First Amendment.....naaaaaaaaaahhhhhh....not in Minnesota..?

[Moralspain]

to be honest i watch Fox, CNN and read the New York Times, but the point is that the main info we get from you is from our own TV news channels or newspapers, and as you can imagine, all we get are bad news and stereotypes (fat people all around (junk food), people with guns shooting at schools, a strange morality blablabla) not our fault i guess.
I guess all you know about Spain, for example, (if you know something) is we kill toros (bullfighting), Nadal, Flamenco and paella,truth is we don't know a shit about other countries issues we only get what the media want, and most of the times just false stereotypes.

[beltic caldy]

being all scientifically inclined, I don't tend to take any single information source as definitive - certainly not entertainment-'news', and am not surprised to hear to say likewise man.

Jay and Coke - I'm not singling America out for bashing nor am I ignoring daft/dangerous laws in the UK/Europe.

I suppose what concerns me largely here is a genuinely worrying pattern - namely, Food Regulatory bodies such as the FDA and USDA being lead/dictated to/influenced by Food Corporations...and now, legislation that, in effect, seeks to prevent ordinary people exposing examples of that. Before we get into a whole us/them situation, I'll say again that I've lived in America, amongst other countries - I'm not anti-American in the slightest - but to have a situation where a company like Monsanto can and is exerting huge and global-reaching influence on your Food industries, along with legislation that basically outlaws questioning those practices? That concerns me in a big way - that's all.

You raise a very interesting point about news versus entertainment too - a great many people in the UK 'read' or whatever the more correct verb is Tabloids - many of them aver with a hearty chortle that they know it's not 'real news'....yet come election time, the 'stories' (in the truest sense of the word) that have been prevalent in these rags seem somehow to hold much much bigger sway than any parties actual policies/actions/agengas - my point being that easily digestible entertainment news DOES actually have more significant political influence than might be assumed - both here and elsewhere.

Monsanto muscled anti-whistleblower legislation into place in Iowa, and a version thereof in Florida....through dollars thrown at the right lobby's in Washington - this happened under the noses of ordinary people who, had they known what was happening and been fully aware of the implications - the direct implications on the food you eat every day, would likely NOT have voted for it to go through.

But it's all very boring and tedious to talk about....so never mind, eh?

[Rob ITST]

to be honest i watch Fox, CNN and read the New York Times, but the point is that the main info we get from you is from our own TV news channels or newspapers, and as you can imagine, all we get are bad news and stereotypes (fat people all around (junk food), people with guns shooting at schools, a strange morality blablabla) not our fault i guess.
I guess all you know about Spain, for example, (if you know something) is we kill toros (bullfighting), Nadal, Flamenco and paella,truth is we don't know a shit about other countries issues we only get what the media want, and most of the times just false stereotypes.

Exactly. Too much of what's labeled as news, isn't really news at all - it's just entertainment.

And you're right, it's the media's fault that we only get stereotypes and "bad" news. But it's our fault if we let that shape our opinions.

[Moralspain]

But it's our fault if we let that shape our opinions.

so true

[beltic caldy]

to be honest i watch Fox, CNN and read the New York Times, but the point is that the main info we get from you is from our own TV news channels or newspapers, and as you can imagine, all we get are bad news and stereotypes (fat people all around (junk food), people with guns shooting at schools, a strange morality blablabla) not our fault i guess.
I guess all you know about Spain, for example, (if you know something) is we kill toros (bullfighting), Nadal, Flamenco and paella,truth is we don't know a shit about other countries issues we only get what the media want, and most of the times just false stereotypes.

i agree with much of what you say here man - again, it's a matter of scale and scope - if Spain engaged on a program of genetically modifying many of it's food staples, the rest of the world might say, with an element of legitimacy - 'so what?' - drop in the ocean kinda argument - but American food finds it's way to many many corners of the world - and this pattern of Food Companies (Giants, really) effectively telling the Food Regulators which way to jump, when it affects, adversely, so many is quite scary - further to that, their influence seems to be growing.....

