Last edited:
Pros and cons of organic vs nonorganic?
- Thread starter youngchickdude
- Start date
- Jun 10, 2014
- 1,384
- 355
- 148
Did you actually read the thing? Here's the first line:
The World Scientists Statement dates from 1999.
Look at the references, they're all from 1997-1999.
Look at the actual signatures - half of them that are people that don't even have degrees in scientific fields.
it's junk.
The World Scientists Statement dates from 1999.
Look at the references, they're all from 1997-1999.
Look at the actual signatures - half of them that are people that don't even have degrees in scientific fields.
it's junk.
Last edited:
I was reading the list of signers and particularly liked this one:
2 Prof. Adolfo E. Boy Horticulture and Sustainable Agri. Univ. Moron Chair of Inst. of Sustainble Agriculture Argentina
According to Merriam-Webster moron in Spanish means just what you might expect;
dunce : estúpido masculine, -da feminine; tonto masculine, -ta feminine
2 Prof. Adolfo E. Boy Horticulture and Sustainable Agri. Univ. Moron Chair of Inst. of Sustainble Agriculture Argentina
According to Merriam-Webster moron in Spanish means just what you might expect;
2
dunce : estúpido masculine, -da feminine; tonto masculine, -ta feminine
Yes I did, perhaps you didn't.
Here's the updated list from last year.
http://www.ensser.org/fileadmin/user_upload/131030_signatories_as_of_131030_lv.pdf
The early signatories are still declaring their opposition.
People have been eating GMO foods for 20 years and haven't dropped dead. That's not the issue.
Recombinant genes have made their way into traditional heritage varieties of crops. What if I don't want them in my crops?
The big problem is, there is no going back, safe or not. For my part, I prefer original dynamic landraces untainted
http://www.travelandroll.com/situation-of-gmos-in-mexico/
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/doctors-warn
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/biosafety/pdf/bio14.pdf
http://www.gmoseralini.org/criigen-withdraws-from-french-government-project-on-gmo-risks/
I'm not telling you not to use or consume GMOs. Knock yourself out.
The problem is that once the genie's out of the bottle, it's too late.
Furthermore, even if there is no danger, all farmers and rural peasants, whether large scale or subsistence, are subject to lawsuit because the pollen has invaded their indigenous crops. There has been no consultation or consent. It is large corporations run amok on the small guy.
Super weeds, resulting from unfettered pesticide use.
http://news.cahnrs.wsu.edu/2012/10/...rmance-of-major-ge-crops-new-wsu-study-shows/
The forces are financially driven, not scientific.
When the Gulf BP oil spill happened, they tried to hire every marine biologist with knowledge of the gulf at a very nice wage, but first they were required to sign a waiver that they would never in the future make any statements that would reflect negatively on BP.
There is no way I can believe research funded by the benefactor. Can you say, conflict of interest?
There's a conflict of interest when the scientists that declare GMOs safe have their reputation at stake to make sure the technology is successful. That's not objectivity.
There is no financial benefit for any research funder to support landrace and heritage crops in opposition to introduction of recombinant genes into the environment.
How many years did it take for a consensus that tobacco smoke was harmful?
People don't drop dead from eating preservatives and yellow dye #6. That doesn't mean it's safe or should be consumed.
Just because research that showed harm was done in the nineties doesn't make it junk science.
I'm curious as to the motivation behind your vehemence in defense of genetically modified crops and extended use of roundup. How is it that you feel your ox is being gored in this civil debate?
Here's the updated list from last year.
http://www.ensser.org/fileadmin/user_upload/131030_signatories_as_of_131030_lv.pdf
The early signatories are still declaring their opposition.
People have been eating GMO foods for 20 years and haven't dropped dead. That's not the issue.
Recombinant genes have made their way into traditional heritage varieties of crops. What if I don't want them in my crops?
The big problem is, there is no going back, safe or not. For my part, I prefer original dynamic landraces untainted
http://www.travelandroll.com/situation-of-gmos-in-mexico/
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/doctors-warn
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/biosafety/pdf/bio14.pdf
http://www.gmoseralini.org/criigen-withdraws-from-french-government-project-on-gmo-risks/
I'm not telling you not to use or consume GMOs. Knock yourself out.
The problem is that once the genie's out of the bottle, it's too late.
Furthermore, even if there is no danger, all farmers and rural peasants, whether large scale or subsistence, are subject to lawsuit because the pollen has invaded their indigenous crops. There has been no consultation or consent. It is large corporations run amok on the small guy.
Super weeds, resulting from unfettered pesticide use.
http://news.cahnrs.wsu.edu/2012/10/...rmance-of-major-ge-crops-new-wsu-study-shows/
The forces are financially driven, not scientific.
When the Gulf BP oil spill happened, they tried to hire every marine biologist with knowledge of the gulf at a very nice wage, but first they were required to sign a waiver that they would never in the future make any statements that would reflect negatively on BP.
There is no way I can believe research funded by the benefactor. Can you say, conflict of interest?
There's a conflict of interest when the scientists that declare GMOs safe have their reputation at stake to make sure the technology is successful. That's not objectivity.
There is no financial benefit for any research funder to support landrace and heritage crops in opposition to introduction of recombinant genes into the environment.
How many years did it take for a consensus that tobacco smoke was harmful?
People don't drop dead from eating preservatives and yellow dye #6. That doesn't mean it's safe or should be consumed.
Just because research that showed harm was done in the nineties doesn't make it junk science.
I'm curious as to the motivation behind your vehemence in defense of genetically modified crops and extended use of roundup. How is it that you feel your ox is being gored in this civil debate?
Last edited:
the only Spanish word that closely resembles moron means hillock, not imbecile but a prominent rise, elevation or mound so I'm assuming that title means he is the head chair of the institute.I was reading the list of signers and particularly liked this one:
2 Prof. Adolfo E. Boy Horticulture and Sustainable Agri. Univ. Moron Chair of Inst. of Sustainble Agriculture Argentina
According to Merriam-Webster moron in Spanish means just what you might expect;
Last edited:
- Jun 10, 2014
- 1,384
- 355
- 148
ChickenCanoe, when people start quoting the Seralini study for GMOs, or the Wakefield study for Autism/Vaccines, there's no conclusion that I can come to than that they're not interested in the facts at all, and that they're so motivated by their bias and agenda that they're searching for cherries to pick.
GMOs are a tool. They're not inherently dangerous (as the hundreds of thousands of studies have shown), they've got nothing to do with patents (as we have freely available GMOs, and patented non-GMO food crops), and there's no reason to be afraid of them. There's no genie to "let out of the bottle" that isn't already present - a GMO gene is no different than the same gene inserted naturally.
You're tilting at windmills here. This isn't a giant conspiracy - it's a whole bunch of good science pointing in the direction that you'd expect it to - manipulating a gene with technology produces the same result as manipulating it without technology.
As to my axe to grind? I have a huge philosophical problem with people spreading pseudo-scientific quackery.
GMOs are a tool. They're not inherently dangerous (as the hundreds of thousands of studies have shown), they've got nothing to do with patents (as we have freely available GMOs, and patented non-GMO food crops), and there's no reason to be afraid of them. There's no genie to "let out of the bottle" that isn't already present - a GMO gene is no different than the same gene inserted naturally.
You're tilting at windmills here. This isn't a giant conspiracy - it's a whole bunch of good science pointing in the direction that you'd expect it to - manipulating a gene with technology produces the same result as manipulating it without technology.
As to my axe to grind? I have a huge philosophical problem with people spreading pseudo-scientific quackery.
As I said, knock yourself out. I suggest those that prefer organic foods, use and consume them - thereby avoiding pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, artificial ingredients and GMOs.
Those that don't have a problem using the 'tools' to do so as well.
The thread started with a couple simple questions - Organic versus conventional feed? What are the best feeds on both ends of the spectrum? And other than feed, what sort of foods and treats will the chicks get the most health benefits from?
It could have been a discussion of the 'pros and cons' (thread title) but seems to have evolved into a race to the bottom in the realm of civil discourse over pseudo science. Some of that pseudo science is funded by the benefactors.
I think we lost the OP somewhere along the line and never answered any of his questions. He hasn't logged on for almost 2 months. He probably threw his hands up in the face of all the bickering.
Those that don't have a problem using the 'tools' to do so as well.
The thread started with a couple simple questions - Organic versus conventional feed? What are the best feeds on both ends of the spectrum? And other than feed, what sort of foods and treats will the chicks get the most health benefits from?
It could have been a discussion of the 'pros and cons' (thread title) but seems to have evolved into a race to the bottom in the realm of civil discourse over pseudo science. Some of that pseudo science is funded by the benefactors.
I think we lost the OP somewhere along the line and never answered any of his questions. He hasn't logged on for almost 2 months. He probably threw his hands up in the face of all the bickering.
Last edited:
I was just watching a program on the Discovery Channel about a fellow in Iowa who was selling organic free range eggs for $8.00/dozen.
If his hens are truly "free range" how does he know what they're eating? Hmmm???
I was just watching a program on the Discovery Channel about a fellow in Iowa who was selling organic free range eggs for $8.00/dozen.If his hens are truly "free range" how does he know what they're eating? Hmmm???
There most likely "free ranging" them in 50' x 50' run, much like a lot of people "free range" there chickens in a fenced in back yard.
What most people call "free ranging" today is little more than letting them out into a bigger poultry yard or what was called yarding.
I wonder if the guy was licensed to sell "organic" eggs? Because like you said, how does he know what there eating?
BS. It's all about money. JMHO
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest threads
-
Advice on trimming crossbeak
- Started by OldMcDonald512
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
Wilcox Farm egg yolks - how do they do it?- Started by mermaid_of_the_farm
- Replies: 5
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
-
I culled my first cockerel, now what?- Started by redinator
- Replies: 120
-
*Answer These Questions The Best You Can Please *- Started by N3mesis_IceWing_NightWing
- Replies: 107
-
-
-
