It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Massive Bee Deaths Solved? (GM Corn Is The Culprit)

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:29 PM
I agree with some of what is said here - let me explain. I farm and work in the farming industry. Ive seen many things change over the years in the ag industry both north and south of the 49th parallel.

I do think that there is a lot of mis-information given to the ag industry for the sake of making profit, and I do respect the land and do my best to keep everyone around safe. We do not spray our canola crops unless it is absolutely nessary. Nature will look after the pests, sometimes it may need a little help.

I have seen in my area wild bee and bumblebees get less and less over the last few years and we grow next to no GMO corn due to lack of a lot of heat units. I can see what the article was saying about the persistance/residual showing up in the hives. Insecticides are and can be nasty things, used correctly they can be a help, but I really do wonder at times when things such as the results on the hive testing, how much and how complete the testing to prove safety is, and where it is just "enough" to get it out to the market.

I agree with Einstein, why? I just trust in my gut he is right, like an instinct. However, I do not want to really test the theory personally. I do think as humans it is up to us to change things and try to get things changed if we are to continue living on this planet.

And congrats to those that have started to take the big companies to be held accountable. North America will slowly come around to the way of thinking to that of our farming counterparts in the EU and to the way GMO's are viewed as well.

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:51 PM
how predictable for you to use the dubious Einstein quote. if you are relying on the Einstein propaganda, how much of the rest of this is unbiased?

you wouldn't mind posting the plos-one article link, would you?....since you mentioned it and all.

just so much hype. I am sure you'll get plenty of thread attention, tho.

"star and flag! gmos are horrible"

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:09 PM
Should be on the front page and Monsanto should give every single person money until they have none left and they spend the rest of their life in jail or in labs finding ways to fix their mistakes, but I'm sure this'll get the nothing to see here folks routine...

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:43 PM
reply to post by tgidkp

when is this crowd gonna apply critical thinking to this supposed gmo. problem, rather than the typical reactionary hyperbole?

Right because who cares if our food is nutritional any more as long as it looks good right?

Who cares if our food is causing major illnesses, diseases and cancer as long as it stays fresh on the shelf for abnormal amounts of time so Food Corporations can rake in the profits right?

Why don't you do a little critical thinking and give us one good reason people should consume GMO foods instead of natural organic products.

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:43 PM
reply to post by kn0wh0w

Clothianidin has no real link to GM corn....It's just an insecticide used on GM corn, and natural corn alike....I'd say the article is being quite misleading by throwing GM corn into the mix. In fact one of the goals in genetically modifying plants is to make them more resistant, so they need LESS insecticides....Meaning that one could actually make a more logical argument that it's the reliance on pesticides by NORMAL plants that is causing Bees to die....

Honestly though, I think trying to make either argument would be a tad bit disingenuous, and a bit propaganda-ish..the story here is about Clothianidin, and its' possible link to Bee deaths....not GM modified plants.

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:28 AM
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

reason #1: because gmo has the potential to permanently solve resource scarcity problems on a planetlwide scale.

can you even imagine how awesome that would be? no....I suspect you have never personally faced resource scarcity in your comfortable 1st world lifestyle.

sure, as a biotechnologist I will openly admit that there *may be* grave unforeseen consequences of this tech. but the VAST MAJORITY of these reports are unsupported groupthink scaremongering. I must insist that it is YOU and YOUR team whom are lacking in critical thought.

why would you risk such benefit without proper objective research?

nah....the scaremongers MUST be right. right?

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:32 AM
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

BTW, what does that graphic have to do with gmo?

looks like you are exhibiting typical non-critical-thinker conflation of "GMO" with "GMO CORPORATION" can you see that these are not the same thing?

hows that critical thought working out for yah?

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:41 AM
People keep making this same mistake concerning GMOs. There are TWO different types in common use.
First type - Plants which have been engineered genetically to make a toxic substance (such as bt toxin), a PESTICIDE, which kills those insects (usually in the larval stage, like caterpillars, weevils, borers, etc) that feed on some part of the plant (root, leaf, etc) during some phase of the plants growth cycle (seed, seedling, mature plant). A plant doesn't need to be pesticide resistant as far as I know, because pesticides don't affect the plant metabolism and growth.

