Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-04-2007, 01:41 PM   #141
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg View Post
What I think I'm reading above is that you really want "unenlightening knowledge."
greg, I thought samclem was pretty clear here:

Quote:
I think it would be incorrect to mandate this labeling until these GMOs are found to be intrinsically different and more dangerous than other products.
So you are back to the political weirdness (not quoting it here). Disappointing.

Are you going to respond to the requests, and tell us how you think new products and processes should be introduced into society? I am waiting to hear how you are going to balance progress, risk, and opportunity loss.

It is one-sided of you to criticize the approach of another poster, when you have been (so far) unwilling to say how your ultra-safe plan would work. You present one side of your theories, possible protection from evil. But, under that system, how do we introduce beneficial technology? How do you measure the lives lost while beneficial technology is postponed or banned over safety fears that may be unfounded?

It's not a rhetorical question.

-ERD50
__________________

__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 10-04-2007, 02:10 PM   #142
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,288
Hmmm, bananas as nature intended:

Fruits of wild-type bananas have numerous large, hard seeds.


I bet they taste real good too.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Inside_a_wild-type_banana.jpg
-ERD50
__________________

__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Old 10-04-2007, 02:13 PM   #143
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Greg,
Tony Snow, Hitler--can we mention Communism so that we have a trifecta in this discussion of food?

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg View Post
O
Now, above, you've decided that you only want other folks to have partial information (see your comments above) based on what you think is 'enough for them (and yourself)' information--not truly full or better knowledge. What I think I'm reading above is that you really want "unenlightening knowledge." . . . So do you really want 'stupid knowledge'? Are you saying above you mean the opposite of what you said previously?
I really don't understand your point. Here's what I meant to convey regarding labeling:
-- The government should require that products be labeled accurately. (e.g. if it says sliced peaches" then the can should not contain sliced apples). In cases where a product contains a protein that is not normally found in products of that type, the label should say so (Perhaps "The peaches in this can contain pearnine, a protein naturally found in pears and cucumbers") This labelling would be useful to those with food allergies. How the protein got into that can has absolutely nothing to do with nutrition: If the peaches had been cross-bred with pears or if the genome of the peaches had been modified makes absolutely no difference. Now, if the manufacturer wants to crow about how he did it (eg "this product does not include peaches modified by deliberate gene insertion"), that's fine, but I want the label to tell the consumer the facts about the product. Forcing a label that says "this product contains GMO" tells the consumer nothing of use compared to what I've proposed above.

my defintion of "self-interest": ?? is there a point of sophistry I'm missing here?

On an unrelated note, others have commented that "we hold these truths to be self-evident" was likely Jefferson's polite way of saying "anybody should be able to see this."
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline  
Old 10-04-2007, 03:56 PM   #144
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,487
who'd a thunk we'd ever get to 15 pages (with more to come?) on the subject of milk? b3v3r ch33s3, perhaps, but milk?!
__________________
d is offline  
Old 10-04-2007, 08:50 PM   #145
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
Greg,
Tony Snow, Hitler--can we mention Communism so that we have a trifecta in this discussion of food?


I really don't understand your point. Here's what I meant to convey regarding labeling:
-- The government should require that products be labeled accurately. (e.g. if it says sliced peaches" then the can should not contain sliced apples). In cases where a product contains a protein that is not normally found in products of that type, the label should say so (Perhaps "The peaches in this can contain pearnine, a protein naturally found in pears and cucumbers") This labelling would be useful to those with food allergies. How the protein got into that can has absolutely nothing to do with nutrition: If the peaches had been cross-bred with pears or if the genome of the peaches had been modified makes absolutely no difference. Now, if the manufacturer wants to crow about how he did it (eg "this product does not include peaches modified by deliberate gene insertion"), that's fine, but I want the label to tell the consumer the facts about the product. Forcing a label that says "this product contains GMO" tells the consumer nothing of use compared to what I've proposed above.

my defintion of "self-interest": ?? is there a point of sophistry I'm missing here?

