Transgenic, genetically modified plants near vineyards

I suppose, but I have a hard time understanding people who want to judge scientific work based on who does it rather than whether the work is done properly, reviewed properly, and verified properly. Strikes me as a fairly dangerous attitude.

I suppose, but I have a hard time understanding people who want to judge scientific work based on who does it rather than whether the work is done properly, reviewed properly, and verified properly. Strikes me as a fairly dangerous attitude.

The last eight years would certainly support that, Mike.

As would most religious insitutions and many lobbyists.

Most misguided about our friendly European colleagues idealized view of science is that there's a a difference b/w corrupt, profit driven science (obviously practiced in Americas corrupt and evil laboratories) and pure, idealistic, non-money driven science.

All science is corrupted by greed, even in academia. It may not be monetary greed but it's greed nonetheless. If I do research in a department dominated by scientists with the extreme anti-GMO views, then engaging in research that might lead to proof that GMOs are harmless is career suicide. If the grant money is being doled out to researchers whose proposals convey a positive viewof GMOs, the papers that result will inevitably interpret their data along those lines as long as it is rationally possible to make such an interpretation.

The funny thing is, it doesn't even have to be a politically charged topic for science to devolve into greed & power-driven capitalistic type corruption. I've seen this scenario arise regarding minutia of geochemistry so obscure and boring that it glazes the eyes even of people who work in the field.

This is a roundabout way of saying that the charge that money-motivated scientific research is worthless is wrong. All scientific research is potentially corrupt and we rely upon the peer-reviewed system of publication to at least partially ameliorate that flaw.

I suppose, but I have a hard time understanding people who want to judge scientific work based on who does it rather than whether the work is done properly, reviewed properly, and verified properly. Strikes me as a fairly dangerous attitude.

I`ll have to repeat:

I showed my disappointment of transgenic mutant plants that seemed, on 10.th april when I wrote my post, sure to be planted - again - in germany.

German Ministry of agriculture has banned and forbidden Monsanto MON810 on the 14th of april. The minister called MON810 a hazard to environment.

So, germany, france, greek, hungary, luxembourg and austria have banned this sweet corn based on the fact that "their" (=Monsantos) scientific research is in no way:

-done properly
-reviewed properly
-verified properly

In fact, it is of no more worth than the paper that it is written on. So, the german (and french, greek, austrian, hungarian, luxembourgian) ministries of agriculture and also the ministries of natural environments have come to the conclusion that the concerns and dangers of these transgenic, mutant plants are scientific, academic, proven fact and they banned MON810.

I did not found any (official) data or more detailed statements than the other one I posted before, based on (unreferenced) news and media stuff they banned it cause some effects where not described in permits/ registrations (like, e.g. effects on soil life, crossing, pollen) and the majority of people don`t want it anyway. More or less it is about studies that have been made (by Monsanto) and no results (of part of the studies) are described. Rest of the stuff is "at least controversial". When I have a more detailed official statement and some official references I`ll post them.


Just wanted to point out that I did not want to blame anyone nor do I want to bash the USA, or wanted to drone out an evil industry tune, all I wanted to say was that science and technical improvement opens doors to possibilities that have nothing to do with (natural) food nor has it something to do with basic ethic values...

What is the basis for your assessment that their science is "bullshit?"

BT pollen was found in honey
Fertility
Effects on soil life
Outcrossing
Insects
Expert survey #1
Expert survey #2
Another survey
Survey about pollen and outcrossing

Let me know when you have decided to discuss the issue with more than the fire in your gut.

Sorry `bout that. No issue there anyway, MON810 is banned in Germany, that`s it.

And you know for a fact, Richard, that the minister who made that statement did so based on firm scientific grounds without any political calculation involved?

I won't argue the banning of the substance, but I would need to see something more than a minister's statement to believe that it was based on science.

I wonder if the “Green Revolution” that took place after WW II faced this much opposition?

Salute

I wonder if the “Green Revolution” that took place after WW II faced this much opposition?

Salute

It most certainly didn't, Victor, but arguably it should have. Referring back to Michael Pollan's excellent exposition "The Omnivore's Dilemma," the Green Revolution basically transformed agrarian economies from solar to fossil fuel-based economies. Those chickens are still coming home to roost.

Mark Lipton

Oops. I beg your pardon. I thought this was a WINE forum. Sorry for the intrusion.

Isn't this a perfect illustration of why forums generally have rules about sticking to the subject and not lapsing into politics or religion? Not that this isn't an interesting conversation, but there are other places more appropriate for it.

Oops. I beg your pardon. I thought this was a WINE forum. Sorry for the intrusion.

