Farmers and civil society organizations around the world are outraged by the recent discovery of further connections between the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and agribusiness titan Monsanto. Last week, a financial website published the Gates Foundation’s investment portfolio, including 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock with an estimated worth of $23.1 million purchased in the second quarter of 2010. This marks a substantial increase from its previous holdings, valued at just over $360,000.
“The Foundation’s direct investment in Monsanto is problematic on two primary levels,” said Dr. Phil Bereano, University of Washington Professor Emeritus and recognized expert on genetic engineering, in the press release. “First, Monsanto has a history of blatant disregard for the interests and well-being of small farmers around the world, as well as an appalling environmental track record. The strong connections to Monsanto cast serious doubt on the Foundation’s heavy funding of agricultural development in Africa and purported goal of alleviating poverty and hunger among small-scale farmers. Second, this investment represents an enormous conflict of interests.”
Monsanto has already negatively impacted agriculture in African countries. For example, in South Africa in 2009, Monsanto’s genetically modified maize failed to produce kernels and hundreds of farmers were devastated. According to Mariam Mayet, environmental attorney and director of the Africa Centre for Biosafety in Johannesburg, some farmers suffered up to an 80% crop failure. While Monsanto compensated the large-scale farmers to whom it directly sold the faulty product, it gave nothing to the small-scale farmers to whom it had handed out free sachets of seeds. “When the economic power of Gates is coupled with the irresponsibility of Monsanto, the outlook for African smallholders is not very promising,” said Mayet. Monsanto’s aggressive patenting practices have also monopolized control over seed in ways that deny farmers control over their own harvest, going so far as to sue—and bankrupt—farmers for “patent infringement.”
News of the Foundation’s recent Monsanto investment has confirmed the misgivings of many farmers and sustainable agriculture advocates in Africa, among them the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, who commented, “We have long suspected that the founders of AGRA—the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation—had a long and more intimate affair with Monsanto.” Indeed, according to Travis English, researcher with AGRA Watch, “The Foundation’s ownership of Monsanto stock is emblematic of a deeper, more long-standing involvement with the corporation, particularly in Africa.” In 2008, AGRA Watch, a project of the Seattle-based organization Community Alliance for Global Justice, uncovered many linkages between the Foundation’s grantees and Monsanto. For example, some grantees (in particular about 70% of grantees in Kenya) of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)—considered by the Foundation to be its “African face”—work directly with Monsanto on agricultural development projects. Other prominent links include high-level Foundation staff members who were once senior officials for Monsanto, such as Rob Horsch, formerly Monsanto Vice President of International Development Partnerships and current Senior Program Officer of the Gates Agricultural Development Program.
Transnational corporations like Monsanto have been key collaborators with the Foundation and AGRA’s grantees in promoting the spread of industrial agriculture on the continent. This model of production relies on expensive inputs such as chemical fertilizers, genetically modified seeds, and herbicides. Though this package represents enticing market development opportunities for the private sector, many civil society organizations contend it will lead to further displacement of farmers from the land, an actual increase in hunger, and migration to already swollen cities unable to provide employment opportunities. In the words of a representative from the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, “AGRA is poison for our farming systems and livelihoods. Under the philanthropic banner of greening agriculture, AGRA will eventually eat away what little is left of sustainable small-scale farming in Africa.”
A 2008 report initiated by the World Bank and the UN, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), promotes alternative solutions to the problems of hunger and poverty that emphasize their social and economic roots. The IAASTD concluded that small-scale agroecological farming is more suitable for the third world than the industrial agricultural model favored by Gates and Monsanto. In a summary of the key findings of IAASTD, the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) emphasizes the report’s warning that “continued reliance on simplistic technological fixes—including transgenic crops—will not reduce persistent hunger and poverty and could exacerbate environmental problems and worsen social inequity.” Furthermore, PANNA explains, “The Assessment’s 21 key findings suggest that small-scale agroecological farming may offer one of the best means to feed the hungry while protecting the planet.”
The Gates Foundation has been challenged in the past for its questionable investments; in 2007, the L.A. Times exposed the Foundation for investing in its own grantees and for its “holdings in many companies that have failed tests of social responsibility because of environmental lapses, employment discrimination, disregard for worker rights, or unethical practices.” The Times chastised the Foundation for what it called “blind-eye investing,” with at least 41% of its assets invested in “companies that countered the foundation’s charitable goals or socially-concerned philosophy.”
Although the Foundation announced it would reassess its practices, it decided to retain them. As reported by the L.A. Times, chief executive of the Foundation Patty Stonesifer defended their investments, stating, “It would be naïve…to think that changing the foundation’s investment policy could stop the human suffering blamed on the practices of companies in which it invests billions of dollars.” This decision is in direct contradiction to the Foundation’s official “Investment Philosophy”, which, according to its website, “defined areas in which the endowment will not invest, such as companies whose profit model is centrally tied to corporate activity that [Bill and Melinda] find egregious. This is why the endowment does not invest in tobacco stocks.”
More recently, the Foundation has come under fire in its own hometown. This week, 250 Seattle residents sent postcards expressing their concern that the Foundation’s approach to agricultural development, rather than reducing hunger as pledged, would instead “increase farmer debt, enrich agribusiness corporations like Monsanto and Syngenta, degrade the environment, and dispossess small farmers.” In addition to demanding that the Foundation instead fund “socially and ecologically appropriate practices determined locally by African farmers and scientists” and support African food sovereignty, they urged the Foundation to cut all ties to Monsanto and the biotechnology industry.
AGRA Watch, a program of Seattle-based Community Alliance for Global Justice, supports African initiatives and programs that foster farmers’ self-determination and food sovereignty. AGRA Watch also supports public engagement in fighting genetic engineering and exploitative agricultural policies, and demands transparency and accountability on the part of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and AGRA.
Source: AGRA Watch
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “ChrissyOne” for the heads up.]
To be honest, I doubt this investment was a conscious one.
Montsanto is evil, no doubt. However, it has ll been exposed rather recently.
Allowing GMO in the first place has allowed this to happen. Allowing companies to patent a GMO food is the second problem (blame capitalism for that), and then not regulating the food industry is the third problem. (Blame government that believes a hands-off approach is better). There are things that shouldn’t be left completely to the free market. Food is one of them.
Monsanto is pure evil.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=20675
Doesn’t get more evil than Monsanto. They need to be stopped.
Why do I have a sudden urge to watch a George Clooney/Tilda Swinton film?
@ ApplePi:
When you’re investing for charitable causes, each and every investment should be a conscious one. Putting your investments on autopilot is no excuse when you’re claiming to be doing good.
MonsantoSoft, MicroSanto…?
Read the book “Sleepless” by Charlie Huston. Most entertaining!
Evil marries evil; a match made in heaven
So… Bill made one bad investment in his charity work.
Now – remind me: What investments has Steve done lately?
Of any kind?
Yeah, that Bill Gates is some kinda humanitarian!
Anyone know where I can get a GMO chalupa to match these GMO shoes?
Jerry, – anyone?..
The spoils of one toxic product invested in another.
@PcGuy
I suppose you’re not counting his giant antenna testing chamber as a charitable investment.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
@PcGuy,
Not to mention all their investments in pharmaceutical companies.
No surprise.
This seems like it’s in character.
Gates is and has always been a big scam artist.
Just ask Gary Kildall. I guess it’s too late for that.
Looks like this brought out the anti-capitalist liberal loonies!
Okay, everyone who has tended a field or has an ag degree please feel free to weigh in. Everyone whose lifetime experience with growing food amounts to their time in the produce section with a starbucks in their paw, stfu.
Do you think engineering a crop to use less water so it can grow in drought plagued regions is wrong? Outstanding, you own the moral high ground and have condemned those poor souls to starve in their blessed arid hell.
Do you think engineering a crop to be tolerant of the pesticides required to manage the insects that ravage the crops and make their lives hell is morally wrong? Brilliant, your morals just murdered hundreds of millions of the poorest of all humanity.
Honestly, get off your liberal arts degrees and get out in the soil and be responsible for feeding people, be honest and stand in front of us and say you tend the soil and grow a crop to feed people. Otherwise , your words are air.
I like the idea that Monsanto is “evil”. Here’s an idea. Bill and Melinda Gates and their foundation are allowed to invest in private companies. They are free to do so as American citizens, unless the Obaba new world order is now taking away that right. Monsanto is a fine American company. If you don’t like them, don’t buy their products or their stock. If you like them buy their products and their stock. What is “evil” is worthless nobodies who have never done a thing worth mentioning in their pathetic lives labeling productive companies as “evil”. Of course, environmentalists are like movie critics, incompetent to do the very thing they criticize.
Why can’t all these U.S. Billionaires/Millionaires and hollywood celebrities invest and help out the U.S.A. Invent and help our people (poor and out of work), schools (not just higher education) vets, hospitals, technology and infrastructure. Everyone of them seem so eager to help other countries but their homeland.
Profits first, human life second.
I’m with Tom. I don’t get the outrage.
Has Monsanto done that much bad to outweigh any good?
They are goddam dying in parts of Africa for lack of food, so the Useless Nations sends in a team to determine that the status quo is better than higher yields?
And yes, I am from a farming family. I know any seed tampering can lead to problems, so don’t do anything?
I guess I am missing a big piece of the puzzle.
but … but … free market! never mind, Kent beat me to it.
any company that attempts to make farmers renew their “lease” on seeds is evil. any company that attempts to make farmers pay a royalty when their crops are invaded by airborne Monsanto seeds is evil.
Anyone here who DOESN’T think Monsanto is evil: I dare you toneat nothing but Monsanto food for 6 months and let’s see of you’re alive at the end of that little experiment on your body.
Go watch the documentary “Food Inc.”.
Monsanto is absolutely the most evil corporation in the world, bar none.
I hope that everybody who works for Monsanto, along with their families, suffer tremendously for their entire lives.
“to eat” not “toneat”.
22,000 employees, MacBill, plus family.
Nice.
How about this for evil? Environmentalists who fight the use of lifesaving DDT to kill malaria carrying Mosquitos but instead make a big show of suggesting ineffective nets. So millions die needlessly, but American effete liberals feel good about their pristine virtue and rationalize the dead as worth it since it helps them feel better about themselves.
This decision is in direct contradiction to the Foundation’s official “Investment Philosophy”, which, according to its website, “defined areas in which the endowment will not invest, such as companies whose profit model is centrally tied to corporate activity that [Bill and Melinda] find egregious.
It is ironic…damn near funny…that if you look up in the dictionary, egregious can mean outstanding bad, or remarkably GOOD.
My, my – we certainly seem to have a lot of Monsanto shareholders defending the company on this forum today and apparently none of these people who think the company is okay can READ THE BLOODY ARTICLE AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE TELLING YOU EXACTLY HOW BADLY THE COMPANY HAS BEHAVED AND THE DAMAGE THEY’VE DONE TO THIRD WORLD FARMING.
