Slashdot Mirror

As someone with a plant breeding background, as much as I hate to admit, this is true. There have been some high profile cases of corruption. And yes, I know GM Watch are a bunch of unscientific ratbags who usually can't be trusted, but they're not wrong about that, and that is solely the fault of those who continue to give them ammo by proving them right. When corruption happens, it makes everyone look bad, and makes the public quite reasonable in their hesitance to trust us. And I'm sure that sitting here and calling those people stupid (as some are wont to do) isn't going to help matters.

"GMOs are poison" is equivalent to ...
Scientists disagree ...

https://www.gmwatch.org/en/new...

How do you come to the idea that maize that deliberately was changed to produce pesticides in its skin is not poisonous

I personally wish golden rice worked and was viable. It's not.

I have no idea what you're talking about - it works just fine

Enlightenment awaits you.

So lowering costs (diesel, labor) and increasing yields (less pest damage, less competition from weeds) that lead to lower prices and less environmental damage isn't worthwhile? I'm sorry version 1.0 isn't exactly what you wanted, but how is that an argument against it?

I'm not sure those tradeoffs have actually led to less environmental damage.

So what you're in favor of is something far beyond our current ability, as well as absurd? (How would you prevent them from speciating? Why not just take the easier route and engineer them into extinction (doable with existing tech) and breed a new pollinator from an existing one?)

Speciation takes time. Several of the diseases would likely be long extinct prior to that happening again. But why not shoot for the stars? After all, you're fine with thinking you can better nature. It's only a question of specifics here. Inject a gene here, roll back a mutation there. As for causing those specific mosquitos to go extinct, well, haven't we been trying that in various forms for the past 100 years?

The GP's post wasn't against the "GMO is bad" crowd, it was against someone making a false assertion. The fact that every single one of those companies is a huge biotech/industrial powerhouse pretty much guarantees that Monsanto isn't the only "meaningful player".

Dupont Pioneer basically owns Iowa and large parts of northern Illinois. That's corn-growing country, and pretty much nothing else. Monsanto and Cargill merely fight over scraps in that arena.

Monsanto gets a lot of (usually bad) press about their GMO corn, but their major focus has been soybeans for decades now. The question they answered was "how do you kill broadleaf weeds and leave the soybeans, which are also broadleaf, untouched?" Their answer was "genetically modify the soybeans so that Roundup(tm) doesn't kill them." GMO corn was a side-project that turned a comparatively small profit. Dekalb focused way more on corn, and Monsanto didn't, so Monsanto bought Dekalb out to get their GMO corn research and patents.

Cargill is mostly reduced to second-player in both corn and soybean production in the US. That's why they became a Syngenta reseller (they did not buy-out Syngenta as the GP asserts). Mostly, Cargill runs grain elevators and makes their money playing commodities markets. In that market, they're not even second-place, either. Both Archer Daniels Midland and Bunge are bigger. Of the ones the GP listed, Cargill is probably the worst example of competition for Monsanto.

Dow, BASF, and Bayer are all known more as industrial chemical powerhouses. It's usually something of a shock to find out how deep into GMO research they are, and how much of a hand they play in crop research. Especially Bayer, since they're usually grouped in with "big pharma" rather than "big ag". Here's a breakdown of 2007 stats. Newer stats tend to show DuPont on top. Regional stats tend to show local firms on top, such as Syngenta and Bayer in Europe, rather than Monsanto or DuPont. In emerging markets, Dow and Syngenta tend to have the top spots, with Dow leading by a fair-sized margin, especially in India.

From: http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-...

---- Did you read that entire article? I'm trying to figure out if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me. Ingham has been discredited, Lawton is acknowledged to have been a victim of a hoax, and the link serves only to disprove this assertion that GMO's are-a gonna kill us all.

From: http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-...
----
"The EPA had done a variety of tests on this organism, all of which indicated that it would not be toxic to humans or animals. They were only a few weeks away from releasing these bacteria into the wild, when Michael Holmes, a graduate student at the University of Oregon, came looking for an interesting thing to study for his doctoral thesis."

Under the direction of his academic advisor, Elaine Ingham, Holmes elected to do his thesis on the effects of this genetically engineered KP on plants, something which had not occurred to the EPA, as it was not required for the release of new genetically modified organisms, Lawton notes in his Acres USA expose.

Holmes study revealed, after testing samples of plants growing in sterile soil, soil with regular KP and soil with genetically engineered KP, that no plants in the latter soil were growing as the alcohol produced by the bacteria had killed them all.

