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.
It would seem to me science often starts with a incorrect theory, and then other theories are put in place until one is accepted by most scientists.
This is a very good insight. The scientific method starts with a starting guess, called a "null hypothesis" and tries to collect evidence to prove it wrong.
Quote:
GMO foods are a natural evolution in science and human food production. Most GMO's are most likely safe, but there could be harmful effects from GMO's not presently known. Therefore research and caution should be implemented with GMO use until they are fully proven to be safe.
I agree with this, but we need to define what we mean by "proven to be safe". Nothing in life is completely safe. A tree could fall on you while you walk down the street. You could choke on your next meal. We have to agree on a definition of safety, and the level of evidence that will satisfy that definition.
With republicans GMO conversations are not about science or safety, rather they are about pushing the republican agenda.
Monsanto pays republican politicians then the politician says "GMO's are safe", then forum republicans say "GMO's are safe."
Monsanto republicans are so in bed with Monsanto they even oppose letting Americans know what foods contain GMO's.
Monsanto does not own politicians any more than Google, Amazon, Whole Foods, Starbucks or Chipotle do. Every corporation lobbies, and for better or worse that is how our political system works.
Either way Monsanto is a distraction in the GMO debate. Monsanto is not the only manufacturer of GMO seeds, and the technology can be debated on its own merits.
Clearly putting scorpion genes in cabbage is fully possible, and multiple sources say its being done.
Sure it could be done. But it hasn't.
But go ahead and cite your multiple sources, and I'll shoot them down one by one. Not that it will matter, you'll just copy/ paste more
I will continue to believe those sources until you provide a reputable source saying otherwise, or until a rational forum member shows "actual" evidence the story is fake.
Monsanto does not own politicians any more than Google, Amazon, Whole Foods, Starbucks or Chipotle do. Every corporation lobbies, and for better or worse that is how our political system works.
Either way Monsanto is a distraction in the GMO debate. Monsanto is not the only manufacturer of GMO seeds, and the technology can be debated on its own merits.
These sources have an obvious agenda and are not examples of quality sources. However in the interest of fairness I will analyze both.
The first article is by a man called Leonard Coldwell, who describes himself as such:
Quote:
Dr. Leonard Coldwell is in the opinion of countless experts, the world’s leading authority for Natural Cancer cures, Stress-Related Illness and Burnout Syndrome.
Although he goes by "Dr." the only reference he cites to any doctoral credential is "an honorary doctorate degree in Humanities from the University in Louisiana". According to RationalWiki his birth name is Bernd Klein, he hails from Germany, and his background is rather shadowy. Leonard Coldwell - RationalWiki
Anyway, Herr Klein in his article lists several individuals who have served in some sort of public office who happen to also have some tenuous connection to Monsanto. The list looks formidable but under scrutiny it falls apart. First off, the connections to Monsanto are either minor or misleading. It lists a former employee and former contractor of G.D. Searle, a pharmaceutical company which merged with Monsanto in 1985 and was spun off into Pharmacia in 2000. It lists Clarence Thomas, who worked as a junior attorney for a couple years for Monsanto early in his career in the 70s, many years before he became a Supreme Court judge (remind me what the Supreme Court has to do with the EPA and FDA). Second off, you can play "Six Degree of Kevin Bacon" with any big company and politicians. And I don't know about you but I'd rather have industry experts leading these groups rather than career politicians who have never worked in the private sector in their life. It's not a convincing list at all.
The article closes with a giant meme that disrupts the page layout, and goes on a tangent about how Monsanto uses E. Coli in its biotech practices. It tries to use a scare tactic of taking this harmless, specific scientific process totally out of context and associating it with danger. The strain of E. Coli used in biotech (not just by Monsanto, but many other biotech companies as well) is not the same as the one we hear about in outbreaks. It is only used in a very specific point in one particular genetic transfer process, and none of the bacteria makes it into the seed or plant.
I will reply with my critique of the second article you posted, since it's more lengthy and has more meat to it.
This article is published on GlobalResearch, an impressive-sounding organization that harbors all kinds of fringe theories. The author is Josh Sager, an occasional contributor to GlobalResearch, and once had an article about 3-D printed guns published on Salon.com, who describe him as having "a degree in political science from Boston University with a minor in earth science". At least he's more forthcoming than Herr Klein. He runs a blog called "The Progressive Cynic", the tagline for which is thus (caps not mine):
Quote:
MODERN AMERICAN POLITICS IS FILLED WITH PARTISANSHIP, LEGALIZED CORRUPTION AND EXTREMISM. ON THIS SITE YOU WILL FIND ARTICLES ON A VARIETY OF SUBJECTS AND POINTS OF VIEW THAT ARE NOT NORMALLY PORTRAYED IN THE CORPORATE MEDIA–DON’T EXPECT ANY SUGAR-COATING, PANDERING OR INTEREST MONEY PROPAGANDA HERE.