[beltic caldy]

But it's our fault if we let that shape our opinions.

so true

it's our fault IF we let it shape our opinions.....or stand by and happily let it shape the opinions of people who DO actually 'kinda believe' entertainment news.

I'm not hopping on some Fox News/MSNBC etc bandwagon here - pretty much the opposite really - these are the 'boring' stories none of hear about until after the fact - next thing you know, 95% of all soya beans in mainland USA are genetically modified....oh...wait....that's already happened.....

[Rob ITST]

next thing you know, 95% of all soya beans in mainland USA are genetically modified....oh...wait....that's already happened.....

And to be honest, that's not necessarily a bad thing. The whole "genetically modified" label has a really bad rap. I'm not saying it's always good, but there are many advantages to it. Soy beans, for example, have been grown to produce higher levels of Omega-3.

What's really funny is that most people have no idea that pretty much all food (vegetation, at least) has been "genetically modified" for hundreds of years.

[beltic caldy]

next thing you know, 95% of all soya beans in mainland USA are genetically modified....oh...wait....that's already happened.....

And to be honest, that's not necessarily a bad thing. The whole "genetically modified" label has a really bad rap. I'm not saying it's always good, but there are many advantages to it. Soy beans, for example, have been grown to produce higher levels of Omega-3.

What's really funny is that most people have no idea that pretty much all food (vegetation, at least) has been "genetically modified" for hundreds of years.

erm....right.

So a company like Monsanto GM'ing Soy beans to make them resistant to a weed-killer (so that they can just dump this stuff on farm-land but the soy-beans will be ok).....this doesn't cause you concern? C'mon Rob....that's just silly now. Sure, boosting Omega-3 might be a nice benefit, but even then....artifical genetic modification, as opposed to evolution-influenced/natural selection/plant-splicing has only been practised in this way for less than a couple of decades.

Nobody knows what affect these products will have long-term, over multiple generations on humans - the direct affects - never mind the affects on the ecosystems they exist in and the indirect affect that that will have. To have steam-rolled to this level of production is the result of one thing and one thing only - capital gain at the cost of who knows what? Anyone - ANYONE who claims that the long-term affects of GM food, both on the food chain and the ecosystem are perfectly safe is either selling something, living with their head in the sand, or just plain lying - it's that simple.

Genetically modifying seeds/plants to this level is very new, relatively and very very loaded with unknowns - that's the opinion of this scientist - but don't take my word for it, by any means.

Sorry to disagree so strongly, but the scope of modification that that one company has been allowed to engage on and get directly into the food chain....well.....it's such uncharted water, that it dismays me greatly.

[beltic caldy]

on a more-or-less final note from me on this one - it wouldn't even be so bad, except that through patent-law and mobster-style tactics, a great many farmers/growers in the US can no longer obtain soy-bean seeds from anyone OTHER THAN Monsanto now - that this was allowed to happen is shocking....that it is allowed to continue and flourish? There is a concerted, orchestrated action happening with this that, rather than have people shore up defensive arguments, should, frankly, scare the bejesus enough to invoke talk and action at the grass-roots level.

If, through clumsy argument I've encouraged this kind of defensiveness or 'pushing people the other way', then please accept my heartfelt and sincere apologies - such was never, ever my intention. Is it better to sit back and hope things improve by themselves, against all the evidence, or to opine, and perhaps make them worse?


A few links on my way out the door.


Monsanto Material:


http://www.naturalnews.com/030967_Monsanto_evil.html

http://www.walletpop.com/2010/02/04/mon ... rigerator/

http://themomu.wordpress.com/2011/03/31 ... e-explain/

http://www.fivestarfiles.com/30866-monsanto.html



Anti Whistleblowing Material:

http://madmikesamerica.com/2011/04/big- ... ainst-law/


http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/03 ... ign=th_rss


http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/03 ... felony.php

[Rob ITST]

as opposed to evolution-influenced/natural selection/plant-splicing has only been practised in this way for less than a couple of decades.