On an unrelated note, others have commented that "we hold these truths to be self-evident" was likely Jefferson's polite way of saying "anybody should be able to see this."
I thought the trifecta of modern evil was completed with the mention of Bush not communism.

Just a short response about accurate food labeling tonite:

There are lots of ways we do label things and the way, perhaps, we should label things. First, we could catagorize all food accurately as either animal, vegetable, or mineral. Labeling something such as meat as animal product would be accurate for example. And for a starving person that label would probably be sufficient. But we all in this country want a greater degree of accuracy and we all (at least many of us) want labeling and knowledge on the product that helps us decide whether or not to buy it for consumption today. A reasonable middle ground would be a good choice, one that gives most folks enough info but also not so much that one tunes the labeling out (much as we tune out uninteresting debaters if their points aren't lively enough). For example, it would be absurd to cover an entire can of SPAM with info such as what the pig ate, what parts are used, whether that pig had a nice nap and good meal right before the lights went out, whether he was fed GMO corn, bla, bla. In order to do such a thing, Hormel would have to squish the can to about 1/4 inch flat and about 16x18 inches wide and tall. Plus, as I said, this would probably tune out most if not all SPAM eaters. And how would you get it out of the can anyway?

So your alternative possibility for proper labeling doesn't cover much information needed or wanted by folks shopping for food on more than price alone, which increasingly everyday is more folks. For a growing number of folks, protein is not just a protein anymore, and Grade A Choice steak means something more than just protein too. And many folks now want to know much more about their food. They want to know what went into the milk cow's blood (growth hormones?), they want to know what dropped in the milk bucket (feces?), they may want to know what went into the cow's stomach (GMO products?), etc.

What is needed is not some cheap and worthless information gathering and labeling system used by just about no one (and once again tautologically proving to conservatives that anything done by the government is basically worthless) . . . but a system that identifies what information folks really want, e.g. identifying the various subgroups to more accurately find out what they want specifically, and reflecting those folksy desires in a system that can provide that information in a reasonably cost effective manner that also could, in the best instance, could be charged to the group actually using specific chunks of that info (so that nonusers can still feel and know that they are not paying for something they are not using themselves--thereby keeping all the folks who aren't worried about subtler health issues, um, kinda happy less irritated--at least about the money part).

It also needs to have adaptability built into it too. The world changes, humans change, so food labeling formulas need to change to accurately reflect those changing desires and needs. What worked well twenty-five or fifty years ago doesn't necessarily work well today. Only Grade A beef labels doesn't cut it anymore.

Powerpoint presentation tomorrow.
__________________
Compounding: Never forget! Never not remember!
greg is offline  
Old 10-04-2007, 08:57 PM   #146
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
REWahoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 42,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg View Post
Powerpoint presentation tomorrow.
...
__________________
Numbers is hard

When I hit 70, it hit back

Retired in 2005 at age 58, no pension
REWahoo is offline  
Old 10-04-2007, 09:21 PM   #147
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg View Post
Powerpoint presentation tomorrow.
greg,
If you are taking suggestions for part two, here are my requests:
1) Include your idea for how we should introduce new food items/vaccines/etc so that your concerns about newfangled things get addressed while we also gain the benefits of the new idea. ERD50 raised this earlier.
2) Labels: Thanks for the overview of label doctrine. In a previous example, I said that if a GM product (or a food product produced by other means) contained a protein not found in the "natural" version of this product, that the protein should be named and natural sources of the protein should be identified. I think that is enough. Please provide an example of specifically what you believe should be on the label.

Hey, if you want to be grossed out by a label, read what is in "potted meat product." I wonder, based on the other stuff in it, specifically what part of the "chicken" it is referring to (it must be something that no one would buy in another form). It makes Spam look like prime rib.

