flo, first, I don't get paid any more than you get paid. Should I be assuming that you are being paid by the people who stand to make money when glyphosate gets banned? Like other companies that sell other agricultural chemicals. It's pathetic to see people like you who think that anyone who disagrees with you must be doing it out of greed.
But in the case of me and glyphosate, it's even worse. Because there's lots of stuff coming out that suggests that glyphosate is more dangerous than we previously thought, and while Monsanto says this is all wrong, I have said that I think every possible claim of harm should be investigated. I said, for example, that Europe should delay re-authorizing its use until the doubts get resolved. You, unfortunately, have the mode of thought that anyone who offers an opinion, or even worse some facts, that contradict your case must not only be paid to post but also must disagree with you about everything.
Just one other thing. I don't know about you but I have personally taken a part in environmental protection. For many years I was involved in keeping harmful chemicals out of my community's water supply and out of the ponds and estuaries. That meant I had to actually look at the suggested tolerances to just about every known harmful chemical and figure out how to keep to within those tolerances. I get seriously put off by people whose contribution to the environment consists mainly of commenting on the bulletin boards and selecting only the stories that fit their pre-held ideas.
Actually you are wrong (as usual). I think our whole system of patents on living things needs to be reworked. I also have objections to how corporations often exert too much power, including Monsanto.
But corporations were invented for a good reason. There are some projects that seem like a good idea but that require more resources than most people can invest. For example, my friend and I invented a medical imaging device but to actually put it to use it had to be built, tested, marketed, etc. No way either of us could do that ourselves. So she located investors and formed a corporation and now it is saving people's lives.
Patents were also invented for a reason, to encourage useful innovation. That doesn't mean they aren't ever abused - that should be fixed - but even our founding fathers understood their value, and wrote it into the constitution.
It's interesting that you complain about my "long winded" comments. You typically make comments that are too short to have any substance at all, just enough to be nasty or contemptuous.
cat_guy, adjuvants are substances added to vaccines to enhance the body's immune response.
I think what you saw "somewhere else" was surfactants.
Surfactants do cause rapid absorbtion - that's what they are for. They are basically soap.
They certainly do affect a weed's response to glyphosate - and of course they should be studied.
In fact, yes. The exact same techniques that scientists have used to transfer bacterial genes into agricultural crops was used by nature, around 15000 years ago, and brought two different active genes into the common sweet potato.
rockoo10, some of these people would refuse to read a bible if it was printed with soy based ink.
Well, first, your premise is wrong. Like almost anything else, this technology has both advantages and disadvantages. To you, there are only disadvantages.
With my point of view, an actual disadvantage gets corrected. For example, the possibility of a gene transfer bringing an allergen into a food crop was considered, found to be realistic, and therefore steps have been taken to prevent it. With your point of view, the allergy issue only serves as ammunition in your crusade and you actually prefer that it not be corrected. To give another example, there was an idea of transferring a Bt gene into sunflowers. But an evaluation of the environmental effect showed that the gene would likely transfer into wild sunflower populations, so the project was cancelled. Again, your side would love for that transfer to happen so you would have more ammunition.
You would like, instead, to ban all GMOs and therefore you would give up the good features. You would stymie the reduction in carbon dioxide and the soil damage caused by deep plowing. You would stymie the reduction in use of insecticides. You would try to prevent introduction of a more nutritious rice, or bananas that survive a fungus infestation. Incredibly, you actually hate the good things about GMOs and you like the bad things, precisely because you want more ammunition for your cause. The reason you think I am 100% pro-GMO comes down entirely to the fact that I often correct the false statements that your side makes. I also correct the false statements and the illogical statements from pro-GMO commenters - although these are far fewer - but you don't even see that.
gold4me777, let me give you an analogy. Suppose there's a weather page in a daily newspaper. Also suppose that the newspaper carries advertising from a seller of raincoats, umbrellas, and rubber boots, but never from the sellers of sunscreen. You might wonder whether to trust the weather predictions in that newspaper. That's like wondering if there's a bias.
Oh, but you say, the forecaster has a degree from a well-regarded school of meteorology. That;s like relying on a peer review.
But now suppose that this forecaster has predicted only rain, day after day, for as long as you can remember, even though it has been mostly sunny. A real meteorologist may get some predictions wrong, but he still predicts sunshine sometimes. When I discount Antoniou (or Benbrook, Carman, Seralini, etc.) it is like that.
gold4me, you don't seem to understand. Peer review is not the issue. I certainly understand peer review. I was, for many years, the editor of a major scientific journal, and I have also been both a study author and a reviewer of other studies. We can find dozens of peer reviewed research papers that show no problems with GMOs and with glyphosate. We can also find a few which show many problems with each. If you wish to balance the peer reviewed papers on both sides, your side will be outweighed.
It's not even close to possible to make your side of the argument win by simply counting peer reviewed studies. So your side regularly says that the peer reviewed studies of the other side are not to be trusted because the researchers are biased. Bias doesn't, all by itself, mean that the conclusion reached is wrong, but it certainly casts a doubt. That's why almost every reputable journal asks the authors of published papers to identify possible conflicts of interest. But notice that none of the authors of the Antoniou paper you referenced identified any conflicts of interest. From Antoniou to Benbrook, there are endless examples of them being funded by sources that stand to profit from denigrating GMOs and glyphosate. That's a serious omission, but I didn't even mention it in my earlier response to your comment.
I just asked you a simple question, which you don't want to answer. Do you believe that the researchers of the Antonio study conducted the study without a motive of finding a problem with glyphosate? The honest answer must be YES, because everything Antoniou has ever said about GMOs and glyphosate has been negative. Having a motive is having a bias. The bias they have is no different, in principle, from the bias that a Monsanto funded researcher might have. If you lower the trust in a Monsanto funded researcher, logically you must also lower the trust of a researcher like Antoniou, or Carman or Seralini.
gold4me777, Michael Antoniou has been a 100% anti-GMO campaigner for as long as anyone can remember. Honest answer, if you can - before he began working on the study do you have any doubt about what he wanted to find? I don't. He wanted to find a problem with glyphosate. Look at his co-authors.
You know that every time somebody references a research paper showing a pro-GMO result, there will be a cry about the researcher not being independent. That matters only because one might suspect that a non-independent researcher could be biased. Can you honestly assert that Dr. Antoniou is not biased?
nick, can you explain why the cooking oil recovered from grease has any connection with the Chinese anti-GMO movement?