Do you trust the food industry?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Cucurbita
Says scientists who are more qualified to comment on this than me or you 
You said the evidence is pointing elsewhere than Neonictonoids but there is no scientific consensus on this. Only a corporate itch to get the ban lifted and make lots of money.
Original post by Cucurbita
I'm a capitalist at heart...if Monsanto offer a quality product which farmers want to buy then who am I to stop them? No one is forcing farmers to buy these seeds.
I'm a capitalist at heart...if Monsanto offer a quality product which farmers want to buy then who am I to stop them? No one is forcing farmers to buy these seeds.
They are if there is no competition. And monopoly is what Monsanto/Bayer/DuPont etc. are going for.
Also I do not believe Monsanto have a right to patent food items. That should be illegal.
Original post by Raiden10
You said the evidence is pointing elsewhere than Neonictonoids but there is no scientific consensus on this. Only a corporate itch to get the ban lifted and make lots of money.
No clear scientific consensus YET, but it sure seems to be heading in that direction.
You would first have to prove that all these scientists somehow have vested interests in allowing neonictonoids for your second statement to be valid.
Original post by Raiden10
They are if there is no competition. And monopoly is what Monsanto/Bayer/DuPont etc. are going for.
Also I do not believe Monsanto have a right to patent food items. That should be illegal.
Also I do not believe Monsanto have a right to patent food items. That should be illegal.
The only where there will be no competition is if Monsanto et al beat the competition...which is essentially what it is? A competition? To see who can make the best product and therefore sell the most? Makes sense, yes?
Do you mean patenting seeds which have been genetically modified? If Monsanto spend a lot of time and money creating a seed which will increase yields I do not see why they should not have a right to patent it.
Yes obviously.....
Original post by Cucurbita
The only where there will be no competition is if Monsanto et al beat the competition...which is essentially what it is? A competition? To see who can make the best product and therefore sell the most? Makes sense, yes?
Do you mean patenting seeds which have been genetically modified? If Monsanto spend a lot of time and money creating a seed which will increase yields I do not see why they should not have a right to patent it.
Do you mean patenting seeds which have been genetically modified? If Monsanto spend a lot of time and money creating a seed which will increase yields I do not see why they should not have a right to patent it.
The problem is once they have a monopoly, they will be able to have their way with the world's food supply, a problem you don't appear to acknowledge.
Once there is a monopoly the price goes up, if this happens to food, it is bad. It's simple.
Original post by Cucurbita
No clear scientific consensus YET, but it sure seems to be heading in that direction.
You would first have to prove that all these scientists somehow have vested interests in allowing neonictonoids for your second statement to be valid.
You would first have to prove that all these scientists somehow have vested interests in allowing neonictonoids for your second statement to be valid.
Says WHO? Someone funded by Bayer? At the very least they should be banned until we can get a clear and definite answer.
Unfortunately only a 2-year moratorium was able to be established, thanks to big-agri hissy fits touting "science". Namechecked scientific organisations, etc. just like you do. Perhaps they even said "SCIENCE BITCH!".
The point is, obviously, a 2-year ban might not be long enough to tell if there is any effect.
Original post by Raiden10
The problem is once they have a monopoly, they will be able to have their way with the world's food supply, a problem you don't appear to acknowledge.
Once there is a monopoly the price goes up, if this happens to food, it is bad. It's simple.
Once there is a monopoly the price goes up, if this happens to food, it is bad. It's simple.
If the price of food goes up due to Monsanto keeping them high then there is a gap in the market for a cheaper product? So it would auto-correct?
Original post by Raiden10
Says WHO? Someone funded by Bayer? At the very least they should be banned until we can get a clear and definite answer.
Unfortunately only a 2-year moratorium was able to be established, thanks to big-agri hissy fits touting "science". Namechecked scientific organisations, etc. just like you do. Perhaps they even said "SCIENCE BITCH!".
The point is, obviously, a 2-year ban might not be long enough to tell if there is any effect.
Unfortunately only a 2-year moratorium was able to be established, thanks to big-agri hissy fits touting "science". Namechecked scientific organisations, etc. just like you do. Perhaps they even said "SCIENCE BITCH!".
The point is, obviously, a 2-year ban might not be long enough to tell if there is any effect.
Bee deaths are still a problem in Australia where neonictinoids are not used and there are only few GMOs available. How do you explain this?
Banning something without any evidence that it is harmful doesn't seem like a very scientific way of going about things.
Original post by Alfissti
Never been too trusting of the UK food industry as there simply been too many scandals, most of you would be too young to remember but there was the "Mad Cow Disease" that plagued much of Britain and later there was FMD as well. While it doesn't mean I don't consume meat from UK I'm very mindful of its source and generally I only tend to buy direct from very specialist suppliers.
Mad Cow wasn't that bad, France had it worse and I think France introduced it to Britain too, I found it hilarious when France banned British meat imports
OP I trust the farmers raw goods that you can buy in farm shops... don't trust ready meals or basics or any of that other crap.
Original post by Cucurbita
Bee deaths are still a problem in Australia where neonictinoids are not used and there are only few GMOs available. How do you explain this?
Banning something without any evidence that it is harmful doesn't seem like a very scientific way of going about things.
Banning something without any evidence that it is harmful doesn't seem like a very scientific way of going about things.
Neonics not used in Australia? Never heard that before.
Evidence? The effects we are talking about are long term effects. There is no way people would have known what effects neonics would have when they were first introduced, if they take place over a long timescale.
The environment is the lab, and the experiment is happening *as we speak*. And lo and behold we are seeing some strange things. I don't like GMOs. But even those that do must see that we are moving too fast.
A mindless rush to fix world hunger has the potential to create even more hunger. This refers not only to GMOs but to general pesticides, farming techniques that are unsustainable, and other stuff.
[As if feeding the starving was of any interest to Monsanto anyway. Even the most naive person in the world laughs at that one.]
My idea against GMO is that if you have something that works, and you die when it doesn't work, if you want to improve it do so in ways that can be reversed, not in ways that are irreversible.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Cucurbita
If the price of food goes up due to Monsanto keeping them high then there is a gap in the market for a cheaper product? So it would auto-correct?
But there isn't a gap in the market, that's what monopoly *means*.
First you get monopoly, *then* you raise the prices.
The drug industry is driven by patents, regulation and monopoly. You do not want food prices going the way of drug prices.
Companies like Monsanto (they are the foremost) are saying "hey, maybe we could do like what Merck and the drug companies do, except with food".
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by t.b.s
Slightly random question, but do you have trust in the food you buy? from the supermarket from takeaways anywhere really. We all need to eat so that doesn't leave us with too much choice anyway. But really do always trust you are eating is what it says on the label? Is there any food you don't trust at all or are you not to bothered either way.
Really interested in peoples perceptions. This is a topic I'm looking into for uni and if you could answer this survey to get your opinion I'd be really grateful!
https://mmubusiness.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_43cwWhctf0L9CaV
Really interested in peoples perceptions. This is a topic I'm looking into for uni and if you could answer this survey to get your opinion I'd be really grateful!
https://mmubusiness.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_43cwWhctf0L9CaV
I would have been very happy to complete your survey as this is something I am interested in too and care about but since your survey is entirely targeted on meat eaters I wasn't able to complete it.
Meat is just a tiny tip of the iceberg, I think it's much worse with processed foods but im not an expert!
Anyway, best of luck with your research and I would be interested to see what results you get
Original post by tehFrance
Mad Cow wasn't that bad, France had it worse and I think France introduced it to Britain too, I found it hilarious when France banned British meat imports
OP I trust the farmers raw goods that you can buy in farm shops... don't trust ready meals or basics or any of that other crap.
OP I trust the farmers raw goods that you can buy in farm shops... don't trust ready meals or basics or any of that other crap.
Hah I wish I could afford to shop only in farm shops, though I intend to check out the local farmers market at some point.
Beef always tasted like cardboard to me, and I wasn't surprised when someone told me that cows don't even feed on grass. Real grass fed beef is more expensive. How does one buy grass fed beef?
[OTOH, not sure if want to spend lots - maybe I won't like even grass fed beef. But until I try it I have a possible reason why beef tastes like cardboard.]
