Posts: 307
Threads: 7
Joined: Feb 2011
quote:
Originally posted by peteadams
Most people buy commercial seed because they are growing the typically more vigorous hybrids which will not come true from their seed.
Corn growers have been buying fresh seed every yer since hybrids were introduced in the 1930s. Hybrids are more productive, so the purchase of hybrid seed pays for itself.
Ironically, two of the earliest of the GMO hybrid soybeans have been on the market so long their patents have expired AND they are not hybrids, so their seeds breed true, so it is now legal for people to save seeds and grow those two varieties without a license or any payment.
Posts: 14,109
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
I'll add some pointless controversy:
http://www.nature.com/news/study-linking...ed-1.14268
Long story short: the researchers refused to withdraw their paper, so the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology retracted the paper
shortly after appointing a former Monsanto biologist to its editorial board.
Seems to me that if it's a "science" problem, you would argue the point with more/different science until the relevant points are either proven or refuted, rather than withdraw the paper after a convenient staff change. GMOs are safe, Monsanto has nothing to hide, and I've got a bridge for sale...
Posts: 526
Threads: 11
Joined: Oct 2006
From the first paragraph of the Nature article: "Bowing to scientists' near-universal scorn, the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology today fulfilled its threat to retract a controversial paper claiming that a genetically modified (GM) maize causes serious disease in rats, after the authors refused to withdraw it."
The "near-universal scorn" of scientists is both easy to verify and easily understandable. The "relevant points" were made in the criticism of the methodology, data and conclusions of the article. Goodman, the ex-Monsanto scientist who reviews papers for the journal on a part-time basis, made a clear statement he had nothing to do with the decision of the journal editors to retract Seralini's paper.
Don't know about pointless - the incident goes to show, yet again, the paucity of credible data on the anti-GMO side and the lack of any credible reality basis for the county council's passage of their anti-GMO bill. If the council's bill bothers you, please write the mayor and request a veto!
Posts: 3,188
Threads: 216
Joined: Sep 2007
due to a total lack of research and stonewalling of same by monsanto - there is no credible base line - no studies performed and monsanto ex employees staff the regulatory agencies (in the US) to make sure it stays that way
bon appetit
Posts: 307
Threads: 7
Joined: Feb 2011
quote:
Originally posted by Bullwinkle
due to a total lack of research and stonewalling of same by monsanto - there is no credible base line - no studies performed and monsanto ex employees staff the regulatory agencies (in the US) to make sure it stays that way
Sarcasm and obvious bias aside, there have actually been hundreds and hundreds of studies over the last 20 years, well into the thousands now, by all kinds of different researchers... universities, independents, government agencies... and there is clear consensus from all those studies that GMO foods are safe.
And those who are clear on the subject also realize that a great deal of the research and development work on GMOs has absolutely nothing to do with Monsanto, so the ongoing effort to conflate the two is just further evidence that anti-GMO activists have no real regard for the truth.
Posts: 14,109
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
Here's an example that doesn't involve GMO.
Government provides research grants on the long-term effects of marijuana use. However, they only fund research into the negative side effects. Eventually there is a body of research, all of which supports the idea that "marijuana is bad".
Truth is relative. How about showing some balanced results and letting people decide for themselves whether to indulge in potentially "dangerous" activities?
A good product which benefits society should be able to stand on its own merits.
Posts: 307
Threads: 7
Joined: Feb 2011
quote:
Originally posted by kalakoa
Truth is relative. How about showing some balanced results and letting people decide for themselves whether to indulge in potentially "dangerous" activities?
Who says the results to date have not been balanced? A lack of credible negative results doesn't necessarily indicate a conspiracy to repress the negative. It can actually indicate a lack of negative results.
quote:
A good product which benefits society should be able to stand on its own merits.
I think in large part it has already. GMO crops haven't become dominant in so many areas of agriculture in only 20 years because they're bad and horrible, but in fact because they're not.
The resistance to them, absent any factual basis, has far more to do with overall "anti-science" sentiments than anything else.
And since the opponents to science-based policies and practices base their arguments on emotion in place of reason, and on faith in place of fact, I think it's appropriate to tag their resistance as a religious war.
Posts: 3,188
Threads: 216
Joined: Sep 2007
Bottom line there have been no studies before GMO was introduced into the food chain - we have no facts - both sides operating on conjecture and whipped up emotion ...
no studies, no facts - no indication where the facts lie.... just endless conjecture
so why not label and let the market decide - are we hiding something? Do we need to? - grin
Posts: 4,903
Threads: 83
Joined: Feb 2009
It has been posted before but I will post it again.There have in fact been over 2000 studies done.
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/20...pk3AnazKpg
And her is an article about why labeling is not needed.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/food...s-like-me/
Posts: 3,188
Threads: 216
Joined: Sep 2007
And I have posted a link to the monsanto page where the great GMO father indicates no studies have been done or are needed
have we resolved anything? - other than this is an endless ongoing emotionally charged argument? Circular arguments I believe they are called - shrinks talk about the concept a lot
