Solid Smackdown of Anti-GMO zealotry

[82_VOL_83]

Apple is best for pork.

And raisins and homegrown rosemary.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

if I had a choice to eat food not produced by Monsanto, I would. However, in this day and age it's impossible. What's even funnier is you seem to have no problem with Monsanto. Maybe you should take the red pill for a change.

Yes, because your potatoes, rice, wheat, beef, chicken, pork, tomatoes, onions, sweet corn, fruits and every other crop except 8 are all GE produced by Monsanto.

You don't directly eat alfalfa, field corn, cotton, canola or soybeans anyway.

 

[DC_Vol]

My guess is the way Monsanto basically forces farmers to use their products.

Why Does Everyone Hate Monsanto? - Modern Farmer

Thanks for the link. I read the article. Don't know much about Monsanto as I'm not a farmer.

I don't understand though. Why can the farmer not but seeds elsewhere? And if they buy from Monsanto what is wrong with enforcing rules to maintain their IP?

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

It's funny to watch you defend a company like Monsanto. Please don't stop.

As funny as watching a school teacher pretend to know anything about the ag industry?

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

Thanks for the link. I read the article. Don't know much about Monsanto as I'm not a farmer.

I don't understand though. Why can the farmer not but seeds elsewhere? And if they buy from Monsanto what is wrong with enforcing rules to maintain their IP?

There's a multitude of seed companies both GE and conventional that growers can choose from. Now, many do contain the RoundUp Ready gene that was developed and patented by Monsanto and other seed companies buy the technology off of Monsanto. There's also multiple other herbicide resistant traits that are patented by the other seed companies; Bayer, Dow, DuPont. All operate the same way in protecting their IP.

These dolts would be better served blasting all seed/chemical companies, rather than picking out the only one they've ever heard of. At least they'd be consistent.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

As funny as watching a school teacher pretend to know anything about the ag industry?

No watching you defend a company like Monsanto is way funnier.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

No watching you defend a company like Monsanto is way funnier.

Really? Because watching someone, who's knowledge goes as far as an article they read one time, try to keep up is pretty funny. I notice you've added nothing to the topic at hand. Probably says a lot right there, and probably best to remain that way.

 

[n_huffhines]

Yes, GE'ing has gone on for centuries, only moronic sheep claim Monsanto started this. And what does tilling have to do with anything? Tillage practices have nothing to do with biotechnology. Do you know what tillage even means?

And again, you blame one company. You're positive that Dow and Dupont have solely developed their own seed technology while Monsanto is the only one to "steal" technology? Or is it that you know the name Monsanto and are clueless of the role that BASF, Bayer, DuPont, Dow and Syngenta play in the field of agricultural biotechnology?

I have said nothing about Dow and Dupont. I am not just blaming one company. I am talking about the company we are talking about.

You were doing a good job in this. thread but now you're doing what you often do...argue irrelevant points that no one is making.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

I have said nothing about Dow and Dupont. I am not just blaming one company. I am talking about the company we are talking about.

You were doing a good job in this. thread but now you're doing what you often do...argue irrelevant points that no one is making.

That's the point. No one is talking about the handful of other companies who are involved in the GMO industry. It's not like Monsanto invented this concept and is the only one participating in it. You said Monsanto is a ****ty company because they make growers buy their technology annually, that was your "evidence". So does everyone else.

They all have GE patents, they all refuse to allow saving and replanting of seed, they will all take legal action to enforce their user guidelines if provoked. If you're going to hate one, might as well hate them all.

This thread was started as a pro-GMO discussion and as it goes everywhere, that turns into a Monsanto discussion. As was stated early in this thread; everyone who is anti-GMO is so because they're really anti-Monsanto and a majority couldn't even tell you why.

 

[n_huffhines]

So your defense of Monsanto is that their competitors are ****ty too. Got it.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

So your defense of Monsanto is that their competitors are ****ty too. Got it.

No, it's a way to point out the cluelessness of folks like you who cry about Monsanto. I don't think making people buy IP every year is ****ty, so I have no problem with the way any of these companies operate. And without the GE technology that's been implemented I know that we would not be producing the crop yields we do today. Which have allowed us to keep up with the growing food demand yet still keep food costs relatively cheap.