Isn't this a perfect illustration of why forums generally have rules about sticking to the subject and not lapsing into politics or religion? Not that this isn't an interesting conversation, but there are other places more appropriate for it.

And you read all the way to the bottom of the third page to reach that conclusion?

Please exuse the emotion. When faced with the complacency of people who find it normal to be poisoned by multinationals, it raises my hackles.

I find it hard to be as submissive as you.

Best regards,
Alex R.

One does hestitate to bring up a rather nasty point but at least since the late 18th century and certainly since World War I the vast majority of scientific and medical advances have been the result of two factors - war and the huge corporations that have contributed to the effort of either carrying on, planning or supposedly preventing those wars.

I am not at all implying that either war or the multinationals are "good for us" but that stopping either seems to be truly mission impossible. I would also like to point out that nearly all forms of progress (even the most positive of those) have brought up some fascinating combination of rage and emotion. Regardless of which, human beings do fly in airplanes, use antiobiotics, and indeed take anti-depressants.

As to crops, genetically modified or other, let me point out that when Sir Walter Raleigh wanted to plant potatoes for the first time in Ireland his house was burned, he was threatened with excommunication and the royal family intervened directly to make the planting of potatoes illegal ---- after all, the consumption of potatoes, as was well known, could cause leprosy, tuberculosis and syphilis. And indeed, there are still tens of millions of people who will not eat tomatoes because they are part of the deadly nightshade family and their consumption will surely bring havoc down on all of us.

Ye faithful curmudgeon
Rogov

[David M. Bueker]

Please exuse the emotion. When faced with the complacency of people who find it normal to be poisoned by multinationals, it raises my hackles.

I find it hard to be as submissive as you.

Best regards,
Alex R.

OK - I cannot let that pass.

There's no "best regards" in that statement Alex. You are being rude and insulting.

Please provide evidence of "poisoning."

What about bringing evidence of no poisoning?

MON810 has been banned due to the fact that it harms soil life, kills useful insects and aquatic organisms. If some out there might be to hoity toity to see that there are independent scientific researches proving these facts I would just suggest them to believe those other researches from Monsanto, saying that it is no harmful at all.


If the researches from Monsanto are so sophisticated and scientific, I would like to see 1 (in words: one) research from Monsanto about Toxin - that is produced in MON810 maize - that prooves that this toxic substance is not harming the soil life, useful insects and aquatic organisms.

see something more than a minister's statement to believe that it was based on science.

Elvis won`t come out of his grave and sing a song about that.



;););)....sorry....just couldn`t resist

edit:

Except he might get cloned.... ...who pays the piper, calls the tune

David, I thought you were no longer taking part in this discussion?

I've read your messages, but you don't seen to have read mine...

I said, and I insist on the fact that it is up to Mosanto to prove that their food is fit for human consumption, not for me to prove that it isn't.
That is the principle of food safety.
Many countries have banned their products and I of course wonder about what pressure has been brought to bear on those countries that haven't.

All the best,
Alex

[David M. Bueker]

I said, and I insist on the fact that it is up to Mosanto to prove that their food is fit for human consumption, not for me to prove that it isn't.
That is the principle of food safety.

One more time (I really need to stop baiting the troll): you are the one who specifically said: When faced with the complacency of people who find it normal to be poisoned by multinationals, it raises my hackles. That is the statement I am reacting to. Please provide your evidence, or you are quite close to libelous slander.

No troll.
One more time I tell you it is not my job to tell Mosanto what's wrong with them.
It is up to THEM to prove that their food is healthy instead of using us a guinea pigs. You have the wrong end of the stick.

I will add no more to this tread.
And I will keep my word.

Yours truly,
Alex

David, I thought you were no longer taking part in this discussion?

I've read your messages, but you don't seen to have read mine...

I said, and I insist on the fact that it is up to Mosanto to prove that their food is fit for human consumption, not for me to prove that it isn't.
That is the principle of food safety.
Many countries have banned their products and I of course wonder about what pressure has been brought to bear on those countries that haven't.

All the best,
Alex

Alex -

My understanding is that the bans on GMOs are due to the politics of the situation and not due to any proven negative effect on health or the environment. (If you know of any studies that show any real negative effects, then I'd be interested in seeing them.) It is impossible for Monsanto (or anyone else) to prove that any food item is completely safe. No food product has ever been subject to such a restriction. The issue here, as it is with pharmaceuticals, pesticides, and a host of other products, is whether the costs outweigh the benefits. For those of us who are fat and happy and who can pay for organic foods, there is no real benefit (that I know of) for GM foods. I personally don't have a problem with severe limitations on their use in our country. I am pretty sure, however, that I'd feel very differently about the issue if my kids were dying of vitamin deficiencies and there was the potential to solve that problem cheaply and quickly. I think we need to bear that in mind.