__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline  
Old 10-04-2007, 09:44 PM   #148
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bright eyed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,891
i wasn't in any foolish way trying to convince erd or samclem

just wanted it known there are concerns about gm crops that should also be weighed in the discussion.

i don't think farmers or other people make all their decision with such a level head or a pocketbook. if the gm seeds are cheaper, or you bought them when it was the cool/modern gonna change your life thing to do, it is hard to get off them cuz the ferts and pest'ds will make your soil toast...

the other problem i didn't mention is when monsanto and others convince developing countries that this will change their lives too, and local, smaller farmers are forced to buy those seeds, costly equipment, ferts etc. etc. and that type of farming may not work well in their region of the world causing more eroding of soil, pollution etc.
__________________
If i think of something clever to say, i'll put it here...
bright eyed is offline  
Old 10-04-2007, 10:04 PM   #149
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by bright eyed View Post
just wanted it known there are concerns about gm crops that should also be weighed in the discussion.

it is hard to get off them (GM seeds) cuz the ferts and pest'ds will make your soil toast...

costly equipment, ferts etc. etc. and that type of farming may not work well in their region of the world causing more eroding of soil, pollution etc.
bright eyed, can you provide some references for those statements? Your earlier list applied to traditional hybrids as much or more than it did GM crops.

The GM crops that I have studied use less insecticides and less dangerous herbicides that trad hybrids (or even non-hybrids). What is unique about any GM crop that will 'make your soil toast'?

Monsanto, for example, is in an uphill PR battle on GM crops because of some these fears. Doesn't it make sense that they would try to design and market their products as being better for the environment? How are they going to sell them if they are worse in all the ways you say? I don't get it, but I'm open to reading some unbiased info on the subject.

And again, the subject must be specific to GM crops. You and greg seem to be afraid of GM, but not of the 'traditional' hybrids that organic farmers use. So give examples that apply to GM, but NOT to traditional hybrids. [/quote]

Quote:
i wasn't in any foolish way trying to convince erd or samclem
Was there something in our rebuttal you disagreed with?

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Old 10-04-2007, 10:09 PM   #150
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bright eyed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
bright eyed, can you provide some references for those statements? Your earlier list applied to traditional hybrids as much or more than it did GM crops.

The GM crops that I have studied use less insecticides and less dangerous herbicides that trad hybrids (or even non-hybrids). What is unique about any GM crop that will 'make your soil toast'?

Monsanto, for example, is in an uphill PR battle on GM crops because of some these fears. Doesn't it make sense that they would try to design and market their products as being better for the environment? How are they going to sell them if they are worse in all the ways you say? I don't get it, but I'm open to reading some unbiased info on the subject.

And again, the subject must be specific to GM crops. You and greg seem to be afraid of GM, but not of the 'traditional' hybrids that organic farmers use. So give examples that apply to GM, but NOT to traditional hybrids.
Was there something in our rebuttal you disagreed with?

-ERD50[/quote]

i don't have ref's now on those topics, but i studied this stuff pretty closely many years ago...i will try to dig some up!

in terms of your rebuttal - i just think we fundamentally disagree so there isn't much use trying to convince you i don't like slamming my head against walls, it hurts.
__________________
If i think of something clever to say, i'll put it here...
bright eyed is offline  
Old 10-04-2007, 10:16 PM   #151
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bright eyed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,891
This paper makes some interesting points - ...Conservation Ecology: The Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Crops: A Multidisciplinary Perspective "While biotechnology could be used to produce large social and ecological benefits, most GM crops developed to date have been designed to benefit agrobusiness while exposing people and ecosystems to substantial risks. Due to this pattern, there is widespread suspicion of agricultural biotechnology and its advocates."

