Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:07 AM

Vote2016 (1,198 posts)

GMOs are bad for biodiversity, bad for non-corporate farming, bad for the public's right to natural

produce which is not owned by a monopolistic corporation.

Ignore the puff pieces posted by curiously pro-GMO apologists; here is some real research about the impact of GMOs on independent farms:

Liability for Damage Caused by GMOs: An Economic Perspective

Genetically Modified Organisms: Who Should Pay the Price for Pollen Drift Contamination?

Seeds of Dispute: Intellectual-Property Rights and Agricultural Biodiversity

Remembering the “Big Five”: Hawaii's Constitutional Obligation to Regulate the Genetic Engineering Industry

246 replies, 44409 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

246 replies	Author	Time	Post
GMOs are bad for biodiversity, bad for non-corporate farming, bad for the public's right to natural (Original post)	Vote2016	Jun 2016	OP
Here we go.....	Coventina	Jun 2016	#1
This article has about 100 links to different peer-reviewed research papers at the end.	Dr Hobbitstein	Jun 2016	#2
Your article is about whether GMOs are safe. I'm not saying they are safe or unsafe. I'm saying that	Vote2016	Jun 2016	#8
GMOs don't promote any of that.	Dr Hobbitstein	Jun 2016	#18
Soy beans and wheat are raised from last years crop	hankthecrank	Jun 2016	#20
No farmer I know (and I know dozens) uses last year's soy or wheat for seed	NickB79	Jun 2016	#71
It is not that easy to save soybean and wheat for field size production.	yellowcanine	Jun 2016	#92
Farmers who farmed for living did plant from last year crop	hankthecrank	Jun 2016	#120
The Need to Save Seeds is a Bad Sign	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#122
Also in your words (self fertile )	hankthecrank	Jun 2016	#126
You just responded to your own post.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#127
Well soybeans wheat and oats are self fertile. That is a fact.	yellowcanine	Jun 2016	#129
So how was Monsanto able to win court	hankthecrank	Jun 2016	#132
You are mixing up a couple of issues.	yellowcanine	Jun 2016	#148
bribes	larkrake	Jun 2016	#178
Now you're (mistakenly) talking about Terminator seed technology	NickB79	Jun 2016	#180
Key word being "did." Not so much anymore.	yellowcanine	Jun 2016	#130
I still talk to the guys I worked for	hankthecrank	Jun 2016	#133
If all a farmer cares about in his seedstock is germination, he's a piss-poor farmer	NickB79	Jun 2016	#177
the skeptical raptor - you have to be KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#186
I notice you left off the link to where you pulled this bullshit from.	Dr Hobbitstein	Jun 2016	#202
RED ALERT: Calling all corporate apologists	Scientific	Jun 2016	#3
RED ALERT: Calling all conspiracy theorists	GaYellowDawg	Jun 2016	#5
Would you be more comfortable with the label "Monsanto apologist"? It's a little more precise.	Vote2016	Jun 2016	#9
Would you be comfortable with the term "circumstantial ad hominem"?	GaYellowDawg	Jun 2016	#11
Would you be more comfortable with "charlatan". It's a little more precise.	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#21
GMO haters	Corporate666	Jun 2016	#236
A switch to ecological farming will benefit health and environment – report	JohnyCanuck	Jun 2016	#4
Bingo. If we can't do this, all our bitching about GM/non-GM are for nothing	NickB79	Jun 2016	#74
Agreed. The GMO problem is about Monsanto and others monopolizing agribusiness at the expense of	Attorney in Texas	Jun 2016	#6
It seems suspicious that there is so much "pro-GMO" astroturf	Vote2016	Jun 2016	#17
Even more suspicious is the missing element of reality in the anti-GMO astroturf	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#22
What does that even mean? Monsanto has a financial interest in creating an agribusiness monopoly and	Attorney in Texas	Jun 2016	#28
Good question	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#36
The strawman argument.	basselope	Jun 2016	#83
Strawman doesn't mean what you think it means	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#150
Actually, it does.	basselope	Jun 2016	#159
You stole my line!	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#163
Thank you for proving my point.	basselope	Jun 2016	#165
"Because some people who believe in A, also believe in B, A has no validity."	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#167
LOL.	basselope	Jun 2016	#169
I see where you fucked up	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#172
Are you dizzy with the spin?	basselope	Jun 2016	#173
How is anything so full of shit able to withstand without bursting? GMO is a legal calamity visited	Attorney in Texas	Jun 2016	#86
You might understand the law, but you don't understand the first thing about the scientific process.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#128
HuckleB's "scientific process" links always written by MONSANTO SHILLS	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#135
And more fictions from the fantasy gallery.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#139
He's your guy - Keith Kloor - He DEFINITELY IS NOT KOOL	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#187
I'm not even convinced of that much	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#153
Indeed.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#155
Wannabe Monsanto shill sounds like a possible career choice	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#191
Which organic industry front pays you?	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#203
You realize Monsanto won that case, yes?	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#151
One name - Clarence Thomas	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#192
Five names - Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer, Stevens	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#197
The anti-GMO community winning the public relations war	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#190
Scientists promoting science. Who woulda thunkit?	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#198
Monsanto and Dow are funding all the bullshit misinformation	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#231
Great job of reading the question that was actually asked	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#239
You mean from "skeptics" who have never seen a corporate press release worth "questioning?"	villager	Jun 2016	#226
What exactly has Monsanto monopolized?	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#39
farming, chemical weapons- I assume what has it monopolized historically	larkrake	Jun 2016	#179
Monsanto doesn't farm anything, so zero market share hardly makes a monopoly	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#182
They made and patented dioxin, actually and their GMO product has harmed many many farmers	larkrake	Jun 2016	#183
Try harder to post something relevant	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#184
Easy to say from a comfy western nation...	TipTok	Jun 2016	#7
"The whole starvation thing" gets a whole lot worse	truebluegreen	Jun 2016	#10
Who suggested they were doing it for humanity?	TipTok	Jun 2016	#12
We have the capacity now.	truebluegreen	Jun 2016	#13
this ^	Vote2016	Jun 2016	#16
So much for growing it locally, according to you.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#45
Did you miss my comments about the downside	truebluegreen	Jun 2016	#50
No, I'm not.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#51
speaking of Africa - $900 to eat a GMO Bill Gates banana	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#188
Woo	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#23
Bt-COTTON. Tasty! Woo yourself.	truebluegreen	Jun 2016	#25
Not much need with all the woo freely available here	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#26
Has Monsanto patented the term "woo"?	lagomorph777	Jun 2016	#54
As have a lot of grandmas cultivating new rose variatles	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#68
Grandma can't patent a DNA sequence unless she has a PCR machine in the basement.	lagomorph777	Jun 2016	#70
Plant patent laws existed before anyone knew what DNA was	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#72
Plant patent is not a DNA patent per se, for the reason you yourself admit.	lagomorph777	Jun 2016	#73
Sure, we should just go back to using methods far less precice and more ambiguous	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#77
If Monsanto didn't think DNA is powerful, they wouldn't spend billions on shuffling it.	lagomorph777	Jun 2016	#78
You stole my line!	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#80
OMG you don't think I'm that gullible right?	lagomorph777	Jun 2016	#81
No, I'm sure of it	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#82
Off to the ignore-bin. It's cruel to fight with an unarmed opponent and I won't do it any more.	lagomorph777	Jun 2016	#87
You lost, again.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#91
Oh that really hurts!	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#152
I do, and you just proved it.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#85
You are pushing a fiction and you know it.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#46
You could make the same argument about any private monopoly. Often people need the product which a	Attorney in Texas	Jun 2016	#14
GMOs and monopolies are separate issues...	TipTok	Jun 2016	#15
GMO crop systems do not increase output	GreatGazoo	Jun 2016	#19
Yeah, "rapidly" over 40 years	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#24
Less than that. Monsanto introduced Round-up Ready seeds in '97.	truebluegreen	Jun 2016	#27
What's with all the pro-GMO stuff? You'd think this was CorporateMonopolist Underground.	Attorney in Texas	Jun 2016	#29
Or WooUnderground	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#32
It's a mystery to me.	truebluegreen	Jun 2016	#33
It's unbelievable - it's the troll DU Monsanto lovers -	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#43
I'm sorry, why do you think science is bad?	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#47
Science is good but the tobacco companies misled with a false veneer of science just as you mislead	Attorney in Texas	Jun 2016	#88
Newsflash: It's the anti-GMOers who are practicing tobacco science.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#89
You are wrong and you know you are wrong. My anti-GMO views are based on the ill effect it has on	Attorney in Texas	Jun 2016	#93
LOL! Not even close.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#94
You keep posting arguments that GMOs are "safe." I'm not saying GMOs are unsafe. GMOs illegally	Attorney in Texas	Jun 2016	#97
You keep ignoring the reality that GMOs do no such thing.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#98
Compare the markets that ban GMOs with the markets that ban non-GMO patented seeds. Oh, wait, there	Attorney in Texas	Jun 2016	#99
You're digging your hole deeper and deeper.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#106
So you compare tobacco to GMO, then freely admit the issues are completely different	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#156
HuckleB above link by Marc Brazeau - pro GMO shill	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#232
Marc Brazeau is a life-long progressive and labor activist who cares about science.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#241
All the "science" you quote is from shills	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#136
Your fantasies are rather sad.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#140
This is who you always quote - your beloved Keith Kloor	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#143
Aww. That's cute.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#147
Keith Kloor admits he is a shill - what can I say - you love the guy!	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#228
Monsanto shill science	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#138
One fantasy troll post wasn't enough?	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#141
Sometimes, there’s a fine line between the rats and the scientists.	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#142
Your fictions are many.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#146
Yea - I smell a lot of rats in your "science"	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#189
Sure, you just promote crank magnets like Michel Chossudovsky and Mae-Wan Ho	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#199
More than that	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#31
I was talking about Round-up Ready crops,	truebluegreen	Jun 2016	#34
The post I replied to was talking about Roundup	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#37
My post you replied to was talking about Round-up Ready and '97	truebluegreen	Jun 2016	#40
You are correct, that post was a non sequitur	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#41
bockbocbockbockBock	truebluegreen	Jun 2016	#42
Most of your arguments can be applied to non-GMO, hybrid seeds as well	NickB79	Jun 2016	#30
^^This^^	truebluegreen	Jun 2016	#35
The talking point goes something like this	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#38
Ignore the evidence base, because people who go with scientific consensus are "curious."	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#44
The Precautionary Principle and GM crops	JohnyCanuck	Jun 2016	#48
Seralini Rule	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#49
Actually the courts have overthrown the BS attacks on Seralini. He was right.	Scientific	Jun 2016	#101
Are you referring to an Italian court?	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#107
Bullshit	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#108
Skeptico blogs - give me a break - no one even signs the articles	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#229
I get that someone who believes in homeoquackery doesn't have much use for things like facts	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#238
Umm. Sheesh.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#52
Good luck here!	lagomorph777	Jun 2016	#53
What's up with that?	Vote2016	Jun 2016	#55
No one cares about Monsanto.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#56
I'm not debating the science. It is an intellectual property scam, and the labelling issue is a	Vote2016	Jun 2016	#64
All types of seeds are patented, not just GMOs.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#65
HuckleB posting Skeptical Raptor - Internet shill - links again	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#227
You love Monsanto - all your posts are from Monsanto shills	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#230
All I can tell you is my experience has been stunningly negative.	lagomorph777	Jun 2016	#57
The passive-aggressive shill gambit!	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#58
It almost seems that way, but why would anyone not being paid respond so swiftly defending Monsanto	Vote2016	Jun 2016	#59
Yes, surely that must be it - a bright, shiny future.	lagomorph777	Jun 2016	#60
No one is defending Monsanto.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#61
Not ok with who? Your boss?	Vote2016	Jun 2016	#62
Not ok with anyone who cares about honesty and ethics.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#63
Cool website. It's on the internet. It does not excuse the genetic piracy from pollen drift or	Vote2016	Jun 2016	#66
You don't appear to know much about pollen drift.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#67
Author of your above link on organic farming - Pamela Ronald - "SCIENTIFIC" research questioned	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#194
Kinda funny how they question Ronald's reputation	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#200
Pamela Ronald is an honorable scientist.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#242
it's the same shiny vision from Wired or the nuclear industry	MisterP	Jun 2016	#245
Bzzt. Wrong answer.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#246
queue the anti-science pro-gmo people.	basselope	Jun 2016	#69
Sure, because they are the ones channeling Mike Adams, Mercola, Food Babe, ...	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#75
Thanks for proving the point so well.	basselope	Jun 2016	#76
Sure, because pointing out other's use of pseudoscience is so anti-science	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#79
Its called a false equivalence.	basselope	Jun 2016	#84
False equivalence doesn't mean what you think it means	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#154
Don't really care what you do.	basselope	Jun 2016	#160
Your refusal to provide any relevant examples of your assertion is telling all on it's own	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#162
I did several times.	basselope	Jun 2016	#164
Where?	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#166
In this very thread.	basselope	Jun 2016	#168
Where?	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#170
In this very thread.	basselope	Jun 2016	#171
Do I really need to be that specific, or are you just being obtuse?	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#174
Thought you were "done".	basselope	Jun 2016	#175
I was with that leg of the thread	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#176
Use your eyes.	basselope	Jun 2016	#181
The problem is that the focus of the anti-gmo people is very broad...	Humanist_Activist	Jun 2016	#90
Not really.	basselope	Jun 2016	#96
What studies? n/t	Humanist_Activist	Jun 2016	#102
Oh, I don't know.. pick any one of the thousands.	basselope	Jun 2016	#109
Can you link to any one of those studies? In addition, the WHO may end up reversing its decision...	Humanist_Activist	Jun 2016	#111
Yes	basselope	Jun 2016	#113
The first link didn't attempt to separate out whether it was glyphosate...	Humanist_Activist	Jun 2016	#114
As I suspected.	basselope	Jun 2016	#115
What are you babbling on about? Now you are just making shit up.	Humanist_Activist	Jun 2016	#117
LOL. Read your post.	basselope	Jun 2016	#121
I said none of those things, you are just making things up, for what reason I don't know...	Humanist_Activist	Jun 2016	#123
LOL. Wow. That's some crazy spin you got going on.	basselope	Jun 2016	#144
What spin? I literally pointed out a shortcoming of the first paper that was pointed out...	Humanist_Activist	Jun 2016	#157
And then you make stuff up?	basselope	Jun 2016	#161
Let's not forget - glyphosate is only 40 per cent of Roundup	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#233
You might want to clarify the difference between the IARC and the full WHO.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#112
Good point, but it appears this poster isn't interested in honest discussion.	Humanist_Activist	Jun 2016	#118
I know.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#119
OK. Show us some science to back up what ever you're implying.	progressoid	Jun 2016	#100
Posted lists too many times...	basselope	Jun 2016	#110
You do understand the difference between individual, cherry picked studies, and consensus, right?	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#116
Now you are posting articles by David Gorsky who blogged as a woman	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#234
All you can do is attack people, but you can't support your claims.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#243
OK.	progressoid	Jun 2016	#124
I love science too.	basselope	Jun 2016	#145
Sure, wiggle words.	progressoid	Jun 2016	#149
So by all means, let's keep adding them.	basselope	Jun 2016	#158
Show us the data where cancer rates are higher due to GMOs.	progressoid	Jun 2016	#193
WHO Publishes Full Probable Human Carcinogen Report on Glyphosate	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#195
that	basselope	Jun 2016	#196
That,	progressoid	Jun 2016	#207
Dietary exposure to glyphosate unlikely to cause cancer, U.N. report says	progressoid	Jun 2016	#206
Non definitive.	basselope	Jun 2016	#208
It is definitive. As defined through the EPA's rating system.	progressoid	Jun 2016	#209
Not definitive.	basselope	Jun 2016	#210
Yeah, still waiting for you to do that too.	progressoid	Jun 2016	#211
Already did.	basselope	Jun 2016	#213
My mistake.	progressoid	Jun 2016	#218
Your apology is accepted.	basselope	Jun 2016	#225
I didn't apologize.	progressoid	Jun 2016	#237
Yes you did. And I accepted it.	basselope	Jun 2016	#244
Sweet Jebus, is this really the best reply you could come up with?	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#212
Facts are good like that.	basselope	Jun 2016	#214
No, sometimes mentioning them are simply moronic	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#215
Yes. Many are safe.	basselope	Jun 2016	#216
I asked you to name just one substance that fufills your requirement	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#217
And I answered.	basselope	Jun 2016	#219
This shit again?	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#220
Your apology is accepted.	basselope	Jun 2016	#222
Strange, namecalling is so unlike you	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#224
Where are all these lists?	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#125
It's a fool's errand asking that one to prove any claim he's made.	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#221
So okay then, what do we do about the other thousand or so conglomerates that run the planet?	Rex	Jun 2016	#95
Your view is "we've been abused by Goldman Sachs and Haliburton so why complain about Monsanto?"	Vote2016	Jun 2016	#131
No my view is why does it take this long? Why no out cry decades ago?	Rex	Jun 2016	#134
But they make some rich people richer and that's the most important thing in the world.	valerief	Jun 2016	#103
It's fun to be passionate. But you need to actually be right.	Bonx	Jun 2016	#104
Or have at least a basic plan and ambition to change everything.	Rex	Jun 2016	#137
No surprise that the last link doesn't even mention how GMO's saved the papya crops in Hawaii	progressoid	Jun 2016	#105
GMOs suck the life out of life!	Dont call me Shirley	Jun 2016	#185
Did anyone notice the articles cited in OP are not science related?	pediatricmedic	Jun 2016	#201
This was really just a drive-by thread from another thread anyway	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#204
Sociology is a 'science', but.....	CanSocDem	Jun 2016	#205
Sociology isn't a hard science	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#223
Did anyone notice the links cited by the pro-gmo Monsanto people	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#235
Crazy is the OP's linkapalooza	Bonx	Jun 2016	#240

Response to Vote2016 (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:09 AM

Coventina (24,218 posts)

1. Here we go.....

Reply to this post

Response to Vote2016 (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:22 AM

Dr Hobbitstein (6,568 posts)

2. This article has about 100 links to different peer-reviewed research papers at the end.

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/science-gmo-safe/

Get back with me when you've read a couple of them.

Reply to this post

Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:00 PM

Vote2016 (1,198 posts)

How were the yields per acre on those saved soy and wheat fields? I'm serious, how many bushels per acre? Because you can "farm for a living" and still be poor as dirt if you do it wrong, or you can "farm for a living" and have enough money to retire before you're completely broken (like my grandfather, dad and 7 uncles who are all good farmers). Being able to hire help is a bad indicator of success; there's always teenagers and guys down on their luck willing to work all day for $20 and a case of beer (hell, I used to be one of those kids).

If you know some farmers getting anywhere near the yields hybrid soy and wheat seed delivers with open-pollinated, saved seed, you better find the nearest university nearby with a strong ag sciences department and get them out there pronto, because you just discovered the Holy Grail of farming.

Reply to this post

Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 11:50 PM

womanofthehills (6,528 posts)

186. the skeptical raptor - you have to be KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Skeptical Raptor

Last update on November 2, 2015 under Uncategorized

This pro-GMO and pro-“Junk-Science” internet shill from California can be found in his den of iniquity (Wikipedia) under User:SkepticalRaptor. He self-describes and says he is a member of the “Worldwide Conspiracy” and outright (and appropriately) calls himself a “shill” and an “amateur” under the occupation description he provides. Under his name it says he is “Fighting the good fight, making sure that everyone knows that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, that Tennesseee is still full of sh#t, that pure water potions are useless, and that vaccines do not cause autism.” (1) This is not a doctor or scientist, but someone who studied science and is very dogmatic, selling allopathic philosophies and GMOs as sound science. Skeptical Raptor wants the public to believe that all chemicals are healthy to consume as long as “peer reviewed” articles tell us that they are. He equates the highly experimental and often fraudulent science of vaccines to the cold hard facts of science – like dinosaurs existing or the world being round. Of course, climate change is one of his favorite “straw man” topics, along with chemical pesticides helping feed the world and vaccines saving humanity from infectious diseases. Under his profile, he also self-describes as a “Scoundrel” and a “Jackass.” (2)

Wikipedia’s dominating moderator describes himself as a shill

He’s all over RationalWiki telling the public it’s safe to eat MSG (monosodium glutamate) and HFCS–High Fructose Corn Syrup, and that all the health nuts are going way overboard worrying about it. They’re both GMO, by the way. It’s reverse psychology wrapped up in propaganda, and the “raptor” trolls the internet, especially Wikipedia and RationalWiki. Here are the links if you care to read more hypocrisy and propaganda, where the writers and “moderators” encourage you to try sodas in different countries:

“From a taste perspective, though, the human tongue can distinguish between sucrose and a fructose-glucose mixture. To some, HFCS tastes like sweetened poop. Try a Coca-Cola from or while visiting somewhere besides the United States and see what you think. In the last several years, Pepsi has released “Throwback” versions of Pepsi, Mountain Dew and Dr. Pepper, sweetened with sucrose and (sometimes) featuring previous-generation labels on cans and bottles.”

Sporting his usual tag line: “Stalking pseudoscience in the internet jungle” – Skeptical Raptor goes after what he calls the “anti-vaccination cult,” and he made up the word “Manufactroversy” – where he claims anyone debating about the dangers of carcinogens in vaccines is creating a “false debate” or a “false balance” between sides of a discussion, which doesn’t even make sense. A true debate is where you listen to and give consideration to two or more sides. In his attempt to sound scientific and intellectual, Skeptical Raptor makes a fool of himself and leaves a trail of nonsense strewn across the worldwide web. (3)

Reply to this post

Response to womanofthehills (Reply #186)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 09:20 AM

Dr Hobbitstein (6,568 posts)

Reply to this post

Response to Vote2016 (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:19 PM

GaYellowDawg (4,363 posts)

11. Would you be comfortable with the term "circumstantial ad hominem"?

It describes your argumentation precisely. Attempt to discredit any other opinion besides your own by labeling someone as a "GMO apologist" or "Monsanto apologist." Labeling someone as the dangerous "other" in order to discredit the person, thereby discrediting anything they have to say. It's a tactic that is done by people who are too lazy and stupid to argue any other way, or by people who want to disguise their own shaky stances. You know, like conservative radio hosts and fundamentalist preachers. But good for you for joining in!

Reply to this post

Response to Vote2016 (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 04:54 PM

Major Nikon (35,817 posts)

21. Would you be more comfortable with "charlatan". It's a little more precise.

You've posted the exact same thing numerous times and have failed to answer your critics with anything other than crazy conspiracy theory allegations. The fact that your very best retort is wholly composed of this level of silliness is quite telling and provides a very strong indication that you are much more concerned with the unfettered promotion of bullshit than you are about actually having anything remotely resembling discussion on the topic.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.
--Carl Sagan

Reply to this post

Response to Scientific (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:29 AM

Corporate666 (587 posts)

236. GMO haters

are the global warming deniers of the left.

Just goes to illustrate that refusal to accept facts, data and science is not a characteristic of the right. It transcends all groups.

Reply to this post

Response to Vote2016 (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:00 AM

JohnyCanuck (9,922 posts)

4. A switch to ecological farming will benefit health and environment – report

The world needs to move away from industrial agriculture to avoid ecological, social and human health crises, say scientists

A new approach to farming is needed to safeguard human health and avoid rising air and water pollution, high greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss, a group of 20 leading agronomists, health, nutrition and social scientists has concluded.

Rather than the giant feedlots used to rear animals or the uniform crop monocultures that now dominate farming worldwide, the solution is to diversify agriculture and re-orient it around ecological practices, says the report (pdf) by the International panel of experts on sustainable food systems (IPES-Food).

The benefits of a switch to a more ecologically oriented farming system would be seen in human and animal health, and improvements in soil and water quality, the report says.

SNIP

“It is not a lack of evidence holding back the agro-ecological alternative. It is the mismatch between its huge potential to improve outcomes across food systems, and its much smaller potential to generate profits for agribusiness firms.” (my emphasis /JC)

More:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/02/a-switch-to-ecological-farming-will-benefit-health-and-environment-report

Reply to this post

Response to JohnyCanuck (Reply #4)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:56 PM

NickB79 (17,160 posts)

74. Bingo. If we can't do this, all our bitching about GM/non-GM are for nothing

The core problem isn't the seed we're planting; it's the corporate, industrialized, monocropping agricultural system that has supplanted the small, diversified family farm system that we relied upon for centuries.

You could incorporate GM crops into an ecological farming method quite well and protect the ecosystem at the same time.

However, you could remove every GM crop from the industrialized farming method we currently use and still continue to destroy the ecosystem around us.

Reply to this post

Response to Vote2016 (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:51 AM

Attorney in Texas (3,373 posts)

6. Agreed. The GMO problem is about Monsanto and others monopolizing agribusiness at the expense of

independent farmers and at the expense of agricultural biodiversity.

Reply to this post

Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 04:09 PM

Vote2016 (1,198 posts)

17. It seems suspicious that there is so much "pro-GMO" astroturf

Reply to this post

Response to Vote2016 (Reply #17)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 04:56 PM

Major Nikon (35,817 posts)

So you might actually want to look that one up.

While you're at it, you might want to have a gander at non sequitur.

Reply to this post

Response to Major Nikon (Reply #150)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:15 PM

basselope (2,565 posts)

159. Actually, it does.

Please use a dictionary in the future, it will help you look less foolish.

Reply to this post

Response to basselope (Reply #159)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:22 PM

Major Nikon (35,817 posts)

163. You stole my line!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Reply to this post

Response to Major Nikon (Reply #163)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:29 PM

basselope (2,565 posts)

165. Thank you for proving my point.

Did you bother to read the link?

"The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man"

and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man"

instead of the original proposition"

This is exactly what you tried to do.. and got called out on it.

tsk tsk tsk.

Reply to this post

Response to basselope (Reply #165)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:35 PM

Major Nikon (35,817 posts)

167. "Because some people who believe in A, also believe in B, A has no validity."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7878277

Obviously your claim doesn't come within a cab ride of the definition.

Speaking of which, what position exactly did I misrepresent?

You do realize claiming something I did, but didn't actually do and then proceeding to argue on that behalf is textbook strawman nonsense, right?

As you say, you don't really have to answer my questions and support your position, but your dodges provide all the information anyone really needs to know.

Reply to this post

Response to Major Nikon (Reply #167)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:42 PM

basselope (2,565 posts)

169. LOL.

Do I really need to draw you a map?

YOU tried to prove your point by naming some people who are critical of GMOs. You then used their other positions to attempt to disqualify them in general. Because their position on A is incorrect, their position on B must also be incorrect.

Exactly a straw man argument.

Let me guess. Clinton supporter?

Reply to this post

Response to basselope (Reply #169)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:50 PM

Major Nikon (35,817 posts)

172. I see where you fucked up

Apparently context means exactly jack shit to you.

This is the question I was answering:

"Who - exactly - is going to fund a pro-consumer-choice movement? Consumers Union? Hippies at the farmers market? Gardeners?"

Reply to this post

Response to HuckleB (Reply #128)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 03:19 PM

Major Nikon (35,817 posts)

153. I'm not even convinced of that much

Lots of people anonymously claim to be lots of things on DU. Not all of them are telling the truth. That's why I just say I have a red phone to the almighty and have checked the matter with the ultimate authority. It's equally as verifiable.

I'm much more impressed by someone who has some sort of substance to their assertions rather than some sort of unverifiable claim.

Reply to this post

Response to Major Nikon (Reply #153)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 04:02 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

155. Indeed.

It's why I find it bizarre when people want know my education and career. That's irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Response to HuckleB (Reply #155)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:29 AM

womanofthehills (6,528 posts)

191. Wannabe Monsanto shill sounds like a possible career choice

Reply to this post

Response to womanofthehills (Reply #191)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 09:42 AM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

So far, the anti-G.M.O. community has been winning the public relations war. Major brands like Chipotle and original Cheerios have moved to reduce or eliminate their use of genetically engineered ingredients, based in part on a marketing judgment that this is what the American public wants. That poses a threat to companies like Monsanto, which had $15.9 billion in global sales last year.

Accademics - now lobbying instead of researching

There is no evidence that academic work was compromised, but the emails show how academics have shifted from researchers to actors in lobbying and corporate public relations campaigns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html?_r=0

Response to truebluegreen (Reply #25)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 06:53 PM

Major Nikon (35,817 posts)

26. Not much need with all the woo freely available here

The farmer suicide myth never had any traction and was debunked years ago. Meanwhile the actual causes of farmer suicides remain unaddressed. But hey, at least repeating a well debunked myth gives us the satisfaction of patting yourself on the back for naming a convenient scapegoat while not actually doing anything about the problem.

Reply to this post

Response to Major Nikon (Reply #26)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:00 PM

lagomorph777 (30,613 posts)

54. Has Monsanto patented the term "woo"?

As they have patented the DNA of living organisms?

Reply to this post

Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #54)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:42 PM

Major Nikon (35,817 posts)

There is a big difference. It's the difference between shuffling a deck of cards (chromosomes), and throwing the deck in the blender.

Reply to this post

Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #81)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 03:20 PM

Major Nikon (35,817 posts)

82. No, I'm sure of it

Fell free to provide even more evidence. You last one was a real knee slapper.

Reply to this post

Response to Major Nikon (Reply #82)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 03:54 PM

Weeds rapidly become Round Up Ready then you have the worst of all worlds -- high costs for patented seeds and chemicals PLUS Roundup Ready palmer amaranth in your field.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2014/06/22/superweeds-choke-farms/11231231/

The chemical industry's answer is double down on the pesticides:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-epa-pesticides-dow-met-20160214-story.html

Reply to this post

Response to GreatGazoo (Reply #19)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 05:05 PM

Major Nikon (35,817 posts)

24. Yeah, "rapidly" over 40 years

Reply to this post

Response to Major Nikon (Reply #24)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 07:01 PM

truebluegreen (9,033 posts)

27. Less than that. Monsanto introduced Round-up Ready seeds in '97.

Nearly half (49 percent) of all US farmers said they had "glyphosate resistant weeds" on their farms in 2012, according to the most recent review from agri-business market research firm Stratus.

That's up from 34 percent of farmers in 2011.

<snip>
Benbrook described a vicious cycle, saying "resistant weeds have become a major problem for many farmers reliant on genetically-engineered crops, and are now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each year by about 25 percent."

"Many experts in the US are projecting that the approval of new multiple herbicide tolerant crops will lead to at least a 50 percent increase to the average application of herbicide," he added.

(my bold) And the New, Improved Multiple Herbicides will apparently include my favorite 2,4-D. Yea! Something to look forward to. You, and Monsanto, need to remember the first rule of holes.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-01-superweeds-epidemic-spotlight-gmos.html#jCp

Reply to this post

Response to truebluegreen (Reply #27)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 07:12 PM

Attorney in Texas (3,373 posts)

29. What's with all the pro-GMO stuff? You'd think this was CorporateMonopolist Underground.

Reply to this post

Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #29)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 07:16 PM

Major Nikon (35,817 posts)

32. Or WooUnderground

Reply to this post

Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #29)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 07:18 PM

truebluegreen (9,033 posts)

33. It's a mystery to me.

Reply to this post

Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #29)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:01 PM

womanofthehills (6,528 posts)

43. It's unbelievable - it's the troll DU Monsanto lovers -

Reply to this post

Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #29)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 01:27 AM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

47. I'm sorry, why do you think science is bad?

Response to womanofthehills (Reply #232)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:38 AM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

241. Marc Brazeau is a life-long progressive and labor activist who cares about science.

Last edited Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Your ugly attacks are despicable. You really have no justification for any posts you make.

Reply to this post

Response to HuckleB (Reply #47)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:52 PM

womanofthehills (6,528 posts)

136. All the "science" you quote is from shills

Reply to this post

Response to womanofthehills (Reply #136)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:00 AM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

140. Your fantasies are rather sad.

Reply to this post

Response to HuckleB (Reply #140)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:27 AM

womanofthehills (6,528 posts)

Reply to this post

Response to womanofthehills (Reply #138)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:01 AM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

141. One fantasy troll post wasn't enough?

Why do you hate the planet?

Reply to this post

Response to HuckleB (Reply #47)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:25 AM

womanofthehills (6,528 posts)

142. Sometimes, there’s a fine line between the rats and the scientists.

Yes, scientists are attacking the latest Monsanto study – but not because of the science

So, for instance, when a scientist attacks a GMO study as “using too few subjects”, it’s helpful to know that the study used the same sample size as Monsanto does in their own studies. This allows the listener to objectively deduce whether the objection is valid – or bunk.

Likewise, when a scientist attacks a GMO study, it’s useful to know whether the scientist is a dispassionate observer who is speaking out due to legitimate scientific concern… or the scientist has side-businesses in GMOs himself and therefor has a serious vested interest in Monsanto’s success. Or even one who has been on Monsanto’s payroll.

It’s also telling when scientists put out a press release denouncing a study the same day that the study comes out. This presents the appearance of a PR response, rather than a considered objective analysis.

The first expert quoted by the SMC is Prof Maurice Moloney, Chief Executive of Rothamsted Research. What the SMC fails to tell journalists is that Moloney doesn’t just drive a Porsche with a GMO number plate, but has a c.v. to match. It is in fact Moloney’s GM research that lies behind Monsanto’s GM canola (oilseed rape). He also launched his own GM company in which Dow Agro Science were investors. In other words, Prof Moloney’s career and business activities have long been centered around GM.

Another expert quoted by the SMC is Dr Wendy Harwood. Dr Harwood is a GM scientist at the UK’s John Innes Centre, which has had tens of millions of pounds invested in it by GM giants like Syngenta. In fact, a previous director of the JIC told his local paper that any major slow down or halt in the development of GM crops “would be very, very serious for us.”

Prof Anthony Trewavas of the University of Edinburgh is another of the experts that the SMC GMO corn caused increased risk of tumor risk in ratsquotes. They don’t mention that Prof Trewavas is also a GM crop scientist, as well as a fervent opponent of organic farming, or that he is notorious for his attacks on scientists who publish research critical of GM.

Prof Mark Tester is yet another GM scientist quoted by the SMC. He is described by the SMC as Research Professor, Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics, University of Adelaide. His University of Adelaide profile tells us: “His commercial acumen is clear from his establishment of private companies and successful interactions with multinational companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and Pioneer-DuPont.”

The SMC describes Prof Ottoline Leyser as Associate Director of the Sainsbury Laboratory, University of Cambridge. They don’t mention that the Laboratory is funded by the Gatsby Foundation of Lord Sainsbury, the well known GM enthusiast and biotech entrepreneur, who also set up and funds the GM-related work of the Sainsbury Laboratory at the John Innes Centre.

Prof Alan Boobis is described by the SMC as Professor of Biochemical Pharmacology, Imperial College London. They don’t mention that he is a long-time member of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), i.e the very body that approved the GM corn in question, or that he has also long been on the board of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) – a biotech and food industry lobby group whose backers include the GM giants BASF, Bayer and Monsanto.

Prof Tom Sanders is described by the SMC as Head of the Nutritional Sciences Research Division, King’s College London. Like Prof Trewavas, Prof Sanders was involved in attacking the Pusztai study that suggested concerns about GM. His criticisms do not appear to have been well founded. This was back in the late 1990s. According to an article in The Independent in 1996, Prof Sanders was at that time “Nutrasweet’s professional consultant”. Up until 2000, Nutrasweet was owned by Monsanto.

http://redgreenandblue.org/2012/09/30/yes-scientists-are-attacking-the-latest-monsanto-study-but-not-because-of-the-science/

Reply to this post

Response to womanofthehills (Reply #142)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:31 AM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

146. Your fictions are many.

And you truly want others to believe the,.

That's sad.

Reply to this post

Response to HuckleB (Reply #47)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:14 AM

womanofthehills (6,528 posts)

189. Yea - I smell a lot of rats in your "science"

Reply to this post

Response to womanofthehills (Reply #189)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 03:10 AM

Major Nikon (35,817 posts)

199. Sure, you just promote crank magnets like Michel Chossudovsky and Mae-Wan Ho

Why don't you smell a rat when you are promoting their nutbaggery?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch#Conspiracy_theories

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mae-Wan_Ho

Reply to this post

Response to truebluegreen (Reply #27)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 07:14 PM

Major Nikon (35,817 posts)

31. More than that

Monsanto brought it to market in 1974 under the trade name Roundup, and Monsanto's last commercially relevant United States patent expired in 2000.

The environmental damage we're currently seeing is inherent in industrial agriculture as a whole, not specifically because of GM crops. It doesn't really matter all that much what kind of seed you plant when you're planting it on thousand-acre monocrop fields with almost no wild vegetation left in between the rows (either from cultivation or herbicide application). When you plow from fenceline to fenceline, biodiversity is non-existent no matter what crop you plant.

Agricultural biodiversity and property rights also apply to non-GM hybrid seeds: they are patented and have been since the Green Revolution of the 1970's. And just like GM crops, you can't plant hybrid seed from your fields the following year, but for different reasons. Where it is illegal to grow GM crops from saved seed, it is simply horribly uneconomical to grow saved seed from hybrid crops since they don't breed true from generation to generation and your yields would suffer greatly.

Even if all GM crops were to magically disappear tomorrow, the vast majority of food produced in developed nations today (the US, China, India, Brazil, and all of Europe) would STILL be controlled by seed monopolies, because the fallback from GM crops is patented hybrid seed. There are very, very few farmers who practice modern farming practices and use open-pollinated seed suitable for saving generation to generation, and the tradeoff for OP seed is a significant drop in crop yield over hybrids.

Our problems with how we generate food on this planet go far deeper than just GM seed. There are far too many of us, consuming far too many resources, and we have no idea how we can pull back from the precipice we've found ourselves on.