@tom and towertone
You are both missing a piece of the puzzle. Monsanto is so irresponsible I’d almost swear they are trying to kill, starve, or otherwise harm as many people as possible.
Let me explain:
Imagine, if you will, a computer (#1) being introduced into the environment that can, during certain times of the year, cause other computers (#n) around it to be altered, permanently, such that all future output of #n computer now resembles #1. Normally, this would not bother you, except, now, there is a claim of ownership to all downstream generations from #n by the owner of #1.
Hope you get the picture, and it gets MUCH worse. I’ll be happy to ‘splain if you make me.
BTW… I agree with Tom and TowerTone. I work with transgenic plants and if you do not think that this is our future, you are a damn fool.
Ask the farmer who plants insect resistnat transgenic cotton. These guys are FINALLY making a profit without having to spread tons of toxic pesticides to save the crop enough to break even.
Ask the 300,000 african kids (yes you are reading that number correctly) every year that go blind because of not enough Vitamin A in their diet. Transgenic rice (retinoic acid) is taking care of that.
Try reading a bit before you pontificate about evil foods
…..morons.
I am with MacBill.
Here they are a list of articles on Monsanto that will clarify you they are really evil:
Mercola
Monsanto is evil for a lot of reasons. GM food derives in problems in human cells: Monsanto does not allow farmers to use seeds from the previous harvest for replanting. They require buying new seeds from the Monsanto. Failure to do so, farmers will be sued. GMF are pesticide resistant, Are you? Because don’t tell me the plant does not absorb pesticides when it grows.
Shit happens, more than what we wanted®
@doc…yes please explain. I believe you are fear-mongering.
When that silly computer analogy occurs, it is because the farmer is more than likely responsible…not Monsanto. He has to keep 10-20% of his crop non-transgenic and there are other restrictions. When he doesn’t fallow them (usually to make more money), bad things can happen.
Do we not let people have gasoline because some moron’ set it on fire?
C’mon Forrest…do not act like the real Gump. THe pesticide in corn is harmless to humans. Is is a protein that has NO effect on animals…none…zero….nada. Most everything else you use around the house has some level of effect on you (everything is toxic,,,its just a question of dose) yet you come out with such stupid statements that I fear for the human race.
People if you do not know what you are taking about…STFU……
The gut has more nerve endings than the brain…which explains why some many people go on gut feelings rather than intelligent FACTS.
BTW, I am not defending Monsanto here. I am defending transgenic plants only. We need more of them, not less. It would reduce the overall level of cancers (especially endocrine) caused by pesticide usage.
If you have Netflix, please watch Food, Inc. to learn more about how Monstano’s soy patents have affected soy farmers.
The problem isn’t with transgenic plants. The problem is that companies like Monstanto do not allow farmers to save seeds. They must buy them from (drumroll…) Monstanto.
If they do save seeds, they are in violation of Monstanto’s patents. But here’s the rub…
Here on Planet Earth, we have wind. Wind carries seeds and pollen. And it easily transports them from one field to another. So if Monstanto finds their seeds in your crop, weather you planted them or they blew there, then you are still in violation of their patents.
They now completely own the soy industry because of this. They have run small farmers and seeds cleaners completely out of business.
It’s not a plant problem, it’s a patent problem.
Bill Gates father was head of Planned Parenthood (helps abortions)years ago, foundations like “Bill Gates vaccines depopulation” (google it), Monsanto depopulation of third world countries patenting seeds of transgenic foods (we’ll be next here), Norman Dodd on tax exempt foundations(google it)
i see a theme here, dont’t you guys?
let’s save our country before is too late !!
Terry, Kent, Tom get your heads out of the sand please, WAKE UP
doc
I believe the farmers lost that court fight in Canada and the US.
Apparently it had something to do with their stories.
Now let me explain a little more of my view.
I am not saying Monsanto is a perfect company. They are huge and prone to make mistakes. But I am not swayed by a movie made by people who had no idea how food was processed to begin with. I’ve been around different forms of it most of my life.
I’ve known farmers who graduated from A&M and
I’ve know the people who work the chicken farms/truck/factories.
I’ve grown food.
I’ve raised cattle.
I wasn’t insulated from this reality by living in a big city all my life.
It’s hard work.
It is amazing to me that many of the same people who see a movie about Wal-Mart hate it even though it helps low-income people.
Then they see a movie about Monsanto (and others) and hate them even though they help feed the millions that can’t feed themselves.
It’s no wonder that when they see a movie about global warming, they jump on that bandwagon, too, even though it damns third world countries from ever developing industry to advance themselves.
If you don’t want the food, don’t eat it. There are plenty of choices. I prefer fresh.
If you don’t like Wal-Mart, don’t shop there. I seldom do.
And if you believe in in man-made global warming…..then turn your damn computer off.
Here at MDN we advocate completely open web standards and completely closed food standards.
“If you don’t want the food, don’t eat it. There are plenty of choices. I prefer fresh.
If you don’t like Wal-Mart, don’t shop there. I seldom do.
And if you believe in in man-made global warming…..then turn your damn computer off.”
And if you don’t like terrorists, don’t buy oil from their countries.
(That last one ain’t so easy, huh?)
Watching documentaries for information = BAD
Listening to dropouts on AM radio for information = GOOD
@Buster
So, the best you can do is limit the portion of GMO to total crop at 15-20% else it might infect the other portion, AND, the farmer must lose some other method of profit, in order for you to “win”, and you call me a fear monger!
WOW!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jan-mcgirk/mexicos-mutant-kernels-ri_b_616463.html
Don’t like pink slime? Better go vegan…
http://www.alternet.org/story/144904/
What does this have to do with Apple, the Mac, or even Microsoft?
You are publishing this to promote your political views and advance your perspective on the organizations mentioned in the article.
You have lost your way, MacDailyNews.
@towertone
I understand what you are saying, and in many ways we likely agree on many things. In this case, I would urge you to do some research into how limited the safety studies by Monsanto et. al. have been. Imagine, if you will, how things may turn out if we were all to be required to take the flu vaccine…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_swine_flu_outbreak
The problem with topics like this is that people watch “documentaries” (which are always biased in one direction or the other, no matter who makes them or what they say — they have to be paid for somehow) and then consider themselves educated on the topic. You cannot consider yourself educated on a topic as complex as biotechnology after watching a single biased documentary. I’m sorry.
I’m with Tom, TowerTone, and Buster. I work with transgenic plants every day. I’ve eaten plenty of transgenic plant seeds, and plenty of transgenic plant products. I’m totally sure all of you have as well, even if you don’t know about it. The problem here derives directly from ignorant people who do not (and cannot without at least a bachelor’s degree) understand the science behind these products, or the regulation that they undergo before becoming marketable.
The article talks mainly about Monsanto, and Africa. I read it fully, before anyone tells me to read it. In Africa, millions of people die every year from malnutrition. There is simply not enough food to go around, and the environmental conditions do not help any. Part of the blame for this tragedy can surely be levelled on the imperialistic countries that destroyed that continent many years ago. But the other part of it is that it is difficult to grow agricultural crops in Africa. The insects, and the heat (in many regions) are devastating to crops planted by even small-scale farmers. If you can provide a crop that will resist drought better, and resist these insects better (neither of which requires spraying any chemical, mind you) then what is the possible downside? More people eat, and more people live.
Monsanto is a large company that is in business to make money. Just like Apple, just like Microsoft, Google, Exxon, HTC, Dow, whatever company you want, etc. etc. The only way that they can make money off the millions and millions of dollars they put into these products is to patent them. Otherwise, they would not exist because other companies would rip them off immediately. Which brings us to the patent system, which is obviously not perfect. But if anyone has any suggestions on a better system, they could step forward right now.
It’s either A) have patentable-GMOs and feed more people in the world (GMO crops DO have higher yields usually due to less competition among weed species for nutrients, among other reasons) or B) have more starvation in the world. The people that work for these biotech companies (I’m obviously one of them, but I don’t work for Monsanto — although I wouldn’t be against working for them) are people like you too. The vast majority of them have very noble goals in mind working in this area. Don’t tear them down when you don’t fully understand the science.
Honestly, if anyone has questions about this topic I’d be more than happy to respond.
–mAc
I think I’ll write a ‘documentary’ about two guys that form a computer company.
They steal some ideas from H-P, IBM and Xerox, put their name on some code, and then sell them way over priced.
The company finally gets rid of the greedy founder but he comes back to exact revenge. He changes the OS that everybody was used to. He ended agreements with others to license his system. He then made tiny music players off the sweat of Chinese kids and eventually parlayed this into ruining the music industry (just ask some old timers).
But that wasn’t enough. He then sold phones, but only to his chosen provider. If you wanted to buy a new one, guess what? You had to go with ATT. And if you wanted to buy applications from somewhere other than Apple, guess what? You can’t.
It has gotten so bad that factory workers are killing themselves, Green Peace is after them, kids are being robbed and killed because their iPods are too expensive for the under-privileged, and they knowingly sold millions of phones with faulty antennas that didn’t even work.
Their workers are underpaid and overworked. Their management has been extorting bribes from business associates, and the ‘just works’ computers have been riddled with problems.
You don’t know about all this because of the secretive environment they operate under, and we all know why companies keep secrets!
Now I know this movie won’t sell here, and I know for dam sure it isn’t the complete story, but what the Hell, I’ll make a sh!tload of money off those Windows people who just love to find fault with something they don’t use. Makes them fell all smarter and warm inside….
@Tom – yes, it is wrong. Deploying chemical pesticides to kill everything — yes, EVERYTHING — and then coming in a few years later to sell your pesticide-resistant patented overpriced seed (available only when purchasing more poisons) is pure evil, and morally reprehensible. engineering a crop to not reproduce its own seed and then actively taking market steps to eliminate the growth of heritage self-reproducing crops is wrong.
Go ahead and try to make yourself feel good about making patented super-seed that grows without much water. Or your could just support the installation of irrigation equipment, you know, so those poor people could actually have drinking water to go with your poison. Oh, wait, I forgot. Monsanto hasn’t bought up all the water rights yet, they wouldn’t profit enough if people actually had anything to drink. Those people just need to plant special magical monsanto seeds.
The obvious answer to drought and crop failure is proper, fair water management for the benefit all, not specialized genetic seeds and poisons for the profit of some megacorporation.
@ MDN: Mac Content Please!!!!!!!!!
Isn’t Monsanto one of the companies that made agent orange? I think so. I was in Vietnam in 1968-69. I prematurely (in my 30’s) came down with ischemic heart disease. The US Veterans Affairs had ruled agent orange causes premature ischemic heart disease in about 200,000 Vietnam veterans (out of 2.5 million who served), plus a host of other diseases that are intergenerational.Thanks Monsanto and Dow!
