I defend the truth as can be evidenced.
What can you evidence? The evidence is that pesticide-laden food is affecting our health and the health of our environment. The two are intertwined. You seem to have your propaganda camps mixed up .... This was perhaps more evident in our discussion a few months ago around Vendana Shiva and the Indian suicides due to corporate interests, mostly GMO's and Monsanto, stepping into Inidan agriculture, but continues on in this thread. I get a little tired with your arguments at times, as they seem "nitpicky" and argue around trivialities while not actually getting to the essence. It's too slow ....
So why let nitpicky things like facts and the truth get in the way of a good misrepresentation? I dislike misrepresentations and lower the credibility of those who stoop to their use. Vendana Shive stooped to the use and you still stoop in the attempt to have us ingore that fact because you emotionally believe in the outcome.
What misrepresentation? Vendana Shiva has not "stooped" to any misrepresentation, nor have I. No facts are ignored here, just evidenced. There has been a catastrophe in India due to corporate takeover.
Facts do tend to get in the way of a good propaganda campaign sometimes.
No, I have seen the data and the propaganda camp is clear ... especially since you still try to disbelieve after being shown the data does not support the claims made. How does a product cause more sucides before it is used? What other causes could there be? Important ones which are also documented?
They have been documented and GMO seeds are a culprit as documented.
Whose propaganda campaign is it? Vendana Shiva's?
That is one, but you present another given your continued support for that one.
You mean I am personally waging a propaganda campaign?
Is it my campaign? Is it Vendana Shivas? Are the two of us conspiring to make sure the world doesn't eat?
Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta ..... they have nothing to do with propaganda. They are just innocent corporations working hard in their labs to feed their families. Right? Trying to offer their kids an education, hold onto their land, prevent their family members from ending their lives or selling their organs?
When the facts are ignored or misrepresented I have to wonder why.
Not much it seems given the recent rehashing of proven misrepresentation as if it had never been brought to your attention
It has been brought to my attention but has no teeth and very little credibilty.
If the argument cannot stand on its own supported by factual evidence I have to really question the validity of the argument and the qualifications and motives of those presenting it.
What to do when the argument can stand and is not misrepresented? What could the motives possibly be?
If you are looking for factual evidence, you'll not find it in profit driven intentions of multinational corporations. Vendana Shiva is not a multinational corporation. Monsanto is. Cargill is. Dow is. Syngenta is. Vendana Shiva is not.
Vendana Shiva was clearly shown to have misrepresented the facts. The insinuation of misrepresentation due to profit is a clear assumption.
Not at all. Profit IS a driving force. What? ... do you think these corporations are not driven by profit when the entire economic architecture is? Can they even help it? Vendana Shiva gave up a career in physics to represent her people and the injustices done to them ..... some people are not invested in corporate driven profit but they are a minority as yet. She did not misrepresent any facts. She is now the organizing power of an organic farm which saves seeds and helps to preserve diversity. She could have made a lot more profit from joining one of these corporations.
If they are not qualified it may just be ignorance, but if they know they are misrepresenting the facts they must have a motive to do so.
There does not have to be a monetary profit to misrepresent the facts, personal beliefs are more than enough it seems.
Personal beliefs are formed by propaganda and the corporations have an investment. Why depend on beliefs when facts are so readily available?
... people do not buy and consume organics because of their nutritional differences anyway.
Then why is it one of the main questions posed to the experts? It appears that there are those who do.
It is only one of the main questions. The other main questions have to do with the health of the environment and the health of our off-spring. Organics actually have more nutritional value than non-organics. Those who are concerend about nutritional value are also concerned about the environment.
Yet the firestorm over the study focusing nutrician?
Yes! Because nutrition is NOT the main reason people buy and consume organics, yet organic is more nutritional anyway, as the Stanford study revealed. AND organic, by definition, does not conatain GMO ....
Support of organics goes way beyond ... to the health of our soil, water, air .... as well as our individual health. Individual health is also dependent on the collective health of our soil, water, and air because our environment effects us all. We live in it. We are it. The study and headlines de-emphasized nutritional value without mentioning the pesticide hazards of conventionally grown food and not even pointing out the use of GMOS which is very significant. Organics, by definition, cannot contain GMO's.
And GMOs are "bad" without any evidence to support it other than the fear of the new and unknown by the few. What of the GMOs which were the result of irradiation since the 1950s and are well used by the population with no ill effects? Are they bad now?
Since the 1950's? You have no evidence that there haven't been ill-effects especially since the technology has changed. We are not talking about Mendel's work. This is a common misconception and misrepresentation.
Sure they can and do, just not the recent GMOs.
Just not the recent GMO's? We are talking about the recent GMO's.
Do you know how many of the citrus varieties are the product of having the buds irradiated to get seedless fruit? The concern most express is over the addition of genes not the random shuffling which has been going on for over half a century now.
Yes, I know.
The concern is about much, much, much MORE. It is about land-grabbing and food sovereignty and corporate take-over and personal as well as environmental health. It is about equality and justice and women's rights .... and a lot more. And YES, the concern is also the addition of genes and not just random shuffling.
That makes no sense, but then again it should not. I can see where random changes to genes would be so much more acceptable to you than planned changes.
Random changes are much more acceptable. It makes absolute sense and should do. Planned changes are much more problematic than naturally occurring changes because genetic mutations occur infrequently
in nature and the plants have time to adjust to changes. Comparing natural mutations with those that occur during the GM transformation process is like comparing apples and oranges. Every plant species has encountered natural mutagens, including certain types and levels of ionizing radiation and chemicals, throughout its natural history and has evolved mechanisms for preventing, repairing, and minimising the impacts of mutations caused by such agents. But plants have not evolved mechanisms to repair or compensate for the insertional mutations that occur during genetic modification.
It's difficult to discern your motives and why you support multinationals such as Monsanto. You defend them as if your life depended on it. Why?
I defend the truth from untruth and that sometimes takes me into a discussion of multinational companies or governments.
You don't know the truth. That's the problem.
Yes, the opposition to companies or governents are not the only groups to misrepresent things.
A discussion of multinationals and government will lead us down a rabbit-hole .... which is where your "defence" of "truth' should inevitably lead us.
Not unless the facts lead us there. That is the difference between a factual and theorecital discussion.
I'm trying to have such a discussion with you. I believe you are naive and have been influenced by the considerable propaganda issued from these corporations who rely on current talking points to influence the crowd. "Feeding the world".
Do you genuinely believe that they are "safe" and/or the only option in feeding a growing population?
Not the only option, but probably the more probable route.
But, you see, this is what is up for discussion. They have not proven to be safe for the human body and they are wreaking havoc on the environment as well as on human rights.
Where has there been evidence of harm to the human body? Claiming there is insufficient evidence can always be made when one emotionally dislikes something.
Why do you use emotions to discredit an argument? Why should one NOT feel some emotion when faced with peril to our environment? Emotion is just one component of intelligence. There is evidence, anyway, of harm. I have already shown this. GMO's have not been researched thoroughly because the corporations, such as Monsanto, have not allowed it claiming patent or intellectual property. They have thwarted research. For instance, they have only studied the impact of gmo and Roundup on animals for up to 90 days and these have shown little health effects. But when studies for 2 years .....http://www.criigen.org/SiteEn/index.php ... Itemid=130The implications are extremely serious. They demonstrate the toxicity, both of a GMO with the most widely spread transgenic character and of the most widely used herbicide, even when ingested at extremely low levels, (corresponding to those found in surface or tap water). In addition, these results call into question the adequacy of the current regulatory process, used throughout the world by agencies involved in the assessment of health, food and chemicals, and industries seeking commercialisation of products
Proposition 37 seems to be an assumed cause, which is par for the course with some of these discussions. How many people are affected by Propostition 37 again? What nations exactly?
EVERY nation! The US is the leader in GMO use and labeling will have consequences down the line which is why Monsanto, Syngenta and DOW have invested millions of dollars to thwart the general public from knowing what they are eating ..... even though the majority of consumers would like to know.