Demonstrators rally against Monsanto in global anti-GMO protest

[DFCaper]

You know this is a dumb argument. When we finally find out whether the claims are true or not the land may be destroyed and our grandchildren dying of starvation but who cares gotta make money you know. Another facet of Randism

If you are worried about destroying our land, you have far more to worry about in our farming practices than GMOs.

I took a Food Resource course as an elective in University (Early 90s) and they taught about sustainable farming. I now live in a farming area, and they are not practicing what we were taught. The soil in this area is just getting worst year after year as a result of lack of trees and lack of crop rotation, etc... The biggest improvement to saving the soil long term here was the no till farming.

Who cares about that issue.. it's all GMOs!!!

Edited June 7, 2013 by DFCaper

[GostHacked]

If you are worried about destroying our land, you have far more to worry about in our farming practices than GMOs.

I took a Food Resource course as an elective in University (Early 90s) and they taught about sustainable farming. I now live in a farming area, and they are not practicing what we were taught. The soil in this area is just getting worst year after year as a result of lack of trees and lack of crop rotation, etc... The biggest improvement to saving the soil long term here was the no till farming.

Who cares about that issue.. it's all GMOs!!!

With GMO's being resistant to the herbicide/insecticide that is modified into the plant itself, allows farmers to put more than normal amounts of the herbicide/insecticide, compared to that of what you would use on regular crops not resistant to the herbicide/insecticide. That has got to have an effect on the soil as well.

Overall this crap about sustainability is a sad situation in my view. There is no sustainability, and when they talk about it, to me it means we need to bring it back to a situation where it can be sustainable. I believe we have passed a tipping point regarding this.

[DFCaper]

With GMO's being resistant to the herbicide/insecticide that is modified into the plant itself, allows farmers to put more than normal amounts of the herbicide/insecticide, compared to that of what you would use on regular crops not resistant to the herbicide/insecticide. That has got to have an effect on the soil as well.

Overall this crap about sustainability is a sad situation in my view. There is no sustainability, and when they talk about it, to me it means we need to bring it back to a situation where it can be sustainable. I believe we have passed a tipping point regarding this.

That is my point. With and without GMOs our farming practices are destroying the land. Even if there was no GMO farming in SW Ontario, most of the land will not be worth planting within our generation anyway.

I cannot defend Monsanto, but do not feel that because we have a bad apple in the industry, doesn't mean that the industry in question must be destroyed. I don't think we should abandon science.

With all of the issues that we have long term with our current farming practices, we will likely need science and GMOs to grow food on our damaged lands.

[segnosaur]

With GMO's being resistant to the herbicide/insecticide that is modified into the plant itself, allows farmers to put more than normal amounts of the herbicide/insecticide, compared to that of what you would use on regular crops not resistant to the herbicide/insecticide.

Not quite right...

Normally farmers wouldn't use roundup on growing crops. They would use other herbicides. Making their "roundup ready" versions allows them to apply something they didn't use before. But it eliminates the need for other herbicides.

And the use of GMO foods with the bt modification reduces or eliminates the need to spray for certain insects (like the European corn borer).

Now, the process is not perfect, and GMO is not a panacea for all the problems.... Pesticide resistance can occur long term. But then, the same problems can occur even with more conventional farming methods. The trick is, GMOs are valuable tools, but they often have to be combined with other methods. (Sadly, that does not always happen.)

[Hudson Jones]

I cannot defend Monsanto, but do not feel that because we have a bad apple in the industry, doesn't mean that the industry in question must be destroyed. I don't think we should abandon science.

With all of the issues that we have long term with our current farming practices, we will likely need science and GMOs to grow food on our damaged lands.

I agree with you.

I am not against GM food. In fact, I think science is needed in order for us to tackle the problems we will have with food shortage in the near future. It's also difficult to compare the variety of GM products out there and it would be naive to say all GM foods are bad.

What I question is Monsanto's agenda, which is to make money in any way possible. I have a hard time trusting a company and their word. A company who has already been caught falsifying data in their research. I have a hard time trusting a company who pays millions to politicians to fight on its behalf. I have a hard time trusting the FDA's approval of Monsanto products since, in the past 10 years alone, 7 high ranking FDA employees have had employment history with Monsanto. For example, Michael Taylor, who is the deputy commissioner of the Office of Foods and was also the deputy commissioner for Policy within the FDA in the mid ’90s, was employed by Monsanto as Vice President of Public Policy between the positions at FDA.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Hudson Jones

[Michael Hardner]

It seems that when we have a combination of science, business and the public involved - our current political system doesn't do a good job of representing the public interest - or, at least, there are a lot of complaints. The 20th century - at least the early part - saw the beginning of a relationship between those entities that was fruitful. I think a new balance needs to be struck here.