Big Industry is always looking out for your well-being.
Big Government always wants to take your money and kill you.
If you don’t understand this, I’m sure someone here will be more than happy to make some stuff up.
Do you know there are places where it is illegal to gather rain water?
I’m looking forward to Monstanto’s new Clean Air™. At last we’ll all have access to fresh, clean air to breathe, completely free of harmful emissions. Monsanto will provide us all with this vital resource.
For a price.
That vapid ignorance of today’s Rill Americans once again astounds me.
“ignorance” implies that one hasn’t been exposed to enough of the information to make an educated decision.
I think you meant ‘stupidity’, whereas you can hold the truth right under someone’s nose and they still don’t get it.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
@ TowerTone
If you don’t let the information in, it’s still called ignorance. Stupidity is when they actually get the information and they don’t care.
Remember folks, Truth and Facts are exactly the same thing.
For more on stupidity, please refer to people who admire Sarah Palin.
That would be me, folks.
Step right up…..
I’m wondering… let’s say Monstanto came up with a better cow.
They engineered a cow that ate less and put on more weight, and didn’t mind standing in its own shit and enjoyed being slaughtered. Let’s just postulate.
Now this cow could only be purchased from Monstanto. It could still reproduce, but you couldn’t actually keep its calves. You’d have to buy new ones every year from Monstanto.
But why not!?! The cow are Way Better Cows™ and everyone should love them.
Now, small farmers who like their Plain Old Cows can go right on breeding them if they like, but of course now they can’t compete with farmers of Way Better Cows™, because their feed and water costs are so much higher.
No problem… hippies don’t like fancy cows (okay, those few meat eating hippies) and stick to Plain Old Cows for a higher price.
But now some of those Way Better Cows™ get loose into the wild. They roam from farm to farm, doing what boy cows do to girl cows (because there are no gay animals) and spreading their Way Better Cow™ sperm to Plain Old Cows everywhere.
Monstanto was very clever in creating these new cows in that they have a Monstanto logo right on their flanks. They are very easy to spot. And soon those hybrid calves start showing up everywhere. Monstanto, mindful of their patents, hires people to go from farm to farm, looking for unauthorized cows. When they find them, they demand royalty payments or the farmers get sued by Monstanto.
Soon, it’s nearly impossible to find a Plain Old Cow. If you want to breed cattle, why, it’s just a simple matter of dealing with Monstanto, playing by Monstanto’s rules, and sharing a sizable chunk of your profit with Monstanto.
My question is this:
Is this okay with you?
Sarah Palin is admirable because…
(help me out here… I only ever hear a bunch of folksy nonsense like ‘she’s a real woman and mavericky’ and not ‘she’s an ignorant quitter’.)
I’ll tell you one thing, I ADMIRE SARAH PALIN.
Because the candidates she endorses tend to lose.
Look, I’m not American. Nor do I have ANY inclination to hear ANY rhetoric about American politics in a thread like this, unless they are constructive and on-topic.
Mike,
I don’t know of a chemical “pesticide” that will kill “everything”. Most pesticides don’t have lethal effects on plants. And most herbicides don’t affect insects. I sprayed pesticide on some plants just last week. These plants are not resistant to the pesticide in any way, and they did not die. In fact, those plants are thriving now because the insects that plagued them before spraying are now dead.
“engineering a crop to not reproduce its own seed”
I don’t know of a crop, GMO or otherwise, that does this. Crops have to produce seeds to be a crop. The seeds are generally what are sold for profit at the end of the season. I am not aware of a GMO crop that has been engineered not to produce seed. It is sort of counterproductive. If you have evidence to back up this statement, feel free.
“Or your could just support the installation of irrigation equipment, you know, so those poor people could actually have drinking water to go with your poison.”
Water of any kind is often hard to come by in arid and semi-arid conditions. Sure, you may be able to drill wells into aquifers to get water, but like you say that (often limited) supply of water is much better used as drinking water than for irrigation (which would use an astronomical amount of water to produce meaningful gains in such a dry climate). Or, you could have plants that don’t need as much water. The people get more crop produce, and better drinking water. Win-win, no?
–mAc
@ mAc
Ah yes… And therein lies the problem. They DO produce seed. And that seed cannot be cleaned or used bu the farmer. That violates Monstanto’s patents.
That is PRECISELY the problem.
Being “Locked-In” to Windows = BAD
Being “Locked-In” to Monstanto = GOOD
C1,
It’s a fine analogy. Yes, these situations happen. I’m not sure anyone is “okay” with them, because they are really nobody’s fault. Like you said earlier though, the problem is with the system here, not with the technology (or necessarily Monsanto). I know of other companies in the same industry that have done exactly the same thing. Monsanto is just the scapegoat.
The question I have for you is: What is a better alternative? The patent system we have now is not that great. Everyone who has studied or worked in industries like biotech knows it. But what would be better? Without patents, nobody would invest the money to create these technologies. And without the technology, more people in the world will starve. And if you hold a patent for something like glyphosate resistance, then you are legally obligated to defend it, or risk losing it.
So, what is Monsanto (and others) to do? Go out of business entirely and stop advancing scientific progress in the world? Would anyone here like to go back to 17th century farming practices (and the huge yield losses)? Maybe spend 10x more on food per year? No? Well, what then?
–mAc
I find it interesting how some people argue that they are trying to save Africa from the “evil” Monsanto. Yet, in Africa, people starve to death daily. Monsanto makes cheap food possible, but it is bad for Africa.
Therefore, Africans dying of starvation is better than feeding them Monsanto food.
You guys are nuts.
“They DO produce seed. And that seed cannot be cleaned or used bu the farmer. That violates Monstanto’s patents.”
Well, it is the problem. But, it is also the problem for any farmer who chooses to grow many GMO crops. Not all are protected by patents. However, the better ones usually are (surprise!). Yet, many farmers choose to grow these crops because they produce better yields. You don’t see too many producers on the ground who are against Monsanto. Not around here, at least. But, like I already said, it is not just Monsanto. All the major ag companies promote and sell GMO seed.
Farmers can choose to buy conventional seed, just as they can choose to buy a PC or a Mac. Nobody holds a gun to their head so that they have to buy Monsanto products. But they often are more financially lucrative.
–mAc
@Doc…is that article your scientific basis for everything? Written by someone with no knowledge of the subject and inserting fear-mongeting quotes on people saying that…well…I think bad things could happen,,,even if they haven’t happened yet. C’mon, get real.
Also you do not understand the 20% ratio. It is 20% NON-transgenic to Transgenic plants. The reason? Its because pesticide resistance is recessive in insects. Therefore you have to keep susceptible insects around for that rare case when a resistant critter pops up, it will breeds with a susceptible one and the line (resistant) dies out.
Therefore is not managed properly this great resource could be lost. As in any group, there are a few unscrupulous farmers that will not follow that because they stand to lose up to 20% of their crop. It is a hard thing to police.
Monsanto thinks one way to prevent that is to control the seeds from year to year.
Sort of like nuclear energy, a great idea by humans that that gets turned upside down by…stupid humans.
@ mAc
I don’t entirely disagree with you, but the problem is this – it’s not really keeping that many more people in the world from starving. It is, however, destroying lives and livelihoods of millions.
“It is, however, destroying lives and livelihoods of millions.”
Elaborate on this? I don’t follow.
–mAc
…and one last thing. It continually stuns me the amount of people that admit they would rather eat pesticide-laden foods rather than touch GMOs.
Pesticides are proven killers, even in low traces. Insect-resistant GMOs have been proven safe time and time again.
Can ANYONE explain this to me?
Read “Oryx and Crake” by Margret Atwood
Oh yeah, and it’s really REALLY good for Monstanto.
Sorry. Margaret Atwood
It is hard to produce much data about how many people have been positively impacted by GMO products, because there really isn’t much. However, there is lots of data that states that herbicide-resistant GMO plants produce higher yields (this is much easier to quantify than a number of people impacted). It stands to reason that higher yields = more food available = less starvation. In a perfect world where food distribution is non-corrupt, of course, which is not the case currently. But that isn’t the fault of GMOs, and is an issue with all food supplies in the world.
–mAc
@C1….rice and chickpea are subsistence crops in many areas in the 3rd world. Yes it helps many people survive. Many cannot read and consequently have no idea how to spray pesticides properly . Many get sick and even die…or they don’t spray and lose most of their crop. Transgenics are easy….just plant and water.
My main point is that transgenics WILL help the starving masses, not today although it is helping) but rather in the years to come. The number of people on this earth i50 years from now is practically unsustainable if nothing is done (birth control will always be the best way to solve this and the fossil fuel problems).
Too damn many people….a good chunk of them not particularly bright either…
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
“Elaborate on this? I don’t follow.”
That’s because you haven’t looked at what happened in Mexico. It’s great for US farmers to sign up with Big Argibusiness and get all of Monstanto’s benefits and super-awesome Roundup-resistant high-yeild Seed, but our farm policies pretty much decimated millions of farmers in Mexico that couldn’t come close to subsidized US corn at the yields we’re able to get. That Monstanto seed costs money – money that the US government is happy to hand out, but that the government of Mexico just doesn’t have. (I find it most amusing that it tends to be the more conservative types that most ardently defend this blatantly socialist system.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />)
The result was that something like 20 million Mexican farmers went out of business in the 90’s and now have little to do but sneak across the border to further prop up our farms with cheap labor.
But hey… it’s good for us, so why cry about it, right?
“My main point is that transgenics WILL help the starving masses, not today although it is helping”
And MY point, as I have made above, is that it will completely destroy their economies long before that happens.
@ Buster
We agree on one thing – You want to save with earth? DON’T REPRODUCE.
Like I said before, I’m not American. I’m Canadian, and many people up here aren’t particularly happy about US farm subsidies either.
The contention I have with this comment is that it appears to be more of a governmental/policy issue than an issue with the technology or the company that produces it.
I’m not an ultra-conservative right-winger that hates government either. Regulation is necessary in many industries, including biotech. This just has to do with the fact that most people in the world, when confronted with difficult decisions, will decide to do what helps them most, even at the expense of others. That’s exactly what the US government does, and exactly what many corporations do. But it’s also what evolution is.
–mAc
“is that it will completely destroy their economies long before that happens.”
If there was increased government regulation of this industry world-wide, then perhaps the economic penalties would not occur. Not saying that is the solution, but sometimes thinking of things in the opposite way is helpful.
–mAc
I would also like to see anyone respond to Buster’s above statement:
“It continually stuns me the amount of people that admit they would rather eat pesticide-laden foods rather than touch GMOs. Can ANYONE explain this to me?”
