EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Thu Apr 17, 2014 2:45 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 114 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:51 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne says:
I
Quote:
am confused as to what you are trying to say as you seem to be unable to keep the quotes in any reasonable order and have dropped several out which changed the meanings.


I have dropped very few paragraphs ....


The dropping of "very few paragraphs" does change the context and thus the meaning.

Quote:
That is not much different than info I have given which was not acknowledged or responded to.


Given you quoted me at the end and also dropped the majority of my responses in those "very few" excluded paragraphs, that would be a blatant misrepresentation of the truth, especially to also claim those points were "not acknowldeged or responded to".

Quote:
No, you're not confused. And you are certainly not confused about what I am saying. The quotes are kept in a fairly reasonable order which you can make sense of. Of course you can.


OK, I am not confused. You deliberately dropped portions of the discussion to dishonsetly change the context for anyone not closely following the discussion.

Quote:
Quote:
It appears to be an intentional attempt ot misrepresent the quotes, but that would be dishonest and the supporters of organic products would never stoop to that ... or would they?
.

If I have ommitted some, you can always remit them, as I have done on several occassions. If I can manage, so can you.


Misrperesenting quotes is far removed from repeating a point.

Quote:
If you really think there are points that need to be heard, you will reiterate them. Is this not so? Or do you have some rule-bound conditioning which prevents you? Let it rip Wayne! Go for it!


Ok, you intentionally and dishonestly manipulated the presented quotes to make the discussion appear to say something it did not. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt given you problems with the quote function, but if you insist you were not mistaken you have to be dishonest.

Quote:
I have no need to misrepresent your quotes .... intentionally or otherwise.


Yet you did by inserting part and not all of the discussion.

Quote:
And, for one so sensitive to "ad-hominem" attacks, ....... why would you suggest that one would misinterpret or obliterate yours just because they (me) have a different take based on their support of organics?


I do not suggest it. It is clearly evident in the post.

Quote:
You said: "supporters of organic products would never stoop to that ... or would they?"

WHO are the people that support organics and would all such people stoop?


I cannot say if ALL would do so, but you have shown that some can.

Quote:
If you will insist on such standards, you must also keep them.


I do and I did.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:57 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
The portion of my post from which the "very few paragraphs" (only 1/2) were dropped in order to restate what "was not acknowledged or responded to". The deleted sections are in red and the copy of the edited section is included for reference.

Wayne Stollings wrote:


Quote:
The Stanford study also omitted any acknowledgement of potential cancer risks from exposure to agricultural chemicals on conventional foods. This seems especially reprehensible to the scientists at Cornucopia in light of the 2009 President’s Cancer Panel report, which states: “Nearly 1,400 pesticides have been registered (i.e., approved) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for agricultural and non-agricultural use. Exposure to these chemicals has been linked to brain/central nervous system (CNS), breast, colon, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, kidney, testicular, and stomach cancers, as well as Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma.”


Nor did they mention the risks from orgnaic products from exposure to agricultural chemicals and again this was probably due to the fact the focus was NUTRITIONAL.

Quote:
"Journalists failed to do due diligence to check the credibility of the Stanford study, ..... Wanting to be ahead of the news curve, reporters rushed out their stories on this study, over a holiday weekend, without seeking the expert advice of scientists who have studied the harmful effects of chemicals used in conventional food products and the documented advantages of an organic diet."


Not in the nutritional value of the products, though. Maybe they should have discussed the problems with the study not dealing with the increased cost of organic products limiting the ability of the poor to reap the benefits .... but wait the focus was nutritional and that benefit does not exist so the poor are no worse off in that aspect.

Quote:
Stanford's spin was quickly and widely accepted by journalists without fact-checking and was rushed to the pages of major news outlets.


There was no "spin" there was a statement of finding which has now been called spin by those attempting to actually spin the discussion.

Quote:
Additionally, the study did, in fact, concede a few positive attributes to organic foods, including the fact that organic produce has fewer pesticide residues; however, such facts were buried in the presentation of the research by the Stanford researchers and public relations staff and were not widely reported by major news sources.


But that must be incorrect given the flaws in the study, correct? No, that exhibits the bias used to determine the validtiy of the research. If you want to believe it, it is "good" and if you do not want to believe it, it is "bad".

Quote:
The Stanford study *overlapped* the research of Brandt's but was, in the end, inferior.


Based on the criteria listed above, of course.


The criteria was, of course this: If you want to believe it, it is "good" and if you do not want to believe it, it is "bad".

animal-friendly wrote:


Quote:
The Stanford study also omitted any acknowledgement of potential cancer risks from exposure to agricultural chemicals on conventional foods. This seems especially reprehensible to the scientists at Cornucopia in light of the 2009 President’s Cancer Panel report, which states: “Nearly 1,400 pesticides have been registered (i.e., approved) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for agricultural and non-agricultural use. Exposure to these chemicals has been linked to brain/central nervous system (CNS), breast, colon, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, kidney, testicular, and stomach cancers, as well as Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma.”


Quote:
"Journalists failed to do due diligence to check the credibility of the Stanford study, ..... Wanting to be ahead of the news curve, reporters rushed out their stories on this study, over a holiday weekend, without seeking the expert advice of scientists who have studied the harmful effects of chemicals used in conventional food products and the documented advantages of an organic diet."


Quote:
Additionally, the study did, in fact, concede a few positive attributes to organic foods, including the fact that organic produce has fewer pesticide residues; however, such facts were buried in the presentation of the research by the Stanford researchers and public relations staff and were not widely reported by major news sources.


Quote:
The Stanford study *overlapped* the research of Brandt's but was, in the end, inferior.


Quote:
Based on the criteria listed above, of course.


Quote:
Yes, of course!

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 1:27 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1271
Whoa! You are using red and uppercase in some places. Are you shouting?

Today, the sun is shining and I'm heading to the lake ..... Wayne.
What do you have planned for the day?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:58 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Whoa! You are using red and uppercase in some places. Are you shouting?


No, Just using color and size for a differential comparison. I rarely shout.

Quote:
Today, the sun is shining and I'm heading to the lake ..... Wayne.
What do you have planned for the day?


I finished up another patent application since the fee schedule changed today and I had thought the change was at the first of October. I watched a movie with my wife, caught up on some of the TV series I had recorded while we were on vacation the week before last and watched it rain. I hope your trip to the lake was pleasant and enjoyable.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:38 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1271
Quote:
The dropping of "very few paragraphs" does change the context and thus the meaning.


Quote:
Given you quoted me at the end and also dropped the majority of my responses in those "very few" excluded paragraphs, that would be a blatant misrepresentation of the truth, especially to also claim those points were "not acknowldeged or responded to".


Quote:
OK, I am not confused. You deliberately dropped portions of the discussion to dishonsetly change the context for anyone not closely following the discussion.


Quote:
It appears to be an intentional attempt ot misrepresent the quotes, but that would be dishonest and the supporters of organic products would never stoop to that ... or would they?
.

Quote:
Misrperesenting quotes is far removed from repeating a point.


Quote:
Ok, you intentionally and dishonestly manipulated the presented quotes to make the discussion appear to say something it did not. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt given you problems with the quote function, but if you insist you were not mistaken you have to be dishonest.


Quote:
Yet you did by inserting part and not all of the discussion.



Seems you have your very own personal conspiracy theory going on here.

The reason I have not, do not, and maybe will not, include every paragraph of yours is that your points are argumentative, but not always constructively so. It gets tiring responding to every argument of yours, especially when the answers to your queries are so clear. I sometimes wonder if you do not have shares in "the company" .... whatever that company may be and that perhaps your retirement plan is not dependant on their reputation. I guess we can all be subject to paranoia. You have your conspiracy theories and I have mine.

I have no interest in misrepresenting your quotes.

I do not actually think that you are personally tied to Monsanto or Cargill, so I wonder why you so vehemently defend them? 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 ....

The Stanford study showed that organics are actually more nutritious but down played the results of their own studies with the word "siginificant' while also leaving out key studies. Yet people do not buy and consume organics because of their nutritional differences anyway. 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.

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? Do you genuinely believe that they are "safe" and/or the only option in feeding a growing population? Their vison is absolutely weird.

So some paragraphs ..... such as the supportive one you wrote about Cargill having a finger in the organics pie ..... I haven't commented on yet. But if you want some discussion there, I'm willing although I am wondering why I should have to.

Cargill is a multi-national corporation who, like any other corporation, is interested in profits. If they can gain some profit from organics, they will just as they will gain profits from agri-business and gmo crops. This doesn't mean they are concerned with soil health or with the environment or with feeding the world. Their motivation is profit. If there is something to be had from sourcing organic cacoa from Africa ..... they will be there doing just that. Of course, there has been a lot of pressure for Cargill to source their cacoa from outfits that are not using child-slavery .....and they are now doing that .... but the initiative to do so did not come from them. They had to be made aware from groups whose main focus was not profit, but accountability and equality.

As for the paragraph I dropped about organics using organic pesticides ..... again, I wonder why I should comment. I did mention harm reduction. Organics are not 100% safe but are much, much safer than the pesticide-laden food we are subjected to ... and which run-off into our environment and into our own bodies as well, and even more so, into the bodies of our children who are more vulnerable to them, and even more vulnerable are the children on the verge of being born.

And organics, by definition, do not include GMO's. That is huge. Very significant.

Of course there is the issue of antibiotics in meat and milk, but the study didn't mention that (because it was about nutrition).

I could go on and on, but again, I wonder why I should have to? I have no proof that agri-business funded the Stanford study. If they did, it would be too obvious! But it is very suspicious, especially with the Prop 37 vote coming up in California. I'd say Monsanto and the GMO multinationals are nervous as they should be! And I am very glad the fact that Cargill and the Gates folks are "friends" of Stanford did not escape notice.

My schedule has changed and I will be busy. That swim in the lake was one of the last even though temperatures around here persist. I'll try to respond as thoroughly as time allows. Hope the movie you watched with your wife was time well spent.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 6:07 am 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:06 am
Posts: 10
Wayne Stollings wrote:
EstellePage wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
The problem is that too many believe natural is healthy or better for you and that is not the case.


I suppose poisonous plants are natural too O:)


Yes, they are.

Quote:
Chemicals are natural, agreed - but I think our bodies are designed to eat what we would if we lived 'wild'. Fresh fruit, fresh veg, fresh meat... so okay yes, probably some dirt at times, but not preservatives or artificial colouring!


but we moved from living wild as a hunter gatherer to raising domestic animals and farming and all of the adjustments included in that process.


True, but I don't think our bodies have evolved as quickly as society has. We've still got appendixes and they haven't been useful at all to use for probably thousands of years! I think society 'grew up' too fast and our bodies probably aren't all that different from how they were 500 or 1000 years ago. Not in terms of the basics anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 8:52 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
The dropping of "very few paragraphs" does change the context and thus the meaning.


Quote:
Given you quoted me at the end and also dropped the majority of my responses in those "very few" excluded paragraphs, that would be a blatant misrepresentation of the truth, especially to also claim those points were "not acknowldeged or responded to".


Quote:
OK, I am not confused. You deliberately dropped portions of the discussion to dishonsetly change the context for anyone not closely following the discussion.


Quote:
It appears to be an intentional attempt ot misrepresent the quotes, but that would be dishonest and the supporters of organic products would never stoop to that ... or would they?
.

Quote:
Misrperesenting quotes is far removed from repeating a point.


Quote:
Ok, you intentionally and dishonestly manipulated the presented quotes to make the discussion appear to say something it did not. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt given you problems with the quote function, but if you insist you were not mistaken you have to be dishonest.


Quote:
Yet you did by inserting part and not all of the discussion.



Seems you have your very own personal conspiracy theory going on here.

The reason I have not, do not, and maybe will not, include every paragraph of yours is that your points are argumentative, but not always constructively so.


Maybe in your mind, but that is not the deciding factor, especially when you state your posts, to which the missing paragraphs referenced, were not acknowldeged or responded to.

Quote:
It gets tiring responding to every argument of yours, especially when the answers to your queries are so clear.


Yes, they clearly try to create a claim which is not supported by fact. The sole problem with the "spin" of the report is that there was not a pro-organic one. Thus, the lack of pro-organic spin is then converted to an anti-organic stance or a poor science application based solely on the need to support a personal opinion wherher by you or others.

Quote:
I sometimes wonder if you do not have shares in "the company" .... whatever that company may be and that perhaps your retirement plan is not dependant on their reputation.


I so own a couple of companies but they deal with environmental monitoring and commercial real estate.

Quote:
I have no interest in misrepresenting your quotes.



Yet you clearly did and tried to ignore it when called on it.

Quote:
I do not actually think that you are personally tied to Monsanto or Cargill, so I wonder why you so vehemently defend them?


I defend the truth as can be evidenced.

Quote:
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 ....


Facts do tend to get in the way of a good propaganda campaign sometimes. When the facts are ignored or misrepresented I have to wonder why. 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. 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.

Quote:
The Stanford study showed that organics are actually more nutritious but down played the results of their own studies with the word "siginificant' while also leaving out key studies.


They are not the only ones and based on the errors in measurement which must always be consiedered, significance in differences is important. The differences must be significant to ensure they are not due to random error.

Quote:
Yet people do not buy and consume organics because of their nutritional differences anyway.


Yet the firestorm over the study focusing nutrician?

Quote:
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.


Sure they can and do, just not the recent GMOs. 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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
So some paragraphs ..... such as the supportive one you wrote about Cargill having a finger in the organics pie ..... I haven't commented on yet. But if you want some discussion there, I'm willing although I am wondering why I should have to.


Not supportive of anything other than the facts. I find it hard to paint a company with a broad brush of anti-organic when they do sell organic products. It is clear they cannot convert to a pure organic line because that will not feed everyone and that is not good for a business model. Starving customers just ruins the relations with all customers.

Quote:
Cargill is a multi-national corporation who, like any other corporation, is interested in profits. If they can gain some profit from organics, they will just as they will gain profits from agri-business and gmo crops. This doesn't mean they are concerned with soil health or with the environment or with feeding the world. Their motivation is profit. If there is something to be had from sourcing organic cacoa from Africa ..... they will be there doing just that. Of course, there has been a lot of pressure for Cargill to source their cacoa from outfits that are not using child-slavery .....and they are now doing that .... but the initiative to do so did not come from them. They had to be made aware from groups whose main focus was not profit, but accountability and equality.


None of this sounds that bad. They change to reflect the desires of thes groups, provide products to their customers, and profit to their investors. Sounds like they are trying to cover as much as they can.

Quote:
As for the paragraph I dropped about organics using organic pesticides ..... again, I wonder why I should comment. I did mention harm reduction. Organics are not 100% safe but are much, much safer than the pesticide-laden food we are subjected to ... and which run-off into our environment and into our own bodies as well, and even more so, into the bodies of our children who are more vulnerable to them, and even more vulnerable are the children on the verge of being born.


The selective claims of less being better, without any evidence to support it while attacking the claims of acceptable levels as being unproven is hypocritical. Either all claims are held to the same criteria or there is hypocrisy. I dislike hypocrisy.

Quote:
And organics, by definition, do not include GMO's. That is huge. Very significant.


Only when the definition of GMO is tailored to the organic mindset. I see no problems arising from the mutations created by the levels of scienece throughout history. I do not expect to see any probleims in the near future either.

Quote:
Of course there is the issue of antibiotics in meat and milk, but the study didn't mention that (because it was about nutrition).


Yes, nor did it touch on the production differences or the total amount og products used and the numbers of applications, because it was mainly about nutrition.

Quote:
I could go on and on, but again, I wonder why I should have to? I have no proof that agri-business funded the Stanford study. If they did, it would be too obvious! But it is very suspicious, especially with the Prop 37 vote coming up in California. I'd say Monsanto and the GMO multinationals are nervous as they should be! And I am very glad the fact that Cargill and the Gates folks are "friends" of Stanford did not escape notice.


Yes, and just exactly have the Cargill or Gates folks done to eliminate organic products that would make this suspect? I can find nothing other than they do not support organic production as some do.

Quote:
My schedule has changed and I will be busy. That swim in the lake was one of the last even though temperatures around here persist. I'll try to respond as thoroughly as time allows. Hope the movie you watched with your wife was time well spent.


Yes, it was The Hunger Games .... the manipulation of facts was a key aspect in some areas.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:46 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1271
Quote:
Yes, they clearly try to create a claim which is not supported by fact. The sole problem with the "spin" of the report is that there was not a pro-organic one. Thus, the lack of pro-organic spin is then converted to an anti-organic stance or a poor science application based solely on the need to support a personal opinion wherher by you or others.


The spin was definitely "anti-organic" as well as sloppy based on key studies and even spelling mistakes that were left out. My "personal" opinion is the least of it.

Quote:
I defend the truth as can be evidenced.


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 ....

Quote:
Facts do tend to get in the way of a good propaganda campaign sometimes.


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 ....

Whose propaganda campaign is it? Vendana Shiva's?

Quote:
When the facts are ignored or misrepresented I have to wonder why.


Me too.

Quote:
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.


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.

Quote:
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.


Hmmmm..... I wonder what her motivation could be? Especially compared to the giants? What's her profit compared to theirs? What's her risk? Ego .... or something like that?

... people do not buy and consume organics because of their nutritional differences anyway.[/quote]

Quote:
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.

Quote:
Sure they can and do, just not the recent GMOs. 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.


No. 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.

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.

Sometimes? A discussion of multinationals and government will lead us down a rabbit-hole .... which is where your "defence" of "truth' should inevitably lead us.

Quote:
Do you genuinely believe that they are "safe" and/or the only option in feeding a growing population?


Quote:
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.

Quote:
So some paragraphs ..... such as the supportive one you wrote about Cargill having a finger in the organics pie ..... I haven't commented on yet. But if you want some discussion there, I'm willing although I am wondering why I should have to.

Quote:
Not supportive of anything other than the facts. I find it hard to paint a company with a broad brush of anti-organic when they do sell organic products. It is clear they cannot convert to a pure organic line because that will not feed everyone and that is not good for a business model. Starving customers just ruins the relations with all customers.


Cargill is invested in African cacoa ..... so what? Is this little business venture of theirs supposed to feed the world? Proposition 37 is not up for debate in Africa, especially amongst it's children.

Cargill is a multi-national corporation who, like any other corporation, is interested in profits. If they can gain some profit from organics, they will just as they will gain profits from agri-business and gmo crops. This doesn't mean they are concerned with soil health or with the environment or with feeding the world. Their motivation is profit. If there is something to be had from sourcing organic cacoa from Africa ..... they will be there doing just that. Of course, there has been a lot of pressure for Cargill to source their cacoa from outfits that are not using child-slavery .....and they are now doing that .... but the initiative to do so did not come from them. They had to be made aware from groups whose main focus was not profit, but accountability and equality.


Quote:
None of this sounds that bad.


No? Doesn't sound that bad? It doesn't bother you that Cargill is more interested in profits than with soil health, the environment, or feeding the world? It doesn't bother you that grass-roots orgnizations had to persuade them to adopt more humane standards in their cacoa sourcing; that the initiative to do so didn't come from them?

Quote:
They change to reflect the desires of thes groups, provide products to their customers, and profit to their investors. Sounds like they are trying to cover as much as they can.


They change to reflect the desires of "watch-dogs" who expose their practices? That's very nice of them. The "desires" of these groups are for equality and justice and humane practices amongst the peoples of this world. Cargill is concerned with profit for their investors .... and if that comes in the form of organic cacoa from Africa, so be it. Why does Cargill only change to reflect the desires of "these groups". Why do they change their practices at all? Can they not just be ethical to begin with, or does "ethical" only make sense to them when they need to show profit to their investors?

Yep, they are definitley trying to cover as much as they can. They change their practices in child-slaved cocao production in order to reflect the desires of their customers ....... Yes. Grass-roots organizations do have some influence.

As for the paragraph I dropped about organics using organic pesticides ..... again, I wonder why I should comment. I did mention harm reduction. Organics are not 100% safe but are much, much safer than the pesticide-laden food we are subjected to ... and which run-off into our environment and into our own bodies as well, and even more so, into the bodies of our children who are more vulnerable to them, and even more vulnerable are the children on the verge of being born.

Quote:
The selective claims of less being better, without any evidence to support it while attacking the claims of acceptable levels as being unproven is hypocritical. Either all claims are held to the same criteria or there is hypocrisy. I dislike hypocrisy.


I dislike hypocrisy as much as I dislike having to repeat myself ..... Less IS better. It's called "harm-reduction" and i've already outlined it here:

Bouchard,M.E.,etal.,“Prenatal Exposure to Pesticides and I Qin 7-­‐YearOldChildren,”
Environmental Health Perspectives online April 21, 2011
Crews etal.,

“Epigenetic transgenerationl inheritance of altered stress responses,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
published online May 21,2012)

Engel,S.M.,et al., “Prenatal Exposure to OPs, Paraoxonase 1, and Cognitive Development in Children,”
Environmental Health Perspectives,
online
April 21, 2011

Garry, V.F., Harkins, M.E., Erickson,L.L.,Long-­‐Simpson,L.K.,Holland,S.E.&Burroughs,B.L
2002. Birth defects, season of conception, and sex of children born to pesticide applicators living
in the red river valley of Minnesota,USA.
Environmental Health Perspectives110:p.441-­‐449.
Lim et al., 2009.

“Chronic Exposure to the herbicide, Atrazine,Causes Mitochondrial Dysfunction and Insulin Resistance,”
PlosOne, Vol.4 (4):e5186
Looft,Torey et al.
2012.

“In-­‐feed antibiotic effects on the swine intestinal microbiome,”Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences,
Vol.109 (5):1691-­‐1696.
Lu,C.et al.,
2008,

“Dietary intake and its contribution to longitudinal organophosphorus pesticide exposure in
urban/suburban children,”
Environmental
Health Perspectives,
Vol.116(4):pages537-­‐542)
Lu,C. etal., 2006.

“Organic Diets Significantly Lower Children’s Dietary Exposure to Organophosphorus
Pesticides,”
Environmental Health Perspectives,
Vol.114(2):pages260-­‐263.September4,2012

Office of Inspector General U.S.EPA,
2006a.

Measuring the impact of the Food Quality Protection Act: challenges and opportunities.
Report No.
2006-­‐P-­‐00028,
August 1,

U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.Office of Inspector General,U.S. EPA,
2006b.
supplemental report: details on dietary risk data in support of Report
No.2006-­‐P-­‐00028,

Measuring the impact of the Food QualityProtectionAct:challengesand opportunities.
U.S.EPA,
Washington,D.C.
Rauh,V.,etal.,
“7-­‐Year

Neurodevelopmental Scores and Prenatal Exposure to Chlorpyrifos,
Common Agricultural Insecticide,”
Environmental Health Perspectives,
online April21, 2011
Schreinemachers,D.

2003. Birth malformations and other adverse perinatal outcomes infour U.S. wheat-­‐producing states.
Environmental Health Perspectives
111: p. 1259-­‐1264.
USDA Pesticide Data Program,
2012

and multiple years.
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/science
Vandenberg et al., 2012.

“Hormones and Endocrine-­‐Disrupting Chemicals: Low-­‐Dose Effects and Nonmonotonic Dose Responses,”
EndocrineReviews,
Vol.33 (3):pages 378-­‐455.

Bouchard,M.E.,etal.,“PrenatalExposuret OPPesticidesandIQin7-­‐YearOldChildren,”
Environmental Health Perspectives online April 21, 2011
Crews etal.,

“Epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of altered stress responses,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
publishedonline May 21,2012)

Engel,S.M.,et al., “Prenatal Exposure to OPs, Paraoxonase 1, and Cognitive Development in Children,”
Environmental Health Perspectives,
online
April 21, 2011

Garry, V.F., Harkins, M.E., Erickson,L.L.,Long-­‐Simpson,L.K.,Holland,S.E.&Burroughs,B.L
2002. Birth defects, season of conception, and sex of children born to pesticide applicators living
in the red river valley of Minnesota,USA.
Environmental Health Perspectives110:p.441-­‐449.
Lim et al., 2009.

“ChronicExposure to the herbicide, Atrazine,Causes Mitochondrial Dysfunction and Insulin Resistance,”
PlosOne, Vol.4 (4):e5186
Looft,Torey et al.
2012.

“In-­‐feed antibiotic effects on the swine intestinal microbiome ,”Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences,
Vol.109 (5):1691-­‐1696.
Lu,C.et al.,
2008,

“Dietary intake and its contribution to longitudinal organophosphorus pesticide exposure in
urban/suburban children,”
Environmental
Health Perspectives,
Vol.116(4):pages537-­‐542)
Lu,C. etal., 2006.