BIOTECHNOLOGY AND AGRICULTURE

In his statement on crop biotechnology, Conway states "... Biotechnology is going to be an essential partner, if yield ceilings are to be raised, if crops are to be grown without excessive reliance on pesticides and herbicides, and if farmers on less favored lands are to be provided with crops that are resistant to drought and salinity, and that can make more efficient use of nitrogen and other nutrients." This argument is commonly used to advocate the development and use of GM crops, but it is not currently supported by either the consensus of scientists or any comprehensive comparison of agricultural alternatives.
Roughly 95% of the world's farmers live in developing countries. Most of these people engage in small-scale, community-based agriculture. Over long periods of time, these communities have constructed complex systems of knowledge about their environment (Castillo and Toledo 2000). More recently, the "green revolution" succeeded in making food more easily available to most of the world's population. Increases in agricultural production were brought about by a combination of increased irrigation, more intensive use of fertilizers and plant protection chemicals, and the development of new crop varieties capable of responding to higher levels of inputs and management. However, this agricultural intensification often came at the expense of local ecosystems and human health. These changes reduced the ability of the poor to support themselves from local ecosystems while benefiting well-off farmers. The centralized nature of crop biotechnology will further this process by reducing local specificity and adaptation of agricultural practices, which increases both social dependency on external inputs to agriculture and decreases the ability of local agroecosystems to adapt to local environmental contexts (Gadgil 2000). While future biotechnology may be codeveloped in local communities, as Conway proposes, it currently is not.
Furthermore, it is questionable whether technical innovation is what is needed to develop more productive agriculture. The area with the greatest current need for increased agricultural production is Africa, where the green revolution was largely a failure (Dyson 1999). It is unlikely that GM crops will eliminate the social problems that led to this failure. Conway acknowledges that a large body of social science research has demonstrated that famines are caused not by food shortages or a lack of agricultural technology, but by lack of access to food (Sen 1977, 1980). Food access is determined by institutional characteristics such as property rights, political stability, and social security systems. Even with stable or expanding food supplies, inequality in the area of food access can lead to starvation and malnutrition. Genetically modified crops promise to increase the productivity of poor farmers in the developing world, but so do other agricultural technologies (Ruttan 1999, Thomas 1999). Rather than investing in GM crops, one could invest in organic farming, integrated pest management, water management, or crop breeding. A fair assessment of the relative merits of different agricultural practices requires a systematic understanding of these alternatives. However, there has been little systematic research on the relative ecological and economic merits of alternative agricultural systems. Agricultural research has tended to narrow its focus to single goals, such as reducing erosion or increasing crop yields, rather than regarding the management of agroecosystems as a component of regional ecosystem management.
__________________
If i think of something clever to say, i'll put it here...
bright eyed is offline  
Old 10-04-2007, 10:17 PM   #152
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
greg,
I found the strawman "food label from hell." It's all here. Bitchen radar splattergrams of mineral content, groovy multicolored pyramids with several axes of data on macronutrients, a table of amino acids spelled out by name. As you previously guessed, though, food packages will need to get bigger to hold the label.

I picked a health food for the label example.
Nutrition Facts and Analysis for Sausage, Vienna, canned, chicken, beef, pork

Of course, if we "supersize" the packages to hold the new improved (bigger) label, people will be prone to eat more. Doh! Maybe we're moving in the wrong direction with this idea . . .
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline  
Old 10-04-2007, 10:24 PM   #153
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by bright eyed View Post
in terms of your rebuttal - i just think we fundamentally disagree so there isn't much use trying to convince you i don't like slamming my head against walls, it hurts.
now wait a minute, how can you just 'fundamentally disagree' with this?:

you say: 'some GM crops don't make their own seeds, you have to buy more each year'

we reply: 'some hybrids don't produce fertile seeds, you have to buy more each year'

I mean, it's either right or wrong, isn't it?

-ERD50



Quote:
Man: Look this isn't an argument.
Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.
Man: No it isn't, it's just contradiction.
Man: Well, an argument's not the same as contradiction.
Mr Vibrating: It can be.
Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition.
Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: Yes it is. It isn't just contradiction.
Mr Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Man: But it isn't just saying "No it isn't".
Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.
Man: No it isn't, an argument is an intellectual process... contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: Yes it is.
__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Old 10-04-2007, 10:28 PM   #154
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bright eyed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,891
i meant fundamentally - in a macro way.

glad we agree on something!
__________________
If i think of something clever to say, i'll put it here...
bright eyed is offline  
Old 10-04-2007, 10:38 PM   #155
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by bright eyed View Post
i meant fundamentally - in a macro way.

glad we agree on something!
so, there is no point in discussing any of the details of the document you provided? You disagree on a macro level, so discussions of details (in order to form a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition) is not going to open you up to any new ideas?