At the time, Lawton notes, the EPA was envisioning that farmers would use these bacteria in a kind of fermenting process to convert plant material into a mixture of 17% alcohol and 83% mineral sludge, which could be poured off into the soil and reused.

"If that had occurred, the genetically engineered KP could have colonized the entire planet over the course of several years, turning all of the soil where it grew into barren dirt."

Ingham said that problem was and still is that the EPA only looks at the immediate impact of new genetically modified organisms on animals, and does not take into account the larger impact on the ecosystem as a whole. That approach can work to a limited extent when working with chemicals, which can break down and dissipate over time. But living organisms have the ability to procreate and overwhelm the natural ecosystem.

While I agree that the opposition to GMOs is mainly based in irrational fears and anti-scientific sentiment, and that Greenpeace should, in theory, be a science based organization, most conservative attacks on environmentalists are really off-base, as in completely barking wrong. Lomborg makes arguments that sound good at face value, but he's one of the anti-science wingnuts at core, and has made absurd and incoherent claims about DDT.

Even in this case Lomborg has gone astray, and there are a number of material problems with what he says. In particular, the golden rice available 15 years ago did not have enough beta-carotine to have an effect -- a problem since remedied. Sure the new golden rice would have saved lives, if we could put it in a time machine and transport it back to 2000 . But why stop there? You could just claim that billions died because golden rice wasn't invented in antiquity. It really is a case of being trivially wrong.

I'm pro-science 100% down the line, which is why I support responsible use of GMOs, which means that they should be tested before letting them run rampart in the environment. Lomborg is a crank.

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15189

A member of the Academy of Sciences plans to publish a demolition of Séralini's critics, while Corinne Lepage MEP warns that issues about GMO safety will not go away.

Séralini and GMOs: A truly disturbing study
Sophie Fabrégat
actu-environnement.com, 28 Nov 2013
GMWatch translation of French original at
http://bit.ly/1987Rxq

The journal Food and Chemical Toxicology could retract the article Gilles Eric Séralini on NK603 maize and the Roundup, published in September 2012. This reopens the debate on the assessment of long-term risks of GMO plants.

During an emergency press conference in the European Parliament this Thursday, November 27 [GMW: should be 28], Gilles Eric Séralini, the author of the controversial study on the long-term risks of maize NK 603 and its associated herbicide, denounced the withdrawal by the journal of his article revealing the results of this study. Originally released in September 2012, this article was pointing to the toxicity to rats of transgenic maize NK603 and its associated herbicide, Roundup, both produced by Monsanto.

On Tuesday, November 26, the scientist received a letter signed by the chief editor of the magazine, asking him to withdraw his article. The reason? "No fraud or manipulation of data" were detected by the reviewers, but "the results presented are inconclusive and therefore do not reach the threshold of the publication".

Yet, says Professor Séralini, many exchanges took place before publication of his article, over several months. The editor recognizes that "the problem of the low number of animals had been identified during the initial peer-review process" but the article "still had merit despite its limitations". It was published, sparking intense controversy and heated debate between advocates and detractors. The scientific quality was the focus of discussions.

The journal gave in to pressure?

Why this reversal today? Due to pressure from industry, denounced in turn Joël Spiroux, President of Criigen (Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering); Corinne Lepage MEP; Paul Deheuvels, statistician member of the Academy of Sciences; and François Veillerette, President of Future Generations, who all came in support of the researcher. For Gilles-Eric Séralini, the demand addressed to him was related to "the arrival on FCT's editorial board of Richard Goodman, a biologist who worked for several years at Monsanto," between 1997 and 2004.

The scientist scans the arguments of the publisher. The strain and the number of rats used in the two-year study are insufficient? Yet these are the same rats used by Monsanto to prove the safety of its products, Séralini replies. He goes even further, stating that an article presenting the results of a study demonstrating the safety of Monsanto NK603 were published in 2004 by the magazine, while the data of the study are "fraudulent", since the reference groups [ie control groups] are fed with seeds contaminated by GMOs and pesticides," he says.

The statistician Paul Deheuvels says that he is surprised "that on the one hand this study is rejected, while the criticisms that are made could be made to the original study of Monsanto since Séralini copied the structure of this experiment". This member of the Academy of Sciences [Deheuvels] announced the publication, by the end of the year, of an article demolishing point by point the criticisms leveled at the team of Professor Séralini. For him, this study is "truly innovative. The data are very significant. This is a pilot study which must be confirmed or refuted. But given the significance of the data, I doubt it will be overturned."

