Biotech Crops Benefit the Environment

Several new reports being issued today by the U.K.-based agriculture consultancy, PG Economics highlight the benefits of biotech crops to farmers, consumers and the natural environment. The press release accompanying the new studies notes:

Biotech crops have reduced pesticide spraying (1996-2008) by 352 million kg (-8.4%) and as a result decreased the environmental impact associated with herbicide and insecticide use on the area planted to biotech crops by 16.3%;

Herbicide tolerant biotech crops have facilitated the adoption of no/reduced tillage production systems in many regions, especially South America.  This has made important contributions to reducing soil erosion and improving soil moisture levels;

There have been substantial net economic benefits at the farm level amounting to $9.4 billion in 2008 and $52 billion for the thirteen year period.   The farm income gain in 2008 is equivalent to adding 3.65% to the value of global production of the four main biotech crops of soybeans, corn, canola and cotton;

Of the total farm income benefit, 50.5% ($26.25 billion) has been due to yield gains, with the balance arising from reductions in the cost of production.  Two thirds of the yield gain derive from adoption of insect resistant crops and the balance from herbicide tolerant crops;  ...

Since 1996, biotech traits have added 74 million tonnes and 79.7 million tonnes respectively to global production of soybeans and corn.  The technology has also contributed an extra 8.6 million tonnes of cotton lint and 4.8 million tonnes of canola;  

If GM technology had not been available to the (13.3 million) farmers using the technology in 2008,  maintaining global production levels at the 2008 levels would have required additional plantings of 4.6 million ha of soybeans, 3.5 million ha of corn, 2.2 million ha of cotton and 0.3 million ha of canola (emphasis added).  This total area requirement is equivalent to about 6% of the arable land in the US, or 21% of the arable land in Brazil; 

World prices of corn, soybeans and canola would probably be respectively 5.8%, 9.6% and 3.8% higher than 2007 baseline levels if the technology was no longer available to farmers.  Prices of key derivatives (eg, soymeal) would also probably be 5% to 9% higher and prices of related cereals and oilseeds (eg, wheat, barley, sunflower) would be 3% to 4% higher;

Reducing pesticide use, soil erosion, and land use -- what's not to like about biotech crops? Go here to the PG Economics site to see the press release and the related studies.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Cuing Organic Girl in 5..4...3...2...1....

    Also, first, bitches!

  • ||

    When did logic ever persuade a technophobe?

  • Patriot Henry||

    "When did logic ever persuade a technophobe?"

    When did logic ever dissuade a religious extremist or a fascist technocrat?

  • ||

    Anyone else notice what group produced this pseudoscience? "PG Economics", which is part of the GMO industry...but it was started and is run by two economists. I haven't yet found exactly which economic school they belong to, but I'm pretty dang sure it ain't the Austrian school. Might be the Chicago school, but I got a sneaking suspicion that these men are Keynesian's. Their approach to agriculture follows the same "principles" - deficits are good etc.

  • GILMORE||

    Your "sneaking suspicion" is extremely convincing logic.

    And again, what, prey tell, is "anti free market" about people who develop and patent technologies to improve the food supply? Amid all the crazy talk you never really got around to explaining that.

  • ||

    And again, what, prey tell, is "anti free market" about people who develop and patent technologies to improve the food supply? Amid all the crazy talk you never really got around to explaining that.

    1. These technologies are paid for by tax bux, aka stolen loot. Much of the R&D costs come from this illicit wealth. It's a product created to "solve" the problems created by the state controlled food system. It's for the state by the state paid by the victims of the state.

    2. Monopoly status granted by the courts.

    3. In relation to #1, aside from the funding issue, it is part and parcel of the state plan to control the food to control the people. Granted the fools who create or farm GMO crops have no idea of the consequences of their actions, but their actions are part of the open conspiracy to destroy the free market.

  • ||

    Your "sneaking suspicion" is extremely convincing logic.

    Here's a link to Monsanto:http://www.monsanto.com/biotech-gmo/asp/experts.asp?id=GrahamBrookes

    They state that Graham Brookes, co-founder and Director of PG Economists, has the following education: "M.A. European Economic Studies; B.A. Agricultural Economics, University of Exeter"

    They also state: "Notable: Specialist in agricultural economics, agricultural policy, evaluation, trade and marketing and assessing the economic impact of new technology".

    So this guy knows about European economics, which he has "studied", or far more accurately, he has been "indoctrinated" with "knowledge" about European economics, which is of course economics completely dominated by the state.

    He also knows about "agricultural economics", and actually "specializes" in it. "Agricultural economics" is again a field completely dominated by the state. The state doesn't merely tax the industry, but actively subsidizes and excessively regulates and prohibits and otherwise interferes with the industry, and it's economics are that of Keynes.

    From that very same Monsanto page, they have a quote in large print from Mr. Graham Brookes of PG Economics:

    "The economic and the environmental benefits associated with the technology can only get greater."

    That is an absurdly optimistic view, but even if you consider it to be very reasonable, it is a reflection of who Mr. Graham Brookes is - he is an executive of a GMO-industry corporation who gains financially from his job of marketing and promoting GMO.

    There's nothing wrong with executives who market a product and make a buck from it. Unless they do something else, like pose as scientists conducting objective scientific research.

    Marketing is not scientific research! Those of you who believed Ron Bailey and PG Economics should write that on a chalkboard 100 times.

    Y'all can call me crazy - but you are the people who are saying the marketing of fraud science (lower even than pseudoscience since it lacks the honest intention and enters the criminal realm) is science. That's crazy.

    PG Economics, Monsanto, and the rest of the mainstream academia and media and government all agree - GMO is great, no problems, nothing to worry about.

    "I know that there are some scientists who are speaking and writing sound criticism of science or of scientific abuses of science, but these people seem to have the status of dissidents or heretics; they are not accepted as partners in a necessary dialogue. Typically, their criticisms and objections are not even answered. (If you are making money and have power, why debate?) In short, the scientific critics of science are not effective. " - Wendell Berry in "Life is a Miracle".

    It is true, I am not effective as a scientific critic of science, it is true also that I am rejected as dissidents and heretics are rejected, with not one of my criticisms or objections answered and only one or two questions posed to me with relation to my criticisms and objections. It is also true that the reason y'all don't want to even talk about my criticisms and objections is because of money and power and for two other reasons.

    1. You have it damn easy now due to the concentration of wealth and power by those who control GMO (the state not the corporations as those are only part of the state).

    2. You stand to lose a great deal and suffer real hell if there is any basis to my criticisms and objections.

    3. Comprehending my criticisms and objections with relation to your diet and your life would pose a tremendous burden on you, partly because it is very difficult and traumatic to realize the nightmarish nature of what we call "food", and partly because it is so very difficult to extricate oneself from this nightmare.

    I used to be no different than any of you, and recalling what I used to eat, probably a lot worse than most of you. Then I got very picky about my food after I got food poisoning from McDonalds (Haight St in S.F., I should have known better) and started again reading more books about food. Instead of an endless variety of inexpensive and convenient food I now have a very limited variety of expensive and inconvenient food to choose from. I accomplished this by researching food and eliminating things I did not wish to eat for ethical reasons. The advantage of this is that I think far clearer - no longer do I have to exert valuable brain power to ignore the nature of my food, and far more importantly I no longer have a conflict of interest which would make me the unwitting ally, tool, and serf of the state.

  • mr simple||

    Breaking news: S&P downgrades Spain to 'AA' with a negative outlook, saying the country is likely to have an extended period of subdued economic growth.

  • GILMORE||

    What short fund do you work for again?

  • Ragin Cajun||

    Frankenfood, argh! Don't let the starving Africans have any! It's for their own good!

  • ||

    How does genetic engineering differ from hybridization?

  • ||

    It's all corporate-y.

  • ||

    You get WAY cooler mutants.

  • KWebb||

    This. And it's faster.

  • Patriot Henry||

    How does genetic engineering differ from hybridization?

    I explained a bit more below. Hybridization etc all limit their failures in scale and scope. You can make mistakes and end up with a bad result, but it's only so bad and a limited area is affected. GM affects the entire globe and the negative consequences are only limited by the size of the power trip the mad scientists are on, which at this point appears to be a hell of a trip.

  • kinnath||

    You are a fucking idiot.

  • kinnath||

    Now that I have finished the thread, I think I gave Henry too much benefit of the doubt.

  • Patriot Henry||

    Now that I have finished the thread, I think I gave Henry too much benefit of the doubt.

    I'm an idiot because I don't trust fascist scientists who make grandiose claims while pissing on the principles of science?

  • kinnath||

    No, you're one of those exceeding annoying dipshits that are just smart enough to remember the right phrases, but completely incapable of making a rational argument. This would be OK if you would just shut the fuck up.

  • Patriot Henry||

    No, you're one of those exceeding annoying dipshits that are just smart enough to remember the right phrases, but completely incapable of making a rational argument. This would be OK if you would just shut the fuck up.

    So it's irrational to argue that we should use science to test GM crops for safety and efficiency, that there should be independent and peer reviewed scientific research for the same reasons, that the fundamental laws of nature must be obeyed, that destroying the capacity of land and water to support life is a short sighted and damned foolish proposition?

    And it is a rational argument that scientific testing and especially independent peer reviewed scientific research aren't necessary, that the laws of nature be damned, and that the life supporting capacity of land and water doesn't matter?

  • kinnath||

    It's is irrational that you say those things aren't happening.

    You seem a bit emotional. Are you having a heavy flow day?

  • Patriot Henry||

    It's is irrational that you say those things aren't happening.

    No, it's irrational to claim that the practice of GM is scientific. If you bother to use a search engine and research this topic you can confirm that there is no real scientific research being done on the safety, efficiency, practicality, long term effects, etc of GM crops. Not only is it not being done, it is not going to be done, as the GM crops are patented and the patent holders refuse to allow such research to be conducted. They get to approve who researches and publishes research on their product. It is irrational to claim that corporations supervised by government who both work to prevent any and all scientific testing is the same thing as actually conducting scientific testing.

    You seem a bit emotional. Are you having a heavy flow day?

    Of course, when discussing gravely important issues it is best to avoid the issue and instead refer to ones opponent as a woman and make PMS references. That's perfectly rational.

  • kinnath||

    This is the only serious comment you're going to get from me.

    I am an engineer with 25 years of experience working on technology that kills people when it fails.

    You won't find a single public domain article that proves our products are safe because all of the research is proprietary.

    You are totally misguided if think that your are going to find serious research on GM products in an open forum. Anything remotely relevant to patentable technology is going to be tightly controlled.

    So if you are not arguing for another federal agency to perform publicly funded research into GM products, then shut the fuck up. If you are, then doubly shut the fuck up.

  • Patriot Henry||

    You are totally misguided if think that your are going to find serious research on GM products in an open forum. Anything remotely relevant to patentable technology is going to be tightly controlled.

    So we are supposed to just trust the nice mad scientists and their state handlers?

    So if you are not arguing for another federal agency to perform publicly funded research into GM products, then shut the fuck up

    So I shouldn't argue that there be public peer reviewed scientific and independent research into technologies that are now fundamental to the continued existence of our society?

    No thank you. I won't shut up. I won't be quiet while a bunch of state-corporate scientists and bureaucrats force the world to follow their pied piper of GM crops. I won't shut up as long as I and others are forced to pay for it, I won't shut up as the victims whose property is destroyed by GM crops are treated as the guilty party, and I won't shut up so long as this disgusting advancement of fascism rules over the world.

  • kinnath||

    So we are supposed to just trust the nice mad scientists and their state handlers?

    You do on everything else.

    So I shouldn't argue that there be public peer reviewed scientific and independent research into technologies that are now fundamental to the continued existence of our society?

    No

  • Patriot Henry||

    You do on everything else.

    No, I don't. I critique the lawyers, doctors, professors, and other experts.

    No

    And why not? "State secrets privilege"?

    I know nothing about contract law, but I don't see how one can prohibit all independent scientific testing and the publishing of the test results.

    For the products you work on - is a prohibition on conducting and publishing independent scientific research on the products part of the fine print? Other than GMO products I don't know of anything which is prohibited to independent science.