Is that what you are saying? :confused:


-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Old 10-05-2007, 03:42 AM   #156
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
ladelfina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,713
Quote:
you say: 'some GM crops don't make their own seeds, you have to buy more each year'

we reply: 'some hybrids don't produce fertile seeds, you have to buy more each year'

I mean, it's either right or wrong, isn't it?
You have to buy new seeds each year because the company will come down on you like a ton of bricks if you don't.

It's disingenuous to say this is not a new paradigm.. it is. It's radically new. When you buy GM seed; it's essentially as though you don't OWN it. You have a one-crop LICENSE to use it.

--
"Traditional" hybrids developed in competing markets and different zones of the world to deal with local needs over centuries. GM is different less (perhaps) for the nature of the food product it yields, than in the nature of the political and economic changes it enforces. When NO corn on the planet remains without traces of patented GM material.. well I think Dickens' Jarndyce and Jarndyce would blanche at the cascade of never-ending lawsuits that could ensue.

Aside from it being GM or non-GM, these practices highlight the trend towards monoculture, which is risky in itself. The sheer scale of crop production in the hands of a few companies with only a few strains has never been experienced before, nor has it ever come about this precipitously. That is a huge difference that can't be ignored.

Just as there's a difference in the sun's radiation and Chernobyl, there's a difference in how plant hybrids have historically been used and diffused, and Monsanto GM corn.

You are putting your faith in the people who gave us Olestra, and in the "helpful" companies giving nutritional "aid" in Africa in the form of powdered infant formula. They are amoral. They are just in it to make money, not to save the world from hunger. And they have a lot invested in this one product (GM seed) and its ancillaries (the pesticides you need to use with it). Think Microsoft. They need people to be so twisted up in it that they can't break free even if they want to. They MAY provide a benefit (Powerpoint ) as a by-product of cash generation.


------
Quote:
I will try to get back to your other comments which are discussable (I appreciate that!), but I need to comment on this most important comment!

I would NEVER pasteurize or micro-filter home-brew beer! It affects the taste, and there is no need.
ERD50-I appreciate your appreciation! OF COURSE there is no need, but that doesn't mean our wacky system allows it. I was reading that at a home-brew festival no one was allowed to offer non-pasteurized beer.

SO: natural home-brew BAD; cloning and GM corn GOOD.. seems to be the prevailing logic of the 'competent' authorities?

All I can say is that I am for working with nature and not against it. I don't see how cloning and monoculture monopolies are, in the long run and in the larger view, defensible or sustainable, despite what their immediate benefits may appear to be.

It's not nice to fool Mother Nature!
("If you think it's butter, but it's NOT.. It's CHIFFON!")

What's "self-evident" to me is highlighted in the citation provided by bright eyes.. that in the rush of private firms to provide narrowly-focused (and highly profitable) "solutions" to a problem, the larger system is ignored, leaving the GM "hammer" to drive the "nail" of African food shortages.

I'll repeat: just because there is one OK-in-some-ways solution, doesn't mean there isn't a better one. The optimal solution is self-sustaining and balanced, and I'm not convinced Monsanto offers that, or that a self-sustaining solution is in Monsanto's best interests.


---
As for labeling.. what's creepy and totalitarian is less how they DON't put certain things on the label.. but the fact that they CAN'T put certain things on the label. I can't remember the circumstances but I definitely recall a group wanting to label their food as "not irradiated" or "not treated with Pesticide X" or "GM-free" and it was ruled that they COULD NOT advertise this, since it would be "unfair" to the majority of producers who irradiated/used Pesticide X/GM. If this is the regime, consumers can't choose. (And so much for the free market and freedom of speech...)