[bjre]

It seems that when we have a combination of science, business and the public involved - our current political system doesn't do a good job of representing the public interest - or, at least, there are a lot of complaints. The 20th century - at least the early part - saw the beginning of a relationship between those entities that was fruitful. I think a new balance needs to be struck here.

Here is a documenary about food we comsume every day.

I think if you care about your own health, maybe it is a good idea to spend some time to watch it: http://vimeo.com/62489768

Food, Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Food, Inc. is a 2008 American documentary film directed by Emmy Award-winning filmmaker Robert Kenner.[3] The film examines corporate farming in the United States, concluding that agribusiness produces food that is unhealthy, in a way that is environmentally harmful and abusive of both animals and employees. The film is narrated by Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser.[4][5]

[segnosaur]

Here is a documenary about food we comsume every day.

I think if you care about your own health, maybe it is a good idea to spend some time to watch it: http://vimeo.com/62489768

Why do people do that? And by 'that', I mean post a video on a forum, with the assumption that if we just watch some movie our eyes would be magically opened? Using videos to support any arguments you might have is a very poor way to debate. (I've seen it time and time again, with 'anti-vaxers', with '9/11 troothers', moon hoax believers, and with anti-Israeli activists.)

First of all, the viewer's opinions can easily be manipulated by selective editing... the right scene cut, the appropriate music, failure to give context, etc. can give a distorted understanding of the issues at hand.

Secondly, a movie/documentary is at heart an opinion piece... its format makes fact checking difficult. (You can be hit with a dozen 'facts' a minute, but without easy access to references its difficult to know if the information being presented is accurate, faulty, or taken out of context.) This is especially relevant if the video maker is either a relative unknown, or holds some sort of bias.

I'm not saying that the agricultural industry is perfect. Far from it. But if there are specific issues to be discussed, by all means do so. But do so in your own words. And by providing independent references from mainstream sources. (And on the rare case that a video provides some key information not readily available elsewhere, at least tell us at what point we should actually watch.)

[segnosaur]

I am not against GM food. In fact, I think science is needed in order for us to tackle the problems we will have with food shortage in the near future.

Here's the problem though...

You say that "science is needed", but when actual real science is provided to you, you dismiss it. Hey, something appeared in a peer reviewed journal? Bah, dismiss it because it agrees with Monsanto.

Perhaps it might be believable that you think "science is needed" if you actually showed some scientific aptitude.

What I question is Monsanto's agenda, which is to make money....

How does that differ from every other corporation in the world?

Seriously, organic farmers are not growing food just for fun... they too want to earn a profit. As does the organic grocery store.

I have a hard time trusting a company and their word.

So don't. Instead, listen to the opinions of independent experts in the field who analyze papers (some paid for by Monsanto, some independent) and find the science in them sound enough to publish in peer reviewed journals.

A company who has already been caught falsifying data in their research.

You know, I've been letting this slide for a while. After all, as I said before, its not Monsanto that I trust, its the entire scientific process. (You know, where data is verified by independent researchers.)

However, I did a little research. I'm assuming your 'falsified data' is referring to post 288, where you posted:

You sound like a nutcase for suggesting that and being a mouthpiece for Monsanto. The same company that has actually been 'caught' by the United States government for falsifying data:

On two occasions, the United States EPA has caught scientists deliberately falsifying test results at research laboratories hired by Monsanto to study glyphosate.

Link

So, I did some research...

Those cases are referring to Industrial Biotest Labs (IBL) and Craven Labs. These were (at one point) reputable labs, and its a normal practice for a company to hire outside labs to verify their products. It was those labs that messed up the testing. However, it should be noted that:

- To the best of my knowledge, not one Monsanto employee was ever charged in the falsification of the research

- Monsanto was not the only company affected; DuPont, Proctor&Gamble, and even the World Health Organization were all users of their services, and all had the potential of fraudulent research being done on their behalf

- The lab work has been redone, and none of their product verification relies on the faulty work

I have a hard time trusting the FDA's approval of Monsanto products since, in the past 10 years alone, 7 high ranking FDA employees have had employment history with Monsanto. For example, Michael Taylor, who is the deputy commissioner of the Office of Foods and was also the deputy commissioner for Policy within the FDA in the mid ’90s, was employed by Monsanto as Vice President of Public Policy between the positions at FDA.

And?

Ah where, to begin...

First of all, vice president? That's not even the guy in complete charge.

Secondly... lets say he did have enough authority to give Monsanto favorable actions. So, where is the evidence that he overlooked data in giving Monsanto approval? After all, even being an authority figure in the FDA would not give him the ability to crush all research into GMO foods worldwide (or even in the U.S.)... so, where are all the studies of GMO food causing harm that he's overlooked?

More importantly... so you don't trust the FDA because they have former Monsanto staffers working for them... so, what about the E.U.? They've approved some GMO crops for import and cultivation... do you think they're filled with former Monsanto staffers? What about all the other countries that have approved GMO foods? You suggesting they all have Monsanto people working on them?