  • ||

    There's plenty of scientific testing of GM crops, and peer reviewed literature confirming their safety.

    You just won't accept any of it because it doesn't agree with your preconceived beliefs. So you dismiss it as corporate fakery. You wouldn't accept any research that *didn't* confirm your bias.

  • Patriot Henry||

    There's plenty of scientific testing of GM crops, and peer reviewed literature confirming their safety.

    Really? Care to cite or link to some of these? You have read and confirmed that these studies were science and not marketing based?

    You just won't accept any of it because it doesn't agree with your preconceived beliefs. So you dismiss it as corporate fakery. You wouldn't accept any research that *didn't* confirm your bias.

    That's not true. I dismiss it as corporate fakery because there are fantastic claims, no evidence, and an adamant refusal to allow others to replicate these studies or to conduct others.

  • Zeb||

    "the fundamental laws of nature must be obeyed"

    That's funny. As if you could disobey a fundamental law of nature. "I think I'm just going to ignore the laws of thermodynamics today and make a perpetual motion machine that generates energy from nothing."

  • Patriot Henry||

    That's funny. As if you could disobey a fundamental law of nature. "I think I'm just going to ignore the laws of thermodynamics today and make a perpetual motion machine that generates energy from nothing."

    That isn't possible, but as has been proven many times, it is possible to invent a "perpetual motion machine" (with a battery or other power source) and bilk investors and other people.

    It would also be quite possible to get many scientists, academics, and bureaucrats to support such a device, and to use the government to subsidize it so that it is installed throughout our country and the world.

    Of course, the consequences of that would be considerable. When your delusion fades away because the reality is too bitterly brutal to ignore maybe you'll have second thoughts about GMO crops.

  • ||

    No, pissing on the principles of science is setting out to discover that GM crops are bad, and then fudging your data to find what you want to find.

  • ||

    then fudging your data to find what you want to find.

    This sounds remarkably familiar....have I seen this movie before?

  • Patriot Henry||

    No, pissing on the principles of science is setting out to discover that GM crops are bad, and then fudging your data to find what you want to find.

    I set out to discover the truth about GM crops. My curiosity was peaked when they "lost" GM corn into the food supply that produced false signs of pregnancy in pigs. The data I've found since I was first interested all points to the practice of GM to be anything but scientific.

    Do you have a good reason for not investigating both sides of this issue? Granted there is a lot of baloney from the anti-GM crowd, but there is also a lot of substance, as opposed to the pro-GM crowd where there is only propaganda and marketing materials. Any reason you decided to become a cheerleader for the food fascists?

  • ||

    My curiosity was peaked when they "lost" GM corn into the food supply that produced false signs of pregnancy in pigs.

    This should be interesting ... cite please.

  • Patriot Henry||

    This should be interesting ... cite please.

    I will try to find it later. I originally read it in a mainstream newspaper several years ago, I believe the AP was the source. Currently Google is flooded with conspiracy theory and other junk so it's hard to find the actual evidence against GM.

  • ||

    I will try to find it later. I originally read it in a mainstream newspaper several years ago, I believe the AP was the source. Currently Google is flooded with conspiracy theory and other junk so it's hard to find the actual evidence against GM.

    Priceless.

    How much do you want to bet it turns out to be a "study" published by Greenpeace or some similar anti-GMO lobbying group?

    I'll put money down.

  • Patriot Henry||

    How much do you want to bet it turns out to be a "study" published by Greenpeace or some similar anti-GMO lobbying group?

    No, it was an Associated Press article. Just one of those little two paragraph articles tucked away on the inside pages documenting something that goes down the memory hole. I think that was at least 8 years ago, before the anti-GM hysteria began.

    I'll put money down.

    You mean you'll tax me and give it to the GM crop manufacturers?

  • ||

    Ahh, so an AP article counts are peer reviewed science now, in your mind.

    I guess that's because those evil corporations are stopping people from investigating the dangers of GMO crops, so they can't get published, right?

  • Patriot Henry||

    Ahh, so an AP article counts are peer reviewed science now, in your mind.

    It is not necessary to have peer reviewed science for product recalls and advisories.

  • GILMORE||

    Currently Google is flooded with conspiracy theory and other junk so it's hard to find the actual evidence against GM

    Well, that explains why you're completely deluded at least.

  • Patriot Henry||

    Well, that explains why you're completely deluded at least.

    I don't read conspiracy theory websites - and that makes me completely deluded?

  • GILMORE||

    "Patriot Henry|4.28.10 @
    I don't read conspiracy theory websites - and that makes me completely deluded?

    No, that you "cant find the evidence", but are so convinced of your conclusions anyway...

  • Patriot Henry||

    No, that you "cant find the evidence", but are so convinced of your conclusions anyway...

    That is only part of the evidence. The bulk of it is not that the current GMO crops are dangerous, it's that they are untested, can't be tested, won't be tested, and are being implemented on a global scale even as they get nuttier and nuttier with the modifications.

    Further, in light of the dark history of government and food, government and science, government and medicine - this isn't likely to end well. It never does when specialized academics use their hubris and technical skills to further the cause of their state overlords.

  • ev||

    Piqued. Your interest was "piqued."

  • Patriot Henry||

    Piqued. Your interest was "piqued."

    Whoa! My apologies and thank you for pointing that out to me. That particular misspelling is a pet peeve of mine. Excuse me while I go kick myself.

  • GILMORE||

    Harder

  • ||

    You mean, that mad scientists couldn't take a hybrid and plant it everywhere?

    I think they already did, you know ...

  • Zeb||

    Can you explain how you have come to the conclusion that completely random natural mutations are inherently safer and better than human created mutations or insertions of genes? Seems like a rather arbitrary distinction.

  • Patriot Henry||

    Can you explain how you have come to the conclusion that completely random natural mutations are inherently safer and better than human created mutations or insertions of genes? Seems like a rather arbitrary distinction.

    Thank you for the question! I'd be happy to answer.

    The reason is failure. If nature fails, it fails. That usually means death or the failure to reproduce. Either way, a failed natural species dies out, and usually a stronger one keeps on living.

    Using GMO crops, failure is institutionalized. In nature, there might be some corn plants that only produce 20 percent of the normal yield, but those plants are going to go the way of the dodo. In GMO crops, South Africa loses 80 percent of it's expected yield of corn.

    My apologies for not being able to explain this better. I'll try again.

    In nature, if a corn plant produces a 0 percent yield, then at the end of the season it is done, and that plant is done, gone forever.

    In GMO crops, if that exact same thing happens, we are FUCKED. We aren't talking about a single plant not reproducing, or a single farm, or county, or state, or country, we are talking the overwhelming majority of the world's food supply.

    Does that make sense? In nature the consequences of failure are limited, just as in a free market the consequences of failure are limited. If one business owner decides to be stupid, and fails, then that is a success of the market. The same applies to life and nature. Failure is a normal, healthy, and natural thing. When there isn't a free market, but a state controlled market, then failure becomes epic failure and major catastrophe results.

  • ||

    disgusting, of all publications to support genetically modified crops, reason was last on my list. why are you advocating this? shame. why don't you feed science experiments to your children, see what happens.

  • ||

    Since 1996, biotech traits have added 74 million tonnes and 79.7 million tonnes respectively to global production of soybeans and corn. The technology has also contributed an extra 8.6 million tonnes of cotton lint and 4.8 million tonnes of canola;

    psssst. You already do.

  • Sniktpool||

    Is it weird that I got a boner for capitalism after reading those statistics?

  • Patriot Henry||

    Is it weird that I got a boner for capitalism after reading those statistics?

    It's only weird because those are fascist statistics.

  • Jeffersonian||

    How does that work...little sigmas march around with armbands?

    You're a dope, Hank.

  • ||

    How does that work...little sigmas march around with armbands?

    Clever and witty but no. It works because fascists use statistics to further their cause of fascism.

    You're a dope, Hank.

    I'm a dope because I oppose fascism, fascists, and fascist tools?

  • ||

    Why don't you try not feeding your children at all?

    See what happens.

  • ||

    Why "last"? -- what's wrong with supporting free markets and technological progress?*

    *just a reminder, I don't support any subsidies, including ag subsidies.

  • Patriot Henry||

    Why "last"? -- what's wrong with supporting free markets and technological progress?*

    It's not a free market when you use the state to quash your victims or for propaganda or to keep people from conducting scientific research into the dangers your product poses to the public. Mad science is NOT "technological progress".

    *just a reminder, I don't support any subsidies, including ag subsidies.

    Yeah you do. You just don't support cash handouts. If it's in the form of less direct support (but far more important and influential) you seem to have no problem with using the state to further your cause of food fascism, which of course is but one of the main avenues of power for the fascist system you allegedly don't support.

  • ||

    You know, when a person starts their research with an agenda such as discovering "the dangers of X", it's not really science. It's propaganda.

    You don't do real science with a preconceived notion about what you would like to find.

  • Patriot Henry||

    You know, when a person starts their research with an agenda such as discovering "the dangers of X", it's not really science. It's propaganda.

    I agree. That's why I always look for the pros AND the cons. With GM, all I find is cons.

    You don't do real science with a preconceived notion about what you would like to find.

    That's rich coming from someone who supports without thought or question the propaganda coming from the food fascists. I didn't start with the conclusion that the practice of GM is dangerous and corrupt - the facts of the matter inevitably led to that conclusion.

  • ||

    I agree. That's why I always look for the pros AND the cons. With GM, all I find is cons.

    Why am I not surprised?

    That's rich coming from someone who supports without thought or question the propaganda coming from the food fascists. I didn't start with the conclusion that the practice of GM is dangerous and corrupt - the facts of the matter inevitably led to that conclusion.

    By contrast, I started with knowing something about genetics.

  • Patriot Henry||

    Why am I not surprised?

    What pros are there that have been substantiated beyond the marketing claims?

    By contrast, I started with knowing something about genetics.

    And what part of your knowledge of genetics says it is safe or wise to conduct global experiments to see if a beta testing period is worth pursuing?

  • ||

    Read the fucking article?

  • GILMORE||

    LOL

    "Where is the EVIDENCE!!"

    Uh, right here?

    "I still can't see it!"

    Here

    "None exists!"

    No, man, right here.

    "Its all a suppression of evidence!"

    Here are more reports...

    "The fascists are keeping me from being informed!"

    Dude, is something wrong?

    "I cany read. I need audiobook versions."

  • ||

    Read the fucking article?

    I did. I got a different meaning apparently out of it than you and most others did. You apparently read it as a news article summarizing scientific research demonstrating GMO crops being good for the environment. That is what the author intended to mean. You read what the author meant. I read what he said. And what he said was pure propaganda for GMO crops. Ron Bailey for the second time quotes industry marketing material with an enthusiastic endorsement (and that cartoon of "You gotta have the right genes, buddy"). This is yellow journalism. This is the same piece as this one:

    Biotech Crops Good for Farmers and the Environment, Says National Academy of Sciences Ronald Bailey | April 13, 2010

    is almost exactly the same as:

    Biotech Crops Benefit the Environment Ronald Bailey | April 28, 2010

    Both with the same cartoon, that if you actually apply to the meaning of the contents of the article, is that the state-industrial-corporate-etc complex is correctly picking the right genes. The corporations, academics, bureaucrats, journalists all share the same common intellectual history, which if you trace it back to the ancestors of those alive today goes right back to the eugenicists. It's gotten a lot more politically correct and far more sophisticated but the machine is the same mad killing machine, and it's advances should not lead one to mistakenly think that far greater powers of technology and a corny cartoon (pun intended) will somehow lead to a desirable outcome.

    I like a lot of what I've been reading in Wendell Berry's book. I really think y'all have lost sight of the miracles of the universe and life, their nature, and the consequences of treating these miracles as though they were within the realm of science to control.

    Your solutions will result in death. That probably sounds as if it is hyperbole but it is not. Each solution turns out to be another problem for government and or science to solve. If you haven't noticed or thought about it - just as the government succeeds by failing which provides an excuse for more budgeting and more power, so does science (and just as government inevitably leads to death, so does the science in it's grasp). It's the same mechanism by which failure breeds a peculiar type of success, that born of a perverted world view in which all that should be right is wrong and vice versa.

