Debunked: March against Monsanto campaign

Critical Thinker

Senior Member.
The 'usual suspects' are promoting the "March against Monsanto" http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/ Not surprisingly the list below is on their home page, right after a sales pitch to sell March against Monsanto T shirts. Just knowing that Alex Jones and the conspiracy crowd are pushing this agenda raises my doubts to it's validity. I thought that having a thread that addresses these concerns might be useful :

"On May 25, activists around the world will unite to March Against Monsanto.

Why do we march?


  • Research studies have shown that Monsanto’s genetically-modified foods can lead to serious health conditions such as the development of cancer tumors, infertility and birth defects.

  • In the United States, the FDA, the agency tasked with ensuring food safety for the population, is steered by ex-Monsanto executives, and we feel that’s a questionable conflict of interests and explains the lack of government-led research on the long-term effects of GM products.

  • Recently, the U.S. Congress and president collectively passed the nicknamed “Monsanto Protection Act” that, among other things, bans courts from halting the sale of Monsanto’s genetically-modified seeds.

  • For too long, Monsanto has been the benefactor of corporate subsidies and political favoritism. Organic and small farmers suffer losses while Monsanto continues to forge its monopoly over the world’s food supply, including exclusive patenting rights over seeds and genetic makeup.

  • Monsanto's GM seeds are harmful to the environment; for example, scientists have indicated they have contributed to Colony Collapse Disorder among the world's bee population."



 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned

  • Monsanto's GM seeds are harmful to the environment; for example, scientists have indicated they have contributed to Colony Collapse Disorder among the world's bee population."

A Swiss Study.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0032151
[h=4]6. Conclusion This study provides evidence that Varroa destructor is a key player for winter colony losses and highlights the urgent need for efficient treatments against this parasite. The data suggest an indirect effect of mite infestation on honeybee overwintering abilities through the promotion of opportunistic viral infections, which eventually lead to the impairment of critical physiological functions. The knowledge gathered in this work will help to improve our understanding of bee losses, standardize methods for biomarkers of disease and finally to mitigate causes of bee declines.[/h]
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
It seems the only folks really concerned about GM crops effects on bees, are folks that don't keep bees.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I know sod all about bees but if GM crops were to blame why does CCD happen in countries that don't have GM crops? Simple logic.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
LOGIC something a lot of folks are not big on. Some of the bee keeping sites are also discussing inbreeding and the fact that the bees are being moved so that they only have a single nectar source. It seems that wild bees and even urban hives don't have as much of a CCD problem as commercial bees do.
 

xenon

Active Member
Genetically Modified Tires

BOB TITA Wall Street Journal July 31, 2012, 7:26 p.m. ET

High yielding, genetically modified crops have transformed the economics of U.S. farming. But they also pack an unexpected punch: Their tougher stalks are puncturing tires and stranding farm equipment in the field.

Iowa corn and soybean farmer Mark Dimit said tire damage from the prior season's corn and soybean stalks, much tougher in GM crops, repeatedly brought spring planting to a standstill on his 4,000-acre farm near Grinnell two years ago.

MK-BW141_TIRES_DV_20120731173148.jpg

A stubble-bruised tractor tire, left, next to a Kevlar-reinforced tire.(Titan International)

"It's not as easy as taking a tire off your car," said Mr. Dimit, who blames stubble for at least a half dozen flats on a new planter. "You do that for about two hours every morning, and you start to get a little bit frustrated."

At about $35 a tire to plug a leak, the cost also angered the 53-year-old, who has farmed for 35 years. So, when the 2011 Iowa Power Farming Show in Des Moines gave him access to manufacturers, he got an opportunity to vent to a tire supplier.

"I probably wasn't as nice as I could have been," said Mr. Dimit, who has made a habit of visiting factories and participating in surveys whenever companies solicit customer feedback.

Mr. Dimit's complaints to Titan International Inc., TWI +2.88% one of the largest farm tire suppliers, caused the
company to suggest he test a newly developed tire with four layers of Kevlar, the synthetic fabric best known for its use in military helmets and bulletproof vests. Mr. Dimit installed them on his planter more than a year ago.

"I've not had a flat tire since," he said. "I complained at the right time."

Auto tire makers including Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and Essex
Manufacturing Inc. have put Kevlar belts into durable, run-flat tires for passenger cars and off-road vehicles. But farm equipment makers such as Deere & Co., Fiat Industrial CNH Global and Agco Corp.
don't yet offer the specially-reinforced tires on their tractors.