Actually to continue, on this tangent about grass fed beef, Chris Kresser has a good article, on his website:
http://chriskresser.com/why-grass-fed-trumps-grain-fed
In short, Grass Fed Beef contains 5 times the omega 3 (as compared to omega 6) as grain fed beef, and contains significantly more of:
-Conjugated Linolenic Acid
-Stearic Acid
-Carotenoids (vit A)
-Tocopherols (vit E)
-Vitamin K2
-Superoxide Dismutase
-Glutathione
-Catalase
-Zinc, Potassium, Iron, Phosphorous, Sodium
Grain fed beef contains significantly more of:
-Antibiotics if you're lucky
http://chriskresser.com/why-grass-fed-trumps-grain-fed
In short, Grass Fed Beef contains 5 times the omega 3 (as compared to omega 6) as grain fed beef, and contains significantly more of:
-Conjugated Linolenic Acid
-Stearic Acid
-Carotenoids (vit A)
-Tocopherols (vit E)
-Vitamin K2
-Superoxide Dismutase
-Glutathione
-Catalase
-Zinc, Potassium, Iron, Phosphorous, Sodium
Grain fed beef contains significantly more of:
-Antibiotics if you're lucky
Original post by Raiden10
But there isn't a gap in the market, that's what monopoly *means*.
First you get monopoly, *then* you raise the prices.
The drug industry is driven by patents, regulation and monopoly. You do not want food prices going the way of drug prices.
Companies like Monsanto (they are the foremost) are saying "hey, maybe we could do like what Merck and the drug companies do, except with food".
First you get monopoly, *then* you raise the prices.
The drug industry is driven by patents, regulation and monopoly. You do not want food prices going the way of drug prices.
Companies like Monsanto (they are the foremost) are saying "hey, maybe we could do like what Merck and the drug companies do, except with food".
How would they prevent there being ANY gap in the market?
Why do you have such a low view of humanity?
http://monsantoblog.com/2013/05/22/technology-is-vital-to-increasing-food-and-nutrition-security/
Original post by Raiden10
Neonics not used in Australia? Never heard that before.
Evidence? The effects we are talking about are long term effects. There is no way people would have known what effects neonics would have when they were first introduced, if they take place over a long timescale.
The environment is the lab, and the experiment is happening *as we speak*. And lo and behold we are seeing some strange things. I don't like GMOs. But even those that do must see that we are moving too fast.
A mindless rush to fix world hunger has the potential to create even more hunger. This refers not only to GMOs but to general pesticides, farming techniques that are unsustainable, and other stuff.
[As if feeding the starving was of any interest to Monsanto anyway. Even the most naive person in the world laughs at that one.]
My idea against GMO is that if you have something that works, and you die when it doesn't work, if you want to improve it do so in ways that can be reversed, not in ways that are irreversible.
Evidence? The effects we are talking about are long term effects. There is no way people would have known what effects neonics would have when they were first introduced, if they take place over a long timescale.
The environment is the lab, and the experiment is happening *as we speak*. And lo and behold we are seeing some strange things. I don't like GMOs. But even those that do must see that we are moving too fast.
A mindless rush to fix world hunger has the potential to create even more hunger. This refers not only to GMOs but to general pesticides, farming techniques that are unsustainable, and other stuff.
[As if feeding the starving was of any interest to Monsanto anyway. Even the most naive person in the world laughs at that one.]
My idea against GMO is that if you have something that works, and you die when it doesn't work, if you want to improve it do so in ways that can be reversed, not in ways that are irreversible.
To be honest, I don't really care about neononics. I was just making a passing comment that the scientific community are moving away from that as a possible cause of the bee deaths.
Moving way too fast? The most researched and tested foods ever, 20 years on the market and not a single documented adverse effect. All you do is move the goalposts. Please tell me what would it take for you to see that they are safe?
What strange things are we seeing?
Actually the Green Revolution has saved millions of lives. Norman Borlaug, who developed disease resistant wheat, is estimated to have saved one billion lives and even won the Nobel peace prize for his efforts. This is not causing more hunger. Technology is the only way forward. You sicken me because you and your ilk are indirectly (and sometimes directly, in the case of Greenpeace activists destroying crops) allowing thousands of children to die every day.
Original post by Cucurbita
How would they prevent there being ANY gap in the market?
Why do you have such a low view of humanity?
http://monsantoblog.com/2013/05/22/technology-is-vital-to-increasing-food-and-nutrition-security/
Why do you have such a low view of humanity?
http://monsantoblog.com/2013/05/22/technology-is-vital-to-increasing-food-and-nutrition-security/
There would be no gap in the market because of the regulatory bodies that protect the few, massive corporations that have a monopoly (or more like it is a oligooly).