  • Patriot Henry||

    *just a reminder, I don't support any subsidies, including ag subsidies.

    You don't count writing propaganda for subsidized products to be support for subsidies?

    If a journalist reviewing a GM auto quotes a GM press release and enthusiastically endorses it while making no effort to uncover the many problems with that GM automobile - and then claims not to support government-corporate car companies - are you going to believe him?

  • ||

    You don't read much of Reason do you...

    Every farm crop has been genetically engineered. The methods vary, but somehow or another Native Americans figured out how to take a little inedible one inch corn and turn it about 600 variations of large edible maize. I don't still can't figure out why blasting seeds with radiation and picking the beneficial mutations, which is what they did in the 60s, is better than specific and intentional modifications. Guess it has to do with people's waistlines; you can worry about some magical toxins in your GM corn when you've never gone to bed hungry.

  • ||

    Broccoli, cauliflower, brussels sprouts and cabbage are all descended from the same plant. They have been genetically modified using that new fangled* technology of artificial selection.

    People like n are such ignorant bedwetters.

    * Relative to the time H. sapiens has been on the planet.

  • ||

    J sub

    Broccoli, cauliflower, brussels sprouts and cabbage are all descended from the same plant.

    Kale (and kolrabi, IIRC) also.

    (Not that I like any of them.)

  • Jennifer||

    Broccoli and cauliflower are okay with the right sauce, but the others are horrible enough to prove Henry's point that modifying crops is inherently evil.

  • Patriot Henry||

    They have been genetically modified using that new fangled* technology of artificial selection.

    Can you name a non DNA spliced life form that has been modified by humans that produces female pigs to exhibit strong signs of being pregnant? (they "lost" some of that a while back into the food supply but I still haven't ever read HOW)

    The great thing about other means of modifying genes is that a failure usually can't happen. Try getting a fish to mate with a soy plant and you ain't getting any return. Nature vetos that one. The failures that do "work" result from excessive inbreeding and end up making the species weak and incredibly intensive to maintain often with significant problems added along the way, but even so the problems are contained solely within the limits of the lineage. GM crops on the other hand, are introduced on a global scale with no public information about their consequences and can and will contaminate the entire world population of that species. Nature limits failure to the small scale - food fascists think BIG! "Too BIG to fail!"

    People like n are such ignorant bedwetters.

    No, actually n made a reasonable comment and it is you who is displaying ignorance and support for food fascism.

  • ||

    Can you name a non DNA spliced life form that has been modified by humans that produces female pigs to exhibit strong signs of being pregnant?

    I don't think normal wild cows give milk 3/4 of the year.

    Actually, I don't think wild cows even exist. The entireity of what a cow IS, is something that has been bred by human selection.

  • wheelock||

    BTW, constant references to "food fascists" isn't doing much to support your claim of objectivity...

  • Patriot Henry||

    BTW, constant references to "food fascists" isn't doing much to support your claim of objectivity...

    I'm a libertarian, not an objectivist. When the State and the creation of the State, the Corporation, work together for a common end - that is Corporatism AKA Fascism.

    When the area of cooperation is food - then it is food fascism.

    Of course, I suppose I shouldn't be thinking or talking about how the State and Corporations worked together to establish our fascist empire including our fascist food system, right?

  • wheelock||

    Fascism is a part of corporate practice and modern life, you wont find much argument on this board about that. That however has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is a good idea to genetically tinker with agriculture. Also, "Objectivity" doesnt really have anything to do with "Objectivism" it's one of those words thats tossed around alot by, oh I don't know.. scientists?

  • Patriot Henry||

    That however has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is a good idea to genetically tinker with agriculture.

    It has everything to do with that issue. I am not advocating against the science or potential or concept of GM crops - I am advocating against the practice. That practice is a fascist practice. That fascist practice is what others are defending. We aren't debating the concept but the practice. That means y'all are defending fascism.

    Also, "Objectivity" doesnt really have anything to do with "Objectivism" it's one of those words thats tossed around alot by, oh I don't know.. scientists?

    It is tossed around a lot by them, but it doesn't apply to their non-objective fraudulent science studies which are used to justify further acts of fascism.

  • ||

    Can someone find a way to make these nutritious veggies taste good? Thanks in advance.

  • ||

    Bacon.

  • ||

    Brussel Sprouts with Bacon

    1 pound brussel sprouts
    2 slices of bacon (or one-two ounces of diced bulk bacon)
    Garlic, crushed and diced
    2 tbspn Red Wine Vinegar

    Pull off limp or discolored leaves from sprouts, trim the stem ends and cut in half through the stem end. Brown off bacon in a lidded skillet over medium heat and then set aside, leaving the fat and fond in the pan. Place sprouts cut side down and fry gently over medium heat. Once the cut side has taken on a good bit of color, shake the skillet to flip most of them on their other side (this is not a step that needs every one flipped over.) With the lid in hand, sprinkle the garlic over the sprouts, wait 30 seconds and add the vinegar as evenly as possible. Clamp on the lid and wait until the vinegar is completely evaporated. (About one minute.) Dice reserved bacon and add to pan. Salt and pepper to taste and serve.

    About any acid will do, malt vinegar is also good, as is lemon juice (but double the quantity.) You can also discard most of the fat in the pan to lower the overall calories. All it needs is a light coating.

  • ||

    This recipe for Brussels sprouts with bacon, figs and balsamic vinegar also rocks pretty hard.

  • GILMORE||

    I love you Sugarfree

  • ||

    My sad childhood memories of mushy, tasteless veggies were wiped away by the revelation of olive oil and garlic. Try banging someone Italian-ish who cooks- I highly recommend it.

  • ||

    Ew. No thanks.

  • ||

    I could be talking about Giada, you sick fuck.

  • robc||

    Carrots are Orange because the Dutch are patriotic.

    Seriously. And not nearly as nutritious as the non-orange ones.

  • ||

    Agreed.

    If I may add a couple of points: Canola (=rapeseed - I still prefer the old name) was modifieed by Canadian government researchers to REMOVE a toxin so that it could be more easily used.

    Second, your point about "worry about some magical toxins in your GM corn when you've never gone to bed hungry" seems not to have occured to the governments of Africa. Sadly, they have bought into the myths perpetuated by the anti-biotech lobby.

  • ||

    You would prefer the old name. Further evidence that you are both a bad Canadian and also possibly Steve Smith.

  • Warty||

    I got some rape oil for ya, honey.

  • ||

    Speaking of Steve Smith and genetically modified lifeforms, how is the Wee Chimera, O Stockholm Stricken One?

  • ||

    Steve's been working out his pain over that very subject on Twitter.

  • Warty||

    This is beautiful.

  • Jordan||

    Holy shit! Steve Smith is on Twitter?!

  • ||

    I expect the darling little crime against nature to be "mysteriously" stricken with SIDS any day now.

  • STEVE SMITH||

    WHEN STEVE NOT TWEETING. STEVE SMASH ANIMALS WITH BIG STICK.

    http://www.messinwithsasquatch.....amole.html

  • ||

    Finally! A tweet I can follow with my dignity intact!

  • Zeb||

    The best use of Twitter yet.

  • Patriot Henry||

    Every farm crop has been genetically engineered.

    Right. And every mountain is structurally engineered. Yep. Since mountains are "all natural", there's no reason you can't build an inverted one next to your house and not expect any future problems, after all it's just another structurally engineered landscape feature.

    Guess it has to do with people's waistlines; you can worry about some magical toxins in your GM corn when you've never gone to bed hungry.

    I do go to bed hungry. Perhaps if that new birth control corn contaminates YOUR GM corn then the food fascists can die out over the next couple of generations.

  • Warty||

    Since mountains are "all natural", there's no reason you can't build an inverted one next to your house and not expect any future problems, after all it's just another structurally engineered landscape feature.

    Whatever this means, it's awesome.

  • ||

    It'd be more awesome if it made sense as an analogy.

  • Warty||

    No, you're absolutely wrong here. If it made sense, we'd be forced to confront whatever stupid point it's supposed to support. As is, we can marvel at its deformity. It's like the Lobster Boy of analogies.

  • ||

    Ah, I see. Beautiful in its ruin.

  • ||

    Has it been governmentally subsidized? That would be the cherry on this proverbial ice cream sundae of destruction.

  • Patriot Henry||

    "If it made sense, we'd be forced to confront whatever stupid point it's supposed to support".

    It does make sense. It's a pretty simple point. Your inability to read and extrapolate the meaning is doubtlessly the same problem you have with comprehending the consequences of GM. I would explain but if you can't think for yourself then there isn't anything I can do for you.

  • Warty||

    If you explained, it would be like building a river inside my living room. Pretty soon, all the dominoes would fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.

  • Patriot Henry||

    If you explained, it would be like building a river inside my living room. Pretty soon, all the dominoes would fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.

    Clever, witty, superficial and irrelevant.

  • Warty||

    I'm witty like an inverted pile of African babies who starved because GM food murdered them with starvation. THIS IS NO LAUGHING MATTER HARGLE BARGLE GRUMBLE

  • Patriot Henry||

    I'm witty like an inverted pile of African babies who starved because GM food murdered them with starvation. THIS IS NO LAUGHING MATTER HARGLE BARGLE GRUMBLE

    I haven't read of any babies starving YET from the failure of GM crops in Africa...but hey, with an 80 percent failure rate why should we care enough to think or discuss this topic when we can be making jokes? After all, it was GM crops in Africa that failed so disastrously, so that doesn't count against GM crops.

  • ||

    I haven't read of any babies starving YET from the failure of GM crops in Africa

    Lots of babies in Africa starve every day, that might live if their governments would allow GMO crops to be planted.

  • Patriot Henry||

    Lots of babies in Africa starve every day, that might live if their governments would allow GMO crops to be planted.

    GMO crops aren't necessary to grow food. Since they (as used) kill the life supporting capacity of soil and water - claiming to use them to save life is absurd.

    Of course, let's just ignore the fact that GMO crops are an extension of the system that guarantees this destruction. Why worry about the long term consequences when there are quarterly profits to be had, and far more importantly, scientific sounding studies and happy press releases to quote without criticism?

  • Warty||

    Since they (as used) kill the life supporting capacity of soil and water - claiming to use them to save life is absurd.

    You are clever and witty, but your comments and most likely your mind is superficial and irrelevant.

  • ||

    So... you're equating herbicide- resistant crops with pest-resistant and nutritionally enhanced GM crops?

    Sounds to me like you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

    It also sounds like you could use some lessons in genetics.

    AND... ever heard of Agrobacterium? Members of this genus are natural genetic engineers. I suppose you have a problem with them, too?

  • Patriot Henry||

    It also sounds like you could use some lessons in genetics.

    I could indeed use some lessons. Those who support the current practice of GMO crops could use some lessons on the actual methodology employed in that field, and some history lessons that are a sneak peak at where this is going.

    AND... ever heard of Agrobacterium? Members of this genus are natural genetic engineers. I suppose you have a problem with them, too?

    No, and no. If it produces a freak that is doomed to failure then it doesn't mass produce it and subsidize it and market it as the solution to world hunger. It fails. There might be some life lost on account of such an error, but I'm pretty dang sure the mass of humanity won't be included in the death toll.

  • ||

    GMO crops aren't necessary to grow food. Since they (as used) kill the life supporting capacity of soil and water - claiming to use them to save life is absurd.


    I'll just leave your ignorance confirming quote hanging out there without rebuttal.

  • Zeb||

    "Since they (as used) kill the life supporting capacity of soil and water"

    Non GMO crops do that too.

  • Patriot Henry||

    Non GMO crops do that too.

    Only in certain limited cases. The real problem is the industrial food complex, which takes non-GMO and GMO crops and uses them in typical state fashion with no regard to the long term consequences.

  • ||

    comprehending the consequences of GM.

    To quote The Golden God AKA Warty, I LOOM LARGE! :-)

  • ||

    Can't you just denounce us and angrily storm out already?

  • ||

    You are clever and witty, but your comments and most likely your mind is superficial and irrelevant.

  • Patriot Henry||

    Can't you just denounce us and angrily storm out already?

