Deranged Rhino Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 Dangerous how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 (edited) Why?no real reasons. Costs, effectiveness, outside their realm. Some will argue pressure from the beef industry.http://reason.com/archives/2016/01/16/why-the-usdas-abdication-of-grass-fed-la This is about a good as I could find. But to me it's not really a reason. I am AAWA and AGA certified. This won't impact me at all Also this.http://www.motherearthnews.com/natural-health/nutrition/usda-grass-fed-zbwz1601zbre.aspx Edited March 18, 2016 by Boyst62 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackFergy Posted March 19, 2016 Author Share Posted March 19, 2016 It's a dangerous game though, isn't it? Surely no reasonable person would be against another person changing their mind on issues as they become more informed. But it's also an easy out for anyone caught in a pickle to suddenly "evolve" on a contentious issue. Gator tries it all the time. He'll say something, get blasted for it, so he claims he was kidding for a few minutes until he evolves again and claims he never said anything in the first place. It's hard to tell sometimes who's being genuine in reagards to their flip flopping. A lefty will never admit they were wrong or confused. They will vehemently maintain a position even when science proves their stance is grounded in rhetoric and emotions. The GMO debate is just such an instance where people in small towns are buying into the "anti GMO" cause because their affluent/artsy neighbors boast about it at cocktail parties and lecture others on the "poisons" caused by GMO (not realizing that if you take one untreated seed and borrow certain superior genetic traits for another untreated seed, you are not creating poison...you are creating a superior seed that can tolerate drought, moisture, sun, shade, sand, winters and a large variety of slugs and pests). To actually discuss this in a logical way with an anti-GMOer is the challenge. They will not reconsider the science behind it because they are convinced (based on their indoctrination into the Church of All Things Left) that GMO = the end times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 A lefty will never admit they were wrong or confused. They will vehemently maintain a position even when science proves their stance is grounded in rhetoric and emotions. The GMO debate is just such an instance where people in small towns are buying into the "anti GMO" cause because their affluent/artsy neighbors boast about it at cocktail parties and lecture others on the "poisons" caused by GMO (not realizing that if you take one untreated seed and borrow certain superior genetic traits for another untreated seed, you are not creating poison...you are creating a superior seed that can tolerate drought, moisture, sun, shade, sand, winters and a large variety of slugs and pests). To actually discuss this in a logical way with an anti-GMOer is the challenge. They will not reconsider the science behind it because they are convinced (based on their indoctrination into the Church of All Things Left) that GMO = the end times. Wow. Where does being left have anything to do with the non-GMO BS? Enviro BS? I have always understood the importance that GMO has brought to the table. I have never been anti-GMO. I agree with everything you say except the lefty thing... I lean much left on everything except this GMO and enviro hysteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 A lefty will never admit they were wrong or confused. They will vehemently maintain a position even when science proves their stance is grounded in rhetoric and emotions. The GMO debate is just such an instance where people in small towns are buying into the "anti GMO" cause because their affluent/artsy neighbors boast about it at cocktail parties and lecture others on the "poisons" caused by GMO (not realizing that if you take one untreated seed and borrow certain superior genetic traits for another untreated seed, you are not creating poison...you are creating a superior seed that can tolerate drought, moisture, sun, shade, sand, winters and a large variety of slugs and pests). To actually discuss this in a logical way with an anti-GMOer is the challenge. They will not reconsider the science behind it because they are convinced (based on their indoctrination into the Church of All Things Left) that GMO = the end times. I hear you, living in LA you hear this kind of hysteria a lot. My concern with GMO is more to do with things like terminator seeds and claiming IP over seeds in general, which isn't really anti-GMO at all but more anti letting a single corporation own the world's seed supply. From a practical standpoint, there's nothing inherently wrong or dangerous about genetically modifying seeds. Farmers have been doing that since the beginning of agriculture. Technology has just given people today the ability to do so more efficiently and more expertly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 I hear you, living in LA you hear this kind of hysteria a lot. My concern with GMO is more to do with things like terminator seeds and claiming IP over seeds in general, which isn't really anti-GMO at all but more anti letting a single corporation own the world's seed supply. From a practical standpoint, there's nothing inherently wrong or dangerous about genetically modifying seeds. Farmers have been doing that since the beginning of agriculture. Technology has just given people today the ability to do so more efficiently and more expertly. That is exactly my concern... The intellectual property rights. I am all for and always have been for GMO's bettering humankind! Aren't GMO's vs. Natural kind like trying to find the difference in a natural pearl vs. a cultured pearl... Both still form naturally... OR am I wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackFergy Posted March 19, 2016 Author Share Posted March 19, 2016 That is exactly my concern... The intellectual property rights. I am all for and always have been for GMO's bettering humankind! Aren't GMO's vs. Natural kind like trying to find the difference in a natural pearl vs. a cultured pearl... Both still form naturally... OR am I wrong? Yes, but people have a habit of confusing the seed division of a company with the chemical division. The seed division spends millions of dollars hiring geneticists, constructing labs, greenhouses, etc. and creating a genetic sequence that is "unique" - if a farmer has to buy that seed and pay a premium for it, he does so because it yields a larger crop than standard seed. Intellectual property rights aside, the costs for the company are huge to get to that point. Believing the company should just give the seed away for free is left leaning IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 Weren't they looking at splicing a frog's gene into a tomato to give it a longer shelf life? I think those kinds of GE are what some people get the hebegeebees about. Frankenfruits, Zombieveggies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 (edited) Yes, but people have a habit of confusing the seed division of a company with the chemical division. The seed division spends millions of dollars hiring geneticists, constructing labs, greenhouses, etc. and creating a genetic sequence that is "unique" - if a farmer has to buy that seed and pay a premium for it, he does so because it yields a larger crop than standard seed. Intellectual property rights aside, the costs for the company are huge to get to that point. Believing the company should just give the seed away for free is left leaning IMO.I don't think they should give it away. Now If it blows into your neighbor's plot... So be it... OR one farmer engages in the age old process of taking seed from current plants for next season's propagation, I don't think his neighbor should narc him out. The seeds through seasons will yields diminishing returns and they will have to buy again eventually. Just take the greed out of the equation. Edited March 19, 2016 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts