On 15/09/2014 3:07 AM, Derald wrote:
songbird wrote:

can you read this boots on the ground
report from someone who does actual research
and keeps records and tell me you really want
to drink that stuff?

http://permaculturenews.org/2014/09/...ences-denmark/

Note from a Non-Believer:

So? Or are you claiming that because you are a "non-believer", you've
had your brains kicked out and can't read for comprehension and
automatically prefer to believe a multi-national which has a vested
commercial interest in providing 'proofs' that form part of a very
professional marketing strategy?

Does anyone in the NG actually believe
the citation to have anything to do with science or research?

FFS! The place produces pigs!!! It's not some airy, fairy green space
for drugged up hippies.

ANY producer of animals who hopes to make a living from producing
animals keeps records. In fact in most cases the keeping of animal
production records is mandatory in order to be accountable to the Tax
regime in any country.

The figures he gives about the numbers of piglets born, the number of
piglets weaned, the number suckled and the reduction of medication,. the
incidence of defects are all as much facts as are the information on
trial results presented by Monsanto.

The only change (according to him) is in the food. You could quibble
that he may well be telling a lie about changing that but then the same
applies to what Monsanto says.

He's claiming to have done his figures over a sample of 30,000. That is
a big sample size. Monsanto would probably be pushed to produce any
equivalency for their trials that supposed provide similar proof of
safety.

Frankly,
I see it as pure "bee-oh-ell-oh-gee-in-aay": Unadulturated, religiously
ideological, claptrap prepared for an audience of true believers willing
to accept dogma as fact and already believing GMO's to be "evil" in and
of themselves (as evidenced by their attendance at something called,
"1st Forum of Development and Environmental Safety").

Those comments are ridiculous and hysterical.

Furthermore, it is
presented in a "publication" widely discounted for its grand,

"Widely discounted"???? Good example of a sweeping statement for which
you provide no supporting evidence.

sweeping
unqualified statements of "facts" (for example, it routinely advises
tyros to plant beans because "they fix nitrogen in the soil")which
often bear an astounding similarity to the offal that comes out of the
Rodale pipeline or comes from those thieves who sell dirt and/or berries
as "food supplements".
Whatever the speaker may have done with his swine, it surely was
not research: The speaker cites arbitary sample selection, no controls,
no defined experimental regimen, "conclusions" drawn from no actual
evidence whatsoever

Of course there is evidence, but you are as blind as you claim he is -
in fact more so given the illogical reasoning and claims you've made in
order to object to what he says.

Any animal producer who sees claims of increased production, less birth
defects, less disease and less medication knows that all of those things
are desirable outcomes.

but, instead, presents coincidence as causality (a
disturbingly common practice among the save-the-worlders) because it
"seems" to be "reasonable" but is more closely related to "drinking the
Kool-aid" than to drinking glyphosate.
Bear in mind when reading the piece that the _only_ actual,
substantiated, _conclusion_ to be drawn from the entire body of
so-called evidence in the entire piece is in this statement:
The researchers note: “Further investigations are urgently needed to prove or exclude glyphosate
in malformations in piglets and other animals.”

Jesus wept! "The only actual substantiated conclusion to be drawn"!!!!!
Did you think about that before you hit send? And especially in light
of your claims throughout the rest of your post about how there are no
facts, no research, no evidence.

The pig producer gets increased returns form a change of feed. More
live births, less birth defects, less medication, and although he didn't
say it, more live pigs at the marketing stage therefore means more money
in his pocket. They are all "facts" that any agricultural producer
understands.

He's a pig producer. He's paying for the amount of work he has already
done and that amount of work is quite considerable. He's not a
university research scientist who may or may not be getting money from
Monsanto to do research in order to support Monsanto's claims of the
safety of Glyphosate. Hé salso not Monsanto who has very deep pockets.

Use your brain. Reread the article and try to do so as a producer not a
knee jerk nay sayer.