March Against Monsanto

[Mel Fulks]

Greg, thanks for clarification. In my googling I don't see anything that says the changes are always cross species. I can't help but wonder if it is the accurate control itself ,as opposed to random luck, that some find unnatural or scary.

[Greg Peterson]

Greg, I'm just pointing out that science is wrong on food products a lot. Take my examples, is it good to eat eggs now or not? Is it good to eat pork now or not? Those are all things "Science" as some point has said was bad for you. Then they said they were good for you, then bad for you. If it's so "fixed" and "scientific", how come the outcome keeps changing?

I'm not suggesting you don't believe scientific theories, but if you go around taking everything science says as settled fact, you're going to look pretty silly when they change their outcomes 2 years from now.

Sweet & Low has been said to cause cancer for decades. It's been around for 40 years or more than I can recall (I think), but yet there's not one scientific study in 40 years to prove it. So who's right? The facts or the people that say it causes cancer? 40 years and not one proven case of it.

I understood you the first time. Yes, many if not most of those were studies that were never peer reviewed and just released to the press. There was a study that said bread crust caused cancer. It was poorly researched and was not even peer reviewed, yet the press got it and ran with it.

IMO, I feel these scientists that have raised these questions, are credible. Each having decades in their respective professions, have conducted studies or have advised large scale growers based on the numbers. Their careers are in agriculture and I have to assume they have a passion, interest or concern for the professional farmer. Their observations are not based on one or two anecdotal experiences. They have tremendous responsibilities. Much like Ken's forest ranger story.

Ken discounts the studies I cited for a variety of reasons. To which I say there is no value in any peer reviewed study as every organization can be found to have a bias. Peer review has been rendered useless because the authors motives are now fair game. "Why did he question Roundup?". "Why does he tell corn and soy bean growers that yields down so plan your crops accordingly". "Why did he look at the ecosystem of the soil?".

I'm not saying that GMO's are bad or Roundup needs to go away. But I'm not going to take Monsanto's word that everything is all right.

[Scott Shepherd]

I understood you the first time. IMO, I feel the scientists that have raised serious questions, are credible. Each having decades in their respective professions have conducted studies or have advised large scale growers based on the numbers. Their careers are in agriculture and I have to assume they have a passion, interest or concern for the professional farmer. Their observations are not based on one or two anecdotal experiences.

Yeah, and so were the scientist that told is all the things I listed were bad for you. They all came from credible, career scientists, not some fly by night hack. They were all peer reviewed and the conclusions reached as well. It's not different than what you're saying.

You might be 100% right. I have no idea. I'm only saying that you are giving people a lot of credit, when in the past, those same types of people have been VERY wrong about a lot of things as well. I used to think science was close to 100% right, not I think they are closer to 50/50 on most things.

[Greg Peterson]

Yeah, and so were the scientist that told is all the things I listed were bad for you. They all came from credible, career scientists, not some fly by night hack. They were all peer reviewed and the conclusions reached as well. It's not different than what you're saying.

You might be 100% right. I have no idea. I'm only saying that you are giving people a lot of credit, when in the past, those same types of people have been VERY wrong about a lot of things as well. I used to think science was close to 100% right, not I think they are closer to 50/50 on most things.

I think they are being honest, as many before them were being honest. But the scientific process ultimately decides who is right and who is wrong.

I do not believe the scientific process has been fully applied to GMO's or RR crops.

[Frank Drew]

I don't think there is much wasted food being produced, it just goes to some other food process then the store shelf.

Steve,

There is a huge amount of food waste in this country, a really shocking amount. FWIW, I don't consider it wasted if the food is re-purposed, fed to animals, composted, etc. I mean waste as in thrown in the trash, mostly at the end-user location.

I'm pretty much agnostic on the GMO issue; I don't know enough about the science to have an informed position. But in this highly surprising thread (for this board), Greg, Pat, David and some others have kept their cool and calmly argued their respective positions, while a few posters have thrown around such seemingly pejorative (and political) terms as left leaning, radicals, enviros, etc.

Just my observation.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

I think they are being honest, as many before them were being honest. But the scientific process ultimately decides who is right and who is wrong.

I do not believe the scientific process has been fully applied to GMO's or RR crops.

Unless you were there involved in the research process at Monsanto, you can't prove this. Thus this is purely wild speculation.

[Kent A Bathurst]

Forestry practices during the 20th century included clear cutting g and indiscriminate harvesting. To be fair, the industry started smplkykng sustainable practices in the 90's.

Clear cutting was cost effective but damaged fish habitat and caused extensive soil erosion.

OK. I'm back for a minute.

20th century - yeah. Early on, go for the low hanging fruit. Clear cut the stuff if it was in your way. Drop the old-growth trees - the monsters with unbelievable yields. Michigan's old-growth pine forests were cleared to fuel the furniture industry in Grand Rapids area, and the construction boom - beginning with the rebuilding of Chicago after Mrs. O'Leary's cow. The fabulous Southern Yellow Pine old-growth forests were cleared and gone.

But then - 2d half of the century, they started the plantations of trees. They are on the 3d or 4th generation of SYP farms - the stuff is basically a weed. The acreage in the S Georgia region is stunning - all different phases of growth: I regularly see acreage being harvested. Along hte same road are plantations in all stages of growth.

Somewhere, recently, [lousy source for fact-checking, I acknowledge] I read that in the SYP region that the current forests are some multiple of the old-growth forests from the 19th C. Like twice the acreage, or something.

I don't dispute your basic argument. I just think you got a bit carried away on this particular analogy, that's all.

The fisheries - I got that one.

But the GMOs seem - to me - to be the antithesis of those over-harvesting problems. Improve yields. Reduce time and fuel spent on the crops. Reduce total herbicide usage. Use a degradable herbicide.

With all due respect to the people that are opposed to the GMO crops: I am more concerned with the latent time-bomb of single-strain crops. Setting aside the GMO issue, there are many staples of the human diet that have been cross-bred for improved yields, insect resistance, harvest-to-market viability, etc., resulting in loss of the traits of the heirlooms from which they were bred. And, with which we are now in the position of "what if there is a disease that wipes out that single strain"?

[Frank Drew]

Ken

You've suggested that we should view any "scientific" findings with skepticism before we find out who was behind the studies, who might benefit from them, what biases preceded the studies... follow the money, in other words.

But you don't seem to apply the same healthy skepticism towards Monsanto, with their obvious self-interest in this issue; why is that?

[Chris Kennedy]

Ken,

Your comments show that you don't know or understand how peer review works.

Chris

[Kev Williams]

Just yesterday I was listening to a local talk radio host, who mentioned that some study was just released about drinking diet soda...

Seems this host, and many others of late, believe (thru 'science'?) that diet soda is NOT an acceptable substitute for water, and is more detrimental to sustaining a diet than drinking water or even regular sugared soda. In short, drink sugared soda and leave diet soda alone...

Well, this new study states (in short) that THAT theory is bunk...

So what's the first thing the host does? Calls his 'personal scientist' on the phone to have HIM debunk this new study. My personal opinion as to why he called his guy? He doesn't want to admit to his listeners he may be wrong.

What's this mean? First, I haven't read all nine pages of this thread ( ) -second, in my 60 years on this planet, it seems to ME, that "scientific evidence" is about 30% "science" and 70% "personal opinion"...

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Ken,

Your comments show that you don't know or understand how peer review works.

Chris

Kindly explain Chris. Enlighten me.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Frank,

You are wrong.

I am saying on both sides of the GMO arguments, both sides have bias and both could serve you Kool-Aid.


In my opinion, scientists in both commercial and educational institutions have a financial interest which can effect an outcome, that both types of researchers can have personal beliefs before they perform research than could effect their research. I believe neither group is better morally and has more integrity.


As a result, both camps when they produce a study, the study should be scrutinized equally.

I will also state, I doubt seriously anybody who has posted in this thread so far, is honestly qualified with the knowledge to intelligently explain, discuss or debate the subject.

[Chris Kennedy]

Peer reviews, vetting and publication are of little value without knowing the bias and intent of the reviewing organization.
.

(My emphasis added.)

Ken,

Peer reviewers do not work for journals. They are asked by the editorial board to review the article -- for no remuneration. You have been talking about "following the money." Peer review has no money to follow. They do this for the sake of ensuring research is as accurate as possible.



Chris

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Personally, I don't have an opinion about GMOs and I am not defending Monsanto.

Statements were made questioning the integrity and research of researchers at a commercial organization because of financial interests. I was merely pointing out that educational institutions and their researchers have similar interests.


GMOs are really a non-issue. Even in little Lewiston, Idaho, every grocery store of significant size has an organic section. If you want to pay more for organic because you are more comfortable eating organic, do it. The organic food is available.


If you are uncomfortable with RoundUp, and RR foods, tell your organic farmer to not use them, and buy organic.

If I am not concerned, I shouldn't have to pay more just because you are willing to do so.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

(My emphasis added.)

Ken,

Peer reviewers do not work for journals. They are asked by the editorial board to review the article -- for no remuneration. You have been talking about "following the money." Peer review has no money to follow. They do this for the sake of ensuring research is as accurate as possible.



Chris

But the reviewing group can have a bias and therefore their review isn't necessarily unbiased.