And Pretty Much The Whole Thing In A Nutshell . . . .

[hatrack]

?1411368462

[Fred Sanders]

1. Do not forget "hot babies" and fugitive hunts, no time for climate change shit or reporting on

the massive obstruction of Congress by the GOP, now on vacation.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

13. Or fugitives hunting for "hot babes".

[Stuart G]

2. Thank You ...great post....no text...

[pscot]

3. knr

[GliderGuider]

4. K&RRRRR!

[progressoid]

5. +1

[toby jo]

6. For fuckin real .

[ag_dude]

7. If they actually reported on the science of GMO's...

...it wouldn't be any issue any longer.

Who am I kidding...there are still people who deny global warming too.

[GliderGuider]

10. Very few on here deny the dangers of GMOs

Wait, that's not what you meant, is it?

[ag_dude]

15. No, it's not, I'm referring to the overwhelming scientific evidence that...

...that view is based on ignorance and fear.

If the news would actually report on the science behind it and the literally thousands of studies that have been done, far fewer people would be mislead.

[GliderGuider]

19. I guess Monsanto needs to improve its outreach programs then... nt

Last edited Tue Sep 23, 2014, 01:26 PM - Edit history (1)

[ag_dude]

21. I said GMOs, I didn't say a single thing about Monsanto

Understanding the difference between the two is something that many people in the general public, including yourself, would benefit greatly from better new coverage about.

[GliderGuider]

22. Most people are happily stuffing down the GMO everything.

It's just a few malcontents who are saying it might not be a real good idea. And even we are still buying commercial food, just more of it is labeled organic. Not sure what you're worried about? Is "GMO hysteria" really killing the ag market?

[ag_dude]

23. You act as if I'm the one that made the original graphic.

I was replying to something on the original picture.

What would the news report on regarding GMOs?

[GliderGuider]

24. I completely agree with the OP - I'm just responding to your comment about science.

My impression is that we're only getting one side of the science, because of who funds the research. If we had more faith in the transparency of the information, we might be a little less skeptical of the motives of people who promote GMOs.

[ag_dude]

25. Because of who funds the research?

Research has been funded by universities, governments, inter-government organizations, and private companies in numerous nations. There's an extremely broad set of studies from dozens of nations both publicly and privately financed.

If you are concerned about the transparency of the information, all you need to do is look into it, it's not hard to find the backgrounds on studies. 15-minutes with Google will provide you with more information than you've ever wanted on the subject, just stick the actual science and be skeptical of sites that don't link to the actual studies and take small portions of them out of context.

Also be extremely skeptical anybody who tells you that GMO studies are only done by private companies. They're blatantly incorrect and intentionally misleading you.

[GliderGuider]

27. So how do you turn public trust around?

Because in this area it is collapsing. The whole field has been tainted by Monsatan. Shutting down Monsanto, Cargill et al would be a good start, but that ain't going to happen. How does an entire industry rebuild its goodwill?

Oh, and about the funding? We've had far too many experiences with astroturf groups to trust that the money and the motives are pure. Industry has created a nation of cynics, and we feel we are cynical for good reason.

[ag_dude]

29. Report on the actual science.

Improve the scientific education in our schools so kids are intelligent enough to differentiate between actual science the fear based ignorance that is spread by closed minded people who refuse to accept scientific proof because it doesn't jive with their personal beliefs.

Instead of reporting on fear based initiatives where people like yourself would rather knock down Monsanto boogeymen, report on the actual scientific research.

Basically, a similar approach to what should be happening with global warming. People that continue to bend over backward to ignore the science should be relegated to the internet backwaters that breed them. You guys do more damage than good.

On the original subject, those voices don't deserve a stage in the national media.

Frankly, if you are going to just take global warming denier style pot shots at the sources of funding instead of actually looking at the sheer diversity of the studies, there's no hope for you. You've gone too far down an ideological rabbit hole to have anything resembling an objective view of the subject.

[GliderGuider]

30. We don't trust the reported science in this area.

If your side has a PR problem, that's it, not the lack of reporting on the miracles of modern recombinent genetics. As you say, the information is out there. We.Don't.Trust.It.

[ag_dude]

31. I realize that, there's no hope for people like you

You're unwilling to actually look at the studies and where the actual funding comes from because you are afraid of what you'll find.

Similar to the Rush Limbaugh type global warming deniers of the world, you'd rather pretend that the thousands of researchers from dozens of nations are all bought an paid for because you don't like the science they produce.

As to the original post, I just hope that the news would stick to reporting on actual science so people like yourself who refuse to actually research the subject aren't leading others astray.

[truedelphi]

32. When Big Corporations like Novartis and Monsanto outright

Fund the science labs inside our universities, how do we end up with real science?

The science that comes to us these days is so biased. First of all, any and every scientific researcher that has any honesty eventually is weeded out of the system.

Look at what happened to Pusztai in terms of his research on Gm potatoes.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/
From the above website:
He had been an enthusiastic supporter of genetic engineering, working on cutting edge safety research with genetically modified (GM) foods. But to his surprise, his experiments showed that GM foods were inherently dangerous. When he relayed his concerns during a short television interview in the UK, things got ugly. With support from the highest levels of government, biotech defenders quickly mobilized a coordinated attack campaign trying to distort and cover up the evidence.

It worked for a while, but when an order of Parliament lifted Dr. Pusztai's gag order, the revelations touched off a media firestorm that ultimately kicked GM foods out of European supermarkets, and derailed the industry's timetable to quickly replace virtually all food with genetically engineered alternatives.

####

So first they black list the honest scientists from having funding for labs and for research. Then they also go head and force the scientists under their control to work counter to the usual protocols of science. (For instance, just this summer, CDC researcher Thompson came out with his confession about how he had to shift how a project would normally be done, and how data would normally be gathered, in order to conform to the CDC's need to hide evidence of links between vaccines and developmental problems in children.)

[ag_dude]

33. Ignore those studies then...

...and only go to sources that don't receive any funding from them.

You won't find different results.

[GliderGuider]

34. truedelphi just pointed you to a different result.

It's cases like that, and the klebsiella planticola story, and the neonic insecticide fiasco that raise flags for people.

Industry in general does not have the best interests of the public at heart. Instead they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, which they often exercise at enormous risk to public health. That goes double for industries that are fucking around with the world's food supply for increased profit.

[ag_dude]

35. I understand red flags

I also understand the logical fallacy of thinking the red flags invalidates hundreds of studies done by thousands of scientists in dozens of nations.

I also understand that those of the anti-GMO mindset are prone to listen to and give more credibility to biased websites than actual science. It's the source of the entire "debate".

The science behind GMOs is not just about industry and if you think it is....there's no other way to put it....you are far too ignorant of the subject to have an opinion that a person should take seriously. You are the kind of person that I hope our education system could teach earlier on so would have been a bit more skeptical of whoever it was that lead you down their ideological path of denying actual science.

When you insist on dismissing the entire field of research --which, make no mistake, has overwhelmingly found the anti-GMO sentiment to be unfounded and baseless-- in such a manner you are resorting to the same bull shit tactics that those on the right use to deny global warming.

To be clear, I realize people like you are far too closed minded on this subject to hope that you'd ever allow volumes of actual scientific proof to change your mind. I accept that and I can understand that mindset while realizing it's flawed. I don't fault the conservatives for it any more than I fault you for it, I blame it on our education system. We don't teach science well enough in our schools.

What I hope for, and what was the original subject of this thread, is that the news would try to start reporting on actual science instead of fear based ignorance.

[GliderGuider]

36. Insulting people always helps your case.

What do you know of my education or scientific background? What do you know of my actual views on GMOs? Or are you just lashing out because I have a different opinion on a topic that is emotionally important to you?

Big Ag has a massive PR problem regarding their ethics. That brush tars the science they try and sell us as well as their products.

[ag_dude]

38. I'm not lashing out at anything

I'm pointing out the flaws in your logic and what we can do as a nation to educate ourselves so we don't allow such misguided views to fester. Perhaps it's the engineer in me but I don't think calling somebody that is ignorant of a subject ignorant is insulting.

I realize there's no hope that you'd allow actual science to change your mind. Do you think you're the first anti-GMO person I've run across on DU?

Do you not realize how cliched your dismissals of science that doesn't agree with your view are? I could turn on conservative talk or Fox News and find parallel arguments being made any day of the week. You are not unique in that regard, it's a problem with our education system.

Yes, I realize there's a PR problem. Similar to global warming, it's rooted in people that want to deny science and the tendency of the national media to pretend there are two legitimate sides to something when the scientific studies on the subjects have clearly shown there are not.

My hope is that the news media will stick to actual science on both issues.

[GliderGuider]

39. IMO you are drawing a false equivalency

between those who are skeptical of GMO PR and those who are skeptical of climate change.

There is a valid equivalency, however. Both cases involve is an enormously powerful corporate constituency that has a vested interest in counteracting any science that threatens their operations. It's just that in the case of climate change they are losing the fight. In the GMO case they're still hanging on.

[Dont call me Shirley]

40. It's stunning how far people go to protect and promote their poison.

[GliderGuider]

42. It's human nature. The more we have to protect, the more protective we become. nt

[Dont call me Shirley]

44. Then why do we not protect nature, instead protecting poisoners like Monsatan?

Loved the Monsatan, mind if I borrow it?

[ag_dude]

41. There's your problem, it's science not "corporate"

The global warming deniers are on the opposite side of science.

The anti-GMO crowd is on the opposite side of science.

Why do you think you have to resort to the same denial of science that the global warming deniers do?

[GliderGuider]

43. Any time a corporation's profits depend on a particular aspect of science

the two become inextricably tangled on the public stage.

[ag_dude]

46. Science vs science denying ideology

The only difference is on this issue it tend to be liberals who deny scientific proof and not religious/conservative zealots.

On the original subject, we can only hope the news media sticks to proven facts instead of ideological rhetoric.

[Dont call me Shirley]

45. The ag chemicals are made from?...............oil. More oil creates more climate change.

More pesticides herbicides fungicides equal more need for oil equal more climate change and on and and on.

Pesticides herbicides and fungicides on the bottle state they are poison to humans. We eat the plants, which are poisoned, we get poisoned from the plants. GMOs rely on these poisons to grow. So which part do you not understand? The common sense part or the basic science part or both?

[ag_dude]

47. You do know that Bt plants...

...are designed to use LESS pesticides, right?

[Dont call me Shirley]

48. Although now there are super pests because of the chemicals leading to more pests,

You lose. Give it up.

[ag_dude]

49. I see that you don't actually know what Bt is.

[jtuck004]

54. So I wouldn't have to spend extra money buying bt and spraying it. Good. BUT, there is

a downside.

Lack of control - this shit can spread it's genes into plants where you may not want them

Others?

It's one of the few modifications that would seem to make sense on the surface, but what don't we know? Need research.

Figuring out how to raise predatory insects and transfer them around is my latest fascination.

[ag_dude]

56. How many more decades of research do you need?

Bt crops have been around in large scale for nearly 20 years now and there have been hundreds of studies done on their potential impacts. You can find these scientific papers (not just out of context summaries on politically or economically motivated websites) in numerous locations.

[jtuck004]

62. ? I'm not disagreeing, but who funded those studies? If it was the people

pimping the products I wouldn't trust ANYTHING they say.

I notice you didn't answer my question but took another tack, which is telling. Being defensive is hardly a way to drum up support.

Regardless, I think a bt enhanced product is likely a good idea, but none of this stuff comes without its costs, and those should be discussed just as openly.

[Dont call me Shirley]

60. I see you don't get the dangers of GMO, to the earth, the creatures and humans.

[ag_dude]

61. Snarky replies that are unfortunately the norm for the anti-GMO crowd

[Dont call me Shirley]

63. A large amount of snark comes from the pro-GMO crowd as well.

[ag_dude]

64. I'm talking about you specifically.

When it became clear you don't actually know hat Bt crops are or what they're meant for, you went to the typical snarky replies because you realize the fact you don't know what you are talking about has been exposed.

Grow up.

People like you are the problem with political discourse in this country today.

Either discuss the facts or move on.

[Dont call me Shirley]

65. A few facts

http://www.motherearthnews.com/homesteading-and-livestock/genetically-modified-foods-zm0z12amzmat.aspx?PageId=2#ArticleContent
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1244824/Fears-grow-study-shows-genetically-modified-crops-cause-liver-kidney-damage.html
http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/gm/harmful.html
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/food-agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering-agriculture#.VCM7MreCOSM
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/food-agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering-agriculture#.VCM7WXOCOSM
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-effects-of-genetically-modified-foods-on-animal-health/16747
http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/PageFiles/434214/GM_Fact%20Sheet_Health_%20and_Env_Impacts.pdf
http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_gmo_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/companies_put_restrictions_on_research_into_gm_crops/2273/
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/collapsing-colonies-are-gm-crops-killing-bees-a-473166.html
http://gmojudycarman.org/new-study-shows-that-animals-are-seriously-harmed-by-gm-feed/
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gm-new-study-shows-unborn-babies-could-be-harmed-522109.htmlq
http://undergroundhealthreporter.com/genetically-modified-foods/#axzz3EHCBRkYc

[ag_dude]

66. You didn't link to a single scientific paper, which is typical of the anti-GMO crowd

Stop filling your brain with biased bull shit and go to the actual sources.

Until then, you won't understand even the most basic concepts of GMOs like what Bt crops are actually meant for.

[Dont call me Shirley]

67. Nor did you

[ag_dude]

68. Do you really need a link to a scientific paper on what Bt crops are for?

They're not hard to find.

Hint: The Huffington Post is not a scientific resource.

I didn't put up a bunch of links to biased bull shit and pretend I was bringing anything to the conversation either.

[druidity33]

58. I think you're partially wrong here...

One can only do research on a seed or product that is patented with the approval of the company that owns the product. If the company doesn't like the study? They can decide not to release it. Independent analysis (esp. long term) is nearly impossible when you're dealing with patented material.

[Maedhros]

50. For myself, the issue isn't the science but how it is being used.

In the case of Monsanto, it's being used to try and corner the seed market and control the food supply. Those things will continue to be an issue even if GMO foods are recognized to be 100% safe.

[ag_dude]

51. That's a fair crticism

And one that by and large I'm the same page as you.

My only caveat would be that aspect of it is not really a GMO issue so much as it is a patent and anti-trust issue.

[proReality]

8. There is a flaw in the graphic

On the "What the news tells you about" side there is only one mention of 'fear'.

In reality, they manage to shove fear down our throats at least 50% of the time. Rather than give us the who/what/when/where/why of a story, they tell us who, what, when, where and why we need to fear.

[daleanime]

16. Amen....

[SheilaT]

9. Not owning a TV, and so not watching what passes for

news out there, means that I read a lot, I listen to Amy Goodman and watch Rachel Maddow, and I'm far better informed about real things than most people.

While I like DU a lot, and this specific OP is a very good one, I can get quite annoyed that when something that fits the right hand column generates dozens, if not hundreds of mostly duplicate and useless threads.

[mountain grammy]

11. That about says it all!

[tblue37]

12. We learn a lot about "side boobs," too. nt

[marble falls]

17. I do not get the appeal of side boob shots at all.

[tblue37]

18. It is the same as the appeal of looking at nude pics of women who don't want

them made public. There are endless quantities of nude pics of women who are quite willing to have their pictures viewed, and plenty of bare breasts for men to ogle. But the thrill for them is in peeking at and invading the privacy of women who do NOT want to be ogled and leered at by strangers.

It is about the desire to humiliate, shame, and degrade women, not about the desire to view their body or parts of their body naked.

[marble falls]

20. Its a nasty business that needs jail time associated with it.

[hfojvt]

14. saw this on FB

thought it was funny to think that the media should be informing me about "how to grow food".

Really?

I am tuning in to CBS News to learn how to grow food?

I noted that the schools do not even teach that.

[valerief]

26. Kick high!

[The2ndWheel]

28. It sounds good

Not sure how accurate it is.

[blkmusclmachine]

37. The media serves to protect the interests of their owners, the 1%

[Oldtimeralso]

52. Proud to be K&R #100 n/t

[Iliyah]

53. K & R

Dumbing down America because its easier to control the masses. Look at what they are doing to Education and the continuing bashing of the teachers.

[jtuck004]

55. Any Panda news? They are so cute when they are young. n/t

[Cha]

57. Kick.. thanks hatrack