OK, I guess I'll take him for his word. I can identify several points he tries to make in this article:
1) The Obama administration has passed several pieces of legislature that he describes as favoring Monsanto at the detriment of everyone else,
2) The government is stacked with Monsanto-affiliated appointed officials,
3) Elena Kagan might be connected to Monsanto,
4) Even though Obama has allowed Monsanto to push legislation though, Romney is connected to Monsanto too so there's no point voting for him.
My responses to these:
1) The author fails to cite any examples of how this legislation benefits Monsanto in favor of anyone else. For example, he claims "The Farm Bill would be an immense boon to Monsanto, as it would streamline the approval process of its GMO crops and would limit the ability of the federal government to regulate its commerce to the Department of Agriculture." He does not cite any piece of the legislation, or even any other source that he could use in his favor. He just claims this as fact, and we're just supposed to believe it. This pattern is repeated throughout the article but is very common in this section.
2) To make his case he uses a Venn diagram, containing mostly the same names as contained in Herr Klein's list. The same criticism applies: it's the political version of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, most of those people have a minor connection at best to Monsanto, generally early in their career.
3) Even the author is forced to admit this is a reach. The best he can do is show that Kagan wrote an amicus brief in favor of Monsanto when she was Solicitor General. He doesn't bother to try to find out why.
4) The author repeats some second-hand account that Romney somehow steered Monsanto away from chemicals and into biotech. We're just supposed to accept this re-telling of a re-telling as fact. "If the officers who worked at Monsanto are to be believed, Romney had significant influence on the corporate decision-making for Monsanto", the author writes, but he gives absolutely no credence to the idea that it might all be a pile of BS.
I'm not at all convinced by this article. It's obvious the author has an agenda. He doesn't even make an attempt at impartiality. Never does he critically analyze any of his sources or try to find an opposing perspective. He trots out the same tired arguments, though I've never heard the Elena Kagan one, which is quite lame and even the author admits such.
The first article is by a man called Leonard Coldwell, who describes himself as such:
Although he goes by "Dr." the only reference he cites to any doctoral credential is "an honorary doctorate degree in Humanities from the University in Louisiana". According to RationalWiki his birth name is Bernd Klein, he hails from Germany, and his background is rather shadowy. Leonard Coldwell - RationalWiki
I was not concerned about the author's background, but rather a few government positions he wrote about.
Quote:
Anyway, Herr Klein in his article lists several individuals who have served in some sort of public office who happen to also have some tenuous connection to Monsanto. The list looks formidable but under scrutiny it falls apart. First off, the connections to Monsanto are either minor or misleading. It lists a former employee and former contractor of G.D. Searle, a pharmaceutical company which merged with Monsanto in 1985 and was spun off into Pharmacia in 2000. It lists Clarence Thomas, who worked as a junior attorney for a couple years for Monsanto early in his career in the 70s, many years before he became a Supreme Court judge (reminds me what the Supreme Court has to do with the EPA and FDA). Second off, you can play "Six Degree of Kevin Bacon" with any big company and politicians. And I don't know about you but I'd rather have industry experts leading these groups rather than career politicians who have never worked in the private sector in their life. It's not a convincing list at all.
History shows these government officials with corporate ties do favors for the corporations who give them money.
Whether its a CEO politician giving his corporation money, corporate workers in government regulatory positions doing favors, or someone giving a politician money and getting favors (these corporate connections are NOT meaningless.)
A quality source is one that is not biased, doesn't only present one side of the story, and tries to be impartial. For example, there is this article in The New Yorker about Vandana Shiva, an activist who campaigns against GMOs and pretty much all modern agriculture: Vandana Shiva It's a long article, but it does a great job of giving both sides their chance to make a case.
Quote:
I was not concerned about the author's background, but rather a few facts and government positions he wrote about.
The background of an author is always important regardless of what it is you're reading. If I'm reading fiction it is important to know the time and place the author lived in. Likewise if I'm reading someone who claims to be an expert on a topic, it's important to know what makes them an expert.
Quote:
History shows these government officials with corporate ties do favors for the corporations who give them money.
Yes, there have been bad abuses of power in the past and unfortunately there will probably be more, I won't disagree with you there. And because of that it's important to be skeptical and wary. But it's very easy to cross the line into paranoia, which is where some of these ideas are heading. We need to be vigilant about abuses of power and try to prevent them through oversight and regulation, but we can't be paralyzed by fear either.
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.
