I wonder how this will affect their patent efforts.[T]he company is introducing novel strains of familiar food crops, invented at Monsanto and endowed by their creators with powers and abilities far beyond what you usually see in the produce section. The lettuce is sweeter and crunchier than romaine and has the stay-fresh quality of iceberg. The peppers come in miniature, single-serving sizes to reduce leftovers. The broccoli has three times the usual amount of glucoraphanin, a compound that helps boost antioxidant levels. Stark’s department, the global trade division, came up with all of them.
...
But here’s the twist: The lettuce, peppers, and broccoli—plus a melon and an onion, with a watermelon soon to follow—aren’t genetically modified at all. Monsanto created all these veggies using good old-fashioned crossbreeding, the same technology that farmers have been using to optimize crops for millennia. That doesn’t mean they are low tech, exactly. Stark’s division is drawing on Monsanto’s accumulated scientific know-how to create vegetables that have all the advantages of genetically modified organisms without any of the Frankenfoods ick factor.
...
They may be born in a lab, but technically they’re every bit as natural as what you’d get at a farmers’ market. Keep them away from pesticides and transport them less than 100 miles and you could call them organic and locavore too.
...
[G]enetically modifying consumer crops proved to be inefficient and expensive. Stark estimates that adding a new gene takes roughly 10 years and $100 million to go from a product concept to regulatory approval. And inserting genes one at a time doesn’t necessarily produce the kinds of traits that rely on the interactions of several genes. Well before their veggie business went kaput, Monsanto knew it couldn’t just genetically modify its way to better produce; it had to breed great vegetables to begin with. As Stark phrases a company mantra: “The best gene in the world doesn’t fix dogshit germplasm.”
What does? Crossbreeding. Stark had an advantage here: In the process of learning how to engineer chemical and pest resistance into corn, researchers at Monsanto had learned to read and understand plant genomes—to tell the difference between the dogshit germplasm and the gold. And they had some nifty technology that allowed them to predict whether a given cross would yield the traits they wanted.
The key was a technique called genetic marking. It maps the parts of a genome that might be associated with a given trait, even if that trait arises from multiple genes working in concert. Researchers identify and cross plants with traits they like and then run millions of samples from the hybrid—just bits of leaf, really—through a machine that can read more than 200,000 samples per week and map all the genes in a particular region of the plant’s chromosomes.
...
Monsanto computer models can actually predict inheritance patterns, meaning they can tell which desired traits will successfully be passed on. It’s breeding without breeding, plant sex in silico. In the real world, the odds of stacking 20 different characteristics into a single plant are one in 2 trillion. In nature, it can take a millennium. Monsanto can do it in just a few years.
And this all happens without any genetic engineering. Nobody inserts a single gene into a single genome. (They could, and in fact sometimes do, look at their crosses by engineering a plant as a kind of beta test. But those aren’t intended to leave the lab.) Stark and his colleagues realized that they could use these technologies to identify a cross that would have highly desirable traits and grow the way they wanted. And they could actually charge more for it—all the benefits of a GMO with none of the stigma. “We didn’t have those tools the first time around in vegetables,” Stark says.
2024 Fundraising - $1001 / $2000 CDN for the year, June/July Renewal. Paypal Donation Link US dollars
The new direction of Monsanto?
Moderators: Bakhtosh, EvilHomer3k
- Isgrimnur
- Posts: 82549
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
- Location: Chookity pok
- Contact:
The new direction of Monsanto?
Wired
It's almost as if people are the problem.
- Odin
- Posts: 20732
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:29 pm
- Location: Syracuse, NY
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
Fascinating that it's run by a guy named Stark. My spider-senses are tingling.
My Blog: Virtual Vellum
- LordMortis
- Posts: 70374
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
Works for me... I think... I have no problems with cross breeding based on super duper computer algorithms of understanding.
- KKBlue
- Posts: 3972
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:07 am
- Location: Connecticut
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
I finished watching GMO OMG and have to say I still believe much of the cancers and Alzheimer's is a direct link to the foods we eat.
"Why do people say grow some balls? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding!" - Betty White
- FishPants
- Server WhOOre
- Posts: 4663
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:38 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
Or the pollution coming out from every car, truck, airplane into the air.. Or the chemicals we surround ourselves with every day in our homes, from cleaners to what the house is made with.. Or the high voltage lines running through some areas.. Or wind turbines... There's a million reasons, and I have no doubt that frankenfoods are in there as well. The rub though is that mortality rates are way higher, so if we stay alive longer we're also going to see different diseases appear to take us down (Diabetes and obesity related diseases excepted of course).KKBlue wrote:I finished watching GMO OMG and have to say I still believe much of the cancers and Alzheimer's is a direct link to the foods we eat.
I saw Monsanto had made the change a year or two ago in a documentary, and some bigwig was interviewed (could have been the CEO) who said they could see the writing on the wall -- they were going to be sued out of existence at some point, and people wanted non-GMO foods so they shifted gears. Their business practices are still evil though independent of GMO or non-GMO.
No.
- Odin
- Posts: 20732
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:29 pm
- Location: Syracuse, NY
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
Any idea when I'll be able to start buying these wonderfoods?
My Blog: Virtual Vellum
- Kraken
- Posts: 43930
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
- Location: The Hub of the Universe
- Contact:
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
I'm told that there are apples that taste like grapes.Odin wrote:Any idea when I'll be able to start buying these wonderfoods?
- Kelric
- Posts: 30197
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:20 pm
- Location: Whip City
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
This. I'm less thrilled about supporting Monsanto, however.LordMortis wrote:I have no problems with cross breeding based on super duper computer algorithms of understanding.
- DocDarm
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:41 pm
- Location: Fort Lauderdale
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
We're all going to die of something. Since we're not dying of pneumonia or infections in our 20-40's, we started dying of heart disease in our 50's-70's. Now that we're managing cholesterol and other risk factors better, less of us are dying of heart disease and instead we're dying of cancer and neurological diseases in our 70's - 90's. Take it in perspective. We're living longer and better than ever.KKBlue wrote:I finished watching GMO OMG and have to say I still believe much of the cancers and Alzheimer's is a direct link to the foods we eat.
Me, I'm much more concerned about the plastics (especially the chemicals leached from plastic water bottles and the like...google "endocrine disrupters") contaminating our food and waters than genetic manipulation...a protein is a protein!
DocDarm
Last edited by DocDarm on Sun Nov 23, 2014 9:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Against everything bad.
- Smoove_B
- Posts: 54855
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
- Location: Kaer Morhen
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
Yeah, I'm also beginning to think things like phthalates and BPA are probably more harmful than we realized. And that doesn't even get into the brominated flame retardants we've likely been over exposed to for the last 30+ years in our homes. We already have ties to cancer for high fat, high red-meat diets...I'm not worried about GMO foods...yet.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
- KKBlue
- Posts: 3972
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:07 am
- Location: Connecticut
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
My favorite is when family members come up to me and talk about the "latest" in the news. Me, well chances are I knew about it years ago but keep it to myself. I have always been the activist in the family, resident tree hugger, recycler, and other earth friendly and health savvy stereo types. I don't preach but will throw out a tidbit now and then. My in-laws eat healthier now and my mom has begged me to stop telling her things because she does not want to know. I buy my brothers kids what I would purchase for our children (also wash their clothes before I give them as gifts). Every change makes a difference.
I try not to be extreme but typically buy in glass vs plastic and make my livelihood purchases wisely. The "latest" for me was to play the GMO OMG documentary. I don't watch the beware topics because I freak out way too much. Only wanted to make sure the rest of you knew the name Monsanto because it was new to me. Cried a few times while watching because the show did it's job to turn-up sorrow and pleading why would someone do this. I did a quick search and didn't see a GMO topic and wanted to bump this one. Isgrimur's original post was more updated with the company than the GMO OMG documentary. Still happy to read what you all are writing about other things to beware about.
Sorry rambling.
I try not to be extreme but typically buy in glass vs plastic and make my livelihood purchases wisely. The "latest" for me was to play the GMO OMG documentary. I don't watch the beware topics because I freak out way too much. Only wanted to make sure the rest of you knew the name Monsanto because it was new to me. Cried a few times while watching because the show did it's job to turn-up sorrow and pleading why would someone do this. I did a quick search and didn't see a GMO topic and wanted to bump this one. Isgrimur's original post was more updated with the company than the GMO OMG documentary. Still happy to read what you all are writing about other things to beware about.
Sorry rambling.
"Why do people say grow some balls? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding!" - Betty White
-
- Posts: 36486
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:17 pm
- Location: Nowhere you want to be.
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
I wonder how many of you will continue to bad-mouth Monsanto after they successfully engineer an overproduced crop (corn) to produce highly desired bacon instead.
Black Lives Matter
- RunningMn9
- Posts: 24473
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
- Location: The Sword Coast
- Contact:
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
That will depend on whether or not Monsanto will continue to be corporate fuckheads.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
- Kraken
- Posts: 43930
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
- Location: The Hub of the Universe
- Contact:
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
Monsanto's been a bogeyman for quite some time. I don't remember which movie opened my eyes to their practices -- Food Inc, maybe? There have been several.
That said, the only way 7 billion earthlings are going to have food is through GMOs and other agricultural wizardry yet to be discovered. We are fortunate to live in a bountiful country where we have the option to be choosy. Personally, I'm not convinced that there's any physiological reason to shun GMOs (although there are legitimate ecological concerns about releasing engineered genomes into the wild), but I know the jury is still out.
For all their slimy business practices, Monsanto and friends are a necessary evil unless you're cool with population control through starvation.
That said, the only way 7 billion earthlings are going to have food is through GMOs and other agricultural wizardry yet to be discovered. We are fortunate to live in a bountiful country where we have the option to be choosy. Personally, I'm not convinced that there's any physiological reason to shun GMOs (although there are legitimate ecological concerns about releasing engineered genomes into the wild), but I know the jury is still out.
For all their slimy business practices, Monsanto and friends are a necessary evil unless you're cool with population control through starvation.
- Alefroth
- Posts: 8622
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
- Location: Bellingham WA
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
Don't they already?Jeff V wrote:I wonder how many of you will continue to bad-mouth Monsanto after they successfully engineer an overproduced crop (corn) to produce highly desired bacon instead.
- Alefroth
- Posts: 8622
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
- Location: Bellingham WA
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
We can feed way more than 7 billion people without GMO's. It just takes smart growing and harvesting practices, and actually getting the food to the people.Kraken wrote:Monsanto's been a bogeyman for quite some time. I don't remember which movie opened my eyes to their practices -- Food Inc, maybe? There have been several.
That said, the only way 7 billion earthlings are going to have food is through GMOs and other agricultural wizardry yet to be discovered. We are fortunate to live in a bountiful country where we have the option to be choosy. Personally, I'm not convinced that there's any physiological reason to shun GMOs (although there are legitimate ecological concerns about releasing engineered genomes into the wild), but I know the jury is still out.
For all their slimy business practices, Monsanto and friends are a necessary evil unless you're cool with population control through starvation.
- miltonite
- Posts: 3276
- Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:37 am
- Location: Louisiana
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
In one of my classes the professor told us that if all available land was converted to farm land, and with out current crops and technology the carrying capacity of the earth is 9 billion humans. We are closing in on that quite quickly but then again crops are producing more and more thanks to GMO's and selective breeding.Alefroth wrote:We can feed way more than 7 billion people without GMO's. It just takes smart growing and harvesting practices, and actually getting the food to the people.Kraken wrote:Monsanto's been a bogeyman for quite some time. I don't remember which movie opened my eyes to their practices -- Food Inc, maybe? There have been several.
That said, the only way 7 billion earthlings are going to have food is through GMOs and other agricultural wizardry yet to be discovered. We are fortunate to live in a bountiful country where we have the option to be choosy. Personally, I'm not convinced that there's any physiological reason to shun GMOs (although there are legitimate ecological concerns about releasing engineered genomes into the wild), but I know the jury is still out.
For all their slimy business practices, Monsanto and friends are a necessary evil unless you're cool with population control through starvation.
"Only in a geek forum could we talk about the camcorder's battery life ruining our suspension of disbelief, while totally accepting the gigantic impenetrable monster." -YK
"Isg, set research engines to ludicrous speed!!" -DD*
"Isg, set research engines to ludicrous speed!!" -DD*
- RunningMn9
- Posts: 24473
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
- Location: The Sword Coast
- Contact:
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
The problem with that thought is that this is only true if you don't consider the reality that our current agricultural practices aren't sustainable. The curious question is how many humans can we support with sustainable practices?
I don't know what that answer is, but that's the one that matters.
I don't know what that answer is, but that's the one that matters.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
- MonkeyFinger
- Posts: 3223
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 10:23 pm
- Location: South of Denver, CO
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
There's always crickets and grasshoppers and the like as a sustainable food source.
My first memory of Monsanto was riding the Adventure Thru Inner Space ride at Disneyland as a wee lad, pretty cool stuff back then.
My first memory of Monsanto was riding the Adventure Thru Inner Space ride at Disneyland as a wee lad, pretty cool stuff back then.
-mf
- mori
- Posts: 4591
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:53 pm
- Location: Edge of Darkness
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
Most of us just have to become vegetarians.
- Kelric
- Posts: 30197
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:20 pm
- Location: Whip City
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
And convert as much space to green space as we can: flat rooftops should be solar panels, food producing, or just filled with regular old native plants that promote birds and bees and other insects. Lawns can be replaced with gardens or wild flowers or anything but grass, etc. There is a lot of work we could do.mori wrote:Most of us just have to become vegetarians.
But damn you if you take away my bacon!
- mori
- Posts: 4591
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:53 pm
- Location: Edge of Darkness
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
Why do you think ISIS is so pissed off? They deny themselves bacon!. The world would collapse into a clusterfuck of fiefdoms without beautiful cured and smoked pork belly.Kelric wrote:And convert as much space to green space as we can: flat rooftops should be solar panels, food producing, or just filled with regular old native plants that promote birds and bees and other insects. Lawns can be replaced with gardens or wild flowers or anything but grass, etc. There is a lot of work we could do.mori wrote:Most of us just have to become vegetarians.
But damn you if you take away my bacon!
Last edited by mori on Sun Nov 23, 2014 10:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- RunningMn9
- Posts: 24473
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
- Location: The Sword Coast
- Contact:
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
Won't that just hasten the environmental destruction that our current agricultural model wreaks? (massive amounts of fresh water for irrigation, massive energy in the form of fertilizers and pesticides and stuff, and the impact of pouring massive amounts of nitrogen fertilizer and pesticides into the ground and local water supplies, and so on)mori wrote:Most of us just have to become vegetarians.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
- Alefroth
- Posts: 8622
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
- Location: Bellingham WA
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
All of that would lesson if we stopped feeding that food to animals and ate it ourselves.RunningMn9 wrote:Won't that just hasten the environmental destruction that our current agricultural model wreaks? (massive amounts of fresh water for irrigation, massive energy in the form of fertilizers and pesticides and stuff, and the impact of pouring massive amounts of nitrogen fertilizer and pesticides into the ground and local water supplies, and so on)mori wrote:Most of us just have to become vegetarians.
- RunningMn9
- Posts: 24473
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
- Location: The Sword Coast
- Contact:
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
How would it lessen? If we don't do it, the land isn't productive enough to feed everyone.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
- Kraken
- Posts: 43930
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
- Location: The Hub of the Universe
- Contact:
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
Somebody recently wrote something that crossed my facebook feed (how's that for authority?) arguing that cattle graze marginal grasslands much more efficiently than they could ever be farmed. The case study was specific to Australia, but it made a valid point: in some parts of the world, meat production is the better use of land.
- Victoria Raverna
- Posts: 5331
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:23 am
- Location: Jakarta
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
What if we figure out how to cook the grass and feed them to human directly? isn't that going to be more efficient than feed them to cattles then we eat meat from the cattles.Kraken wrote:Somebody recently wrote something that crossed my facebook feed (how's that for authority?) arguing that cattle graze marginal grasslands much more efficiently than they could ever be farmed. The case study was specific to Australia, but it made a valid point: in some parts of the world, meat production is the better use of land.
- Blackhawk
- Posts: 44319
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
- Location: Southwest Indiana
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
That's it! Instead of engineering the crops, engineer the humans.Victoria Raverna wrote:
What if we figure out how to cook the grass and feed them to human directly? isn't that going to be more efficient than feed them to cattles then we eat meat from the cattles.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
- RunningMn9
- Posts: 24473
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
- Location: The Sword Coast
- Contact:
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
We aren't ruminants.
I feel like these conversations always have very superficial answers like "just feed all that corn to humans instead of cows!!" and I don't know how thoroughly they are thought out.
I also don't think the average Joe is aware of how energy and water intensive modern agriculture is. I assume that the future is going to have to be some sort of vertical farms.
I feel like these conversations always have very superficial answers like "just feed all that corn to humans instead of cows!!" and I don't know how thoroughly they are thought out.
I also don't think the average Joe is aware of how energy and water intensive modern agriculture is. I assume that the future is going to have to be some sort of vertical farms.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
- Kelric
- Posts: 30197
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:20 pm
- Location: Whip City
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
Just build grocery stores in Africa so they don't starve anymore!
Sometimes I miss U2K.
Sometimes I miss U2K.
- Alefroth
- Posts: 8622
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
- Location: Bellingham WA
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
It takes many times more resources to produce food by giving it to a cow first. If it didn't lessen, we'd at least have more food for humans for the same resources expended.RunningMn9 wrote:How would it lessen? If we don't do it, the land isn't productive enough to feed everyone.
- Alefroth
- Posts: 8622
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
- Location: Bellingham WA
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
That's true, but it isn't the standard way of producing beef. There must be a reason CAFO's are used so heavily.Kraken wrote:Somebody recently wrote something that crossed my facebook feed (how's that for authority?) arguing that cattle graze marginal grasslands much more efficiently than they could ever be farmed. The case study was specific to Australia, but it made a valid point: in some parts of the world, meat production is the better use of land.
- Kraken
- Posts: 43930
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
- Location: The Hub of the Universe
- Contact:
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
Yup, not contesting that. From an efficiency/sustainability standpoint it would behoove us to eat less meat since most of it comes from factory farm operations. However, suggesting that we should all go vegetarian is actually counterproductive because animals that feed on marginal lands without requiring irrigation or fertilizer actually increase the available food supply. From both a health perspective and an ecological perspective, meat ought to be an occasional part of our diet, not its foundation.Alefroth wrote:That's true, but it isn't the standard way of producing beef. There must be a reason CAFO's are used so heavily.Kraken wrote:Somebody recently wrote something that crossed my facebook feed (how's that for authority?) arguing that cattle graze marginal grasslands much more efficiently than they could ever be farmed. The case study was specific to Australia, but it made a valid point: in some parts of the world, meat production is the better use of land.
- RunningMn9
- Posts: 24473
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
- Location: The Sword Coast
- Contact:
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
How many kilocalories of corn does it take make how many kilocalories of cow?Alefroth wrote:It takes many times more resources to produce food by giving it to a cow first. If it didn't lessen, we'd at least have more food for humans for the same resources expended.
Also, I believe that the corn we feed to cows isn't fit for human consumption anyway - we aren't feeding them sweet corn IIRC.
And if we take the land that is being used to grow shitty cow corn, how much can that land produce sustainably? Assuming we aren't dumb enough to become cornatarians.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
- AWS260
- Posts: 12711
- Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:51 pm
- Location: Brooklyn
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
This seems like the most appropriate thread for this Slate piece on GMOs. A good read (though lengthy).
the deeper you dig, the more fraud you find in the case against GMOs. It’s full of errors, fallacies, misconceptions, misrepresentations, and lies. The people who tell you that Monsanto is hiding the truth are themselves hiding evidence that their own allegations about GMOs are false. They’re counting on you to feel overwhelmed by the science and to accept, as a gut presumption, their message of distrust.
- Isgrimnur
- Posts: 82549
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
- Location: Chookity pok
- Contact:
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
They're just asking questions.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
- ImLawBoy
- Forum Admin
- Posts: 15022
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
- Contact:
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
I'm not a scientician, so I largely go by my layman's interpretation of what I read. I still haven't read anything that convinces me that the supposed dangers of GMOs are anything more than a bogeyman. In fact (and this might rile up a few people), I tend to think that the case against GMOs is quite similar to the case against vaccinations. Not a lot of science to back it up, but plenty of scare tactics.AWS260 wrote:This seems like the most appropriate thread for this Slate piece on GMOs. A good read (though lengthy).the deeper you dig, the more fraud you find in the case against GMOs. It’s full of errors, fallacies, misconceptions, misrepresentations, and lies. The people who tell you that Monsanto is hiding the truth are themselves hiding evidence that their own allegations about GMOs are false. They’re counting on you to feel overwhelmed by the science and to accept, as a gut presumption, their message of distrust.
That's my purse! I don't know you!
- stessier
- Posts: 29881
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
- Location: SC
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
Thanks for the link - I've always wanted to have a good source to point the fear mongerers toward. This has a ton of links to the arguments of both sides and makes it very hard to say "yeah, but."
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running__ | __2014: 1300.55 miles__ | __2015: 2036.13 miles__ | __2016: 1012.75 miles__ | __2017: 1105.82 miles__ | __2018: 1318.91 miles | __2019: 2000.00 miles |
-
- Posts: 36486
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:17 pm
- Location: Nowhere you want to be.
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
I refuse to buy any product that panders to the ignorant by proclaiming "Non GMO" on their label.ImLawBoy wrote:I'm not a scientician, so I largely go by my layman's interpretation of what I read. I still haven't read anything that convinces me that the supposed dangers of GMOs are anything more than a bogeyman. In fact (and this might rile up a few people), I tend to think that the case against GMOs is quite similar to the case against vaccinations. Not a lot of science to back it up, but plenty of scare tactics.AWS260 wrote:This seems like the most appropriate thread for this Slate piece on GMOs. A good read (though lengthy).the deeper you dig, the more fraud you find in the case against GMOs. It’s full of errors, fallacies, misconceptions, misrepresentations, and lies. The people who tell you that Monsanto is hiding the truth are themselves hiding evidence that their own allegations about GMOs are false. They’re counting on you to feel overwhelmed by the science and to accept, as a gut presumption, their message of distrust.
Black Lives Matter
- LawBeefaroni
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 55434
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
- Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything
Re: The new direction of Monsanto?
Navel oranges are 200-year-old mutant Brazilian clones. But they're not GMO.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton
MYT
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton
MYT