    When you stop using the state to rob me to pay for your GM crops I'll shut up.

  • ||

    Yes, because not thinking GMO crops shouldn't be banned without any evidence of harm of course means we are all for GMO ag subsidies.

    You couldn't outwit a third-grader high on ether, shitbird.

  • Warty||

    SugarFree, you are clever and witty, but your comments and most likely your mind is superficial and irrelevant.

  • Patriot Henry||

    Yes, because not thinking GMO crops shouldn't be banned without any evidence of harm of course means we are all for GMO ag subsidies.

    There is already evidence of harm - they contaminate non-GMO crops. Also - I never ever advocated banning GMO crops. I support no such thing. I'd love to see the science be developed into a science rather than a tool of fascism.

    You couldn't outwit a third-grader high on ether, shitbird.

    Yet despite my limited faculties I haven't been duped into support the food fascists.

  • ||

    When you stop using the state to rob me to pay for your GM crops I'll shut up.

    Reading comprehension FAIL. We abhor subsidies of any kind. This is not a TeamR board, you disingenuous organics shill.

  • Patriot Henry||

    Reading comprehension FAIL. We abhor subsidies of any kind. This is not a TeamR board, you disingenuous organics shill.

    So you abhor subsidies so much that you are willing to blindly support the recipients of subsidies? Right. That makes sense, like a person who abhors welfare but loves the food stamp program because it feeds the kids.

    GMO crops, AS THEY EXIST, would not be without subsidies.

    I haven't been arguing against the fundamental concept or science - but rather the practice, which is very much influenced and even created by subsidies and the state. Those who support the practice are unintentionally and indirectly support subsidies. You can't separate the practice of GMO crops from the state because the state created that practice.

  • ||

    I haven't been arguing against the fundamental concept or science - but rather the practice,

    With all due respect, you are unequivocally full of shit PH.

    Exhibit A:


    Reducing pesticide use, soil erosion, and land use -- what's not to like about biotech crops?

    1. The pesticide use is still much greater than need be if one doesn't use the stupidest means of production possible.

    2.The same applies to erosion.

    3.It won't reduce land use as land use is subsidized and will be maximized to sustain the greatest amount of population possible before the agricultural pyramid scheme falls apart.

    4. The effective prohibition on independent and peer reviewed SCIENCE.

    5. Nasty side effects and unintended consequences.

    6. The failure to address the fundamental problem of agriculture, i.e. failure to obey the fundamental law of nature, the law of return.

    7. The further destruction of the dirt and the water and the capacity of the Earth to support life.

    8. Terrible flavor.

    9. The profits go to fascists who use them to further grow their fascist cause including waging a war on human liberty.

    10. Fraudulent "libertarians" who are willing to write yellow journalism and damn humanity

    We've seen how well the technocrats have managed to manage humanity through schools and the welfare state and the warfare state. Your favorite fascists made a bunch of dull weak characterless soulless imitations - just like the pathetic imitation food they feed these drones in the "human" CAFOs of school and prison and the military chow hall. Since that wasn't enough for your damned Leviathan now you must go after and destroy every last microorganism in the dirt and water.

    Fascist & technocrat & GM propagandist Ronald Bailey is listed at http://www.gmwatch.org/myth-makers-b !!!

    Hey Ron, if you read my comment, go FUCK YOURSELF, YOU FUCKING SMALL MINDED SHORT SIGHTED TRAITOR TO LIBERTARIANS, HUMANITY, AND LIFE ITSELF!!!!
  • Patriot Henry||

    Non GMO crops do that too.

    Only in certain limited cases. The real problem is the industrial food complex, which takes non-GMO and GMO crops and uses them in typical state fashion with no regard to the long term consequences.

  • Sniktpool||

    I can see your heart is really in this, but can't you present even one source demonstrating that GMOs receive special subsidies?

  • ||

    I can see your heart is really in this, but can't you present even one source demonstrating that GMOs receive special subsidies?

    I could - but the Farm Bill and other expenditures are readily available for your inspection online, as are statistics regarding the proportion of those subsidized crops that are GMO.

  • ||

    When you stop using the state to rob me to pay for your GM crops I'll shut up.

    Where's the off switch on this thing?

  • Patriot Henry||

    Where's the off switch on this thing?

    Is it really necessary for me to shut up? Can't you turn off your brain entirely so that you can't be bothered by the part that is processing and understanding what I am saying? Try applying booze - that seems to work wonders.

  • GILMORE||

    I swear, this is the most brutal asskicking I've seen in a while.

    Sugarfree, did I mention I loved you?

  • ||

    Is it really necessary for me to shut up?

    Yes, really it is. When people stop giving you subtle hints and tell you outright to shut the hell up, yes, it's time. Most sane people pick up on that before the first few dozen requests.

    Try applying booze - that seems to work wonders.

    I do believe we're seeing hard evidence of that dynamic at work right now.

  • ||

    Yes, really it is. When people stop giving you subtle hints and tell you outright to shut the hell up, yes, it's time. Most sane people pick up on that before the first few dozen requests.

    It sure seems that whenever I point out that people are severely screwing themselves they tell me to shut up. I'll have to conduct a control study in which I tell people that they are severely screwing themselves when they are not doing so in order to see if they are reacting to the actual statement or to the unpleasant truth contained within the statement that they can't stand to be confronted with.

    I do believe we're seeing hard evidence of that dynamic at work right now.

    I drink approximately 1 oz of alcohol a year, not even a portion for the congresscritters who vote to subsidize GMO crops.

  • Chris||

    +1

  • ev||

    In what way is a rock the same as a plant? Unless your answer is "It's matter!" you're a fucking moron.

  • ||

    Since mountains are "all natural", there's no reason you can't build an inverted one next to your house and not expect any future problems,

    Yeah, genetics is *exactly* like static mechanics. Just pull one gene out, stick another one in and whoosh ... landslide.

    The ecosystem is just like a house of cards people! Your toying with a delicate thing!

  • Zeb||

    "The ecosystem is just like a house of cards people! Your toying with a delicate thing!"

    Yeah, I love that line of argument.
    Life is so fragile that it has managed to survive several mass extinctions, earthquakes, volcanoes, asteroids and a few hundred years of humans working pretty hard to change the biosphere. Only now are we getting to the point where it is all about to go down.

  • ||

    The gist of the argument is:
    "I don't understand genetics, therefore it's scary."

    People fear what they don't understand.

  • ||

    The gist of the argument is:
    "I don't understand genetics, therefore it's scary."

    That's not my argument. My argument is:

    "I understand how statist politicians and their academic and corporate tools function, therefore their use of genetics is scary."

    See the difference between genetics and genetics in the hands of the State and it's lackeys?

  • ||

    Life is so fragile that it has managed to survive several mass extinctions, earthquakes, volcanoes, asteroids and a few hundred years of humans working pretty hard to change the biosphere. Only now are we getting to the point where it is all about to go down.

    If you examine the history of China, the Soviet Union, and the current events of Zimbabwe, you might learn a thing or two about central governments controlling food production and the relationship between that and famine.

  • Corduroy||

    You see me trollin', you hatin'

  • ||

    Hey if its good for the environment then surely its a good thing!

    Lou
    www.real-web-anonymity.at.tc

  • Patriot Henry||

    Reducing pesticide use, soil erosion, and land use -- what's not to like about biotech crops?

    1. The pesticide use is still much greater than need be if one doesn't use the stupidest means of production possible.

    2.The same applies to erosion.

    3.It won't reduce land use as land use is subsidized and will be maximized to sustain the greatest amount of population possible before the agricultural pyramid scheme falls apart.

    4. The effective prohibition on independent and peer reviewed SCIENCE.

    5. Nasty side effects and unintended consequences.

    6. The failure to address the fundamental problem of agriculture, i.e. failure to obey the fundamental law of nature, the law of return.

    7. The further destruction of the dirt and the water and the capacity of the Earth to support life.

    8. Terrible flavor.

    9. The profits go to fascists who use them to further grow their fascist cause including waging a war on human liberty.

    10. Fraudulent "libertarians" who are willing to write yellow journalism and damn humanity

    We've seen how well the technocrats have managed to manage humanity through schools and the welfare state and the warfare state. Your favorite fascists made a bunch of dull weak characterless soulless imitations - just like the pathetic imitation food they feed these drones in the "human" CAFOs of school and prison and the military chow hall. Since that wasn't enough for your damned Leviathan now you must go after and destroy every last microorganism in the dirt and water.

    Fascist & technocrat & GM propagandist Ronald Bailey is listed at http://www.gmwatch.org/myth-makers-b !!!

    Hey Ron, if you read my comment, go FUCK YOURSELF, YOU FUCKING SMALL MINDED SHORT SIGHTED TRAITOR TO LIBERTARIANS, HUMANITY, AND LIFE ITSELF!!!!

  • Corduroy||

    A+ - A truly terrific rant, complete with a blacklisting and co-opting of libertarian principles.

    My hat is off to you sir.

  • Patriot Henry||

    A+ - A truly terrific rant, complete with a blacklisting and co-opting of libertarian principles.

    Co-opting of libertarian principles? Can you please explain to me how having a fascist government grow fascist schools and fascist universities and fascists corporations to make fascist food to feed the fascist people is an example of Ron Bailey, Reason, and many others being "libertarians"? I just don't get it.

  • Ragin Cajun||

    You forgot to mention the fascist church.

  • Patriot Henry||

    You forgot to mention the fascist church.

    Ah yes, the fascist church. It is no surprise to me that the statist Catholic church supports GMO food.

    http://www.agbioworld.org/biot.....lfood.html

    I wonder what other socialist/fascist/statist Catholic party lines Reason and Ron Bailey will start supporting?

  • GILMORE||

    Jesus.

    You know, the normal Greenies get all psycho because GMOs are *patented* by private companies.... privately owned. "You cant OWN nature!" they scream... their primary concern that PROFIT for private entities is an awful thing.

    This guy is like BIZARRO GREENIE. From another dimension, where logic is completely reversed, but equally flawed. Honestly, I love it. I suspect though that this mutation of the type is not likely to survive long on its own.

  • ||

    You know, the normal Greenies

    I'm not a "Greenie". I am not "Green".

    "You cant OWN nature!" they scream... their primary concern that PROFIT for private entities is an awful thing.

    Whereas my primary concern is that this "PROFIT" is actually loot stolen by the government. Strange y'all can't understand my opposition to robbing people to pay for GMO crops (of course, I know, I know, you are against them on principle but then you are for them in practice)

    This guy is like BIZARRO GREENIE. From another dimension, where logic is completely reversed, but equally flawed. Honestly, I love it. I suspect though that this mutation of the type is not likely to survive long on its own.

    When I argue with Democrats, they tell me I'm a Republican. If I argue with Republicans, they tell me I'm a Democrat. If I talk to a pessimist they tell me I'm an optimist, if I talk to an optimist they tell me I am a pessimist. If I talk to a "Greenie" they tell me I'm a corporatist. If I talk to y'all then you tell me I'm a "Greenie" - simple deduction says you must be a corporatist aka a fascist - and so you are!

  • Sniktpool||

    As a grammar fascist, I sentence you to 100 days of high school English.

  • ||

    You forgot #11:

    A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual.

  • Corduroy||

    +1

  • Patriot Henry||

    You forgot #11:

    Right. That really refutes my points. Yep. Oh, wait, it's really just a witty clever comment that is incredibly superficial and completely avoids any level of thought or discussion about this very serious and important issue.

    When someone points out the questionable reality of fascists wielding incredible power with a reckless disregard for the principles of science, ethics, and agriculture - let the banter and punditry begin!

  • Corduroy||

    I, for one, am pleased that you remembered to capitalize SCIENCE, as it avoids the possibility of confusion with lower-case science.

    As we all know, lower-case science is not of value when speaking about environmental issues.

  • Patriot Henry||

    As we all know, lower-case science is not of value when speaking about environmental issues.

    You are clever and witty, but your comments and most likely your mind is superficial and irrelevant.

  • General Jack D. Ripper||

    I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Mandrake. But I... I do deny them my essence.

  • Corduroy||

    I'll take clever and witty over repetitive, unimaginative, and frenzied hyperbole. Thank you.