What about bringing evidence of no poisoning?

MON810 has been banned due to the fact that it harms soil life, kills useful insects and aquatic organisms. If some out there might be to hoity toity to see that there are independent scientific researches proving these facts I would just suggest them to believe those other researches from Monsanto, saying that it is no harmful at all.


If the researches from Monsanto are so sophisticated and scientific, I would like to see 1 (in words: one) research from Monsanto about Toxin - that is produced in MON810 maize - that prooves that this toxic substance is not harming the soil life, useful insects and aquatic organisms.

see something more than a minister's statement to believe that it was based on science.

Elvis won`t come out of his grave and sing a song about that.



;););)....sorry....just couldn`t resist

edit:

Except he might get cloned.... ...who pays the piper, calls the tune

Again, Richard, costs vs. benefits. In our country, it may not be worth using one particular GM item as the costs may exceed the benefits. This says nothing about any other GM item or whether its use somewhere outside of our country may be well worth the costs.

Ah, yes, the wonderful folks at Monsanto. Here's a little quote from Wiki:

According to Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 4.8 million Vietnamese people were exposed to Agent Orange, resulting in 400,000 deaths and disabilities, and 500,000 children born with birth defects. [17] The most affected zones are the mountainous area along Truong Son (Long Mountains) and the border between Vietnam and Cambodia. The affected residents are living in sub-standard conditions with many genetic diseases.[18] The use of Agent Orange still has an effect on the citizens of Vietnam, poisoning their food chain and creating concern about its effect on human beings. This chemical has been reported to cause serious skin diseases as well as a vast variety of cancers in the lungs, larynx, and prostate. Children in the areas where Agent Orange was used have been affected and have multiple health problems including cleft palate, mental retardation, hernias, and extra fingers and toes. [19]

I was in that jungle on that border between Vietnam and Cambodia for about 250 days. And today I am a member of the Veteran's Administration Agent Orange Registry.

Two quick points.

1. Bringing agent orange or nerve gas into this discussion is rather silly. Why not ask about mustard gas?

2. Asking Monsanto or anyone else to prove that something will not harm us if a physical impossibility. One cannot prove a negative! You can demonstrate that something will harm you. You cannot demonstrate that it will not. One of the basis premises of the scientific method.

Is it possible that in our emotions some of us are developing something akin to the prosecutor who addresses a witness and says: "Answering only yes or no.... have you stopped beating your mother".


On those unhappy notes, and so to bed

Best
Rogov

It was all about Monsanto, Daniel. Monsanto brought Agent Orange to us. Just listing their history and credentials. No emotion.

What was the purpose of developing Agent Orange?

What was the purpose of the “Green Revolution” that took place after WW II? We can list all the “negative” things and make it sound “evil”.

Salute

Monsanto brought Agent Orange to us.

Not quite, Chef.

Us brought Agent Orange to us. Monsanto was the company that fabricated it. But it was us---the government---who ordered it so they could exfoliate the jungles in Viet Nam. It was the same government who then fought very hard and very long to deny any claims by their own soldiers afterwards that they were affected by Agent Orange.

No emotion. Just listing the history and credentials.

The entire agricultural "revolution that happened in the wake of the two great world wars was strictly a result of scientific development of nitrates and chemical agents (gunpowder and poison gases, to keep it simplistic). And at the time it was happening it was championed by most of the people (farmers who were getting vastly larger crops, and people who were not only being well fed for a change but were able to actually live well and make a profit too). It was much later, and only after tragic consequences and much resistance from people who didn't want to hear about it that we "realized" these fertilizers and weedkillers weren't the panacea we wanted them to be.

At one time when I had a medical problem, I had to take warfarin to help keep me stable and save my life. In another form, it is very effective rat poison. Rats, if they think, probably would think of warfarin as evil. At the time I thought it was pretty nifty stuff.

I recall a friend who marched and campaigned against that awful, terrible napalm. Later on, under circumstances he had never imagined he would be in, he found himself praying for some napalm, and being damned glad to see it when the evil flowers blossomed.

No emotion. Just listing the history and credentials.

Monsanto was the company that fabricated it. .

I actually thought Dow was the primary producer.

Back to topic, I'm no GMO advocate. But as noted, it's impossible to prove anything is totally safe.
And the only thing I trust as little as multinational corporations is probably politicians.