Deflection- what a wonderful description of certain methods of response.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hoogle

You know, I had an epiphany of sorts today. I have no vested interest in this debate past a certain degree which I’ve already passed. I’m normally not so argumentative. So, I’m going to let go of trying to convince people GM foods might not be safe. I would just maintain that, scientifically, that’s an unknown. If people want to accept: ‘nothing’s happened so far’ as a measure of safety, and if those people are the majority, well…majority rules! I think maybe the concern that’s pushed me into argument is: whether or not something has happened so far is really impossible to assess. Further, I’m concerned that people are way too trusting of government regulations in the face of the influence of multinational corporations. When there’s big money at stake, I become skeptical of the motives of those MNCs.

I think it’s very likely that the average person doesn’t have time to concern himself with issues over which he feels powerless.
And, I believe the rational approach to unknowns should be: caution. But I seem to be in the minority here as well. Or, possibly, the silent majority.

Finally, based on research, I will continue to contend that: GM crops do not improve yield, they increase use of pesticides in the long run, encourage monoculture and decrease biodiversity, offer no help for farming in dry areas, don’t solve the nitrogen problem, and have sucked up the resources that could help develop more traditional breeding methods that have shown promise in addressing these issues. And, as they’re currently marketed, GM crops are disadvantageous for poor independent farmers in countries where they’re irresponsibly promoted. We don’t need ‘em!

Being eager to extricate myself from this conversation, I am happy to let Mike B and bug guy have the last word if they wish to.
thanks friends

I don’t see that Stephen Barrett any credentials by which to judge the field of environmental medicine. I think it’s possible he doesn’t even know what it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_medicine
He’s a retired psychiatrist (who never passed his boards) who claims to be an authority on nutrition.

He’s a “Member, Board of Scientific Advisors, American Council on Science and Health”
which is not a very highly rated charity:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=8177
and is on a watch list itself:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Council_on_Science_and_Health
(note corporate funding – sounds like a possible conflict of interest to me.)
I had never heard of him before but apparently he’s pretty famous.

But why am I defending what i’ve said? Can’t you reply to ANYTHING specific or directly? Can you take a stab at critiquing the individual studies on the AAEM site? or ANY of the scientific studies I’ve linked you to through ANY of the websites I’ve posted in ANY of my comments? Or will you continue to simply make insinuations about people and their motives?

I’m really starting to resent your comments to me. Please don’t make any more unless you’re going to have some kind of 2-way conversation, as I’ve tried to do with you. I end up wasting my time trying to defend myself against unwarranted criticisms.

SBM is an opinion-based blog just like this one. More on that later as it relates to organic vs. conventional diet.

I am certain that we can feed the world without any GMO crops. We have done so for some centuries now, and unless you can tell me specifically why they are needed now, I see no need to accept any contamination from them.

You miss the point about being neighborly:
There is no need for me to take my neighbor to court- he never leaves his property on mine. And if his property does end up on mine, he is more than willing to remove it and pay damages. That’s because he is a good neighbor.
Funny, that’s exactly what I’ve been suggesting Monsanto do from the beginning- act like a good neighbor.

You say that if I agree that there can be no GMO-free food, then we can discuss co-existence. But I’m for GMO-free food. Food with zero GMO in it.
How does agreeing that what I want can’t exist make for a discussion of co-existence?
Realize, that what I’m asking to exist does in fact exist, so I’m not asking for the impossible.

I think GMO food can exist and I thing non-GMO food can exist. In fact, they both exist right now. I think it can stay that way.
I think that if they would agree to clean up their mess when their exclusively owned property is on someone else’s who doesn’t want it there- and agreed to fix any damages- both could exist in the future.

What is it that you object to specifically-
I say Monsanto should come remove their property from mine if it is there without my consent. Do you agree or disagree?
I say that Monsanto should pay for the damages their exclusively owned property has caused (assuming some damage)- do you agree or disagree?

Perhaps if I knew what your specific disagreement was we could get better understanding.

You cite “American Association of Environmental Medicine.” There is no such organization.

Surely you don’t mean the American Academy of Environmental Medicine?

The one on Quackwatch’s list of “Questionable Organizations”?

The one the indomitable Dr. Harriet Hall debunks here?

The Problem with Nutritionally Enhanced Plants
online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/jmf.2008.0094

and, I apologize for this, but -it’s so funny how you grouse about organic and then provide links that support it!