Typical long thoughtful article in The New Yorker covers a lot of
ground on the subject. By Michael Specter in the August 25th issue.

On-line at http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...seeds-of-doubt

--
Silvar Beitel

> wrote in message
...
> Typical long thoughtful article in The New Yorker covers a lot of
> ground on the subject. By Michael Specter in the August 25th issue.
>
> On-line at http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...seeds-of-doubt
>
> --

Spector is a very well known paid shill for Monsanto, ADM and Bayer. He is
a journalist, not a scientist. His work is utterly without scientific value
and it often borders on ridiculous.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Sunday, August 31, 2014 2:59:54 PM UTC-4, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Typical long thoughtful article in The New Yorker covers a lot of
> > ground on the subject. By Michael Specter in the August 25th issue.
> >
> > On-line at http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...seeds-of-doubt
>
> Spector is a very well known paid shill for Monsanto, ADM and Bayer. He is
> a journalist, not a scientist. His work is utterly without scientific value
> and it often borders on ridiculous.
>

Others of you might want to actually read the article and not simply post
a knee-jerk attack on the author. You can Google "Michael Specter paid shill"
and see what you think of the results you get. You might also recognize that,
yes, he's a journalist, and the article is in The New Yorker, a magazine,
not a scientific journal. It explores the history, issues, politics
and ethics of GMOs, although it does touch on the manipulation of science
in the debate, and on the ethics involved.

--
Silvar Beitel

> wrote in message
...
> On Sunday, August 31, 2014 2:59:54 PM UTC-4, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Typical long thoughtful article in The New Yorker covers a lot of
>> > ground on the subject. By Michael Specter in the August 25th issue.
>> >
>> > On-line at http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...seeds-of-doubt
>>
>> Spector is a very well known paid shill for Monsanto, ADM and Bayer. He
>> is
>> a journalist, not a scientist. His work is utterly without scientific
>> value
>> and it often borders on ridiculous.
>>
>
> Others of you might want to actually read the article and not simply post
> a knee-jerk attack on the author. You can Google "Michael Specter paid
> shill"
> and see what you think of the results you get. You might also recognize
> that,
> yes, he's a journalist, and the article is in The New Yorker, a magazine,
> not a scientific journal. It explores the history, issues, politics
> and ethics of GMOs, although it does touch on the manipulation of science
> in the debate, and on the ethics involved.

The NYT has for years been a water carrier for the GMO lobby. They are not
neutral observers by any means. Some would call it shameless yellow
journalism when the NYT actually posts articles that claim anti-GMO
scientists are - in the words of the NYT - endangering public health.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Sunday, August 31, 2014 4:37:58 PM UTC-4, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sunday, August 31, 2014 2:59:54 PM UTC-4, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Typical long thoughtful article in The New Yorker covers a lot of
> >> > ground on the subject. By Michael Specter in the August 25th issue.
> >> >
> >> > On-line at http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...seeds-of-doubt
> >>
> >> Spector is a very well known paid shill for Monsanto, ADM and Bayer. He
> >> is
> >> a journalist, not a scientist. His work is utterly without scientific
> >> value
> >> and it often borders on ridiculous.
> >>
> >
> > Others of you might want to actually read the article and not simply post
> > a knee-jerk attack on the author. You can Google "Michael Specter paid
> > shill"
> > and see what you think of the results you get. You might also recognize
> > that,
> > yes, he's a journalist, and the article is in The New Yorker, a magazine,
> > not a scientific journal. It explores the history, issues, politics
> > and ethics of GMOs, although it does touch on the manipulation of science
> > in the debate, and on the ethics involved.
>
> The NYT has for years been a water carrier for the GMO lobby. They are not
> neutral observers by any means. Some would call it shameless yellow
> journalism when the NYT actually posts articles that claim anti-GMO
> scientists are - in the words of the NYT - endangering public health.
>

The article I posted about was in The New Yorker (a magazine with a long
and rich history of issue-exploring articles), not the New York Times (a
newspaper often referred to by the acronym NYT).

--
Silvar Beitel

> wrote in message
...
> On Sunday, August 31, 2014 4:37:58 PM UTC-4, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Sunday, August 31, 2014 2:59:54 PM UTC-4, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > Typical long thoughtful article in The New Yorker covers a lot of
>> >> > ground on the subject. By Michael Specter in the August 25th issue.
>> >> >
>> >> > On-line at
>> >> > http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...seeds-of-doubt
>> >>
>> >> Spector is a very well known paid shill for Monsanto, ADM and Bayer.
>> >> He
>> >> is
>> >> a journalist, not a scientist. His work is utterly without scientific
>> >> value
>> >> and it often borders on ridiculous.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Others of you might want to actually read the article and not simply
>> > post
>> > a knee-jerk attack on the author. You can Google "Michael Specter paid
>> > shill"
>> > and see what you think of the results you get. You might also
>> > recognize
>> > that,
>> > yes, he's a journalist, and the article is in The New Yorker, a
>> > magazine,
>> > not a scientific journal. It explores the history, issues, politics
>> > and ethics of GMOs, although it does touch on the manipulation of
>> > science
>> > in the debate, and on the ethics involved.
>>
>> The NYT has for years been a water carrier for the GMO lobby. They are
>> not
>> neutral observers by any means. Some would call it shameless yellow
>> journalism when the NYT actually posts articles that claim anti-GMO
>> scientists are - in the words of the NYT - endangering public health.
>>
>
> The article I posted about was in The New Yorker (a magazine with a long
> and rich history of issue-exploring articles), not the New York Times (a
> newspaper often referred to by the acronym NYT).

