Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, inconsistencies in logic, stance and argument can be a bit mind-boggling at times.
I run into the same speed-bump with people who argue (just for example - not hijack) that raw milk is dangerous, when no foodbourne illnesses have ever been confirmed attributed to uncontaminated milk from hygenic sources in all of recorded human history; but then turn around and declare that GMO aren't dangerous because there haven't been any confirmed illnesses attributed to their use in the last few decades they've been available. Either you demand verifiable proof in both circumstances, or neither... but flipping one way or the other depending on the position of your argument is hypocritical and inconsistent (even if this is might be what the "authorities" are doing and telling us).
Both sides of most arguments, especially the "extremists", are routinely guilty of this and give the rest of us, who are being a bit more reasonable and circumspect on the issue, a bad name.
Not true !
Foodbourne illness has been traced to milk from a Minnesota farm but the raw milk Moderator cut: insulting (advocates) keep proclaiming.............." we refuse to believe it "..........." we refuse to believe it '
Moderator cut: Discussing moderator actions violates the Terms of Service
Last edited by MissingAll4Seasons; 07-17-2012 at 08:55 PM..
Reason: Discussing mod actions and calling out mods is against the rules.
The milk example was an example. Assuming you're speaking of the 2010 Hartmann farm outbreak, you'll notice that no conclusive proof was ever found although there was strong circumstantial evidence.
If we accept (or not) circumstantial evidence or theory in one case, we should accept (or not) circumstantial evidence or theory consistently in other cases. That's all I'm saying.
I run into the same speed-bump with people who argue (just for example - not hijack) that raw milk is dangerous, when no foodbourne illnesses have ever been confirmed attributed to uncontaminated milk from hygenic sources in all of recorded human history; but then turn around and declare that GMO aren't dangerous because there haven't been any confirmed illnesses attributed to their use in the last few decades they've been available.
what do you mean by 'uncontaminated milk'?
i've never heard anyone claim that uncontaminated milk from hygenic sources ever caused an illness. it is the bacterial contamination that causes the illness, after all.
i've never heard anyone claim that uncontaminated milk from hygenic sources ever caused an illness. it is the bacterial contamination that causes the illness, after all.
What I'm saying is that the raw milk they have confirmed (with proof, not circumstance) caused the outbreak was tested contaminated, the dairy was also unhygenic, and other products onsite were also contaminated. Some milk has been suspected to be contaminated, but other products weren't found to be so, and the dairy also had hygiene issues (as in the Hartmann case). And milk from a hygenic dairy being contaminated in transit from cow to consumer offsite. But I couldn't find any reports of milk that was contaminated onsite that also came from a hygenic dairy.
Ergo... if the dairy follows good hygiene practices, and proper handling and protocols are followed from cow to consumption, no illnesses from raw milk have been verified. As such, making raw milk illegal in all cases was overkill, and proper hygiene protocols and inspections with a consumer caution label could have sufficed.
This is very similar to the argument often given for why GMOs are safe... if the bio-tech company tests it, and the FDA approves it, and there is no confirmed, verifiable proof that any issues are directly related, then it's safe.
ETA: The milk EXAMPLE was only meant to illustrate my point that inconsistent and contradictory application of logic and policy occurs from both sides of the GMO issue. The topic of this thread is GMO... milk has it's own thread, so let's not hijack this thread by arguing about my EXAMPLE.
Last edited by MissingAll4Seasons; 07-18-2012 at 01:30 PM..
Moderator cut: unnecessary...Monsanto is fighting to stop DuPont from selling / distributing its version of frankenfoods.
The world’s largest seed company (MONSANTO) sued DuPont in 2009, accusing its biggest competitor of patent infringement and breaching the 2002 contracts. DuPont countersued. A jury trial is set to begin today in Monsanto’s hometown of St. Louis.
Bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) have helped to control several major insect pests and reduce the need for insecticide sprays.
Quote:
A recent scientific study in Nature reported that merely cultivating GM crops provided a healthy boost to the local ecosystem, including organic crops. Over the past 16 years, vast plantings of transgenic crops producing insecticidal proteins form the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) have helped to control several major insect pests and reduce the need for insecticide sprays.
Quote:
Another benefit of biotech seeds has to do with suicide prevention. Pesticide self-poisoning, a major public health problem in the developing world, accounts for about one-third of the world’s suicides, killing at least 250,000 to 370,000 people each year. Most of these suicides occur in rural areas of the developing world where high levels of pesticide use in agriculture combined with pesticide storage at home facilitate this particular method of suicide.
People will starve to death because of anti-GM zealotry
Quote:
Norman Borlaug was as concerned about population growth as Ehrlich, but instead of making doom-laden prophecies about mass death, he decided that the best course of action to stop people starving would be to help them produce more food. Now famous as the father of the Green Revolution, he toiled for years to breed high-yielding cereal crops and other innovations which enabled poor countries to dramatically increase agricultural productivity.
Borlaug has been credited with saving the lives of one billion people, and received the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of his success
One of the biggest myths perpetuated by the biotechnology industry is that
genetically engineered crops are likely to provide a solution to world
hunger. Companies like ICI Seeds, Britain's largest seeds merchant, proclaim
that biotechnology will be the most reliable and environmentally acceptable
way to secure the world's food supplies .
As the author points out the REAL cause of FAMINE..
Quote:
1) Biotechnology can never be a cure for hunger - Famines are not caused by
lack of food but by lack of access to food and alternative sources of income
in times of crisis. There are ample reserves of food in the world today yet
the numbers of malnourished run into hundreds of millions. Increasing
agricultural production (even assuming that this is possible through
biotechnology) whilst leaving the structural causes of poverty and hunger
unaddressed is a recipe not for feeding the world but for continuing to
starve sizeable numbers within it.
Last edited by MissingAll4Seasons; 07-26-2012 at 03:28 PM..
Reason: fixed quotation formating of copyrighted material
Designed to reduce the use of pesticides, it could be the first of a new, eco-friendly generation of genetically modified crops.
Quote:
The world's first genetically modified crop that has been deliberately engineered to emit a repellent-smelling substance against insect pests is now growing in a small patch of land in the Hertfordshire countryside. Scientists have created the "whiffy" wheat in an effort to combat aphid attacks that can cause upwards of £120m of damage each year to the UK's most important cereal crop, which has an annual value of £1.2bn – and rising.
The GM wheat contains an added, synthetic gene that causes the plant to exude an insect pheromone on its leaves which is naturally produced by "frightened" aphids as a warning signal to other aphids. Although the pheromone released by the GM wheat plants will be undetectable to the human nose, the scientists hope that it will deter species of cereal aphids which spread harmful plant viruses as well as sucking energy from the crop.
However, the aphid's "fear" pheromone – known as farnesene – has the opposite effect on beneficial insects, such as ladybirds and parasitic wasps that feed on aphids, because they are attracted to the smell.
I am interested to find whether attracting beneficial insects who prey on aphids to a crop that actively repels aphids (their food source) will have any negative impact on these predatory insect populations and the other plants who rely on them for aphid and other insect pest control that do not emit an attractant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
GMO Titans legal showdown.