This year's crop stubble has been particularly tough on tires because a mild winter and a dry spring kept moisture from disintegrating old plant stalks and stems. As farmers cut back on tilling their fields to preserve the top soil, they're frequently planting a new crop right next to the remains of an old one.

Kevlar is made by DuPont, DD +0.72% one of the largest producers of GM corn and
bean seeds through its DuPont Pioneer unit. The company developed the material in the 1960s to strengthen car tires, but the auto industry has largely stuck with cheaper, steel mesh belts.

About 3 million farm tires a year are sold in the U.S. with sales expanding annually by an average of about 4% since 2007, fueled by steadily rising sales of farm equipment.

Titan, which also makes farm tires under the Goodyear name, has limited Kevlar to tires for planters and other implements where stubble punctures are frequent due to their softer treads.

The company said the tires haven't been available long enough to determine the market's reaction. The Kevlar tires cost almost $300 apiece, roughly twice as much as regular tires. Titan says the price is offset by lower costs for repairs and tire replacements. Mr. Dimit figures he spent more than $200 on fixing flats in one planting season.

"It's pay me now or pay me later," said Scott Sloan, product engineering manager for Titan. "It only takes one bean stalk to make a tire go flat."

U.S. farmers, many of whom are flush with cash after an extended stretch of high commodity prices and record harvests, have shown a willingness to spend money on productivity-enhancing equipment in recent years.

Titan has been trying to convince equipment makers to offer the tire on new machines.

"We are certainly interested in it," said Martin Richenhagen, chairman and chief executive of Georgia-based Agco, maker of Massey Ferguson-brand equipment. "We're already doing testing with it."

In June, Deere finance chief Jim Field described tire damage from crop stubble as "one of the biggest complaints we have." Still, Deere has yet to offer customers Kevlar tires as an option on new machinery.

Titan's Mr. Sloan said the higher cost of the tires is making them a hard sell to equipment manufacturers. But that may be changing.

Dan McClain, manager of Triple C Farms, a Long Island, Kan., livestock producer that raises about 4,500 acres of corn and soybeans for animal feed, said he recently bought a set of the Kevlar tires for one of the farm's two planters.

"A farmer isn't afraid to pay up for something if it lasts three times as long," he said.

"We don't work the ground like we used to," Mr. McClain added. "All of that stubble is left on top of the ground. You're driving on top of it constantly. A planter would go through a set of tires in a season. That's six or eight tires."

Write to Bob Tita at robert.tita@dowjones.com

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c....4.0...0.2...1c.1.14.psy-ab.0pBs88sFOlM&pbx=1

I'm happy that so many people are willing to be guinea pigs for this new food. If something starts going wrong with your digestive tracts and your organs start deteriorating, don't ask people like me to help pay the bills.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I have zero worries about it. Livestock has been fed it for several years and they aren't having any problems with it.

The tests keep failing to show any problems in people.

The strong stalks is a problem, FOR TIRES. We don't eat corn stalks.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
I have zero worries about it. Livestock has been fed it for several years and they aren't having any problems with it.

The tests keep failing to show any problems in people.

The strong stalks is a problem, FOR TIRES. We don't eat corn stalks.
Sure does tenderize those tires nicely though!
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I have zero worries about it. Livestock has been fed it for several years and they aren't having any problems with it.

The tests keep failing to show any problems in people.

The strong stalks is a problem, FOR TIRES. We don't eat corn stalks.
I have made no secret that I did my fair share of crop stomping with Greenpeace in the '90's (I was at university and it was a rebellious phase after 14 years in the army), and it was that campaign that got legislation changed for us and labelling etc, as well as putting limits on the corporations. However for many of us that was the goal so everyone could take a step back for a more considered view. Unfortunately Greenpeace have not taken that approach and most of their decisions are based on piss poor science. The trials that have happened have been stomped on even though these are government funded, open source, projects. But people really are in fear that eating GM will make you grow wings/breasts/give you autism/make you vote UKIP.
Sure does tenderize those tires nicely though!
I am just waiting to see a Facebook comment that Monsanto have bought out Goodyear. Mind you they could buy Michelin and genetically develop a real Michelin Man, that would be cool.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
There is one that says that they own Coke and Pepsi.

