Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JeffA who wrote (102063)	4/26/2005 3:23:56 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

If you are going to make grand statements about serious subjects at Feelies, you have to back them up somehow with facts, or your statements don't have any substance. Simply criticizing the source of information is not enough. There are many, many sites, some of which belong to respected groups like the World Health Organization and lots of scientific organizations, about the fact that GM crops are dangerous, will not do anything to solve hunger, etc. Also lots of sites supporting the fact that it is poverty, not lack of food, that causes hunger. So growing GM crops cannot solve that. In fact, GM crops will add to hunger and political instability in the world by taking the means of feeding their families out of third world farmers' hands because they cannot save their own seeds and must buy Monsanto's seeds, instead. I do hope you are not implying that Monsanto's site is reputable or science based? They are simply out to make huge profits. They are not interested in people's health or well being at all. If they were, they never would have invented that bovine growth hormone that endangers human health and makes cows' lives unbearably painful as well. You make another illogical statement when you say that organic farming is too intensive for large scale. If we are really interested in feeding the world, there is no real reason why farming should even be large scale. Family farms can be very productive. Unfortunately in America, farmers bought into the notion that they needed the best, newest technology and pesticides. These machines and poisons are very expensive. Farmers went into debt trying to compete, and many could not, and lost their farms. I think it is clear from your statements that you support large agricultural/chemical companies. What is not as clear is whether you have just accepted as fact everything they say, or could cite reputable independent scientifically oriented arguments supporting that. It is an interesting discussion to have. But you cannot simply assert the same things over and over without scientific documentation, or simply attack my sources as "activist." Let's see, "activist" might imply that the organization citing the facts might be more neutral, or interested in people actually eating food to survive, than a company that is simply interested in making money. There is no absolute indication, then, that "activist" information, usually supplied on this subject by international studies, is less true or reliable than information supplied by Monsanto. And there are a LOT of sources saying the same thing. I could post a barrage of them, actually. John Hopkins University does a lot of research about food sources and agricultural practices, for example. It's fine if you don't feel like discussing agricultural practices, of course. You are welcome to just hang out and chat. But serious subjects need to be handled in a serious way.