Public still can’t swallow concept of GM food

Posted

A new study has confirmed what pollsters already knew: the public remains skeptical about genetically modified foods.

But economists at Purdue University found something else in a survey of about 1,000 Americans. The public is more accepting of genetic modification when the technology is not used for food.

About 62 percent of respondents said GM is acceptable for use in human medicine and 68 percent said it’s OK to use the technology to protect human health, such as genetically modified mosquitoes.

In contrast, 49 percent of respondents, in the web-based survey, said genetic modification is acceptable for grain production.

Only 44 percent said it’s acceptable for livestock production.

The results suggest food is unique because it’s essential to life.

“Food is an everyday choice,” said Nicole Olynk Widmar, an agricultural economist at Purdue.

“In some ways, I can understand why people may be more cautious about what they’re ingesting on an ongoing basis.”

The Purdue results are similar to polls done in Canada, looking at public perceptions of GM foods:

  • A 2012 Farmers Feed Cities survey found that only 41 percent of Canadians think GM foods are safe for consumption.
  • An Insights West poll in 2014 found 50 percent of people in Alberta and 56 percent in British Columbia would support a ban on genetically modified foods in Canada.
  • A 2013 Consumers’ Association of Canada poll found that 88 percent of Canadians think GMO labelling should be mandatory.

ADVERTISMENT

Widmar and her Purdue colleagues analyzed responses from 964 Americans, representing demographics similar to the U.S. census. They separated the results based on age, region, income and education.

Looking at the data, there was a positive link between income and acceptance.

“Higher income groups were more likely to agree with genetic modification for grain, fruit and vegetables, and livestock production than lower income groups,” said a Purdue news release on the research.

It’s hard to know why Americans are more accepting of GM technology for health reasons, but media coverage of the Zika virus may have influenced public perceptions.

Zika, a mosquito-transmitted disease that can cause serious birth defects, was a huge issue in 2016.

As part of the story, scientists proposed using genetically modified mosquitoes to reduce the population of mosquitoes that might carry the virus.

That public discussion, around the potential benefits of GM technology, may have changed a few minds.

“The findings show that those aware of genetically modified mosquito technology were more likely to be accepting of genetic modification,” the Purdue news release said.

ADVERTISMENT

In the case of GM mosquitoes, the public learned about the concept before the technology received regulatory approval. It was different for GM foods, as most people found out after the fact, Widmar said.

“The perception of choice matters,” she said. “If you need it to stay healthy, you would probably use it. But if you feel like you were given GMOs and told about it later, that might upset you.”

Wally Tyner, also an agricultural economist at Purdue, said the gap in public perceptions between GM for medicine and health versus GM for farming, may offer some lessons for the ag sector.

For years, GM advocates have promoted the yield benefits of the technology, that it increases production efficiency and helps farmers feed the world.

The public may not care about yields or reducing costs for growers, Tyner said.

“If we can highlight health and environmental benefits, rather than just focusing on the bottom line, that might have a positive effect on the public attitude toward GMOs.”

The Purdue University study, “When is genetic modification socially acceptable”, has been published in the journal PLOS One.

ADVERTISMENT

  • WeGotta

    “In some ways, I can understand why people may be more cautious about what they’re ingesting on an ongoing basis.”

    In “some ways”? Give me a break.

    “The public may not care about yields or reducing costs for growers”
    Now you get it. Our health doesn’t take a back seat to your bottom line.

    • ed

      Right on! Bad news for the future of this stuff most are convinced and for good reason.

    • Finn McDonald

      Now all you have to do is show evidence that GM traits have an adverse effect on your health. Ohh, there is none!!! ‘Our health’ is more likely to be adversely affected by faecal pathogens on organic produce. Organic food should come with warning labels.

      • Harold

        I assume that you have examined all aspects of GM and “Organic” so tell me – Where did you look? It is very easy to say that there is no evidence or cautions when you are not looking for any. Keep up the good work.

        • Finn McDonald

          Yep. Peer-reviewed journal articles are the way to prove something Harry, not conspiracy theory webpages. How about you?

          • Harold

            Thanks for asking. Keep up the good work. …
            One scientist named Galileo Galilei said: “in the question of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual” and Einstein echoed the same. Not direct quote, Einstein said that he didn’t need a thousand to prove him right; he needed one to prove him wrong. Did Einstein prove Einstein correct and isn’t a peer review used only for the purpose of proving him wrong? How come the foolish believe that a peer review is used to prove a scientist right and why has science turned dark? It is called public brainwashing. Is GE placed in the open to be proven wrong or are they closed doors? Now look up the word conspiracy in the dictionary and figure out how a theory is formulated.
            On a side note, if we are to continue communicating, have the decency and respect to refer to me by my proper name. To do otherwise shows your lack of genuine sincerity and concern, and not as invisible as you might think, it was duly noted.

          • WeGotta

            Science is the newest religion it seems.

          • Finn McDonald

            The difference is ‘The good thing about science is that it is right whether or not you believe in it’ – Neil deGrasse Tyson

          • WeGotta

            Quoting celebrity scientists just strengthens my point.

            Is there a study proving “science is right”? Where’s the evidence?

          • Brian Duggan

            What an arrogant, baseless response. Finn’s point was tgat you had no point, merely unsubstantiated biases. I get the feeling facts could be shown to you all day long but you choose not to believe because you can’t (or won’t) open to change. Terribly sad existance.

          • WeGotta

            No, that was my point.
            Finn makes false claims about science. There are no studies showing no harm to humans after billions of meals. So it’s a lie or a mistake.

            The statement “science is right” sounds as shallow and unsophisticated as “god is right”. It’s an ideological belief like any other.

            If you think I have a bias against billion dollar multinational corporations who lie for profit you are correct. I don’t want their products.
            If you think such biases are baseless, then you show how little you know about facts.

          • Finn McDonald

            Right, thanks for admitting that you are biased. I assume that also applies to all the peer-reviewed journal articles which demonstrate the safety of GMO’s as well. Please clarify.

          • Harold

            I’m always open to change. I’m open to you examining your facts. Why is it so important that I believe in you? Is it because if I don’t, you suffer on the Farm? Is relieving you from the burdens on the farm the very definition of “open to change”? If I on just a whim and a prayer and naive do not want your product; are you open to change – or are you a dictator? Who “can’t or won’t open to change”? Your use of your self-gratifying “open to change” is a “nothing burger” and a doctrine that often times leads to oppression. What you claim is “open to change” is incorrect; the proper term is: open to compromise and the next question is; What Law compels us to do so? The only Law that I know of that forces me to compromise with you is in fact – an absence of a Law; food labeling. Did you say something about arrogance? Your job is protected for now, but it has not been made honorable and it is not because of you, it is because the leaders are secretive and corrupt and even you are locked out of their highest office. How can you claim that you know their truth and fact; by their company “flyers” that they give you?
            Furthermore, do you suffer from your own believe systems or do I? Do I suffer from my belief systems or do you? Is change always a good thing because some trusted Authority said so? Has the public never been steered in the wrong direction by those well dressed, authoritative doctrines of those who are trusted? Does history tell us anything? Those who are open to “change” are often given – just that; “pocket change”, and the corporate and government has run off with their dollars – “Terribly sad existence” indeed.
            Good changes have always occurred because the authority of time itself demanded it, but changes directed by authoritarians and money have always led to destruction, oppression, loss of livelihood, and life. Moreover, Farmers are not “an island unto themselves” as the divisive propaganda suggests; we are ALL on the same ship and ALL are subject to each other and all one machine. To screw up the machine – it only takes one politician.

          • Harold

            The term science means: the study of. That means by definition and action a continuous open book. Neil deGrasse Tyson’s quote was not ingenuous. Is Neil deGrasse Tyson’s quote true because he said so? The word “science” in his very statement proves him wrong.

          • Harold

            The WP thought that I might hurt Finn’s feelings so they took it upon themselves to delete a portion of my comment. Nonetheless, it is the WP’s “ball park” and their rules but in this case, I was the WP’s expression and not of my own. Had my full comment been presented, you may have seen me in a different light. (more negative or more positive) You and Finn will never know and personally I find that more offensive than anything that I or others could possibly say. Are you offended?

            Moreover, we seem to be living in an era where pandering goes to the emotional snowflakes, so now arbitrarily, (nanny state) we are all considered emotional snowflakes whether we like it or not. Apparently a return to childhood is called progressive. With us all being emotional snowflakes (child like) it sure makes the editor and government more important than us and now we in its servitude are limited in speech, denied our full expression. A unlawful Act was written by government and enacted into law which has overruled the constitutional supreme law of the freedom of speech and now we are in servitude and limited. Simply, I am in servitude to the law abiding WP to always say what the editor deems is acceptable. They call it editing but it is in fact censorship. (childhood) Conspiracy, theory, or fact?

            Science has indeed become a religion, with the politician the priest, and the corporate elite their god. There are two sciences, with one being cutting edge, (non-religious Einstein Galileo et all) and the other a science pool. I liken the pool to a fish pond where the elite finance the government to throw food pellets into the pond. The fish can only respond to the food that is FED (pun) to them and the fish (peer review/ consensus) are harvested and fed to the public. Conspiracy, or a theory, or a fact?
            The hypnotized can only think in terms of: “conspiracy theory” or fact and they blindly seek and gain their facts from the conspirator.

          • WeGotta

            Agreed on all points. An individual’s point of view or word choice is not offensive to me.
            Condescending do gooders imposing rules on me “for my own good” is another matter altogether.

            You sound awakened.
            I’d say “congratulations” but seeing plainly that the emperor has no clothes can be a tumultuous existence in times like these, so maybe commiserations are more appropriate.

            A wise man in a sea of fools is the fool.

          • Finn McDonald

            Yes but a man who thinks he is wise (but isn’t) and believes he is floating in a sea of fools (he isn’t, they have evidence to back up their claims), is still just deluding himself. And sorry Harold, I didn’t realise I referred to you as Harry.

          • Harold

            The title of the article states “Public still can’t swallow concept of GM food”. The title suggests that the public are disabled and suffering and that the public may need a glass of water, medication, or something of the sort. The title gives license to the practitioner (author) to administer the medication which is the article itself. I call this practice a “fluff piece”. In the public comments you see that there are some who don’t need medication or are previously medicated and they have no problem swallowing it and therefore they are healthy but then you have the ones who have difficulty swallowing it but are refusing their medication. We all know what we think of those who are sick and refuse their prescribed medication. (Dr.GE Monsanto) The logical next step is to strap the patient down and force-feed, for the patient’s own good. Have you noticed and feeling the spirit of the article? The article by its nature, spirit, and design, produces a pissing contest stalemate. Comment from both sides are heard over and over again, then another article appears and again over and over again until the public tires of it and exhausted they shut up. Silence – is acceptance – and the victory goes to the last one spoken. (last one standing) This is why GE trolls are persistent in rehashing the same old same old; they want to tire the public and gain acceptance. In my experience, this nature is always present when you are being lied to. A truth when revealed never has to be repeated over and over again. Had the article been entitled: growing numbers are not accepting genetically modified foods and glyphosate residue as food – where would the focus and spirit of the author have been; into the full examination and evidence of why? Does corporate trolling come to mind: that is why call this piece fluff. The piece does not deserve recognition but it gets it. Even though we support the other side, you and I are still GE’s Pons. Moreover. the corporate scientists and outside contractors are all sworn to corporate secrecy and all of their documents and research are owned by the Corporation and you will never hear those scientists in a public debate with other scientists of equal standing. My toilet knows what to do with a “peer review” or “consensus”. In the truth of one changing a light bulb, does it take twelve men? If so, who are the idiots? The public have never heard the truth and the so called “war” is to keep secret the truth. The aggressor is obvious.
            Rather than commenting on the Article’s empty blah blah blah, being tired, I thought I’d talk about something else perhaps a little more meaningful.

      • ed

        “ORGANIC food should come with warning labels”……..Hell Ya! Especially after the flora in your gut has been nearly eliminated by GMO’s. It is bad news long term and the human population is basically the new guinea pig research for this stuff as real research is far less profitable for the food corporations.

        • Brian Duggan

          No Ed. No evidence of ant hsrm from GMO’s. None. Nada. Plenty of people get food poisoning from organic food though. 😋

          • WeGotta

            No Brian. There is no gmo study done on humans.
            No Brian, food handling practices are not the same as plant breeding techniques.

          • Finn McDonald

            Brian is right WeGotta. Billions and billions of meals containing GMO’s have been served since 1996. No evidence of human harm. But you are correct about food handling V breeding techniques. Plant breeding techniques can’t introduce pathogenic bacteria and viruses into the food supply which could kill you.

          • WeGotta

            No Finn. That’s not a scientific study.

            If you say that it is science then I say all deaths of people who have ever eaten gmo are caused by the gmo they ate.

          • Finn McDonald

            If you would like to identify a group of humans who would like to only eat corn or soy or canola meal for 5 years, GM or non-GM, please go ahead. In the meantime animal feeding studies and the fact that no adverse effects of GMO’s have been shown after 21 years in the food chain is plenty of evidence for me. Do you require the same testing of all new technology. Should every new version of the iPhone undergo 20 years of testing on humans before it is released commercially? If I cross wheat with one of its ancient ancestors to bring in disease resistance genes should I undertake a 20 year feeding study before it is released commercially? Your requirements are farcical and have no bearing on the reality that GM traits are thoroughly tested before commercialisation and are safe.

          • ed

            You must be all for labeling then, as cell phones have labels on the box so you can identify it from other boxed products that do not give off so much radiation, like an easel or a chalk board. Then you can determine the risks before you use those products. That would definately be a great start in the food industry..

          • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

            Finn, said “Plant breeding techniques can’t introduce pathogenic bacteria and viruses into the food supply which could kill you.” …proven to be false… beyond a shadow of a doubt!

            Issues of disrupting genetic homeostasis and rogue proteins aside (plus ignoring the fact that ironically most transgenic requires both bacteria and viruses to create the traits in the new plant)…

            The use of genetic engineering to create bioweapons is well known…discussed by such anti-science individuals as Stephen Hawking, Elon and the folks at Dartmouth among countless other Luddites;)
            http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/2013/03/genetically-engineered-bioweapons-a-new-breed-of-weapons-for-modern-warfare/#.WcdDNEFuiaM

          • ed

            Just the increased cancer rates Nd increase in multiple other chronic human health issues. Other than that, no.

          • Finn McDonald

            National academy of science report carry enough weight for you WeGotta? https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/national-academy-of-sciences-report-on-gmos/

          • WeGotta

            Not in the slightest.
            First, It’s not a study that in any way backs up your original claim. No studies have been done on humans.

            Second, that’s just the opinion of people in the field of science as to whether they think science is science or not. No surprise they do.

            Now if you would like to present some evidence that proves the scientific consensus is always right when it comes safety I’ll be all ears.

            But there’s plenty of proof that things once thought “safe” by scientific consensus can be harmful. Furthermore, the harm caused to you could be the very evidence that changes the consensus opinion to “not safe” after all.

          • ed

            Yes, that is not true. Many people get food poisoning from food however. That is true. It is actually a more truthful statement to say that there is no evidence that GMO’s are actually safe on any level. The statement us too much different, but still very significant in it’s truth and impact.

        • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

          Great points … I have seen enough sycophants defending indefensible GMO/Chemical corps with packaged propaganda.

          Due to our geographical isolation, lack of regulation and US patent protection, Hawaii is the global center of transgenic seed creation, as well as the extinction capital of the world.

          The big six soon to be 4 giant Chemical/GMO firms, continue consolidation towards becoming Brawndo, (Monsanto, Dow-DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer and BASF) paid millions in blatant propaganda, in the most disproportionately funded election in history…They still couldn’t buy Maui’s vote for a GMO Moratorium until Independent Longterm Impact Tests are conducted…Instead of simply conducting the environmental and health tests, Monsanto along with Dow-DuPont simply sued to overturn laws they couldn’t buy to avoid the tests they know they would fail.

          As for fecal contamination another good reason to chose organic over GMO which is often fertilized with human sewer sludge only allowed in the GMO non-organic. “These include maintaining or enhancing soil and water quality; conserving wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife; and avoiding use of synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation, and genetic engineering.”
          https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Organic%20Practices%20Factsheet.pdf

          Anyone defending glyphosate definitely doesn’t understand basic chemistry. Peer reviewed literature is quite clear on the damage to both gut and soil biome.

          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1075996413000188

          Dr. Robert Kremer is a Professor of Soil Microbiology at the University of Missouri and is recently retired after a 32-year career as a microbiologist with the U.S.D.A. and just one of many who has studied the impacts extensively.

          https://www.nature.com/articles/npjbiofilms20163

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/abbf8018da7790ef5e1c6bd6b0c00c8a1622c5b9f9ae937f9ce8062096b39912.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/30d28faef9d51b3816ca4234c389af6c5848b6e4dc729ada6c66d3a2c0fd268b.jpg

          • ed

            Hawaii 5 O showed us that extinction technology has been around for a while and mostly motivated by money. Now is no different. Not surprising. We need to get Dano on it I think!

          • Brian Duggan

            If glyphosate ties up all the elements you mentioned, why are farmers not seeing a drop in productivity? No, the glyphosate is rapidly degraded by bacteria who utilise it as a carbon sources.

      • WeGotta

        Why?

        Saying people need to pick gmo food because there is no “evidence that GM traits have an adverse effect on your health” is stupid for multiple reasons.
        1. There is no evidence that non-gmo food has adverse effects on your health.
        2. People eat junk food which has been proven to have adverse effects on your health, and no plant biologist seem to care. In fact, if it’s junk food it’s most likely gmo.
        3. People who choose flip flop shoes instead of high top shoes don’t have to prove that high tops have adverse health effects. They just choose flip flops.
        4. The processes by which things come into existence matter. One could make sugar from the livers of stolen newborn babies so that no scientist could tell the difference between it and “organic” sugar. This doesn’t mean choosing one over the other doesn’t matter.

        • Finn McDonald

          Well you stick to your non-GMO, fat laden, sugar laden junk food which you claim doesn’t affect your health WeGotta and I’ll stick to science m’OK?

          • WeGotta

            Do what you like.

            But what you and I do or don’t do doesn’t make your assertion true.

          • Brian Duggan

            Do what he likes?! OK. Finn, stick to facts man! Woo hoo!!!

          • WeGotta

            Yes, stick to facts … Stop hanging on to ideology.

          • Finn McDonald

            Nah, I’m good with facts. 😉

          • richard

            The fact is sir…..you can yell and kick and scream til the cows come home, the public aint buyin it….. Like Yogi Berra said……”If the fans wanna stay away, we cant stop them”…..Get a helmet Brian!

        • ed

          You are correct. It is becoming tough to sell these products and is dropping the pricing complex.

    • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

      It can also be healthier for the bottom line, organic when done properly yields more for less.
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7b24a20452cd8493bcae8f3a8bed2e5212a6478e00c20c77e7a2477e012ff325.jpg

      • Gmo Roberts

        More misleading information but a nice try nonetheless …

        • Harold

          I like your misleading information better; It’s more misleading and more entertaining. I hate poor quality misleads.
          Kanawai has 2929 comments and 18343 votes and you have 3775 comments and 889 votes. It looks like the majority don’t appreciate good quality BS.

          • Finn McDonald

            No Harold, votes don’t equal scientific evidence. Votes got women burnt for being witches.

        • ed

          No, it is true. Organic production is far more profitable and without the regret of selling out to big business and causing chronic human health conditions like cancer. It may or may not be more work. Chemical agriculture seems to be leading farmers to wanting to increase the size of their farms with their new found lower margins, rather than decrease the size of their farms or stay the same size with the additional profits that it is suppose to be providing. Content with superior income is not what is happening in big ag. Lower profits have got these guys running on a treadmill. They don’t seem to be able to see It, and often come up with some rather funny logic in an attempt to defend the practice, like the size of the sweet spot, (20,000 acres, no scratch that, now it is 30,000 acres) or how many acres you should be dragging a combine over or what kinds of deals you can get in multiples trading off your two year old and completely worn out tractors and combines. 12% interest rates and land prices dropping back to half price may slow that attitude quickly but in the mean time things will likely keep going up like a non refillable solid fuel booster rocket.

    • richard

      Yeah I had the same thoughts…. Only in the halcyon world of agribiz mythology does more glyphosate in the foodstream equate to progress….. Drenching crops with glyphosate at harvest is the death knell for corporate hubris…….Intelligent humans don’t want agritoxins in their food, at any level…. full stop…..Glyphosate is the poster boy for GM food dogma, and this cold hard fact is why billions of dollars of corporate spin fall on deaf ears. Clinically sterile ‘clean’ fields do not equate to clean food…..and you don’t need Purdue studies to know that.

  • ed

    Yes, that is simply not the truth and you may in fact know that, but the evidence about gut bacteria is solid. You may want to check with some credible info and remove the tinfoil headware from your last farm chemical meeting as these farmer hats not only have advertisements for cancer causing companies, but could change the way you process information. There is good money in GMO’s and such but as far as health goes it is only safest if there are no other option.

    • Brian Duggan

      Correct. GMO’s are indeed more profitable for farmers. Less pesticides and more yield. It is, after all, why farmers grow them when they can. What is not to love.

      • ed

        Selling crack cocaine would also have the same profitable benefits.

  • Brian Duggan

    Good. I do. Because the overwhelming body of evidence shows that it is safe. Creationists and climate change deniers use the same tactics; find one paper, misinterpret the findings, then say ‘see, their whole theory is bunkum’. Sad really.

    • ed

      Most nations seem to be going that way which is odd to you as well I would expect.

      • Finn McDonald

        Well, given every year mire GM traits are accepted in more countries and GM crops are grown on more hectares ed, I am wondering how you came to such a conclusion. Or was that in reference to climate change?

        • ed

          GM is actually running out of steam. It is having a hard time keeping up with weed resistance issues, and the bug companies are getting quite gun shy about further reasearch for new products with the consumer and farmer resistance to these products so high. That merged with some of the high prices extracted from the gmo farmers that have to expand at all cost because of the very low magins that are presently occuring in agri business these days.

          • Finn McDonald

            Well yes and no. Canola oil quality traits are coming out. Also Golden rice in 2018 (free seed with no royalties). Bollgard III is still rolling out around the world. Plus Extend and Enlist GM herbicide packages. But CRISPR is the new frontier. And fortunately it looks like it won’t be regulated (already CRISPR corn, cabbage and mushrooms commercially available). No regulation means they’ll be cheaper. The future looks bright Ed!

          • ed

            Future is bright like in a nuclear attack. When it seems that it is already quite bright out, technology gets dropped in that just keeps brighting up your day. Difference here is that we are in slow motion, that’s all. But that’s good right Finn, because what appears to be brightness will last a little longer.

          • Finn McDonald

            That is a very whimsical and trite comment ed (I thought you were leaving?). Want to put some context and definition around your statement?

          • Harold

            The Crispr CAs 9 was invented by Jennifer Doudne and she says from her own mouth that there are too many unanswered questions to advance in this technology; we are not ready.
            With unanswered questions – it allows the profiteers to move forward regardless, because there are no provable warnings available preventing it and we the Guinea pigs.

          • Finn McDonald

            Don’t you think it is possible that the initial inventor is left behind? What question does Jennifer have? Table them, then we can address them Harold. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

          • Harold

            … Jennifer Doudne – Professor of Molecular and Cell biology. The closing proverb of your comment is misplaced.
            You want to find out; spend some time with her.

          • Finn McDonald

            Sooo, I can just make crap up and then demand that you provide full peer-reviewed evidence to counter what I claimed? Doesn’t work like that Harold.

    • ed

      And when it is a paper that has been produced by the very scientist that have worked for the manufacturer of the products, and as you say is misrepresented, then it is a doubly sad reality. Good points!

      • Happy Farmer

        IF such “papers” exist, would the Western Producer publish them? Or would someone kindly publish them so we can all see the “evidence” you claim?

  • Brian Duggan

    So we should just stay inside and never go outside Harold?!? Yeah, great way for the human species to evolve. Well, some of us anyway.
    I am truly sad for you that you can’t comprehend the basis of not being able to prove a negative Harold. I explained it to my 12 year old the other day. She understood it.
    Actually I have done a considerable amount of plant transformation. Your attempt to belittle me by assuming I don’t know anything…well… that’s very telling too Harold. 😂

    • Harold

      Thanks for the adventure. Finn’s comment was based upon a single day occurrence. My response was based upon a single day occurrence. Details details. Were you reading every word or every other word?
      Finn’s use of the term negative was used out of context and was expressing an emotion and not physics. I hope that your understanding daughter corrected you. Did she tell you that cars do not feel bad (negative) at an accident scene and they don’t break down and cry? I’m sure that your 12 year old understands physics just like my kids did at 12 years of age. So tell me; when two forces collide together – which one is positive force and which one is negative force. Is the negative the force that didn’t see the traffic light? Is that how forces in physics work now? What did your 12 year old daughter tell you; that the negative force is the force that sends someone to the hospital? Nice try. I apologize that I’m not a 12 year old that can easily agree with you. I’m sure that you can find more young children in the neighborhood if you look. I’m OK; so you needn’t waste your energy to be “truly sad” for me; I can do that for myself.
      Do you think that I was talking about Plant transformation at home or do you think I was talking lab. Is gene editing now called plant transformation? Explain the plant transformation that you do. I am curious.
      If you feel belittled, that is your choice to make: i am not in control of your switches that control your emotions. If you wish to belittle me, and please do, at least do it eye to eye and have the courage to not drag your innocent daughter into it; it’s unbecoming – to say the least. Your Daughter didn’t deserve any of the comments that I have made in reference to her. Never mind me; do you comprehend what your actions have done?

