fargus
Well-known member
ChrisB":1ez7w7ma said:
I haven't read the study you are referring to, but in medicine that is known as the placebo effect. It is very real, but at the same time almost impossible to predict.
GMO Feed
- Thread starter Oldtimer
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
I haven't read the study you are referring to, but in medicine that is known as the placebo effect. It is very real, but at the same time almost impossible to predict.
IGotMyWings
Well-known member
MoGal tried to share what she'd found out when she researched GMO/transgenic food and she was bashed like a baby seal. She furnished evidence (like I said before, my sources can be flawed, and so can yours) that indicated that animals fed GMO feed had defects. "Rats fed GM potatoes had smaller livers, hearts, testicles and brains, damaged immune systems, and showed structural changes in their white blood cells making them more vulnerable to infection and disease compared to other rats fed non-GMO potatoes. It got worse. Thymus and spleen damage showed up; enlarged tissues, including the pancreas and intestines; and there were cases of liver atrophy as well as significant proliferation of stomach and intestines cells that could be a sign of greater future risk of cancer. Equally alarming, results showed up after 10 days of testing, and they persisted after 110 days that's the human equivalent of 10 years." But rather than take her information, and think about it, she was beaten down and told things like "Imagine the price of food? The Earth simply can not produce enough food with out GM crops." (so, feeding the world starts with making potentially poorer quality, but more of it food?) or "get over it" (We don't care that it could be harmful as long as we're getting our money?). As for the price of food, oddly enough, one of my wife's co-workers was talking to someone from Africa. They were amazed at the food system here and how the natural food here is so high priced and the high calorie, not so healthy foods were so cheap. Where she's from, natural food is cheap and the junk food is expensive.
As I've said (and will say again), any source of information, especially today with the Internet and it's ease of manipulation, can be flawed. Maybe hers was, maybe yours is. Maybe mine is. What she said may or may not be proof that genetic modification of our food or what our food eats is bad, but instead of saying, "Hmmm...I wonder..." the consensus seemed to be, eh, who cares? 2B/or not 2B tried to add a little to the discussion by saying, "You can just call someone a doomsdayer and disregard them completely or you can consider the reasons behind their concerns." Among the replies to that? "As far as disregarding you and others, there is good reason. This has gotten to the point that people will fabricate any kind of story or case they can to shut this thing down. They have a closed mind to anything reasonable and want to live in the past. Get over it." <<<see the recurring theme? I don't think MoGal was fabricating, and I know I wasn't.
I throw my hat into the ring questioning the genetic engineering of things, and my first reply? "Man we have to fire this debate up AGAIN! For your information GMO is not fake food. Just as real as anything "natural or organic". (Page 5, fargus, in case you want to make sure I copied it right! ;-) ) Now I, personally, don't know about the transgenic crops being unsafe, I just know what I've read, part of which was posted here by MoGal. When I raised questions like if it's okay as a feed source, why can't organic producers feed it, instead of someone saying, "Good question...do they know something about it we don't?" I get asked who wrote the policy!
As I've said before, the majority of the issues with beef and dairy products isn't with the producer, although, that's where some of them start, hence my link from GMO/transgenic, steroid laced feed being the start of the problem (not being natural - remember the whole butter thing), to the increased steroid and then antibiotic laced feed at the feedlot, to the untrained fella with the saw that contaminates the meat with E.Coli, culminating with the fogging of our food with ammonia to kill the bugs the last idiot put in there by being careless.
I don't know that GMO or transgenics are evil incarnate. I don't know that they aren't either. I think that there is a lot of information both ways, which, to me, says that I don't want to feed or eat it until someone figures it out. You'll forgive me if I don't believe studies funded by chemical companies or their subsidiaries.
As I've said (and will say again), any source of information, especially today with the Internet and it's ease of manipulation, can be flawed. Maybe hers was, maybe yours is. Maybe mine is. What she said may or may not be proof that genetic modification of our food or what our food eats is bad, but instead of saying, "Hmmm...I wonder..." the consensus seemed to be, eh, who cares? 2B/or not 2B tried to add a little to the discussion by saying, "You can just call someone a doomsdayer and disregard them completely or you can consider the reasons behind their concerns." Among the replies to that? "As far as disregarding you and others, there is good reason. This has gotten to the point that people will fabricate any kind of story or case they can to shut this thing down. They have a closed mind to anything reasonable and want to live in the past. Get over it." <<<see the recurring theme? I don't think MoGal was fabricating, and I know I wasn't.
I throw my hat into the ring questioning the genetic engineering of things, and my first reply? "Man we have to fire this debate up AGAIN! For your information GMO is not fake food. Just as real as anything "natural or organic". (Page 5, fargus, in case you want to make sure I copied it right! ;-) ) Now I, personally, don't know about the transgenic crops being unsafe, I just know what I've read, part of which was posted here by MoGal. When I raised questions like if it's okay as a feed source, why can't organic producers feed it, instead of someone saying, "Good question...do they know something about it we don't?" I get asked who wrote the policy!