Spector remains a paid mouthpiece and he is not a scientist and has no
credentials to speak as one.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 31/08/2014 12:59 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> Typical long thoughtful article in The New Yorker covers a lot of
>> ground on the subject. By Michael Specter in the August 25th issue.
>>
>> On-line at http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...seeds-of-doubt
>>
>> --
>
> Spector is a very well known paid shill for Monsanto, ADM and Bayer. He is
> a journalist, not a scientist. His work is utterly without scientific value
> and it often borders on ridiculous.
>
Actually, I've noticed that anyone who disagrees with your point of view
is a
shill for some industry group or other! :-)
Graham

"graham" > wrote in message
...
> On 31/08/2014 12:59 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Typical long thoughtful article in The New Yorker covers a lot of
>>> ground on the subject. By Michael Specter in the August 25th issue.
>>>
>>> On-line at http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...seeds-of-doubt
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> Spector is a very well known paid shill for Monsanto, ADM and Bayer. He
>> is
>> a journalist, not a scientist. His work is utterly without scientific
>> value
>> and it often borders on ridiculous.
>>
> Actually, I've noticed that anyone who disagrees with your point of view
> is a
> shill for some industry group or other! :-)

Ignorance is bliss.




---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 31/08/2014 3:15 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "graham" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 31/08/2014 12:59 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Typical long thoughtful article in The New Yorker covers a lot of
>>>> ground on the subject. By Michael Specter in the August 25th issue.
>>>>
>>>> On-line at http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...seeds-of-doubt
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> Spector is a very well known paid shill for Monsanto, ADM and Bayer. He
>>> is
>>> a journalist, not a scientist. His work is utterly without scientific
>>> value
>>> and it often borders on ridiculous.
>>>
>> Actually, I've noticed that anyone who disagrees with your point of view
>> is a
>> shill for some industry group or other! :-)
>
> Ignorance is bliss.
>
And you are really proud of it, aren't you.Graham

On 8/31/2014 2:08 PM, The Other Guy wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 11:52:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>
>> Typical long thoughtful article in The New Yorker covers a lot of
>> ground on the subject. By Michael Specter in the August 25th issue.
>>
>> On-line at http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...seeds-of-doubt
>
> The biggest problem with GMO crops is the total lack of
> understanding about them b most people.
>
> MUCH of the problem would be solved by changing the laws
> regarding patenting of these items, while NOT restricting
> their development so badly that no one WOULD continue to
> create new strains.
>
> But another problem is the FEAR of what COULD happen,
> and not what has actually happened so far.
>
> And there is no way to change that easily.
>

Eating GMO anything sounds a lot better than starving but that's just me.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> To reply by email, lose the Ks...
>

"dsi1" > wrote in message
...
> On 8/31/2014 2:08 PM, The Other Guy wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 11:52:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>>
>>> Typical long thoughtful article in The New Yorker covers a lot of
>>> ground on the subject. By Michael Specter in the August 25th issue.
>>>
>>> On-line at http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...seeds-of-doubt
>>
>> The biggest problem with GMO crops is the total lack of
>> understanding about them b most people.
>>
>> MUCH of the problem would be solved by changing the laws
>> regarding patenting of these items, while NOT restricting
>> their development so badly that no one WOULD continue to
>> create new strains.
>>
>> But another problem is the FEAR of what COULD happen,
>> and not what has actually happened so far.
>>
>> And there is no way to change that easily.
>>
>
> Eating GMO anything sounds a lot better than starving but that's just me.

You are very persuasive

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 2014-08-31, > wrote:

> and ethics of GMOs, although it does touch on the manipulation of science
> in the debate, and on the ethics involved.

Ethics? You gotta be kidding.

The entire premise of feeding a starving world is total nonsense.
Can't be done. And destroying our natural seedbase with mutant seeds
is not gonna save a damn thing. It's merely Monsanto's attempt at
cornering the seed mkt. Already Monsanto seed is failing. No doubt
Monsatan realized long ago that mother nature would skip-hop past
their genetic creation with a successful mutation of her own,
rendering monsatan's creation useless. Problem is, their legal
chicanery network is still alive and intimidating and allowing
monsatan to impose its legal will on others.

nb

On 8/31/2014 11:36 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "dsi1" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Eating GMO anything sounds a lot better than starving but that's just me.
>
> You are very persuasive
>

The problem is that people are able to stuff their faces far to easily.