      • Finn McDonald

        Are you seriously arguing that you can prive a negative Harold?! Is that it?!? Use any example you like but digression to irrelevant physics examples doesn’t gelp your case.

        • Harold

          … Your use of the term “negative” was irrelevant in the first place, and all I did was to point that out. Next you spoke of science and said to Ed; “that is how science works”. I hate to break it to you Finn, but science is physics. Furthermore, I do not have a “case” for you to resolve and neither do I need your help. … this will be my final comment on this issue.

          • Finn McDonald

            Harold, suck it up. You can’t prove a negative. And you were asking me to do just that. I said to Ed that it was NOT how science works. Not sure what you mean when you say ‘science is physic’. Anyway, go off and study proving negatives. Can’t be done.

          • Harold

            Suck it up? Is that your argument? Deep, very deep. Pay attention the next time you place a battery into your car.

          • Finn McDonald

            Yes, suck it up. If you can’t understand why you can’t prove a negative that’s not my issue, it is yours. Suck it up Harold. Or even better yet, investigate why you can’t prove a negative.

          • Harold

            I Just proved a scientific negative in my last comment; the positive and negative posts on your car battery. How about positive and negative Ions; do you know anything about lightning storms? These two examples are way too obvious and there are many more examples, and too many to list, and they all represent what you lack in your own investigation. In the mean time; am I foolish enough to “suck up” what you have to say on this matter? NO. I only take that order from one person – and that person is not you. …

          • Finn McDonald

            Then please, give an example how you can prove a negative Harold. You have the floor. Go for it. Anytime. Go. Waiting… And….now! No? No?!?

    • ed

      George Bush said that a proof was a proof, was a proof. There were no weapons of mass destruction at the time in the Middle East to back his statement and many came home, not as they had went, on that one. Some of those guys and gals had 12 year old sons and daughters too. And 11, 10, 9 and so on, and so on.

      • Finn McDonald

        Exactly. And those opposed to GM technology have no evidence to back up their claims. Like Bush they use fear-mongering and scare tactics to drive their agenda. They should be held in contempt.

  • Finn McDonald

    Oh so let me get this straight ed; technology is helping us overcome a science based issue?! Goodness me! There is no spike in cancer rates and you can’t connect GM technology to cancer either. That you are desparately trying to is what is hilarious.

    • ed

      8 hr. ago…”Cancer is the number one cause of death-the volume of patients is steadily increasing”…-Dr. Sri Navaratnam, CEO and president of CancerCare Manitoba.

  • ed

    These genetic/but more so chemical retail company’s own scientific studies showed these very ill health effects that you claim do not exist, but they released many of their products in spite of the overwhelming evidence of ill human health concerns anyway, to produce massive profits for their private investors and/or shareholders. Thalidomide and Ford Broncos are other examples of such poorly thought out products. Guns as a way to add to humans over all safety and security is another example. I would bring out my Swiffer but a good old fashion mop and hot water might be better to do your floors.

  • ed

    Hobby farmers don’t count of coarse. LOL with 20% of the farmers farming 80% of the land, (gov. numbers), the averages in those farmers is considerably higher than the less than truthful numbers that you are talking. The 80% that farm the 20% of the land are ok with a tractor that will clear the lane so they can get to their jobs in the towns or cities, or bale some road hay for a few cows. They probably do have a new one however because it can help offset their off farm incomes which according to Stats. Can. Is basically the source of pretty much all farm income. Yep, off farm income is the source of all farm income. It is basically laundered through the farm more or less. The rest is borrowed money against the fictional rise in land prices and is also laundered thru the farm and becomes what seems like operational income as tha capital debts stay on the books. Clever trick to make it seem like there is actually some kind of income happening. When you are living on Fantasy Island who care however, right. The numbers are so tragic that Stats Can took farm machinery depreciation numbers out of their reporting of farm incomes years ago in a vain attempt to show profit in the sector, and even that didn’t work. You need to get out of dream land if you are going to add to these serious forums.