Reply to this post

Response to NickB79 (Reply #30)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 07:24 PM

truebluegreen (9,033 posts)

The Precautionary Principle (PP) Requires to be Interpreted Critically and Pre-emptively for its Proper Application to the Unique
Risks of GM crops

Aruna Rodrigues
Lead Petitioner (Public Interest Writ (PIL) in India’s Supreme Court)

The Fraud Of GM Crops
The Scientific Evidence

“Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety”.
FDA – Statement of Policy Foods derived from New Plant Varieties, 29 May 1992

“Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job”.
Phillip Angell: Monsanto Director of Corporate Communications: (Pollan: NY Times Magazine 25 Oct. 1998)

No national laws allow toxins to be put into food. Cry proteins or Bt toxins as also herbicides with their other
‘ingredients’ that form the construct are pesticides and /or toxins or injurious. Indian Law is clear on this point:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) and sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 15, no variety of any
genus or species which involves ‘any technology’ injurious to the life or health of human beings, animals or plants shall be registered under this Act. For the purposes of this subsection, the expression “any technology” includes genetic use restriction technology and terminator technology.” (Ref. Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001
section 29 (3)).

Yet this is precisely what has transpired in the 20 years since GM crops have been commercialised and released in open field trials. Cry toxins are claimed by Monsanto to harm only pests with alkaline gut systems, an explanation that was accepted without scrutiny or the test of time in rigorous studies, and so accepted safe for animal and human consumption. The claim for the safety of glyphosate was similarly ingenuous: glyphosate is claimed and advertised as a safe herbicide, safe enough to eat, based on its ability to block the shikimate pathway involved in the production of aromatic amino acids in plants and bacteria. It has to be admitted that it takes a certain kind of mind to contrive to transform a toxin into something altogether benign and even ‘magical’ for the benefit of agriculture and the food security of the world. Indeed it would take a miracle to truly achieve such a metamorphosis. That ‘miracle’ is now fraying.

So far your methods of discrediting other people's sources is nothing short of totally hilarious.

Here's a short list of a few of the batshit crazy sources you have used and I'm sure will continue to use.

GlobalResearch

Whenever someone makes a remarkable claim and cites GlobalResearch, they are almost certainly wrong.

Globalresearch

Mercola

Joseph Mercola, doctor of osteopathy, is a popular guru of alternative medicine and a member of the right-wing quack outfit Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. He advocates and provides a forum for many classic crank medical ideas, such as vaccine hysteria and the belief that modern (sorry, "allopathic"

medicine kills more people than it helps. His website is a veritable spring of pseudoscience, quackery, and logical fallacies. He is a promoter of the idea of an AMA/Big Pharma/FDA conspiracy.[1]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola

Seralini

Gilles-Eric Séralini is a professor of molecular biology at the Institute of Fundamental and Applied Biology (IBFA) of the University of Caen in France. He is also President of the Scientific Board at CRIIGEN.[1] He was fairly well known in the biotech community for having a history of flawed studies,[2][3] but his controversial 2012 study on transgenic NK603 maize made him immensely popular among the anti-GM communities.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Seralini

Food Babe

Hari is maybe not quite as dangerous as Joseph Mercola (who endorses her) or Mike Adams, but that's not exactly comforting. Her standards of evidence are terrible and based on total nonsense, and rather than promoting moderation, she mostly just wraps up obsessiveness and scolding in an apparently well-meaning package. Is she incompetent or a liar? Well, it doesn't really matter. Most of her "investigative" process can be summed up as either "Joseph Mercola said so, therefore spinning water in a blender really does make it healthier" or "if I can't pronounce it, it must cause cancer."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/FoodBabe.com

Mae-Wan Ho

Ho has been criticized for embracing pseudoscience.[7][8][9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mae-Wan_Ho

Reply to this post

Response to JohnyCanuck (Reply #48)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:55 AM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

52. Umm. Sheesh.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12315065

Reply to this post

Response to Vote2016 (Original post)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:57 AM

lagomorph777 (30,613 posts)

53. Good luck here!

Insulting Monsanto is more dangerous than insulting HRC.

I respect your courage.

Reply to this post

Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #53)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:07 PM

Vote2016 (1,198 posts)

from Truth Wiki --

The Raptor’s obvious dedication to dogma and the “religion” of science

Dogma is defined as a set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true and serves as part of the primary basis of an IDEOLOGY (or belief system) that cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system’s paradigm or the ideology itself. (4) The “Raptor” puts in much time removing or altering content of objective balance on subjects of controversy in Wiki (5). He’s one of the most forceful vaccine advocates in the blogosphere, spreading fear and propaganda for anyone skeptical of Western medicine and the chemical violence push for dozens of inoculations (before age 6) and the full schedule of CDC recommended toxic jabs that are scientifically leading to neurological disorders in children, as even admitted by lead CDC scientist Dr. William Thompson. Since the mass media and Wikipedia are having a complete blackout of Dr. Thompson’s confession about the toxic MMR vaccine and it’s direct correlation to autism, pharma trolls like Raptor try to reinforce their stance and the fake “consensus” they say science has come to with regards to a handful of facts–mixed in with a couple HUGE lies. Basically the dogma is to state easy science facts first, then add in the safety of vaccines and genetically modified food. (12)

Via The Original Skeptical Raptor

The number one goal of a pharma/biotech shill is to remove people’s fear that chemicals in food and chemicals in medicine are dangerous and detrimental to your health. People like Skeptical Raptor use character attacks (aka character assassinations) to destroy the credibility of the health advocates making huge waves, like the Health Ranger and the Food Babe. The shills also try to make it sound as if synthetic chemicals are the answer to diseases, disorders, drought, starvation, crop profits, crop yields, the death of bugs and weeds, etc. They tell you how complicated science is and then they try to explain how chemicals are good for you to eat, drink, put on your skin and breathe in. (9)

Here is Skeptical Raptor trying to convince readers and consumers that genetically modified corn sugar processed in a manufacturing plant is no different than the natural version from sugar beet or sugar cane:

“There is simply no difference between the fructose and glucose in HFCS, and the one in cane sugar, sucrose. The chemical formulas are exactly the same. It’s the exact same carbons, the exact same hydrogens, and the exact same oxygens. No difference. Both sucrose from a sugar beet or sugar cane is chemically and scientifically identical to HFCS. Neither is more or less “natural” than the other. This is one of the major misconceptions of the pseudoscience of the natural food world, that someone how a sugar from a living organism is somehow different from a sugar from a manufacturing plant. I want to make this clear. There is simply no difference between the fructose and glucose in HFCS, and the one in cane sugar, sucrose. The chemical formulas are exactly the same. They contain the exact same carbons, the exact same hydrogens, and the exact same oxygens. They have the same chemical bonds. No organism on this planet could distinguish between them. Without a doubt, the human body cannot distinguish between sources of the sugar.”

Skeptical Raptors Education? According to his own bio, he has a couple decades experience marketing medical products. He has an undergraduate degree in biochemistry/endocrinology from a US university and has worked for a pharmaceutical company. He defines skeptic as “someone who requires extraordinary evidence before accepting extraordinary claims.” He doesn’t accept the existence of God. He says he’s an expert in medicine, but he is not a doctor. Online, the Raptor is not educating anyone but rather obfuscating important information that consumers would otherwise use to filter food and medicine toxins from their intake, including GMO, MSG and HFCS. He does the same with red meat/processed meats and colorectal cancer, trying to obfuscate the facts presented by the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer), which is the research group of the World Health Organization (WHO) – and their study on red meats and processed meats raising chances of getting colon cancer. In his same blogs he brags about his love for bacon and French sausage. Even in his arguments for the safety of consuming those meats, he gives credit to the IARC and anything that shows up in the Lancet or other “Peer Reviewed” publications, so he discredits his own argument. After all of this, he gives “recommendations” including “everything in moderation.” He uses PubMed science studies for sources: ie: Colorectal Cancer:

Reply to this post

Response to HuckleB (Reply #56)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:38 AM

womanofthehills (6,528 posts)

230. You love Monsanto - all your posts are from Monsanto shills

OMG! You are back to posting links by the Monsanto psycho skepticalraptor.

Reply to this post

Response to Vote2016 (Reply #55)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:13 PM

lagomorph777 (30,613 posts)

57. All I can tell you is my experience has been stunningly negative.

The response is typically powerful and swift. Almost as if there is a strong incentive of some kind.

Reply to this post

Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #57)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:18 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

58. The passive-aggressive shill gambit!

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/logical-fallacies/shill-gambit-logical-fallacies/

Reply to this post

Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #57)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:19 PM

Vote2016 (1,198 posts)

59. It almost seems that way, but why would anyone not being paid respond so swiftly defending Monsanto

on a website for people predisposed to be sceptical of corporate abuse of power?

I guess there is s bigger community of people who are enthusiastic about replacing our inefficient family farms with sleek agribusinesses to help march us in lockstep to a brighter and more homogenous future.

Reply to this post

Response to Vote2016 (Reply #59)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:25 PM

lagomorph777 (30,613 posts)

60. Yes, surely that must be it - a bright, shiny future.

Better living through chemistry. It's aaaallll about the public good.

Reply to this post

Response to Vote2016 (Reply #59)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:26 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

61. No one is defending Monsanto.

It's not ok to push this line of nonsense.

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/logical-fallacies/shill-gambit-logical-fallacies/

Reply to this post

Response to HuckleB (Reply #61)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:27 PM

Vote2016 (1,198 posts)

Last edited Fri Jun 3, 2016, 01:50 PM - Edit history (1)

It is managed all over the country just fine, and many farmers grow several types of seeds, and do well with it. Organic is just a marketing term, so forgetting that reality does not help. Drift happens with all types of seeds, btw.

Drift happens with all types of seeds, btw. The topic is just used as a con routine of the anti-GMO movement.

Again, your desire for labels is a preference, not based in reason.

If you can disprove anything on that site, with a consensus of peer-reviewed evidence, let me know.

If you want to learn about the topic, for reals, this is a good place to start. It's written by an organic farmer and a genetic researcher.
http://base.dnsgb.com.ua/files/book/Agriculture/Organic-Agriculture/Tomorrows-Table-Organic-Farming.pdf

Reply to this post

Response to HuckleB (Reply #67)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 01:25 AM

womanofthehills (6,528 posts)

194. Author of your above link on organic farming - Pamela Ronald - "SCIENTIFIC" research questioned

Can the Scientific Reputation of Pamela Ronald, Public Face of GMOs, Be Salvaged?

"This background is relevant because Pamela Ronald is now also fighting on her home front. Her scientific research has become the central question in a controversy that may destroy both careers. In the last year Ronald’s laboratory at UC Davis has retracted two scientific papers (Lee et al. 2009 and Han et al 2011) and other researchers have raised questions about a third (Danna et al 2011). The two retracted papers form the core of her research programme into how rice plants detect specific bacterial pathogens ."

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/can-the-scientific-reputation-of-pamela-ronald-public-face-of-gmos-be-salvaged/

Reply to this post

Response to womanofthehills (Reply #194)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 03:26 AM

Major Nikon (35,817 posts)

200. Kinda funny how they question Ronald's reputation

She voluntarily retracted two papers after finding out the science was flawed, and the self-described Independant Science News questions her credibility. Meanwhile they promote Seralini after two of his papers were involuntarily retracted and discredited by a wide consensus of the scientific community.

Very telling that.

Reply to this post

Response to womanofthehills (Reply #194)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:40 AM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

242. Pamela Ronald is an honorable scientist.

Your link is from a despicable, scam site.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/food-matters/lab-life-the-anatomy-of-a-retraction/

Why is it that the only thing anti-GMOers have are fiction-based attacks on good scientists?

Do you have any shame at all?

Reply to this post

Response to Vote2016 (Reply #59)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 01:48 PM

MisterP (23,730 posts)

245. it's the same shiny vision from Wired or the nuclear industry

if you demur you're tripping up humanity itself in its upward climb to godhood
in the 50s they were even enthused about all the plutonium waste, since that was just fuel for the next generation of reactors! any day now ...
ESP research (when permitted) now has a better track record than fusion research
so it's the exact type of people that mocks the Rapture fundies but then gets excited because soon the machines will upload us into the computers and we'll be immortal, and even rewrite the laws of physics to live forever during the Big Rip, shaping universes at will

Reply to this post

Response to MisterP (Reply #245)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:08 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

246. Bzzt. Wrong answer.

It's about simple science, and a simple seed development technology that has been baselessly demonized by those who follow the natural fallacy in an attempt to con people into buying more expensive food that is also worse for the planet.

Your little fantasy has nothing to do with any of that.

Reply to this post

Response to Vote2016 (Original post)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:43 PM

basselope (2,565 posts)

69. queue the anti-science pro-gmo people.

Reply to this post

Response to basselope (Reply #69)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:57 PM

Major Nikon (35,817 posts)

75. Sure, because they are the ones channeling Mike Adams, Mercola, Food Babe, ...

And all the rest of the batshit crazy crankosphere.

Reply to this post

Response to Major Nikon (Reply #75)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 03:04 PM

basselope (2,565 posts)

Reply to this post

Response to Major Nikon (Reply #166)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:39 PM

basselope (2,565 posts)

168. In this very thread.

Reply to this post

Response to basselope (Reply #168)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:42 PM

Major Nikon (35,817 posts)

170. Where?

Reply to this post

Response to Major Nikon (Reply #170)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:42 PM

basselope (2,565 posts)

They just want to reinforce their bias.

Reply to this post

Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #118)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 08:11 PM

HuckleB (35,773 posts)

119. I know.

I was just trying to go with hope, I guess.

Reply to this post

Response to basselope (Reply #69)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 05:43 PM

progressoid (46,972 posts)

The World Health Organization and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization published a report Monday contradicting several studies in the last few years, including one by the WHO itself, saying that although exposure to the chemical in other ways may be dangerous, ingesting it orally is likely not carcinogenic.

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2016/05/16/Dietary-exposure-to-glyphosate-unlikely-to-cause-cancer-UN-report-says/5001463424718/

I love science!

Of course, the original finding by the WHO was more politics than science. But those pesky scientists managed to get them to see the light.

Reply to this post

Response to progressoid (Reply #124)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:30 AM

basselope (2,565 posts)

145. I love science too.

Notice the use of the wiggle words.. "likely not carcinogenic"

Thank you, again, for proving my point so well.

The anti-science, pro-gmo crowed always makes me laugh.

Don't worry, it's LIKELY not carcinogenic, so it is safe.

Reply to this post

Response to basselope (Reply #145)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 10:52 AM

progressoid (46,972 posts)

149. Sure, wiggle words.

The same wiggle words the EPA used. And the European Food Safety Authority. Maybe they are all in on the same conspiracy to poison us.

Regardless, even if something is a likely carcinogen, that doesn’t automatically make it harmful. We are bombarded with carcinogenic radiation from the sun every day. Drink a glass of wine and you ingest carcinogens. It's part of life.

Reply to this post

Response to progressoid (Reply #149)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:13 PM

basselope (2,565 posts)

158. So by all means, let's keep adding them.

This is why the anti-science, pro-gmo loons are so funny.

Reply to this post

Response to basselope (Reply #158)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:46 AM

progressoid (46,972 posts)

193. Show us the data where cancer rates are higher due to GMOs.

If you think adding is causing more cancer, surely as a pro-science person, you've got access to some of that pro-science data out there to back up such an implication.

