Neil Young takes on Monsanto

PJ_Soul

rgambs said:

riotgrl said:

Glyphosate crosses the placenta.
https://uclm.es/Actividades/repositorio/pdf/doc_3721_4666.pdf

This study links glyphosate with increased estrogen which is the main cause for most breast cancer cell growth.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170

Whoa whoa whoa...pump the brakes!
Glyphosate is an herbicide that is used on non-GMO crops as well as the Round-Up Ready crops.
To say GMO is unhealthy because it is often grown in glyphosate is akin to saying broccoli is unhealthy because people put cheese sauce on it.

Thank you!
I am 100% convinced that most people who are against GMOs have no idea why they are against them. They seem to assume that them being GMO makes them dangerous to your health, but there is ZERO evidence of that, and I don't think there ever will be any evidence of that. The harm that pesticides might do is a completely different issue. I cannot believe the way certain media spins GMO stories to make them seem dangerous for health when they aren't. The REAL issue with GMOs is how they harm local economies and independent farmers, especially in poorer countries, and they are gradually putting the agricultural industry closer to the same sinister lines that the pharmaceutical companies occupy. THAT is why I am not in favour of GMOs. These other articles about how they harm people or kill bees, etc etc are pure bullshit as far as I can tell.
If you're going to hate GMOs and GMO companies, at least hate them for the right reasons.

jeffbr

brianlux said:

You can read articles that argue both sides and find some that will suite your tastes. You can be persuaded one way or another. You have that choice. You also have the choice to make up your own mind about what makes sense to eat and not to eat. Enjoy your Frankenfood, Jeff.

Definitely, Brian! I'm with you on reading both sides. I see a ton of benefit and no real downside with GE food. Whether they are modified simply for taste or convenience, or for real environmental issues like drought tolerance, disease or pest resistance, or to increase nutritional value for dying kids in 3rd world countries, we're making good progress with science. I understand the distrust of Monsanto. I don't understand the fear of science the anti-GMO folks seem to embrace. Much like climate change deniers, and anti-vaxxers, If you want to avoid GMO foods, I think that is completely fine. As you said, it is your choice, and you are free to decide. But when Greenpeace actively blocks the availability of nutritional crops to 3rd world countries, and ignores science while kids are dying, they are denying those people the choice you and I believe we should all have.

I would love to see an answer to dignin's original question posed some months ago:

dignin said:

Can anyone post some peer reviewed research showing the correlation between GMO's and negative health affects on humans?

brianlux

jeffbr said:

brianlux said:

You can read articles that argue both sides and find some that will suite your tastes. You can be persuaded one way or another. You have that choice. You also have the choice to make up your own mind about what makes sense to eat and not to eat. Enjoy your Frankenfood, Jeff.

Definitely, Brian! I'm with you on reading both sides. I see a ton of benefit and no real downside with GE food. Whether they are modified simply for taste or convenience, or for real environmental issues like drought tolerance, disease or pest resistance, or to increase nutritional value for dying kids in 3rd world countries, we're making good progress with science. I understand the distrust of Monsanto. I don't understand the fear of science the anti-GMO folks seem to embrace. Much like climate change deniers, and anti-vaxxers, If you want to avoid GMO foods, I think that is completely fine. As you said, it is your choice, and you are free to decide. But when Greenpeace actively blocks the availability of nutritional crops to 3rd world countries, and ignores science while kids are dying, they are denying those people the choice you and I believe we should all have.

I would love to see an answer to dignin's original question posed some months ago:

dignin said:

Can anyone post some peer reviewed research showing the correlation between GMO's and negative health affects on humans?

Fair enough, Jeff. And although I do respect you concern for feeding the hungry I would suggest that the solution to that problem is to lower populations to sustainable numbers in any region and to help 3rd world countries become self-sustaining rather than dependent. Also, unless energy sources that are as cheap and plentiful (and hopefully cleaner) than fossil fuels become available, the "green revolution" will end when the fuel runs low.

Here's what I came up with so far in answer to dignin's question:

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/08/10-scientific-studies-proving-gmos-can-be-harmful-to-human-health/

Frankly Jeff, an exhaustive search for articles about GMO's would probably result in a greater number of them saying GMO's are safe rather than not safe. Even the esteemed scientist E. O. Wilson has argued that GMO's are probably safe and I'm a big E. O. Wilson fan.

