The Anti GMO movement, is it the new Kony 2012?

[Thor]

Well the movement is having its most profound affect on Africa, where African's already high level of distrust of the west has been made in some parts much worse by lies being spread about GMO's.

The one place which needs that help the most, is the one which is stuck with the type of touchy feely moncton golden flames "natural and organic" local farming, which is why so much of Africa is starving, poorly educated and unable to pull themselves out of a very deep hole.

Reading this thread its hard to decipher which "studies" and "scientific evidence" are heavily influenced by the powerful Monsanto lobby. I also just find it hard to trust the same corporation who manufactured Agent Orange to have a monopoly on the food we eat every single day.

Scientific evidence is influenced by lobbying??? Peer reviewed science cannot be bought, it cannot be made to say one thing, because if a company releases a study into the peer review scientific journals, it has to meet very tough criteria and IF is bad science others will be quick to show the failings of such a study.

As for the monopoly on food, that is nonsense and has no basis in reality so I'll let someone else tackle that if anyone wants to.

But the thing you have to most take in to consideration is what keeps happening in these types of discussions, you are all blending multiple issues and feelings into the discussion.

GMO has a massive amount of research and study behind it. That is all I am defending here, not whether we should have massive farms, little crop variety, cheap food being shipped all over the world, massive subsidies for only certain crops, etc...

When you want to call out GMO food, please do so with an argument that has to do with GMO food.

[jammies]

Personally I find inorganic food to be much cheaper and equally filling. I mean, you can find rocks just about anywhere, and small bits of metal and glass are also widely available at intersections, in shopping mall parking lots, and other public locations.

You "organic" food lovers are all sheep. Baa! Baaa!

[Thor]

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by Thor

Scientific evidence is influenced by lobbying??? Peer reviewed science cannot be bought, it cannot be made to say one thing, because if a company releases a study into the peer review scientific journals, it has to meet very tough criteria and IF is bad science others will be quick to show the failings of such a study.

I don't think I'd go quite that far (and I'm in the pro-GMO camp). Rather I'd say the truth eventually comes out. There are plenty of peer-reviewed studies affected by biases, and certain journals known to be "industry friendly" (or pseudo-science friendly for that matter). It generally isn't anything so crude as false data though - more often what I see is that the influence is on what questions are asked and what effects a study looks for. A lot of times it's things like sticking to standardized methodologies even when there are indications that the critical effects might not be detected by these methods. This isn't just on the industry side either - for example the study you mentioned earlier in this thread with the anti-GMO bias. However, for anything important if an obviously biased study comes out, others will challenge it, criticize the methods, and do more studies, and eventually the evidence will speak for itself.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

Rather I'd say the truth eventually comes out.

I don't doubt at all that games are played by companies to try and aid themselves, maybe not outright making things up, but delaying results, publishing negative results in less well known journals, etc. The book Bad Science has a good section on the kinds of things that companies do to try and make things look better for a time, and also has some good info on how meta-studies and stuff can find those things statistically, and ideas on simple things that would make it harder for companies to do these things.

Always room for improvement.

[Thor]

Ooooh this is so good, why the internet is killing rational discourse:

http://andyvance.com/index.php/why-t...nal-discourse/

It’s on the Internet, so it has to be true. Right?

I’m convinced that the World Wide Web is both the greatest technological development of my lifetime, and simultaneously the invention that is likely to tank our entire society as we know it. Ever-present in our lives, our culture is the most “wired” on the planet and the most connected in the history of man, and yet in many ways it is eroding the basic ability – for many folks, it seems – to research, analyze, process and argue important ideas in a rational fashion.

My Feedstuffs colleague Tim Lundeen first got me thinking about this way back in February, when he penned an excellent article about some of the big barriers to science communication. A presentation at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Boston, Mass., pointed out several such barriers, including a lack of reward for engaging the public and decision-makers on science, limited communications training and the time pressure faculty members face while trying to obtain tenure.

Arizona State University professor Leah Gerber said other barriers for researchers include prioritizing their commitments, understanding the value of communicating their work to the public and needing to push their comfort zone, such as standing in front of a camera.