Oh, by the way, I asked a few questions earlier but you seem to have ignored them. So, I'll repeat them here:

- You once suggested Monsanto was buying labs that might surpress unfavorable test results. Where is your evidence that they are actually buying labs for that specific purpose?

- What is your scientific background? (Masters? PHD? written or read any scientific papers?) After all, if you're going to dismiss experts in the field, it would be nice to know what your expertise is.

- What other conspiracy theories do you believe in? Since you seem to think Monsanto's past history of lies and its huge size mean it can "control" research and acceptance of GMO foods, do you also believe in things like 9/11 conspiracies? Anti-vaxination? moon landing hoax?

- What is it about Peer review that you don't understand?

[bjre]

It seems that when we have a combination of science, business and the public involved - our current political system doesn't do a good job of representing the public interest - or, at least, there are a lot of complaints. The 20th century - at least the early part - saw the beginning of a relationship between those entities that was fruitful. I think a new balance needs to be struck here.

Why do people do that? And by 'that', I mean post a video on a forum, with the assumption that if we just watch some movie our eyes would be magically opened? Using videos to support any arguments you might have is a very poor way to debate. (I've seen it time and time again, with 'anti-vaxers', with '9/11 troothers', moon hoax believers, and with anti-Israeli activists.)

First of all, the viewer's opinions can easily be manipulated by selective editing... the right scene cut, the appropriate music, failure to give context, etc. can give a distorted understanding of the issues at hand.

Secondly, a movie/documentary is at heart an opinion piece... its format makes fact checking difficult. (You can be hit with a dozen 'facts' a minute, but without easy access to references its difficult to know if the information being presented is accurate, faulty, or taken out of context.) This is especially relevant if the video maker is either a relative unknown, or holds some sort of bias.

I'm not saying that the agricultural industry is perfect. Far from it. But if there are specific issues to be discussed, by all means do so. But do so in your own words. And by providing independent references from mainstream sources. (And on the rare case that a video provides some key information not readily available elsewhere, at least tell us at what point we should actually watch.)

The problem you mentioned exists in main stream media itself.

Here are examples from google (I know google itself is manipulated and holds bias, but the sad thing is we have almost no alternative)

Study Finds Mainstream Media’s Climate Coverage is Overwhelmingly Misleading

http://ecowatch.com/2012/media-climate-coverage-misleading/

Misleading Media Reports that Unemployment Rate is Decreasing in America

http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2013/03/29/misleading-media-reports-that-unemployment-rate-is-decreasing-in-america/

Why Mass Media Are Bad: Weaknesses And Limitations Of Commercial Mainstream Media

Link: http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/03/13/why_mass_media_are_bad.htm#ixzz2W3HPAIm5

Another Ridiculous, Misleading Mainstream Media Headline

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/05/another-ridiculous-misleading.html

There are too many other examples, like:

Mainstream media said Iraq has WMD, but no one found it at last after many lifes of iraq people and american people and canadians lost.

As we all can see recently, main stream media enjoy focus on Rob Ford's private issues instead of public interest.

Main stream media did not focus on US govenment spying its own people (actually Canadian gov did the same) until Edward Snowden flee to Hong Kong.

Can we trust mainstream media, I guess main stream media is good at entertainment. If we need find some useful information, we need to hear voice from different people.

That is why Andre Vltchek said freedom of press is not at home:

http://www.zcommunications.org/world-cant-be-changed-without-fighting-western-propaganda-by-andre-vltchek

The era of brave reporters and determined editors seems to be over. Correspondents who covered the Vietnam War, who actually helped to stop the Vietnam War, are getting older. They write memoirs and publish books, but they hardly witness today's conflicts. There are still some fearless and dedicated journalists - Keith Harmon Snow or John Pilger to mention just two - but they are more exceptions that prove the rule than a common occurrence.

And yet brave alternative voices are needed more now than in any other time in recent history. As corporate control over the media becomes nearly complete, almost all large outlets now serve establishment economic and political interests. The more they do, the more they talk about the need for freedom of the press, objectivity, and unbiased reporting; somewhere else, not at home.

p.s. the other proof of there is no freedom of press in Canada is, the video "Food Inc." I linked on #308 does not exist now. Can we said there are some people in this forum asked the video web site to delete it? I guess so.

Edited June 13, 2013 by bjre

[bush_cheney2004]

...Can we trust mainstream media, I guess main stream media is good at entertainment. If we need find some useful information, we need to hear voice from different people.

Start by stopping the excessive reliance on American media outlets. The CBC is now awash with regurgitated AP "wire" stories, sprinkled with links to Twitter and Facebook, shamelessly begging for "likes". All that's missing are hot dogs and apple pies.