As I've said before, the majority of the issues with beef and dairy products isn't with the producer, although, that's where some of them start, hence my link from GMO/transgenic, steroid laced feed being the start of the problem (not being natural - remember the whole butter thing), to the increased steroid and then antibiotic laced feed at the feedlot, to the untrained fella with the saw that contaminates the meat with E.Coli, culminating with the fogging of our food with ammonia to kill the bugs the last idiot put in there by being careless.
I don't know that GMO or transgenics are evil incarnate. I don't know that they aren't either. I think that there is a lot of information both ways, which, to me, says that I don't want to feed or eat it until someone figures it out. You'll forgive me if I don't believe studies funded by chemical companies or their subsidiaries.
fargus
Well-known member
I can't really add much more. If you are going to wait until "somebody figures it out" then you will never use transgenics. Everything is a calculated risk.
I apologize, I didn't intend to intentionally gloss over a statement. For the record, I do believe the two (transgenic vs not) are not substantially, measurably different. Again, for the record, I believe the studies presented by both sides of the debate are skewed. The question about who wrote the policy was to highlight the fact that absolutely everything in todays world is agenda-driven and skewed by partisan politics. I believe the "line in the sand" hasn't been drawn so much because of any science that says it needs to be, but rather because the organic and natural producers needed regulations, for marketing purposes.
If you can't take the studies presented by chemical companies at face value, forgive us for not taking the studies conducted by the die-hard proponents of organic thinking as they are presented either. Now I do consider the reasons some foks are concerned, and I'll be one of the first to tell you (as only one who is intimately involved can really understand) that the entirety of our current system is not sustainable. That said, there have been a lot of improvements over the years, and I honestly think that transgenic crops have helped us adopt some beneficial management practices that would have been much tougher prior to their introduction. All of that being said, villifying one sector of the industry or another does none of us any good.
In closing, I state my hope that I didn't come across as a close-minded fanatic. I like to think of myself as a reasonable person. I will, however, ask one last question. Did you consider the information that I presented regarding natural plant breeding? I'm not saying that organic or natural producers need to go back to only heritage varieties, but a truly educated consumer (who is looking at organic-type food) would probably question the inclusion of varities developed using some of those techniques, with very good reason.
I apologize, I didn't intend to intentionally gloss over a statement. For the record, I do believe the two (transgenic vs not) are not substantially, measurably different. Again, for the record, I believe the studies presented by both sides of the debate are skewed. The question about who wrote the policy was to highlight the fact that absolutely everything in todays world is agenda-driven and skewed by partisan politics. I believe the "line in the sand" hasn't been drawn so much because of any science that says it needs to be, but rather because the organic and natural producers needed regulations, for marketing purposes.
If you can't take the studies presented by chemical companies at face value, forgive us for not taking the studies conducted by the die-hard proponents of organic thinking as they are presented either. Now I do consider the reasons some foks are concerned, and I'll be one of the first to tell you (as only one who is intimately involved can really understand) that the entirety of our current system is not sustainable. That said, there have been a lot of improvements over the years, and I honestly think that transgenic crops have helped us adopt some beneficial management practices that would have been much tougher prior to their introduction. All of that being said, villifying one sector of the industry or another does none of us any good.
In closing, I state my hope that I didn't come across as a close-minded fanatic. I like to think of myself as a reasonable person. I will, however, ask one last question. Did you consider the information that I presented regarding natural plant breeding? I'm not saying that organic or natural producers need to go back to only heritage varieties, but a truly educated consumer (who is looking at organic-type food) would probably question the inclusion of varities developed using some of those techniques, with very good reason.
TexasBred
Well-known member
The very reason I pay little attention to all the so-called "research" about grass fed beef. Or global warming. You'll always get skewed results depending on what the researchers were told to find...what they usually find is a pot of gold and then miraculously out comes the results of the study.
Douglas
Well-known member
MoGal tried to share what she'd found out when she researched GMO/transgenic food and she was bashed like a baby seal. She furnished evidence (like I said before, my sources can be flawed, and so can yours) that indicated that animals fed GMO feed had defects. "Rats fed GM potatoes had smaller livers...........But rather than take her information,
She has every right to post anything she wants. But inquiring minds would like to understand where this came from. The reality is that it came for a discredited scientist and no one has yet been able to replicate these results. If you can't replicate the science and peer review indicates flaws in the research it can't be trusted. There is legitimate research and illegitimate research and a Google search on Arpad Pusztai the author of this study reveals his research illegitimate in my opinion.
As I've said (and will say again), any source of information, especially today with the Internet and it's ease of manipulation, can be flawed.
Agreed, that is why we have to look closer at motives and credibility. People/scientists who believe the government was responsible for 9/11 are not credible in my opinion.