But I still stand firm in my distrust of GMO's for two basic reasons:

1). We don't know the long term effects of GMO's on human and other animals health or how their use will alter ecosystems over a long period of time. The possibility that they will permanently alter ecosystems is good to great. Is the potential that these changes could have negative, permanent long-term effects worth the short term gain?

2). I want the option to live in a world where ecosystems and ecological balances are determined by natural systems and cycles. I don't want to live in a world artificially altered by humans tinkering with nature.

It is already too late for that. I was born into a world that was still predominantly natural in it's make up, a world in which weather patterns were not quite yet altered by burning fossil fuels, a world where one city in America (Flagstaff, AZ) could still legitimately claim to have clean air. Today, most of the world's ecosystems have been long-term or permanently damaged, the climate has been anthropogenically altered and there are no longer any cities that have clean air. I will argue against further artificial altering of our world until the day I die because I remember living in a real world. I bet on earth and sky.

PJ_Soul

Brian, do you think that farmed food crops are really a part of ecosystems and ecological balances now? I would argue that they aren't, really. There is nothing natural about it in the first place, GMO or no GMO.

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

Brian, do you think that farmed food crops are really a part of ecosystems and ecological balances now? I would argue that they aren't, really. There is nothing natural about it in the first place, GMO or no GMO.

Well, good point, actually. In fact, it could be argued that the advent of agriculture thousands of years ago ended the natural world.

But crops grown organically have little or no long-term affect on an ecosystem. A farm field left fallow will so revert to pioneer plants and through ecological succession will become either a natural dessert, a grassland meadow, or shrubs will replace pioneer plants which in turn will become a woodland- first a young forest and eventually an old growth forest. So yes, I would argue that all land sea and air are part of ecosystems. Plus it's fairly well know that pollen from GMO crops drift on wind and affect non-GMO crops.

Edit: I must be becoming a sentimental old fool. When I think about things like natural succession and how we have disrupted those processes and see the sky become more polluted each year watch the earth continue to degrade I become very weary and depressed.

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Brian, do you think that farmed food crops are really a part of ecosystems and ecological balances now? I would argue that they aren't, really. There is nothing natural about it in the first place, GMO or no GMO.

Well, good point, actually. In fact, it could be argued that the advent of agriculture thousands of years ago ended the natural world.

But crops grown organically have little or no long-term affect on an ecosystem. A farm field left fallow will so revert to pioneer plants and through ecological succession will become either a natural dessert, a grassland meadow, or shrubs will replace pioneer plants which in turn will become a woodland- first a young forest and eventually an old growth forest. So yes, I would argue that all land sea and air are part of ecosystems. Plus it's fairly well know that pollen from GMO crops drift on wind and affect non-GMO crops.

Edit: I must be becoming a sentimental old fool. When I think about things like natural succession and how we have disrupted those processes and see the sky become more polluted each year watch the earth continue to degrade I become very weary and depressed.

Well on that note, all I can say is that it seems like GMOs are the least of our problems right now.

jeffbr

Thanks for the discussion, PJSoul and Brian. I like the exchange of ideas here. I separate the GMO discussion from the commercial agriculture discussion in my mind. I think they are two different things. I agree with Brian about the harm these large commercial agricultural practices have done to the ecosystem, and that has been the case for years, GMO plants or not. I have seen zero evidence that GMOs have any ill effects on humans. In fact, most of the byproducts of GMOs are already naturally occurring, just maybe not in the same food source (see for example golden rice). So I don't think there is any inconsistency with having no issues with GMOs and being opposed to Monsanto's predatory practices. The only reason I piped up is when somehow Monsanto = GMO = Evil. That is an equation that I don't see. And Brian, thanks for the link above, I'll check that out.

PJ_Soul

jeffbr said:

Thanks for the discussion, PJSoul and Brian. I like the exchange of ideas here. I separate the GMO discussion from the commercial agriculture discussion in my mind. I think they are two different things. I agree with Brian about the harm these large commercial agricultural practices have done to the ecosystem, and that has been the case for years, GMO plants or not. I have seen zero evidence that GMOs have any ill effects on humans. In fact, most of the byproducts of GMOs are already naturally occurring, just maybe not in the same food source (see for example golden rice). So I don't think there is any inconsistency with having no issues with GMOs and being opposed to Monsanto's predatory practices. The only reason I piped up is when somehow Monsanto = GMO = Evil. That is an equation that I don't see. And Brian, thanks for the link above, I'll check that out.

