The Worlds Largest Human Experiment: GMOs, Roundup And The Monsanto Monstrosity

[JohnyCanuck]

Informed consent is one of the most basic aspects of patient-physician relations, as well as subject-researcher relations in the case of research studies.

This involves making the patient aware of and verifying that they understand the risks, benefits, facts, and the future implications of the procedure or test they are going to be subjected to.

In the case of genetically modified organisms we have not been made aware of the risks. In fact, the GMO industry has deliberately hidden the real dangers behind the seeds and herbicides they peddle.

snip

Roundup is not backed by any impartial, independent, rigorous scientific research. The studies used to back up the claims of governments around the world and especially in the EU are unpublished industry studies.

The real research shows a very different picture.

http://theintelhub.com/2011/07/10/the-worlds-largest-human-experiment-gmos-roundup-and-the-monsanto-monstrosity

See also this earlier DU thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1219701"> Scientist: GM food safety testing is “woefully inadequate”

According to Judy Carman, Ph.D., very little safety testing is done on genetically modified foods, and when it is done, biotechnology companies conduct minimal testing.

Dr. Carmen says that more extensive independent testing of GM foods is needed to ensure they are safe. Her recommendations seem prophetic in light of a recent Austrian government study that found reduced fertility in mice fed GM corn.

Dr. Carman is director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research, Inc., a non-profit research institute based in Australia focusing on the safety of genetically modified food. She earned a doctorate degree in medicine from the University of Adelaide in the areas of metabolic regulation, nutritional biochemistry, and cancer. She has investigated outbreaks of disease for an Australian state government.

[Odin2005]

1. The GMOs are harmless, it's the RoundUp that is the dangerous shit.

[JohnyCanuck]

5. GMO's are harnless? Who says? Monsanto?

Some independent scientists are not at all sure of the harmless nature of GMOs, since the testing used to regulate the GMO seeds is the testing performed by the scientists working for the GMO pushers, not independent scientists. And when independent scientists do manage to do some testing (hard to do since the GMO pushers restrict access to their patented seeds), problems start to show up.

Dr. Carman is director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research, Inc., a non-profit research institute based in Australia focusing on the safety of genetically modified food. She earned a doctorate degree in medicine from the University of Adelaide in the areas of metabolic regulation, nutritional biochemistry, and cancer. She has investigated outbreaks of disease for an Australian state government.

Ken Roseboro, editor of The Organic & Non-GMO Report, interviewed Dr. Carman during her recent visit to the United States.

Can you tell me a about your research on the health impacts of GM foods?
We are conducting one of the very few first long-term, independent animal feeding studies with GM foods. To date, most of these types of studies have been done by biotechnology companies or scientists associated with biotechnology companies.

Of the few independent studies being done, a study by the Austrian government recently made public found reduced fertility in mice fed GM corn. Another recent study done in Italy showed immune system problems in mice fed GM corn.

The studies done by biotechnology companies tend to show no health problems associated with eating GM food. The independent studies are finding adverse effects.

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/dec08/gm_food_safey_testing_inadequate.php

[MineralMan]

7. "Some independent scientists" also say that global climate

change is a myth. You can find "some independent scientists" who will say almost anything. Sucrose is sucrose. GMO stuff is not the great Satan. Now, Roundup is another matter entirely.

[JohnyCanuck]

11. So why are they so scared to let independent scientists

test and verify that they get the same results as the GMO pushers' scientists?

Corporations are aiming for an absolute stranglehold on scientific research and the flow of scientific information; that’s why patents on GM crops should be abolished Prof. Peter Saunders

As you may already know, you can’t just go into a store and buy genetically modified (GM) seeds. You have to sign an agreement with the company that produced them, and one of the conditions is that you may not save the seeds from your harvest. Anyone growing GM crops has to buy seeds from the company every year, which is a problem for all farmers, but especially for those in the Third World; as Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser’s epic battle with Monsanto so clearly brings home to us <1> (Who Owns Life, Not Monsanto? SiS 42).