GM crops are really better for the environment and for people, because they can reduce the amount of pesticides needed and they can produce more crop. The later can reduce the amount of land needed to be cleared for crops.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
There is one that says that they own Coke and Pepsi.

GM crops are really better for the environment and for people, because they can reduce the amount of pesticides needed and they can produce more crop. The later can reduce the amount of land needed to be cleared for crops.
I totally agree. We have a real dilemma in the UK as for years the government has provided grants for farmers to go organic. Off the top of my head I would say that organic farms have increased 4 or 5 fold in the past 20 years but the yields they produce are 30 or 40% less. Now given that at best we can produce around 60% of our own food organic appears not to give us food security (off topic but post WWII we had rationing for some products into the '50's, so my parents would moan about). GM would give us the option of a greater self reliance but people are really resistant. Here is a link for the latest, public funded trial for a GM wheat crop that would be resistant to aphids (wheat is our main crop, and the main user of pesticides). Note the comment from someone in the US at the bottom. http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/Content.php?Section=AphidWheat
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Content from external source:

GMO's are toxic. Please don't allow this to happen in the UK. I live in the US and have been sick from eating Genetically Modified Wheat for years. I thought I had a gluten allergies all of the sudden but that isn't the case at all. I have been sick for years now with kidney pains and intestinal pains along with bloating and weight gain. That is what GMO's do to you. I recently visited the UK and was happy to realize finally that it wasn't an allergy but that it was the GMO's that were causing my symptoms. I didn't realize this until I was able to eat bread without GMO's. I would hate for this to happen out here and for people to be ill because of this. Please look up Mark Hyman's article on GMO's through the huffingtonpost website. Also for history on GMO production you can find it on Wikipedia about Norman Borlaug and his creation of Dwarf Wheat

There are no GMO wheat
varieties currently on the market. There are hybrids. One thing I don't understand about anti-GMO crowd, is they fear the change of a specific gene but not the change of the entire genome of the pant through hybridization or something like chemical mutagenesis. The old hybrid methods of developing new varieties is a much more trial and error intensive process than changing one or a few genes at a time.


 
Last edited by a moderator:

David Fraser

Senior Member.

There are no GMO wheat
varieties currently on the market. There are hybrids. One thing I don't understand about anti-GMO crowd, is they fear the change of a specific gene but not the change of the entire genome of the pant through hybridization or something like chemical mutagenesis. The old hybrid methods of developing new varieties is a much more trial and error intensive process than changing one or a few genes at a time.
ven environmem

It is just down to education, and people think the worst of GM. A classic example of my time stomping crops is the Fish Tomato http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_tomato. Mind you in saying that my issue has never been with the crop in the food chain but one of the effect on biodiversity. For a relatively small place, we in the UK have a lot going on ecologically and my concern has purely been one of cross pollination of native species blah blah. However people do not appreciate that mutation is a natural way of things and even environmental stressors can trigger it, and what is the difference to doing it in a lab or let time take its course?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I need to know more, than the biased stories I see a lot of. What I hear makes them sound horrible, but since to many folks they are one of the 'great evils', I don't trust all of those reports.

I do not have any problem with the GM crops. I worry more about the fact that we don't have enough food inspectors in the US. We KNOW that contamination of crops such as cantaloupe and greens have resulted in deaths, also eggs.

Folks are afraid of a non problem while they ignore real problems.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
To be fair they have been addressed in other threads but it us difficult to talk about Monsanto and GM in general digressing into personal opinion.
 

Critical Thinker

Senior Member.
Just seemed to make sense to address the claims all in one place, rather than the scattered data found in many different places, Oh well.
 

Lost World

New Member
Not sure about GMOs to be honest. But I really don't like Monsanto's business practices.

I wouldn't be suprised if it's not just Monsanto whose practices are dubious. This is very cut throat and competetive industry. I have worked in it (although not for Monsanto) If one company is going to get farmers to sign contracts to only use their seeds, and other priducts which work in conjunction with those seeds (Roundup ready seeds) then that customer has been contractually taken out of the market place, paving the way for unhealthy monopolies to develop in my opinion.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I wouldn't be suprised if it's not just Monsanto whose practices are dubious. This is very cut throat and competetive industry. I have worked in it (although not for Monsanto) If one company is going to get farmers to sign contracts to only use their seeds, and other priducts which work in conjunction with those seeds (Roundup ready seeds) then that customer has been contractually taken out of the market place, paving the way for unhealthy monopolies to develop in my opinion.

