Current Events & Hot Topics

Featured Posts
coronado25
Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture- A real science article!
April 16, 2013 at 10:57 PM

Replies

  • coronado25
    April 16, 2013 at 11:01 PM

    A good science article will have footnotes, sources, authors, details details details and avoids sweeping assumptions and speculation.  

    Naturenews, not Naturalnews is a good source for REAL science articles on thousands of subjects.  All footnoted, with data, and sources and documented research.  

    YOUR WELCOME! And enjoy! 

  • mehamil1
    April 16, 2013 at 11:09 PM

    Know what would be great? Post an article that I don't have to pay $32 to read in it's entirety. 

  • krysstizzle
    April 16, 2013 at 11:26 PM

    I'm wondering what, exactly, your point is in posting this. 

    There are other studies that show the opposite or mixed results (this one out of Iowa State, showing mixed results, for example). There are plenty of others. 

    And production isn't a problem. We produce more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet and feed them well. Distribution is the issue. 

    Again, comparing the pros and cons, weighing the benefits and costs, sustainable farming (which may or may not be completely organic, btw) comes out on top every single time. 

    Besides, "organic" is close to meaningless these days. The FDA, USDA, and other regulatory institutions are bought and run by corportations with some kind of vested interest. 

    You have failed. Yet again.

  • fireangel5
    April 16, 2013 at 11:40 PM

    And here is another that lends some credence to people's concerns. is it so difficult to understand that while there may be benefits, there may also be unforeseen consequences that may not be necessarily in the best interest of people nor the environment?

    One should be able to objectively look at the evidence on both sides. Again, being an informed consumer is a good thing. Being wary is human nature. 

    http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetically-modified-organisms-gmos-transgenic-crops-and-732

  • Themis_Defleo
    April 16, 2013 at 11:46 PM
    Do you mean "you're welcome?"

    Quoting coronado25:

    A good science article will have footnotes, sources, authors, details details details and avoids sweeping assumptions and speculation.  

    Naturenews, not Naturalnews is a good source for REAL science articles on thousands of subjects.  All footnoted, with data, and sources and documented research.  

    YOUR WELCOME! And enjoy! 

  • coronado25
    April 17, 2013 at 12:04 AM
    YES, you're welcome! And it is never a fail to read real science... It is a fail to be swept up in mass media paranoia. Real research is real expensive and $32 dollars pays for the article along with all methods and procedures and comes with the right to copy the same strategy/experiment.
  • coronado25
    April 17, 2013 at 12:13 AM
    The point is to be dicerning when it comes to one's sources of information. The usual anti gmo fodder is linked to either nothing, quackery, or unfounded hysteria. I am not against "organic", gmo, or whatever is next in our future for agriculture. I Am against the anti gmo sensationalized bad journalism and the fears that are based on it and wish everyone would learn a little more about gene expression and how genes work.


    Quoting krysstizzle:

    I'm wondering what, exactly, your point is in posting this. 

    There are other studies that show the opposite or mixed results (this one out of Iowa State, showing mixed results, for example). There are plenty of others. 

    And production isn't a problem. We produce more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet and feed them well. Distribution is the issue. 

    Again, comparing the pros and cons, weighing the benefits and costs, sustainable farming (which may or may not be completely organic, btw) comes out on top every single time. 

    Besides, "organic" is close to meaningless these days. The FDA, USDA, and other regulatory institutions are bought and run by corportations with some kind of vested interest. 

    You have failed. Yet again.


  • krysstizzle
    April 17, 2013 at 12:19 AM

    There is no conclusive evidence that genetically modified seeds cause harm to human health. Conversely, there is no convlusive, long-term evidence that genetically modified seeds do not cause harm to human health. Following that, corporations that control GMOs have a lot of money. Money talks, and money writes the laws. If you think differently, you're fooling yourself. Therefore, the liklihood of the FDA or USDA seriously assessing potential risks of GMOs is basically nil. 

    The vast majority of people against GMOs are not fearful little chickens with their heads cut off, running around screeching about scary science. Quite the opposite. The majority of people that are against GMOs for any variety of reasons are educated and discerning. 

    So. Try again. :/ 

    Quoting coronado25:

    The point is to be dicerning when it comes to one's sources of information. The usual anti gmo fodder is linked to either nothing, quackery, or unfounded hysteria. I am not against "organic", gmo, or whatever is next in our future for agriculture. I Am against the anti gmo sensationalized bad journalism and the fears that are based on it and wish everyone would learn a little more about gene expression and how genes work.


    Quoting krysstizzle:

    I'm wondering what, exactly, your point is in posting this. 

    There are other studies that show the opposite or mixed results (this one out of Iowa State, showing mixed results, for example). There are plenty of others. 

    And production isn't a problem. We produce more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet and feed them well. Distribution is the issue. 

    Again, comparing the pros and cons, weighing the benefits and costs, sustainable farming (which may or may not be completely organic, btw) comes out on top every single time. 

    Besides, "organic" is close to meaningless these days. The FDA, USDA, and other regulatory institutions are bought and run by corportations with some kind of vested interest. 

    You have failed. Yet again.



  • coronado25
    April 17, 2013 at 12:56 AM
    I think a quick lookat the articles posted by those who express fear and anger towards genetic engineering reveals little dicernment and however magnificently educated, a lack of understanding (through no fault of their own) about science and research.
  • krysstizzle
    April 17, 2013 at 8:38 AM
    Just like talking to a brick wall...

    Op, do you have anything at all to say about the numerous points brought up between this post and the other on gmos?

Current Events & Hot Topics

Active Posts in All Groups
More Active Posts
Today's “Featured” Posts
More Featured Posts