While the culture is slowly changing within academic institutions, success in higher education still is largely measured by publications and grants, which demand large amounts of time, Gerber said.

Gone are the days when the average consumer was not afraid to read scholarly writing and form and opinion about its merits – academics and technical folks are increasingly being called upon to become great communicators themselves, in hopes of spreading their ideas in layman’s terms.

But there is a bigger problem, it seems. The trolls are winning:

Pick a story about some aspect of science, any story, scroll down to the blog comments and let the bashing begin:

“Wonder how much taxpayer cash went into this ‘deep’ study?”
“I think you can take all these studies by pointy headed scientists, 99 percent of whom are socialists and communists, and stick them where the sun don’t shine.”
“Yawn. Climate change myth wackos at it again.”
“This article is 100 percent propaganda crapola.”
“Speaking of dolts, if you were around in the 70s, when they also had scientists, the big talk then was about the coming ice age. And don’t give me any of that carbon emission bull@!$%#.”
Such nasty back-and-forth, like it or not, is now a staple of our news diet, and in the realm of online science news, the diatribes, screeds and rants are taking a toll on the public perception of science and technology, according to a study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

[Canuck-Hater]

http://earthopensource.org/index.php...ths-and-truths

I recommend reading this, although its only a report it raises some of the important issues surrounding GMOs. There are no claims that it causes cancer or anything extreme like that, but it covers a massive amount of information.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

http://earthopensource.org/index.php...ths-and-truths

I recommend reading this, although its only a report it raises some of the important issues surrounding GMOs. There are no claims that it causes cancer or anything extreme like that, but it covers a massive amount of information.

You know that every artice you read titled myths and truths about anything is going to be filled with logical fallicies. The whole myths and truths concept is built around ad hominim attacks and strawmen. Without opening I can guess that they are going to argue that because Monsanto created agent orange they cant be trusted to make anything good. Next up will be strawmen arguments where they argue against claims that no gmo scientest or company would make.

Now to read the article and be dummer for it. What I do find quite funny about this issue is that the activist climate change lobby and the anti gmo lobby contain a lot of the same people yet the tactics that the anti gmo lobby use are the exact same as the climate change denires.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

http://earthopensource.org/index.php...ths-and-truths

I recommend reading this, although its only a report it raises some of the important issues surrounding GMOs. There are no claims that it causes cancer or anything extreme like that, but it covers a massive amount of information.

After quickly reviewing it there are massive problems with this paper.

It's authors state their bias at the beginning. It's their intention to challenge GMO use as they believe they're bad. This is not an impartial view.

First off, their "issues" with GMOs are vague. They're bad because they're not natural? Ok. They may be less nutritious? They may also be more nutritious. They may be more allergenic? They may also be less allergenic.

When they get to the "science" part, they quote an often quoted study which showed that rats fed a GMO tomato developed ulcers. There was no control group and they were fed the human equivalent of 10 large tomatoes daily. Guess what? That would happen if you fed them that many non-GMO tomatoes.

I didn't get much further than that tbqh

Their first few references are very, very bad.

1

[Flame Of Liberty]

I don't care for GMOs one way or the other, but I think the sad thing is that "organic" or "home" grown or naturally grown (or whatever you want to call it) food is becoming the only edible food you can buy (albeit at a huge premium). I mean if you ever tasted a home grown tomato, then the shiny tasteless red tennis balls they sell at supermarkets as tomatoes make you vomit.

And its not just veggies/fruit, its dairy, meat etc as well. The mass produced crap is the reason I try to buy as much "organic" as I can, not because I care about "organic" but because i care about the taste. If you have any taste buds left, the difference is day and night.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

I don't care for GMOs one way or the other, but I think the sad thing is that "organic" or "home" grown or naturally grown (or whatever you want to call it) food is becoming the only edible food you can buy (albeit at a huge premium). I mean if you ever tasted a home grown tomato, then the shiny tasteless red tennis balls they sell at supermarkets as tomatoes make you vomit.

And its not just veggies/fruit, its dairy, meat etc as well. The mass produced crap is the reason I try to buy as much "organic" as I can, not because I care about "organic" but because i care about the taste. If you have any taste buds left, the difference is day and night.

