Had the foresite to wire up the 1946 SC Case 12v negative ground so I can put a Trimble or Garmin on him some day.
#### Monsanto
- Thread starter RandyMac
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
ddhlakebound
Addicted to ArboristSite
No personal offense intended, but this is TOTAL BS.
By the very definition of GMO (genetically modified organism)......Genetically engineered or genetically modified organisms (“GMO”s, or “GM foods”) are defined as those in which “the genetic material (“DNA”) has been altered in such a way that does not occur naturally.”
FDA and Regulation of GMOs
It would not "take a long time" to breed our GMO's......It could not EVER happen. We are combining genes which were previously completely incompatible. And we do not know the effects.
ddhlakebound
Addicted to ArboristSite
It's not terribly difficult to compare the health of countries where gmo's have never been allowed to the health of the USA. Countries banning gmo's are not doing so because they fear additional profits from agriculture. But no worries, were healthy in America, right? Oh, wait......not so much. Cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and on and on and on. I'm sure none of that stuff has anything to do with what we put in our bodies, does it?
Dalmatian90
Addicted to ArboristSite
Ironic choice in an example:
Marijuana is a schedule 1 drug for one official reason --
Of course the politics of the issue makes that research to resolve the issue difficult to carry out.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Why I changed my mind on weed - CNN.com
If you want to follow the example of marijuana, then GMOs should be banned until conclusive, hard, repeatable scientific evidence proves them safe.
If you think the opposite should apply, then there is no reason for marijuana to be schedule 1.
I'm quite comfortable, just from comments made by supporters in this thread, saying the evidence that GMOs will do harm is clear -- such as rapidly increasing resistance to Bt thus removing an effective organic control from the toolbox of folks who are limited in what they can and will use. Whether they have human health impacts is a considerable void in our knowledge.
Last edited:
luckydozenfarm
THE MAN OF STIHL
Yeah because everyone in Europe is cancer, diabetes, heart disease free due to the fact that the disallow GMO's. What were we thinking? You are right ddh, you have found a link to GMO's and their negative effects while 1000's of scientists all across the world completely missed that.
luckydozenfarm
THE MAN OF STIHL
I have no problem with marijuana at all one way or another. Yes there are politics involved with the reason(s) that marijuana is classified as schedule 1. I would also suspect that there is no "official 1 reason" as you suggest. A quick perusing of the internet and you can find many theories, conjecturing, and downright conspiracy theories to why weed is outlawed. But that's not my point, in fact that was my point that weed should NOT be banned, and that GMO promoters should follow their public relations lead.
America has become a country of irrational fear due to things we have no personal knowledge of, but only the information we obtain from others (TV, Internet,). We fear terrorists on airplanes, we fear black people walking around neighborhoods at night, we fear GMO's, etc etc. And then we take that irrational fear to the next level by "doing something about the problem" even if there actually isn't a real problem. So what does that lead us? Pat downs of kids and grandmas at airports, security guards shooting people, and banning GMO's, etc etc.
This GMO issue has reached a religious-like fervor. Don't get me wrong, I am not for anything that is bad for you. Like I said before, should they be proven in multiple experiments to be harmful, by all means I wouldn't grow the stuff. And if you don't want to eat them, that's fine by me. Let's label them as such and if you guys want to pay more for non-GMO's that's totally ok for me. But don't forget farming is just like any other business, if you speak with your mouth but not your wallet, no one is listening. If you have ever seen how the broiler chicken business stays in the black financially, you would never eat a Chic-Fil-A sandwich ever again. Everyone talks a big game, but the chicken farmers are still overcrowding their houses with these Cornish Cross hybrid super-chickens that go from chick to slaughter in under 6 weeks. And they will continue to do so, as long as the line at Chic-Fil-A is out the door come lunch time. Raising conventional chicken meat is about 4 times more expensive to produce, no one would buy enough of it to make it profitable.
My issue mainly centers on the fact that where does all this hatred for GMO's come from? It's not from the scientific community. Even with the fact that it's much easier to prove something is bad for you than to prove something is good for you, we haven't been able to come up with a single example. Not even one. So what is it?
Dalmation states that, "I'm quite comfortable, just from comments made by supporters in this thread, saying the evidence that GMOs will do harm is clear."
Really? You get your "evidence" from people off this forum you prob don't even know? And that's good enough for you? Come on Dal, I suggest go to a grower seminar that Monsanto holds and talk to the scientists there with an open mind. Then if you still think that way, well then you have both sides to the story to compare.
The only explanation I can come up with is the irrational fear that the mob mentality creates, and the knee jerk reaction that comes with it.
luckydozenfarm
THE MAN OF STIHL
Let me give another example:
I HATE sweet potatoes. I hate everything about them. I get physically ill watching someone stirring them in a bowl and hearing the slopping sound the make. If they somehow find a way into my mouth I will probably vomit uncontrollably. Sweet potatoes, I believe, are the devil's handywork and I would be a happy man if the world was completely rid of sweet potatoes.
Now, I'm a rational adult here. Is the problem with the potatoes themselves? No, it's my problem, and I know that.
Have we PROVEN that sweet potatoes are directly harmful to the public at large? Of course not, its my physical reaction to them limited to myself and possibly others, due to the fact that millions of people have eaten them for a long period of time, without consequential negative effect directly contributed to eating sweet potatoes.
Do people depend on them for their nutritional value? Yes, there are places in Africa I believe that it's their main staple of food.
Do other people hate sweet potatoes and have the same feelings I do about them? Yes, my brother for one is the same way, and I'm sure I can throw a stick down a crowded street and hit someone who hates them also.
Do I get on the internet and make up false accusations and experiments by feeding rats sweet potatoes and measuring their cancerous tumors, because I have to get rid of sweet potatoes at any cost, for the my perceived benefit to humanity? Do I get on the internet and spread the fear of God upon anyone that dares to eat sweet potatoes?
Of course not, no sane, rational person would do something like that. I know that there isn't anything wrong with them. I personally don't care for them myself, but they have a benefit to society that is real, no matter how much I want them gone.
Would I appreciate the fact that anything containing sweet potatoes be labeled as such, and would I pay extra money for something that uses a more expensive, alternative ingredient? Sure, that would be great, and you better believe I would pay more.
You see that's my point.
I HATE sweet potatoes. I hate everything about them. I get physically ill watching someone stirring them in a bowl and hearing the slopping sound the make. If they somehow find a way into my mouth I will probably vomit uncontrollably. Sweet potatoes, I believe, are the devil's handywork and I would be a happy man if the world was completely rid of sweet potatoes.
Now, I'm a rational adult here. Is the problem with the potatoes themselves? No, it's my problem, and I know that.
Have we PROVEN that sweet potatoes are directly harmful to the public at large? Of course not, its my physical reaction to them limited to myself and possibly others, due to the fact that millions of people have eaten them for a long period of time, without consequential negative effect directly contributed to eating sweet potatoes.
Do people depend on them for their nutritional value? Yes, there are places in Africa I believe that it's their main staple of food.
Do other people hate sweet potatoes and have the same feelings I do about them? Yes, my brother for one is the same way, and I'm sure I can throw a stick down a crowded street and hit someone who hates them also.
Do I get on the internet and make up false accusations and experiments by feeding rats sweet potatoes and measuring their cancerous tumors, because I have to get rid of sweet potatoes at any cost, for the my perceived benefit to humanity? Do I get on the internet and spread the fear of God upon anyone that dares to eat sweet potatoes?
Of course not, no sane, rational person would do something like that. I know that there isn't anything wrong with them. I personally don't care for them myself, but they have a benefit to society that is real, no matter how much I want them gone.
Would I appreciate the fact that anything containing sweet potatoes be labeled as such, and would I pay extra money for something that uses a more expensive, alternative ingredient? Sure, that would be great, and you better believe I would pay more.
You see that's my point.
We understand your points. Most of us also understand that you're a farmer and that your opinions are linked directly to your wallet.
luckydozenfarm
THE MAN OF STIHL
Well by that if you mean that I'm not one for losing money by growing an inferior product for the consumer, then yes.
yes and farming is just like logging or any other business.you have to have the right tools to make money.i know i wouldn't go out to saw firewood with some piece of crap saw from sears and expect to get a good day sawin in with it and bring home a couple of cords to sell. GMO crops are just another tool only for farmers.85% of this years corn crop is GMO. that corn crop will feed this country this year wether it be in corn flakes,milk or meat.the t-shirts and underwear most of us have are probably made with GMO cotton. i do believe that there has to be continued testing on these products to ensure everyones safety.
ddhlakebound
Addicted to ArboristSite
Still spreading BS like it's peanut butter.....
Apparently you think the "scientific community" consists of Monsatano's and Syngenta's labs, which are paid to APPROVE those products, not TEST them.