On 9/1/2014 12:05 AM, JohnJohn wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 14:12:35 -1000, dsi1
> > wrote:
>
>> On 8/31/2014 2:08 PM, The Other Guy wrote:
>>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 11:52:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>>>
>>>> Typical long thoughtful article in The New Yorker covers a lot of
>>>> ground on the subject. By Michael Specter in the August 25th issue.
>>>>
>>>> On-line at http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...seeds-of-doubt
>>>
>>> The biggest problem with GMO crops is the total lack of
>>> understanding about them b most people.
>>>
>>> MUCH of the problem would be solved by changing the laws
>>> regarding patenting of these items, while NOT restricting
>>> their development so badly that no one WOULD continue to
>>> create new strains.
>>>
>>> But another problem is the FEAR of what COULD happen,
>>> and not what has actually happened so far.
>>>
>>> And there is no way to change that easily.
>>>
>>
>> Eating GMO anything sounds a lot better than starving but that's just me.
>
> Eating McDonald's or KFC anything sounds a lot better than starving,
> yet I never go to McDonald's or KFC.
>
> Anybody else got one?
>

You wouldn't say that if I was some Dutch guy in an elevator?

On Monday, September 1, 2014 11:53:10 AM UTC-4, notbob wrote:
> On 2014-08-31, > wrote:
>
> > and ethics of GMOs, although it does touch on the manipulation of science
> > in the debate, and on the ethics involved.
>
> Ethics? You gotta be kidding.
>
> The entire premise of feeding a starving world is total nonsense.
> Can't be done. And destroying our natural seedbase with mutant seeds
> is not gonna save a damn thing. It's merely Monsanto's attempt at
> cornering the seed mkt. Already Monsanto seed is failing. No doubt
> Monsatan realized long ago that mother nature would skip-hop past
> their genetic creation with a successful mutation of her own,
> rendering monsatan's creation useless. Problem is, their legal
> chicanery network is still alive and intimidating and allowing
> monsatan to impose its legal will on others.

So ... you didn't read the article either. But posted a knee-jerk
anti-Monsanto rant anyway. Good show. (Insert ASCII version of
eye-roll emoticon here.)

There are many organizations working on trying to provide more food at
less cost, with less impact on the environment, better sustainability,
and better lives for farmers (particularly third-world ones) than
current agricultural methodologies, GMO-driven or otherwise, profit-
making or not, government-controlled, NGO, or other. Exploring their
doings in general is one of the things the article does well, IMO.

--
Silvar Beitel

"dsi1" > wrote in message
...
> On 8/31/2014 11:36 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "dsi1" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Eating GMO anything sounds a lot better than starving but that's just
>>> me.
>>
>> You are very persuasive
>>
>
> The problem is that people are able to stuff their faces far to easily.

Yes and many don't seem to be too fussed about what they use to stuff them.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

> wrote in message
...
> On Monday, September 1, 2014 11:53:10 AM UTC-4, notbob wrote:
>> On 2014-08-31, > wrote:
>>
>> > and ethics of GMOs, although it does touch on the manipulation of
>> > science
>> > in the debate, and on the ethics involved.
>>
>> Ethics? You gotta be kidding.
>>
>> The entire premise of feeding a starving world is total nonsense.
>> Can't be done. And destroying our natural seedbase with mutant seeds
>> is not gonna save a damn thing. It's merely Monsanto's attempt at
>> cornering the seed mkt. Already Monsanto seed is failing. No doubt
>> Monsatan realized long ago that mother nature would skip-hop past
>> their genetic creation with a successful mutation of her own,
>> rendering monsatan's creation useless. Problem is, their legal
>> chicanery network is still alive and intimidating and allowing
>> monsatan to impose its legal will on others.
>
> So ... you didn't read the article either. But posted a knee-jerk
> anti-Monsanto rant anyway. Good show. (Insert ASCII version of
> eye-roll emoticon here.)

Your fealty duly noted. But polease spare us the pom poms and the
backflips.

> There are many organizations working on trying to provide more food at
> less cost, with less impact on the environment, better sustainability,
> and better lives for farmers (particularly third-world ones) than
> current agricultural methodologies, GMO-driven or otherwise, profit-
> making or not, government-controlled, NGO, or other. Exploring their
> doings in general is one of the things the article does well, IMO.

