What is Happening in the USA

^ Sorry but I did reply to that argument of yours, of which you posted the link on the 1st page

[QUOTE] [b]hobbit in Rhye wrote:[/b]
Yes, I did read the link you provided. But that researcher, Alison Van Eenennaam, [i]has worked for Monsanto[/i]! I don't wholly discredit her work, but more independant results would be welcome. Also, as I said, environmental effects require a more complicated model than just some observations,[/QUOTE]

And if you look hard enough, there're plenty of analysis which refuted her studies, as many as the number of people who refute the studies proving GMO [i]might[/i] be harmful. They are all possibilities and none of the studies, on both sides, can be considered as scientifically rigorous, since the GMO traits are restricted by the company.

Also, that was only a point among my several points.


And while I don't think golden rice is a monster, it's not a savior either. I have written abundantly about it above.

[QUOTE] [b]hobbit in Rhye wrote:[/b]
But that researcher, Alison Van Eenennaam, [i]has worked for Monsanto[/i]! I don't wholly discredit her work, but more independant results would be welcome.[/QUOTE]
It's a catch 22. People with the hands on experience are qualified due to said experience, but accused of having a conflict of interest because their position results in their company making a profit. This really can't fly, as it's a simple fallacy that money = bad. Where is that breaking point where enough profits make a company's interests inherently bad?

But in this case, the fact that she no longer works for the company makes that a non-issue. Her research IS independent, because she doesn't have anyone to answer to.

Clearly you're more knowledgeable of the specifics than I am, but I do need to direct you here:

http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise

^ this is a wonderful article. It turns out it's on a right wing extremist's website, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. This is absolutely bang on.

[QUOTE]if you look hard enough, there're plenty of analysis which refuted her studies[/QUOTE]
I know you're no fool, but the "do your own research" line usually comes from conspiracy quacks who want you to go to places like naturalnews.com and mercola.com to get "real" information. You're clearly far above that. Provide links and I'll be happy to check them out.

When I'm not an expert in something, I trust experts. Of course they can be wrong as nobody's infallible, so I simply wait for someone to prove them wrong. But as it stands right now, there isn't a single peer-reviewed scientific paper reporting a single proven long term problem with GMO food.

The one area where I share your concerns is in biodiversity and genetic diversity. All I can say is - in a world which will soon have 9 billion people, they need to get fed. Corporate models lead to far too much food being thrown out, so GMO food, while not being the best possible option, really is the best option we have at this point, combined with educating women in third world countries to have less babies.

I don’t question the moral of Alison Van Eenennaam or of her study, it’s not about moral here. There’s a reason the tax inspector must be from outside the company under inspecting. Among the many articles published by both sides, Van Eenennaam’s study is just one questionable observation that can’t be used to cement the conclusion “The Debate About GMO Safety Is Over”. Questionable, because of the shortcomings analysed in the links below, and also because of its lack of independence – you may classify it as independence, but there are people, me included, who don’t consider an ex Monsanto 4-years employee as enough independence. There’s no strict standard for this conception, I’m afraid we’ll never agree on it, so we might respectfully agree to disagree.

Now, for the shortcoming analyses of her study:

http://www.examiner.com/article/so-called-trillion-meal-study-of-gmo-safety-is-junk

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15677-van-eenennaam-study-marred-by-bias-and-scientific-shortcomings

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15669

I don’t know if those websites are right wing or left wing, but they made some logical points about the shortcomings.

You, and “The death of expertise”, are right about expert opinion. However, we’ll have to disagree once more on the conception of GMO experts. There are biology experts, and agroecology experts (not all of them support GMO by the way), but what is a GMO expert, in a science branch that is as young and yet as complicated? Considering the extremely complex nature of DNA, the enormous science effort to decode DNA structure, and the very confusing relation between human body and foods, I myself don’t think the GMO experiences are enough to be called expertise. One biology professor at University of Paris-Sud agrees with me too. That’s not to say that GMOs are wrong, it’s only to say that scientific opinions are divided in this subject.

I’m not fear-mongering, I’m just interested in the pros and con of things around me. And it’s not fair to label the anti-GMO as anti-science, or pro-GMO as pro-science. There are fantasies on both sides. While pro people choose to support it because it hasn’t been proven wrong, the anti people don’t support it because it hasn’t been proven right either.

The Examiner link was a good read.

gmwatch - their very namesakes indicates they have an anti-GMO agenda. Sites like that are full of confirmation bias. They just can't count as an unbiased source.

Good discussion overall !

I think:

The United States is a massive country. It is the third most populous in the world. (Yes, former table quizzer!)

It has given so much in terms of invention to the world and continues to do so.

It is not perfect, of course. In the context of its size how significant are the problems?

Honestly, the questions the starter asked are transient.

I have just returned from a great trip to the United States visiting an old friend. I love to visit and appreciate what is good as in every country I visit. I can see the downsides as well. I prefer to live where I am for a few reasons.

So, for those Americans who seem to be knocking the US - where would you rather live?

Any positive things going on in the US Greaserkat?

(oh, and I was in Los Angeles last week btw!) Whereabouts are you?

There’s a lot more police related killings in Brazil than the USA.

However, Trump supporters put a bigot in office. Former criminals are down on their knees praising the police.

Nazi USA. It’s disgusting.

@Voice of Reason 2018: I apologize for the every late reply of almost 2 and 1/2 years, lol. Well, one positive thing that happened a couple of months ago was that the New England Patriots of the NFL lost in the Super, and that was a very happy thing to happen in this country!! But besides that, Im pretty sure you have heard by now who is in charge of this country as President, so I will leave it at that.

How did you like Los Angeles? I am currently located in the San Gabriel Valley, but I work on the university campus that the Los Angeles Galaxy has their stadium in.

In my opinion, it is not only in the US but the whole world is actually in turmoil

Good thing that Texas allows teachers to carry guns, and that Texas conservative christians offer their prayers ...