“Organic Diets Significantly Lower Children’s Dietary Exposure to Organophosphorus
Pesticides,”
Environmental Health Perspectives,
Vol.114(2):pages260-­‐263.September4,2012

Office of Inspector General U.S.EPA,
2006a.

Measuring the impact of the Food Quality Protection Act: challenges and opportunities.
Report No.
2006-­‐P-­‐00028,
August 1,

U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.Office of Inspector General,U.S. EPA,
2006b.
supplemental report: details on dietary risk data in support of Report
No.2006-­‐P-­‐00028,

Measuring the impact of the Food Quality Protection Act:challengesand opportunities.
U.S.EPA,
Washington,D.C.
Rauh,V.,etal.,
“7-­‐Year

Neurodevelopmental Scores and Prenatal Exposure to Chlorpyrifos,
Common Agricultural Insecticide,”
Environmental Health Perspectives,
online April21, 2011
Schreinemachers,D.

2003. Birth malformations and other adverse perinatal outcomes infour U.S. wheat-­‐producing states.
Environmental Health Perspectives
111: p. 1259-­‐1264.
USDA Pesticide Data Program,
2012

and multiple years.
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/science
Vandenberg et al., 2012.

“Hormones and Endocrine-­‐Disrupting Chemicals: Low-­‐Dose Effects and Nonmonotonic Dose Responses,”
EndocrineReviews,
Vol.33 (3):pages 378-­‐455.


Quote:
And organics, by definition, do not include GMO's. That is huge. Very significant.




Quote:
Only when the definition of GMO is tailored to the organic mindset.


It is actually very significant for reasons far, far beyond the organic "mindset". It's about justice and equality and environmental health and food sovereignty and land-grabbing and diversity and preservation of indigenous plant life, and .... and ..... far beyond the "organic mindset". The absence of GMO's in organic food is a much more complex issue than the "organic mindset".

Quote:
I see no problems arising from the mutations created by the levels of scienece throughout history. I do not expect to see any probleims in the near future either.


Mutations arise anyway. I DO see problems arising through corporate interest in intelligent ownership of seeds. They have already arised. It's here.

Of course there is the issue of antibiotics in meat and milk, but the study didn't mention that (because it was about nutrition).

Quote:
Yes, nor did it touch on the production differences or the total amount og products used and the numbers of applications, because it was mainly about nutrition.


I'm tempted to drop this paragraph. So I will.

I could go on and on, but again, I wonder why I should have to? I have no proof that agri-business funded the Stanford study. If they did, it would be too obvious! But it is very suspicious, especially with the Prop 37 vote coming up in California. I'd say Monsanto and the GMO multinationals are nervous as they should be! And I am very glad the fact that Cargill and the Gates folks are "friends" of Stanford did not escape notice.

Quote:
Yes, and just exactly have the Cargill or Gates folks done to eliminate organic products that would make this suspect? I can find nothing other than they do not support organic production as some do.


They do not support organic products because it interferes with their corporate profit agenda. They could not possibly eliminate organic products altogether, but they can have a piece of it, as seen with Cargill's interest in chocolate production. There is a market for it.

My schedule has changed and I will be busy. That swim in the lake was one of the last even though temperatures around here persist. I'll try to respond as thoroughly as time allows. Hope the movie you watched with your wife was time well spent.

Quote:
Yes, it was The Hunger Games .... the manipulation of facts was a key aspect in some areas.


I've heard it's a good movie but haven't seen it yet.

Corporations and governments will manipulate facts. Vendana Shiva does not have shares in the company.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:17 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1271
Quote:
The selective claims of less being better, without any evidence to support it while attacking the claims of acceptable levels as being unproven is hypocritical. Either all claims are held to the same criteria or there is hypocrisy. I dislike hypocrisy.


???? as well as the studies already listed ......

http://www.purezing.com/living/toxins/l ... cides.html

"A study funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and published in the September 2005 issue of Environmental Health "Perspectives shows eating organic foods provides children with “dramatic and immediate” protection from exposure to two organophosphate pesticides that have been linked to harmful neurological effects in humans. The pesticides—malathion and chlorpyrifos—while restricted or banned for home use, are widely used on a variety of crops, and according to the annual survey by U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data Program, residues of these organophosphate pesticides are still routinely detected in food items commonly consumed by young children."

"Pesticides effects on humans are damage to the nervous system, reproductive system and other organs, developmental and behavioral abnormalities, disruption of hormone function as well as immune dysfunction."


But ..... I know this is not your real argument anyway, so why waste time nit-picking? Why not get to the essence of your argument right away?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:02 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
Yes, they clearly try to create a claim which is not supported by fact. The sole problem with the "spin" of the report is that there was not a pro-organic one. Thus, the lack of pro-organic spin is then converted to an anti-organic stance or a poor science application based solely on the need to support a personal opinion wherher by you or others.


The spin was definitely "anti-organic" as well as sloppy based on key studies and even spelling mistakes that were left out. My "personal" opinion is the least of it.


That is a clearly biased opinion based on the lack of clear support being opposition

Quote:
Quote:
I defend the truth as can be evidenced.


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.

Quote:
Quote:
Facts do tend to get in the way of a good propaganda campaign sometimes.


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 ....


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?

Quote:
Whose propaganda campaign is it? Vendana Shiva's?


That is one, but you present another given your continued support for that one.

Quote:
Quote:
When the facts are ignored or misrepresented I have to wonder why.


Me too.


Not much it seems given the recent rehashing of proven misrepresentation as if it had never been brought to your attention.

Quote:
Quote:
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.


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.

Quote:
Quote:
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.


Hmmmm..... I wonder what her motivation could be? Especially compared to the giants? What's her profit compared to theirs? What's her risk? Ego .... or something like that?


There does not have to be a monetary profit to misrepresent the facts, personal beliefs are more than enough it seems.

Quote:
... 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.

Quote:
Quote:
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 ....


Then the study should not have had any effect and you should not be so upset, yet you are. That tends to belie the claims.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
Quote:
Sure they can and do, just not the recent GMOs. 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.


No. 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.

Quote:
Quote:
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.


Quote:
Sometimes?


Yes, the opposition to companies or governents are not the only groups to misrepresent things.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
Quote:
Do you genuinely believe that they are "safe" and/or the only option in feeding a growing population?


Quote:
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.

Quote:
So some paragraphs ..... such as the supportive one you wrote about Cargill having a finger in the organics pie ..... I haven't commented on yet. But if you want some discussion there, I'm willing although I am wondering why I should have to.

Quote:
Not supportive of anything other than the facts. I find it hard to paint a company with a broad brush of anti-organic when they do sell organic products. It is clear they cannot convert to a pure organic line because that will not feed everyone and that is not good for a business model. Starving customers just ruins the relations with all customers.


Cargill is invested in African cacoa ..... so what? Is this little business venture of theirs supposed to feed the world? Proposition 37 is not up for debate in Africa, especially amongst it's children.


No more so than organic foods will. 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?

Quote:
Cargill is a multi-national corporation who, like any other corporation, is interested in profits. If they can gain some profit from organics, they will just as they will gain profits from agri-business and gmo crops. This doesn't mean they are concerned with soil health or with the environment or with feeding the world. Their motivation is profit. If there is something to be had from sourcing organic cacoa from Africa ..... they will be there doing just that.


So organic farming is not good unless it is done for the "right" reasons? That makes as much sense as most of the other claims.

Quote:
Of course, there has been a lot of pressure for Cargill to source their cacoa from outfits that are not using child-slavery .....and they are now doing that .... but the initiative to do so did not come from them. They had to be made aware from groups whose main focus was not profit, but accountability and equality.


And?

Quote:
Quote:
None of this sounds that bad.


No? Doesn't sound that bad? It doesn't bother you that Cargill is more interested in profits than with soil health, the environment, or feeding the world?


No, as both can be accomplished at the same time. Organic farmers charge more because they want to make a profit too.

Quote:
It doesn't bother you that grass-roots orgnizations had to persuade them to adopt more humane standards in their cacoa sourcing; that the initiative to do so didn't come from them?


No, if they did not adopt such a position after being notified I would be bothered.

Quote:
Quote:
They change to reflect the desires of thes groups, provide products to their customers, and profit to their investors. Sounds like they are trying to cover as much as they can.


They change to reflect the desires of "watch-dogs" who expose their practices? That's very nice of them. The "desires" of these groups are for equality and justice and humane practices amongst the peoples of this world. Cargill is concerned with profit for their investors .... and if that comes in the form of organic cacoa from Africa, so be it. Why does Cargill only change to reflect the desires of "these groups". Why do they change their practices at all? Can they not just be ethical to begin with, or does "ethical" only make sense to them when they need to show profit to their investors?


Why do organic farmers charge more when it would be more ethical to charge the same or even less to ensure everyone had the best food possible?


Quote:
As for the paragraph I dropped about organics using organic pesticides ..... again, I wonder why I should comment. I did mention harm reduction. Organics are not 100% safe but are much, much safer than the pesticide-laden food we are subjected to ... and which run-off into our environment and into our own bodies as well, and even more so, into the bodies of our children who are more vulnerable to them, and even more vulnerable are the children on the verge of being born.


And your evidence for the increased harm reduction is where? If your sources claim the set levels are not to be trusted they cannot claim harm reduction without evidence.

I can give you a dose of arsenic and the person beside you a dose half as big and kill you both .... or harm neither. The evidence is critical.

Quote:
Quote:
The selective claims of less being better, without any evidence to support it while attacking the claims of acceptable levels as being unproven is hypocritical. Either all claims are held to the same criteria or there is hypocrisy. I dislike hypocrisy.


I dislike hypocrisy as much as I dislike having to repeat myself ..... Less IS better. It's called "harm-reduction" and i've already outlined it here:


Ok, I will give you a dose of a compound exactly half that of what I will give the person beside you. Will you have less harm than them? Yes or no will suffice.


Quote:
Quote:
And organics, by definition, do not include GMO's. That is huge. Very significant.




Quote:
Only when the definition of GMO is tailored to the organic mindset.


It is actually very significant for reasons far, far beyond the organic "mindset". It's about justice and equality and environmental health and food sovereignty and land-grabbing and diversity and preservation of indigenous plant life, and .... and ..... far beyond the "organic mindset". The absence of GMO's in organic food is a much more complex issue than the "organic mindset".


So there can be no issue with justice, equality, environmental health, food sovereignity, land grabbing, diversity, preservation of indigenous plant life, or anything else if there is no GMO?

Sadly the facts do not support this view.

Quote:
Quote:
I see no problems arising from the mutations created by the levels of scienece throughout history. I do not expect to see any probleims in the near future either.


Mutations arise anyway. I DO see problems arising through corporate interest in intelligent ownership of seeds. They have already arised. It's here.


That seems to be saying there are no health or environmental issues but only social ones.

Quote:
Quote:
Yes, and just exactly have the Cargill or Gates folks done to eliminate organic products that would make this suspect? I can find nothing other than they do not support organic production as some do.


They do not support organic products because it interferes with their corporate profit agenda.


So the polarized view is that if they are not supporting you they must be against you?

Quote:
Quote:
Yes, it was The Hunger Games .... the manipulation of facts was a key aspect in some areas.


I've heard it's a good movie but haven't seen it yet.


I found it so-so, but I think you might enjoy it for the implications of big business and government.

Quote:
Corporations and governments will manipulate facts. Vendana Shiva does not have shares in the company.


Yet Vendana Shiva manipulated facts which screw up your assumption.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:25 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
The facts:

Quote:
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/01/06-0

"The farmer suicides started in 1997. That's when the corporate seed control started," Vandana Shiva told CNN's Christiane Amanpour. "And it's directly related to indebtedness, and indebtedness created by two factors linked to globalization."


http://www.occupymonsanto360.org/Occupy ... -suicides/

200,000 farmers have ended their lives since 1997.

In 1998, the World Bank’s structural adjustment policies forced India to open up its seed sector to global corporations like Cargill, Monsanto and Syngenta. The global corporations changed the input economy overnight. Farm saved seeds were replaced by corporate seeds, which need fertilizers and pesticides and cannot be saved


So the suicides started the year before the country was "forced" to start using the corporate seeds? Not a self contradiction at all. #-o :-

Quote:
http://www.agbioforum.org/v7n12/v7n12a04-zehr.htm

R.B. Barwale, V.R. Gadwal, Usha Zehr, and Brent Zehr
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company, India
Cotton is a very important crop in India; farmers there face the challenge of losses due to various insect pests. The first genetically modified crop in India, Bt cotton, has been introduced to address bollworm infestation. The process of introduction of Bt cotton took six years of experimentation, during which time agronomic, environmental, and biosafety data was generated and reported. The trials conducted prior to commercialization clearly established the superior performance of Bt cotton, as demonstrated by increased yields and reduction in application of pesticides. Transgenic technology is suitable for the Indian farmer despite small farm holdings. The area under Bt cotton is projected to increase rapidly in the coming years.

So the first GMO crop was Bt cotton.

Quote:
http://fieldquestions.com/2012/02/12/bt-cotton-remarkable-success-and-four-ugly-facts/

India approved Bt cotton in 2002; now it accounts for 92% of all Indian cotton.


Bt cotton was apporved in 2002 so the sucides listed from 1997 to as least 2003 could not have been related to GMO seeds .... that is a pretty big misrepresentation to me, but what do I know about such things. :mrgreen:

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 12:52 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1649
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
note that cotton is rarely used for food (the oil sometimes) so is rather off-topic (unless there is a market for organic cotton clothing)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 1:45 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Ann Vole wrote:
note that cotton is rarely used for food (the oil sometimes) so is rather off-topic (unless there is a market for organic cotton clothing)


Yes, it was connected to the multiple references to the thread in which the GMO impacts in India were discussed. The references were not linked so I provided the gist of the misrepresentation I was supposedly nit-picking for clarification.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 2:40 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1649
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Ann Vole wrote:
note that cotton is rarely used for food (the oil sometimes) so is rather off-topic (unless there is a market for organic cotton clothing)


Yes, it was connected to the multiple references to the thread in which the GMO impacts in India were discussed. The references were not linked so I provided the gist of the misrepresentation I was supposedly nit-picking for clarification.
I have to admit I was not following this thread closely (thus no quotes for reference) so my only point was that there is topic drift from the original topic of whether organic is healthier or not. I suppose the psychological aspects could be included in health but that seems a bit of a stretch.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 3:40 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Ann Vole wrote:
I have to admit I was not following this thread closely (thus no quotes for reference) so my only point was that there is topic drift from the original topic of whether organic is healthier or not. I suppose the psychological aspects could be included in health but that seems a bit of a stretch.


It had more to do with the study and the assumption that since it was not flattering to the organic industry it was somehow anti-organic, scientifically flawed, and funded by the major corporations because they are the only ones which would do such a thing to mislead people.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 114 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group