And Monsanto is not one of them. Neither is ADM or Bayer.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Monday, September 1, 2014 2:11:24 PM UTC-4, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Monday, September 1, 2014 11:53:10 AM UTC-4, notbob wrote:
> >> On 2014-08-31, > wrote:
> >>
> >> > and ethics of GMOs, although it does touch on the manipulation of
> >> > science
> >> > in the debate, and on the ethics involved.
> >>
> >> Ethics? You gotta be kidding.
> >>
> >> The entire premise of feeding a starving world is total nonsense.
> >> Can't be done. And destroying our natural seedbase with mutant seeds
> >> is not gonna save a damn thing. It's merely Monsanto's attempt at
> >> cornering the seed mkt. Already Monsanto seed is failing. No doubt
> >> Monsatan realized long ago that mother nature would skip-hop past
> >> their genetic creation with a successful mutation of her own,
> >> rendering monsatan's creation useless. Problem is, their legal
> >> chicanery network is still alive and intimidating and allowing
> >> monsatan to impose its legal will on others.
> >
> > So ... you didn't read the article either. But posted a knee-jerk
> > anti-Monsanto rant anyway. Good show. (Insert ASCII version of
> > eye-roll emoticon here.)
>
> Your fealty duly noted. But polease spare us the pom poms and the
> backflips.

IOW, "If ya ain't with us, ya must be agin us!"

Mighty presumptuous.

I'm still interested in hearing thoughtful comments from people
who have actually read the article mentioned.

--
Silvar Beitel

> wrote in message
...
> On Monday, September 1, 2014 2:11:24 PM UTC-4, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Monday, September 1, 2014 11:53:10 AM UTC-4, notbob wrote:
>> >> On 2014-08-31, >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > and ethics of GMOs, although it does touch on the manipulation of
>> >> > science
>> >> > in the debate, and on the ethics involved.
>> >>
>> >> Ethics? You gotta be kidding.
>> >>
>> >> The entire premise of feeding a starving world is total nonsense.
>> >> Can't be done. And destroying our natural seedbase with mutant seeds
>> >> is not gonna save a damn thing. It's merely Monsanto's attempt at
>> >> cornering the seed mkt. Already Monsanto seed is failing. No doubt
>> >> Monsatan realized long ago that mother nature would skip-hop past
>> >> their genetic creation with a successful mutation of her own,
>> >> rendering monsatan's creation useless. Problem is, their legal
>> >> chicanery network is still alive and intimidating and allowing
>> >> monsatan to impose its legal will on others.
>> >
>> > So ... you didn't read the article either. But posted a knee-jerk
>> > anti-Monsanto rant anyway. Good show. (Insert ASCII version of
>> > eye-roll emoticon here.)
>>
>> Your fealty duly noted. But polease spare us the pom poms and the
>> backflips.
>
> IOW, "If ya ain't with us, ya must be agin us!"
>
> Mighty presumptuous.
>

Monsanto's reputation is well documented. If ever a truly evil corporation
existed, it is them.

> I'm still interested in hearing thoughtful comments from people
> who have actually read the article mentioned.

I got part way through it and realized it was the same BS Monsanto pays big
money for. It's nothing but a PR project.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 9/1/2014 7:42 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "dsi1" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 8/31/2014 11:36 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "dsi1" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Eating GMO anything sounds a lot better than starving but that's
>>>> just me.
>>>
>>> You are very persuasive
>>>
>>
>> The problem is that people are able to stuff their faces far to easily.
>
> Yes and many don't seem to be too fussed about what they use to stuff them.
>

Uh oh... I should have used "too" instead of "to." I'm so ashamed to
have made this rookie mistake. As penance, I will stuff my face with a
Big Mac.

On Monday, September 1, 2014 3:19:27 PM UTC-4, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> I got part way through it and realized it was the same BS Monsanto pays big
> money for. It's nothing but a PR project.

I'm glad you read at least some of it. I didn't get any "Monsanto BS"
impression at all. What I liked about it was the breadth of discussion
of the issues regarding food security and the role (good or bad) GMOs do,
can, and will play in it. Monsanto is just a tiny piece. And I don't
think I've ever read anything in The New Yorker that I could characterize
as a corporate PR project, including this.

--
Silvar Beitel

> wrote in message
...
> On Monday, September 1, 2014 3:19:27 PM UTC-4, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> I got part way through it and realized it was the same BS Monsanto pays
>> big
>> money for. It's nothing but a PR project.
>
> I'm glad you read at least some of it. I didn't get any "Monsanto BS"
> impression at all. What I liked about it was the breadth of discussion
> of the issues regarding food security and the role (good or bad) GMOs do,
> can, and will play in it. Monsanto is just a tiny piece. And I don't
> think I've ever read anything in The New Yorker that I could characterize
> as a corporate PR project, including this.