I bet if we held a taste test where you nor the tester had any idea which was organic and which was non-organic, you'd have no clue which is which by tasting them.

Also, I call bullsh*t on your MGF-esque claim that "organic or home grown or naturally grown food is becoming the only edible food you can buy". What the hell are you talking about?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

I don't care for GMOs one way or the other, but I think the sad thing is that "organic" or "home" grown or naturally grown (or whatever you want to call it) food is becoming the only edible food you can buy (albeit at a huge premium). I mean if you ever tasted a home grown tomato, then the shiny tasteless red tennis balls they sell at supermarkets as tomatoes make you vomit.

And its not just veggies/fruit, its dairy, meat etc as well. The mass produced crap is the reason I try to buy as much "organic" as I can, not because I care about "organic" but because i care about the taste. If you have any taste buds left, the difference is day and night.

I call bull on your ability to tell the difference between mass produced organic produce and mass produced non organic produce.

They both are just shiney red tennis balls if hey come from a grocery store.

[Minnie]

Yeah I don't know about the store bought stuff/organic argument, but there certainly is a different smell and taste to the garden fresh veg compared to the store bought stuff. It's one of the things I enjoy most about visiting my in-laws in late summer, when all Mom's veggies are ready for picking and enjoying.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by GGG

I call bull on your ability to tell the difference between mass produced organic produce and mass produced non organic produce.

They both are just shiney red tennis balls if hey come from a grocery store.

like I care if you call bull.

if you cant tell a difference between store bought tomato and tomato grown in your backyard (maybe not Canada but in a country with a bit of sunshine) then I feel sorry for you because you are unable to actually enjoy food. if you ever go to Italy for example, buy a fresh tomato on a local market from a local grower and you will be blown away HOW actually tomatoes taste like

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by Minnie

Yeah I don't know about the store bought stuff/organic argument, but there certainly is a different smell and taste to the garden fresh veg compared to the store bought stuff. It's one of the things I enjoy most about visiting my in-laws in late summer, when all Mom's veggies are ready for picking and enjoying.

There is no doubt that a fruit or vegetable that is allowed to fully ripen has more flavor. I would wager they would have more substance too.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Minnie

Yeah I don't know about the store bought stuff/organic argument, but there certainly is a different smell and taste to the garden fresh veg compared to the store bought stuff. It's one of the things I enjoy most about visiting my in-laws in late summer, when all Mom's veggies are ready for picking and enjoying.

There absolutely is a huge difference between home grown taste and store bought taste.....simply no comparison. That, as well as the fact that my garden is indeed organic as well, are the reasons I still maintain a large vegetable garden.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Minnie

Yeah I don't know about the store bought stuff/organic argument, but there certainly is a different smell and taste to the garden fresh veg compared to the store bought stuff. It's one of the things I enjoy most about visiting my in-laws in late summer, when all Mom's veggies are ready for picking and enjoying.

Yeah, its not even an argument.

I am not saying all organic is like this, I am saying IF it is grown like this, it blows away any mass produced crap that "ripens" on a truck.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

like I care if you call bull.

if you cant tell a difference between store bought tomato and tomato grown in your backyard (maybe not Canada but in a country with a bit of sunshine) then I feel sorry for you because you are unable to actually enjoy food. if you ever go to Italy for example, buy a fresh tomato on a local market from a local grower and you will be blown away HOW actually tomatoes taste like

Go back and read my post. You said you buy organic food for flavour. If you buy organic food from a grocery store you cant tell the difference between it and the non organic stuff it sits beside.

I do agree that home grown food tastes better but as I said it is a matter of freshness not organicness or where it is grown.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I bet if we held a taste test where you nor the tester had any idea which was organic and which was non-organic, you'd have no clue which is which by tasting them.

Also, I call bullsh*t on your MGF-esque claim that "organic or home grown or naturally grown food is becoming the only edible food you can buy". What the hell are you talking about?

Pretty sad if you don't think people can tell the difference between home grown vegetables and store bought, mass produced, chemically enhanced and more or less disgusting pieces of plastic they call vegetables these days.

[Thor]

I want a Banana modified to taste of melon and strawberries.. Make it happen science!