Maybe hers was, maybe yours is. Maybe mine is. What she said may or may not be proof that genetic modification of our food or what our food eats is bad, but instead of saying, "Hmmm...I wonder..." the consensus seemed to be, eh, who cares? 2B/or not 2B tried to add a little to the discussion by saying, "You can just call someone a doomsdayer and disregard them completely or you can consider the reasons behind their concerns."
That is fine; you like natural stuff and want to raise nature stuff. Ok by me. Just don't try to convince consumer that other production methods are dangerous just so you can charge more and make more profits with these scare tactics' I know I am making a presumption here but that is what I think. Among the replies to that? "As far as disregarding you and others, there is good reason. This has gotten to the point that people will fabricate any kind of story or case they can to shut this thing down. They have a closed mind to anything reasonable and want to live in the past. Get over it." <<<see the recurring theme? I don't think MoGal was fabricating, and I know I wasn't.
There good science and there is junk science. The Anti GMO folks often use the latter. That doesn't mean that are bad people or liars, just misguided in my opinion.
I throw my hat into the ring questioning the genetic engineering of things, and my first reply? "Man we have to fire this debate up AGAIN! For your information GMO is not fake food. Just as real as anything "natural or organic". (Page 5, fargus, in case you want to make sure I copied it right! ) Now I, personally, don't know about the transgenic crops being unsafe, I just know what I've read, part of which was posted here by MoGal. When I raised questions like if it's okay as a feed source, why can't organic producers feed it, instead of someone saying, "Good question...do they know something about it we don't?" I get asked who wrote the policy!
You can look for conspiracies all you want but the answers to these questions have been laid out clearly many times. Saying something is natural is not necessarily saying it is better. Not to hard to understand. If all you got to criticize GMO is that the USDA says it is not natural, you don't have much.
I have concerns about GMO as well. I have concerns about overuse of antibiotics and e-coli. My research reveals that GMO to date has been proved safe, increases yields, decreased costs, and result in improved environmental conditions (significantly less cultivation required). On antibiotics and e-coli we need to do better as an industry, much better.
As I've said before, the majority of the issues with beef and dairy products isn't with the producer, although, that's where some of them start, hence my link from GMO/transgenic, steroid laced feed being the start of the problem (not being natural - remember the whole butter thing), to the increased steroid and then antibiotic laced feed at the feedlot, to the untrained fella with the saw that contaminates the meat with E.Coli, culminating with the fogging of our food with ammonia to kill the bugs the last idiot put in there by being careless.
Nothing you said above has anything to do with the safety of GMO crops which is the topic at hand.
I don't know that GMO or transgenics are evil incarnate. I don't know that they aren't either. I think that there is a lot of information both ways,
Actually there is not a lot of information both ways. There are a few anti-gmo conspiracy types who are linked to multiple other conspiracy blogs who are linked to other conspiracy blogs and it just appears to be a lot out there. What there is ,is a lot of opinions like yours with little scientific support. Much of this can be attributed to European farmers who want to keep US products out of their markets for obvious financial reasons. They get into trouble with the world trade commission with outright trade barriers so they have to manufacture phoney ones.
which, to me, says that I don't want to feed or eat it until someone figures it out. You'll forgive me if I don't believe studies funded by chemical companies or their subsidiaries.
Again that is fine you guys are free to have your opinions, but when you start recycling junk science you are going to get call on it.
As for full disclosure, I am a businessman in construction, hobby cattle farmer, and too was raised in row crop farming and sympathetic to their plight. My cattle are all natural. No antibiotic, hormones, or gmo feed.
She has every right to post anything she wants. But inquiring minds would like to understand where this came from. The reality is that it came for a discredited scientist and no one has yet been able to replicate these results. If you can't replicate the science and peer review indicates flaws in the research it can't be trusted. There is legitimate research and illegitimate research and a Google search on Arpad Pusztai the author of this study reveals his research illegitimate in my opinion.
As I've said (and will say again), any source of information, especially today with the Internet and it's ease of manipulation, can be flawed.
Agreed, that is why we have to look closer at motives and credibility. People/scientists who believe the government was responsible for 9/11 are not credible in my opinion.
Maybe hers was, maybe yours is. Maybe mine is. What she said may or may not be proof that genetic modification of our food or what our food eats is bad, but instead of saying, "Hmmm...I wonder..." the consensus seemed to be, eh, who cares? 2B/or not 2B tried to add a little to the discussion by saying, "You can just call someone a doomsdayer and disregard them completely or you can consider the reasons behind their concerns."
That is fine; you like natural stuff and want to raise nature stuff. Ok by me. Just don't try to convince consumer that other production methods are dangerous just so you can charge more and make more profits with these scare tactics' I know I am making a presumption here but that is what I think. Among the replies to that? "As far as disregarding you and others, there is good reason. This has gotten to the point that people will fabricate any kind of story or case they can to shut this thing down. They have a closed mind to anything reasonable and want to live in the past. Get over it." <<<see the recurring theme? I don't think MoGal was fabricating, and I know I wasn't.