So far GMOs have been more bad than good. Worldwide they are rejected by
sophisticated societies. They are foisted on third world countries much to
their detriment. In the USA we are a laboratory for the harm caused by
them. The aim of GMOs is not to just produce more food, it is to control
all food production and thus monopolize all profits. And the dirty secret
is the US government is fully behind it even in full knowledge of the
dangers. Some of this was revealed by Wikileaks. When yuor own government
refuses to let you know what is in the food you are eating because you may
stop eating it, you know nothing good is behind it.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 9/1/2014 8:57 AM, wrote:
>
> IOW, "If ya ain't with us, ya must be agin us!"
>
> Mighty presumptuous.
>
> I'm still interested in hearing thoughtful comments from people
> who have actually read the article mentioned.
>

Feeding the world is a worthwhile enterprise - although obese folks
might not see it that way.

One hundred years ago, people thought that world starvation was
inevitable because we could not produce enough food. Fritz Haber found a
process to make nitrogen in a form that allowed it to be used in growing
crops and brought about a revolution in food production. He was also the
father of chemical weapons and a class of explosives but that's a whole
'nother story.

"dsi1" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/1/2014 8:57 AM, wrote:
>>
>> IOW, "If ya ain't with us, ya must be agin us!"
>>
>> Mighty presumptuous.
>>
>> I'm still interested in hearing thoughtful comments from people
>> who have actually read the article mentioned.
>>
>
> Feeding the world is a worthwhile enterprise - although obese folks might
> not see it that way.
>
> One hundred years ago, people thought that world starvation was inevitable
> because we could not produce enough food. Fritz Haber found a process to
> make nitrogen in a form that allowed it to be used in growing crops and
> brought about a revolution in food production. He was also the father of
> chemical weapons and a class of explosives but that's a whole 'nother
> story.

Bottom line is the planet can only provide so much sustainable food. And we
are exceeding that capacity now.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 9/1/2014 1:52 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 9/1/2014 7:42 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "dsi1" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 8/31/2014 11:36 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "dsi1" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Eating GMO anything sounds a lot better than starving but that's
>>>>> just me.
>>>>
>>>> You are very persuasive
>>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is that people are able to stuff their faces far to easily.
>>
>> Yes and many don't seem to be too fussed about what they use to stuff
>> them.
>>
>
> Uh oh... I should have used "too" instead of "to." I'm so ashamed to
> have made this rookie mistake. As penance, I will stuff my face with a
> Big Mac.

That seems a tad harsh, maybe a Filet-o-fish would suffice...

On 9/1/2014 10:12 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "dsi1" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 9/1/2014 8:57 AM, wrote:
>>>
>>> IOW, "If ya ain't with us, ya must be agin us!"
>>>
>>> Mighty presumptuous.
>>>
>>> I'm still interested in hearing thoughtful comments from people
>>> who have actually read the article mentioned.
>>>
>>
>> Feeding the world is a worthwhile enterprise - although obese folks might
>> not see it that way.
>>
>> One hundred years ago, people thought that world starvation was inevitable
>> because we could not produce enough food. Fritz Haber found a process to
>> make nitrogen in a form that allowed it to be used in growing crops and
>> brought about a revolution in food production. He was also the father of
>> chemical weapons and a class of explosives but that's a whole 'nother
>> story.
>
> Bottom line is the planet can only provide so much sustainable food. And we
> are exceeding that capacity now.
>


That's what they said a hundred years ago. They were wrong.

>
>
> ---
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
> http://www.avast.com
>

On 9/1/2014 2:00 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Monday, September 1, 2014 3:19:27 PM UTC-4, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>> I got part way through it and realized it was the same BS Monsanto pays
>>> big
>>> money for. It's nothing but a PR project.
>>
>> I'm glad you read at least some of it. I didn't get any "Monsanto BS"
>> impression at all. What I liked about it was the breadth of discussion
>> of the issues regarding food security and the role (good or bad) GMOs do,
>> can, and will play in it. Monsanto is just a tiny piece. And I don't
>> think I've ever read anything in The New Yorker that I could characterize
>> as a corporate PR project, including this.
>
>
> So far GMOs have been more bad than good. Worldwide they are rejected by
> sophisticated societies. They are foisted on third world countries much to
> their detriment. In the USA we are a laboratory for the harm caused by
> them. The aim of GMOs is not to just produce more food, it is to control
> all food production and thus monopolize all profits. And the dirty secret
> is the US government is fully behind it even in full knowledge of the
> dangers. Some of this was revealed by Wikileaks. When yuor own government
> refuses to let you know what is in the food you are eating because you may
> stop eating it, you know nothing good is behind it.
>
>

You may find this article of interest also:

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/10-...ood-2014-09-01

The agriculture and food production industry employed more than one
billion people as of last year, or a third of the global workforce.
While the industry is substantial, a relatively small number of
companies wield an enormous amount of influence. In its report, “Behind
the Brands,” Oxfam International focused on 10 of the world’s biggest
and most influential food and beverage companies. These corporations are
so powerful that their policies can have a major impact on the diets and
working conditions of people world-wide, as well as on the environment.