    For a better example of how to write with such disdain and furor, you might want to read H.L. Mencken.

    "[T]he American people, taking one with the other, are the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goosesteppers ever gathered under one flag in Christendom since the Middle Ages, and . . . they grow more timorous, more sniveling, more poltroonish every day."

  • Patriot Henry||

    I'll take clever and witty over repetitive, unimaginative, and frenzied hyperbole. Thank you.

    Hyperbole is exaggeration. I have not exaggerated.

  • Patriot Henry||

    I'll take clever and witty over repetitive, unimaginative, and frenzied hyperbole. Thank you.

    Hyperbole is exaggeration. I have not exaggerated.

    For a better example of how to write with such disdain and furor, you might want to read H.L. Mencken.

    Mencken rocks! If I ever get half that good I'll be quite pleased with myself.

    "[T]he American people, taking one with the other, are the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goosesteppers ever gathered under one flag in Christendom since the Middle Ages, and . . . they grow more timorous, more sniveling, more poltroonish every day."

    And it is all the more so at this much later date in which so many allegedly free thinking allegedly individual people celebrate the magic of their church and priests and wizards.

  • GILMORE||

    Patriot Henry|4.28.10 @ 2:51PM|#

    Mencken rocks! If I ever get half that good I'll be quite pleased with myself

    As an example of his typical subject matter, you have already achieved greatness sir.

    As a writer and thinker? Not so much. Keep trying though. One day, one day... sustained effort is the key.

  • Patriot Henry||

    As an example of his typical subject matter, you have already achieved greatness sir.

    Was it typical of serfs to question and refuse to believe their overlords? Or was it typical for them to quote and enthusiastically endorse whatever official tripe was spewed forth in support of the crown?

    Granted my knowledge of history is limited, but as I understand it was much more along the lines of the latter.

    As a writer and thinker? Not so much. Keep trying though. One day, one day... sustained effort is the key.

    Thank you. I should hope though that my existing writings and thoughts are much more coherent and composed than my anonymous stream of consciousness posts on the Internet.

  • GILMORE||

    Patriot Henry|4.28.10 @
    Was it typical of serfs to question and refuse to believe their overlords?

    Keep fighting the good fight there buddy. Really, you're sticking it to the man with your baseless, psychotic fears of advancements in basic agriculture that are clearly doing a great deal to benefit humanity and protect the environment. Even though there has never been one example of human danger from the use of these technologies, your ignorant ranting about the issue is a beacon to the oppressed peoples of the world.

    Seriously, you're like 5 year old playing pretend, that gets angry that no one else believes the monsters in the sewers are about to attack humanity. Its that silly.

  • ||

    Keep fighting the good fight there buddy. Really, you're sticking it to the man with your baseless, psychotic fears of advancements in basic agriculture that are clearly doing a great deal to benefit humanity and protect the environment.

    The industrial-food complex skipped past basic agriculture and went straight to the mad science phase starting in earnest in the 1930s. This is an advancement of mad science agricorporatism.

    Even though there has never been one example of human danger from the use of these technologies, your ignorant ranting about the issue is a beacon to the oppressed peoples of the world.

    Any time the state apparatus seizes a new technology that gives the user incomprehensible amounts of power - that is a danger to humans. When the state refuses to allow any scrutiny or questioning of such a technology or such a power - then there is even more evidence of danger to humans.

    Seriously, you're like 5 year old playing pretend, that gets angry that no one else believes the monsters in the sewers are about to attack humanity. Its that silly.

    It's actually the monsters in the District of Columbia that worry me most.

  • Warty||

    Luddites are fun. More, more!

  • Wesley||

    Anyone who starts talking about lower tech farming as less wasteful than technologically advanced farming is completely ignoring the effects on a precious resource: labor. Technologically advanced farming uses more fuel and chemicals, and occasionally (okay, rarely, but throw them a bone) more land, but it uses much, much less labor. I suppose that the low tech farming crazies must support slavery, because it is the only way they can get as much labor as they would need to implement their farming methods on a nationwide scale.

    I do agree with them about their slightly less genetically modified crops often tasting better, though.

  • Patriot Henry||

    Technologically advanced farming uses more fuel and chemicals, and occasionally (okay, rarely, but throw them a bone) more land, but it uses much, much less labor.

    That "efficiency" is a demonstration of the amazing efficiency of the use of technology to destroy resources. Like when Britain ordered and paid farmers to destroy five thousand year old hedgerows in the seventies, I'm sure chainsaws and tractors and other "technologically advanced" means were used to destroy the land...and the capacity of the land to support life. Of course, once enough life died they realized their error and now pay farmers to replant hedgerows, and in a short five thousand years the food fascists might be able to undo the damage they did with "technologically advanced farming".

    I suppose that the low tech farming crazies must support slavery, because it is the only way they can get as much labor as they would need to implement their farming methods on a nationwide scale.

    1. Not low tech, but smart tech farmers would be able to implement their methods by a free market solution of having more competitors enter the market (as a result of ending state supported monopolies).

    2. The "high tech" fascist farming IS paid for by slavery - if not for the subsidies direct and indirect support of the state there is no way for this system to support itself.

    I wonder why Ron Bailey and Reason didn't point out that many millions of bucks of subsidies will be used to support GM crops? I wonder why they didn't investigate the curious relationships between GM companies, the other food corporatists, and the state?

  • ||

    Subsidies are going to be used to support whatever crops anyone grows. GM, conventional, organics, whatever.

    GM crops are likely to survive better without subsidies since they are more profitable to grow.

  • Patriot Henry||

    Subsidies are going to be used to support whatever crops anyone grows. GM, conventional, organics, whatever.

    The type of farming which is now called "biodynamic" or "beyond organic" will never be subsidized, as it requires an intelligent free human being to manage the land and lifeforms. These terms will be stolen in time, but the practice can never be taken over by government or it's stooges.

    GM crops are likely to survive better without subsidies since they are more profitable to grow.

    Ever consider a career in marketing or perhaps being a spokeswoman for a politician?

  • ||

    Ever consider a career in marketing or perhaps being a spokeswoman for a politician?

    Does it involve advocating the abolition of farm subsidies?

  • Patriot Henry||

    Does it involve advocating the abolition of farm subsidies?

    How can you be against farm subsidies and in favor of the practice of GMO crops at the same time? So you want this dangerous untested pseudoscience to be implemented on a global scale, but you aren't willing to steal to pay for it? Tsk tsk that's not very fascist of you.

  • ev||

    I pay for it when I buy it you dumbfuck.

  • Patriot Henry||

    I pay for it when I buy it you dumbfuck.

    And when you pay the rest of your taxes. GMO foods are the product of academia, corporations, and the state. Academia and those very same corporations have long been under the control of the state, especially with food. While academia and the corporations are distinct from the government, they are all part of the state. Academia wouldn't exist without the government's grants and support for the financial aid system and the public school system which acts as an active promoter and recruiter and propagandist for the higher levels of academia. The corporations that design and grow GMO crops are primarily the creation of the government. The market for GMO crops is also created by the government, in the above way and so many others, i.e. the tax burden is so high that most people can't afford the time (or materials) to produce much or even any of their own food.

    The key thing y'all are missing so far as I can tell is that the state figured out what is best summarized by a quote allegedly from Henry Kissinger: "Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people."

    I haven't been able to confirm that he said that - but it is is a true statement. GMO crops are an incredibly advanced means of waging war on people. Once people can't grow their own food, and if they save their seeds and try it will fail, then whoever controls that supply of seeds will control the people.

    GMO is one more stepping stone on the road to serfdom. Once you have to get your seeds or your food from the king you are fucked. Those who according to their declaration and most likely even in their own mind are opposed to continuing down the road to serfdom - they keep going down it.

  • ||

    How can you be against farm subsidies and in favor of the practice of GMO crops at the same time?

    Hmmm.... How can you be against subsidizing free houses for everyone, and still be in favor of people living in houses?

    I don't get it. The only consistent position is to favor living in caves.

  • Patriot Henry||

    Hmmm.... How can you be against subsidizing free houses for everyone, and still be in favor of people living in houses?

    Wrong analogy. It should be:

    Hmmm.... How can you be against subsidizing free houses for everyone, and still be in favor of people living in public housing?

    That is the same as being against subsidies and corrupt court decisions, but in favor of the current GMO crops. Y'all are making a gigantic exception to your alleged libertarian principles, far greater than that of people who oppose universal free housing but support the existing system of public housing. I am not against researching, developing, testing, and using GMO crops, which is a further reason why your analogy is incorrect. If I wasn't sufficiently clear, I'm against the current practice of the evil triumvirate of state-academia, state-corporations, and state-government working together to develop and use GMO crops without properly testing or researching while using subsidies to pay for the crops and while using the courts and regulatory agencies to shield these crops from any form of scrutiny or defense from injured parties.

    The practice of GMO is an example of the state at work. It's a very different thing from the concept of GMO. "WITH GREAT POWER THERE MUST ALSO COME - - GREAT RESPONSIBILITY!" - Stan Lee. GMO is a superpower so far as genetically altering life goes. It goes well beyond hybridization and selective breeding. To wield this power properly there would have to be a responsible group of people. Instead, it's being wielded by statists and collectivists. This won't end well.

  • ||

    As someone who grew up on a farm (like Ron Bailey), I'm convinced that many of the advocates of low tech and "organic" farming have either never actually worked on a farm or only "worked" for a very short period of time.

  • Wesley||

    But I've grown a garden. That qualifies me talk about it, right?

  • Patriot Henry||

    As someone who grew up on a farm (like Ron Bailey), I'm convinced that many of the advocates of low tech and "organic" farming have either never actually worked on a farm or only "worked" for a very short period of time.

    As one who has studied the general history of academia, corporations, and government with a special emphasis on the relations of these with food, I'm convinced that those who support the current practice of GMO such as yourself and Ronald Bailey have only "studied" these things not at all or only for a very short period of time.

  • GILMORE||

    Wesley|4.28.10 @ 12:57PM|#
    Anyone who starts talking about lower tech farming as less wasteful than technologically advanced farming is completely ignoring the effects on a precious resource: labor. Technologically advanced farming uses more fuel and chemicals, and occasionally (okay, rarely, but throw them a bone) more land, but it uses much, much less labor.

    According to the report, you are entirely wrong.

    my summary of the headlines:


    • “GMOS” mean: Soybeans (54%), Corn (maize) (28%), Cotton (12%)
    • The US/Canada, Argentina and Brazil represent the vast majority of Biotech crops on earth (~89%) (by hectares planted not volume output)
    • GMO crops represent the majority share of plantings in these categories in these countries (over 80+%)
    • The highest share of GMO crops is in Soybeans, at 60%+; Corn, by contrast a much larger crop base, is at 20%; Cotton an interesting 3rd place volume wise at about 50/50
    • The main benefits of GMO has been in the drop of herbicide use/ expense. Next comes labor and machinery, but at 1/5 the benefit, costwise ($10/ha cost savings for labor in the US corn industry, which is the largest by-volume single market for GMO there is)
    • Underlying yields, interestingly are basically neutral;
    o (my take on this is due to market effects, not technology; demand does not grow as fast as the potential technological advances to agricultural output can provide; even though yield could improve faster, it likely will not because of the costs and risks of growing more product faster with an uncertain market demand; I could be wrong, but this is an angle to consider)
    • The global economic impact of GMOs is fairly minor (in the single digit billions? I find this odd); the way the data is defined is obscure, based on increased average farm income; I think it is more of a proxy. Better would be to compare value added vs non GMO… but hard to do in aggregate, across countries and crops that have very different secondary uses.
    • Environmental impact seems to have been saved for the end of the report, which I find odd because it seems the data shows an average cumulative 20-30% benefit to the reductions in pesticide use and carbon output (or “environmental load” of farms; I could be reading this wrong, but the #s are pretty severe; in some cases they claim 70% reductions in a single year? There is some funky stuff here if these numbers are so large

  • GILMORE||

    Oh, you're wrong about the reduction in land use too. But I'm not going to find the #s for you... read the #@$(#*@ report already, numbnuts.

