> 95% of the so called science has been bought and paid for by the large AG
> corps. 5% has been done by independent researchers. No long term testing has
> been done. Millions are eating GMO genetics every day in the U.S..
>
Nice statistic. Where did you get it? Most of what I have read is not
paid for by the "large AG corps". Scientific papers are peer reviewed.
The ones I have read have disclosed their funding, so the usual culprits
can be identified or discounted. However, studies posted on the net by
advocacy groups have little impartial controls. It is interesting to see
how they work with good science. They "cherry pick" valid studies and
distort them to their own ends. GMO soybean pollination was an excellent
example. They arrived at conclusions directly opposite that of the
study, but that made the papers and was quoted by some on this list.
> I can see you know very little about GMO as the transgenic transfer is a big
> problem with seed savers ( big fight in Canada now over GMO canola
> contamination)but minor
> compared to the long term DNA effect on many species.
Most of the seed saver issue is not with GMO seed but hybrid seed that
is patented by Monsanto, among others. Farmers like to save seed but are
not allowed to by Monsanto and the help of the US Patent Office. This
issue has been around for many years. Does not matter if the seed is GMO
or hybrid- it is patented and cannot be saved.
As an aside, I believe it is Monsanto who is asking for pollinators for
its GMO seed production!
> Take a look at the GMO failures posted on the net. Hogs & cattle. Listen to
> the testimonials.
>
>
If what you describe is true, it would be all over the front pages of
every paper in the US. You can say anything on the net. Most of the
testimonials I have read about cancer cures on the net rely on the law
of the survivor. If you are dead you cannot rebut the testimonial so it
works every time. Plus, farmer's know that you can have weird offspring
at any time, which happened well before GMO. Often the deformity would
make the local papers.
GMO corn is not new but has been around for 15 years in the nation's
food supply. Any of the things described should now be easily documented
by any reputable source and reporters would leap on it. Sells papers.
Think CCD and what they have done with it from just a few quotable
beekeepers and cell phone scientists.
A small amount of perspective. GMO is not "FrankenFood" any more than
hybrid crops. The only major issue with GMO corm was with one
manufacturer's corn seed that used certain bacteria for the mods which
could cause allergic reactions. That was caught early and removed and no
problems since.
We have the safest food supply in our history.
Fringe is a relative term, since it could be considered from near zero
to 25% depending on the side you are on. The organic movement as a whole
is not fringe, but some parts of definitely are. That can be seen on
this list with some more pure than others. The commercial producers have
jumped on the organic bandwagon since it means greater profits from the
same acreage. The whole thing about the contaminated spinach coming from
an organic and pesticide user grower was an eye opener for me. Best of
both worlds.
The anti-GMO group is fringe.
But to return to CCD, the jury is still out and, in my opinion, will be
even after a general consensus is arrived at.
The pesticide angle is being pushed by one big commercial beekeeper who
had high mite loads before they collapsed from "CCD".
GMO is always a favorite target. Even the CCD group is circumspect as to
what the underlying cause is. Lots of conjecture and investigation, but,
so far, nothing specific. We, however, are not as limited since we have
our own axes to grind and who bothers to quote us as authoritative?
The CCD group, in my opinion, is handicapped. The database is suspect
because of the obvious lack of a good before picture and reliance on
less that adequate or impartial reporters (beekeeper affected). I hear
what Jerry has to say, but as long as the group relies on second hand
information, which it is cost constrained to do for most of the data, it
is suspect.
We really have to remember that the best info we have to date is that
about 5% of colony losses in the US can be looked at as possibly CCD.
That is a large number especially if you are one of the affected
beekeepers, but not compared with the remaining 20% caused by mites and
other factors. Add to that the fact that CCD like symptoms have occurred
many times in the past, and you have a distinct, manageable problem. Not
a crisis that involves the end of GMO crops, pesticides, and cell phones.
It seems that the best investment to make in these times is stock in
Reynolds Aluminum.
Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine
******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm *
******************************************************
|
