Monsanto

[marplots]

It's a judgment call. Skeptics know that kooks do not possess any Midas touch that transforms truths into falsehoods, and that anyone willing to do the work of pursuing a claim to its actual source may find it to be well supported despite having fallen into the hands of biased or otherwise non-critical thinkers somewhere along the way. When we discussed this on page 6, I agreed with you that the burden really falls upon the claimant to do that work, and that it is reasonable to expect that many people here will not consider themselves obligated to even look at material linked through "information sources" with names like "Wake Up World".

I cannot, however, go along with you when you extend this to a general disdain for "open access journals". Putting the "E" in "JREF" gets a lot harder if the de facto rule is that only the most well established scientific journals are acceptable as sources, because those who stand to learn the most from our efforts here are the ones least likely to have easy access to that material. Tell the truth: do you have the right to look down your nose at those who would stoop to reading open access journals? If the source under discussion had been a recent article in, say, the Journal Science, would YOU have been able to access it? Are you a subscriber? Affiliated with a subscribing institution? Would you have been willing to pony up the dough for a one-time view? Because if not, your dismissive "An open access journal. Figures" really does look like an excuse to dismiss, unexamined, material which might support a claim you've already rejected going in.

A timesaver for you, no doubt, but in my opinion, not very skeptical.

I have to agree. And I can see why those most passionate about an issue, woo or no, would dig up and cite the research - any research - both good and bad.

It's not like they won't take something that supports their case when it's good science. They certainly will. So even the "bad" sites can act as a clearing house for some subject - there's still work to be done to evaluate their cites, but wholesale dismissal isn't called for.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Tell the truth: do you have the right to look down your nose at those who would stoop to reading open access journals? If the source under discussion had been a recent article in, say, the Journal Science, would YOU have been able to access it? Are you a subscriber? Affiliated with a subscribing institution? Would you have been willing to pony up the dough for a one-time view?

In order: Yes. Yes. No. No. No.

 

[shuize]

Threads like this always make me want to go out and buy stock in the company being bashed.

 

[Dymanic]

In order: Yes. Yes. No. No. No.

Clearly there are some possibilities I overlooked. The brevity of your answer suggests that you are not eager to discuss those details, so instead of pressing you further, I'll take you at your word. Now that it has been stipulated that you are among the fortunates who have easy access to that content, let's back up a little. Do you feel that it is, or should be, the de facto rule here that only the most well established scientific journals are acceptable as sources? If your answer is simply "Yes", can you explain your reasoning? What exactly is your beef with open access?

 

[Henry Bannister]

Here I'll be the third to quote this one...Third-world farmers will most certainly NOT be paying First-world prices for Monsanto seeds. Didn't we cover Bill Gates' efforts to buy Golden Rice for African farmers? I have no doubts that similar efforts are underway in Indonesia and elsewhere in SE Asia.

Yes, unfortunately that sounds also likely to drive the seed suppliers in those regions out of business. Unless Bill Gates is intent on feeding all those people for the rest of time, when the subsidies stop then they will be tied into Monsanto and the other huge suppliers. You really think Monsanto is going to give up all that income and profit?

It's the certainty that GMO promoters have that I find concerning. You can't know that Monsanto will 'certainly NOT' be charging first-world prices for the rest of time.

There's also the legality of Monsanto's agreement that farmers will not save seed for the next year...Once you're on a foreign soil, all bets are off. Monsanto has bigger fish to fry right here in the good ol' USA.

Why do you think the good ol' USA is pushing for US patents to be valid throughout the world? You really think that Monsanto is suing all those small American farmers to prevent them reusing seed but will simply allow non-American farmers to reuse and so invalidate their patents?

That would be unAmerican activity, surely - I'm sure Monsanto shareholders (like Bill Gates with half a million shares I understand, my word there's a surprise) will have something to say about such pinko commie liberal activities.

You accuse people against GMO of being gullible but you have a touching faith in Monsanto's beneficence.

 

[Henry Bannister]

Why would we even waste time listening to a nut, when there are tens of thousands of other cell biologists in the world who aren't nuts?

That's the whole point though, isn't it. Brainster made that post to smear Heinemann. It was the other cell biologist who is apparently an AIDS denier and 9/11 Truther. You seem to be assuming that anyone anti-GMO is a nut and therefore not worth listening to.

 

[Henry Bannister]

Er, no. Nobody is "forced" to buy seed from Monsanto.