  • GILMORE||

    Oh, you're wrong about the reduction in land use too.

    sorry, I screwed up. You were right, we agree, I just missed your point, and made an ass of myself

  • GILMORE||

    dude I just reread your point and realized i missed an important, "not"...

    Meaning, you were not saying what I was replying to. Sorry about that.

  • Warty||

  • Corduroy||

    Forgot to lower the volume before clicking on that one. Oops.

  • Warty||

    I had forgotten about how much I love Sepultura. Have some more. (Even if the last one isn't technically Sepultura.)

  • ||

    I love me some Sepultura as well. Although I had no idea what they were talking about when it came out. I thought they were talking about super soldiers or some shit. I sometimes find myself missing those days of ignorance.

  • GILMORE||

    Lyrics by Jello Biafra! Win-Win

    Rio Summit, '92
    Street people kidnapped
    Hid from view
    "To save the earth"
    Our rulers met
    Some had other
    Secret plans

    No... no... no... no...

    Biotech
    Biotech
    Biotech
    Say what?

    Strip-mine the Amazon
    Of cells of life itself
    Gold rush for genes is on
    Natives get nothing

    Biotech
    Biotech
    Biotech
    Is Godzilla

    Mutations cooked in labs
    Money-mad experiments
    New food + medicine?
    New germs + accidents!
    Like Cubatao
    "World's most polluted town"
    Air-melts your face
    Deformed children all around

    Bio-technology
    Ain't what's so bad
    Like all technology
    It's in the wrong hands

    Cut-throat corporations
    Don't give a damn
    When lots of people die
    From what they've made

    Biotech
    Biotech
    Biotech
    Is A.I.D.S.?

    Stop!!!

    Can we get a crooner version by Patriot Henry? Like, light jazz piano, and a sultry Frank Sinatra torchlight approach...

  • GILMORE||

    By the way, those lyrics remind me of the classic, "Secret Plans By Secret Planners" post on H&R some years back...

  • Jim||

    Biotech Crops Benefit the Environment

    And Monsanto too! They can sue farmers for having there crops cross pollinated by accident!

    For example, see

  • ||

    You mean, they can sue farmers for deliberately selecting for GM seeds.

    The fact that Schmeiser sprayed his field with roundup, and then harvested the survivors wasn't an accident.

  • Fluffy||

    That shouldn't matter.

    All that should matter is whether he deliberately planted a crop with those seeds to begin with.

    If your "patented" seeds end up on my field because of natural acts of god, and I have no contract with you, you should have to go pound sand. Control your fucking patented seeds if you want to stop me from using them. Anything that grows on my property due to natural action is MINE. Period.

  • kinnath||

    It's unfortunate the court couldn't rule against both parties in this case.

  • ||

    They would have, but "terminator" (i.e. second generation sterile) seeds were not authorized.

  • ||

    or next generation sterile.

    Anyway, the technology exists to make GMO crops unable to reproduce, but the environmentalists are against it.

    Claiming, ridiculously, that the terminator genes will spread and make everything sterile.

  • Patriot Henry||

    Claiming, ridiculously, that the terminator genes will spread and make everything sterile.

    How about claiming that eventually the South Africa GM corn fiasco will be played out on a much larger scale? Is that also ridiculous? And is it ridiculous to wonder if perhaps some of the other GM traits, such as pharmaceuticals, might not be so great when they contaminate the worlds food supply?

  • ||

    Funny, when I google "South Africa GM corn fiasco", all I get is positive stories about higher crop yields and greater food security.

    Those corporaashunny corporashuns just took over the whole intertubes.

  • ||

    "Those corporaashunny corporashuns just took over the whole intertubes."

    Obviously. How else do you explain the lack of articles proving GM crops are dangerous?

  • ||

    Obviously. How else do you explain the lack of articles proving GM crops are dangerous?

    Maybe it's because it is not "legal" to conduct and publish independent scientific research about the safety (or anything else) about GMO crops?

    If such research was done and published, then it might very well prove that the current GMO crops aren't dangerous (relative to the current practice of non-GMO crops). I wouldn't discount that possibility as being a likelihood. It'd be nice to know though. Especially when sooner or later one of the crops is dangerous. Then it'd be really swell if there was someone able and willing to prove that. I plan on growing and processing my own non-GMO crops. Y'all plan on trusting the government and "private" parties with conflicts of interest to create, grow, process, and ship GMO products to you. I most sincerely wish you the best of luck, and if you decide to consider changing plans I'd be happy to answer any questions to the extent of my ability to do so.

  • kinnath||

    Schmeiser is just likely it wasn't Apple technology he acquired under suspicious circumstances.

  • Zeb||

    Monsanto shouldn't be able to do that for the reasons Fluffy elaborates above. Which is a completely separate issue from whether GMOs are a good thing or not.

  • ||

    Which is a completely separate issue from whether GMOs are a good thing or not.

    No, actually it's not. If one studies the pattern of the leviathan in some areas, then one can begin to understand how it will operate in other areas.

  • ||

    ARGGH! HARGLE-BARGLE! RAGE RAGE RAGE! TRAITORS! GROUSE!

  • ||

    Amazing how when you apply HTML to an intertubes argument (or rambling, as the terms are not mutually exclusive) seems so much more compelling. And I'm not a weak minded fool.

    Teh Intertubez are strong with you Saccharin Man. Not so much with Patriot Henry.

  • ||

    What is it about this place that makes it such effective flypaper for insane conspiracy assholes?

  • Warty||

    CMEHTRAILS!!!!

  • ||

    And EXTERNALITIES!

  • Warty||

    PITLDJONW MABN

  • ||

    HFCS!

  • Ragin Cajun||

    VACCINES!!!!

  • ||

    VACCINATIONS!!

  • ||

    damnit!

  • ||

    No, I think it needs to be said twice.

    We had a really good autism/vaccines crazy attack thread a while back. I'll see if I can find it.

  • ||

  • ||

    I miss all the good threads. /zoidberg.

  • ||

    Good times. It looks all weird, with the posts all linear and stuff.

  • kinnath||

    I blame Google. How else do these first time posters find Reason?

  • Ragin Cajun||

    I think Hit & Run must be on this Steve Smith character's blogroll.

  • ||

    But how do they find them so fast? I bet Ron Bailey is an automatic pull-post for some hippie-dippy blog.

  • ||

    I've wondered the same thing. This place has been like a salt-lick of crazy lately.

  • wackyjack||

    RCP has featured more Reason posts than usual. And when trolls find captcha-free (and registration free) comment threads, well...

    yeah

    But I love reason. Mostly because it takes a collective idiocy/genius to create that which we know as Chad/Tony/MNG/STEVESMITH

  • Zeb||

    Patriot Henry has been around before, hasn;t he?

  • ||

    You only ask that question because of the injections the government gave you.

  • Patriot Henry||

    What is it about this place that makes it such effective flypaper for insane conspiracy assholes?

    It's the statists. I look at the glazed eyes and listen to the speech droning on about how great the state and state corporations are, and I look at y'all marching lockstep, and I just can't resist. For me, it's the hypocrisy that makes it so delectable. I can find plenty of "liberals" and "conservatives" who bleat the same pro-state and pro-state-corporate crap but it takes the "libertarian" facade and pretense to make it really entertaining.

  • ||

    Yes. That's it. You've seen right through us. Amazing it took this long.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    It's like if you crossed a pickle with a banana, but the banana was really a zebra!

    NOW DO YOU SEE HOW FASCIST IT IS?

    The thing is, I could be talked into hating it probably, but you have to take the anti-corpratist/anti-IP track. And not start with analogies that make no god damn sense whatsoever.

  • ||

    Seriously though... this might be the best blast of crazy we've gotten in a while. The pure poetry of this is amazing:

    Can you name a non DNA spliced life form that has been modified by humans that produces female pigs to exhibit strong signs of being pregnant?

    It's like Dada and William Burroughs got into a fist fight at a butcher counter.

  • kinnath||

    No thank you. I won't shut up. I won't be quiet while a bunch of state-corporate scientists and bureaucrats force the world to follow their pied piper of GM crops. I won't shut up as long as I and others are forced to pay for it, I won't shut up as the victims whose property is destroyed by GM crops are treated as the guilty party, and I won't shut up so long as this disgusting advancement of fascism rules over the world.

    Beautiful **sniff**

  • Patriot Henry||

    Beautiful **sniff**

    Witty. Clever. Yet irrelevant and incredibly superficial, which accomplishes what must be your main priority - ignoring the ugly fact that it is theft that supports GMO crops.

  • kinnath||

    Dear Henry, you seem to be motivated by good intentions, unfortunately you are a raving lunatic. So no rational discourse if possible. The only thing we have left is ad hominem attacks. Feel free to keep coming back for more.

  • ||

    Witty. Clever. Irrelevant. Superficial.

    Even Anon-Bot doesn't have to fail back on the same four words every other post.

    Repetition is neither witty nor clever, but it is irrelevant and superficial. Two out of four is not bad for a raving lunatic.

  • Patriot Henry||

    "Repetition is neither witty nor clever, but it is irrelevant and superficial. Two out of four is not bad for a raving lunatic."

    I repeat myself because y'all repeat yourselves and I keep responding to y'all.

    I've noticed something about Reason- much of the comments remind me when I am the silent one surrounded by a bunch of hipsters making jokes about nothing.

  • Patriot Henry||

    Dear Henry, you seem to be motivated by good intentions, unfortunately you are a raving lunatic. So no rational discourse if possible. The only thing we have left is ad hominem attacks. Feel free to keep coming back for more.

    As Waylon Jennings said, "I've always been crazy but it's kept me from going insane". I'd rather be a raving lunatic who isn't under the spell of the state than be a sane serf who obeys and conforms.

    Also...while I may be a raving lunatic - why does that preclude anyone from discussing any of my actual points instead of my style? Why do y'all prefer to talk about me rather than the fact that GMO crops ignore the fundamental laws of nature which dictate the long term success of any agricultural system?

    Oh yeah - it's because the system and products that you are defending violate the laws of nature and thus are doomed to fail in the long run. 'Tis easier to attack the messenger than to comprehend and discuss the message that you are creating your own miserable fate, eh?

  • kinnath||

    Oh yeah - it's because the system and products that you are defending violate the laws of nature and thus are doomed to fail in the long run.

    Thus proving that rational discourse is not possible.

    There are plenty of people here that would be more than happy to discuss the failings of the current regulartory and legal regimes around technolgy development, intellectual property, and public safety.

    However, you simply aren't worth the time, because your posts are emotional, irrational, and detached from reality.

  • GILMORE||

    I've noticed something about Reason- much of the comments remind me when I am the silent one surrounded by a bunch of hipsters making jokes about nothing

    You didnt enjoy college I take it?

  • Ragin Cajun||

    Didn't you read upthread? Colleges are fascist. As is Occam's Razor, apparently.

  • ||

    Didn't you read upthread? Colleges are fascist. As is Occam's Razor, apparently.

    Colleges are fascist. They are an extension of the fascist state. They teach fascist material. Combined with the communist/socialist material they teach, this makes for a nice "balanced education", or what I would term "statist indoctrination".

    Occam's Razor doesn't say that the easiest, most convenient theory that requires the least amount of thought or research is true. Occam's Razor has it's legitimate uses but justifying the simpleton's world view that the king (science and or the state) is always right isn't one of them.

  • ||

    However, you simply aren't worth the time, because your posts are emotional, irrational, and detached from reality.

    No, I did not. I dropped out within 1/2 a semester and have been ever more glad ever since not to have gone. It was high school all over again. Stupid students, insipid teachers, incredibly slow pace of work, etc all at a high price with no real learning involved.

  • ||

    Thus proving that rational discourse is not possible.

    My pointing out a rational fact proves that? All that has been proven is that if the discussion goes beyond marketing materials that pose as "science" you lose interest in the discussion.

    There are plenty of people here that would be more than happy to discuss the failings of the current regulartory and legal regimes around technolgy development, intellectual property, and public safety.

    Yet not one wishes to discuss the fact that GMO food, as with all commodity food, is based on an ignorant and incomplete understanding of the fundamental principles of agriculture?

