[werd]

I like the story but you have to admit it is unverified. If there is any real innovation there to begin with? A reporter and some 18 year old using anecdotes describing farming does not mean anything actually.

[OzarkTom]

 

Unverified?

Here is an interview with the young Amish man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krUyr7PxkMk

This is his company's website.

http://www.advancingecoag.com/#!john/igzw5

[werd]

Unverified as hearsay. Not independently verified as a new farming strategy.  Everything I read about it seems to be just a  repeat between the Amish dude and that reporter.

You have to understand I want it to be true. I hate herbicide on GMOs or organic.

[OzarkTom]

John even spoke at the UN meeting about this type of farming, no hearsay at all. John told the UN that GMO and herbicides is failing. Did you watch that last video?

[werd]

Watching it now and it looks legit. I hope he does well.

[FullRangeMan]

Superb farm work, farming not a easy work.

[FullRangeMan]

News from Deutsche Welle:
http://www.dw.com/en/delay-on-glyphosate-decision-leaves-eu-farmers-in-limbo/a-19270097

[Guy 13]

News from Deutsche Welle:
http://www.dw.com/en/delay-on-glyphosate-decision-leaves-eu-farmers-in-limbo/a-19270097

Extract from the link above.
But green groups have hit back against the new study by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization,
pointing out that the chairman of the group leads an institute that received a six-figure donation from Monsanto.

[Guy 13]

News from Deutsche Welle:
http://www.dw.com/en/delay-on-glyphosate-decision-leaves-eu-farmers-in-limbo/a-19270097

Extract from the link above.
But green groups have hit back against the new study by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization,
pointing out that the chairman of the group leads an institute that received a six-figure donation from Monsanto.

[OzarkTom]

Monsanto is looking to merge with anyone to get rid of the name Monsanto, known as the most evil company in the world.

[FullRangeMan]

Even DuPont has better reputation, especially after Nylon.

[OzarkTom]

Would Monsanto ever lie?

The World According to Monsanto (FULL LENGTH)

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6_DbVdVo-k

[ctviggen]

The real way and only way to show something dangerous to health is by using studies. In particular meta studies that use a vast number of data to show a correlation. That is about anything too not just Roundup. Those studies from what I can tell have been done and they do not show a correlation. I am sympathetic to those that are nervous about them because the government who supposedly collects and analyzes these studies isn't functioning.

Actually what you want are randomized controlled trials (RCTs) where some people eat GMOs and some do not.  For the type of epidemiological (epi) data you're describing above, this only proves correlation not causation.  Correlation is meaningless, unless it's a huge correlation and has plausible explanations of disease.  For instance, smoking = cancer is based on epi evidence, but lung cancer is incredibly rare if you don't smoke and relatively common if you do.  Now, a negative correlation might mean we can feel a little better about this, but if Monsanto paid for the study or studies, I guarantee they got what they paid for. 

Another example.  Statin trials (which are RCTs, by the way) paid for by drug manufacturers indicate some benefit for statins.  When an RCT is done and paid for by the government (or some other entity), statins are useless. 

What we need are RCTs that are paid for and run by an entity with no skin in the game.  How many of those have been done?

[OzarkTom]

Actually what you want are randomized controlled trials (RCTs) where some people eat GMOs and some do not.  For the type of epidemiological (epi) data you're describing above, this only proves correlation not causation.  Correlation is meaningless, unless it's a huge correlation and has plausible explanations of disease.  For instance, smoking = cancer is based on epi evidence, but lung cancer is incredibly rare if you don't smoke and relatively common if you do.  Now, a negative correlation might mean we can feel a little better about this, but if Monsanto paid for the study or studies, I guarantee they got what they paid for. 

Another example.  Statin trials (which are RCTs, by the way) paid for by drug manufacturers indicate some benefit for statins.  When an RCT is done and paid for by the government (or some other entity), statins are useless. 

What we need are RCTs that are paid for and run by an entity with no skin in the game.  How many of those have been done?

There are several, but big ag always disputes it. They don't want to lose a dime.

[werd]

Actually what you want are randomized controlled trials (RCTs) where some people eat GMOs and some do not.  For the type of epidemiological (epi) data you're describing above, this only proves correlation not causation.  Correlation is meaningless, unless it's a huge correlation and has plausible explanations of disease.  For instance, smoking = cancer is based on epi evidence, but lung cancer is incredibly rare if you don't smoke and relatively common if you do.  Now, a negative correlation might mean we can feel a little better about this, but if Monsanto paid for the study or studies, I guarantee they got what they paid for. 