I share the same frustration as Buster with that issue as well.
–mAc
@MacW
It is my understanding that about half of all food produced in the world spoils before someone can eat it. How does MORE food solve this problem?
@ puster
No, that article isn’t my basis for everything. As for the 20/80 thing, I “mis-spoke” but it still remains that of a matter of “infection” in that the “non-resistant” bug population MUST be kept alive so that it can “infect” the resistant population with it’s lack of ability to adjust to a changing environment. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, I would argue that this amount of finesse isn’t possible without an even more invasive police state than we already experience, AND perhaps the “resistant” variety of pest may bring more good than harm, but we’ll NEVER KNOW because this would not be allowed! It’s Bad for ya!!
See George Carlin.
I think we’re all in the same ballpark here… Buster seems more concerned about the actual safety and edibility of the crops, and I have really no problem at all with that part of it. It’s the economic and policy problems that worry me the most. It’s the damage that US companies do to foreign farmers that really hurts people in the long term. We can talk all we want about higher yields, but if there is no money to buy those yields then we’re just sitting on a pile of cheap soy that we have to give away. That sounds a lot like socialism to me.
@ChrissyOne –
Respect. You are on fire.
I’ve been speaking on the same thing to my family for the past several years. My family is a farming family and I remember when I was a young boy hearing my grandfather complain about Monsanto. I didn’t get it then (because I was too interested in chasing girls) but wow, the things he said resonate so clearly. If he were alive today, he would tell the family, “I told you so.”
How about the real problem, over population?. Oh wait, can’t talk about that. Too many people on this orb.
@doc
I did say that more food = less starvation in a perfect world. We all know that there are issues with food distribution in many third-world countries in Africa and Asia in particular. The thing about many GMO crops is that they are engineered to be better-suited to the ecological conditions in these nations. That way — more food produced locally = less spoilage in transport = less food wasted = more food available locally throughout the world.
Of course, anyone can do research on FlavrSavr tomatoes, which were well-intentioned but did not turn out for a variety of reasons. I don’t think more modification is the answer to the distribution problem, but rather that modification in an effort to make crops more amenable to local conditions is. That way food is consumed locally, and less is wasted. This is critical.
@ C1
We are in complete agreement, I believe. However, I don’t know the answer to these regulatory/policy issues. You are well-informed — do you have any ideas?
–mAc
WATCH DOCUMENTARY FILM : FOOD, INC. & find out the truth about Monsanto’s Agri-Empire over the American family farmers.
Evil is as evil does.
How about we start by not putting former Monstanto lobbyists in regulatory positions…
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/07/22-14
Or the other way around…
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Crony-of-agriculture-chief-now-a-Monsanto-lobbyist-8612856-78264977.html
Our regulatory agencies are deeply in bed with the industries they purport to regulate. I think this is where the lion’s share of these problems come from. I often hear the excuse that only industry insiders know the business well enough to make good policy. This is horseshit. Deal with the conflicts of interest, just like you would within any company or government agency. Only then can we get any idea of where the baseline is to craft fair and sustainable systems.
There sure is a lot of oversimplification of a difficult problem going on round these parts.
One problem with GMO crops is when they displace *all* the natural varieties. E.g., bananas, specifically the strain known as ‘Cavendish.’ Do a little research on the history of bananas and the current prediction of decimation by a drug-resistant disease. A little moderation tempered with experience might help.
Monsanto, like every other corporation, is not evil in and of itself. The actions/directions the leadership takes the company are the problem — Monsanto has been taken in some pretty heinous directions. They have also caught the “ignorance of nature” disease: they forget that if they build a resistant crop/animal, nature will build a better disease/pest/etc. The evilness comes in when they haven’t forgotten, but are counting on it. Just as with hackers and security, it’s a never ending spiral with the difference that nature will ultimately win.
(@TT: I’ve also raised cattle, hogs, sheep, horses, and crops for a living in the past [sold out when I discovered my 605 acres was too small to be profitable] and watched the ag industry for quite a while. My current favourite in the US is the marketing brilliance of the label “Angus Beef” that has nothing to do with Angus cattle.)
And now I shall reveal to all the real reason that Monsanto is evil and the reason the story is posted on MDN:
Monsanto uses Windows!
The issue of employee cross-over from corporations to government agencies is an issue, but I’m not sure that these people are necessarily always on the side of the company that they came from. Many scientific people (those working in this industry) value an objective opinion highly and are not easily biased, even by companies that they have worked at for many years. I’m not saying there is no corruption. There obviously is. But, put a little more faith in these people in general. I’m one of them.
In any case, I know of many academics (here in Canada) that specialize in biotech policy. These people would, admittedly, be better suited to making policy decisions than many former industry employees who may or may not be biased.
One thing I do feel strongly about is this: The people who regulate these tech industries (including biotech, pharma, etc.) must all be WELL-educated on the science behind the technologies. We cannot have ignorant bureaucrats with significant power over these industries that are swayed only by the votes of the (largely) ignorant masses. And I use the term ignorant in the nicest, most literal sense.
–mAc
@ mAc-warrior
“You can never underestimate the stupidity of the general public.” — Scott Adams
@ Hm…
Cavendish bananas are not GMOs. They are simply a species of banana that were bred for the specific characteristics that people like in bananas. The reason they have taken over the banana market is because they are really all that people want to buy, because people want seedless (sterile) bananas. The reason that there is a problem with them is that they must reproduce asexually, as a result of their sterility. Therefore, there is no genetic variation. Therefore, no evolution. Therefore, no ability to naturally defend against pathogens.
This has absolutely zero to do with GMOs. Sorry.
–mAc
So… exactly like corn?
@ mAc-warrior
Bad phrasing on my part: I was using bananas as an example of a serious problem that comes from a lack of diversity in the seed-stock which happens with Monsanto’s program, not as a specific GMO.
@ C1
Of course. But there are MANY commercially-viable GMO and conventional varieties of corn for producers to choose from. Not true for bananas.
–mAc
ChrissyOne,
Please don’t lie.
Palin-backed candidates tend to win or at least do much better than if she hadn’t backed them.
In fact, Sarah Palin is quite the kingmaker:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/from-grizzlies-to-goatees-sarah-palin-becomes-2010-kingmaker.php
@ Hm…
Lack of diversity occurs in all commercially-cultivated crop varieties though, not just in GMO ones. Even the conventionally-bred varieties are made to be as geneticaly-uniform as possible. Producers want things this way. They don’t want half their crop to produce high yields and half to produce low yields. They want it to be uniform so they can predict it much more easily.
Diversity is an issue, but it is an issue with all agricultural crops, not just the GMO ones.
–mAc
@ mAc-warrior
I don’t mean to indict GMO’s in general (although, caution/careful-research is always needed), but rather the corporate program of displacing nearly all other varieties and not allowing farmers to reclaim seeds from their crops for next year’s plantings in order to completely control the genetics. The farmer down the road from me can afford to buy seeds and chemicals every year – he can deal with it, the subsistence farmer I met in South Africa can’t buy seeds but once every 4 or 5 years. If the seeds he needs aren’t available, it’s more than a business problem for him.
You’re very right that diversity is an issue. I believe that it will become critical over the next decade as more and more of the natural strains disappear. Most people in the US haven’t the frame of reference to understand the distinction between the corporate farms of our grainbelt and the subsistence farmers of the third world. I thought I did, but then I went to Africa.
Bill Gates attended Bilderburg 2010 in Sitges, Spain, this year, along with Eric T. Mole and Craig Mundie, muckety-muck with MS.
@ Hm…
I’m sorry that I continue to misread you. You have great points.
Although, because of their patents, Monsanto is legally obligated to control the genetics of their patented-products. I suppose this is the reason for the tight control, and also the reason why all the other companies with patented seed have to follow the same path as Monsanto.
Perhaps we will be rid of the corporate control issue only when the patent rights for each individual crop expire. Of course, we have to wait 20 years for each patent, which is unfortunate. Until then, though, I’m not sure what the solution to this particular issue is. It is, to be sure, a complex and difficult issue with no easy answer.
–mAc
The level of ignorance in these posts about food is impressive. Definitely disproved evolution. And I have to agree with ChrissyOne about Sarah Palin. Where is the intelligence? I mean it’s not like she is smart enough to get elected President without ever having accomplished a single thing of significance, having zero knowledge of how the economy works, and having only friends who hate America. Someone who can do that is obviously intelligent.
Mac,
As a graduate of Cornell School of Agriculture and Life Sciences in the 70’s and being involved in sustainable ag these last 15 years – I have been appreciating your comments.
In fact, no one is legaly obligated to portect their patents. They choose to because they want to maintain control over their intellectual property.
Monsanto did not start out in the seed business, they started out in the chemical business and when they invented roundup, and then its patent life was about to expire, in the 1980s they decided to create roundup ready crops as a way to extend their profits with the herbicide. They also started to reinvent them selves as a life scences company, and started buying up genetic technology as well as seed companies…. so they could lock up the seed distribution system as well as the seed breeding.
So its not an accident…that there are patents and that Monsanto is aggressive about “protecting them”. There will never be an end to coporate control over seeds unless farmers around the word and their allies resist the corps.
A point that has been missed here is that GMO crops are not even doing what they are supposed to do.
There are many reports of crop failures of GMO cotton (india), corn (in South Africa) and reports in St Louis news papers about US farmers abandoning fields due to super weeds that have become roundup resistant and cannot be tilled. Monsanto has produced roundup ready II because there is a need for more roundup being sprayed due to herbicide resistence, so they have created a new genetic tech to help the plants.
And dirt farmer gets it right!
@buster,
There are multiple problems here. Roundup ready crops are herbicide (roundup) resistant. There are many reports of roundup toxicity and longer residual time in the soil than originally claimed by monsanto.
As for “insect restant” plants, again they contain a pesticide in the plant that was derived from a bacteria that organic farmers had developed to protect their crops. The differnce is that that pesticide was expressed inside the gut of the catapiller that ate a leave with a spore on it. GMO crops have that peticide in all parts of the plant including those parts we eat. two problems 1: there is not sufficient research about the long term consequence of eating that pesticidal protein contained in every part of the plant. 2: not enough evidence that that pesticide protien won;t have impact over time on other insects and small critters that are in the soil.
Lastly,
both crops are failing in the real world.
lors of problems!
@First 2010, Then 2012…
C1 is just suffering from Palin Derangement Syndrome!… In some areas, C1 wouldn’t know a fact/truth if it backslapped her upside her head… but she’s good to have a debate with… a fiery prognosticator of half truths with a little wit thrown in… nit wit that is, especially when she’s on meds, although she’ll need to be careful when she climbs off her high horse and she shouldn’t operate heavy machinery, like a computer… or thinking.