There good science and there is junk science. The Anti GMO folks often use the latter. That doesn't mean that are bad people or liars, just misguided in my opinion.
I throw my hat into the ring questioning the genetic engineering of things, and my first reply? "Man we have to fire this debate up AGAIN! For your information GMO is not fake food. Just as real as anything "natural or organic". (Page 5, fargus, in case you want to make sure I copied it right! ) Now I, personally, don't know about the transgenic crops being unsafe, I just know what I've read, part of which was posted here by MoGal. When I raised questions like if it's okay as a feed source, why can't organic producers feed it, instead of someone saying, "Good question...do they know something about it we don't?" I get asked who wrote the policy!
You can look for conspiracies all you want but the answers to these questions have been laid out clearly many times. Saying something is natural is not necessarily saying it is better. Not to hard to understand. If all you got to criticize GMO is that the USDA says it is not natural, you don't have much.
I have concerns about GMO as well. I have concerns about overuse of antibiotics and e-coli. My research reveals that GMO to date has been proved safe, increases yields, decreased costs, and result in improved environmental conditions (significantly less cultivation required). On antibiotics and e-coli we need to do better as an industry, much better.
As I've said before, the majority of the issues with beef and dairy products isn't with the producer, although, that's where some of them start, hence my link from GMO/transgenic, steroid laced feed being the start of the problem (not being natural - remember the whole butter thing), to the increased steroid and then antibiotic laced feed at the feedlot, to the untrained fella with the saw that contaminates the meat with E.Coli, culminating with the fogging of our food with ammonia to kill the bugs the last idiot put in there by being careless.
Nothing you said above has anything to do with the safety of GMO crops which is the topic at hand.
I don't know that GMO or transgenics are evil incarnate. I don't know that they aren't either. I think that there is a lot of information both ways,
Actually there is not a lot of information both ways. There are a few anti-gmo conspiracy types who are linked to multiple other conspiracy blogs who are linked to other conspiracy blogs and it just appears to be a lot out there. What there is ,is a lot of opinions like yours with little scientific support. Much of this can be attributed to European farmers who want to keep US products out of their markets for obvious financial reasons. They get into trouble with the world trade commission with outright trade barriers so they have to manufacture phoney ones.
which, to me, says that I don't want to feed or eat it until someone figures it out. You'll forgive me if I don't believe studies funded by chemical companies or their subsidiaries.
Again that is fine you guys are free to have your opinions, but when you start recycling junk science you are going to get call on it.
As for full disclosure, I am a businessman in construction, hobby cattle farmer, and too was raised in row crop farming and sympathetic to their plight. My cattle are all natural. No antibiotic, hormones, or gmo feed.
novaman
Well-known member
I hate extremists. That is why I appear close-minded to the non-GMO supporters. I am not saying that GMO's are perfect and we should all embrace them. What I am saying is that those who don't support them shouldn't be the squeakiest wheel and get all the press for it. We can gather all the supporters for it that we want. One person chimes in bringing up all these negative things and its posted all over the internet, newspapers, and TV in no time. It is ridiculous and seems to get worse everyday as the anti-agriculture push appears to be growing more everyday. I feel the need to protect my way of life. There is no compromise with those type of people either. They don't want to slow it down. They want to shut it down. I guess maybe we should just call it all off. Park all our internal combustion engined vehicles. Let's go back to the stone age and eliminate all the global warming and environment killing we are doing.
TexasBred
Well-known member
As far as you know....did you trace every ounce of corn back to the original seed salesman and seed delivery man??? Chances are it came from a huge grain storage facility somewhere and was comingled with the grain from dozens if not hundreds of producers.
MoGal
Well-known member
I have no idea if all the links I posted were telling the truth or not.
My main concern is I would like to be healthy. I don't want to eat anything that is going to make me sick, affect my immune system, or affect my family's health.
Aspartame is banned in many countries because its a known carcinogen. The FDA closes its eyes to our health because aspartame is a $512 million dollar industry in the USA.
With the recent light on scientists who falsely reported global warming there's also a scientist who faked data on his medical studies (http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/realityz ... ddata.html) and who knows how many more scientists out there have faked data on their "scientific studies"???.
I did find an article (who knows if its true) http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopressrelease.html
Ahhh..... you see that is what concerns me. My health and my family's health.
We need independent scientific study on how it affects human health. GMO foods should have to be labeled as such and let the consumer decide.
My main concern is I would like to be healthy. I don't want to eat anything that is going to make me sick, affect my immune system, or affect my family's health.
Aspartame is banned in many countries because its a known carcinogen. The FDA closes its eyes to our health because aspartame is a $512 million dollar industry in the USA.
With the recent light on scientists who falsely reported global warming there's also a scientist who faked data on his medical studies (http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/realityz ... ddata.html) and who knows how many more scientists out there have faked data on their "scientific studies"???.
