Sudden Death Syndrome. Caused by genetically modified seeds & herbicides?

[SpiralHawk]

From today's Los Angeles Times...

"Farmers call this "sudden death syndrome," a plant disease that has plagued the country's heartland and the nation's estimated $36.8-billion soybean industry...

"...Now, despite mountains of research to the contrary, one soil scientist is roiling the agricultural world with claims that there might be some truth to the farmer's unease.

"Don M. Huber, an emeritus professor at Purdue University who has done research for Monsanto on chemical herbicides, alleges that he has found a link between genetically modified crops and crop diseases and infertility in livestock: an "unknown organism" he and other researchers claim to have discovered last summer in Midwestern fields like Friedrichsen's.

"...Though the science behind Huber's claims is far from settled — and Huber has refused to make public any evidence of his claims — his letter has intensified the battle between those who believe technology is the only way to feed a ballooning global population and those who are increasingly fearful that biotechnology is resulting in food that is nutritionally lacking and environmentally dangerous.

(snip) http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-gmo-mystery-20110402,0,3650400.story

[Hannah Bell]

1. better dump your soy milk, yuppies.

[SpiralHawk]

2. Better dump your hambuger and chicken nuggets, too, non-yuppies

If Huber is right, and there are big questions about that, then this genetically mutant pathogen has worked it's way through the industrial food chain, including the feed for livestock. So you can take a gratuitous bash at yuppies or whoever you want, but chances are extremely high that you are eating this stuff too.

As the Times story reports, GM foods are in upwards of 75% of processed foods.

But GM food is unlabled, so if you want it you cannot pick it out. And of course, if you don't want it you can't very well avoid it. Ptoooey on corporate occultism (R).

We could all try Breatharianism? That's where you feed yourself solely on fresh air and sunshine. Great way to lose weight.

[Hannah Bell]

3. ah, but you're eating the genetic modification directly when you drink soy.

something like 90% of the us soy crop = gm. & its all owned by big ag.

who do you think;s been pushing "soy is soooo good for you!" pr for the last 20 years.

dairy was one of the least concentrated ag sectors; soy, corn etc. one of the most concentrated ones.

how to send small dairy farms out of business...the better to eat you up.

[SpiralHawk]

4. I don't drink soy. Am allergic to the stuff.

Like lots and lots of human beings -- whether they are the gratuitously pilloried 'yuppies' or, even worse, the godforsaken Libs, or whatever -- I have food allergies.

Food allergies have been skyrocketing since -- ta da -- genetically engineered foods began worming their way through the ENTIRE food chain (against public will). Just a coincidence, we are assured...

[Hannah Bell]

6. wasn't really meaning you particularly. it's just a general dig at the folks

who jaw about milk being so unhealthy/the "dairy lobby" while they clutch their genetically engineered soy milk (cargill/adm = the global soy lobby & sponsor of the research).

[SpiralHawk]

7. OK. People like what they like, and they avoid (generally) what makes them sick

Lots of people are allergic to dairy foods, too: TeaBaggers and Republicon Billionaire PuppetMasters, too, as well as yuppies, hippies, kids, elders, working women and men, and whoever...Some want cow milk, some want soy or rice milk, and some want none of the above.

I reckon the dairy cows which produce milk are -- at least at the huge dairy factories which dominate now -- raised on genetically engineered feed. As the Times article points out, their hay (alfalfa) is now also going to be genetically engineered.

But as the article also points out, until this guy comes forward with his research, no one knows anything for sure.

[Hannah Bell]

8. people like what they like for lots of reasons; not all of them are about sickness

or allergies.

sorry, i don't think yuppies take enough hits compared to smokers, fat people, & the supposedly uneducated masses in the lower classes.

[Celebration]

10. ridiculous

Yuppy/non Yuppy have nothing to do with the subject. Plus there is soy in tons of stuff. People make food choices for lots of reasons, and way, way down on the list is some supposed yuppy affinity for soy milk. As was pointed out, this issue affects ALL of us, teabaggers included.

[skepticscott]

5. Until and unless he makes his evidence public

and available to other scientists to evaluate, his claims are worthless, and nothing but egotistical fearmongering. If he's right, and if he's a responsible scientist deserving of credibility, he would not be keeping his evidence secret at the same time he's touting his claims in unverifiable forums.

[enough]

9. The secrecy certainly detracts from his credibility. (nt)

[Celebration]

11. maybe he wants to publish something

In that case, the journal may require secrecy until publication date. Otherwise, I have no idea why he would legitimately want to keep the proof secret.

More likely, he does have some evidence, but it is far from definitive. In that case, he could be highly alarmed enough to say something prematurely, but does not want the preliminary evidence bashed before he gets more of a chance to confirm and develop it.

These are just guesses, however.

[Buzz Clik]

13. No credible journal requires "secrecy." Presenting preliminary data a conferences is typical....

... and encouraged. And, if a journal demanded secrecy, I doubt they'd be knocked out about Huber going public with the information prior to the publication.

I do agree that his data are not definitive and highly speculative, which supports the idea of treating his claims with great caution. Dr. Huber needs to get back into the scientific mainstream with this.

[Buzz Clik]

12. Huber has the reputation of being a loose cannon, and his bizarre action of not releasing the data..

... supports that.

If he is truly interested in getting to the bottom of the problem, he needs to follow the normal scientific channels: presentation to his peers, submission of the work in the form of a scientific journal article that is reviewed by his peers, publication in the journal, and THEN going to the media. Skepticism is the order of the day for a scientist who starts with the media first.

[SpiralHawk]

14. According to the article, he wrote to the USDA just to get them to slow down

since the genetically altered alfalfa will spread all over kingdom come. He said he just wanted them to wait until the research was complete and reviewed...but someone leaked his letter and it went viral on the Net.

No harm in waiting for the research to be complete -- but potential vast harm in racing ahead to genetically engineer a crop that is going to cross pollinate all over the freaking place...

[Buzz Clik]

15. Why do you suppose the Huber is insistent on going this alone?

I really have no idea.

There are dozens of scientists in the field of plant genetics and plant pathology who have no allegiance to large industries or the USDA, and they'd be thrilled to have the opportunity to help him accelerate this work.

[SpiralHawk]

16. Good questions

It may be that after a long, distinguished career he has just lost it -- and then again he may have some reason...I reckon we will find out soon.

Huber will either be vindicated or villified.

[skepticscott]

20. The problem is that

even if his claims are found to be completely bogus, unsupported by evidence and unverifiable by other scientists, he has still polluted the information stream by spreading this all over the media in advance of scientific review, which was probably his intent in the first place. Once misinformation is out there, it can never be completely erased. It will continue to spread, aided by people like you, even if there ends up being overwhelming evidence against it.

[SpiralHawk]

22. Nope. Wrong.

Huber's intention -- as clearly stated -- was to get USDA to slow down before doing something irreversible. But his advice -- to be careful -- got blown off. Needlessly so, if you ask me, because while there may or may not be some kind of advantage to genetically engineered alfalfa, we do not need it. The 2011 crop would have been just fine if we had all waited until Huber's research is complete.

But profit ruled the day, and we have plunged ahead -- just as science & bureacracy plunged ahead with 'safe' nuclear power.

How's that 'safe' nuclear power thingy working out for you?

[skepticscott]

25. You tell me

How many people have died as a result? How many people died as a result of 3 Mile Island? And how many people would have died if we had completely avoided using nuclear power? How many people would have died if all of that energy had to be generated by fossil fuels? How many more people would have died of respiratory problems from smog and soot? What would have been the increased damage from acid rain and global warming today, if the portion of the world's energy coming from nuclear power had to come from fossil fuels instead? How many more oils spills and coal mine disasters would we have had? With a more limited energy supply, how many people would have died because their energy bills were too high and they couldn't pay heat or electricity? How are "safe" automobiles and highways working out for you, btw?

And even if Huber's advice turns out to be well-founded, that still fails to answer the question of why he has thus far withheld the evidence supporting his fearmongering from being examined by other scientists. If it is strong enough to justify his making those claims, why isn't is strong enough to stand up to scrutiny by scientists who are experts in the field?

[IDemo]

17. Idaho Statesman: The data his critics seek is being prepared for publication

and will be presented for scientific scrutiny “within a very few months.”

“It’ll be wide open for the scientific scrutiny everybody’s calling for,” he said.

Huber said he wrote the letter to Vilsack before the research was concluded because he wanted to alert the USDA to the issues and hopefully prevent deregulation of more Roundup-Ready crops.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/04/02/1589527/scientists-question-melba-mans.html

[skepticscott]

21. Which is usually what frauds and promoters

of bogus science say, to try to bolster their credibility against legitimate criticism. The check's in the mail. But until it arrives and clears the bank, it's worthless.

[SpiralHawk]

23. Hey, the guy has 50 years in the business.

He might just have more of a clue than you.

[skepticscott]

24. Arguments from authority

are rightly regarded with skepticism. It must always be the evidence, not the status or experience of the claimant, that decides issues of scientific fact. And if he has as much of "a clue" as you imply, you'd think he would know perfectly well how to properly present scientific findings to avoid public opinion and public policy decisions being tainted by unsupported claims.

[hedgehog]

18. Two questions:

1. When did GMO crops become a significant part of the American diet?

2. When did the obesity surge happen?

[SpiralHawk]

19. The crops crept in in the 90s

Don't know about the obesity thing.