Another example.  Statin trials (which are RCTs, by the way) paid for by drug manufacturers indicate some benefit for statins.  When an RCT is done and paid for by the government (or some other entity), statins are useless. 

What we need are RCTs that are paid for and run by an entity with no skin in the game.  How many of those have been done?

Well The type of studies I am talking are Meta so it would have to to exist there first somehow.

You are right though. I am not sure how you can properly assign a correlation between a GMO and cancer when the products that are GMO ATM (Canola, Suger Beats, Corn,) are almost all GMO? There is no data differentiating the two. Almost all Canola is GMO. So how can you tell? You would need two sets Of research data that does not exist.

[ctviggen]

Well The type of studies I am talking are Meta so it would have to to exist there first somehow.

You are right though. I am not sure how you can properly assign a correlation between a GMO and cancer when the products that are GMO ATM (Canola, Suger Beats, Corn,) are almost all GMO? There is no data differentiating the two. Almost all Canola is GMO. So how can you tell? You would need two sets Of research data that does not exist.

That's always a problem.  Of course, it hasn't stopped anyone in the past.  All of the "saturated fat is bad for you" was originally based on epi evidence of the worst degree. 

As for Canola oil, there are some RCTs out there.  The problem is that they aren't long enough to determine cancer and the like. 

But one must be cautioned about relying on epi evidence.  Women's hormone replacement therapy (HRT) comes to mind.  Epi evidence "proved" that HRT resulted in lower heart disease for women.  It proved it so well that everyone prescribed HRT for woman.  Then they did an actual RCT.  What did the RCT show?  Exactly opposite: HRT increases heart disease.  They immediately issued guidance to no longer use HRT for (most) women. 

Why is this? Because the women who were taking HRT in the epi studies where healthier overall than those who weren't.  They took better care of themselves, were richer, etc.  No matter how many studies are combined into a meta-analysis, it's still epi evidence that proves correlation not causation. 

And this same effect is in many, many, many studies.  And let's not even get into the difference between relative and absolute risk.

Personally, I avoid canola oil and any man-made oil (other than olive oil and avocado oil, and for me these are the least of the evils).  There's quite a bit of evidence in my opinion that canola oil and similar oils and their high Omega 6 fats are not good for us, not to mention all of the compounds these create when they are heated.  But I can't "prove" any of this, as the RCTs to actually decide the issue have not been done (and never will be -- the entities involved are too powerful).  It makes sense to me that we ate animal fat for thousands of years with no ill effects, and we never ate man-made oils like canola oil.  It does not make sense (but admittedly could be true) that man-made oils are good for us. 

The same is true for me of GMOs--I can't see they would be of a benefit to me.  (And this is also true for wheat, which went from 14 chromosomes to 42 by breeding; I think modern wheat is likely bad for us.)  They could be good (or at least not bad), but until there's a lot of evidence and particularly RCT evidence, I'd prefer not to eat them.

We each have to make up our own minds based on the evidence at hand. 

[bummrush]

I got a chuckle sort of in a bad way when from above said Dupont,just not right.

[bummrush]

How do like using avocado oil?

[OzarkTom]

Well The type of studies I am talking are Meta so it would have to to exist there first somehow.

You are right though. I am not sure how you can properly assign a correlation between a GMO and cancer when the products that are GMO ATM (Canola, Suger Beats, Corn,) are almost all GMO? There is no data differentiating the two. Almost all Canola is GMO. So how can you tell? You would need two sets Of research data that does not exist.

96% of soy is GMo, 97% of corn is GMO, 100% of sugar beets is GMO, 60% of all sugar is from sugar beets. Therefore 60% of all sugar is GMO.

[rajacat]

I think that the health issues with GMO should take a backseat to the problem that mass use of GMO seeds decreases the natural diversity of our seed stocks. Not only does this create an economic monopoly but leaves crops more exposed to mass failures when inevitably, pests find a chink in armor of the GMO seeds. So instead having a wide variety of seeds and crops, some of which would have a natural defense to various pests, we would be putting all our eggs into one basket that couldn't be changed before famine or market imbalances ensue.