I don't see the GMO = Evil part. But I do see the Monsanto = Evil part. It's all a matter of how to compete with GMO farms. Some of these GMOs don't even reproduce, so the only way farmers can grow it is to buy the damn seeds every season. As long as companies like Monsanto are running the show, that is not a sustainable way to farm, and the ones who will suffer most will be the ones who can least afford to. The poor independent farmers of the world will not be able to survive in a GMO world.... and MOST of the world's farmers are poor independent ones who feed poor local populations. I think the growth of GMO products could directly lead to a global economic crisis eventually, and that will involve food shortages in the poorest nations. That is, IF the GMO industry keeps going the way it is now, with greedy motherfuckers taking ownership of it. If governments took it over and regulated it properly and fairly, it could probably prevent food shortages and help stabilize economies. GMOs could be a wonderful thing for the world... But I certainly am not holding my breath. I fully expect the fucking giant corporations to win this one, like they always do. They are well on their way already.

Last-12-Exit

Not really related to the thread topic but I know there are many uncle Neil fans here. Neil has decided to stop streaming his music. Not that he really has a choice. He claims it has to do with sound quality and not money.
Streaming has ended for me," the Canadian folk bard wrote yesterday on his Facebook (FB, Tech30) page. "I hope this is ok for my fans. It's not because of the money, although my share (like all other artists) was dramatically reduced by bad calls made without my consent."

"It's about sound quality," Young continued, explaining his decision to pull all his music from streaming services. "I don't need my music to be devalued by the worst quality in the history of broadcasting or any other form of distribution. I don't feel right allowing this to be sold to my fans. It's bad for my music."

Uhh, uncle neil, nobody sitting in their car kn the way home from work tunes yiu in for the sound quality. They just want to hear rockin in the free world. Personally, I think it's a silly move. This is how music is broadcast now. Radio is pretty much dead all while pandora, spotify, satellite radio, and satellite radio are flourishing. Sorry uncle neil, I think you're going to anger many fans.

PJ_Soul

Last-12-Exit said:

Not really related to the thread topic but I know there are many uncle Neil fans here. Neil has decided to stop streaming his music. Not that he really has a choice. He claims it has to do with sound quality and not money.
Streaming has ended for me," the Canadian folk bard wrote yesterday on his Facebook (FB, Tech30) page. "I hope this is ok for my fans. It's not because of the money, although my share (like all other artists) was dramatically reduced by bad calls made without my consent."

"It's about sound quality," Young continued, explaining his decision to pull all his music from streaming services. "I don't need my music to be devalued by the worst quality in the history of broadcasting or any other form of distribution. I don't feel right allowing this to be sold to my fans. It's bad for my music."

Uhh, uncle neil, nobody sitting in their car kn the way home from work tunes yiu in for the sound quality. They just want to hear rockin in the free world. Personally, I think it's a silly move. This is how music is broadcast now. Radio is pretty much dead all while pandora, spotify, satellite radio, and satellite radio are flourishing. Sorry uncle neil, I think you're going to anger many fans.

Can't they just plug in their mp3 players or CDs on the ride home? Seems easy enough to me.
I respect Neil's views on this. He finds sound quality really really important. He has a connection with his music, and doesn't want it to be heard like that. I think that's totally fair. There are PLENTY of other options besides steaming available to his fans.

JimmyV

He lost me with his claim that AM radio sounded better than streaming. Figure this has more to do with finances than sound quality.

brianlux

Other than talking about NY,we're definitely getting off topic. How unusual, LOL!