Again, I'm not saying that all genetic modification is good, but if it's done right (at least, for the right reasons) then yes, it is less risky than splicing, cross pollination, etc. Those methods are like rolling dice - sometimes you get what you want, but sometimes there are unwanted side effects.

Most of the fear of genetic modification is just that, fear. Fear of the unknown, and fear of "playing God". But we've been doing it for a very long time through other, less controllable methods. Do a search on it, and look for some pro/con comparisons. Most of the "cons" are things like "possible side effects".

Again, I'm not saying it's all good. I just think there's been a lot of unjustified negative press about it. I can understand that people are scared when scientists go messing around with our food, it's just that those same people are oblivious to what has already been done to their food over hundreds of years.

And I know all about Monsanto - they're right in my back yard (almost, at least). My biggest problem with them is the way they try to patent their seeds, forcing farmers to buy them year after year. As far as making the plants resistant to pesticides, well, that's still up for debate (even though we've been doing that for a very long time as well).

[beltic caldy]

Yup, but genetic modifcation on the scale engaged in by Monsanto or anyone else, is not fear of the unknown - it is fear of the unknowable - justified and correct fear, if you will - you've said this a couple of times now but how do you reckon GM has been happening for hundreds of years? I may not be understanding correctly?

[Rob ITST]

If you splice/graft/cross pollinate two plants, you are genetically modifying them. Even the most basic methods of cultivation modify the plants genetically. But what we call "genetic modification" today is actually much better (again, if done right) because we can select the traits we want, without having undesirable consequences.

For example, many plants were selected throughout history because they took longer to spoil. At the same time, however, some of those lost part of their nutritional value. It's the classic "throwing out the baby with the bath water" scenario. We were doing it blindly. With the more exact methods we have today, that doesn't have to happen. We can isolate the gene that caused the plants to last longer, while preserving all the information that was responsible for giving it its nutritional value.

But you are right that it hasn't been done as responsibly as it should, and some of the modification has been done solely with commercial interests. I just think that making an automatic association with GM being something bad is going to hamper progress. People just need to be more educated so they can understand when GM is good, and when it isn't.

[beltic caldy]

just seeking clarification on what you meant by GM/hundreds of years man, thank you.

the GM I'm referring to, of course, has only actually been in practice since the mid-90's.

Hey, getting off the GM train for a moment, I'm thinking why sit back and just let these crazy anti-whistleblower laws get passed is all - Montana, Iowa, Idaho, Kansas....Florida......?

What do you reckon the best course of action is, if any?

[Rob ITST]

I know what you mean by GM. It's just like I said, I think the bad press it gets is going to hurt us in the long run. There's just too much potential for good in it.

As far as what to do about the anti-whistleblower laws in Montana, Iowa, Idaho, Kansas, and Florida - I'd let the residents of Montana, Iowa, Idaho, Kansas, and Florida deal with that.

I don't really know enough about it, and it looks like all the links you posted are pretty one sided - so I'd rather not learn from there. Like any law, there is a good side and a bad side to it. Maybe one of the reasons it got passed was that it protects farmers from invasion of privacy. Keep in mind, it's not just big corporations that it affects (even if they are the ones who are doing the lobbying), but many small farmers too. Sure, we have a right to know what is being done to our food, and no one should be unnecessarily cruel to animals, but I also know I don't want anyone to come videotape me at work without my permission (especially if my home is where I work, as is the case for many farmers) - no matter what their reasoning is. There has to be some reason these laws have passed - if they're as bad as you say, it's hard to imagine it standing a chance.

Maybe I'll read up on it more, and give you my opinion on it then.

[AUSSIE_FABS]

to be honest i watch Fox, CNN.

Egh..... What's the other one msnbc?

US mainstream media news is perhaps the worst I've seen. But stats are showing lots of people turning away which is good.
Oh btw libyan and north korea news prob worse but get what I'm saying.