Fair enough, not at the moment, but they will be when Monsanto has the monopoly they want from buying up other seed companies and funding politicians to get favourable laws passed.

http://bpr.berkeley.edu/2013/04/seeds-of-corruption-the-monsanto-protection-act/

Still, considering the recent debacle over California’s Prop 37 and genetically modified food labeling, one would wonder how the Farmer Assurance Provision of 2013’s fiscal bill, or the Monsanto Protection Act, was passed surreptitiously. The Monsanto Protection Act was inserted into the bill at the last minute and signed by Obama on March 26 without any congressional hearings. At a time when genetically modified foods are rapidly overtaking the food industry, and when the public is just becoming more cautious of GMOs, it is shocking that the Monsanto Protection Act was passed with such ease. ...

The bill permits GMO corporations such as Monsanto to promote and plant GMOs without any lawsuits that result from harmful health effects. ...

In India specifically, the company has contributed to an alarming trend of farmer suicide. Farmer suicide is prevalent in the states of Andhra Pradseh, Maharashtra, Kerala, and Punjab. The country has seen over a quarter of a million farmer suicides between 1995 and 2010. Monsanto has exacerbated farmer poverty by increasing the price of cotton seeds exponentially as well as selling GMO seeds with exaggerated claims for harvest yields. For instance, the company made promises that farmers would yield 1500/kg/year when they actually produced only 300-400 kg/year on average. Farmers are then forced to take out loans to purchase even more seeds, perpetuating a vicious financial cycle that all too often ends in tragedy. ...

When 2013’s fiscal bill passed, many congressional members were actually unaware of the provision regarding Monsanto, and no one initially admitted to being its author. Later on it was revealed that Missouri Senator Roy Blunt was responsible for helping Monsanto write the bill, having received over $60,000 in campaign funds from Monsanto from 2008-2012. While Senator Blunt defended the company himself and the campaign contributions may not have been the sole reason for his action, Monsanto’s power has nonetheless given far too much potential for corruption.

 

[Henry Bannister]

So you're saying that farmers are using more pesticides and fertilizer and getting lower yields than 30 years ago, but they just don't realize it?

Did you actually read the article? It said that yes, yields have risen and pesticide use has dropped. But that has happened in Europe, too, where we don't allow GMO (yet), and so those improvements can't be attributed to purely GMO as you'd like us to believe. Come on less of the strawman arguments.

And the data comes from the official US sources linked to above.

 

[Henry Bannister]

How very convenient to ignore impartial observers. Perform the simple additional step of declaring your opponents to be shills and you get to have a monopoly on The Truth (TM).

Come on, you can hardly call The Central Scrutinizer and Brainster 'impartial observers'. I'm not either, I admit. There are some uses of GMO that I'm probably in favour of - for medicines particularly - but I feel that it's a huge experiment that we can't undo that risks severe environmental damage and places inordinate power into the hands of people whose only motive is profit.

 

[Henry Bannister]

Don't blame me for your inability to read. I did not say Heinemann is an AIDS denier and a Troofer.

I read it perfectly well, thanks. You pointed out that he is a cell biologist, and that another cell biologist (who as far as we know has no relation to him whatsoever) is an AIDS denier and a Troofer. The implication was that he's a loony who we shouldn't listen to. Why else make that post? It was just an attempt to slur Heinemann, and from at least one comment following it from another pro GMOer it did work.

Sorry about the multiple posts people, I was off doing things. I'll shut up now for a while now

 

[Orphia Nay]

Threads like this always make me want to go out and buy stock in the company being bashed.

Yep!

 

[Henry Bannister]

Fair play, it would mean you'd likely end up with lots of shares in tobacco companies though.

 

[kookbreaker]

Did you actually read the article? It said that yes, yields have risen and pesticide use has dropped. But that has happened in Europe, too, where we don't allow GMO (yet), and so those improvements can't be attributed to purely GMO as you'd like us to believe. Come on less of the strawman arguments.

And the data comes from the official US sources linked to above.

Data can easily be manipulated by selectively choosing or outright lying. Politically motivated folks tend to do this quite a bit. See the recent anti-GMO paper studying the effects of GMO feed on pigs for an example.

Open Source journals have a very bad reputation at this point. They accepted papers that were just scientific gibberish, they are essentially pay-to-play, and while some interesting articles & studies might be legit I would take anything on controversial topics with twice he jaundiced eye.

 

[Henry Bannister]

Data can easily be manipulated by selectively choosing or outright lying. Politically motivated folks tend to do this quite a bit. See the recent anti-GMO paper studying the effects of GMO feed on pigs for an example.

Open Source journals have a very bad reputation at this point. They accepted papers that were just scientific gibberish, they are essentially pay-to-play, and while some interesting articles & studies might be legit I would take anything on controversial topics with twice he jaundiced eye.

Yes that's true, but from my post: "And the data comes from the official US sources linked to above." There was no selectively choosing or outright lying that I could see.