And at this point it is almost moot, since essentially ALL corn, soy, canola etc. is GM "contaminated". There is virtually no product you can buy containing these that is GM-free. Maybe this will or won't matter nutrition-wise, but it is a genie that won't be put back into the bottle. There's a level of arrogance and presumption in this situation that I find unsettling.

I agree in part with samclem that it's more important to know WHAT you are ingesting than WHY.. but maybe "why" is important in other ways. Maybe someone might want to know if product X was made with slave labor, or that Farm Y eggs are from free-range chickens, and make purchasing choices based on that info.


---
The potted meat product (if not for the "potting") would be a treat to my DH. He loves tripe, coratella (lamb heart/liver/lungs/kidneys) and eats the fatty parts I leave behind from my pork chops.

---
Quote:
The total amount of DNA changed was miniscule, even though their appearance was markedly different.
There's only a "miniscule" amt. of difference between our DNA and a chimp's, too!
__________________
ladelfina is offline  
Old 10-05-2007, 08:20 AM   #157
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,288
Ladelfina, I need to get back to your earlier post, there were some points that were well made that I would like to address, but time now just for this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ladelfina View Post
(re GM):You have to buy new seeds each year because the company will come down on you like a ton of bricks if you don't.

It's disingenuous to say this is not a new paradigm.. it is. It's radically new. When you buy GM seed; it's essentially as though you don't OWN it. You have a one-crop LICENSE to use it.
Ahhh, that is a much more accurate statement than bright eyed, who simply said that GM does not produce fertile seed. But, we are comparing to hybrid crops. So there is really no practical difference. The GM producers do require you to sign a document that you will not re-plant that fertile and true-to-the-parent GM seed from the crop you grow so that they can re-coup their investment. However, hybrid seeds are mostly NOT true-to-the-parent, so those crops seeds cannot be reused either. So in practice it is the same.

The 'argument' was being put forth that GM was bad, yet those same people seemed to take no issue with organic farmers using trad hybrids, they are not calling for labeling of products w/trad hybrids, so it is this difference I was focusing on. And the differences listed by bright eyed seem to fall apart in that regard.

--
Quote:
"Traditional" hybrids developed in competing markets and different zones of the world to deal with local needs over centuries.

Aside from it being GM or non-GM, these practices highlight the trend towards monoculture, which is risky in itself.
Yes, monoculture entails risk and it seems reasonable to have some diversity in our crops. Again, many trad hybrids have resulted in a monoculture (the single 'Cavendish' variety of banana provides the majority of that market today). Maybe if GM was not facing such resistance, the scientists could produce a wider variety of GM types than we can come up with the somewhat hit-miss trad methods? Maybe GM is the answer, not the problem?

Quote:
I was reading that at a home-brew festival no one was allowed to offer non-pasteurized beer.
I can only imagine you read some bad information (edit/add: or this was a very unique restriction). I have never, never heard of a home brewer pasteurizing their beer. The home brew club I am in just recently attended a beer festival, and offered samples of our members beer/mead to the public along with 5 other clubs. No pasteurization; never mentioned. This was an AHA nationally sanctioned event. Held in a state that knows pasteurization well (Wisconsin - Land of MILK!).

Quote:
The optimal solution is self-sustaining and balanced, and I'm not convinced Monsanto offers that, or that a self-sustaining solution is in Monsanto's best interests.
And I'm not convinced that 'organic' and the automatic exclusion of GM crops is the optimal solution either. I suspect a blend of these techniques may get us closer to optimal, but I think it is worthy of analysis rather than an automatic rejection of new technologies.

Which really gets back to the question posed to greg - how do we implement new technologies under this 'fear all new things' view?

Even the processes of organic farmers were 'new' once - will bringing in an unnaturally large population of ladybugs, for example, upset the balance of nature? Will concentrating the toxins in plants and spraying those in unnaturally high concentrations have an impact on the environment?