For an assessment of long-term risks of GMOs

Finally, François Veillerette recalled that there are no studies on the chronic effe

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15083-senate-to-end-monsanto-protection-act

http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/mediacentre/media-releases/food/Greenpeace-calls-on-CSIRO-to-come-clean-on-commercial-relationships/

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/13325-csiro-in-bed-with-multinationals

Elbert Dallas Thomason

http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Monsanto-Beats-LA-Farmer.htm

Why would a mysterious agriculture department sprout up months after Monsanto threatens a local farmer and illegally takes samples of his crops?

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-4048288.html

Or going after the infrastructure that non-Monsanto farmers require to make a living:

http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-videos/6-must-see-videos/12161-monsanto-vs-seed-cleaner-moe-parr

Are you defending Monsanto, or just pointing out that the 400+ patent violation cases instigated by Monsanto that are in the judicial system (as of 1999) and are NOT public record don't count as "monsanto up and suing people"? We can't tell if they are cross-pollenation cases becasue they aren't public record due to uncertain influence of Monsanto at the local level:

http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/cfsmonsantovsfarmerreport1.13.05.pdf

I agree that contract violation is illegal (saving seed and all that). Have you stopped to consider why they sign these contracts that don't allow them to save seed, and force them to buy more each year at increasing prices? Jeez, I'd have to have a gun pointed to my head to sign something so ludicrous. /sarcasm

I also agree that it should be illegal to extort people into having no choice but to buy from Monsanto or go broke. Because I'm sure you can google, and I'm sure you can find limitless cases where Monsanto bullies and threatens farmers.

Without evolution, current biology doesn't make sense. I mean it should NOT work at all. Be that in the lab making cures for diseases, or in the wild. Just look at antibiotic resistance. Man made antibiotics and it only takes a few years and bacteria are selected for resistance or total immunity. Heck, even GM pesticides are evolved around.

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/13394-monsantos-bt-corn-reported-failing-in-several-states

Evolution is all around us and denying it may as well be denying global warming or gravity or quantum theory.

I work in seed enhancement, fortunately, I don't order clothianidin (Poncho) from Bayer Crop Science. However I do order Thiram, Captan and Allegiance (aka Apron FL) from Bayer. Most of these chemicals are used to control pythium, however I've always wondered if these were responsible for the bee hive die offs.

Maybe this will satisfy your curiosity.

FYI, the Monarch butterfly report showing harm was discredited due to the concentrations of pollen placed on the milkweed. It was way more than would normally by found in the wild.

And thank your for for the support.

That said, here are some links you might find informative;

Monsanto
more Monsanto
Yet more Monsanto (busy aren't they)
intersting site
Canola
GM canola in the wild
Possible wipe out of terrestrial plant life
another one

Have fun reading.

_

How many Ferraris do you expect to aquire from being a programmer, and in how long ? How many multi-million dollar mansions do you expect to own from the proceeds of programming ?

Do you think you or anybody else is really worth that much more than anybody else, that they receive these things by governmental fief ? Do you really think that it is just and right, that for just a few years work, you can afford to retire and never have to worry about income ever again ?

How much is enough for you ?

and don't give me crap about "the market". It's just greed, pure and simple.
Always been the American way though, at the expense of your fellow countrymen and the truth, and other less fortunate lives. Ironic really from such a quasi-religeous society, that your main idol of worship is Mammon.

Does a farmer get paid every time his grain is used in a product - oh, that's right, he has to grow some more.
Does a house builder get paid every time someone walks into a house - oh, he has to build more.
Do car manufacturers get paid every time you start your engine - no, they have to make more.
Do doctors get paid every time you take a breath - That's right, they have to actually earn their income.

Apparently only persons in the media deserve a free and unfettered income for life from a few dubious contributions to society.
Real art is priceless, the rest is worthless.

Now don't make the mistake of presuming that I believe people shouldn't be allowed to try and get rich by their own efforts. I just object to government mandated gravy trains. Otherwise a car maker could copyright the wheel, doctors could copyright surgery, a house builder could copyright the brick, and a farmer could copyright grain. Starting to blur the line with patents here, but have you heard of Monsanto ?

There are valid reasons people look at it that way.

Have a look at a climate summit and see the so-called grassroot organisations with the there-ain't-any-human-influence glossy folders, then do some research and find out that they are frontgroups of the oil industry.

I'm more in the genetic world than in the climate scene, and in this world it is SO common that pro-GM sounds turn out to be astroturf. Recent example:

+ INDUSTRY FUNDED LOBBY GROUP IN CURITIBA
Among the pro-biotech lobby groups active in Curitiba, Brazil, at the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety meeting and the Convention on Biological Diversity, was the Public Research and Regulation Initiative (PRRI) - a pro-GM lobby which fielded over 40 representatives, mostly picked from the developing world and trained and scripted by PRRI, to promote identical goals to those of industry. Although PRRI poses as the voice of public sector researchers, its leading lights have close links to the biotech industry which is also among PRRI's financial backers, as is the US Grains Council, which represents the interests of US producers and exporters of GM crops.
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6336
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6356

Or what about the staging of African 'independent' scientists in favour of GMO?