On 9/1/2014 10:21 AM, Mayo wrote:
> On 9/1/2014 1:52 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On 9/1/2014 7:42 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "dsi1" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 8/31/2014 11:36 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "dsi1" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eating GMO anything sounds a lot better than starving but that's
>>>>>> just me.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are very persuasive
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that people are able to stuff their faces far to easily.
>>>
>>> Yes and many don't seem to be too fussed about what they use to stuff
>>> them.
>>>
>>
>> Uh oh... I should have used "too" instead of "to." I'm so ashamed to
>> have made this rookie mistake. As penance, I will stuff my face with a
>> Big Mac.
>
> That seems a tad harsh, maybe a Filet-o-fish would suffice...

Ah come on... that would be going far too easy on me. I must be made to
pay dearly! :-)

On 9/1/2014 2:12 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "dsi1" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 9/1/2014 8:57 AM, wrote:
>>>
>>> IOW, "If ya ain't with us, ya must be agin us!"
>>>
>>> Mighty presumptuous.
>>>
>>> I'm still interested in hearing thoughtful comments from people
>>> who have actually read the article mentioned.
>>>
>>
>> Feeding the world is a worthwhile enterprise - although obese folks might
>> not see it that way.
>>
>> One hundred years ago, people thought that world starvation was inevitable
>> because we could not produce enough food. Fritz Haber found a process to
>> make nitrogen in a form that allowed it to be used in growing crops and
>> brought about a revolution in food production. He was also the father of
>> chemical weapons and a class of explosives but that's a whole 'nother
>> story.
>
> Bottom line is the planet can only provide so much sustainable food. And we
> are exceeding that capacity now.

The most efficient solution then is to have less people.

On 9/1/2014 2:24 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 9/1/2014 10:12 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> "dsi1" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 9/1/2014 8:57 AM, wrote:
>>>>
>>>> IOW, "If ya ain't with us, ya must be agin us!"
>>>>
>>>> Mighty presumptuous.
>>>>
>>>> I'm still interested in hearing thoughtful comments from people
>>>> who have actually read the article mentioned.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Feeding the world is a worthwhile enterprise - although obese folks
>>> might
>>> not see it that way.
>>>
>>> One hundred years ago, people thought that world starvation was
>>> inevitable
>>> because we could not produce enough food. Fritz Haber found a process to
>>> make nitrogen in a form that allowed it to be used in growing crops and
>>> brought about a revolution in food production. He was also the father of
>>> chemical weapons and a class of explosives but that's a whole 'nother
>>> story.
>>
>> Bottom line is the planet can only provide so much sustainable food.
>> And we
>> are exceeding that capacity now.
>>
>
>
> That's what they said a hundred years ago. They were wrong.

Is blue-green algae the next big thing in "food"?

On 9/1/2014 2:26 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 9/1/2014 10:21 AM, Mayo wrote:
>> On 9/1/2014 1:52 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>> On 9/1/2014 7:42 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "dsi1" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 8/31/2014 11:36 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "dsi1" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eating GMO anything sounds a lot better than starving but that's
>>>>>>> just me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are very persuasive
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that people are able to stuff their faces far to
>>>>> easily.
>>>>
>>>> Yes and many don't seem to be too fussed about what they use to stuff
>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Uh oh... I should have used "too" instead of "to." I'm so ashamed to
>>> have made this rookie mistake. As penance, I will stuff my face with a
>>> Big Mac.
>>
>> That seems a tad harsh, maybe a Filet-o-fish would suffice...
>
> Ah come on... that would be going far too easy on me. I must be made to
> pay dearly! :-)

The it's got to be Burger King, McD's will never do.

On 9/1/2014 10:34 AM, Mayo wrote:
> On 9/1/2014 2:24 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On 9/1/2014 10:12 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>> "dsi1" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 9/1/2014 8:57 AM, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> IOW, "If ya ain't with us, ya must be agin us!"
>>>>>
>>>>> Mighty presumptuous.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm still interested in hearing thoughtful comments from people
>>>>> who have actually read the article mentioned.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Feeding the world is a worthwhile enterprise - although obese folks
>>>> might
>>>> not see it that way.
>>>>
>>>> One hundred years ago, people thought that world starvation was
>>>> inevitable
>>>> because we could not produce enough food. Fritz Haber found a
>>>> process to
>>>> make nitrogen in a form that allowed it to be used in growing crops and
>>>> brought about a revolution in food production. He was also the
>>>> father of
>>>> chemical weapons and a class of explosives but that's a whole 'nother
>>>> story.
>>>
>>> Bottom line is the planet can only provide so much sustainable food.
>>> And we
>>> are exceeding that capacity now.
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's what they said a hundred years ago. They were wrong.
>
> Is blue-green algae the next big thing in "food"?
>