I did find an article (who knows if its true) http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopressrelease.html
Ahhh..... you see that is what concerns me. My health and my family's health.
We need independent scientific study on how it affects human health. GMO foods should have to be labeled as such and let the consumer decide.
fargus
Well-known member
MoGal":ke87e3zg said:
Sorry to bust your bubble, but GMO, conventional or organic, that isn't going to happen. Accidents happen. Food preparation mistakes in your own kitchen happen. Drinking tea affects your immune system. (Yes, the wonderful tannins that bind free radicals affects your bodies response to some carcinogens. It's a positive effect, but still an alteration of your bodies chemistry.) There is no panacea of perfectly healthy food. Our society is filled with people attempting to eliminate risk from their lives. You simply can't. Everything in life is a calculated risk, and I agree we should take the steps appropriate to each of us to responsibly manage it.
But to make something perfectly safe and risk-free? Get your head out of the clouds. I will cite the study that showed that grass-fed beef had lower levels of E. coli in its gut than grain-fed. QED it's safer? No, you make a handling mistake with either one and you have a food contamination problem. We hear it in the climate change debate all the time: "The majority of scientists believe...." That isn't good enough. I have my own brain, and I'll take a cross-section of the available information and draw my own conclusions. I conclude that transgenics are getting blamed for a lot of things that are theorized at best, and at worst data is being manipulated to stretch towards a pre-conceived conclusion. I am aware of the information out there, I am aware of the SOURCES of the information I consider, and I will continue to evaluate as new studies come to light.
novaman
Well-known member
MoGal is the exact type that drive me crazy. Years ago everybody lived on a farm or near a farm and food sources were more localized. Now most have moved away from the farm setting and count on the few remaining to produce their food. I can understand there are concerns but you don't produce it so how can you dictate which practices are proper? As long as the food being produced is considered safe it should be of no concern of yours what types of technologies are being implemented to produce it. Food producers have to abide by federal laws so it isn't like we are doing things willy nilly. There are plenty of strict regulations to ensure proper production practices are being followed. We don't need the general public barging in and telling us everything we are doing wrong to boot. Like I said I understand the concerns but this is getting out of control. By the way, I have no concern for my health so I eat anything bad I can find :roll: .
IGotMyWings
Well-known member
"I apologize, I didn't intend to intentionally gloss over a statement. For the record, I do believe the two (transgenic vs not) are not substantially, measurably different. Again, for the record, I believe the studies presented by both sides of the debate are skewed. The question about who wrote the policy was to highlight the fact that absolutely everything in todays world is agenda-driven and skewed by partisan politics. I believe the "line in the sand" hasn't been drawn so much because of any science that says it needs to be, but rather because the organic and natural producers needed regulations, for marketing purposes."
Eh, glossing over happens. I'm sure I've missed something, too! I don't know who wrote the policy, or if it was a well thought out, based upon evidence thing, or if they took the word of a "guru" and set it in stone. I agree that much of what becomes policy is agenda driven rather than based on what should be best for those concerned. My personal agenda when it comes to beef production and talking about it, is to improve the quality of our product, not just the quantity. I want everyone to make an educated choice, starting with those who raise cattle, ending with those who buy and eat them. Fargus, you, yourself said, "...Roundup is safer than table salt." That's quoting Monsanto's advertising. In 1996, the New York Attorney General challenged that, and Monsanto had to pay damages. http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Monsanto-v-AGNYnov96.htm
"I read the article you posted a link to. I limit my chemical inputs here. Why? Because when the situation demands that I use them I want the most bang for my buck. I choose to improve my cashflow by not outlaying for expensive inputs, but forgoing the incremental gains that go along with them. We have an "industrial style" hog barn. I hate it. I agree that not allow a pig to express its natural behaviours is cruel, and unnecesary. Do we need to feed antibiotics as a growth promotant? No. But to not treat a sick animal when we have the ability to to do so, just to keep an arbitrary organic or natural designation is its own brand of cruelty. I'm not attacking how you choose to do things, as we are more similar than I think you realize, but blindly clinging to either side of the arguement is the height of folly."
I'm not saying that all chemicals or their use is bad. The use needs to be done responsibly, and not applied like a blanket because the chemical company says you can. There are other concerns with them, like run off, to consider, as well as long term soil effects or residue in the crop. I was just talking to a Farm Bureau rep the other day as he was wanting me to become a member. One of his "selling" points was that FB lobbied and continues to lobby for the right for industrial hog and chicken operations to use confinement. Like you, I think confinement operations are cruel. Even though these animals are going to be sliced up into food, they still have a need to have a quality of life while they live it. As for not treating an animal to keep a certification, I don't know of any operations that won't treat, unless it's a dairy operation (only because it's probably easier to just sell or slaughter that cow than to milk it separately). I'm guessing that many organic beef farms will treat the animal, but by doing so, they cannot sell it as organic, so it moves down the chain and becomes "natural" rather than "organic" or what have you. Like I've said before, that's one reason I'll not go for the certification. If I jump through the hoops, and pay all the fees to get that stamp, and end up having to treat an animal, that treated animal reduces my sellable (organic) product by a large percentage. I've only got two calves on the ground right now. Treating one would reduce my current sale stock by 50%!