Second type - Plants which have been engineered to be resistant to a high degree against an HERBICIDE, not pesticide, such as Roundup (Glyphosate). This is done so that the weeds get killed but the plant does not die when they mass spray these toxic chemicals on fields.

In either case, the bioengineers have inserted a gene to make the plant produce a foreign substance, or series of genes to make a metabolic pathway to provide resistance, which does not normally exist in nature. This is why they are frankenfoods, except it would be as if Frankenstein's monster was part human, part rodent and part fish, because these genes aren't even in the potential genetic pool of any plant, so cross breeding would never allow these genes to be expressed. The only possibilty for nature to make these types of genetic modifications would be via random mutation on a huge scale. At least that is how I understand it.

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:44 AM
reply to post by tgidkp

reason #1: because gmo has the potential to permanently solve resource scarcity problems on a planetlwide scale.

You do realize that "resource scarcity" as you call it is a falsehood.

The "scarcity" has been falsely created in the pursuit of profits.

Feeding the world - facts versus fiction

Most hungry people live in countries that have food surpluses rather than deficits. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), we are already producing one and a half times the amount of food needed to provide everyone in the world with an adequate and nutritious diet, yet one in seven people is suffering from hunger.

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:45 AM
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

Thank you for posting that, recognizing revolving door policies for private interest groups that do very little testing to get product to market should be critical thinking enough. This isn't a bandwagon, it's our health, not to mention the natural order of things that science (in the name of progress) is messing with. There are strains of GMO corn that make human males infertile, and they are still pulling them off the shelves.

Food is very important to me, important enough that I try to grow as much of my own as I can. I know the difference in my overall health and mentality when I eat healthy, naturally grown foods vs. mainstream commercial processed products.

edit on 16-2-2012 by Aliquandro because: gotta be nice i guess

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:47 AM
reply to post by tgidkp

looks like you are exhibiting typical non-critical-thinker conflation of "GMO" with "GMO CORPORATION" can you see that these are not the same thing?

I think you have confused "critical thinking" with "over inflated ego"

Are you serious ?

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:51 AM

Originally posted by Aliquandro
Also I recommend "King Corn"

King Corn is great! A must see! There's also a documentary I've been wanting to watched called Vanishing of the Bees. Anyone seen it?

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 01:16 AM
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

youve got to be kidding me.

scarcity is (and has been) the driving force of human social dynamics since the dawn of time. long, long, long before corporations came around.

what can you be thinking making such a patently ignorant statement?!


okay, my turn: show me one legitimate (peer reviewed) study substantiating (but not interpreting, I can do that myself) any of these most horrifying gmo problems.

I asked for the ops plos-one article. does it really exist?

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 01:26 AM
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

I am more thoroughly and objectively informed than you on this subject, particularly regarding the science. I will not apologize for having a clearer perspective than you. this makes YOUR ego hurt.

but, of course, I am the one with the self image problem.

you appear to be very deeply entrenched in this groupthink.

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 01:34 AM
so did anyone ever hear of cell phone frequncies throwing them off kilter thus causing them to starve if i remember corectly? thats all i've heard of it until now

oh, and to the end of the world scenario, since we would die soon after bees, no matter what caused them to die, i think that would be a logical connection to it. just another piece of the puzzle

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 01:39 AM
reply to post by Aliquandro

that gmo is not sufficiently proven (in the rush to market) is a fact which cannot be stressed enough to those on BOTH sides of this argument. I totally agree.

however. when you start piling speculation on top of it (re: against the "natural order"), and subsequently use that information to bias your perspective, you have taken yourself out of the argument and become a liability to the progress of humankind.

please do not enforce your 1st world beliefs onto 3rd world realities (starvation).

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 01:47 AM
scarcity when manipulated is one of the most powerful ways to control the masses too, yeah?... so can we stay on topic?

I'd like to know more about what really causes my friends the bees to vanish die off? Does anyone have any real insight into this?

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 01:53 AM
reply to post by tgidkp

I am more thoroughly and objectively informed than you on this subject, particularly regarding the science.

Sure you are..

and you're an astronaut, micro-biologist, nuclear physicist, billionaire philanthropist too right.

I bet you've traveled to far off galaxies and had lunch with the Queen of England

Your great great great grand daddy was George Washington's Uncle or something too huh?

You're a F@#kn joke

I find it to be a complete waste of time and energy discussing these matters with people like you.

I'd rather just allow you to wallow in your ridiculous superiority complex and laugh at you from afar.
edit on 16-2-2012 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 01:58 AM
reply to post by Aliquandro

Thanks for supplying the was broken but I was able to find it using the numbers

Here it is again fixed for ATS


posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 02:00 AM
reply to post by tgidkp

You write:

scarcity is (and has been) the driving force of human social dynamics since the dawn of time. long, long, long before corporations came around.

Wrong, wrong,wrong.
FAIL in terms of critical thinking.
You are right, it WAS the driving force, but at this moment in time, humans consume and throw out MORE food then could feed the world.
You have bought the scaremonger scarcity argument, without ANY critical thinking.
Its a question of distribution, and technology.
For the first time in Humanities history (possibly) we are in the unique point, where food could be distributed to ALL.
We have the technological capacity to produce food (in abundance).
Hell, we could even produce most foods via alternative agricultural systems such as aquaponics, that need no pesticides or herbicides.
It seems also that GM food is not, I repeat is NOT the miracle it was touted as. It too can have crop failure, disease, etc.
So, NO, there is no scarcity, only people throwing out huge amounts of food, whilst others are starving.
This is NOT a question of scarcity, but economics, sociology, whatever. Distribution.
Washing and bluring 2 very separate topics, makes you a demagogue and a mouthpiece of Monstanto.

As for GM food, I personally, have nothing against it.
However, humans should not be a test subjects.
This technology has to be tested for DECADES, if not more.
Where is the SWOT analysis of GMO?
Where is the nutritional analysis of GMO?
Food has been nutritionally starved, up to 9o% of nutrients have been lost in the last 5o years. It can hardly be called food, really. I would venture that these GM foods, and practices are making thing worse.
Grow a carrot in your back garden, have it analyzed, then analyze the current food carrots. You will be stunned...This is a very large story here...You cannot LIVE without FOOD, so stop pretending you can, and IT makes NO DIFFERENCE. Or go and eat the light and sun, and get back to us.
Where is the long term environmental impact of GMO?
Where is the cohabitation impact, as it seems that GM foods are canabalizing other foods, this is a very serious question?
Why are the seeds suicide seeds. Any studies to show what happens if this GM spreads and takes over? what happens, how we can get rid of it, when all crops start suiciding themselves after harvest, because they fuse with the suicide crops? Obviously this has not been though trough, as even a kindergarten student can ask these questions.

These are NOT scaremonger questions, but totally legitimate, and burring your head and the ground and asking NO question, and saying others aren't critical thinkers, is the very definition of GULLIBLE my friend.
edit on 16-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

And one more thing. Monsanto was a pretty average company, right until it decided to be a biotech company.
Is there anything wrong with that?
No, not really.
The problems lies here, to be a biotech company in this area safely would require maze 5o-1oo years, a long term investment.
Monsanto skipped all that boring part about safety and human concern, and as pointed out in the post below, the very first thing they did, was make their seed Monstano pesticide and herbicide resistant.
Why do you think they did that?
They didn't care about scarcity, they just cared about sales.
Here monstano hit a nerve. Money, media attention. So they started to make stuff up, suicide genes, etc, that are totally unnecessary, and UNTESTED.
There is nothing wrong with making money, thats what business is about.
However, what they are doing is unethical in all uses of the word, including legal.
And it turns out now, that ethics are not without their merit, as the amount of evidence pilling up against monstano, should really warrant an immediate cease and desist order.
Lets just talk nutrition, as we all got to eat. What monstano produces, is NOT FOOD, it is totally depleted of nutrients.
Its a huge scam.
edit on 16-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

So to recap the last part: Monstano is unethical and also UNSCIENTIFIC, and it can be proved (easily) thats its products are nutritionally bordering on valueless.
edit on 16-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in