Back in '92, Young wrote an article called "Digital is a Huge Rip-Off" (in Guitar Player, May '92, p.14). I wish I could find the text for that article to reprint it here. It'ss worth checking out because it illustrates how Neil has had a huge concern for sound quality for a long time. And we're not talking snooty $250,000 audiophile stuff- just good quality sound sources for what ever stereo a person can afford Young. Immediately upon pulling his music off streaming, Young has been bombarded with accusations of doing this to promote his Pono system in order to make more money. I'm not inside the guys head so I can't say this for sure, but having been a fan and following the man's work for just shy of 50 years, I really, really doubt that is his motivation. The man has championed quality recording sound for a long time. He continues to care about the sound issue and continues to make new music and push himself because he is true to the art. He's not one of these guys who sits back and rehashes his old stuff endlessly for the easy buck. Fans who have issues with how Young makes and distributes his music probably are not very familiar with those aspects of his work ethic.

Edit: I got my first AM radio in 1965. I went to bed and but the mono ear piece in one ear and was in music heaven. That night I heard Dylan's "Like A Rolling Stone" for the first time and my mind was blown and permanently rearranged in good order. Maybe that's why I'm good with AM radio sound, haha, but hey, it was analog!

brianlux

dignin said:

Can anyone post some peer reviewed research showing the correlation between GMO's and negative health affects on humans?

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=57871#.Vaq-JfmCV-y

Free

http://www.theyucatantimes.com/2016/09/monsanto-loses-gmo-permit-in-mexico/

Monsanto loses GMO permit in Mexico

...“A district judge in the state of Yucatán last month overturned a permit issued to Monsanto by Mexico’s agriculture ministry, Sagarpa, and environmental protection agency, Semarnat, in June 2012 that allowed commercial planting of Round-up ready Soybeans. In withdrawing the permit, the judge was convinced by the scientific evidence presented about the threats posed by GM soy crops to honey production in the Yucatán peninsula, which includes Campeche, Quintana Roo and Yucatán states. Co-existence between honey production and GM soybeans is not possible, the judge ruled.”

unsung

I did not read every reply but does Mr. Young have issue with the Obama administration assigning ex-Monsanto executives to cabinet positions?

Spiritual_Chaos

Documents Reveal Monsanto Surveilled Journalists, Activists & Even Musician Neil Young

https://youtu.be/-oMrENOn2HE

mickeyrat

ummm, arent there different categories for gmo products?

like with monsanto, these are primarily chemical based arent they? with gene manipulation.

other side of gmo are the hybrids and the like.

and some mix in between.

brianlux

mickeyrat said:

ummm, arent there different categories for gmo products?

like with monsanto, these are primarily chemical based arent they? with gene manipulation.

other side of gmo are the hybrids and the like.

and some mix in between.

I think so.  I see hybrid GMO as something very different than laboratory/ chemical bases GMO. 

On the other end of the spectrum are heirloom plants vegetables, strains of which are being kept alive by organizations such as Seed Savers Exchange:

https://www.seedsavers.org/story

mickeyrat

brianlux said:

mickeyrat said:

ummm, arent there different categories for gmo products?

like with monsanto, these are primarily chemical based arent they? with gene manipulation.

other side of gmo are the hybrids and the like.

and some mix in between.

I think so.  I see hybrid GMO as something very different than laboratory/ chemical bases GMO. 

On the other end of the spectrum are heirloom plants vegetables, strains of which are being kept alive by organizations such as Seed Savers Exchange:

https://www.seedsavers.org/story

so why isnt the distinction made in the anti argument? seems the narrative conveniently overlooks the hybrids or other nonchem methods of modification.

brianlux

mickeyrat said:

brianlux said:

mickeyrat said:

ummm, arent there different categories for gmo products?

like with monsanto, these are primarily chemical based arent they? with gene manipulation.

other side of gmo are the hybrids and the like.

and some mix in between.

I think so.  I see hybrid GMO as something very different than laboratory/ chemical bases GMO. 

On the other end of the spectrum are heirloom plants vegetables, strains of which are being kept alive by organizations such as Seed Savers Exchange:

https://www.seedsavers.org/story

so why isnt the distinction made in the anti argument? seems the narrative conveniently overlooks the hybrids or other nonchem methods of modification.

I think we need different terms to distinguish the two.

By the way, in a more perfect world with a reasonable number of humans (as opposed to our overpopulation) I would argue in favor of eliminating most hybrids with a few exceptions including cannabis for medical purposes.  But we're in very imperfect human dominated world and hybrids are everywhere so "no go" on that one.