Institute for Responsible Technology - Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food
Doctors Warn Avoid Genetically Modified Food
http://www.physicalexamnyc.com/data...n-between-increase-in-organ-disease-and-gmos/
Data show correlations between increase in neurological diseases and GMOs - Seattle GMO | Examiner.com
GMO Risks | GMO Awareness
Significant Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods
ddhlakebound
Addicted to ArboristSite
Fixed it for you.
Dalmatian90
Addicted to ArboristSite
Oh, I assure you -- I have a VERY open mind, and I'm quite well read and familiar with the subject and a sales seminar from Monsanto isn't going to provide information to change it.
Even if there are no health impacts on people, we still come back to some real basic tenets:
1) With the Bt gene, we've transferred a gene through technology that no amount of conventional breeding, given an unlimited amount of time, could achieve.
It may be possible that bacteria in nature may transfer genes to plants. There isn't much science on that type of natural horizontal gene transfer (though it occurs very frequently and well documented between bacteria) beyond some hypothetical speculation. When, and if, it occurs nature would take eons before such a plant might become widespread, not decades.
2) Farmers, like most everyone else, are not known for following protocols perfectly over the long term.
You know, like farmers who are sued by Monsanto for using seed without a licensing agreement.
One of those protocols is to plant reservoir crops of non-GE crops to try and prevent resistance from developing in target pests.
Whether or not they're effective protocols, when you combine it with the attitude professed by some of the supporters here of "so what, everything becomes resistant, we just need to be ready to move on to the next product when that occurs" does not bode well for the idea that those protocols will be effectively implemented.
3) So we'll take a gene -- for the Bt toxin -- and transfer it to crops in a way that is unlikely to occur in nature and apply it on a mass scale. We can expect pests today that can be controlled by a judicious use of Bt when needed will likely develop resistance when exposed widely and continually. We have any number of examples of this over the last century of agriculture and human health.
Which means perhaps in my lifetime, perhaps in the next generation its likely one of the safest and most targetted of "organic" pesticides will cease to be effective on many caterpillars -- leaving the organic folks high and dry, while the better living through chemistry folks simply move on to the next thing without caring what they've destroyed in their wake.
ddhlakebound
Addicted to ArboristSite
So are you saying that all the countries which have banned GMO's have done so because they FEAR ADDITIONAL PROFITS from each acre?
It's cute that you're able to ignore facts and magnify hyperbole in your efforts to pimp the GMO's. Shill much?
luckydozenfarm
THE MAN OF STIHL
I know I will never convince anyone otherwise, and that's fine. I'm not some representative from Monsanto. I grow their products and they have a very fine instructional seminars that detail anything you would want to know about GMO products. If you have never been to one then you have a single sided opinion on the matter, in my mind. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
That being said, I hope you guys have a wonderful day.
That being said, I hope you guys have a wonderful day.
If you care about what your really putting into your body watch this, it's an interview with Dr. Huber on glyphosate(roundup) and the science behind it. It's long but well worth watching. He sums it up great by saying, "Future historians aren't going to judge us by how many tons of pesticides we apply or don't apply, but how willing we are to sacrifice our children in the next generation as well as jeopardize the very basis of our own existence all based upon failed promises and flawed science. The only benefit is it affects the bottom line of a few companies."
sgreanbeans
Treeaculterologist
wow
jollygreengiant
ArboristSite Member
And there it is, the inevitable shill comment. To heck with the facts, if someone says anything that is in favour of GMO's well then they are automatically a shill. Also a label thrown around wildly by those against GMO's who have no argument to stand on.
jollygreengiant
ArboristSite Member
Don't let this stop you from speaking out on this topic. Your voice is exactly what is needed:the voice of someone who uses this technology every day and sees its advantages and disadvantages. It's a rarity when most of what you hear is from people who are against GMO's but yet haven't set foot on a farm in their life.
I work with this technology on a daily basis. Yes, it does have some drawbacks; as does all technology. And I am not a Monsanto fanboy as I don't agree with some things they have done. But I also see the upside of this technology, and it is something modern ag needs.
jollygreengiant
ArboristSite Member
Mr Huber has pretty well exposed himself as a hack. Take a look at his recent presentation in Florida. He claims there is some sort of organism or virus associated with GMO's that is causing all sorts of human illnesses. He has been saying this for years now, yet he has not and refuses to release his information on this organism. Given our current abilities, this organism could be identified and analyzed in weeks, yet he won't release it? Instead he continues to travel around the country, being paid to speak about his findings.
Something smells downright funny there...
Similar threads