I must admit I am confused. What stops farmers using different seeds (outside of economics of buying more in) and I can't find anything to say farmers are forced to use Round up on Round Up Ready seeds. What stops them using a generic brand?
 

Lost World

New Member
I must admit I am confused. What stops farmers using different seeds (outside of economics of buying more in) and I can't find anything to say farmers are forced to use Round up on Round Up Ready seeds. What stops them using a generic brand?

Hi Dave. For now Monsanto still hold the patent for glyphosate. The US patents actually do expire in 2014 and my understanding is that normally other companies will then be able to jump into the market with generics, but in the case of Roundup it may not be quite so simple due to regulatory mechanisms in place to protect the patented MOA technology behind the molecule. I suspect the whole saga will eventually unrvael when either Monsanto or a competitor comes up with some thing more effective and even cheaper.

No farmer is 'forced' to do anything by Monsanto. They are assertively encouraged to enter into contracts to work specifically with Monsanto seeds - at a very reasonable price - which of course deliver good yeilds. If the farmer wishes to go another major seed vendor he first has to free himself from Monsanto which could cost him millions.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Just knowing that Alex Jones and the conspiracy crowd are pushing this agenda raises my doubts to it's validity.
Precisely what Alex Jones is there for.

I must admit I am confused. What stops farmers using different seeds (outside of economics of buying more in) and I can't find anything to say farmers are forced to use Round up on Round Up Ready seeds. What stops them using a generic brand?
Monsanto sells its seed on contract wherever the law allows. These contracts often oblige a farmer not to switch crops until they've run their course. To switch seeds while under contract would mean either having to buy double the seed (both Monsanto-brand to oblige the contract and the other to plant) or try and break their contract with Monsanto, which is not at all likely to end well for the farmer. They keep a close eye on farmers under contract, and signing a contract with them allows their private investigators to examine a farmers property/investigate their sales. They even hire out PI's to investigate farmers who aren't on contract for suspected violations of patent/vendors for suspected sale of patented seed. Monsanto has endured a great deal of criticism for 'alleged' intimidation tactics. They've even tried to engage in legal actions against entire districts for having a 'Quality Trademark Seal' where their milk is concerned, because this particular stamp of approval didn't allow for the presence of their bovine growth hormone. Though their milk was still on sale in the region, Monsanto claimed it was an 'unfair business practice' to imply milk without artificial growth hormone was of a higher quality than milk with it.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
First are the contracts for just one season? Secondly I cant find anything stating that a farmer is contractually obliged to plant the seeds that he has bought. I would have thought such a clause would be redundant.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
They aren't obliged to plant the seed so far as I know, just to purchase it. As you said, it'd be redundant for them to enforce planting, they already have their money. Contracts, though indeed seasonal, aren't limited to a single season. If a farmer feels its a good idea to sign for ensuing seasons, Monsanto will happily oblige them in that as I understand it. With non-patented seed, you'd be able to collect seed from your crop to save and replant in future seasons, reducing or even removing the need to buy new seed. You could even sell/give/trade your seed with other farmers. If you contract with Monsanto, you're legally obliged to purchase a set amount of fresh seed with every season. If you end your contract with Monsanto, you're legally obliged not to save your seed, and even to raze any perennials in many cases grown from Monsanto seed. Of course, selling/giving/trading Monsanto seed your plants produced in a season isn't an option, unless you want to risk suffering harsh legal action and massive fines.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Precisely what Alex Jones is there for.


Monsanto sells its seed on contract wherever the law allows. These contracts often oblige a farmer not to switch crops until they've run their course. To switch seeds while under contract would mean either having to buy double the seed (both Monsanto-brand to oblige the contract and the other to plant) or try and break their contract with Monsanto, which is not at all likely to end well for the farmer. They keep a close eye on farmers under contract, and signing a contract with them allows their private investigators to examine a farmers property/investigate their sales. They even hire out PI's to investigate farmers who aren't on contract for suspected violations of patent/vendors for suspected sale of patented seed. Monsanto has endured a great deal of criticism for 'alleged' intimidation tactics. They've even tried to engage in legal actions against entire districts for having a 'Quality Trademark Seal' where their milk is concerned, because this particular stamp of approval didn't allow for the presence of their bovine growth hormone. Though their milk was still on sale in the region, Monsanto claimed it was an 'unfair business practice' to imply milk without artificial growth hormone was of a higher quality than milk with it.
Please provide links with your claims, you know this!