Reply to this post

Response to progressoid (Reply #193)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 01:31 AM

womanofthehills (6,528 posts)

195. WHO Publishes Full Probable Human Carcinogen Report on Glyphosate

WHO Publishes Full Probable Human Carcinogen Report on Glyphosate http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/07/30/who-publishes-full-probable-human-carcinogen-report-on-glyphosate/#.V1O4A2bXh-I

The World Health Organization’s cancer agency IARC has published the full report which caused a huge worldwide response, when they announced earlier this year that the World’s most sold herbicide, glyphosate, is a probable human carcinogen.
Roundup-008

Full IARC Report: monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/mono112-02.pdf

The assessment by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of glyphosate, which is used in herbicides with estimated annual sales of USD 6 Billion, is of special concern to Monsanto, the company that brought glyphosate to market under the trade name Roundup in the 1970s.

Over 80% of GM crops worldwide are engineered to be grown with the herbicide.

The IARC has no regulatory role and its decisions do not automatically lead to bans or restrictions, but use the report has put massive pressure on regulators and the Biotech industry, who rely on glyphosate for a large percentage of their profits.

The IARC reached its decision based on the view of 17 experts from 11 countries, who met in Lyon, France, to assess the carcinogenicity of 5 organophosphate pesticides.

Since the IARC report was released in March 2015 many countries have been looking at possible bans on glyphosate-based herbicides and Sri Lanka even announced a complete ban. Supermarkets across Europe have also removed glyphosate-based herbicides from their shelves.

http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/07/30/who-publishes-full-probable-human-carcinogen-report-on-glyphosate/#.V1O5D2bXh-K

Reply to this post

Response to womanofthehills (Reply #195)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 02:00 AM

basselope (2,565 posts)

196. that

Reply to this post

Response to basselope (Reply #196)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 05:21 PM

progressoid (46,972 posts)

207. That,

doesn't show that cancer rates are higher due to GMOs.

Reply to this post

Response to womanofthehills (Reply #195)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 01:13 PM

progressoid (46,972 posts)

206. Dietary exposure to glyphosate unlikely to cause cancer, U.N. report says

The World Health Organization and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization published a report Monday contradicting several studies in the last few years, including one by the WHO itself, saying that although exposure to the chemical in other ways may be dangerous, ingesting it orally is likely not carcinogenic.

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2016/05/16/Dietary-exposure-to-glyphosate-unlikely-to-cause-cancer-UN-report-says/5001463424718/

Glyphosate: EFSA updates toxicological profile

EFSA and the EU Member States have finalised the re-assessment of glyphosate, a chemical that is used widely in pesticides. The report concludes that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans and proposes a new safety measure that will tighten the control of glyphosate residues in food. The conclusion will be used by the European Commission in deciding whether or not to keep glyphosate on the EU list of approved active substances, and by EU Member States to re-assess the safety of pesticide products containing glyphosate that are used in their territories.

A peer review expert group made up of EFSA scientists and representatives from risk assessment bodies in EU Member States has set an acute reference dose (ARfD) for glyphosate of 0.5 mg per kg of body weight, the first time such an exposure threshold has been applied to the substance.

Jose Tarazona, head of EFSA’s Pesticides Unit, said: “This has been an exhaustive process – a full assessment that has taken into account a wealth of new studies and data. By introducing an acute reference dose we are further tightening the way potential risks from glyphosate will be assessed in the future. Regarding carcinogenicity, it is unlikely that this substance is carcinogenic.”

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/151112

Reply to this post

Response to progressoid (Reply #206)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 10:38 PM

basselope (2,565 posts)

208. Non definitive.

Offer something DEFINITIVE.

use of words like "likely not" are similar to those used by the tobacco industry in the 1960s

Reply to this post

Response to basselope (Reply #208)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 10:57 PM

progressoid (46,972 posts)

209. It is definitive. As defined through the EPA's rating system.

See Group E

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintains the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), an electronic database that contains information on human health effects from exposure to certain substances in the environment. The EPA uses a rating system similar to that of IARC when describing the cancer-causing potential of a substance:

Group A: Carcinogenic to humans
Group B: Likely to be carcinogenic to humans
Group C: Suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential
Group D: Inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential
Group E: Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans

Reply to this post

Response to progressoid (Reply #209)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:02 PM

basselope (2,565 posts)

210. Not definitive.

Please present something definitive.

Reply to this post

Response to basselope (Reply #210)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:10 PM

progressoid (46,972 posts)

211. Yeah, still waiting for you to do that too.

Reply to this post

Response to progressoid (Reply #211)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:32 PM

basselope (2,565 posts)

213. Already did.

Reply to this post

Response to basselope (Reply #213)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:03 AM

progressoid (46,972 posts)

218. My mistake.

I thought you were interested in a serious discussion. This is just dismissive; bordering on trolling.

Goodnight.

95. So okay then, what do we do about the other thousand or so conglomerates that run the planet?

Kinda late to the dance. I would like to start with the Military Industrial Complex, they seem to be the biggest monster on the planet.

Reply to this post

Response to Rex (Reply #95)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:46 PM

Vote2016 (1,198 posts)

131. Your view is "we've been abused by Goldman Sachs and Haliburton so why complain about Monsanto?"

Reply to this post

Response to Vote2016 (Reply #131)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:28 PM

Rex (65,616 posts)

134. No my view is why does it take this long? Why no out cry decades ago?

Some of us watched history unfold for more then a few years, thanks.

Reply to this post

Response to Vote2016 (Original post)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 05:46 PM

valerief (53,235 posts)

103. But they make some rich people richer and that's the most important thing in the world.

It drives everything.

Reply to this post

Response to Vote2016 (Original post)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 05:47 PM

Bonx (1,831 posts)

104. It's fun to be passionate. But you need to actually be right.

Reply to this post

Response to Bonx (Reply #104)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:53 PM

Rex (65,616 posts)

137. Or have at least a basic plan and ambition to change everything.

Lots of money too.

Reply to this post

Response to Vote2016 (Original post)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 05:50 PM

progressoid (46,972 posts)

105. No surprise that the last link doesn't even mention how GMO's saved the papya crops in Hawaii

Reply to this post

Response to Vote2016 (Original post)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 07:05 PM

Dont call me Shirley (10,998 posts)

185. GMOs suck the life out of life!

Reply to this post

Response to Vote2016 (Original post)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 04:08 AM

pediatricmedic (397 posts)

201. Did anyone notice the articles cited in OP are not science related?

These are all by law professors and law school grad students. Not a single bio, medical, or chem related degree in any of them.

Reply to this post

Response to pediatricmedic (Reply #201)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 10:31 AM

Major Nikon (35,817 posts)

204. This was really just a drive-by thread from another thread anyway

The OP claimed to be an expert on the subject because of posting 4 links that were totally found with a google search. Most of it goes back several years and the legal strategies contained within have been utter failures ever since because they just didn't line up that well with science or even reality.

Reply to this post

Response to pediatricmedic (Reply #201)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:25 AM

CanSocDem (3,286 posts)

205. Sociology is a 'science', but.....

...many in this thread wilfully ignore the devastating social effects of putting profits ahead of people.From their little corner of industrial science, everybody is out to get them/take their profits. 'Specially those lawyers....

.

Reply to this post

Response to CanSocDem (Reply #205)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:42 AM

Major Nikon (35,817 posts)

223. Sociology isn't a hard science

Bullshit and stupidity also has a high social cost. You know, like children dying and going blind not to mention starvation and all sorts of other ailments resulting from malnutrition that GMO can provide answers for.

Reply to this post

Response to pediatricmedic (Reply #201)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:05 AM

womanofthehills (6,528 posts)

235. Did anyone notice the links cited by the pro-gmo Monsanto people

Check out their links if you want crazy.

Reply to this post

Response to womanofthehills (Reply #235)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:38 AM

Bonx (1,831 posts)

240. Crazy is the OP's linkapalooza

Reply to this post

General Discussion (Forum)