the stopped clock theory is a robust method for choosing sources and you'll have to find someone who isn't ridiculed by the entire scientific community if you want me to regard what they write as having some factual basis.

http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html


They're good at what they do. They sue people who steal their IP, they sue people who steal their property. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and if they couldn't, there wouldn't be an industry as patent protection allows businesses to recoup their investment.

As it happens, I'm not a massive fan of patent law but it is currently the best method we have for driving investment in technology and it works.

You might be interested to know that they are 3rd on the CPA-Zicklin index. Whole Foods, one of the largest businesses to oppose Monsanto and GMOs, who are regularly regarded as the "good guys" by environmentalists, lefties and people with more spare cash than knowledge scored a whopping 10%.
http://files.politicalaccountability.net/index/CPA-Zicklin_Index_Final_with_links.pdf

I think the single biggest problem here is that I genuinely do not believe you will ever consider any source which is counter to your opinion as reliable. Any examples offered are countered with varying degrees of distrust and suspicion which (ironically) leave the perception of the sort of 'tin-foil-hatter' you tend to level at those in opposition. There have been plenty of examples offered showing you what Monsanto is about, how they operate and the immense might of their system. I even offered a wide-ranging series of pieces arguing both sides of the coin, yet you want me to point out the issues. You don't want to see them.

It causes discussion to become sabre rattling at a certain point, thus you enjoy not believing a word of it my friend. I will continue to choose not to trust the ethos and ethics behind Monsanto.

 

[scaramanga]

I think the single biggest problem here is that I genuinely do not believe you will ever consider any source which is counter to your opinion as reliable. Any examples offered are countered with varying degrees of distrust and suspicion which (ironically) leave the perception of the sort of 'tin-foil-hatter' you tend to level at those in opposition. There have been plenty of examples offered showing you what Monsanto is about, how they operate and the immense might of their system. I even offered a wide-ranging series of pieces arguing both sides of the coin, yet you want me to point out the issues. You don't want to see them.

It causes discussion to become sabre rattling at a certain point, thus you enjoy not believing a word of it my friend. I will continue to choose not to trust the ethos and ethics behind Monsanto.

You've linked to someone the entire scientific community considers to be a subject of ridicule. I'm not exaggerating when I say that he is spoken of in the same terms as Andrew Wakefield, Deepak Chopra and Donald Trump - he has no credibility whatsoever.

You also posted an article that, as far as I can see, is not critical of either Monsanto or GMO.

If you want to point out any specific criticism, I'll be glad to debate any and all of them.

 

[thfcsteff]

You've linked to someone the entire scientific community considers to be a subject of ridicule. I'm not exaggerating when I say that he is spoken of in the same terms as Andrew Wakefield, Deepak Chopra and Donald Trump - he has no credibility whatsoever.

You also posted an article that, as far as I can see, is not critical of either Monsanto or GMO.

If you want to point out any specific criticism, I'll be glad to debate any and all of them.

First of all, and sad to say because in this case I agree that the following are tossy, Chopra and Trump are entertained and believed by millions. They also both, for the amount of brick they talk, make some fair points. I think aligning (personally) aligning them with Mercola is wide.

Here is a general Monsanto timeline. We can debate details if you wish, but the bottom line is that if it walks like a duck and acts like a duck, then for me, it's a duck. Monsanto's track record as a company shows that they are interested in profit over concern for life. I do not trust them. IMO, neither should you.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-co...anto-the-worlds-most-evil-corporation/5387964

Finally I am aware that Global Research is not a major conglomerate-owned media outlet, but there are hard facts in this simple timeline which circumvent opinion. They simply either get reported or not (depending on the bent of the outlet). Media and the increasing hardship in finding balanced coverage, is another issue and another topic of debate (as is corporate/corporate-legal influence over media generally)...

 

[Lost Mango]

There was some research that came to light in around March this year where someone had managed to increase the rate of photosynthesis in wheat.

Not sure what happened, I didn't follow it up as biology bores the fudge out of me.

Link? Can't find anything about this and I've googled for all of 20 seconds!

 

[JerusalemMan]

I've seen a lot like this, discussing a theoretical risk, but I've found just as many suggesting that escaped GMO salmon would lack competitiveness with regard to breeding in the wild.


I've only read the abstract, but isn't that talking about farm salmon in general?

Beats me. I just Googled for 20 seconds.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

As a typical right winger Scara loves small government because it affords him choice. He has said that so many times on here. However, he doesn't extend that right to others. Muslims are following a stupid religion, so "fudge 'em." Monsanto just make food. Really? If their genetically modified food is so great, why isn't it clearly labelled? As I've clearly stated throughout, at it's root, this all about freedom of choice. In Scara's world, this only extends to the chosen few. For people such as him, profit is everything and consequences to the environment and people's freedoms amount to nothing. It neatly encapsulates the neo-liberal mindset and all that is wrong with our world.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Beats me. I just Googled for 20 seconds.

Yes farmed salmon have ben seen as a possible replacement for wild fish and their lack of competiveness has debunked that idea. However, farmed, genetically modified fish are perfectly capable of reaching the spawning redds and fertilising wild salmon eggs and stuffing up wild strains of fish. But who cares hey, it's all about the money!

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

You've linked to someone the entire scientific community considers to be a subject of ridicule. I'm not exaggerating when I say that he is spoken of in the same terms as Andrew Wakefield, Deepak Chopra and Donald Trump - he has no credibility whatsoever.

You also posted an article that, as far as I can see, is not critical of either Monsanto or GMO.

If you want to point out any specific criticism, I'll be glad to debate any and all of them.

ha, ha, I'll be he's a climate change denier as well. You, here look at this data from NASA. Him, its a world communist/Green inspired conspiracy. You, here is data from the Royal Society. Him, those numbers are cooked.

 

[scaramanga]

Link? Can't find anything about this and I've googled for all of 20 seconds!

It was talked about on the SGU, that's all I can remember. If I get a chance I'll go through a couple of old episodes.

 

[scaramanga]

ha, ha, I'll be he's a climate change denier as well. You, here look at this data from NASA. Him, its a world communist/Green inspired conspiracy. You, here is data from the Royal Society. Him, those numbers are cooked.

Of course not. There's a clear pattern to my thought - when there's strong scientific consensus on a subject, that's what I believe.

The overwhelmingly strong scientific consensus is that GMOs are perfectly safe.