    Of course, we can't talk about that, but hey, anyone who wants to quote pseudo-science and endorse it without even taking a moment to examine the methodology (I looked at the report this article is selling, and it's a statistical report. That's all it is. No science, just numbers that most likely mean less than most polls).

    However, you simply aren't worth the time, because your posts are emotional, irrational, and detached from reality.

    Emotional? True - but yours are cold and lifeless with no soul. Is it because I eat "naturally" and you almost surely eat a diet of commodity and GMO food?

    Irrational? I can think of few things more irrational than destroying any of the vital components of life.

    Detached from reality? You are viewing the world through a technocrat's advert.

    The scientific community only recently decoded the human genome, yet apparently it's knowledge is so broad and so deep that it can copy and paste genes at will with no unintended consequences? You can't do that with any programming language I've ever heard of - an incredibly superficial and almost entirely incomplete knowledge of the language combined with a copy and paste programming method is going to lead to a lot of ugly bugs - and you don't even want a debugging period, or a testing period, or a beta period!!!

  • GILMORE||

    Holy shit.

    Dude, this guy gets better and better.

    Henry, why are you still here? Arent there people who think you make sense somewhere? No? Why do you insist on being heard by people who clearly have not even the slightest interest in your deluded nonsense? Are you expecting to *convince* someone at some point? You dont really seem to be trying. I'm not sure what kind of "science" you need, given that "statistical reports" are meaningless for you... no facts or data have any place in your fantasy world, so why get all excited by people who actually do understand statistics? If you dont want to play in the real world, then why not find a crazy-hole where people all share your insane worldview? There's an internet out there... I promise you, there is a home for you somewhere. Just not here.

  • GILMORE||

    It's like Dada and William Burroughs got into a fist fight at a butcher counter.

    Oh, Sugarfree, you give me spontaneous orgasms.

  • ||

    I have to say ...

    MUST Reason run an ad showing delicious looking mashed potatoes on the sidebar?

    Really, is this necessary?

  • ||

    Are they genetically modified potatoes? Were they whipped with delicious, creamy corporate fascism?

  • Warty||

    Maybe they're smashed potatoes.

  • ||

    They do say Ore-Ida across the top, so that's a yes on the corporate facism.

  • Fluffy||

    I don't have any Luddite objection to the use of GM crops, but I definitely object to a legal regime that says that the ownership interest of the patent holder survives when GM crops contaminate non-GM crops.

    That is pretty much the whole of my objection to them. Eliminate that, and I will have no objection at all.

    As it stands, with our current legal regime beyond a certain market penetration rate it will be impossible to find any crop, anywhere, that doesn't show traces of the engineered genes. I don't have a "Frankenfood" objection to this, but I do have a legal and policy objection to handing over ownership of the entire food supply to whatever asshole manages to contaminate everyone else's crops first.

  • Warty||

    What are you doing? Sane and nuanced objections to IP law have no place on this thread. HUBUGHRAH FOOD FASCISTS GRARGGARLAHA

  • Corduroy||

    STOP RAISING THE INTELLECTUAL LEVEL OF THIS ARGUMENT!

    (you're spoiling my fun)

  • Zeb||

    That is pretty much exactly how I feel about this issue. (what Fluffy said, that is)

  • Spartacus||

    DEMAND KURV!!!

    MARKET FAILURE!!!

    MORAL HAZZARD!!!

    EXTERNALITY!!!

  • ||

    Narcissistic Personality Disorder

    Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

    That's why I always look for the pros AND the cons. With GM, all I find is cons.

    Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

    No thank you. I won't shut up. I won't be quiet while a bunch of state-corporate scientists and bureaucrats force the world to follow their pied piper of GM crops. I won't shut up as long as I and others are forced to pay for it, I won't shut up as the victims whose property is destroyed by GM crops are treated as the guilty party, and I won't shut up so long as this disgusting advancement of fascism rules over the world.

    Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

    When someone points out the questionable reality of fascists wielding incredible power with a reckless disregard for the principles of science, ethics, and agriculture - let the banter and punditry begin!

    Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

    Do you have a good reason for not investigating both sides of this issue? Granted there is a lot of baloney from the anti-GM crowd, but there is also a lot of substance, as opposed to the pro-GM crowd where there is only propaganda and marketing materials. Any reason you decided to become a cheerleader for the food fascists?

    Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

    How can you be against farm subsidies and in favor of the practice of GMO crops at the same time? So you want this dangerous untested pseudoscience to be implemented on a global scale, but you aren't willing to steal to pay for it? Tsk tsk that's not very fascist of you.

    Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

    Hey Ron, if you read my comment, go FUCK YOURSELF, YOU FUCKING SMALL MINDED SHORT SIGHTED TRAITOR TO LIBERTARIANS, HUMANITY, AND LIFE ITSELF!!!!

    Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her

    Yet despite my limited faculties I haven't been duped into support the food fascists.

    Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.

    You are clever and witty, but your comments and most likely your mind is superficial and irrelevant.
  • kinnath||

    I didn't catch the link to gmwatch before the all caps attack on Ron Bailey, because I know better than to read a post with bold all caps text in it.

    That explains how witless Hank found his way here.

  • GILMORE||

    Best. Thread. Ever. Complements to all.

  • GILMORE||

    Best. Thread. Ever. Complements to all.

  • GILMORE||

    Stupid double post.

  • Ghost of Schrödinger's cat||

    Cuing Organic Girl in 5..4...3...2...1....

    She didn't make it. Instead we got mad Henry.
    I would have preferred OG, she at least sounded hittable.

  • Patriot Henry||

    GIVE ME ORGANIC OR GIVE ME DEATH!

  • GILMORE||

    Dude, thats not cool. You baited us for this long, then out yourself as pure trollness?

    Where are the REAL crazy people? Im tired of all the simulacra.

  • Corduroy||

    Sorry. The Patriot is real. I just couldn't resist the temptation. It was cathartic.

  • GILMORE||

    Thank you. You nearly ruined the whole thing for me.

  • ||

    I don't think Patriot Henry is real.

    The part where he claims that GM corn makes pigs have false pregnancies, then can't find the source and says he heard it from the AP? Hilarious.

    I guessing spoof troll. And a good one.

  • Ragin Cajun||

    Nah, they actually believe that.

  • ||

    The part where he claims that GM corn makes pigs have false pregnancies, then can't find the source and says he heard it from the AP? Hilarious.

    No, actually I said one batch of corn did. The article as I recall said it was 100 pounds. I don't know how the hell you "lose" 100 pounds of valuable high tech R&D materials to a system that normally intakes tens of thousands of pounds of #2 corn, but somehow they did it.

    If you would, reread that. It's bizarre. Granted it would be better if I had the article. It might be in my old archives but those are three thousand miles away. If you examine what the conspiracy theorists say, it's what you said I said. If you examine what I've said, it's a far more subtle and nuanced and informed argument that is not what you said I said.

    I guessing spoof troll. And a good one.

    My responses tend to be significantly longer than the average, every troll I've seen has posts significantly shorter than the average.

    I don't think Patriot Henry is real.

    I am real - as is Wendell Berry, who is my favorite living author.

    "If there are critics of science in the governments and the bureaucracies, they are largely inaudible. in the universities, the scientists generally proceed from promotion to promotion and from grant to grant, leaving few recorded moments of conscience or professional self-doubt; and the professors of the of the humanities seem for the most part merely to be abashed by the sciences, deferring to their certainties, adopting their values, admiring their wealth, and longing even to imitate their methodology and their jargon. The journalists think it intellectually chi to stand-open mouthed before any wonder of science whatsoever. The media, cultivating their mediocrity, seem quite comfortably unaware that many of the calamities from which science is expected to save the world were caused in the first place by science - which meanwhile is busy propagating further calamities, hailed now as wonders, from which later it will undertake to save the world. Nobody, so far as I have heard, is attempting to figure out how much of the progress resulting from this enterprise is net." - Wendell Berry in "Life Is A Miracle: An Essay Against Modern Superstition", pages 20-21.

    Trolls don't take the time to type up a quote from Wendell Berry and so far as I can imagine they don't quote or even read him either.

  • ||

    GIVE ME ORGANIC OR GIVE ME DEATH!

    I wouldn't say that. I don't like "organic". It's a government word, a fraudulent word, and a shoddy practice that is a superficial imitation of what it pretends to be.

    Maybe "Give me free market food or give me death"? Hmmm. That doesn't work if you parse it other than I was intending. "Eat free or die"? Same thing. Y'all are much cleverer than I, perhaps someone else could put some witty truism together.

  • GILMORE||

    You forgot superficial and irrelevant.

  • GILMORE||

    Organic Girl had style.

    She (no pun intended) got "progressively" funnier by the post. By the end she was spinning a fantasy with broken down VW busses on the way to the great Rainbow Gathering in the Sky. Where only NPR is played, and the black bean soup is only flavored with Tempeh, and where personal care products are replaced by goats who lick your privates and everyone is totally into the drum circle vibe.

  • Fluffy||

    Black bean soup is really good.

    Don't be dragging black bean soup into all of this nonsense.

  • GILMORE||

    Yes.

    With PORK. And salt. the way its supposed to be made.

    Of the things that drive me to insane hatred, one is hippies who fuck with perfectly good soul food and make it into inedible happy-feeling garbage. A sin committed against collard greens should not go unpunished.

  • Zeb||

    Nah. NPR is too square.

    And never speak ill of black bean soup.

  • GILMORE||

    fine, fix it for me.

    College radio? Lentils?

  • Organic Girl||

    Sheesh what I thread I missed. Too busy milking the goat and doing my latest batch of homemade organic goat cheese!

    I see Patriot Henry is keeping the torch lit, though.

    BTW, I don't listen to NPR, they're barely to left of FOX. It's all Pacifica, all the time, at our place!

  • ||

    I see Patriot Henry is keeping the torch lit, though.

    I seem to remember that Organic Girl was a progressive who might have been of the hippy dippy type. As a staunch libertarian I think it's a different torch.

    BTW, I don't listen to NPR, they're barely to left of FOX. It's all Pacifica, all the time, at our place!

    NPR sucks. I don't bother with Pacifica.

  • GILMORE||

    Does anyone else hear soft mood music playing in the background...?

    May you find happiness together

  • ||

    Yeah, I liked Organic Girl. She was more of a harmless eccentric. Unlike a certain frothing, bug-eyed, repressed authoritarian.

  • ||

    Yeah, I liked Organic Girl. She was more of a harmless eccentric. Unlike a certain frothing, bug-eyed, repressed authoritarian.

    Wouldn't the authoritarians be the witty clever folks who support GMO crops which are developed and manufactured in the government-industrial-food complex? Granted there are the denials of support for this complex, but then there are the simultaneous statements of support for it.

    Collectivists always deny responsibility for everything - but I say that collectivists are responsible for everything that the collective does. You can't support GMO crops (the actual crops and the means of making them; I do not mean the concept or principle of GMO crops) without supporting the fascist state.

  • GILMORE||

    Is everyone who is evil "witty and clever"?

    Its like a mantra for you. Its almost scary. Is it because you are so painfully aware of your own lack of wit, cleverness?

    Do you notice people making fun of you a lot? I mean, not just here... in the real world? There may be a reason.

  • ||

    Patrick Henry,
    Seek professional help immediately.
    I say this only because I care.

  • GILMORE||

    *Patriot* Henry

    ...clearly you're too well educated and making Freudian slips...

  • ||

    Give me organic or give me death.

    My bad.

  • ||

    ...clearly you're too well educated and making Freudian slips...

    I chose my name for that reason.

  • ||

    by which I mean, to see who fails to notice what my screen name is. The Freudian slip business I don't give much credence to.

  • Sniktpool||

    It's only a matter of time before David Matthews, Patriot Henry, and Organic Girl start posting in the same Bailey thread.

  • ||

    Too much work for one person.

  • imhotep||

    I am not sure that GM food is EVIL. I do know, though, that if you put two apples in front of me and tell me that one has been sprayed with pesticides that have been used daily since the 1940's, and one hasn't been sprayed because it is GM; I take my chances with the pesticides that have been in the food chain for sixty years, wash, and enjoy.

    I understand the arguments that maybe more starving people can have food with GM crops, but it is hard for me to advocate somebody else eating something that I wouldn't eat.

