Genetically Modified Food and Monsanto

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yeah and you are doing everything listed in my argumentum-ad-monsantium link:

http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/11/08/argumentum-ad-monsantium/

I am not an apologist for anyone, let alone Monsanto.

I am arguing for the benefits and necessity of GMO for our species to stay alive
without completely trashing the planet.

Your response is 'You mus ...[text shortened]... ll evil.

And all that is irrelevant as to whether or not GMO is beneficial or necessary.

I never claimed anybody loves Monsanto so your claim is simply false. I have not done everything listed in your silly link.

Your claim that Monsanto is helping the environment and helps our species survive is laughable. Monsanto manufactured agent orange during the Vietnam war and claimed DDT was harmless and was even good for you! They brought us PCB which was also later banned as an environmental hazard.

Monsanto started with the artificial sweetener saccharin. It was later shown to cause cancer. In 1985 Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in NutraSweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame's clouded past, including a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it "might induce brain tumors."

The FDA had actually banned aspartame based on this finding, only to have Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld (currently the Secretary of Defense) vow to "call in his markers," to get it approved.

On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan's inauguration, Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener, and Reagan's new FDA commissioner, Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry's decision.


It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision, but Hull then installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame's favor. Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position with Burston-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time he has never spoken publicly about aspartame.

GMOs are probably contributing to CCD by making bees sick. Are you willing to wait for absolute proof of it like so many of their other harmful products in the past?

I would not trust the FDA approval of any Monsanto products. I think you have been reading from Monsanto's website too much. Their products have killed people. When I say Monsanto is an evil corporation it is not just an opinion, it is a fact.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Also the plants designed to have built in insecticides are simply producing the same kind of
insecticides that we otherwise spray onto plants.

So it's the use of insecticides that effect bee's that is the problem, rather than the delivery
method.


And given that there have also been GM crops developed that emit a sent that keeps away
certain ...[text shortened]... killing them) GM crops potentially have much less damaging
potential options we can explore.

excellent points! and you just made me think of another one:
Many plants have naturally evolved to produce their own insecticides against insects and DO kill insects and sometimes other animals, even some beneficial ones. -should they be banned?

Potato plants have Solanine poison in them (mainly in the green parts) that is one of natures insecticides and not only can kill insects but also humans and any grazing animals desperate enough to eat them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solanine

if Solanine was used as an insecticide spray, it probably be banned!
Should we now stop growing potatoes?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Your claim that Monsanto is helping the environment and helps our species survive is laughable.

Ok. let me say this one more time.

I AM TALKING ABOUT GM FOODS IN GENERAL AND NOT THE PRACTICES OF
MONSANTO.

I have not claimed anywhere that Monsanto is helping the environment or
helps our species survive... They might be, I don't know.

And by making everything all about Monsanto all the time you are doing
exactly what the guy in the link was talking about.


If you can't grasp that then you have passed the point at which it's possible
to have a reasoned discussion.



EDIT: Also... I not that you link a whole load of supposed instances of corporate
evil... from the early 80's.

Might be more impressive if you weren't citing instances from 30 years ago.

Also I might note that repeatedly bringing up old and out-of-date examples
was on the list of things on the Argumentium ad Monsantium website...

Originally posted by humy
excellent points! and you just made me think of another one:
Many plants have naturally evolved to produce their own insecticides against insects and DO kill insects, even some beneficial ones. -should they be banned?

There are plants that naturally manufacture and contain cyanide.

But it's NATURAL cyanide so it's ok...

Originally posted by humy
Well lets actually read the link:

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/04/09/mystery-of-the-disappearing-bees-solved/
“...
But scientists believe that exposure to toxic pesticides is [b]only one factor that has led to the decline of honey bees in recent years. The destruction and fragmentation of bee habitats, as a result of land development and ...[text shortened]... I made above this post; it is highly relevant to what I am saying here and adds to my point.[/b]

I never said that all GMOs are bad. I believe Monsanto is perverting the FDA with corruption to get unwarranted approval. The problem is not GMOs specifically, it is that the technology is in the wrong hands.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Ok. let me say this one more time.

I AM TALKING ABOUT GM FOODS IN GENERAL AND NOT THE PRACTICES OF
MONSANTO.

I have not claimed anywhere that Monsanto is helping the environment or
helps our species survive... They might be, I don't know.

And by making everything all about Monsanto all the time you are doing
exactly what the guy in the lin ...[text shortened]... p that then you have passed the point at which it's possible
to have a reasoned discussion.

How many GMOs are produced by Monsanto's competitors?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
How many GMOs are produced by Monsanto's competitors?

Still not relevant to questions about whether or not GMO's are useful in
general.


Also, if Monsanto was as bad and ineffective as you are making them
out to be we'd all be dead by now.

Unless you are claiming that each and every one of Monsanto's products
is bad then you are making an Ad hominem attack on their products by
labelling them as bad Because They Make Them.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I never said that all GMOs are bad. I believe Monsanto is perverting the FDA with corruption to get unwarranted approval. The problem is not GMOs specifically, it is that the technology is in the wrong hands.

But I get the impression that you believe that GM is generally bad?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Still not relevant to questions about whether or not GMO's are useful in
general.


Also, if Monsanto was as bad and ineffective as you are making them
out to be we'd all be dead by now.

Unless you are claiming that each and every one of Monsanto's products
is bad then you are making an Ad hominem attack on their products by
labelling them as bad Because They Make Them.

They have the potential to be useful and safe, but Monsanto produces most right now and engages in anti-competitive practices. They want a monopoly on GMOs if they can achieve it.

I'm not saying each and every one of their products is unsafe but even you have to admit they have a crappy track record with products that poison people and even kill people.

"Also, if Monsanto was as bad and ineffective as you are making them
out to be we'd all be dead by now."

Now even you have to admit that is a stupid statement. What were you thinking?

Originally posted by googlefudge
And you know better than Norman Borlaug?

from this article: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4112

[quote]"In 1943, what became known as the Green Revolution began when Mexico, unable to feed its growing population, shouted for help. Within a few years, the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations founded the International Rice Research Institute in Asia, and b ...[text shortened]... onvinced by it's effectiveness smack more of your complete ignorance than anything else.

Sorry the guy who runs the website you keep quoting, Brian Dunning, was convicted for wire fraud (cookie stuffing). You may want to find a better source.

Originally posted by humy
But I get the impression that you believe that GM is generally bad?

Not really. Monsanto makes most of them and I believe I have proven that they will poison people and deny several products it makes were harmful even when they know it. They clearly are not a responsible corporation. They should have been sued out of existence a long time ago.

Monsanto is only still around because of their ability to corrupt the system and it is getting worse.

http://www.change.org/petitions/us-supreme-court-demand-clarence-thomas-recuse-himself-from-monsanto-v-geertson-no-09-475

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Not really. Monsanto makes most of them and I believe I have proven that they will poison people and deny several products it makes were harmful even when they know it. They clearly are not a responsible corporation. They should have been sued out of existence a long time ago.

Monsanto is only still around because of their ability to corrupt the syst ...[text shortened]... itions/us-supreme-court-demand-clarence-thomas-recuse-himself-from-monsanto-v-geertson-no-09-475

sorry for misunderstanding you.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Sorry the guy who runs the website you keep quoting, Brian Dunning, was convicted for wire fraud (cookie stuffing). You may want to find a better source.

I know that.

But that's an ad hominem attack.

The fact that he did something wrong (which he did) doesn't make everything else he did wrong.

Until that point his views and opinions were widely respected in the skeptical community as being well thought out and backed up.

That didn't suddenly change when it turned out he was guilty of cookie stuffing.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I know that.

But that's an ad hominem attack.

The fact that he did something wrong (which he did) doesn't make everything else he did wrong.

Until that point his views and opinions were widely respected in the skeptical community as being well thought out and backed up.

That didn't suddenly change when it turned out he was guilty of cookie stuffing.

ad ho·mi·nem
[ad hom-uh-nuhm -nem, ahd‐] Show IPA
adjective
1.
appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2.
attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I know that.

But that's an ad hominem attack.

The fact that he did something wrong (which he did) doesn't make everything else he did wrong.

Until that point his views and opinions were widely respected in the skeptical community as being well thought out and backed up.

That didn't suddenly change when it turned out he was guilty of cookie stuffing.

No it's not ad hominem, I'm claiming the potential for an undisclosed conflict of interests regarding organic farming, and the fact of the wire fraud conviction does undermine his integrity. I don't think that there's a real risk of a conflict regarding his work on things like the Philadelphia experiment or on UFOs, but some of the topics involve material interests. While it doesn't render everything he's ever said neccessarily wrong, it does mean you need a corobberating source.