See, C1 will tout this…
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2010/08/25/day-after-abc-highlights-sarah-palins-political-losing-streak-her-ca
But this causes her gag reflexes, even just thinking about it…
http://www.slate.com/id/2265060/
Regarding Palin, “Twenty of the candidates she’s endorsed have won. Ten have lost. That’s a pretty good record.”
And how is ignorant quitter Obama’s track record again?…
So you see, First 2010… Chrissy can’t help herself.
Goodnight Chrissy, hugs… Chrisytu or C2
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”tongue laugh” style=”border:0;” />
@ dirt farmer
Appreciate your comments!
Thanks for correcting me about the patent issue. I suppose the right thing would have been to say that corporations have more of a fiduciary obligation to protect their patents, in that protecting the patents protects shareholder value. In any case, a company that does not defend their patents in court will lose them to challenges by other companies.
It is again worth noting, though, that all companies engaged in ag research have patent portfolios and must protect them with the same vigour (no pun intended!) as Monsanto.
I think that the statement that GMO crops are not doing what they’re supposed to do is quite a bit too broad. For example, in my area of the world, glyphosate-tolerant canola does a very good job at what it is supposed to do. Often, different combinations of herbicides can be used to control weed species. Or, after harvest spraying something like 2,4D will kill all weeds over winter, leaving a clean field for planting in the spring. Yes, you have to use more chemical, but you also get higher yields. Research is also ongoing on other types of herbicides.
I’m not sure where the reports about longer residual time for Roundup come from. To my knowledge, Roundup is a contact chemical that must contact the foliage of the plant for it to have effect. Again, to my knowledge, there is no soil residual for Roundup; it becomes inactive as soon as it touches soil (or even dust in the air).
In any case, I think it has been proven that there are lower levels of pesticide present in the insect-resistant GMO plants that produce them than is present on plants that have been manually sprayed with pesticide in a conventional manner. Of course, in the GMO plants you have expression of that recombinant protein throughout the plant body, but that doesn’t bother me if it is at a much lower concentration than is harmful to humans. So I’m pretty much with Buster in that I would rather eat the GMO material with lower concentrations of pesticide than the conventional material with a higher concentration of pesticide. Of course there are other benefits to insect-resistant plants like less chemical input costs, and less danger to farmers and other wildlife around the crop (because you don’t have to spray it manually).
–mAc
Between Monsanto, the World Bank and Microsoft its amazing anything still exists!
MW = areas, as in, of expertise. ala John Hodgeman.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
I’m still waiting on the answer to my question about Palin. Since the visionaries above are so mind-numbingly easy to bait I didn’t expect much.
WHAT is it that you admire about her? Without bringing up or comparing to Obama, please, as I have said many times I don’t support him either. Though it is a good dodging technique.
Please write something lengthy a clever. I’ll even give you all night.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Ta!
-c
Come on, I’m serious. I love to have your 6th grade reading-level posts detracting me. I could not ask for better opponents.
A Monsanto executive once said that the company aspired to be just like Microsoft and, through transgenic plants, own the “operating system” in agriculture through. Looks like Billy boy likes the idea.
Chaining the patent process with genetic material associated with staple food, clothing, and building material (trees) and energy production (corn,trees, et. al.) is a bigger mistake than Constantine tying the civil and religious authorities together.
Also, anyone that believes that gm food products have been tested well doesn’t understand the problem. As I understand it, changes in nutritional content of foodstuffs often do not show up immediately, but only over several generations. The changes in native Hawaiians and Samoans health, or in native Americans in general are all WELL KNOWN examples.
As a side note, my family, all of them, some of which were 5 years old when the practice began, spread DDT, by hand, several times per crop, onto cotton. All of them, with one exception, lived to be over 70, with many (the non-smoking non-drinking variety) living into their 80’s and 90’s. The exception died as a result of an allergic reaction to penicillin, which was then new gonna fix all that ails ya technology, given during a bout with pneumonia at the age of 49.
Bravo Chrissy One!
A few points for thought.
There’s no evidence that genetically engineered foods are NOT harmful over the LONG TERM, say 2 or 3 human generations. Those scenarios cannot be tested in labs.
Agribusiness, as far as I understand it, tends to plant mono-crops… Vast acreage of the SAME species. This not a good thing overall and over time.
Use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers not only is bad for the food, but wreaks havoc with water runoff, ground water and lilting of microorganisms in the top soil. Killing of topsoil leads to erosion. No top soil, means no, or reduced farming is possible. Erosion and depletion of arable land is a huge problem worldwide.
Chemical pesticide and fertilizer runoff and ground water pollution is another “hidden benefit” of mono and chemical agriculture.
There is evidence of harm of chemical and agribusiness farming since it intensified after WWII. Elevated illness and cancer rates, food allergies, “cheap food” and elevated rates of obesity (many more factors at play there, of course.
As only a few mentioned, over-population is the NUMBER ONE problem overall, worldwide.
A hard and unfortunate fact of life: if there are too many animals living in an area which cannot be sustained by local food sources, some of those animals will die. People are animals. Unfortunately, we aren’t exactly the smartest critters around, since we have a penchant for not only destroying and killing everything around us, but also destroying our own and the habitat we share with other species.
Drastically culling the human herd wouldn’t be such a bad thing. Maybe we should be thanking Monsanto for their tireless work toward that end.
My God so many of you are so ignorant… you actually think all these people are working against one another…
There’s no excuse to understand how the world really works, with all this info freely available over the Internet for you to learn and to contemplate, individually, instead of follow the herd with Democrat versus Republican, or UN versus USA, etc. etc. etc.
@chrissyOne
Did you know that organic food kills. Every instance where it has been consumed, the person died, or will die. Organic food is always associated with death, be it short term or long term. So it poses an equal risk as does genetically modified crops. Except, some people have their lives extended by the genetically modified crops because they don’t die from that one other well known threat – starvation.
My guess is you are opposed to using DDT to kill deadly mosquitoes which are literally killing millions of Africans.
Finally, I will give you several reasons I like Sarah Palin.
1. She doesn’t hate America
2. She doesn’t hate the US Consitution
3. She believes in the quaint, almost lost idea of freedom, free enterprise, and personal responsibility as opposed to the more fashionable current notion that the Federal Government should own or control all industry and should dictate how individuals live their lives.
4. She believes that we should use the enormous resources that we have been blessed with, like oil and coal and timber. And we should do this as responsibly as we can, as she did.
5. She believes that America should defend itself against foreign threats and that this is the major responsibility assigned it by the Constitution. She does not believe that America, operating under it’s Consitution, is the major threat to world peace.
6. She believes in God and has the humility this brings to not believe that she is God, as many politically ambitious people do.
7. She thinks the Federal and State governments should not spend beyond their means, passing on enormous debts to future generations and setting the stage for an economic calamity, as is being done now.
8. She does not associate and befriend known terrorists who have bombed buildings with the intent to kill, and now lament that they did not bomb enough US buildings or destroy more.
9. She cares about a living baby in the womb and does not believe it right to kill that baby, before it is born, or after it is born in botched abortion attempt, which is completely at odds with many today who view living humans in the womb as less important than seeds, or turtles, or bugs.
10. She has the strength of conviction to stand up to ridicule from people who have done nothing, and she does it politely.
11. She has fought and succeeded in eliminating corruption in her own party, while her opponents protect the corrupt in their midst, because they themselves are corrupt.
12. She has a sense of humor
13. She sticks to her convictions.
14. She loves America as it was constituted and works to protect and defend it.
I can’t think of a single major leader in the other party with these
virtues. Now you tell me who you admire in the Democrat Party, their accomplishments, and why you respect them.
@ dirt farmer
I should have been more specific in my comments. I am only talking about the insect resistance plants as that is my area of expertise. I have spent 20 years of my life researching how this insecticidal protein works at the cellular and subcellular levels. I was part of the team that solved its atomic structure.
Some clarification points.
1) GMO crops do not express the protein in all parts of the plant. Mainly the newest parts…
2) There is an incredible body of research on the fate of the toxin, more than ANY chemical pesticide in history. The big problem farmers have with this toxin is that it is TOO specific. They were prefer a more general killer, This is why it does minimal disruption of the ecosystem in comparison to ‘kill everything in its path’ chemicals.
This is due to three reasons
a) It needs a specific cell receptor to bind to in order to do its job….humans do not have this (nor fish, nor most living things)
b) Our gut proteases chew it up to bits.
c) It doesn’t like the acidic environment (pH=1) of our guts, caterpillars have basic gut environments (pH=11).
I can talk at length about how it works and why it is safe. the biochemistry, genetics and electrophysiology behind it all. It is well researched believe me.
@doc….sorry. From a resistance management (and scientific) point if view, your infection and fitness explanation makes no sense at all.
C1 is correct in that I promote the technology and the safety. There is too much nonsense generated by the ‘frankenfood’ smokescreens produced by Greenpeace. It is amazing how people ignore science based facts and go on unproven notions.
Trangenic plants are indeed the wave of the future….and if you are not aware of it yet, gene therapy is also the wave of the future. I cannot wait for the “franken-people’ terminology to emerge. Genomic-based, personalized medicine is also coming to a theatre near you once DNA sequencing gets to the $1000/person stage.
What is needed here is responsible government and responsible regulations to properly administer this technology.
This is the future folks…you read it here first.
“500,000 shares of Monsanto stock”
Monsanto: The evil corporation in your refrigerator
Genetically Modified Seeds: Women in India take on Monsanto
Monsanto GM-corn harvest fails massively in South Africa
Monsanto’s Bullying Tactics in Argentina & Latin America
The Tentacles of Globalism Descend into Southeast Asia
Terminator Gene – Monsanto … EVIL.
You talk a lot about what you think she believes, but how do you know that? Almost every one of your points describes some ideal that you think she adheres to, but the only evidence of this is the character that she’s created in the media and on the pageant runway. Let’s go through it –
1. (this is what you start with?) You assume that every other elected official does? How in fact does she ‘not hate America’? Isn’t this just a cowardly straw-man? Come on. Anyone can wave a flag and say this, but it’s irrelevant, there’s no meat to it. Next.
2. See #1. Now show me evidence of those who you think DO hate the Constitution. How about those who would amend it to ensure that large classes of citizens are locked out of freedoms that others enjoy? Does Sarah support or oppose such efforts?
3. How Quaint, as Scotty might say. Yes, that Conservative fantasy of the Perfect Past of Freedom, that glowy cozy Thomas Kinkade painting that we all remember from childhood, but in fact never really existed. Everyone had a big car and ate a 20 pound turkey every night. And they were all white and there was no crime. It’s nice dream, but honey, it never was. Not for anybody. Certainly not anyone I’ve ever met. The party she works for has expanded government further in that last decade than in any time before her, yet she’s got you by that balls, still buying into that Reagan Myth that sells so many flags. Here’s a news flash – No president has ever meaningfully lowered your taxes.