I don't know about a contract, I have heard this before. Usually it involves farmers not being able to plant back their seeds, though Grieves does not mention that. Somehow it is thought Monsanto is forcing the farmers to buy seeds that will produce no viable seeds for replanting the next year.

This guy explains it well in section 13 and 14.
http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/hypocrisy.html
Basically if farmers are buying from Mansanto it is because they like their seeds.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
http://www.monsanto.ca/ourcommitments/Documents/TUG_English.pdf
See 'terms and conditions' toward the bottom, and look for the key words 'contract' and 'patent', for a general notion of how contracts work with Monsanto.

http://thefarmerslife.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/scan_doc0004.pdf
Here's a short-form of a Monsanto patent agreement. The bit on 'binding arbitration' is a good read, stating any claim made against Monsanto must be handled out of court if one signs the contract.

The full and final contracts Monsanto has many farmers sign are confidential, so I've never been able to find one online, but apparently they can run over 30 pages in length.
The vast majority of farmers respect patent laws and honor their agreements to abide by that law. When one farmer sees another farmer saving patented seed, they will often report them. Many of the tips Monsanto gets about farmers saving patented seeds come from other farmers in the same community. Usually, cases come to us when someone reports they believe seed is being saved illegally. Monsanto’s attorneys look into these allegations and may have a licensed private investigator look into the facts. If infringement is a possibility, a Monsanto manager will meet with the individuals involved. There have been farmers who were contacted and provided information that resulted in Monsanto closing the case. The vast majority of farmers who are presented with facts showing infringement admit the violation and pay a settlement.
A statement from Monsanto's own PR page, speaking on their policy of independent investigation into farmers. If you rummage around google a little, you'll find plenty of stories of farmers complaining about the treatment they received from Monsanto investigators.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Usually it involves farmers not being able to plant back their seeds, though Grieves does not mention that.
Again, I don't think Monsanto really cares if you save/replant your seed so long as you're buying the contracted amount of seed with the new season, which would make saving/replanting your seed somewhat pointless, leaving you with more seed than you can plant, and that you cant sell/trade/give away. However, if your contract ends, saving/replanting seed becomes a crime, in violation of patent-law.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
What part says they are obligated to remain their seed slave for life?

Maybe a good place for you to start would be to see what is involved when a farmer wants to terminate their contract with Mansanto.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
I don't try and make it sound any way but the way I'm flatly stating it. Whenever you read comments made by someone on the 'other team', you seem to be hearing Alex Jones' voice blarfing on about GMO's rotting your testicles or something. Throughout, my position has been that corporate exploitation of patents in regard to foodstuffs made possible through the modern law surrounding GMOs is dangerous, given scarcity and profit go hand in hand, and a corporation like Monsanto can't be expected to choose people over profit. Thus, though the science of GMO's is definitely worth extensively exploring and utilizing wherever beneficial, allowing that process to be the face of the profit-driven effort to gain the biggest market-share of food in the history of the world is something to be wary of.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Grieves, someone called you anti-capitolist, not sure if this is true but if so, it seems ironic to me that you don't see how this anti-GMO, anti-Mansanto fight is purely market based. Lets just say for a minute that Mansanto is taken down and the organic crowd wins and eliminates all GMO crops and food. What would that be? exactly what they fear in reverse. The anti crowd fears GMO are going to take over the whole worlds food, no organic will remain. Kind of like a monopoly, even if it were not controlled by one company. A monopoly on an industry is what they fear. Vilify it and the companies that promote it and they could possibly turn that monopoly on an industry their way.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Grieves, someone called you anti-capitolist, not sure if this is true but if so, it seems ironic to me that you don't see how this anti-GMO, anti-Mansanto fight is purely market based.
It's a fair assessment.
Lets just say for a minute that Mansanto is taken down and the organic crowd wins and eliminates all GMO crops and food.
Not something I want in the slightest.

