Monsanto

[Muldur]

One very real possibility is that an anti-GMO "activist" somehow got a hold of a sample and planted it. These people are known to lie and commit crimes to further their paranoid nonsense, so I wouldn't put anything past them.

Wrong forum for Conspiracy Theories, isn't it Scrut?

 

[Muldur]

They have nothing to do with chemicals.

Why don't you just stop lying? Monsanto is one of the largest suppliers of agricultural chemicals in the world.

Public record.

You really are cutting your own credibility in the throat, Scrut.

 

[GlennB]

Why don't you just stop lying? Monsanto is one of the largest suppliers of agricultural chemicals in the world.

Public record.

You really are cutting your own credibility in the throat, Scrut.

The "Who we are" page of Monsanto.com specifically mentions their selling of "crop protection chemicals". So I, too, can't imagine what TCS is saying here.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

And around the vicious circle we go again: you demand "proof", we provide proof, you ad hom your way out of addressing the proof.

Rinse, repeat.

You don't want proof. You want someone to just agree with you despite all the evidence you are wrong.

No sale, Scrut. No sale.

The proof I clearly asked for has never been provided by any nutter, anywhere, at any time. Perhaps you could do their job for them and come up with one? Like I said above, probably not.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The "Who we are" page of Monsanto.com specifically mentions their selling of "crop protection chemicals". So I, too, can't imagine what TCS is saying here.

Obviously they sell pesticides. I was debunking the oft-repeated link the nutwads make between Monsanto and Agent Orange. As in "How can we trust Monsanto's claims that GMO's are safe when AGENT ORANGE!1!!!111!!!!".

 

[!Kaggen]

I'm sure you don't speak for that crowd, but your sympathies seem to lie there. Perhaps you know of a study? Just one. In a peer reviewed science journal.

I'm sure you already know, and I shouldn't really have say this, but open access "journals", Oprah episodes, YouTube videos and blogs are not generally considered to be peer reviewed science journals.

Okay so will this pseudoscience genetic engineering nutter present the evidence to support his case as to why we need to support GMO's in the first place since the science of genetics is in it's infancy and the biology of living organisms let alone ecosystems has barely begun to be understood. Yet the nutter a claim genetic engineering will save the world without the slightest shred of evidence.
If you define GMO's as the rubbish being sold on the market then genetic engineering has been a complete failure. Lets hope we realize this before it is too late.
But hey religious fanaticism is going to take a long time to disappear especially were the denial is the strongest.
Hell it is even designed to gave an excuse for being wrong in the past, but I deserve another chance to be wrong again.
My respect for those that die for their opinion is high.
It is an excellent way of evolving.
We weed out the opinions worth dying for very quickly out of the gene pool.
And the conviction will make sure that the opinion weeded out is well and truly seen, no ambiguity, nice .

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Okay so will this pseudoscience human flight nutter present the evidence to support his case as to why we need to support flight research in the first place since the science of flight is in it's infancy and the flight of birds let alone the atmosphere has barely begun to be understood. Yet the nutter a claim flight will benefit the world without the slightest shred of evidence.
If you define human flight as the rubbish being sold on the market then human flight has been a complete failure. Lets hope we realize this before it is too late.
But hey religious fanaticism is going to take a long time to disappear especially were the denial is the strongest.
Hell it is even designed to gave an excuse for being wrong in the past, but I deserve another chance to be wrong again.
My respect for those that die for their opinion is high.
It is an excellent way of evolving.
We weed out the opinions worth dying for very quickly out of the gene pool.
And the conviction will make sure that the opinion weeded out is well and truly seen, no ambiguity, nice .

Interesting....

 

[!Kaggen]

Interesting....

Time never lies

 

[kellyb]

Well, all one has to do is look at the affiliations of the "researchers" tied to this article to know it's a joke.

Also, I believe the "pay journals" are a subset of "open access" journals. Not sure which one this is.

Actually, the author affiliations are institutes like "Institute of Health and Environmental Research".

But either way, trying to sniff out researcher bias is a poor method of evaluating evidence. What's striking to me about the study is that right there in the abstract it says:

There were no differences between pigs fed the GM and
non-GM diets for feed intake, weight gain, mortality, and routine blood biochemistry
measurements.

And this is for a study evaluating long term effects. The authors don't flat-out state it, but the implication is that if the negative effect is "real" and not a "fishing expedition coincidence", it must be offset by some sort of obscure health benefit coming from GMO corn.

But really, what's the point of even speculating? It's a single finding. It hasn't been replicated. It's mostly useful for highlighting the limits of evidence of its type, how press releases work, and why it seems like "scientists" are always changing their minds about if eating meat/drinking wine/etc or whatever causes cancer or prevents cancer or what.

I have no idea what you mean about pay journals being a subset of open access journals, by the way. Are you familiar with PLOS or the open access "movement"?

http://www.plos.org/about/open-access/

If you are, and your opinions about open access journals are informed and not a wild guess, I'd be curious to know the source of your information. As far as I can tell, the open access debate is pretty simple, with just a few people profiting from journals on one side, and everybody else (lay people, journalists, scientists) on the other. The only complexity is the issue of making potentially dangerous technology (nukes, engineered super-bugs, etc) easier for "bad guys" to access. But even that argument's weak, since Elsevier et all don't screen for terrorists when they sell their articles for $50.

 

[Puppycow]

Monsanto Crop Biotechnology Reseacher is Among World Food Prize Laureates

Today, the World Food Prize Foundation announced the annual winners of its prestigious award. Among this year's three laureates is Robert Fraley, the Chief Technology Officer at Monsanto. The other two laureates are Marc Van Montagu, Founder and Chairman of the Institute for Plant Biotechnology Outreach (IPBO) in Ghent, Belgium and Mary-Dell Chilton, Founder and Distinguished Science Fellow at Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc.

In its announcement of this year's award, the Foundation noted:

The pioneering work of Marc Van Montagu, Mary-Dell Chilton, and Robert Fraley contributed to the emergence of a new term, "agricultural biotechnology," and set the stage for engineering crops with novel traits that improved yields and conferred resistance to insects and disease, as well as tolerance to adverse environmental conditions. Their work has made it possible for farmers in 30 countries to improve the yields of their crops, have increased incomes, and feed a growing global population.

Beginning with the first cultivation of staple transgenic crops in 1996 until the present, biotech crops have contributed to food security and sustainability by increasing crop production valued at US $98.2 billion and providing a better environment by reducing the application of significant amounts of pesticides worldwide. Today, approximately 12 percent of the world’s arable land is planted with biotechnology crops.​

 

[!Kaggen]

Monsanto Crop Biotechnology Reseacher is Among World Food Prize Laureates

Winning a prize from an organization that you help fund.
Impressive stuff!!!

In 2008 The World Food Prize Foundation accepted a $5 million contribution from Monsanto Company to ensure the continuation of the annual World Food Prize International Symposium “Borlaug Dialogue.”

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Food_Prize

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Monsanto Crop Biotechnology Reseacher is Among World Food Prize Laureates

The anti-GMO nutters are having a fit about this over on Facebook. It's so much fun for me to point and laugh!!!!

Monsanto (and other seed companies) advances science and agriculture. As far as I can tell, the anti-GMO nutwads only advance stupidity. They also actively do damage. They destroy test plots and fight against golden rice in Africa. I guess they don't want those "dark" people to have access to more and better food. They don't want them reproducing, for obvious reasons.

 

[marplots]

Winning a prize from an organization that you help fund.
Impressive stuff!!!

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Food_Prize

Well, let's not just cast aspersions. Why not firm up the charge?

Are you saying that you think a donation in 2008 has now led to an undeserved award in 2013?

Do you also dispute the purported basis for the award? "...improved yields and conferred resistance to insects and disease, as well as tolerance to adverse environmental conditions. Their work has made it possible for farmers in 30 countries to improve the yields of their crops, have increased incomes, and feed a growing global population."

Sounds prize-worthy to me.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Well, let's not just cast aspersions. Why not firm up the charge?

Are you saying that you think a donation in 2008 has now led to an undeserved award in 2013?

Perhaps if one is prone to believe in conspiracies. It's also worth noting that one of this years winners is employed by one of Monsanto's top competitors. Of course, maybe they arraigned for that to happen to make it look less like a conspiracy.

Do you also dispute the purported basis for the award? "...improved yields and conferred resistance to insects and disease, as well as tolerance to adverse environmental conditions. Their work has made it possible for farmers in 30 countries to improve the yields of their crops, have increased incomes, and feed a growing global population."

Sounds prize-worthy to me.

The anti-GMO nutwads on Facebook claim that yields are actually going down due to GMO's. I guess farmers have forgotten how to count bushels.

 

[Skeletor]

The anti-GMO nutters are having a fit about this over on Facebook. It's so much fun for me to point and laugh!!!!