Quote:
You are putting your faith in the people who gave us Olestra, and in the "helpful" companies giving nutritional "aid" in Africa in the form of powdered infant formula.
No way! I don't 'trust' companies! But, I do 'trust' the free market to help weed out bad products over time. It's a far from perfect system, of course. But again, offer a better one. Remember Adam Smith: 'It is not from the benevolence of the butcher the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.'

Quote:
- There's a level of arrogance and presumption in this situation that I find unsettling.
With all due respect, I find the same arrogance and presumption in the automatic rejection of potentially beneficial technologies unsettling. Is 'organic' really better in all ways, in all cases? Are GM, 'chemicals', and new technologies always worse, in all ways, all cases? That is the arrogance and presumption that I see.


Quote:
Maybe someone might want to know if product X was made with slave labor, or that Farm Y eggs are from free-range chickens, and make purchasing choices based on that info.
I for one, would like to see some sort of labeling that a product was created with some standards of environmental and labor conditions. I personally don't want to pick a marginally cheaper product over it's equivalent if those underlying 'hidden costs' are unknown to me. Voice your opinion in large numbers, and the free market will provide it. Electronics manufacturers, for one example, are voluntarily signing up to labors standards that exceed the local laws because the public is demanding it.

If you want free range chickens - farmers supply it, they are on the market. But not everyone wants to pay the higher price, they have that choice. Sure, you have to seek it out, but that is the way with 'niche' markets.

Quote:
There's only a "miniscule" amt. of difference between our DNA and a chimp's, too!
Correct. The point is, those GM crops seem no more likely to 'pollute' the DNA of other crops than a trad hybrid - again, that is the comparison. And, as Darwin found in pigeons, crosses tend to revert to the wild state over time. Remember 'Killer Bees'? That was headlines and fear for a long time, this super race got released to the wild , we are doomed! These was a trad invasive species - not GM. So why pick GM out as unique in this regard?

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Old 10-05-2007, 08:28 AM   #158
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,352
Back to my "wash" the teets insight.


Methods and devices for removal of toxic compounds from breast milk

Document Type and Number:
United States Patent 20070005006
Kind Code:
A1
Link to this page:
Methods and devices for removal of toxic compounds from breast milk - Patent 20070005006
Abstract:
Filter devices are described for removing organic toxins and/or inorganic toxins, such as halogenated endocrine disruptors, heavy metals and radionuclides from breast milk. The filter device can comprise a nipple shield device having a filter positioned in the interior of the nipple shield. The nipple shield device can be positioned on a female mammalian breast to filter expressed breast milk. Alternatively, the baby bottle can incorporate a filter device. Further, a breast milk pump can comprise a filter that is positioned interior to a breast milk pump to filter the breast milk as it is collected. General methods are described for removal of toxins from breast milk through filtration.

-----------------------
Now this is a serious issue what with large breasted (which magnifies the toxins according to something I read) women desiring to breast feed babies.

BAN breast feeding! It's worse than GBH or GM toxins in cows.
__________________
OldAgePensioner is offline  
Old 10-05-2007, 08:41 AM   #159
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,288
OAP, what happened to your avatar?

And shouldn't it be 'YOU'RE BANNED'? (YOU - ARE BANNED), not YOUR BANNED?

It's kind of small to read, so maybe I'm missing something but I'm having trouble constructing a sentence with possessive case there that makes sense.

I had no trouble making sense of your previous avatar, though a possessive case there would get me in trouble with my wife!

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Old 10-05-2007, 09:09 AM   #160
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldAgePensioner View Post
ERD50,
I got a private and polite request to remove what was considered a merely salacious avatar.
Well, if it was a polite request, then I am glad that you complied. On another forum, this issue blew up to huge proportions, free speech and all that. My feeling is that stuff is available for anyone who wants to search it out. I'm no prude, but there is a time and a place for some things. So, if someone was uncomfortable with it (maybe because they check the site on their lunch at work, or in a public place), just as well to let it go.

Though it did reflect your on-line persona, so I kind of got a kick out of it.

No biggie, AFAIAC.

-ERD50
__________________

__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:21 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.