Originally Posted by Ken Fitzgerald
A little bias there Ken? Suggesting that the doctor is biased or the study is flawed without having your own facts clearly points to your own bias.
Member
A little bias there Ken? Suggesting that the doctor is biased or the study is flawed without having your own facts clearly points to your own bias.
Contributor
No bias Todd. Just asking a question. What was the doctor's beliefs before he performed the study. I'd like to know why he did the study. I'd like to know the methods he used in the study and what other outside considerations he may have had if any with respect to other possible positive effects of the GMOs and the gerbicide.
Keep in mind, that WSU also has a professor who is the widely known expert on Bigfoot.
The link that Greg posted appears to only go to the Dr.'s summary and there are no details.
If doubt, follow the money. Who funded the study? What outcome would benefit the financier?
I am a skeptic.
Ken
So much to learn, so little time.....
Member
I don't know who paid for his research. He is not employed by any activist groups or private industry. He is a research professor at Washington State University Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources. He earned a BA in economics from Harvard in 1971 and received his masters and PhD in agricultural economics from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1979/1980.
On the surface it appears his analysis is fair and balanced. His academic training seems to suggest an interest in economical agricultural practices. As for his feelings before the study, who knows. The study was the first such study subjected to peer review. I assume this means if there were any flaws in the study or procedures it would have been caught. It isn't as if he just posted this on a blog somewhere.
Ken, here is the paper: Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. -- the first sixteen years
Last edited by Greg Peterson; 05-25-2014 at 8:25 PM.
Measure twice, cut three times, start over. Repeat as necessary.
Member
Guilt by association.
You have nothing tangible against his research, so you throw in a red herring. The journal has refereed and vetted his paper. If you want to question his research and its validity, question the people who have vetted it. You would like to know his methodology -- it's published. Read it. Find the problem. The journal is certifying body here, not the university.
Chris
If you only took one trip to the hardware store, you didn't do it right.
Contributor
Cris,
When Greg repeatedly posted, calling the writer of the research paper by "Dr. Charles Benbrook of Washington State University", it appeared to me he was trying to impress the reader by the nice doctor's title, position and employer. I was merely pointing out that Dr. Grover Krantz of the same WSU is a noted believer and expert of Bigfoot. I was trying to demonstrate that having a high level of education with appropriate title at even a respected university like WSU doesn't necessarily guarantee the believability or integrity of one's professional opinion.
Sorry, based on my personal 30+ years of elk and deer hunting and fishing in Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Mississippi, Illinois and Indiana, I haven't seen any physical evidence of Bigfoot. I don't buy Dr. Krantz's professional opinion. While I can take you to country where if a reasonably intelligent animal like a birds, squirrels, raccoons, mink, muskrats, mountain lions, bobcats, lynx, horses, mules, deer, elk or bear want to remain hidden, they can, they also generally leave some evidence of their presence in the form of odor, scat, tracks or sounds. Bigfoot hasn't provided any for me yet.
BTW..I worked on the WSU campus several years both at the old veterinary school hospital and at the old Pullman Hospital that once was located on campus.
Reading the summary of Dr. Benbrook's study didn't provide enough information to determine whether or not his study is worthwhile.
Last edited by Ken Fitzgerald; 05-25-2014 at 11:34 PM.
Ken
So much to learn, so little time.....
Contributor
Greg,
Check out the end of the acknowledgements:
Funding to support the development of the model was provided by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Consumers Union, UCS, and The Organic Center.
At least one of those organizations has a mission statement and an agenda that are less than unbiased. There are at least one other organization whose mission statement might make one think they have an agenda.
Follow the money.
Now I will read the report.
Last edited by Ken Fitzgerald; 05-25-2014 at 11:57 PM.
Ken
So much to learn, so little time.....
Member
Don't know if the doctor is a 'nice' guy or not. However, it is likely he has more experience in the matter than most people participating in this thread. The title of doctor and peer reviewed studies used to denote some degree of authority on the subject at hand.
The difference between Dr. Krantz and Dr. Benbrook, is Dr. Benbrooks data set and model are available for all to examine and has been peer reviewed. Has Dr. Krantz any peer reviewed studies published on bigfoot?
I seriously doubt there is a bigfoot. But I do not have the outdoor experience you have, therefore I am basing my belief on even less than you.
Perhaps Dr. Benbrook has it all wrong. Perhaps he missed a conversion or his data set is fundamentally, unintentionally corrupted. Until someone puts in the effort to prove his analysis wrong, I'm going with his study. Who else are we to believe? Monsanto? ADM? Tyson Farms? Hormel?
Who else here has "...studied the impacts of agricultural biotechnology since the mid-1980s in a variety of positions including Executive Director, Board on Agriculture, National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, and as Chief Scientist, The Organic Center."?
Measure twice, cut three times, start over. Repeat as necessary.
Member
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy Mission Statement: "IATP works locally and globally at the intersection of policy and practice to ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems."
Consumers Union Mission Statement: "Consumer Reports is an expert, independent, nonprofit organization whose mission is to work for a fair, just, and safe marketplace for all consumers and to empower consumers to protect themselves."
Union of Concerned Scientists Mission Statement: "The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future."
The Organic Center Mission Statement: "Our mission is to convene credible, evidence-based science on the environmental and health benefits of organic food and farming and communicate them to the public."
While obviously all these organizations have an agenda, organizations usually do, I fail to see any malevolent intentions in any of these organizations. Are their interests at odds with Monsanto, ADM, Tyson or Hormel? Very likely. Does this invalidate their studies or perspective? No.
Last edited by Greg Peterson; 05-26-2014 at 12:48 AM.
Measure twice, cut three times, start over. Repeat as necessary.
Member
http://www.bulletinofinsectology.org/pdfarticles/vol67-2014-125-130lu.pdf
I quit using Round-up 2 years ago because we were not seeing any honey bees in our clover. I really mean NONE. we have 4 acres of clover and could find no bees in it. This spring it was loaded with honey bees. I have several friends that claim the same results. That's not hearsay or third hand info. None of these products were ever tested for effects 30 or 50 generations down the road. I prefer to keep them out of my environment.
Jack
Last edited by Jack Terpack; 05-26-2014 at 1:25 AM.
Member
Every study is biased in one way or another; it is not possible to study something without bias. Our subconscious mind makes decisions influenced by a world view; it is not possible to avoid it. The reason people like Monsanto or don't like Monsanto is a bias; in order to do a study on GMO foods without bias you would have to develop true artificial intelligence in robots, set them free, and then wait until they decided of their own accord to do a study on the subject. This would eliminate the influence of the subconscious mind. I do not think it is derogatory in any way to ask what someone's bias is; it is simply a matter of fact.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] "You don't have to give birth to someone to have a family." (Sandra Bullock)
Member
Moses' comments on bias and Ken's on follow the money add up to my perspective on this. There is nothing black and white, right and wrong, EVER. One extreme has humans farming every square inch of this planet in a manner to support a population 100 times what it is now, and obliterating anything that is not useful to that end. The other drives humans off the face of this planet because we are all so destructive to all the "natural" flora and fauna. There are plenty of people who lean the latter direction.
This thread is a great illustration of something. It referred to Monsanto, but the subjects being used to support the marching have nothing to do with Monsanto. Its the same old desire to find a boogyman to campaign against. I bet there was a left leaning politician with a need to fire up their base voters driving that march. Like Ken said, follow the money. If they really wanted to impact Monsanto, they would be trying to get the people buying Monsanto products to quit, and I didn't see any of them around here. Stirring up a group of voters is all they actually wanted, facts or not.
The proof that has been posted here is ridiculous. The best proof is to look at the lifespans of today vs 50 or 100 years ago.
The people that march and protest this sort of thing without bothering to understand the whole picture have strong parallels in history. A charismatic leader guided a branch of a followers with a common religion to do unthinkable things 15 years ago, in the name of ridding the planet of the great satan. 90 years ago another similar situation was fomented against a different "evil", resulting in despicable acts of human depravity. I could go on, and on. It's human nature to want power, and Hitler and Bin Laden used a "boogyman" tactic to get it. The line is so easily crossed to justify the ends no matter the means, that humans fall into it regularly.
Not wanting to make this political but it's impossible to avoid to some extent. There is a well founded movement and party here now that uses this same human pathology to hold their power. Thankfully here, the system designed to work as checks and balances has prevented catastrophe.
Last edited by Chris Padilla; 05-27-2014 at 7:48 PM.
Member
As I see it, the jury is still out on eating GMO foods. I live in St. Louis (Monsanto World Headquarters) and have a number of friends who work there. When you're first hired, you attend a seminar on how to handle people when they find out that you work for "The Evil Empire"...
The real problem is that when you have GMO plants, the farmer sprays more Roundup which leaches into the soil and is absorbed by the plant and we are then eating it. Additionally, the Roundup washes down into waterways and kills aquatic plants thereby disrupting the ecologic balance in waterways.
There have been a number of studies on the effects of the chemicals (glyphosate) in Roundup on our bodies but I'm not educated enough to decipher all of them, however they don't look good. I think one of the most telling facts is that when you talk to a potato farmer, he'll tell you that he doesn't eat the potatoes he grows for sale. He has a special patch that is grown for self-consumption and is not treated the same as the stuff he sells with fungicides, etc. (there are stories both for and against this all over the internet so make up your own mind on it). My wife has talked with several and they confirmed it second hand - they don't grow potatoes but know people who do. (She works for one of the ABCD traders - ArcherDanielsMidland/Bunge/Cargill/Dreyfus)
It stands to reason that when chemicals are sprayed on the soil and on the plants they are absorbed and make their way into the food chain. We eat the corn, soybeans, etc. as well as the cows that are eating the same corn.
Now that the patent on Roundup is past, the Chinese are making their own version and selling it here and they don't have the greatest track record for making much of anything...
Member
Stephen, roundup has no residual that washes anywhere. It very quickly breaks down. I can spray bare dirt, and have non roundup crops or weeds grow through it as soon as the chemical is dry. It breaks down in a matter of minutes. You must be thinking of something else, atrazine possibly.
Guest
Steve, I don't think that's true. Somewhere in the last two weeks, I saw a study of the amount of glyphosate left in food that we're eating and it wasn't trivial. I think if you read literature about glyphosate, it claims that it breaks down in a very short period of time, but the reality is that the half life can be up to 200 days depending on where it goes. If it ends up in water on the surface of a field, or in runoff, it doesn't break down very quickly.
USDA doesn't test for it and neither does the FDA, but every independent test that I've seen has it showing up in vegetables and milk when it's actually tested. How much of it, I don't know, but enough to detect it.
As a consumer (and user) of the retail bottled glyphosate, the description on the bottle is interesting, it makes it out as if you spray it on a plant and then it just vaporizes after it does its job, but that's not reality...unfortunately.
Member
Is there any advantage to living longer?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] "You don't have to give birth to someone to have a family." (Sandra Bullock)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote