what's in your bread?

[trader_4]

Apparently you spend a lot of time sleeping, because you're incapable of making cogent points and staying informed. What exactly is the distorted view of capitalism here? There are GMO seeds available. There are none GMO seeds available, farmers are free to choose which they want to use. Monsanto develops GMO seeds and sells them for a profit. Other seed producers develop hybrids by other means and similarly protect them, prohibit others from using them without license. They invest time and money, research, they want to get a return on and protect their investment. All that is very much a part of normal capitalism and free markets.

If true, *that* would be a distorted capitalism. Please show us the case where Monsanto forced farmers to use their see. I'm betting you can't or that it's grossly distorted, ie there was some pre-existing contract, etc.

At this point, much of

So, show us the cases where Monsanto has sued farmers to force them to use their product. I'm betting it's a lie. And show us the cases where Monsanto claimed that farmers were infringing where the crops were only contaminated by pollen from a nearby farm using Monsanto seed. Waiting......

Of course they did. It's essential to protecting Monsanto's investment in developing the seed. Again, you're pretending that this is unique to GMO. It's not. Try taking some grass seed developed at Rutgers without GMO, still under protection, then cultivating it, using the seed for commercial purposes. The same thing will happen.

You're asleep again. Patenting life forms isn't something new. It's been going on a very long time. The Haas avocado is a good example. That was developed and the tree patented back in the

30's. I suppose Mr. Haas, who developed it, should have given it to the world for free? He patented it, sold it, protected it and obviously it had nothing to do with GMO. Any other myths I need to demolish this morning? Good grief.

[Mayayana]

| > The author seems to be partially misinformed. She starts | > by saying the problem is not GMO crops but then goes | > on to say the problem is Roundup herbicide. Roundup is | > patented by Monsanto, which also has a patent on their | > GMO grains designed to tolerate high levels of Roundup. | > It's a marketing dream: They sell the poison and they | > also sell the patented, GMO seed that can tolerate it. | | | Did you actually read the article ? And a couple more related articles ? | The wheat is not GMO , nor are they using the glyphosate for weed control . | They're using it to kill the wheat in a manner that increases the yield | while making it all ripen within a narrower window - which also maximizes | yield . The problem is that the not-quite-ripe wheat berries absorb some of | that glyphosate as they ripen .

It is an interesting story, if true. The author's links leave something to be desired, though she does seem to be right that the practice is common.

But she's making it sound like GMO is not the problem. Even if wheat were not being sprayed with Roundup, corn, soy and other crops are. And those are mostly GMO, Roundup Ready varieties, tolerant of large amounts of Roundup.

While glyphosate in wheat, at least in this context, is not a GMO issue, glyphosate is becoming systemic in the food supply. The man in the restaurant allegedly getting indigestion from rolls was likely eating glyphosate in other dishes at that restaurant, as well as at home, from RR grains, unless he's eating nearly all organic grain.

So I'm not trying to downplay the issue of glyphosate. I'm just trying to widen the topic. Glyphosate is just one of many toxic chemicals being used. (I was once told there are 12 different chemicals sprayed on apples, and that was 40 years ago. The arborist running the orchard who told me this also said he worked fulltime spraying pesticide during the growing season, only stopping for a short period so that the bees could pollinate. There was even a special chemical they sprayed to make the apples stay on the trees if the pickers weren't keeping up. Have you ever noticed fuzz, like asbestos fuzz, around the stem of an apple? That's the keep-'em-on-the-tree chemical.)

GMO is a looming issue that threatens to intensify the degradation of the food supply. If all GMO is labeled that would be good. But of course it won't stop the extreme use of toxic chemicals. In the meantime, organic is the only truly regulated food. But even the organic law could be chipped away. I'm still surprised and pleased that such an honest law ever got passed in the first place.

[Terry Coombs]

Go right ahead and poison yourself . Won't hurt my feelings a bit . I choose however to avoid glyphosate when I can . That's part of the reason I grow a big garden every year ...

[Roy]

Enjoy your tasteless food and enjoy your short life...most food is organic in case you didn't know.

[Frank]

This organic chemist has been following the thread. I get miffed at the misuse of the term and chemophobia in the general public. What's a mother to do?

[trader_4]

Fear not. I don't eat weeds and I don't spray vegetables with it. From what I know, glyphosate is not used on the typical garden type vegetables that are produced commercially either. So AFAIK, whether tomatoes, lettuce, and carrots come from the supermarket or your local garden doesn't matter with regard to glyphosate.

[Mayayana]

| This organic chemist has been following the thread. | I get miffed at the misuse of the term and chemophobia in the general | public.

I can't tell whether that was tongue in cheek. Are you unaware that "organic" is also a legal term when applied to food?

Of course nearly all food is composed of organic matter, but the word organic also has very specific meaning when applied to food sold in the US. It's shorthand for "organically grown", which is very precisely defined.

I'd agree that there is some "chemophobia", which might also be called "naturophilia" -- the simplistic notion that everything untouched by humans is inherently good and pure. But there's also "chemophilia". For instance, the people who thought Rachel Carson was a nut. She actually turned out to be one of the first people to pop the starry-eyed, Edenic fantasy that science was all-good and could be depended upon to always improve our lives into the future. A half century later we're slowly learning to be more circumspect about new technological developments. But there's still a lot of silly, blind devotion to anything that claims to be "scientific".

What the two "philias" have in common is that they represent intellectually lazy, black-and-white views that are not based on information or reasoning. The organic foods law is meant to be reasonable: Don't put poison on food that you intend to eat; research and understand the best, safest ways to grow food. There's nothing unscientific or chemophobic about the organic foods regulations.

[Frank]

The government also says that marriage can be between two of the same sex.

[Stormin Mormon]

Where's the petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide, when you most need it.

The ignornance of the masses is really astounding, and I don't know what we can do about it.

- . Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus .

. .

[trader_4]

Of course you have peer reviewed research that supports that claim, right? I'd say the reason there is such a market for probiotics is because advertising works, especially on hippies.

[trader_4]

See, this is how you go so badly astray. Some guy gets indigestion from eating in a restaturant and immediately it's the alleged glyphosate in the rolls. Never mind that we don't know his medical history, what else he eats/drinks, if there is even glyphosate in the rolls. No, it's gotta be them there rolls.

I'll bet a good percentage of food marked organic, isn't. There is a HUGE profit incentive there. Put some regular vegetables in a truck, ship them around to a couple warehouses, and voila! out comes organic food for hippies at 3X the price.

Marc Rich, the largest tax cheat in US history that fled, was never brought to justice in any way, that Clinton pardoned on his last day in office, he did essentially the same thing. He took old oil which was subject to Carter's windfall profit's tax, pumped it through a pipeline or two, and when it came out it was new oil, which was not subject to the tax. Rich's ex-wife just happened to finanace Clinton's library and donate millions to the Democratic Party too, but of course there was no connection.....

[Dan Espen]

Chemophobia, I love it. Don't scare anyone telling them that there are chemicals in their food.

I was just reading recently about how 80% of Americans are in favor of labeling food that contains DNA:

Since that number is at 80%, I must mention that everything that is alive contains DNA.

[Scott Lurndal]

Gotta watch out for that dihydrogen monoxide. It's deadly.

[Dan Espen]

So, I'm reading and reading and wondering what all this spew of words is about, then I get to the gem immediately above.

Clearly you have an agenda or cognitive problems.

I think it's the former.

Are you capable of reflecting on the essential differences between believing without evidence and understanding based on evidence?

Obviously your statement is false. In fact, in the context you've used the words, the 2 things are opposites.

But as long as you have an agenda, I don't think you can see that.

[Mayayana]

| > How much of science is scientific? Given that science | > is the closest thing modern society has to religion, | | Are you capable of reflecting on the essential differences | between believing without evidence and understanding based | on evidence? | | Obviously your statement is false. In fact, in the context | you've used the words, the 2 things are opposites. |

You're demonstrating my point. For you, science absolutely cannot be questioned. It's objective fact. That's a pretty good definition of dogmatic religious belief. Yet you apparently believe that religion is, specifically, dogmatic belief opposed to science. If we're going to look at it fairly and objectively we would have to conclude that your view and "practice" of science is essentially a fundamentalist religion, no different from any other fundamentalist religion in that it involves dogmas that can't be questioned. That's what I was talking about.

You accepted the study as accurate science that's based on evidence, but why do you assume it's "objective" fact just because it's official science? The study was done by people. Those people had a vested interest in the outcome. What they passed off as a scientific study is in part a deliberately skewed marketing device. That isn't new. People are constantly using "science" to make their case. Corporations hire the "high priests" of science to cook up research that supports their business model. The research, in some cases, might be quite good. But the "science" that comes out of that research could still be mere propaganda, depending on how it's presented.

I wouldn't be surprised if those "scientists" in Oklahoma were honestly trying to do good, honest research. But if they can't clearly look at their own preconceptions then they *will* do dishonest research with all the best intentions. They probably assumed, in the darker recesses of their minds, that calling into question the sanity and intelligence of GMO doubters was a service to truth and science.

What we were initially talking about was GMOs and organic food. You and Frank both dismissed the general public as idiots who don't understand even the most rudimentary ideas in science. Yet neither of you has offered your own opposing (or even concordant) views and reasoning on the topic. If you value science then why not address the topic rationally, with whatever evidence or experience you might be able to apply that could shed light? Do you not find the issue at all interesting?

There's an old saying (I don't know where it comes from) that the wise man is he who knows he doesn't know. If we can't fully call into question what we take to be truth, then how can we really practice science? How could we reason and reflect? Dogma is not necessary to understanding. Dogma is an act of fear. But anything we refuse to question, refusing to entertain even the possibility that we might be capable of being wrong, is dogma, even if it's the functionality of DNA or the sun rising in the east. We don't need dogma to understand how the sun rises.

To the extent that we're dogmatic -- adamantly certain that we know what's true -- even our most advanced scientific theories would still be no more than pre-recorded data that we play back as needed, like a prepubescent child who has learned to hold opinions but who isn't yet capable of reasoning. (I expect everyone here has had the experience of being approached by a supremely confident 12 y.o. who proclaims that "you should" this or "you should" that. "You shouldn't drink." "Fat is bad for you." Etc. Whatever it is, they heard it from an adult and now they're greatly pleased to be the proud owners of a shiny, new opinion. :) Just so with the devotees of science. Their opinions are moldable because they assume anything dressed up as science is objective truth. (And of course they're assuming there is such a thing as objective truth. But maybe we have enough on our debate plate at this point without getting into the ultimate dogmatic keystone of modern science: the assumption that objective observation of truth is possible. :)

[Dan Espen]

Oh really, and you know that how?

Science is all about questioning. Collect evidence, come to your best conclusion. QUESTIONING is an essential part of the process.

Unlike it's opposite.

[Mayayana]

| > | Obviously your statement is false. In fact, in the context | > | you've used the words, the 2 things are opposites. | > | | > | > You're demonstrating my point. For you, science | > absolutely cannot be questioned. It's objective | > fact. | | Oh really, | and you know that how? |

You just told me. You say science is the opposite of religion. That's a dogmatic statement, worthy only of dogmatic, atheistic hysterics like Daniel Dennett and his ilk, who are frightened by anything that falls outside the purview of scientific materialism. The only way it could be construed as coherent is if I assume you mean that religion is no more and no less than blind belief and that science is totally free of belief. So you've dismissed much of the activity of humanity throughout history as merely blind belief, apparently without research or evidence.

Your implication that science is not subject to belief can only be taken as irrational dogma. Science is practiced by people, who are subject to irrational thought and belief -- both conscious and non-conscious. Worse, we're all subject to believing we're capable of logical thought when we're often not. Further, science is limited in its scope to what it can observe objectively. Do we have astral bodies? Does God exist in any sense? The true scientist would say we need other tools to ask those questions because they're outside the scope of science. But what more often happens is that the scientist simply rules those questions irrelevant, by virtue of their being unscientific! That's exactly the same mind as the cardinal (pope?) who proclaimed that he had no need to look through Galileo's telescope to confirm the existence of craters on the moon because he already knew that God would not create an imperfect moon with craters. :) You *know* science is true and religion is false, which is simply dogma.

| Science is all about questioning. | Collect evidence, come to your best conclusion. | QUESTIONING is an essential part of the process. | | Unlike it's opposite. | OK. Then why didn't you question the Oklahoma study? And what are your evidence and conclusions about GMOs and organic food? I'm not asking you to discuss religion here. I'm only questioning the limits of science and alleged science. Isn't that allowed as a topic of scientific inquiry? Shouldn't we be able to discuss something like GMOs and organic food as a scientific topic?

[trader_4]

Good grief. "Science is the closest thing modern society has to religion"? WTF? You're right, that's a classic. And then M is telling us about GMO, glyphosate and God knows what else?

[Dan Espen]

No it's not. I just gave you the reasoning behind my statement. Can you recall where I mentioned an approach to EVIDENCE?

There's no dogma there at all. As I said, scientists, and those that take a scientific approach, (as opposed to a DOGMATIC approach) question everything based on EVIDENCE.

(Sorry, but I feel the need to capitalize the words you appear to not notice or understand.)

...snip barrage of words meant to obfuscate.

You appear to have me confused with someone else.

Let's see Oklahoma GMO study...maybe this:

So, what are my choices? Believe you or a study that seems to be citing some numbers:

In the U.S. approximately 57% of all soybeans cultivated in 1999 were genetically-modified, up from 42% in 1998 and only 7% in 1996.

So far, I think I'm going with the study.

You don't seem to be able to tell the difference between a belief and a conclusion drawn from evidence.

As far as GMOs vs Organic (which I have not commented on up to this point), I prefer not to worry. I think I'll live longer not being afraid of everything.

I eat what I like.

I believe I preserve my health through activity, not fear of what I eat.

[trader_4]

Once again Dan, of course you're right.

I don't know what "study" M's referring to either. All I saw was a reference to a "survey". But I guess anyone who's as confused as M is doesn't understand the difference between an actual scientific study and a consumer survey. Good grief.

BTW, I'm still waiting for M to show me where Monsanto forced farmers to use their seed. Or sued farmers where their non-GMO crop was innocently contaminated by some Monsanto seed from a nearby farm that was using it.

+1