Yes. We're gonna be needing really big bottles of Sriracha though. :-)

On 9/1/2014 10:35 AM, Mayo wrote:
> On 9/1/2014 2:26 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On 9/1/2014 10:21 AM, Mayo wrote:
>>> On 9/1/2014 1:52 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>>> On 9/1/2014 7:42 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "dsi1" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 8/31/2014 11:36 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "dsi1" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Eating GMO anything sounds a lot better than starving but that's
>>>>>>>> just me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are very persuasive
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is that people are able to stuff their faces far to
>>>>>> easily.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes and many don't seem to be too fussed about what they use to stuff
>>>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Uh oh... I should have used "too" instead of "to." I'm so ashamed to
>>>> have made this rookie mistake. As penance, I will stuff my face with a
>>>> Big Mac.
>>>
>>> That seems a tad harsh, maybe a Filet-o-fish would suffice...
>>
>> Ah come on... that would be going far too easy on me. I must be made to
>> pay dearly! :-)
>
> The it's got to be Burger King, McD's will never do.

Burger King! Do you think I'm a crazy idiot!!?

On Monday, September 1, 2014 4:00:12 PM UTC-4, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Monday, September 1, 2014 3:19:27 PM UTC-4, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> >> I got part way through it and realized it was the same BS Monsanto pays
> >> big
> >> money for. It's nothing but a PR project.
> >
> > I'm glad you read at least some of it. I didn't get any "Monsanto BS"
> > impression at all. What I liked about it was the breadth of discussion
> > of the issues regarding food security and the role (good or bad) GMOs do,
> > can, and will play in it. Monsanto is just a tiny piece. And I don't
> > think I've ever read anything in The New Yorker that I could characterize
> > as a corporate PR project, including this.
>
>
> So far GMOs have been more bad than good. Worldwide they are rejected by
> sophisticated societies. They are foisted on third world countries much to
> their detriment. In the USA we are a laboratory for the harm caused by
> them. The aim of GMOs is not to just produce more food, it is to control
> all food production and thus monopolize all profits. And the dirty secret
> is the US government is fully behind it even in full knowledge of the
> dangers. Some of this was revealed by Wikileaks. When yuor own government
> refuses to let you know what is in the food you are eating because you may
> stop eating it, you know nothing good is behind it.

OK. Now you've headed into conspiracy theorist territory. Such statements
are irrefutable (or, more precisely, more work to explore/refute and
provide nuanced explanations for than it's worth), so I'll get off the
bus here.

--
Silvar Beitel

"dsi1" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/1/2014 10:12 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> "dsi1" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 9/1/2014 8:57 AM, wrote:
>>>>
>>>> IOW, "If ya ain't with us, ya must be agin us!"
>>>>
>>>> Mighty presumptuous.
>>>>
>>>> I'm still interested in hearing thoughtful comments from people
>>>> who have actually read the article mentioned.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Feeding the world is a worthwhile enterprise - although obese folks
>>> might
>>> not see it that way.
>>>
>>> One hundred years ago, people thought that world starvation was
>>> inevitable
>>> because we could not produce enough food. Fritz Haber found a process to
>>> make nitrogen in a form that allowed it to be used in growing crops and
>>> brought about a revolution in food production. He was also the father of
>>> chemical weapons and a class of explosives but that's a whole 'nother
>>> story.
>>
>> Bottom line is the planet can only provide so much sustainable food. And
>> we
>> are exceeding that capacity now.
>>
>
>
> That's what they said a hundred years ago. They were wrong.

We've learned a little since then. GMOs are not sustainable and in only a
mere decade we have learned of their terrible double edge.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

"Mayo" > wrote in message ...
> On 9/1/2014 2:12 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> "dsi1" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 9/1/2014 8:57 AM, wrote:
>>>>
>>>> IOW, "If ya ain't with us, ya must be agin us!"
>>>>
>>>> Mighty presumptuous.
>>>>
>>>> I'm still interested in hearing thoughtful comments from people
>>>> who have actually read the article mentioned.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Feeding the world is a worthwhile enterprise - although obese folks
>>> might
>>> not see it that way.
>>>
>>> One hundred years ago, people thought that world starvation was
>>> inevitable
>>> because we could not produce enough food. Fritz Haber found a process to
>>> make nitrogen in a form that allowed it to be used in growing crops and
>>> brought about a revolution in food production. He was also the father of
>>> chemical weapons and a class of explosives but that's a whole 'nother
>>> story.
>>
>> Bottom line is the planet can only provide so much sustainable food. And
>> we
>> are exceeding that capacity now.
>
> The most efficient solution then is to have less people.

Yes but that would mean less economic growth. What it means is that human
society is well and truly doomed. As is pretty much every living species.
Even rats cannot escape extinction when human bellies must be filled. The
planet will go on but it won't be such a nice place as it was. Couple
million years though and things will start looking up.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

> wrote in message
...
> On Monday, September 1, 2014 4:00:12 PM UTC-4, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Monday, September 1, 2014 3:19:27 PM UTC-4, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> >> I got part way through it and realized it was the same BS Monsanto
>> >> pays
>> >> big
>> >> money for. It's nothing but a PR project.
>> >
>> > I'm glad you read at least some of it. I didn't get any "Monsanto BS"
>> > impression at all. What I liked about it was the breadth of discussion
>> > of the issues regarding food security and the role (good or bad) GMOs
>> > do,
>> > can, and will play in it. Monsanto is just a tiny piece. And I don't
>> > think I've ever read anything in The New Yorker that I could
>> > characterize
>> > as a corporate PR project, including this.
>>
>>
>> So far GMOs have been more bad than good. Worldwide they are rejected by
>> sophisticated societies. They are foisted on third world countries much
>> to
>> their detriment. In the USA we are a laboratory for the harm caused by
>> them. The aim of GMOs is not to just produce more food, it is to control
>> all food production and thus monopolize all profits. And the dirty
>> secret
>> is the US government is fully behind it even in full knowledge of the
>> dangers. Some of this was revealed by Wikileaks. When yuor own
>> government
>> refuses to let you know what is in the food you are eating because you
>> may
>> stop eating it, you know nothing good is behind it.
>
> OK. Now you've headed into conspiracy theorist territory. Such
> statements
> are irrefutable (or, more precisely, more work to explore/refute and
> provide nuanced explanations for than it's worth), so I'll get off the
> bus here.


It's not a conspiracy when it is real. Look into the State Departments own
words in Wikileaks that they will wage "economic Armageddon" on all
countries resisting American GMO products. Look at who is behind the
anti-GMO labelling lobbyists. It's our own USDA and EPA.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

"dsi1" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/1/2014 7:42 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "dsi1" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 8/31/2014 11:36 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "dsi1" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Eating GMO anything sounds a lot better than starving but that's
>>>>> just me.
>>>>
>>>> You are very persuasive
>>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is that people are able to stuff their faces far to easily.
>>
>> Yes and many don't seem to be too fussed about what they use to stuff
>> them.
>>
>
> Uh oh... I should have used "too" instead of "to." I'm so ashamed to have
> made this rookie mistake. As penance, I will stuff my face with a Big Mac.

Hahaha a big Mac eh? Now tell me. Is that really a penance? It would be
for me)

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Mayo" > wrote in message ...
> On 9/1/2014 1:52 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On 9/1/2014 7:42 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "dsi1" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 8/31/2014 11:36 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "dsi1" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eating GMO anything sounds a lot better than starving but that's
>>>>>> just me.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are very persuasive
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that people are able to stuff their faces far to easily.
>>>
>>> Yes and many don't seem to be too fussed about what they use to stuff
>>> them.
>>>
>>
>> Uh oh... I should have used "too" instead of "to." I'm so ashamed to
>> have made this rookie mistake. As penance, I will stuff my face with a
>> Big Mac.
>
> That seems a tad harsh, maybe a Filet-o-fish would suffice...

I have been to that establishment *once*. A friend was passing through and
rather than have me cook he took me there. Not having been before I perused
the menu and being a fish lover, settled on Filet-o-fish since I didn't
fancy any of the other stuff. When it arrived, I took one bite out of it
.... and nearly threw up! It was full of gunk!!!!

There was a slice of plastic cheese on it and ... gunk. Who could even
taste fish! Never again!


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 9/1/2014 2:38 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 9/1/2014 10:34 AM, Mayo wrote:
>> On 9/1/2014 2:24 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>> On 9/1/2014 10:12 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>> "dsi1" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 9/1/2014 8:57 AM, wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IOW, "If ya ain't with us, ya must be agin us!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mighty presumptuous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm still interested in hearing thoughtful comments from people
>>>>>> who have actually read the article mentioned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Feeding the world is a worthwhile enterprise - although obese folks
>>>>> might
>>>>> not see it that way.
>>>>>
>>>>> One hundred years ago, people thought that world starvation was
>>>>> inevitable
>>>>> because we could not produce enough food. Fritz Haber found a
>>>>> process to
>>>>> make nitrogen in a form that allowed it to be used in growing crops
>>>>> and
>>>>> brought about a revolution in food production. He was also the
>>>>> father of
>>>>> chemical weapons and a class of explosives but that's a whole 'nother
>>>>> story.
>>>>
>>>> Bottom line is the planet can only provide so much sustainable food.
>>>> And we
>>>> are exceeding that capacity now.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That's what they said a hundred years ago. They were wrong.
>>
>> Is blue-green algae the next big thing in "food"?
>>
>
> Yes. We're gonna be needing really big bottles of Sriracha though. :-)

Man I guess so, and plenty of Wasabi!