Monsanto (and other seed companies) advances science and agriculture. As far as I can tell, the anti-GMO nutwads only advance stupidity. They also actively do damage. They destroy test plots and fight against golden rice in Africa. I guess they don't want those "dark" people to have access to more and better food. They don't want them reproducing, for obvious reasons.

I brought this up to someone, and naturally they dismissed it. I mean, why let those "dark" people feed themselves rather than let us send them food. It's sad to see otherwise intelligent people stammer and scramble for an answer, and usually it's something to the tune of "we shouldn't be testing these products on those people, its like what the Nazis did."
I've seen poor "dark" people growing rice, and setting it out to dry. Once it's dry and ready to put into sacks, even the children are out to pick up every last grain. These anti-GMO activists have no clue what being poor and hungry means.

To put it another way...GMO = good NGO = bad

 

[L.Y.S.]

I brought this up to someone, and naturally they dismissed it. I mean, why let those "dark" people feed themselves rather than let us send them food. It's sad to see otherwise intelligent people stammer and scramble for an answer, and usually it's something to the tune of "we shouldn't be testing these products on those people, its like what the Nazis did."
I've seen poor "dark" people growing rice, and setting it out to dry. Once it's dry and ready to put into sacks, even the children are out to pick up every last grain. These anti-GMO activists have no clue what being poor and hungry means.

To put it another way...GMO = good NGO = bad

???

If you're referring to the issue of food shortages in Africa, then GMO crops are far from the solution. Africa's various agricultural systems are notoriously backwards and inefficient. Many African countries use outdated techniques to grow crops, and most Africans are subsistence farmers. Unfortunately, Africa has yet to improve these systems. As a result, food is grown at insufficient levels and people are starving.

GMOs aren't needed, because crop survival isn't the issue as many GMO proponents suggest. The most important issue is how the food is grown. Africa certainly needs more irrigation, large farming estates, and better techniques to restore the land. This alone would solve most of Africa's food problem.

 

[Skeletor]

???

If you're referring to the issue of food shortages in Africa, then GMO crops are far from the solution. Africa's various agricultural systems are notoriously backwards and inefficient. Many African countries use outdated techniques to grow crops, and most Africans are subsistence farmers. Unfortunately, Africa has yet to improve these systems. As a result, food is grown at insufficient levels and people are starving.

GMOs aren't needed, because crop survival isn't the issue as many GMO proponents suggest. The most important issue is how the food is grown. Africa certainly needs more irrigation, large farming estates, and better techniques to restore the land. This alone would solve most of Africa's food problem.

I'm not sure if you got the point we were making...if there's a lack of arable land, let them plant the food that will be the most efficient in that space. If you don't believe that GMO crops have better yields than non-GMO, then I really can't help ya.

 

[L.Y.S.]

I'm not sure if you got the point we were making...if there's a lack of arable land, let them plant the food that will be the most efficient in that space. If you don't believe that GMO crops have better yields than non-GMO, then I really can't help ya.

I didn't say they did or did not. I'm just saying there are more practical ways of solving the issue other than GMO crops. Arable land is only an issue in the north and the south, and that's mostly because they overgraze the land, and they don't crop rotate. Most Africans do not use crop rotation. Using GMOs to increase yields is pointless if they keep using the same damned and backwards practices, and that's what I'm telling you. Africa needs more irrigation and better farm practices. They are destroying their own land now using crappy techniques with regular crops. I can't imagine much improvement if they keep the same ****** techniques.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I didn't say they did or did not. I'm just saying there are more practical ways of solving the issue other than GMO crops. Arable land is only an issue in the north and the south, and that's mostly because they overgraze the land, and they don't crop rotate. Most Africans do not use crop rotation. Using GMOs to increase yields is pointless if they keep using the same damned and backwards practices, and that's what I'm telling you. Africa needs more irrigation and better farm practices. They are destroying their own land now using crappy techniques with regular crops. I can't imagine much improvement if they keep the same ****** techniques.

Assuming they can't (or won't) improve their practices, then they'll still get better yields with GMO.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Assuming they can't (or won't) improve their practices, then they'll still get better yields with GMO.

It won't solve the issue. I wrote a long response, and then I had the fortune of not being able to post it due to internet issues. Needless to say, GMO crops will not prevent starvation, but will make it worse in the long term. Because it will artificially keep people alive that the current African farming systems can't support. When it collapses, and it will, hundreds of millions of people will die in maybe two or three years. It's a huge problem in Africa. The degraded soil is a ticking time bomb that will starve out Africa's population. So rather than solve the crisis, it will make it worse. GMOs in the long term will only neglect a much larger situation which is Africa's various infrastructures.