And 'peer reviewed' scientific papers can be just as suspect: http://earthopensource.org/index.ph...ployee-put-in-charge-of-gmo-papers-at-journal "Former Monsanto employee put in charge of GMO papers at journal"

And a paper saying "In conclusion, the available literature shows no solid evidence linking glyphosate exposure to adverse developmental or reproductive effects at environmentally realistic exposure concentrations." was funded by .... oh look ... Monsanto.

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/surprise-monsanto-funded-research-finds-their-products-safe

This was the sort of trick used by the tobacco companies, who funded loads of 'research' showing that tobacco was safe and had no ill effects at all m'lud. Some of the research they funded started to show that oh yes perhaps tobacco was linked to some diseases but they cut the funding before the research was finished and still published a statement saying that the research hadn't shown a positive link.

If GMO research was being controlled by impartial scientists I'd have some confidence in it but it's not - much of it is funded by the companies who stand to make huge amounts of money out of it. I'm sorry I just don't trust them.

 

[kookbreaker]

Yes that's true, but from my post: "And the data comes from the official US sources linked to above." There was no selectively choosing or outright lying that I could see.

Considering the lack of data on the abstract page, I wonder how you can determine that?

You are referring to this link, yes? http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24/abstract

Because while they cite a 7% increase, I see no accounting for variables on that page. It might be well covered in the paper, but I need to see that for myself. I mean, 7% might just be from increased acreage growing things:

http://www.bigpictureagriculture.co...tton-crop-report-released-august-10-2012.html

The graph there does not go back to 1996, but does show a raw bushel growth in corn of 9 billion to 12 billion, a 33% increase in yield.

I'd be more convinced by farmers saying: "This GMO stuff is BS, I'm using more weed killer than ever and its costing me a mint! I'm going back to the old stuff".

And 'peer reviewed' scientific papers can be just as suspect: http://earthopensource.org/index.ph...ployee-put-in-charge-of-gmo-papers-at-journal "Former Monsanto employee put in charge of GMO papers at journal"

Given their screwup with the 'GMO causes tumors' paper it sounds like these guys could use a little oversight. Probably not best to use a Monsanto person but if crap like that is what they product otherwise....

 

[Cassidy]

I would like to join this thread at some point soon. (will read up from the beginning first)

A sweet tip I heard regarding Round-up weed kill. To combat the pest of the plant, find the enemy of the pest. Take the enemy and crush it. Add it to a Ltr bottle of water and shake vigorously. Add this water to a bucket of water, stir well and spray it over the plants (avoiding weeds)

The pest smells its enemy, and death. The pest should then be happy feeding off the weeds.

Lots safer than altering the genetic structure of corn for resilience to Round-up.

 

[marplots]

I would like to join this thread at some point soon. (will read up from the beginning first)

A sweet tip I heard regarding Round-up weed kill. To combat the pest of the plant, find the enemy of the pest. Take the enemy and crush it. Add it to a Ltr bottle of water and shake vigorously. Add this water to a bucket of water, stir well and spray it over the plants (avoiding weeds)

The pest smells its enemy, and death. The pest should then be happy feeding off the weeds.

Lots safer than altering the genetic structure of corn for resilience to Round-up.

Yes, this works really well, although it might be difficult to identify the enemy of the pest. I think spiders work best, but I have heard that lady bugs do too.

Which have you used?

 

[Henry Bannister]

http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=e2&commodity=corn&graph=yield

was what I was referring to - comparison of EU-15, EU-27 and USA yields.

Probably not best to use a Monsanto person but if crap like that is what they product otherwise....

No, not even close. If Monsanto person's in charge then it's suspect you have to have someone impartial or the whole thing's a charade.

I don't know that paper, but if it's the one I'm thinking of they remarked that the Monsanto 'research' was over a very short period whereas the tumours they found developed over a longer timescale.

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/surprise-monsanto-funded-research-finds-their-products-safe

which refers to

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub=pubmed but I can't read it cos no subscription.

 

[Henry Bannister]

Yes, this works really well, although it might be difficult to identify the enemy of the pest. I think spiders work best, but I have heard that lady bugs do too.

Which have you used?

I do actually use Roundup as it happens, I understand it's the only thing that works on Japanese Knotweed which we have everywhere round here. I don't think crushing up its enemies (even if I could find them since I'm not in Japan) would work on that.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Fair play, it would mean you'd likely end up with lots of shares in tobacco companies though.

You say that is if it's a bad thing. https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=0&chdd=0&chds=0&chdv=0&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1373243460259&chddm=514556&chls=IntervalBasedLine&cmpto=INDEXDJX:.DJI&cmptdms=0&q=NYSEM&ntsp=0&ei=OwjaUdCCLoWFrgGEuAE