mskellyann’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Excellent column; thank you for the sanity!On Save us, [insert techno-fix here], you're our only hope! posted 1 week, 1 day ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  You are too funny, foodprovider. "Flaunt," indeed. Nope, no flaunting, just arguing logically. "You will bash the credability . . ." Nope, just thinking critically. Critical thinking is what I like to use along with my "common sense and faith in God." "GMO technology is a tool given us to use, why not use it?" *sigh* Because, as I've said before, it's based on faulty premises and bad science, and traps farmers in debt. It's also incredibly dangerous to existing plant breeds. I won't argue with you in future, I just thought you might really be open to learning. Boy was I wrong.On Bill Gates reveals support for GMO ag posted 1 week, 2 days ago 44 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  If you'd actually looked at the authors' names and publication date, you'd have seen that the study you linked to is not the same one I linked. Predictably, the one you found was published in an industry journal. If you want to read the one I linked to, go to a library. Thanks for helping make my point! Bye now.On Bill Gates reveals support for GMO ag posted 1 week, 6 days ago 44 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Impact of Bt cotton adoption on pesticide use by smallholders: A 2-year survey in Makhatini Flats (South Africa) (2006) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T5T-4JHMHHR-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1062262638&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=df2f49ae1989b0d80b6a6b0c09a65625 http://www.steps-centre.org/PDFs/STEPSsumBtCotton.pdf has a good overview of some of the other issues faces by famers internationally, including cultural and educational issues. If GMOs are going to "feed the world," something non-GM crops can do already, incidentally, then they need to be able to be used effectively by poor farmers in isolated areas with little or no formal education. Why should they adopt GMOs, a scheme which only enriches American agri-chem companies, when they are now rediscovering excellent traditional techniques, techniques which had been abandoned by their grandfathers because of the "green revolution?" Even in GMO crops are effective in reducing pesticide use, the basic danger of introducing a non-evolved genetic structure into plant populations strongly argues against their use.On Bill Gates reveals support for GMO ag posted 2 weeks ago 44 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  You have got to be kidding, foodprovider. Your analogy is backwards: you are listening to the agri-chemical companies rather than the poor plodders who sift through the science and the pseudo-science. Reading Cummings's book is more like listening to James Hansen back in the 80s. You want to know where you're wrong? Here you go: 1. You say plant genes are inserted into other plants. While this is problematic in itself, it is not the whole truth. Non-plant genes are also "inserted," including animal and bacterial genes. 2. You say farmers have been sued for saving GM seeds; basically, for breaking contract. What you omit: organic farmers have been sued for growing GM crops when they are obviously not under contract, simply because of cross-pollination and contamination of their crops. So not only does an organic farmer lose organic certification for the contamination, he or she is also sued for it! 3. The shotgun method IS still used. The whole process is utterly imprecise. But there is further imprecision - genes are combined without any regard to an organism's evolution and integrity. The introduction of a new gene may have the unintended consequence of making it vulnerable to conditions it was previously resistant to. 4. Again, your comparison between hybrids and GMOs. Totally disregards the history and the science. 5. You constantly claim that you use less fertilizer than you did before. This is disingenuous. Yes, less fertilizer may be used. GMOs combined with no-till methods may drastically reduce the need for fertilizer. But studies show that chemical pesticides, on the other hand, have drastically increased with the use of many GMOs. After all, GMOs such as RoundUp-Ready seeds are intended to maximize profits: spend for the seeds, then spend for the RoundUp. Just because you don't use certain pesticides doesn't mean that that's how other farmers operate. 6. Bt acts in a totally different way as a spray than it does as part of an organism, partly because GM Bt is in a different form from naturally occurring Bt. As an organism in a spray, it breaks down naturally over time and is activated only in the guts of susceptible organisms; therefore its effect on non-target organisms is minimized. Bt transgenics, on the other hand, HAVE been shown to harm non-target organisms and beneficial insects. 6a. Bt transgenics, you imply in your response to askantik, reduce dependence on pesticides. This is not true. Again, studies have shown that just as much insecticide is being used on Bt cotton as on pre-GMO cotton. I don't have the time to pull apart any more of your "argument," much of which is incoherent. All I ask is, learn when you're wrong. Spend some time reading instead of just spewing. Please.On Bill Gates reveals support for GMO ag posted 2 weeks, 2 days ago 44 Responses