4. Blessed with? Sweetheart… there is no invisible man in the sky. We didn’t get any gift from anyone. The earth has created a system that can be thrown out of balance if we try hard enough. There isn’t a big cave full of gold that Baby Jeebee left for you. I agree that we should use this responsibly. I disagree that Sarah Palin, who’s policy consists of the chant ‘Drill Baby, Drill’ is the person to decide what’s responsible. But those slogans are fun for idiots to chant, I guess. What do we do when businesses are deregulated to the point of causing catastrophic havoc… Oh wait, that already happened.
5. Ask the residents of Iraq how much peace we’ve inflicted on them. Oh wait, you’re talking about peace for *americans*. GOT it. Yeah, it’s super peaceful as long as you’re not a brown foreigner.
6. I don’t believe in fairy tales, and I vote. I didn’t hear about anyone who ‘thinks they are God’, except for David Koresh, and maybe that African witch-doctor that Palin used to speak in tongues with. If you want to live in theocracy, maybe you should become a Muslim. They’d love you.
7. Yet she supported the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war, which doubled the national debt. She still supports attacking Iran, even though she doesn’t have a clue what the implications, both politically and financially, truly are. Interesting.
8. And she also hasn’t kicked any puppies today. Maybe she deserves a cookie.
9. Which people? The one’s she talked you into hating? She held up her ‘retard baby’ (her words) at 11 o’clock at night as a political prop. This was more hideous to me than anything Michael Jackson ever did. It’s so easy to make tools out of pro-lifers I wish I had the knack for it. EVERY SPERM IS SACRED! Tell that to your daughter if she ever gets raped. (or was she asking for it?)
10. Again… I’m asking what SHE has done, as opposed to these nothing-doers of which you speak. You have so far not told me a single thing she’s done. Except be folksy and pretty and love the precious little babies.
11. I still see Eric Cantor standing there. I still see her Palling Around with John Beohner and Mitch McConell. You mean that cop she fired for being her ex-brother in law?
12. I guess if you’re a simple kind of folksy Rill American she just cracks you up. I’ll give her that. Point Palin.
13. And quits her job to do it. Now THAT’S conviction. Point Palin.
14. We’ve already covered this in points 1 and 2. Minus 2 points.
Well kent, you really convinced me. And the funny thing is, this is exactly the same amount of useful information that I’ve ever gotten out of any Palin supporter. With a promo like that, she should be Emperor by now.
I’m ready to sign on with the Palin Doctrine!!!
-c
@C1….what about the fact that Palin is an expert on Canada. Like Russia, she can see it from her front door.
@Kent…please do everyone a favour here and go play in traffic. Do the gene pool a favour.
@ Buster
In that case, I’m an expert on Canada as well. And from what I’ve seen, people there can’t bloody stand her.
…but of course they are WAY too polite to say so.
@Chrissy One
I note that you did not answer my question and give me your Political Heroes. You spend a lot of time attacking Sarah Palin. Tell me who you admire. Let’s learn how your heroes survive a similar exam. Now – name them. And you can start with Obama, who you voted for.
@Buster – obviously you have been eating the lead paint in your home. Amazingly, in your case, it has elevated your intelligence. You are almost on a peer with Joe Biden and other single celled organisms.
@C1 Au contraire ma chere! We love Palin here. She is a constant source of amusement for us and it goes to show that, ANYONE can aspire to higher office regardless of their overall intelligence and lack of general awareness (all easily overcome by being….folksy).
Keep Palin in the running.
Keep Ballmer as CEO.
You can’t make this shit up….
@ Kent
That’s because my heroes are people who have the good sense to stay out of politics.
I’ve stated many times my reasoning for voting for Obama, and as long as Sarah Palin is alive I stand by them. You don’t listen
@ Buster
Whatever. Could you just send me some poutine? ;P
@Kent (pronounced Stoo-pid).
Let us remember the original article on transgenics and Monsanto (although why this is in MDN, I have no idea).
Ever notice that most conservatives in the US give you wide berth?????
What’s it like never having thought that you could be wrong about, well, anything?
Do your knuckles scape along the ground when you walk?
Maybe I was wrong about the effects of someone imbibing trangenic plant material over a long periods of time.
“(although why this is in MDN, I have no idea)”
Maybe you’d better ask the idiot who submitted it them.. (oh wait…)
“Do your knuckles scape along the ground when you walk?”
Only because he can’t afford healthcare.
@Chrissy,
For a person who is fixated on Sarah Palin, you certainly must have political people you admire. Are you afraid to name them? Or are you just completely clueless? My bet is you think you know everything, but actually just get your political knowledge from Saturday Night Live and Jon Stewart. That means you don’t really have political knowledge but you say things to be cool. That explains why you voted for the “fashionable” candidate, Obama, though he had zero qualifications, except an ideology that aims to destroy our system of government. I suggest you stop whining about Sarah Palin, and spend some time thinking about what constitutes a good leader. Now that you have concluded that Obama, who you voted for, is not desirable, you should think about why you did not take time to learn about him before you voted. The information is public. And then you should find some politicians who you do admire and you should be able to explain who they are and why you admire them. What core principles motivate you. This requires some actual thought, reading etc. More work than just taking shots at Sarah Palin. But it would be good for you.
As for you Buster, how did you get a name that so perfectly captures your intelligence?
@buster
Are you telling me that our wonderful future rest on your hopes for a responsible government to manage all of this wondrous technology? Have you lost your mind? Why would I trust anything you say about anything at all?
As for “resistance management” or a scientific point of view, the hubris involved in large scale application of the technologies in question (genetic manipulation) is profoundly disturbing. Believe it or not, I love technology. Precautionary principal abuse is, for me, actually a good example of the overextension or overuse of the tools that guide humanities rational. That being said, I can never understand why people like yourself tend to forget that large scale, organized behavior, under pressure of compressed timescales, based on a sense of urgency (If we don’t act, we’ll die!) often has led humanity to monstrous results time and time again, but they always meant well!
We are not running out of food. That is just a lie. “Distribution management” euphemisms aside, perhaps we should find ways for people smarter than you to run things for awhile?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/un-food-aid-causing-chaos-and-violence-in-somalia-454175.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/world/africa/04iht-mideast.4.19933553.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8084477.stm
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/106507/somali-militants-seize-and-burn-aid-food.html
I’ll stop there, but could put THOUSANDS of links to prove my point. Could you give me ONE link to a longitudinal, multigenerational study of the effects on humans of the use food products containing genetic material that has been manipulated in a way that does not occur under natural conditions? Please? Pretty please? With a cherry on top??
“Many scientific people (those working in this industry) value an objective opinion highly and are not easily biased, even by companies that they have worked at for many years. I’m not saying there is no corruption. There obviously is. But, put a little more faith in these people in general. I’m one of them.”
You are one of them..EXACTLY the reason you cannot be impartial. How can you purport to me that “Scientific People” are highly objective and not easily biased? Nope, not gonna work. Humans are humans regardless of profession. We are all capable and guilty of bias and are quite fallible. C1 is correct, it is a huge conflict of interest and yet another shining example of cronyism and corruption in government. Elliot Spitzer was a poster boy for upstanding citizen and then we found out, he wasn’t..Don’t be naive.
Furthermore:
http://preventdisease.com/news/10/082710_public_protests_GMO.shtml
@Truth
Thank you for explaining the need to be skeptical of the scientists who claim to have a consensus and who don’t accept any debate about their data, their conclusions, or alternate theories. You make great case about why the scientists behind global warming theory, paid for with government grants earned by commitment to “orthodoxy”, are not to be considered authorities. It is totally proper to be skeptical of those who depend on government funding and who must produce certain conclusions to get that funding. Critical thinking is invaluable here. Thanks for the post.
@ kent
Sorry cheickpea, I’m not your monkey. Since you profess to find Sarah Palin to be a heroic political figure, then you’ve lost any credibility in any book I’d ever keep. Instead of arguing with you I thought I’d do something more productive and more likely to get demonstrable results, so I’ve been yelling at a pile of grapefruits for the last hour. We’re beginning to make progress. Now if you’ll excuse me, I think my cat has some sold ideas for a flat tax proposal.
Bill Gates is the Devil.
I do encourage you to keep posting, Kent. Much the same way that Buster supports Palin, I’m fully behind every paragraph you type. Every word just makes me look better.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch…
http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/israel-turns-the-clock-back-two-thousand-years-2/
ChrissyOne asked me to post this message with the list of political figures she admires, and other related statements. She is doing her nails and is having a bad hair day.
Chrissy Likes
1. FIdel Castro – man of the people
2. Che Guevarra – pacifist, and man of the people
3. Ted Kazinski – a man who lived his environmental principles
4. Margaret Sanger – pioneer of eugenics with the goal of reducing the number of “undesirable” people. She founded Planned Parenthood.
5. Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt – defending women’s rights to self-expression
6. Barney Frank – standing up for free enterprise in the sex industry
7. Nancy Pelosi – inventor of the 20,000 law. Pioneered the concept that voters should have the right to read the bill after it is passed.
8. Al Gore – inventor of the internet and the 11PM backrub.
Chrissy’s political philosophy can best be described as Palinology. She believes that intense scrutiny and discussion of Sarah Palin will lead to a better world.
and another thing:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38877692/ns/travel-news/
@doc
You seem to have a pretty cynical view of the world. Are you saying that we should not explore recombinant gene technology. That there is zero benefit for mankind.
And you may want to consider to stop posting those links…they are tangental to the discussion of transgenics and serve simply serve to make you look as dense as the articles.
@Kent…perhaps you are partially right about Margaret Sanger. If there was a vote on here about drowning you as a baby to remove you from the gene pool, I suspect your chances would not be very high….no offence.
Do you get recurring fantasies about Sara and you naked in the bush with her holding your rifle??? Tell me, is your rifle loaded or not?
Buster
Before you venture into things like recombinant genes, learn how to spell. Now, go back to your Internet porn.
@buster
Explore? Where is that study link I ask for? Show me this “explore” you speak of.
As for my links and relevance, the “msnbc/travel” link is a perfect example of a sense of urgency based on false information due to ONE mistake in an otherwise exemplary performance, my “desert “peace/two thousand years” link is a very good example of a governmental body at work, the “prevent disease/GMO” link speaks for it self, and the four links in my previous response to you all relate to “food distribution management” problems, but you would know all of that if you had bothered to look. Except for that, perhaps you are right and I should have posted the following instead:
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/41604/
http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/epa-reviewing-request-ban-led-bullets
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/flu-vaccination-ban-goes-national-after-fever-convulsions-in-children-20100423-tglp.html?from=age_ft
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.74f06613ea91a1f1041b96c96477427f.561&show_article=1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/7967193/Berlin-cannibal-restaurant-calls-for-diners-to-donate-body-parts-for-menu.html
@Kent…if I mistype words, I blame my failing eyes. I am learning to live with it….and so do most tolerant people I know.
And if you want some advice…don’t match wits with C1. Forget about her intelligence, she could crush you with her wit alone. In fact, she has, you are just to dense to know it yet. My only fear is that she grows tired of you and will stop…and none of us will get our smile of the day.
@doc….I am a scientist. I would never link to the unsubstantiated crap opinion pieces that you use. Get real. In fact, use the national enquirer, they are probably more fact based that the stuff you show.
I particularly liked the one where this guy Chopra says…and you can read on page 154 of my book…
nuff said.
GO back to area 54….your mom is waiting in the car.
http://electrogravity.com/DualFreqEG/S_4UFO.pdf
@The Dude- you forgot to abide…
It’s not my fault. I voted for Ron Paul…
@buster
If you are a scientist, may I see your vita?
Opinion piece? Which of the links leads to an opinion piece?
Also, still waiting for a link, any link, to a longitudinal, multigenerational study of the effects on humans of the use of food products containing genetic material that has been manipulated in a way that does not occur under natural conditions?
If you cannot provide a link, perhaps a citation? Any study. Just one. ONE link to a longitudinal, multigenerational study of the effects on humans of the use of food products containing genetic material that has been manipulated in a way that does not occur under natural conditions? Please? Pretty please? With a cherry on top?
As for area 54, I don’t need any more tats…
http://www.area54tattoos.com/
Oh, I almost forgot. Without a vita, your claim to be a “scientist” is nothing more than unsubstantiated crap, kinda like an opinion piece. I prefer to get real. In fact, I may as well use the national enquirer, they are probably more fact based that the stuff you show.
Buster
Not afraid to match wits with anyone who admits voting for Obama, the least intelligent, laziest, completely unqualified doofus ever elected. And people whose time is consumed with Sarah Palin while the country is being systematically destroyed by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Frank, etc., show their total lack of intelligence. How about noticing the entire private economy is almost destroyed by these morons and start attacking these people ins read of Sarah Palin who has no power over anybody.
Pretty pleazzz!!
http://www.zazzle.com/frankencherry+gifts
Occasionally in life we are handed a litmus test for stupidity.
Sarah Palin is one of those occasions.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”tongue wink” style=”border:0;” />
troll sez: “… consumed with Sarah Palin while the country is being systematically destroyed by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Frank, etc., show their total lack of intelligence.”
Apparently trolls can’t see themselves in a mirror.
@doc
I have a doctorate from Canada and my postdoc at UCLA. But I don’t care if you believe me or not. Its not germaine to the subject at hand.
Multigenerational? Insecticidal plants haven’t been around that long. Also it is impossible to prove a negative hypothesis. If I tell you eating an apple a day for 50 years is bad. How would you go about proving that it is?
On the other hand, the toxin spray has been sprayed on our forests and our crops for over 30 years. Not one negative effect has been recorded (on human health)….unless it causes irresistible urges to vote for big chested folksy women who like to create new words. I dare you to refudiate that mister…….
@ buster
Scientist my ass. Prove a negative hypothesis? What the hell does that mean? Refudiate? Please! You are a 22 year old shill working for a PR firm hired by monsanto who should be ashamed of wasting so much money for such a poor education. Piss off.
As I said we can eliminate the 8% unemployment if we just use the vast resources of the Federal government to shift money from private citizens to government programs. We have succeeded. Unemployment is now 17% and most people qualify for my program of mortgage assistance and food stamps. That means increased Federal spending which will further shift the needle on unemployment. The Federal government is hiring – IRS agents and health care auditors and rationers. The benefits and pay are much better in Federal jobs. I would say more, but I and 500 close friends are going on a 2. Week vacation to Tahoe. Check out the magazine rack at the Unemployment Office. Michele ordered Bon Apetit and Architectural Digest. Stay cool.
@doc…if you were an actual scientist you would understand the negative hypothesis. Indeed didn’t I just give you an example?
I have been on MDN for years, I really do not have to prove myself here to people who know me and for whom I have a great of respect both for their wit and their balanced views…just look at dirt farmer and mac warrior. I may not agree with everything they say but I certainly appreciate the thought that goes into their words.
And clearly, by your last response, most everyone here is a great deal more mature (not to mention literate).
Its been fun but alas, there is no way in hell this is going to reach 4 pages. Ta.
@ buster
Perhaps you really went to The University of Germaine?
@buster, mac warrior, and dirt farmer
Hypothesis: A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon.
Negative: “not” or “no”, perhaps “non”.
So, you are claiming there is such a thing in scientific practice as an non-proposed explanation that is non-provable, and that this is a common and well understood concept. Please provide evidence for this claim.
@doc…
Ph.D. McGill University (Canada)
PDF UCLA 1985 Molecular Biology Institute (TGIFs were wild and memorable)
And you?
Here is an exampleI pirated off the web for you to understand.
You have a substance. You don’t know what it is. You want to narrow the range of possible substances. A possibility is that it is salt. To prove it is salt might be tricky.
So neg hypothesis is, it is not salt. Salt is soluble in water. So, if this substance isn’t soluble, it isn’t salt.
You add some of the substance to water. It doesn’t dissolve. You therefore eliminate salt. You can then eliminate all the possibles which are soluble. It’s negative because if you were wrong, and the substance WAS soluble, you haven’t proved anything about what it IS.
Only what it isn’t.
Ok…class is out for the day. Bon weekend toute le monde!
In your example, “it is not salt” IS the hypothesis.
Perhaps you should study logic with the frosh class:
http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf
Old argument….and useless in practical terms (but fun for a philosopher).
‘You can prove a negative — at least as much as you can prove anything at all’.
Prove that there are no unicorns?
1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record.
3.Therefore, unicorns never existed.
Flawed in practical terms….i.e. have you looked exhaustively for the fossil? That is where this crap falls apart….you can never look hard enough.
What school did you go to again????
@ buster
Your assertions that:
1) You are a scientist
2) GMO foods are safe
3) There is such a concept as a “negative hypothesis”
explains a LOT.
More later.
I’ll try to keep to a few brief comments that aren’t directed at anyone in particular but need to be made.
1) Who cares what credentials anyone has. It is self-evident to me who in this thread has any scientific credentials at all. Hint: Scientists don’t link to web articles or newspapers. No need to demand any personal information from anyone; I certainly won’t be giving any other than country of residence.
2) The comments about hypotheses are completely off-topic. Who cares. In any case, science is not really about “proving” anything to be truth. All you can do is design experiments that lead you to believe one thing or another through quantitative or qualitative observations. It’s a hugely simplified explanation but it is true. And science always changes. But that is the great thing about it — no knowledge is above being succeeded by something new (although much of the basic “collective knowledge” we have is highly unlikely to change at this point). Anyway, all this is entirely beside the point of this thread.
3) http://www.ifzz.pl/fusion_pages/jafs/jaszczak1_etal.pdf
Here is a multigenerational study on the effects of feeding mice GMO wheat vs. conventional wheat. There was no difference found. I took the liberty of finding a freely available, peer-reviewed article for anyone to read. In the future, those that wish to link to articles should at bare minimum use Google Scholar to search for links, if they do not have access to other academic resources. There are many more multigenerational studies done on a wide variety of GMO material — without paying money you may not be able to access anything but the abstract, but you will find them. They are usually done on rats or mice, because these model organisms are known to behave much the same way as humans biochemically. You won’t find any studies on humans — it is (very, very nearly) impossible to get funding for those due to ethical concerns. Multigenerational human studies are impossible for such a new technology.
More in a bit. I’m busy.
–mAc
Additional comments:
4) Re: Erosion of topsoil due to pesticide/herbicide application @ Mr. Reeee.
You’re completely backwards. Without chemical application, farmers must till the land manually to control weeds. This leads to erosion. It is widely understood that chemical application prevents erosion because less manual cultivation is necessary. Less manual cultivation = more nutrients in the soil.
5) The Bt toxin is produced naturally in the environment by bacteria. Why are people not concerned with this “natural” production “contaminating” water supplies, but are concerned when a GM plant produces the EXACT same protein, often in lesser concentrations? Many other organisms produce toxic compounds “naturally”. Yet, nobody seems to be worried about these. Try (not literally!) “natural” bitter almonds, which contain HCN — hydrogen cyanide. Most people in the world lack the education to understand how proteins are created in plants. Thus, they lack the understanding of how a specific genetic modification impacts the organism, and other organisms. These people should not comment on GM plants at all. Here’s a question for anyone: Explain to me in 5 sentences what reverse transcriptase is and how its discovery (and applications!) has contributed to molecular biology and GMOs in the last 20 years. If you can’t answer that basic question, you probably aren’t qualified to have any opinion about GMOs. Sorry, it’s the truth.
6) @ Truth — I never stated that all scientists are objective and non-biased. I said that they are probably more likely to be than the general population, which is true in my experience. You should have more faith in people, and a less cynical view of the world. Of course there is corruption, but we must have scientists of some kind in charge of regulation, NOT bureaucrats or elected officials.
7) Anyway, Buster is right about the future. Sorry to say it, but the ignorant of the world will always be dragged kicking and screaming into the future. We cannot afford to be stationary in knowledge and practice. Stationary organisms are not evolutionarily selected for, I’m sad to say.
–mAc
@ macwarrior
You write “Who cares what credentials anyone has”. I couldn’t agree more.
/////////
If you had bothered to read the thread, you would know that “buster” referred to itself as “a scientist”, wrote “insect resistance plants…that is my area of expertise. I have spent 20 years of my life researching how this insecticidal protein works at the cellular and subcellular levels. I was part of the team that solved its atomic structure.”, stated that “an actual scientist you would understand the negative hypothesis”, among other things.
With the appeals by “buster” to authority, I believe myself to be within the bounds of probity to request credentials, which I did when I requested a vita. What’s the harm in that?
///////////
As to comments about hypothesis, again, if you had bothered to read the thread, you would know that “buster” brought that up in response to my request for one, just one, pretty please with a cherry on top, reference to a “longitudinal, multigenerational study of the effects on humans of the use of food products containing genetic material that has been manipulated in a way that does not occur under natural conditions?”
//////////
In any event, you are right when you write that “science is not really about “proving” anything to be truth.” I don’t recall requesting “truth”, but must agree that “truth” and “science”
have nothing to do with one another. As far as “experiments that lead you to believe one thing or another”, I always thought of experiments that are designed properly (will be falsifiable) lead you to accept, provisionally, either the null hypothesis, the alternative hypothesis, or reject both due to falsification.
///////////
As for science always changing, sure, science changes. A truism if ever there were one? Science isn’t the really important part, it’s the method that counts.
//////////
Thank you for the link to a multigenerational study of mice. I’ve seen it. What I ask for was a “one, just one, pretty please with a cherry on top, reference to a “longitudinal, multigenerational study of the effects on humans of the use of food products containing genetic material that has been manipulated in a way that does not occur under natural conditions?”. The operational concept was “human”. Let me know if you find one. Please. Pretty please? With a cherry on top?
////////
If you really cared what I think, or why I put up the links I did, you would have read what I have already written regarding the subject. If you want to know more, go read what I wrote. It isn’t that hard to find and will only take you a few minutes. I don’t think you care, so…well…there you have it.
//////////
You write:
You won’t find any studies on humans — it is (very, very nearly) impossible to get funding for those due to ethical concerns. Multigenerational human studies are impossible for such a new technology.
Let me get this straight, no studies on humans because of ethical concerns, and anyway it’s all too new, but you maintain it to be OK for the entire population of the planet unto the “nth” generation to serve as a proxy. Is that your argument? That really doesn’t sound very well thought out. Would you like to try again?
A “longitudinal, multigenerational study of the effects on humans of the use of food products containing genetic material that has been manipulated in a way that does not occur under natural conditions” does not exist. I’ve already told you that. It can’t exist; there has not been time.
There are very few studies using humans anywhere in science, aside from advanced pharmaceutical trials. This condition is not really limited to GM products at all. However, anyone with a basic knowledge of how science works understands that studies on model organisms (mice, rats, cattle, etc.) are easily extrapolated to humans. The vast majority of the proteins composing their bodies and ours are exactly the same. We know which are the same, and which are not. It is well understood that these comparisons are completely valid. In these cases, a trial on mice might as well be a trial on humans. Biochemically the results will be the same.
It is easy to refute this system by saying “but that is just guessing!!!!” (and I don’t have the knowledge to argue with you specifically about why model organisms like mice are good systems to predict human effects), but that is the way it is. If you prefer not to use any pharmaceutical products or developments made in biotechnology in the past 50 years (which are all around you and are the result of this system of model organisms), then perhaps you can live in a cave where your life expectancy should promptly drop by at least 50% to pre-1900 levels.
You never answered my question about reverse transcriptase, either.
–mAc
And, I would read your links if they came from a reasonably-reliable, peer-reviewed source. As they stand currently, they are a waste of my time.
–mAc
@macwarrior
There is no way, and I mean no way, in a rational world, you would make a living with that brain of yours given the example of such muddled thinking provided by what you have written in the above post.
I’ll go LIFO:
1) If you had bothered, again, to actually read my post, and only the last post, I never, and I mean never, said “read my links”. What I did say was “If you really cared what I think, or why I put up the links I did, you would have read what I have already written regarding the subject. If you want to know more, go read what I wrote. It isn’t that hard to find and will only take you a few minutes. I don’t think you care, so…well…there you have it.”
2)If I stopped using any “pharmaceutical products or developments made in biotechnology in the past 50 years”, placing the time frame into the mid-20th century, why would my life expectancy drop 50% to “pre-1900 levels” instead of mid 20th century levels?
Furthermore, I believe you give modern advances in “pharmaceutical products or developments made in biotechnology in the past 50 years” too much credit. Heck, If I wanted to clip 25 to 30 years off of my life expectancy, all I needed to do was be born in Calton/Glasgow where some of my ancestors came from. There, I would lack access to such advances and you would have your wish! You see, it isn’t the development, it’s the access that counts.
Interesting thing about that, my ancestors left there over 300 years ago. I have detailed records, and virtually all of them lived as far outside of a city as possible, on a farm, in North America, with access to fresh food, fresh water, windows, believed cleanliness was next to godliness, liked their teeth and took care of them, and virtually all of them lived past 70, with many living into the 80’s and 90’s. There is a lesson to be learned here, and I know what it is. Do you?
3) There must be literally 10’s of millions of scientific studies using humans in thousands (if not 10’s of thousands) of subject areas. There is no way you don’t know this if you really do legitimate work in the field of research concerning food products. No way.
4) As for “A “longitudinal, multigenerational study of the effects on humans of the use of food products containing genetic material that has been manipulated in a way that does not occur under natural conditions” does not exist. I’ve already told you that. It can’t exist; there has not been time.”
I know. I knew that before I asked for if from buster the first time, the second, as well as the third time from you. That is why I asked for one. Without it, there is no way to claim safety, as you, buster, and others here in this thread have been claiming.
The only claim you can make is ignorance of danger. Is that where you really wanna hang your hat? You may wanna die on that hill, but I believe it unlikely the rest of humanity would willingly follow.
I am not asking for proof of complete safety, just simple testing, on a willing population, of foods created and produced which contain genetic material that has been manipulated in a way that does not occur under natural conditions.
Did you know that in the mid 20th century, x-ray machines were common in shoe stores?
http://www.museumofquackery.com/devices/shoexray.htm
Did you know that, at one time, according to all medical and scientific authorities of the time, cocaine was considered completely safe for common use by everyone in the general population, all over Europe and North America, including children. So was opium! In fact, it also used to be common to give children undiluted alcoholic beverages. If you had the money, you could have the booze!!
1) The timeframe in my little quip towards you isn’t what matters. The average lifespan in the U.S. in 1900 was below 50 years (WHO data). I suspect that in Scotland (and the U.S.) 200 years prior to that it was much less than 40. I find it hard to believe that all your ancestors lived into their 70s (some into their 90’s!?) in a time when the majority died well before 50 years of age. The reason for the huge increase in lifespan in the last 100 years (and especially since the 50s) is the dawn of modern medicine, pharmaceuticals, and biotechnology. People are now expected to live into their 80s, on average, in the U.S. Your quaint anecdotes don’t stand up very well in the face of actual data.
http://www.who.int/global_health_histories/seminars/presentation07.pdf
2) Honestly, if you place so much emphasis on a multigenerational study, there are few products in the world that you can trust today. Everything from cleaning supplies to shampoo to pharmaceuticals to many foods are synthetic or have been treated with “chemicals” and could theoretically have multigenerational effects. Are you going to stop using these products too? Like I said, you might as well live in a cave in Scotland. I guarantee you will not live as long without the technological developments we enjoy today.
I trust the multitude of multigenerational animal trials that have been done already. I also understand the science behind GMOs, and I trust that too. And so do millions of other people. It tends to be the uninformed people who do not support GMOs. It doesn’t matter anyway, I have a feeling that even if such a lengthy study was published tomorrow you would still dispute it.
3) If you are trying to argue that because people did not know what was safe in the past that they don’t know what is safe today, it is not much of an argument. The science has come so far since then. At a time when cocaine was used by the general population, they didn’t have the methods, the protocols, the equipment — nothing on which to base any of their thinking on but simple qualitative observations. It simply is not comparable. Again, if you want to subscribe to this kind of belief, then you might as well not trust anything in modern medicine because it will all be proven wrong in 100 years, right? Or something better will come along. This may well be, but the data we have now suggests that what we know is accurate.
Again, this is an awfully cynical view of the world to have, in my opinion. Never trusting anything. Better turn off your cell phone, WiFi, and television, move into a cave far away from those things, and put on your tinfoil hat. I don’t believe there has been a multigenerational study done on that either.
So you have two choices:
A) Trust the scientists who do the animal studies on a wide variety of technologies (including GMOs), and reap the rewards in lifestyle and life expectancy, OR
B) Don’t trust anything (not many multigenerational studies on modern technologies in humans out there, after all) and live in a cave with a life expectancy of half the rest of us.
It seems pretty black and white to me?
–mAc
PS: You still never answered my question. Or does Google not turn up the answer you need? You seem very good at addressing the non-scientific aspects of posts, but you don’t have many counters for the science. You can attack me all you want, I don’t really care. I don’t need or, frankly, want your acceptance. The science is still there. And you still don’t have any peer-reviewed sources. Maybe you have no access?
@macWarrior
Very good info supplied. Makes a lot of sense, but is a pure waste of time.
Doc is very logical and smart. Here is his logic
1. I hate Monsanto and most American companies, except those that make expensive coffee.
2. I have never produced anything useful and I resent people who do for making me look bad.
3. Poor people in poor countries exist to make me feel good. Companies that help them produce more food and escape poverty are bad, because who can Bono do world concerts for if the poor people become well fed and self sufficient? And don’t let them have DDT to kill mosquitoes carrying malaria. I am part of the NPR telethon that gets them nets (at cost) if they sign the ACORN forms and let us vote for them in the next election.
4. A scientist who works for a company is bad, a scientist who works for a government entity is good, unless he/she says something they shouldn’t.
5. Monsanto is bad because it kills people and destroys jobs. Apple is not responsible for eliminating the jobs of most secretaries and word processing clerks, and also causing Chinese workers/slaves to commit suicide because I like Apple and use their computers.
6. I hate pharmaceutical companies and oil companies and only use pills and drive cars when I have to. Others should not be allowed to tie pills, eat food or use gas powered cars, or use airplane travel because they are not special like me.
That is about it. And if you don’t agree with all the above please provide me peer reviewed, multigenerational, latitudinal and longitudinal studies performed on live humans (Republicans) for at least 100 years by government certified scientists.
People think that Monsanto is all evil but that’s nit true. Just like everyone thinks that Goldman Sachs is evil. But did you know that there are actual people working there? People like you and me? I don’t agree with everything Monsanto does but it’s not an all evil company that propaganda wants you to think.
Small scale farming is not the solution but rather a mix between large and small. Large is not only bad, in allot of ways it’s more effective. But a mix is the best.
@mAc Warrior
Just got back and read your excellent comments. I had to smile about the rev transcriptase question…mainly because my wife, who is a better scientist than me, published with David Baltimore. ….hey maybe doc can find out who DB is.
I was going to mention to doc that transgenic corn and cotton are not consumed by humans and good luck to find that study he demands but he is not worth the time.
The best example is that man has bred wheat and other plants like canola (to remove the bitterness) and that these haven’t generated people with three eyes.
Jax 44 is the one with the guts to identify the real problem.
creating more food so that more starving people can reproduce another generation to produce more starving people is ludicrous. but if GMO is profitable, then there will always be somebody inventing an argument why their plan is the right thing to do.
Fewer people living in sustainable areas in a sustainable lifestyle is the only long-term solution. Anything else just delays the edge of the societal cliff.
Mike is right. The right thing to do is to eliminate at least half the population. I have a list we can start with. Mike – can you come check the pilot light in this oven?
Here is a study of the effects of GMO products on the human population! I had to SEARCH AND SEARCH, but I found out about the effects. If you know of ANY OTHER study of the effects of GMO products on the human population, please let me know.
http://tinyurl.com/SuiDig-com-GMOWhoLLOOc0