What is less well known is that the agreements also prohibit you from using the seeds for research. That may not matter to most farmers, but it is important because it means that research into GM crops can be done only by the biotech companies or with their approval. If they don’t want a particular piece of research carried out, they can refuse permission to use their seeds. Even when they have given permission, if they don’t like the way the research is turning out they can stop it, or prevent the results from being published. Consequently, important decisions on GM crops and all GM organisms (GMOs) are increasingly based on evidence selected by the companies to put them and their products in the best possible light.

That’s why when the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invited comments from the public in advance of two meetings on GM crops it was holding earlier this year, twenty six scientists submitted a statement protesting the “technology/stewardship agreements” they have to sign, which inhibit them from doing research for the public good. <2> As a result, “no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology”. The full statement is reproduced in the Box.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/corporateMonopolyOfScience.php

Scientific American condemns restrictions on GM research in 2009

EXTRACT: Although we appreciate the need to protect the intellectual property rights that have spurred the investments into research and development that have led to agritech's successes, we also believe food safety and environmental protection depend on making plant products available to regular scientific scrutiny. Agricultural technology companies should therefore immediately remove the restriction on research from their end-user agreements. Going forward, the EPA should also require, as a condition of approving the sale of new seeds, that independent researchers have unfettered access to all products currently on the market.

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11311-scientific-american-condemns-restrictions-on-gm-research

Regarding the scientists who don't accept anthropogenic global warming, what's the usual charge you hear levelled against them? They are working for or being funded by the oil companies, just like the scientists who are singing the praises of GMOs are working (or getting a large portion of their research funding) from multinational agri-businesses pushing GMO seeds, like Monsanto.

[SpiralHawk]

9. GMOs may be catatrophically harmful. According to a literature review, the debate is wide open

Existing GMO studies are virtually all by corporations standing to profit. They could be monumentally catatrophically dangerous. We just don't know yet. Thus, the wise course of action is to avoid -- if you can -- eating the genetically mutant crap foods. But since they are occult (R) - unlabled - that's a real challenge.

"The review documents the reality that most studies claiming that GM foods are as nutritional and as safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates. The authors concluded “the controversial debate on GMOs…remains completely open at all levels.”

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412011000055

[WatsonT]

10. Who says? Science.

[JohnyCanuck]

32. See post #11 above n/t

[WatsonT]

38. You cited a concern over intellectual property rights enforcement

not actual studies linking to safety issues.

[JohnyCanuck]

41. University of Washington Prof: The Independent Scientist "barely exists any more"

"GM is a totally oversold technique” - Prof Bob Watson, chief scientist at the UK Govenment’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and formerly an adviser to the White House, chief scientist at the World Bank, and the director of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

“I think there is a very real problem from the point of view of university research in the way that private companies have entered the university, both with direct companies in the universities and with contracts to university researchers. So that in fact the whole climate of what might be open and independent scientific research has disappeared, the old idea that universities were a place of independence has gone. Instead of which one’s got secrecy, one’s got patents, one’s got contracts and one’s got shareholders.” - Prof Steven Rose, professor and chairman of the department of biology, Open University

“The independent scientist who conducts research for the public good ‘barely exists any more,’ according to one leading expert on technology and public policy. ‘They get up and talk as if they are neutral. But they almost always have some share in the company or some self-interested gain for their work,’ said Philip Bereano, a professor from the University of Washington in Seattle.” - National Post, “Courts last defence against scientific ‘elite’: professor”

“For any scientist who wants a good job and a nice home with mortgage payments, he’s not going to choose the Union of Concerned Scientists.” - Dr Hugh Gusterson, MIT

http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2960

Suppression of the truth about GMO hazards

By Jeffrey Smith

Arpad Pusztai

Biologist Arpad Pusztai had more than 300 articles and 12 books to his credit and was the world’s top expert in his field.

But when he accidentally discovered that genetically modified (GM) foods are dangerous, he became the biotech industry’s bad-boy poster child, setting an example for other scientists thinking about blowing the whistle.

In the early 1990s, Dr. Pusztai was awarded a $3 million grant by the UK government to design the system for safety testing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). His team included more than 20 scientists working at three facilities, including the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, the top nutritional research lab in the UK, and his employer for the previous 35 years.

The results of Pusztai’s work were supposed to become the required testing protocols for all of Europe. But when he fed supposedly harmless GM potatoes to rats, things didn’t go as planned.

http://www.psrast.org/criticssuppr.htm

[WatsonT]

43. You want me to find proof that vaccines cause autism from equally reliable groups?

Such as "non-gm-farmers" and "ban-gmos"

You can always find a group who feels that "the man" isn't telling them the whole story.

But science doesn't work that way.

Everything you've posted is calling the research in to question, not presenting research of it's own. Anyone could stare over the shoulder of a scientist and poke holes in his research or failing that attack his character. And in fact that's what the peer-review process does (the first one, sometimes the second). And that is done by real scientists who understand the process.

Not "why did you buy pipette tips from this company which is a subsidiary of another country which has loose ties with a company that works with monsanto!"

[MineralMan]

6. To hear some talk, GMOs, particularly in the food chain, are

the most horrible thing ever invented. We've been screwing with the genetics of plants and animals since we started doing agriculture. As you say, it is the frank poisons that we introduce into the environment that are the real risks. GM sugar beets aren't. Sucrose is sucrose.

[WatsonT]

12. I only eat all natural foods, unaltered by man

like . . . um . . . .

[MineralMan]

16. Pine nuts gathered in a National Park, maybe.

Virtually everything we put in our mouths has been manipulated genetically, using selective breeding or genetic modification by other means.

While it is theoretically possible to eat only foods in the form they existed 5000 years ago, it's not an easy thing to manage. Probably the best way to do that is to become a hunter and angler. I can go kill game and catch fish that have not been altered for as many as millions of years. I can use some of the non-cultivated vegetable foods that occur in the same places I hunt and fish, as well. I can do that. Most people cannot. I know what wild foods are edible in my area and in almost any part of the US, and I am an excellent angler and hunter (although I stopped hunting years ago.) I don't live that way, however, since it would require spending all of my time in hunting and gathering.

If I get my food by paying money for it, though, the task will be almost impossible, even if I shop at the most environmentally-friendly places. Virtually every crop has been modified by humans in one way or another. I'm sure people will give some examples of foods that are available, but it will be almost impossible to create a healthy diet from them that will work for long periods.

[WatsonT]

18. Yeah it's not really practical for 99% of the population

Most people don't understand that. They consider organic to be completely natural. I wish people would spend more time traveling: to farms, to wilderness areas, etc so they can understand such things better.

Also with GMOs you have the added fear of genes. So wiping out foods that contain DNA makes it even more difficult. Pure sugar I guess?

[MineralMan]

22. You bet. STAMP OUT DNA IN FOOD!

Oh, wait...

I'd like to see a daily menu from a single person who is totally against genetic modification of food. I'll break it down for them, and show them how virtually everything they ate in a day was derived from genetically modified sources. People think they're eating unmodified food if they get it from "organic" sources. There is almost no unmodified food available anywhere, unless you gather it yourself from wild sources. Very, very few people do that, or even know how to do that.

[WatsonT]

26. Apparently we stopped teaching science in this country

or else people would be able to figure these things out on their own.

[MineralMan]

29. Yes. Well, I gave up that fight long ago.

Folks who believe woo cannot be convinced.

[SpiralHawk]

14. Those are all the standard lameass bio-tech mutant arguments.

Good job parroting the Mutant Corporate Industry Falsehoods.

Corporate GMO crops -- occultly foisted on consumers around the world -- dismantle the basic integrity of the natural world. Not just the natural world outside your body, but also the natural world inside your body.

We just don't know enough about this -- since virtually all studies are done by profiteering GMO corps -- to be occultly shoving this GMO crap down everyone's throat on such a vast scale.

[MineralMan]

17. Yes, yes. So, tell me how to tell the woo from the science on this.

Do you know?

[SpiralHawk]

21. Be conservative

By that I do not mean adopt the Republicon stance, for that is Faux Conservativism as they have demonstrated repeatedly; Republicons just use the word 'conservative' to mask their radical selfish greed and heedless destruction of the planet.

Real conservatives proceed with wisdom, and wait until all the data is in -- and not just the Profiteering Corporate data, but the objective, replicable scientific data.

My two cents worth of advice: shun the corporate GMO food-like products. The only way to do that at the moment is organic food. That -- thanks to corporate meddling -- is also a vast, complex realm. But at least for now it is -- to a dominant extent -- free of the highly questionable GMO mutant ingredients.

[fascisthunter]

54. so should the market decide science for us too?

seriously risking people's health and well being without there being independent studies to prove it isn't harmful is extremely irresponsible. If the company that sells this shit is doing the studies, you really naive enough to believe them, when you know the results of these studies could harm their bottom-line?

[WatsonT]

19. "dismantle the basic integrity of the natural world" hahahaah!

Yeah, GMOs do that.

Not vast mono-culture fields.

Not selective breeding programs that have been ongoing for the past 5,000 years.

Not cities and roads and houses.

Nope. Everything was fine and dandy before GMOs.

[SpiralHawk]

23. Your wholesale condemnation of industrial corporate agriculture (R) is duly noted

[WatsonT]

33. Huh?

Could you translate that please?

[robcon]

45. What a quote: "dismantle the basic integrity of the natural world."

At least that's your scientific opinion.
:sarcasm:

[Marrah_G]

2. I think most people are ignorant of and many willfully so to the monster that Monsanto is

I've tried bringing it up to some people and the response is something to the effect of " we can't do anything about it so why think about it and stress ourselves out." or " that's just more conspiracy stuff, if it was true the media would be all over it and the Senate would be up in arms."

There are some really good documentaries out there on the subject. Scary scary shit.

[JohnyCanuck]

3. Documentaries like this one, for example:

The World According To Monsanto - FULL LENGTH

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH4OwBYDQe8

[MedicalAdmin]

4. We need to stop bringing knives to gun fights.

They make someone sick, we make one of them ...

They threaten a farmer, thier farms mysteriously burn to the ground.

They slash a tire, one of their cars gets blown up.

They sue a farmer and they lose ...

One of their pet judges makes a corrupt decision, they lose ...


The only way to deal with barbarians is to push them into the ocean and let the sharks deal with them. Monsanto is evil. The only way to deal with them is destruction.

[WatsonT]

13. Monsanto has many horrible business practices, however that has nothing to do with

GMOs.

GMOs are not dangerous. No study has ever found otherwise.

[CanSocDem]

15. Not dangerous?

Corporations make "food" for profit, not use. This one wants to make 'seeds'...with the authority to prevent anyone else from planting them.

And you're OK with this....???

.

[WatsonT]

20. Those things you mention are business practices

and have nothing to do with the science.

Eating a tomato with a salmon gene in it is not going to give you autism or whatever people are terrified about at the moment.

If a pillow company decided to start using slave labor that would be evil. Does that make pillows deadly?

[CanSocDem]

31. You shouldn't be so quick....

...to separate "business" from "science".

"Eating a tomato with a salmon gene in it is not going to give you autism or whatever people are terrified about at the moment."

Sounds like you don't get 'the science' either. We're not "terrified"; we are, however, aware that large corporations such as Monsanto, use "science" to further their business objectives. Their business objective is to control as much of the food supply as they can.

I shouldn't have to spell out the dangers of one corporation monopolizing food production, should I? To use your example; If the "Monsanto Pillow Company" declared all pillows, other than their own, a patent violation and then decided to fill their pillows with baby seal fur or worse, they would get away with it.

Big corporations DO NOT further the public interest.

.

[WatsonT]

34. Again,

controlling the worlds supply of seed stock is a scary business move.

However that doesn't mean the products are by themselves unsafe.

Whether a community owned organic co-op is giving you these crops or Monsanto has absolutely no impact on the safety of the crops.

People are having a hard time with this distinction and I'm not sure why. We can pass laws to make businesses act differently. We cannot pass laws making unsafe products magically become safe. So we can fix monsanto because their practices are bad but their products are not.


If one company were making all the worlds aspirin that would be a concerning monopoly. That would not magically transform aspirin in to poison. The company could be broken up, but even if it isn't the product would still be safe.

[lunasun]

25. you are not looking for the studies then.......also.

No long-term studies have ever been conducted to prove that GMOs do NOT cause harm to the environment, to animals, or to humans. On the contrary, there are plenty of independent studies that continue to legitimately question GMOs


One study published in 2009 in the journal Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition actually cites animal toxicity studies in which GMOs inflicted organ and other bodily damage, including hepatic, pancreatic, renal and reproductive failures. The same study points to GMOs causing increases in insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1 levels), a protein implicated in causing cancer
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...).

But some folks in Europe and some African areas have found enough reports to not want GMOs
There are many reports in valid publications

or maybe you do not believe we are directly related to other mammals and what hurts them will not hurt humans

a lot of people seems to ignore animal research thinking it wont hurt them just' lower forms ' of life

but as the OP states the human research is going on now so have fun playing rat in a cage

[SpiralHawk]

30. Your statment is complete BS. GMOs may be cataclysmically dangerous.

No one knows for sure yet. See above post about the most comprehensive literature review, published in a Journal in January. Virtually all GMO studies are underwritten by profteering GMO corps. Damn little unbiased science so far.

The debate on the saftey of genetically mutant food is 'wide open.' So no matter how corporate bio-shills try to 'claim' GMOs are safe, that claim remains totally bogus. They could be the Greatest Disaster of All Time. The debate is still wide open.

[WatsonT]

36. And that is the proof that they are dangerous

repeating ever more dire threats over and over again.

No evidence exists that they are dangerous.

The only possible risk to human health is in food allergies. There is a potential that introducing one gene from peanuts let's say in to some other crop may induce the same allergic reaction to those other crops. That's it.

[fascisthunter]

55. So you are fine with the market selling something that is potentially dangerous?

And you just go along with studies the company itself does... seriously? I don't trust them especially when we know corporations never have the consumers well-being in mind; their bottom-line is all that matters.

[robcon]

46. When "no one knows for sure yet" is your response, I would label that hysteria, not science.

There's no scientific evidence that GMO's are any different from the selective breeding thousands of years ago that brought us corn from inedible teocinte, or wheat from unfarmable triticum.

[xchrom]

8. recommend

[lunasun]

24. Organic Consumers Association

For those of us who have been fighting Monsanto since the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam, the time for decisive action is now. For those of us who have fought to stop recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), Monsanto's first genetically modified organism used in food production, and have since campaigned against the approval of Monsanto's "RoundUp Ready" and "Bt" GMO corn, soy, cotton, potatoes, wheat, canola, sugar beets, and alfalfa, time is getting short! We need to stop the Biotech Behemoth before it's too late!

For those of us who were born into the Monsanto crime scene, who have never known a world uncontaminated with its chemicals, who have constantly been served unlabeled Frankenfoods, time is shorter still. Our health, our lives, and our future depend upon putting an end to Monsanto's poisons, its seeds of destruction, its killing fields, its climate-destabilizing crops, and its factory farms.

Monsanto has used its vast resources to buy off state legislators, congresspersons and presidents with campaign contributions. Monsanto's lobbying dollars have been used to send its lawyers and scientists through the revolving door into jobs as government regulators. Monsanto's financial power has infiltrated state and federal governments, along with trade associations, universities, research institutions, philanthropic organizations and media outlets.

But there are two things Monsanto's money can't buy: Our trust and our votes.

The Millions Against Monsanto campaign is launching a multi-state, multi-year effort to let the voters decide whether we need labels on foods produced with genetically modified organisms. We want to get GMO labels on the ballot in all of the 24 states that use the ballot initiative process.

Please read more at the website or MAM facebook

[The Midway Rebel]

27. While GMO's MAY be safe to eat...

I can testify that a huge field of GMO corn is as biodiverse as an asphalt parking lot...maybe less.

[MineralMan]

28. Dude! Corn in a can from any crop is not biodiverse.

Corn hasn't been anything but genetically modified for a very, very long time. Have you ever seen the forerunner of corn? You can't feed the freaking planet on that stuff. Corn has been in the process of being improved since prehistory. And every farmer plants a specific variety of corn uniformly. So, you aren't getting a biodiverse product in your can of corn, no matter where it came from.

[WatsonT]

37. How bio-diverse is a huge field of any crop?

If that's the standard then we have to toss out agriculture entirely. Even, yes I'm sorry to say, organic agriculture.

[The Midway Rebel]

42. You mean compared to a field of Monsanto GMO corn? Very.

Have you seen a field of Monsanto corn up close and personal? The stuff is 9 feet tall and is planted so closely together that sunlight cannot reach the ground. It is planted so densely that no animal larger than a skunk could possibly crawl through it. No insects will eat it, nothing grows there, nothing lives there except the Monsanto corn, not even a weed. Comparing a field of organically grown sweet corn or any other organic or non-industrial crop a field of GMO corn is like comparing a desert to an oasis. Biodiversity is not a standard, it is a goal and no one but you suggested we should "toss out agriculture entirely". That is ridiculous hyperbole.

[WatsonT]

44. You have no experience with agriculture or genetics do you?

Trust me on this: mono-culture by definition is biologically homogenous.

[The Midway Rebel]

47. Whose definitions are we working with?

Yours?

Have you seen a field of organically grown sweet corn up close and personal? Are you seriously trying to tell me that is the same thing as a field of GMO Monsanto corn?

I do not need a degree in agriculture or genetics to tell me the two are NOT the same in biodiversity. Any child could see and easily observe the differences.

[WatsonT]

48. Ok so let's burn down a few acres of forest

till up the ground and replant only organic sweet corn (then spray it with acceptable organic pesticides).

And then you can tell me that what you have now is diverse.


You are speaking from fear and ignorance rather than from facts.

[The Midway Rebel]

49. No need to do that.

I can walk 50 feet from where I am now sitting and look at 60 acres of Monsanto GMO corn being grown for chicken feed and walk 200 feet in another and see 10 acres of organically grown sweet corn. I can plainly seethe difference and you could to. I speak from observable facts and experience.

[WatsonT]

50. Really?

So there are deer frolicking in the organic corn, maybe bunnies and trees and vines and all sorts of other plants?

You are seeing what you want to see.

[The Midway Rebel]

51. Yes, it is called biodiversity.

I am glad you finally figured it out and I hope you are through with making false assumptions about me.

[WatsonT]

52. Bwahahahaah

oh wait, you're serious?

That's even funnier.

Sorry but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about if you think farmers of any stripe tolerate "diversity" in their fields such as weeds and animals that eat their crops.

[The Midway Rebel]

53. Bactrack much?

More condescension, more false assumptions about me personally and now a backtrack to admitting that industrial grade GMO crops are not encouraging of biodiversity. Nice! Next, I expect you will have a good argument for how spraying glyophosphate and dosing GMO crops with chemical fertilizers is sustainable and good for the environment. Or you will make another incorrect and condescening assumption about me. I am hoping for the former but betting on the latter.

[WatsonT]

56. Let me repeat this really slowly for you:

NO MONO-CULTURE FIELD IS BIOLOGICALLY DIVERSE.

Did you catch that? It doesn't matter if it's GMOs or organic, they are fields comprised of one type of organism. And in both the farmers spray pesticides and use fertilizers to encourage their crop and only their crop to grow.

And one of the main points behind GMO crops is to reduce the need for fertilizers and pesticides while increasing yeilds.

The entire world cannot be fed on organic produce. Sorry but that isn't possible. You see we had a time like that, it was called pre-industrial. And during that time the world could not support 7+ billion people.

"now a backtrack to admitting that industrial grade GMO crops are not encouraging of biodiversity."

A backtrack only if I'd claimed that they do anything of the sort.

Let me repeat this basic truism again in a slightly different way: IF YOU'RE MAIN INTEREST IS PROMOTING GENETIC DIVERSITY THEN ALL OF HUMAN PRACTICED AGRICULTURE MUST BE TOSSED OUT.

Seriously, how are you not getting this? How many fields of pure organic corn do you suppose exist in the wild? For that matter, how many corn plants as we know them exist in the wild?

/you are aware the organic farms use pesticides as well aren't you?

[The Midway Rebel]

57. Just as I predicted.

More snark. More uninformed and misinformed bullshit.

You said, "And one of the main points behind GMO crops is to reduce the need for fertilizers and pesticides while increasing yeilds."

Actually, the main GMO crops are first, soybeans, followed by corn and the reason they are GMO's in the first place is so they can tolerate the toxic HERBICIDE called glyophosate aka Roundup.

Here, you should learn something today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming_methods

"Crop diversity

Crop diversity is a distinctive characteristic of organic farming. Conventional farming focuses on mass production of one crop in one location, a practice called monoculture. This makes apparent economic sense: the larger the growing area, the lower the per unit cost of fertilizer, pesticides and specialized machinery for a single plant species. The science of agroecology has revealed the benefits of polyculture (multiple crops in the same space), which is often employed in organic farming.<2> Planting a variety of vegetable crops supports a wider range of beneficial insects, soil microorganisms, and other factors that add up to overall farm health, but managing the balance requires expertise and close attention."

Google up "companion planting" and see if your claims hold any water. Also, google up these two terms together "glyophosate+biodiversity". At a mimimum, you should read the Wiki entry on "organic farming".

Also, you might want to fact check yourself about just exactly when farmers started using chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. Your ignorance on the topic really shows on that bold claim.

I have been studying and practicing farming and specifically, organic farming, for 25 years. This year, with the help of a new well pump, I got my tomatoes, zucchini, sunflowers, cucumbers, cantaloupe, lettuce, peppers off of the grid. Potatoes, green beans, peas and onions and an acre of wild blackberries grow on their own.

Your lecture falls short and your shouted "truism" is so wrong and so much hyperbole, it is laughable. Do you work for Monsanto? You sure are carrying water for them.

Keep talking, I'm collecting the bullshit you are spreading to toss on my green bean crop.

[WatsonT]

58. Sigh

Your source reference one concept of agriculture, not agriculture. It's from a wikipedia article (do I need to explain why that's not conclusive proof?) and the source cited links to nothing.

What you percieve as an idealized form of organic farming is not the reality for most commercial organic farms. Why do you not understand this?

"Also, you might want to fact check yourself about just exactly when farmers started using chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. Your ignorance on the topic really shows on that bold claim."


Hehe, I suppose the moment Monsanto opened it's doors right?

"I have been studying and practicing farming and specifically, organic farming, for 25 years. This year, with the help of a new well pump, I got my tomatoes, zucchini, sunflowers, cucumbers, cantaloupe, lettuce, peppers off of the grid. Potatoes, green beans, peas and onions and an acre of wild blackberries grow on their own. "

No, you've been gardening. If you don't see the difference between a personal plot of land for herbs and veggies and ones that can actually feed billions of people then you cannot be helped. Like saying: I run my computer on a bike hooked to a generator, why can't all electricity be generated in this way?

Macro/micro economics.

"Your lecture falls short and your shouted "truism" is so wrong and so much hyperbole, it is laughable. Do you work for Monsanto? You sure are carrying water for them."

And the final gasp of a failed ideologue. Accuse anyone who disagrees with you of 'working for the man'.

Which organic seed producer owns you?

[The Midway Rebel]

59. Sigh indeed.

Fact check yourself yet?

[WatsonT]

60. You didn't read it did you?

This is the article your derive your proof from: http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~fargione/Fargione%20and%20Tilman%202002%20Comp%20and%20Coexist.pdf

[The Midway Rebel]

61. 404 not found.

Read what?

Here, since you do not trust Wiki.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=organic+farming&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

[WatsonT]

62. Sigh, that was exactly my point

the wiki article you linked to cited that as it's source.

When I clicked the link to read the actual article I got 404 not found.

Your argument has "404 not found" as it's scientific basis.

Think about that.

[The Midway Rebel]

63. OMG!

I thought about it and you are right: The Wiki article has a bad link which means....(gulp)... pretty much jack squat in the grand scheme of things. A bad link does not make my premise invalid.

My argument stands:

Monoculture is a threat to ecosystems and biodivesity and is not a practice of any organic farmer or gardener.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

64. You do a good impersonation of a brick wall

Really...

[The Midway Rebel]

65. ... eom

[The Midway Rebel]

66. Do you have anything to add...

besides snark? Really, 'cause WatsonT needs some help.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

67. Nope, snark is about all I have

Watson seems to be doing just fine on his own.

[The Midway Rebel]

68. Not exactly a win.

Admittedly, it has not been a pretty debate on either side but, so far, he has committed at least two logical fallacies, made one erroneous claim about the history of agriculture and the best he has done to overturn my argument is to find a bad link, doubt my sources, doubt my personal observations and experiences and lastly, come off as a really condescending know-it-all-jerk. He really does not need your help in that arena, but, I am sure he appreciates it.

[WatsonT]

71. From your wikipedia:

Detriments to biodiversity through organic farming

Organic farming practices still require active participation from the farmer to effectively boost biodiversity. Making a switch to organic farming methods does not automatically or guarantee improved biodiversity. Pro-conservation ethics are required to create arable farm land that generates biodiversity. Conservationist ideals are commonly overlooked because they require additional physical and economical efforts from the producer.<5> Common weed-removal processes like undercutting and controlled burning provides little opportunity for species survival, and often leads to comparable populations and richness to conventionally-managed landscapes when performed in excess. Another common process is the addition of biotopes in the form of hedgerows and ponds to further improve species richness. Farmers commonly make the mistake of over-using these resources for more intense crop production because organic yields are typically lower. Another error comes from the over-stratification of biotopes. A series of small clusters does not provide adequate land area for high biodiversity potential.<5>


-------------------------------------


Cutting yields means we either volunteer to starve (historically not a popular decision) or we cut down more forest to make farms.

Even a conscientious farmer who does his best to maximize bio-diversity is going to have land less bio-diverse than what it used to be. How could it not be? Most plants/animals on earth are not used for human consumption. So if you convert land over to human use then by necessity you are removing many "useless" species.

Organic farming yields 75-90% as much as conventional (and less even than GMO): http://articles.cnn.com/2007-04-13/health/cl.organics_1_organic-foods-organic-products-organic-market?_s=PM:HEALTH

So to completely switch over would drop food production by let's say 15%? Meaning we'd have to increase crop land by 15%. Which forest should we burn to have the "bio-diverse" monoculture fields of corn you so cherish?

[WatsonT]

70. No, it means that if you're going to cite something over and over again

it shouldn't be a dead link.

Failing to Cite your sources doesn't prove you're wrong. But it does mean you can't conclusively say you're right either.

I don't think asking for scientific proof of your rather bizarre claims is that unreasonable. You apparently disagree.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

35. The greatest danger is enforcement of patent monopolies on food.

Bought a seed? Want to bury in it soil so it grows? Bzzzzt, can't. No such thing as eating at all without paying the feudal lord. No matter how.

Not to say that other problems related to GM foods aren't important, but in my opinion that trumps everything else.

[WatsonT]

39. Yes! That is the real concern here

but that gets covered up with all these 'franken-food' nonsense.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[upi402]

69. no BEES and no BUTTERFLYS this year

The evil bastards are ruining life itself