    Organic all the way.

  • Sniktpool||

    You do know that it's entirely impractical to feed the world with organic agriculture, right? Organic crops require more fertilizer, water, and pesticides to produce the same quantity of food as GMO crops. More fertilizer means more runoff into our watersheds, which translates to fun stuff like the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Since organic crops have a lower salt tolerance than GMOs, they place a bigger demand on the local freshwater supply. More pesticides contribute to the Silent Spring that so many environmental activists worry about.

  • ||

    You do know that it's entirely impractical to feed the world with organic agriculture, right?

    That is true. However it is also true that it is practical to feed the world with "beyond organic" agriculture. The difference is that organic agriculture is a government owned word and practice, and beyond organic agriculture is a free person owned word and practice.

    Organic crops require more fertilizer, water, and pesticides to produce the same quantity of food as GMO crops.

    As I would define the term, beyond organic agriculture must include mixed farming (rotating livestock, pasture, grain, vegetables, and weed crops). That system of farming eliminates all non-farm fertilizer (the plants and animals produce compost which is the best possible fertilizer), greatly reduces the need for water (this system that obeys and uses the laws of nature builds the soil, it's structure and health, so that it retains far more water and also allows non-weed plant crops to have access to more water), and eliminates the need for pesticides (by supporting the pest eating insects and animals and by improving the health of the plants).

    More fertilizer means more runoff into our watersheds, which translates to fun stuff like the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

    Good reason not to support GMO, commodity farming, or other government endorsed food options.

  • JPL8o||

    Scientists have proved that Genetically Modified Organisms are harmful for mammals. The researchers discovered that animals that eat GM foodstuffs lose their ability to reproduce.
    http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/04/16/6524765.html

  • ||

    So if Farmer MacGregor had planted GM veggies, those thievin' bastards Flopsy, Mopsy and Peter wouldn't have been able to reproduce? Sounds like a win to me.

  • ||

    Perhaps Mr. Henry should have cited this Russian study.

  • ||

    Perhaps Mr. Henry should have cited this Russian study.

    Since I'm not claiming that the current GMO crops have any negative side effects, I don't see why I should cite any study. I'm an advocate of independent scientific study of GMO crops, and I'm an opponent of the current system in which the state and it's various apparatus use GMO in the same way it's used derivatives, credit default swaps, mortgages, etc.

    Even without GMO the current system is doomed. GMO might buy some time, if they don't screw it up. If it turns out that they are actually safe, then I wouldn't oppose other people developing, growing, or eating them (I'd still abstain but as a libertarian I wouldn't object). I hope it turns out that way. Considering the sheer level of insanity amongst the scientists, executives, and bureaucrats I fear my hope is false and has no basis in reality.

  • wackyjack||

    I secretly hope that our lab animals are sentient and just fucking with us.

    You know the rats that got cancer from 4 tons of saccharine? They were probably out back bumming smokes from the janitor.

  • Jake Boone||

    I'd advise you to put both "scientists" and "proved" in quotes when referring to that article.

  • Jake Boone||

    Oh, and "researchers" and "discovered".

  • GILMORE||

    JPL8o|4.28.10 @ 6:02PM|#
    Scientists have proved that Genetically Modified Organisms are harmful for mammals. The researchers discovered that animals that eat GM foodstuffs lose their ability to reproduce.

    You don't say??

    That almost potentially makes sense ...until you realize that the #1 use of GMO soy, maize and enzymes is for animal feed, and has been for many years. 90% of the world market for GMO soy is for animal feed. The rest go into making oil products, mostly.

    Also, animal feed has always been considered the *safest* of all the various GMO applications; even the Europeans excluded it when they 'banned' other GMO products. They still use tens of millions of tons of the stuff each year.

    My point is... you'd think someone might have *noticed* some animal infertility... right? After millions upon millions of animals have come and gone over the decades, eating this stuff? Hmmm.

    http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng.....ering.html

    And why, hmm, why might Russia want to spread rumours that American agricultural products are tainted?? Why oh why?

    Gee, why they're one of the worlds largest feed-grain exporters... what a strange coincidence. And the market for non-GMO feedstuff has been exploding in Europe.

    Its hard to figure out, isnt it?

    There was a french study saying GMO maize caused organ damage in rats, ...

    http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

    ...but I dont believe it was replicated anywhere. There's been plenty of studies finding no harm, repeatedly, however. People like Monsanto actually do years of tests like this themselves before marketing their products...

  • Hacha Cha||

    just about every single food, medicinal, and herbal plant is the result of biotech/genetic engineering. selective breeding and propagation of plants that cannot naturally reproduce on their own are all forms of biotech and genetic engineering. these nutjobs against agriculture don't use facts to form or spread their opinions, they use myths and lies to spread their opinion.

  • ||

    just about every single food, medicinal, and herbal plant is the result of biotech/genetic engineering. selective breeding and propagation of plants that cannot naturally reproduce on their own are all forms of biotech and genetic engineering.

    True, but nature maintains a very strict testing regimen. If any organism is unfit it fails the test and is removed from the system. It is not used as the majority of the food supply for the dominant life form of the planet without this testing. GMO crops are subjected to a far less intensive test and are used as the majority of the food supply for the dominant life form of the planet. In addition nature doesn't run a Xerox machine - GMO crops do. Those are two fundamental differences y'all seem to be missing.

    these nutjobs against agriculture don't use facts to form or spread their opinions, they use myths and lies to spread their opinion.

    I haven't used a single myth or lie. Nor have my arguments resembled that you are likely to find from any anti-GMO organization.

  • Hacha Cha||

    GMO crops, as they are popularly defined, go through extensive testing. and if you are afraid of them, then don't fucking eat them. the thing I can't stand is people telling me and people that are starving that we shouldn't eat GMO food.
    simple cloning procedures are xerox machines, you don't even need to add rooting hormone to many types of plants, they can root on their own or their roots/rhizomes divide on their own. you lack an understanding of botany and horticulture.

  • ||

    GMO crops, as they are popularly defined, go through extensive testing.

    Right - the same type of "extensive testing" that Vioxx and other snake oil products are tested, the same "extensive testing" that the EPA uses for the Energy Star ratings. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/63638

    the thing I can't stand is people telling me and people that are starving that we shouldn't eat GMO food.

    I never said you shouldn't eat them. I did and do say that you should please stop robbing me to pay for your GMO food. You want to be a guinea pig, that's cool and thanks for your contribution to the study of the safety of GMO food. Just leave me out of it entirely.

    simple cloning procedures are xerox machines, you don't even need to add rooting hormone to many types of plants, they can root on their own or their roots/rhizomes divide on their own. you lack an understanding of botany and horticulture.

    Nature doesn't clone itself. Those parts of nature cloned by older methods are cloning tested and successful life forms.

    GMO copies untested life forms that are produced using shoddy programming methods - namely copying and pasting in a poorly understood programming language.

    This is not an issue about botany and horticulture. It's an issue about statism, corporatism/fascism, power, and human beings. Trying to frame it as a botany/genetics/horticulture issue shows you lack an understanding of the real issues at hand.

    That's like saying the "health reform" issue is about surgery and antibiotics.

  • GILMORE||

    Does anyone else miss LoneWacko?

    I do. He was much more fun than this jerk. He was nicer in that he'd say his crazy talk, then we'd make fun of him, and that'd be it. No, but this Patriot Henry guy.... he takes himself SERIOUSLY and responds to every single comment, in mostly an inane, repetitive, self-satisfied way. He even takes the jokes seriously. I say, "didnt enjoy college, then"? NO he replies! "Colleges are fascist too!" I assume he's trolling but then it turns out, no, he's dead serious.

    Lonewacko was really, really amusing. This guy? Bring on the meds.

    He's an striking example of the main reason I never tell anyone I'm libertarian.

  • ||

    I do. He was much more fun than this jerk.

    I don't miss him. He was more fun though. I am not fun at all.

    No, but this Patriot Henry guy.... he takes himself SERIOUSLY and responds to every single comment, in mostly an inane, repetitive, self-satisfied way.

    I do take myself seriously, which is why I pay close attention to any valid criticism of my argument. I thank you for contributing yours, it is duly noted and most appreciated as relevant performance reviews are hard to come by.

    He even takes the jokes seriously. I say, "didnt enjoy college, then"? NO he replies! "Colleges are fascist too!" I assume he's trolling but then it turns out, no, he's dead serious.

    Yes, I am dead serious. If you want me to get a joke, or at least realize it is a joke, please use an emoticon or tag or statement drawing attention to that.

    Lonewacko was really, really amusing.

    Perhaps if you sought more intellectual activity and less entertainment activity my criticisms and objections might make more sense (and if I did the opposite the same effect might happen).

    This guy? Bring on the meds.

    Elsewhere on this page I quoted Wendell Berry discussing how the scientific critics of science are treated as dissidents. Thank you for proving his point.

    He's an striking example of the main reason I never tell anyone I'm libertarian.

    Strange, I find you and those who agree with you giving me much more reason and motivation to think of a better word than "libertarian" to describe myself. The only thing wrong with the word is that so many libertarians are fascists or even socialists etc which confuses the meaning of the word.

  • ||

    From the PG Economics "Who are We" page:

    Client base
    Our clients come from both public and private sectors. These include the leading biotechnology companies, agro-chemical manufacturers, seed companies & plant breeders, animal feed ingredient manufacturers, breakfast cereal manufacturers, oilseed crushers, food processors, starch/sweetener manufacturers, farmers organisations, UK government (eg, DEFRA) and the European Commission.

    Hmmm. Really? I wonder what that means. I wonder what they mean by "seed companies and plant breeders"?

    I wonder what happens if I skip the body of the PG Economics report endorsed by Ron Bailey, Reason.com, and many others here, and just go ahead and look at the sources:


    Monsanto Comercial Mexico (2005) Official report to Mexican Ministry of Agriculture,
    unpublished

    Monsanto Comercial Mexico (2007) Official report to Mexican Ministry of Agriculture of the 2006
    crop, unpublished

    Monsanto Brazil (2008) Farm survey of conventional and Bt cotton growers in Brazil 2007,
    unpublished

    Monsanto Comercial Mexico (2008) Official report to Mexican Ministry of Agriculture of the 2008
    cotton crop, unpublished

    Monsanto Australia (2009) Survey of herbicide tolerant canola licence holders 2008

    Mionsanto Romania (2007) Roundup Ready soybeans: Survey growers crops in 2006 and
    intentions for 2007

    So a corporate consultant using the corporate data from their corporate client happens to find that the corporate product benefits the environment?

    I wonder what other sources they used:

    USDA (1999) Farm level effects of adopting genetically engineered crops, preliminary evidence
    from the US experience, Economic issues in agricultural biotechnology

    USDA (1999) Farm level effects of adopting genetically engineered crops, preliminary evidence
    from the US experience, Economic Issues in Agricultural Biotechnology

    Oooh! That's a credible source - everyone knows you can trust Uncle Sam!


    Canola Council of Canada (2001) An agronomic & economic assessment of transgenic canola,
    Canola Council, Canada.

    Canola Council (2005) Herbicide tolerant volunteer canola management in subsequent crops

    There's another couple of really credible sources - when you see an industry "Council" you know you don't have to question whatever it is they say. After all, it's a "Council".

    Council for Biotechnology Information Canada (2002) Agronomic, economic and environmental
    impacts of the commercial cultivation of glyphosate tolerant soybeans in Ontario

    Another Council!

    Fernandez-Cornejo J, Heimlich R & McBride W (2000) Genetically engineered crops: has adoption
    reduced pesticide use, USDA Outlook August 2000
    Fernandez-Cornejo J & McBride W (2000) Genetically engineered crops for pest management in
    US agriculture, USDA Economic Research Service report 786

    More USDA sources! This is some rock solid fascism science!

    Did I mention there are many academics and even people working at UNIVERSITIES??? I bet there must be at least a thousand undergrad and postgrad degrees from everyone who helped do the fascist scientific research that was the basis for this report! And since I don't have a single degree, I of course must be the raving lunatic and the Wizard of GMO who is shouting not to look behind the curtain is the sane one.

  • دردشة||

    thanks

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement