Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Studies: GM crops safer then Organic crops

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Studies: GM crops safer then Organic crops

    What do you guys think about this?

    http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsI...ews_detail.asp

  • #2
    It looks like a rather over-confident claim to me.

    There's this "for example" ... and then we're given one example. Whether the claims made for the one example or not are valid it's not much to hang one's hat on.

    Surely, the point is that they can do specific things they wish to do - such as make crops "[resist] insect infestation". (However, can we know in advance that that will be permanent and that insects won't adapt?) But what they can't do is not cause problems they haven't thought about. This is one of the biggest problems with every kind of social experiment - that there are always unforeseen circumstances. Theoretically, as an Chemistry academic told me, if you pump a little low-grade nuclear waste into the sea it's OK, because it's not enough to matter - except that in practice you don't get perfect mixing, so in practice it's most certainly not OK ... as has been found. If you want a non-scientifc example take various forms of social security payments, which have been devised to fulfil important social needs but which have had the wholly unforeseen and unfortunate consequence of undermining the social structure of the family.

    I mean what the heck haven't these people foreseen?

    Insect infestation is, of course, a problem in the first place because agribusiness has so many acres of maize packed in so tight together. Virtually all "pest" problems are a result of over-intensive farming practices, monoculture being a prime example. That's something that's not even supposed to be raised, let alone questioned, in a discussion such as that article is meant to give rise to.

    Comment


    • #3
      I wonder what kind of impact GMO crops being fed to cows produces. I know feeding soybeans to a cow increases the omega 3 and CLA content, if nothing bad happens to the cows that could be a new market. 100% grassfed is so expensive if you don't buy an entire freezer full at atime.
      Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

      Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

      Comment


      • #4
        call me a skeptic but I would be willing to bet that you'd find Monsanto is somehow linked to those studies.

        Comment


        • #5
          I'd suggest having a look at the list of the organization's funders. And yes, Monsanto is on the list, along with the Sugar Association, the National Agricultural Chemicals Association, National Starch and Chemical Foundation, National Soft Drink Association, Coca-Cola, Pepsico, Pfizer, Union Carbide, Exxon, Kraft, and a whole bunch of other people that are probably not the best source for unbiased food-related research:

          http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...nce_and_Health
          “If I didn't define myself for myself, I would be crunched into other people's fantasies for me and eaten alive.” --Audre Lorde

          Owly's Journal

          Comment


          • #6
            My bullshit detector is going off. I don't even have to read that study to smell the stench of bad science.

            Always remember, you can make a study 'prove' anything.
            A steak a day keeps the doctor away

            Comment


            • #7
              My bullshit detector is going off. I don't even have to read that study to smell the stench of bad science.

              Always remember, you can make a study 'prove' anything.
              A steak a day keeps the doctor away

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Owly View Post
                I'd suggest having a look at the list of the organization's funders. And yes, Monsanto is on the list, along with the Sugar Association, the National Agricultural Chemicals Association, National Starch and Chemical Foundation, National Soft Drink Association, Coca-Cola, Pepsico, Pfizer, Union Carbide, Exxon, Kraft, and a whole bunch of other people that are probably not the best source for unbiased food-related research:

                http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...nce_and_Health
                Why am I not surprised.
                Are you a college student, trying to navigate college while being Primal? Do you know any other PB college students on a tight budget? Heck, for that matter, are YOU trying to live Primal on a budget? Enroll at Primal University!

                For after all what is man in nature? A nothing in relation to infinity, all in relation to nothing, a central point between nothing and all and infinitely far from understanding either.
                -- Blaise Pascal

                Comment


                • #9
                  GMO has the potential to increase the nutrient value of food, reduce or eliminate the need for pesticides, and develop crops capable of growing in marginal (arid or saline) soils. Oh, and resist freezing. Unfortunately, the technology is one that naturally lends itself to development by big corporations whose motives are murky at best. Monsanto's decision to make their first big GMO product "Round-Up Ready" (plants resistant to herbicides so that farmers could spray MORE chemicals on the crops to keep the weeds down) was terrifying in its stupidity. A perfect example of bottom line vs long term thinking. They created suspicion and anger in the very people that could have been championing them.

                  I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to GMO. It is a technology with huge potential for doing good -- and commensurate potential for bad. Like so many things we humans come up with.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X