Obama give Monsanto the "go ahead" to put GMOs in our food!!

Ah yes, the Failure to Yield document. I had a look at the actual report briefly and read the Executive Summary. Seems legit, though the organization that produces the study is a political organization, despite the fact that it has some actual scientists on its staff and BOD. In any case, the summary of that document notes in conclusion that it doesn't preclude the possibility that GM crops will in the future improve yields, it just doesn't think it should be done at the expense of other methods that have shown larger improvements in yield. I don't disagree with that, however, I'm as suspect of the conclusions drawn by grassroots political organizations as I am of those of the corporate scientists. Both groups have a political or financial motive driving their science. To be thorough, one should look at the actual peer reviews of the quoted articles (there are really only a few that have been published in peer-reviewed journals or are less than a decade old), which entails going to the journal in which they're published and reading the responses or critiques of the original article. I just don't have that kind of time on my hands, unfortunately.

 

Wait you think Grassroots studies are just as reliable as Corporate Special Interest studies? You have a very strange perception of the world!

 

No STD, I think they're equally unreliable.

 

Obviously you have some literacy problems- It's STP (Serenity, Tranquility and, PEACE) Secondly, I said "Just as reliable;" Therefore whether they're reliable or not, they ARE equal.

 

I thought it stood for shirley temples pussy.

 

Nah, it was a code word for DOH (Now DOC or the good doctor,) back in the 60's. It's a psychedelic chemical.

 

I don't have any literacy problem. Must have been a Freudian slip or perhaps a typo. Equally reliable and equally unreliable are somewhat different, albeit, subtly so. In either case, I am skeptical of the claims of both groups. Did you have some other more substantive point to make?

 

I don't think grassroots movements really would have a motive, although, I then realized you said "Political grassroots" which I've not heard of. I just know Monsato controls nearly 90% of our seed supplies, so if there is some type of future problem that is unforeseen, it will effect/affect most Americans.

 

The anti-GMO lobby is very political and from what I've seen to date from that crowd is mostly unsubstantiated fear-mongering and misinformation, which I dislike quite a bit. I also don't like Monsanto and their, monopoly-like grip on modern agriculture or their sleazy, manipulative business practices. I'd really like to see more non-partisan studies on the issues surrounding GMO's.

 

Oh ok thanks. I think the stone temple pilots were going to call themselves that but went with stp instead. Anyway sorry off topic

 

Let's forget the (non) issue of GMO's, and worry about the lack of genetic diversity and the monopoly on life that monsanto has, and the disaster that it spells to anybody who can read at a first-grade level.

If each farmer had a DNA sequencer in the shed, ehh, I wouldn't be a whole lot more worried than I am now, at least there would be diverse disaster, instead of homogeneous disaster.

 

True and haven't we already agreed about this...or was that the other GMO thread...anyway, yes the reduced diversity is a problem. If some pest manages to break through whatever defenses are engineered into the plant the whole crop goes down for the count. This could happen in crops that are more genetically diverse too, but it is less likely. We see something very similar in microbial resistance to antibiotics. Antibiotics work by killing the majority of infectious microbes which allows our overwhelmed immune system to have a go at the rest of the antibiotic-depleted population. It never kills all of them because some have genes that confer resistance to the antibiotic. This same dynamic is evident in all large populations of organisms - human, plant or bacteria.

The patent issue is kind of complicated, but in general I think they just go too far. Legal stuff is not my area of interest or expertise but if I recall and understand correctly, the current patents granted to Monsanto and other bio-engineering companies allow them to patent the genomes of the organisms they're modifying rather than just the transgenic product they have paid wads of money to develop. This prevents others from also modifying that original organism and competing with Monsanto, effectively creating a monopoly. I think that's wrong and that they should only be able to have a patent on the transgenic product.

LOL, ever read Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake and subsequent Year of the Flood?

 

Spend less time talking the talk, and more time walking the walk. Buy organic, manifest the wealth to have financial independence, and follow your path. Don't get caught up in the 3-D fear of it all, but don't be ignorant either. Get educated, make a difference, but no point bickering and feeding bad energy into it. The whole Monsanto saga will come to pass, but we should do our best to reduce suffering.

 

Incredibly uninformed opinion based on little fact.

There are many independent studies that show GMOs cause abnormalities in the blood chemistry and organs of mice.

But go ahead and gorge yourself with the shit. I won't eat GMO ANYTHING.

 

Yeah, no lie, but I had to do a double take when I saw that RooRshack posted that.

But anyway, I agree with you.

 

Can you provide links to these independent studies?

 

Actually, I'd rather you didn't tell me what to do.

I am not ignorant about this subject matter at all and I suspect Roo isn't either.

We were having a discussion, not bickering.

Sure. Pass the balsamic...