It's not technology I object to so much as the reckless and greedy way it is being used.
There has to be a way to make things open source, and not motivated by greed. Handing the world's food supply over to maybe a dozen corporations is asking for trouble.
Original post by Cucurbita
To be honest, I don't really care about neononics. I was just making a passing comment that the scientific community are moving away from that as a possible cause of the bee deaths.
Moving way too fast? The most researched and tested foods ever, 20 years on the market and not a single documented adverse effect. All you do is move the goalposts. Please tell me what would it take for you to see that they are safe?
What strange things are we seeing?
Actually the Green Revolution has saved millions of lives. Norman Borlaug, who developed disease resistant wheat, is estimated to have saved one billion lives and even won the Nobel peace prize for his efforts. This is not causing more hunger. Technology is the only way forward. You sicken me because you and your ilk are indirectly (and sometimes directly, in the case of Greenpeace activists destroying crops) allowing thousands of children to die every day.
Moving way too fast? The most researched and tested foods ever, 20 years on the market and not a single documented adverse effect. All you do is move the goalposts. Please tell me what would it take for you to see that they are safe?
What strange things are we seeing?
Actually the Green Revolution has saved millions of lives. Norman Borlaug, who developed disease resistant wheat, is estimated to have saved one billion lives and even won the Nobel peace prize for his efforts. This is not causing more hunger. Technology is the only way forward. You sicken me because you and your ilk are indirectly (and sometimes directly, in the case of Greenpeace activists destroying crops) allowing thousands of children to die every day.
What you seem to have here is an example of non-GMO, conventional farming advances in the 50s that saved millions.
Isn't there a more recent example, perhaps more relevant to the current technologies?
And strange things that have been seen would be for example the virus that has jumped from GM Tobacco to insects, including honeybees, in the US. That's well over a billion years of evolution.
As I said we need to find a way forward that does not send all the profits to multinational operations, curing world hunger that way is a fools errand that will only end in even more death.
GMOs, for example, lead to unknowns. It may not doom us all. There is at least hope. Patents on food, regulation, corporate oligopoly, on the other hand, that is certain doom.
The worst thing about GMOs is not the GMO - but the fact that America is the capital of GMO foods. America is extremely pro-massive multinational corporations, and that is the kind of GMO their government pushes.
[America, where big corporations basically own the government, does a tardy job of feeding their OWN citizens: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/26/american-diet-report-card-unhealty. What kind of job do you think they will do at feeding the rest of the world?]
Some Greenpeace activists destroyed some crops. Therefore, I sicken you? Hmm, perhaps I'll have to run that statement through the logic gates again. Okay. Nope. Still not getting it.
In any case, there was an incident in 2013 where 400 Filipino farmers destroyed a field of Golden Rice. Why would they do that? Are they (farmers) wicked?
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Raiden10
There would be no gap in the market because of the regulatory bodies that protect the few, massive corporations that have a monopoly (or more like it is a oligooly).
It's not technology I object to so much as the reckless and greedy way it is being used.
There has to be a way to make things open source, and not motivated by greed. Handing the world's food supply over to maybe a dozen corporations is asking for trouble.
It's not technology I object to so much as the reckless and greedy way it is being used.
There has to be a way to make things open source, and not motivated by greed. Handing the world's food supply over to maybe a dozen corporations is asking for trouble.
How would the regulatory bodies protect the corporations? You're just making things up now.
How is it being used in a reckless and greedy way? Please specify
It's not handing over the food supply is it though? It's giving companies a chance to produce and sell GM seeds. Farmers still have a choice to buy them or not.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- GCSE help!!
- Answering questions: What careers can a degree in Biomedical Engineering lead to?
- Farmers protests across Europe: are the farmers right?
- Learn the Essential 'Student Life' Skills: Everything from Laundry to Cooking.
- History 18 mark response - help
- What option would you recommend and why?
- Suggestions
- Pharmacist Alternatives
- What should i do to prepare to study Law in Uni?
- Will I get fired?
- best degrees of the future?
- Chemistry degree
- University of Leeds vs University of Reading for food science
- A level Business studies edexcel pre release for paper 3
- How important is IFST (Institute of Food Science & Technology) Accreditation
- Dropping out of university
- Thinking about my alevel options
- Group 1 Carcinogens
- Reasons to study Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic Science
- Food Science