"In closing, I state my hope that I didn't come across as a close-minded fanatic. I like to think of myself as a reasonable person. I will, however, ask one last question. Did you consider the information that I presented regarding natural plant breeding? I'm not saying that organic or natural producers need to go back to only heritage varieties, but a truly educated consumer (who is looking at organic-type food) would probably question the inclusion of varities developed using some of those techniques, with very good reason."
I did consider what you said, and you're right! It's a lot like bologna. There are folks who, as kids, loved a good old bologna sandwich, but when they got older, and found out what's in it, they no longer eat it. The difference is, though, it think, the older seed varieties have been around longer, and proven themselves to be acceptable, whereas transgenic seed, in it's current form has not.
"The very reason I pay little attention to all the so-called "research" about grass fed beef. Or global warming. You'll always get skewed results depending on what the researchers were told to find...what they usually find is a pot of gold and then miraculously out comes the results of the study."
I agree that certain research can be tainted, which is why I liken big business to Mr. Haney. "Genuine imitation" skewed test results don't do any of us any good! I prefer to look for independent research, but when that's hard to find, I think about what I've read and make up my own mind. We can spend all day trading links to sites that tout one way being better than the other. From my experience, and in speaking with my customers, grass fed, steroid and antibiotic free (at time of slaughter) seems to be a better choice. They say that they prefer the flavor, they say that they feel better, and those that are sensitive to antibiotic residues don't have to worry about that when they buy my meat, rather than meat from the grocery.
"She has every right to post anything she wants. But inquiring minds would like to understand where this came from. The reality is that it came for a discredited scientist and no one has yet been able to replicate these results. If you can't replicate the science and peer review indicates flaws in the research it can't be trusted. There is legitimate research and illegitimate research and a Google search on Arpad Pusztai the author of this study reveals his research illegitimate in my opinion."
"You can look for conspiracies all you want but the answers to these questions have been laid out clearly many times. Saying something is natural is not necessarily saying it is better. Not to hard to understand. If all you got to criticize GMO is that the USDA says it is not natural, you don't have much."
I did as you asked and researched Pusztai. What I found was that you were right, he is discredited. I also found that there seemed to be pressure from Monsanto to get that discrediting done. His research, that was originally quoted my MoGal, was gone over by a review panel of six scientists before being published in "The Lancet" medical journal (The Lancet, Volume 354, Issue 9187). Five of the six panelists concurred that his research and findings were accurate, and the findings were published. After publication, the editor of "The Lancet" came under fire, and the co-author was forced into retirement. Now is that proof of a conspiracy to hide independent test results of transgenic effects on food sources? Do I believe that's EXACTLY what happened? I believe it to be plausible. The new version of the golden rule is that "He who has the gold, makes the rules!" It's how Ronald Reagan ended the cold war, it's how Michael Jackson never went to jail on molestation charges, and I believe it possible that this is how Monsanto or any large corporation with the means can get things swept under a rug. Last night, my family and I went to see "Shutter Island" and there is a line in there, talking about those that are called crazy. I don't remember it verbatim, but basically it was that once an expert says you're crazy, anything you do can be explained as delusional behavior. Using that logic here, once they get someone to say that this researcher fouled up, anything he does from then on out comes under more intense scrutiny, or is disregarded completely. Pusztai's findings were ratified by a panel and published in a respected medical journal that's been around since 1823, not on Blogspot by a vegan blogger who can't tell a Holstein from an Angus.
"I feel the need to protect my way of life. There is no compromise with those type of people either. They don't want to slow it down. They want to shut it down. I guess maybe we should just call it all off. Park all our internal combustion engined vehicles. Let's go back to the stone age and eliminate all the global warming and environment killing we are doing."
I, too, feel the need to protect my way of life, and what my way of life leaves behind. I'm not saying that we should give up the internal combustion engine and all of that! Look back through history. Squeaky wheels are responsible for cleaner emissions from our cars, trucks, tractors and factories. Squeaky wheels are the reason the rivers in Cleveland, Ohio don't burn anymore. There is a happy medium out there, and I hope that we can find it.
"There is no panacea of perfectly healthy food. Our society is filled with people attempting to eliminate risk from their lives. You simply can't. Everything in life is a calculated risk, and I agree we should take the steps appropriate to each of us to responsibly manage it."
Anything natural, unnatural, foreign or domestic, can do you harm if you permit it. Take dihydrogen monoxide for example. It is naturally occurring, but if misused, can be harmful or fatal. Some have even called for it's ban! Responsible management if done by the majority, will help improve our lot in life. Improved education of producer and consumer alike can dispel both tainted research by the company that makes the product, as well as inductive reasoning research done by opponents of the product. The X-Files said it, and I believe it...the truth is out there. Responsible management, however, can't stop with us. The entire process needs to adopt a true responsible management attitude. For example, if we all decided to stay away from steroid and sub-therapeutic antibiotics in our feed, but the feed lots continue to use them, what we did is undone. Those that market what we make need to appreciate our dedication to the craft, and rather than bend it to their will (and us as a whole with it), they need to take it and treat it with respect and ensure that the finished product retains the quality that we intended for it to have.
Now, given my research into the testing of GMO/transgenic feed, and the testers as well, my original thought stands. Modification for insect resistance in a crop that will become bed sheets or clothing is one thing, but modification of a food source, or what's being fed to a food source still seems off to me.
Eh, glossing over happens. I'm sure I've missed something, too! I don't know who wrote the policy, or if it was a well thought out, based upon evidence thing, or if they took the word of a "guru" and set it in stone. I agree that much of what becomes policy is agenda driven rather than based on what should be best for those concerned. My personal agenda when it comes to beef production and talking about it, is to improve the quality of our product, not just the quantity. I want everyone to make an educated choice, starting with those who raise cattle, ending with those who buy and eat them. Fargus, you, yourself said, "...Roundup is safer than table salt." That's quoting Monsanto's advertising. In 1996, the New York Attorney General challenged that, and Monsanto had to pay damages. http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Monsanto-v-AGNYnov96.htm
"I read the article you posted a link to. I limit my chemical inputs here. Why? Because when the situation demands that I use them I want the most bang for my buck. I choose to improve my cashflow by not outlaying for expensive inputs, but forgoing the incremental gains that go along with them. We have an "industrial style" hog barn. I hate it. I agree that not allow a pig to express its natural behaviours is cruel, and unnecesary. Do we need to feed antibiotics as a growth promotant? No. But to not treat a sick animal when we have the ability to to do so, just to keep an arbitrary organic or natural designation is its own brand of cruelty. I'm not attacking how you choose to do things, as we are more similar than I think you realize, but blindly clinging to either side of the arguement is the height of folly."
I'm not saying that all chemicals or their use is bad. The use needs to be done responsibly, and not applied like a blanket because the chemical company says you can. There are other concerns with them, like run off, to consider, as well as long term soil effects or residue in the crop. I was just talking to a Farm Bureau rep the other day as he was wanting me to become a member. One of his "selling" points was that FB lobbied and continues to lobby for the right for industrial hog and chicken operations to use confinement. Like you, I think confinement operations are cruel. Even though these animals are going to be sliced up into food, they still have a need to have a quality of life while they live it. As for not treating an animal to keep a certification, I don't know of any operations that won't treat, unless it's a dairy operation (only because it's probably easier to just sell or slaughter that cow than to milk it separately). I'm guessing that many organic beef farms will treat the animal, but by doing so, they cannot sell it as organic, so it moves down the chain and becomes "natural" rather than "organic" or what have you. Like I've said before, that's one reason I'll not go for the certification. If I jump through the hoops, and pay all the fees to get that stamp, and end up having to treat an animal, that treated animal reduces my sellable (organic) product by a large percentage. I've only got two calves on the ground right now. Treating one would reduce my current sale stock by 50%!
"In closing, I state my hope that I didn't come across as a close-minded fanatic. I like to think of myself as a reasonable person. I will, however, ask one last question. Did you consider the information that I presented regarding natural plant breeding? I'm not saying that organic or natural producers need to go back to only heritage varieties, but a truly educated consumer (who is looking at organic-type food) would probably question the inclusion of varities developed using some of those techniques, with very good reason."
I did consider what you said, and you're right! It's a lot like bologna. There are folks who, as kids, loved a good old bologna sandwich, but when they got older, and found out what's in it, they no longer eat it. The difference is, though, it think, the older seed varieties have been around longer, and proven themselves to be acceptable, whereas transgenic seed, in it's current form has not.
"The very reason I pay little attention to all the so-called "research" about grass fed beef. Or global warming. You'll always get skewed results depending on what the researchers were told to find...what they usually find is a pot of gold and then miraculously out comes the results of the study."
I agree that certain research can be tainted, which is why I liken big business to Mr. Haney. "Genuine imitation" skewed test results don't do any of us any good! I prefer to look for independent research, but when that's hard to find, I think about what I've read and make up my own mind. We can spend all day trading links to sites that tout one way being better than the other. From my experience, and in speaking with my customers, grass fed, steroid and antibiotic free (at time of slaughter) seems to be a better choice. They say that they prefer the flavor, they say that they feel better, and those that are sensitive to antibiotic residues don't have to worry about that when they buy my meat, rather than meat from the grocery.
"She has every right to post anything she wants. But inquiring minds would like to understand where this came from. The reality is that it came for a discredited scientist and no one has yet been able to replicate these results. If you can't replicate the science and peer review indicates flaws in the research it can't be trusted. There is legitimate research and illegitimate research and a Google search on Arpad Pusztai the author of this study reveals his research illegitimate in my opinion."
"You can look for conspiracies all you want but the answers to these questions have been laid out clearly many times. Saying something is natural is not necessarily saying it is better. Not to hard to understand. If all you got to criticize GMO is that the USDA says it is not natural, you don't have much."
I did as you asked and researched Pusztai. What I found was that you were right, he is discredited. I also found that there seemed to be pressure from Monsanto to get that discrediting done. His research, that was originally quoted my MoGal, was gone over by a review panel of six scientists before being published in "The Lancet" medical journal (The Lancet, Volume 354, Issue 9187). Five of the six panelists concurred that his research and findings were accurate, and the findings were published. After publication, the editor of "The Lancet" came under fire, and the co-author was forced into retirement. Now is that proof of a conspiracy to hide independent test results of transgenic effects on food sources? Do I believe that's EXACTLY what happened? I believe it to be plausible. The new version of the golden rule is that "He who has the gold, makes the rules!" It's how Ronald Reagan ended the cold war, it's how Michael Jackson never went to jail on molestation charges, and I believe it possible that this is how Monsanto or any large corporation with the means can get things swept under a rug. Last night, my family and I went to see "Shutter Island" and there is a line in there, talking about those that are called crazy. I don't remember it verbatim, but basically it was that once an expert says you're crazy, anything you do can be explained as delusional behavior. Using that logic here, once they get someone to say that this researcher fouled up, anything he does from then on out comes under more intense scrutiny, or is disregarded completely. Pusztai's findings were ratified by a panel and published in a respected medical journal that's been around since 1823, not on Blogspot by a vegan blogger who can't tell a Holstein from an Angus.
"I feel the need to protect my way of life. There is no compromise with those type of people either. They don't want to slow it down. They want to shut it down. I guess maybe we should just call it all off. Park all our internal combustion engined vehicles. Let's go back to the stone age and eliminate all the global warming and environment killing we are doing."
I, too, feel the need to protect my way of life, and what my way of life leaves behind. I'm not saying that we should give up the internal combustion engine and all of that! Look back through history. Squeaky wheels are responsible for cleaner emissions from our cars, trucks, tractors and factories. Squeaky wheels are the reason the rivers in Cleveland, Ohio don't burn anymore. There is a happy medium out there, and I hope that we can find it.
"There is no panacea of perfectly healthy food. Our society is filled with people attempting to eliminate risk from their lives. You simply can't. Everything in life is a calculated risk, and I agree we should take the steps appropriate to each of us to responsibly manage it."
Anything natural, unnatural, foreign or domestic, can do you harm if you permit it. Take dihydrogen monoxide for example. It is naturally occurring, but if misused, can be harmful or fatal. Some have even called for it's ban! Responsible management if done by the majority, will help improve our lot in life. Improved education of producer and consumer alike can dispel both tainted research by the company that makes the product, as well as inductive reasoning research done by opponents of the product. The X-Files said it, and I believe it...the truth is out there. Responsible management, however, can't stop with us. The entire process needs to adopt a true responsible management attitude. For example, if we all decided to stay away from steroid and sub-therapeutic antibiotics in our feed, but the feed lots continue to use them, what we did is undone. Those that market what we make need to appreciate our dedication to the craft, and rather than bend it to their will (and us as a whole with it), they need to take it and treat it with respect and ensure that the finished product retains the quality that we intended for it to have.
Now, given my research into the testing of GMO/transgenic feed, and the testers as well, my original thought stands. Modification for insect resistance in a crop that will become bed sheets or clothing is one thing, but modification of a food source, or what's being fed to a food source still seems off to me.
TexasBred
Well-known member
Results of your research??? I'd like to know your qualifications to do research. Or are you just referring to reading and forming an opinion????
IGotMyWings
Well-known member
TexasBred":h9rlgont said:
In case you're wondering, the definition of research is:
1 : careful or diligent search
2 : studious inquiry or examination; especially : investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws
3 : the collecting of information about a particular subject
Now, not being a laboratory worker, I don't do much experimentation, however, on this topic (among others) I have done both careful or diligent searching and collecting of information about a particular subject. That's two out of the three.
As for my qualifications, I'm assuming that you have a truck, or a tractor or other pieces of machinery and equipment that you use. Now, I find it hard to imagine that you simply buy the first one that you come across without looking into it's features and such. I'm also going to assume that you aren't an automotive engineer, chemical engineer, degreed in animal science and crop science, clothing design, and culinary arts. You may be one of them, but you aren't all of them, yet you make choices in fields that you are not a qualified researcher?! You buy cars, trucks, tractors, seeds, feeds, herbicides, pesticides, clothes and food. I dare say, my good man, that you either waste a lot of money on things, or you are a hypocrite for wondering what my qualifications are to research the choices I make.