People today are much more segregated from the farming world than ever before as cities grow and other career sectors beckon for their employment. Yet the voices, of the non-ag world are louder than ever before, despite being knowledge-less of what actually goes on. You want to formulate an opinion on Monsanto, Bayer, GMO's etc, do so after actually discussing the topics with those involved in the industry on a daily basis. Not a left-leaning article from GreenPeace or rat study done by MIT.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You'd also put an astronomical number of folks on the street like me and my wife.

You want to formulate an opinion on Monsanto, Bayer, GMO's etc, do so after actually discussing the topics with those involved in the industry on a daily basis. Not a left-leaning article from GreenPeace or rat study done by MIT.

...

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

...

I meant talking to farmers, the ones actually "forced" to buy Monsanto's GMO seeds every year, since that's his problem with them.

I've already said I work in the fertilizer side of the industry. But I'm sure you think Monsanto manufacturers fertilizer too don't you?

 

[Orange_Crush]

I meant talk to farmers. I've already said I work in the fertilizer side of the industry. But I'm sure you think Monsanto manufacturers fertilizer too don't you?

No. I don't really have any dogs in that. I just thought you're being a condescending jerk, so I'd rattle your cage a bit. Continue.

 

[n_huffhines]

No, it's a way to point out the cluelessness of folks like you who cry about Monsanto. I don't think making people buy IP every year is ****ty, so I have no problem with the way any of these companies operate. And without the GE technology that's been implemented I know that we would not be producing the crop yields we do today. Which have allowed us to keep up with the growing food demand yet still keep food costs relatively cheap.

People today are much more segregated from the farming world than ever before as cities grow and other career sectors beckon for their employment. Yet the voices, of the non-ag world are louder than ever before, despite being knowledge-less of what actually goes on. You want to formulate an opinion on Monsanto, Bayer, GMO's etc, do so after actually discussing the topics with those involved in the industry on a daily basis. Not a left-leaning article from GreenPeace or rat study done by MIT.

Only like 5% of this applies to my position and points I've made. Your rants are a waste of time.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

No. I don't really have any dogs in that. I just thought you're being a condescending jerk, so I'd rattle your cage a bit. Continue.

Telling someone to visit with those, who he claims Monsanto screws, and get their viewpoint is condescending?

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

Only like 5% of this applies to my position and points I've made. Your rants are a waste of time.

Your only position has been IP or patent mongering. You've supplied nothing else of substance. You've said they're an evil entity with nothing to back that up. Who's the waste of time?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Telling someone to visit with those, who he claims Monsanto screws, and get their viewpoint is condescending?

No. Discussing with people while condescending them as morons does. As far as our discussion, basically bringing it down to "It'll never happen and it'd put me out of a job, so big-ag is better" didn't help much either.

But by all means, continue taking it down to condescension. It's apparently winning you points and internet anonymity makes it easy to treat people that way. I'll just retreat back to the sidelines and watch you call people morons and feel like you've accomplished something.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I won't claim to know much about the science behind this argument. Fraudulent statements by the anti gmo crowd are hardly surprising to hear, and makes them untrustworthy. That being said, I'm not in a huge hurry to trust the scientists who are paid for by the government which is a huge beneficiary of Monsanto's lobbyists. Besides, how many times has the FDA or USDA been caught supporting bad or fraudulent science? Who should we trust?

This really probably should have ended the thread. You can't really trust the fringe anti-crowd to give a reasonable argument. And you can't really trust those whose livelihoods depend on big-ag. The public really doesn't know who they can trust on these matters, and there are few things more important than what we put in our bodies.

 

[n_huffhines]

Your only position has been IP or patent mongering. You've supplied nothing else of substance. You've said they're an evil entity with nothing to back that up. Who's the waste of time?

I have backed it up. I also have defended their GE and you still lump me in with anti science GMO opponents. Like I said. You make irrelevant points.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

No. Discussing with people while condescending them as morons does. As far as our discussion, basically bringing it down to "It'll never happen and it'd put me out of a job, so big-ag is better" didn't help much either.

But by all means, continue taking it down to condescension. It's apparently winning you points and internet anonymity makes it easy to treat people that way. I'll just retreat back to the sidelines and watch you call people morons and feel like you've accomplished something.

I said your theory on fertility and its affects on soils was moronic.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

I have backed it up. I also have defended their GE and you still lump me in with anti science GMO opponents. Like I said. You make irrelevant points.

How did you back it up? You said Indians committed suicide over their patent laws without even providing a link. I debunked that claim by shedding light on the droughts that occurred during that time period.

I refuted that the world starves because of this by showing the biggest downfall to the yields in developing countries is their practice of not replinishing the soils with nutrients. Not expensive seeds.

 

[Orange_Crush]

What are big agro crops? The soil doesn't lose nutrients if they're replaced, cover crops are implemented and tillage practices are minimized. All of which have nothing to do with organic vs conventional.

Your last paragraph shows how moronic you are "nourish the soil naturally and don't spray nutrients back in the soil". Since when does phosphate, potassium, nitrogen and the other 14 essential elements for crop production not occur naturally in the environment? Potassium is mined in Saskatchewan (naturally occurring in the soil). It is applied to soils already containing potassium just at levels too low to support production. Phosphorus is mined out of Florida in the form of phosphate rock, once again naturally occurring. Soil is made up of nothing but nutrients which are little more than naturally occurring elements; remember the periodic table?

Yes, GE'ing has gone on for centuries, only moronic sheep claim Monsanto started this. And what does tilling have to do with anything? Tillage practices have nothing to do with biotechnology. Do you know what tillage even means?

And again, you blame one company. You're positive that Dow and Dupont have solely developed their own seed technology while Monsanto is the only one to "steal" technology? Or is it that you know the name Monsanto and are clueless of the role that BASF, Bayer, DuPont, Dow and Syngenta play in the field of agricultural biotechnology?

I said your theory on fertility and its affects on soils was moronic.

You may want to learn how to covey your thoughts. Neither usage referred to a theory being moronic, just how the theories that disagree with you proves people to be morons.

But anyway, starting to see how you may be seen as just a tad bit condescending in how you interact with people?

Oh, and if my theories on soil fertility, as it relates to current big-ag practices, is moronic, then I'll contend myself in good company, such as the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University, among others who are pointing out better practices such as manure over spray fertilizers.

 

[n_huffhines]

How did you back it up? You said Indians committed suicide over their patent laws without even providing a link. I debunked that claim by shedding light on the droughts that occurred during that time period.

I refuted that the world starves because of this by showing the biggest downfall to the yields in developing countries is their practice of not replinishing the soils with nutrients. Not expensive seeds.

Honestly, I didn't share a link because I don't think you are interested in truth. You seem like you are interested in holding court. Here is a great chapter about serious issues with IP using specific examples from Monsanto. This book was written by two great economic minds.

http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/ip.ch.6.m1004.pdf

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

You may want to learn how to covey your thoughts. Neither usage referred to a theory being moronic, just how the theories that disagree with you proves people to be morons.

But anyway, starting to see how you may be seen as just a tad bit condescending in how you interact with people?

Oh, and if my theories on soil fertility, as it relates to current big-ag practices, is moronic, then I'll contend myself in good company, such as the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University, among others who are pointing out better practices such as manure over spray fertilizers.

I don't think you positioned yourself as one of those who believe Monsanto started the practice of GMO's therefore that wasn't directed at you. If you think they're the first folks to ever try this, then the statement stands.

I don't contend that manure is not a good source of fertility. The point is, that manure has to be pulled from anther source in order to not have a net negative effect. Poultry litter is a big source of fertility in the row crop industry today and farmers are snatching it up. It's coming from somewhere else with the chickens getting their nutrients from somewhere else, therefore it's strictly a positive on the row cropper's farm as far as he's concerned. If you kept a cow penned up and only fed him the vegetation that's left after harvest, nutrients would ultimately be lost through the harvested portion of the crop and what the animal keeps for himself. The manure would have a smaller concentration of nutrients than what initially went in.