There are even trainings in astroturf:
In Australia they actually train people to set up fake grassroot organisations.
http://www.overlandexpress.org/183_wilson.html

The organisation this whole topic started with, who seems to be behind the (really bad) video, organises fake grassroot stuff: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=DCI_Gro up

There are valid reasons people look at it that way.

Have a look at a climate summit and see the so-called grassroot organisations with the there-ain't-any-human-influence glossy folders, then do some research and find out that they are frontgroups of the oil industry.

I'm more in the genetic world than in the climate scene, and in this world it is SO common that pro-GM sounds turn out to be astroturf. Recent example:

+ INDUSTRY FUNDED LOBBY GROUP IN CURITIBA
Among the pro-biotech lobby groups active in Curitiba, Brazil, at the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety meeting and the Convention on Biological Diversity, was the Public Research and Regulation Initiative (PRRI) - a pro-GM lobby which fielded over 40 representatives, mostly picked from the developing world and trained and scripted by PRRI, to promote identical goals to those of industry. Although PRRI poses as the voice of public sector researchers, its leading lights have close links to the biotech industry which is also among PRRI's financial backers, as is the US Grains Council, which represents the interests of US producers and exporters of GM crops.
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6336
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6356

Or what about the staging of African 'independent' scientists in favour of GMO?

There are even trainings in astroturf:
In Australia they actually train people to set up fake grassroot organisations.
http://www.overlandexpress.org/183_wilson.html

The organisation this whole topic started with, who seems to be behind the (really bad) video, organises fake grassroot stuff: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=DCI_Gro up

- I AM naive :). But I do see a more professional & organised construction of deception on the conservative side.

- Indian cotton farmers: I'm glad you read it! As you can see this article is a copy of an original by 'Ohmy News'. GM Watch is usually well informed, and chose the critical side. The hurray stories are on the other site. The only case i found they did not write the story right was in the first explanation of the problem with biofuels. That improved later.

Find the most recent news overview http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6849 for a wider view.

If they're truly fake, it shouldn't be hard to disprove what they're saying, and you shouldn't have to resort to logical fallacies to discredit them. Ad hominem attacks have no place in science.

What they're saying has been disproved. There is no scientific debate on these points:

• global climate change is occuring,
• some part of this change is due to human activity
• the change is a potential threat to the well-being of humans

What's happening here isn't science. The "Scientific Alliance" was founded by Robert Durward, a quarry owner who is known for his extremist views (he describes himself as "a businessman who is totally fed up with all this environmental stuff" and thinks Tony Blair ought to "declare martial law and let the army sort out our schools, hospitals, and roads as well"), and by political shill Mark Adams.

This PR and corporate shillery, no different than research sponsored by tobacco companies that claimed no link between cigarettes and cancer. It is entirely approriate to label it as such.

(Yes, one can fine a few credentialed scientists who honestly disagree. One can also find a few cosmologists who still hold to the Steady State theory, even the odd biologist who holds with creationism. That doesn't mean there's any lack of a scientific consensus on these issues.)

The BBC article seems to take this Scientific Alliance (even the name drips of corporate PR'ism) at face value, either that or the British sense of sarcasm so dry as to be beyond subtle.

So, I looked them up myself and found the following links pretty quickly:

SourceWatch and GMwatch which seem to coroborate the claims of duplicitousness in the original submission.

Profile on the man can be found here. And you might want to also read some of the more obvious lies he's told in the past.

I also find that there are two sides to the most important debates of our times. Often, one side is taken by citizens actining in the public interest, while the other side is taken by those acting in the interests of profit and personal gain.

Rick Roush is a hired gun for corporate interests.
While Shmeiser is a farmer, one time mayor of his community.

Milloy (the "Junkman") is is PR stooge who speaks for industry. His tactic is to mix up reasonable critiques of genuine "junk science" with diatribes on favourite industry issues such as global warming and regulation in general.

This is not to say he is necessarily wrong, but that you should treat everything he says with extreme caution.

In the case of DDT, Malloy and friends claim that it has been "demagogued out of use", but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that bans have followed on from real concerns carefully considered.

There would appear to be significant commercial interests in removing bans on DDT. The list of sponsors on a prominent pro-DDT site should cause you to approach the evidence there with some scepticism.