The anti crowd fears GMO are going to take over the whole worlds food, no organic will remain. Kind of like a monopoly, even if it were not controlled by one company. A monopoly on an industry is what they fear. Vilify it and the companies that promote it and they could possibly turn that monopoly on an industry their way.
Sorry, can you run this by me again? Not sure I catch your meaning.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Monsanto sells its seed on contract wherever the law allows. These contracts often oblige a farmer not to switch crops until they've run their course. To switch seeds while under contract would mean either having to buy double the seed (both Monsanto-brand to oblige the contract and the other to plant) or try and break their contract with Monsanto, which is not at all likely to end well for the farmer. They keep a close eye on farmers under contract, and signing a contract with them allows their private investigators to examine a farmers property/investigate their sales. They even hire out PI's to investigate farmers who aren't on contract for suspected violations of patent/vendors for suspected sale of patented seed. Monsanto has endured a great deal of criticism for 'alleged' intimidation tactics. They've even tried to engage in legal actions against entire districts for having a 'Quality Trademark Seal' where their milk is concerned, because this particular stamp of approval didn't allow for the presence of their bovine growth hormone. Though their milk was still on sale in the region, Monsanto claimed it was an 'unfair business practice' to imply milk without artificial growth hormone was of a higher quality than milk with it.
I'm sorry I don't know how to read into this without hearing your scare tactics, you make it sound so evil and sinister. Yet really provide no proof their contracts are, for one unusual in the industry and two, that they are actually hurting farmers.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Monsanto contracts don't always hurt farmers. Sometimes they're a godsend. Sometimes they're a huge disappointment. They're products like any other, hit sometimes, miss elsewhere.

Yet really provide no proof their contracts are, for one unusual in the industry
The agriculture industry is thousands of years old. GMOs and the patent-law surrounding them certainly aren't. Monsanto's rise to prominence in the agriculture industry is a very new phenomenon, built on the back of their involvement both in GMOs and their fierce lobbying of lawmakers.
and two, that they are actually hurting farmers.
Again, sometimes they do help farmers by increasing yields, sometimes they do hurt farmers such as the crisis-crop in India. It's not just about farmers though. It's about the people they feed, and the influence Monsanto can have on the price those people pay.
Done debating with you Grieves! Don't hurt your neck looking over your shoulder all the time!
lol, so rather than explain your position, you accuse me of paranoia..? Nice.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Grieves, someone called you anti-capitolist, not sure if this is true but if so, it seems ironic to me that you don't see how this anti-GMO, anti-Mansanto fight is purely market based. Lets just say for a minute that Mansanto is taken down and the organic crowd wins and eliminates all GMO crops and food. What would that be? exactly what they fear in reverse. The anti crowd fears GMO are going to take over the whole worlds food, no organic will remain. Kind of like a monopoly, even if it were not controlled by one company. A monopoly on an industry is what they fear. Vilify it and the companies that promote it and they could possibly turn that monopoly on an industry their way.

Off topic for this thread but it is possible to hold conflicting ideals, I certainly do. As a generalisation I myself am anti capitalist but I am a realist and pragmatic about my views. I don't like the philosophy of the corporations (i.e. making money) but I accept it as a fact and move on.

Anyway, I think you are simplifying the sides in the GM debate. To be anti GM does not mean you are organic although it seems most of the arguments come from organic farmers. I do have a general anti-GM stance (yeah it may not seem it) but I am far from being totally pro-organic as I believe chemicals do have a place in agriculture.

Sorry, reading that back it all sounds like total pants.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Off topic for this thread but it is possible to hold conflicting ideals, I certainly do. As a generalisation I myself am anti capitalist but I am a realist and pragmatic about my views. I don't like the philosophy of the corporations (i.e. making money) but I accept it as a fact and move on.

Anyway, I think you are simplifying the sides in the GM debate. To be anti GM does not mean you are organic although it seems most of the arguments come from organic farmers. I do have a general anti-GM stance (yeah it may not seem it) but I am far from being totally pro-organic as I believe chemicals do have a place in agriculture.

Sorry, reading that back it all sounds like total pants.

I think that what might be seen as holding "conflicting ideals" is really just admitting the complexity of the situation - and as you say the practical reality that comes with that complexity. I'm anti-abortion, but I'm pro-choice. Seems like a conflict yet these are just simple labels that can't encompass the entire picture. I think it would be ideal if there were no abortions, but I don't think that making it illegal is a good thing.

Labels like anti-capitalist, pro-organic, and anti-GMO often serve to hide the complexity of a situation. One should always try to avoid applying a label to someone, especially if they have not used that label themselves.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Debunked: The Science Claims of Global March Against Chemtrails and Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Mick West Debunked: Cop Car Towed to Media Location then Torched at Million Mask March - BX10 LNV Conspiracy Theories 111
derwoodii Debunked: UFO ATTACKS TALIBAN CAMP !!! March 2014 UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
derrick06 Debunked: United Nations creates a "NWO" website Conspiracy Theories 2
N Debunked: Google Mail icon shows linkage to Freemasons Conspiracy Theories 4
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mendel Debunked: Radar Waves Affect Clouds General Discussion 0
Pumpernickel Need Debunking: Foucault's Pendulum debunked through Mach's principle (the Earth is a static object in the center of the Universe) Science and Pseudoscience 16
M Ufos arrive to the central zone of Chile. (Debunked). Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
H Debunked: Cadillac Mountain from 220 miles Flat Earth 7
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Mick West Debunked: DoD prepares for martial law in CONUS: Conspiracy Theories 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
A Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
Greylandra Debunked: media headline "Judea declares war on Germany" [boycott] Conspiracy Theories 20
Mick West Discovery Channel's "Contact: Declassified Breakthrough" was debunked 2.5 years ago UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
A Debunked : Fake Set Moon Landing with TV Camera and Stairs Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: Photo with Sun Rays at Odd Angles Flat Earth 0
Staffan Debunked: Wikileaks releases unused footage of moon landing (Capricorn One movie scenes) Conspiracy Theories 2
Mick West Debunked: Neil deGrasse Tyson : "That Stuff is Flat" Flat Earth 10
Mendel Debunked: Air Map of the World 1945 is a flat Earth map Flat Earth 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Trees being cut down "because they block 5G" (tree replacement in Belgium) 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 44
deirdre Debunked: Exemption from military service doc proves Jews had foreknowledge of WW2 (fake leaflet) General Discussion 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Obama called Michelle "Michael" in a speech. (Referring to Michael Mullen Jr) Quotes Debunked 0
Rory Debunked: 120-mile shot of San Jacinto proves flat earth Flat Earth 39
Rory Debunked: The Lunar Cycle affects birth rates Health and Quackery 26
Rory Debunked: Study shows link between menstrual cycle and the moon Health and Quackery 30
novatron Debunked: California Wildfires Match the Exactly Path of the Proposed Rail System Wildfires 3
Rory Debunked: "You must love yourself before you love another" - fake Buddha quote Quotes Debunked 7
W Debunked: Qanon claims there have been 51k sealed indictments filed this year. Current Events 11
K Debunked: Audio of David Rockefeller "leaked" speech in 1991 [Audio Simulation] General Discussion 2
tadaaa Debunked: Fake photos-Novichok attack Russian 'agents' (side by side gates) General Discussion 34
Mick West Debunked: XYO Device Replacing GPS, Saving $2 Million a Day General Discussion 23
Mick West Debunked: "Tip Top" as a QAnon Clue from Trump [He's said it before] Conspiracy Theories 3
Whitebeard Debunked: Nibiru FOUND? Mysterious gigantic rogue planet spotted lurking outside our solar system Science and Pseudoscience 1
Mick West Debunked: "There Exists a Shadowy Government" — Daniel Inouye Quotes Debunked 0
Mick West Debunked: Delta Lambda Compression General Discussion 16
MisterB Debunked: Isle of Man from Blackpool at water level proves flat earth [refraction] Flat Earth 19
JFDee Debunked: Wernher von Braun confirmed that rockets can't leave earth Conspiracy Theories 23
Mick West Debunked: Missing $21 Trillion / $6.5 Trillion / $2.3 Trillion - Journal Vouchers Conspiracy Theories 33
MikeG Debunked: Obamacare Article 54 (Satire FB Page) General Discussion 2
Mick West Debunked: "Deadly Ultraviolet UV-C and UV-B Penetration to Earth’s Surface:" [Stray Light] Contrails and Chemtrails 32
Astro Debunked: Apollo Lunar Module Hatch Too Small for Spacesuit Science and Pseudoscience 0
Mick West Debunked: NIST's Lack of Explanation for WTC7 Freefall [They Have One - Column Buckling] 9/11 38
Jedo Debunked: WTC7 was the only building not on the WTC block that had a fire on 9/11 9/11 0
Mick West Debunked: Thermite Slag on WTC beams [Oxy Cutting Slag] 9/11 2
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top