Reblog: “10 ‘scientific’ responses” to “10 reasons we don’t need GMOs”

gmo-cornI don’t generally re-blog articles I’ve read. Sometimes, I might read an article and then do my own take on it. But mostly, I just assume that blog posts should stand on their own merits. But today, I want to make an exception. I ran across an article, “10 ‘reasoned’ responses” to “10 reasons we don’t need #GMOs” by Dr. Cami Ryan, “a researcher with the College of Agriculture and Bioresources at the University of Saskatchewan (Canada) and an outspoken advocate for agriculture and science.” She does a point-by-point critique of an article, 10 reasons why we don’t need GM foods. The article has been flying across Facebook and Twitter, and before I had a chance to take it down, Dr. Ryan did a much better job. Probably because she’s a shill for Big Agra, and I’m just a stooge for Big Pharma. Anyways, let her clobber the inaccuracies of that article, point by scientific point (since I think GMO refusers are anti-science people, no different than global warming deniers, I changed the title of the blog to include the word “scientific.”:

 

_____________________________

1. GM foods won’t solve the food crisis

Well, surprisingly enough, I agree with this one.  Or at least with the statement: GM foods ALONE won’t solve the food crisis. GM foods and genetically engineered (GE) crops aren’t a silver bullet in resolving problems with food security.  I refer to Mark Lynas (former Greenpeace activist and author) who said in a recent talk he gave at Cornell University:

“[GE/GM] cannot build better roads or chase away corrupt officials. But surely seeds which deliver higher levels of nutrition, which protect the resulting plant against pests without the need for expensive chemical inputs, and which have greater yield resilience in drought years are least worth a try?” Mark Lynas (April 2013)

Hey, I’d say so.  It is important to note that the introduction of GE crops (in particular) has enabled wider adoption of “no-till” farming (see a farmer’s perspective on this).  No-till is a system which conserves soil moisture, prevents erosion, dramatically reduces nutrient and pesticide movement to streams and rivers, and reduces fuel use.  All good, in my opinion.

Did you know that if we still farmed using the inputs and techniques that we did in the 1950s, we would need 2 billion more hectares available to produce what we produce today? Advances in plant breeding techniques, introduction of no-till practices, integrated pest management and adoption of genetically engineered crop varieties account for this rise in production.  This translates into higher productivity on less land.  We all win.   

2. GM crops do not increase yield potential

Seriously?! Hmmm.  Well, research suggests differently. The results of a meta-analysis (that means a study that analyzed the results from MANY MANY other studies) published in a peer reviewed science journal in 2012 found that organic yields of individual crops were on average 25% percent lower than that of conventional yields.   Productivity in GM crops are purported to be anywhere from 7 – 20% higher than conventional varieties. Again, GE technology and GM crops are not a silver bullet by any means. But genetically engineered crops are an important technology in the food production toolbox. So, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater, OK? (My note: there is little evidence that organic foods are any healthier than normally produced foods, but you get to pay more for it.)

3. GM crops increase pesticide use

If that’s the case, then how do you explain this interesting fact? Cotton farmers in India spray heavily to control for pests that damage production. Did you know that the application of pesticides to cotton in India is done by hand? With farmers walking through their small cotton fields using backpack sprayers? The adoption of GM cotton in India has reduced the number of pesticide applications per season by 50%. It is estimated that more than 2 million fewer cases of pesticide poisoning are occurring on an annual basis which saves the Indian government US$14 million (Smyth 2013Herring 2009).

Want a first world perspective on the whole GM and pesticide use issue? Check out Applied Mythology‘s “The Muddled Debate on Pesticides and GM Crops.” Pesticide use is lower. Combine that with other economic and environmental benefits (refer to #1 and #2)… it’s a good thing.

4. There are better ways to feed the world

Let’s re-phrase this so that it’s a bit more accurate: ”There are “many” ways to feed the world”

Absolutely.  A million of them.  Food security is a complex problem that requires a multi-faceted approach in resolving the political and economic issues that come with feeding a growing world population.  Again, GE and GM crops are very important technologies in the food production toolbox…

I mentioned the “baby” and the “bathwater” already, didn’t I?

5. Other farm technologies are more successful

Farming is complex. I don’t know ANY farmer who is not up against making a hundred decisions in a given day.  Just ask a producer (grain, livestock, organic, conventional): Ryan GoodmanBrian ScottEmily ZweberCarrie Mess… Again, this is not an all or nothing scenario. Many factors go into the strategic management at the farm level.  And its never as simple as saying that GMO is ‘bad’ and organic is ‘good’ or vice versa. It’s more than just picking a production method.

6. GM foods have not been shown to be safe to eat

I hear this a lot and I have to remind everyone that nothing is 100% safe. Nothing. NO food. You can test organic, conventional and GM for the next 500 years and there will never ever be “absolute proof” that a food produced a certain way is 100% safe. That’s not how things roll here in the ‘real world’. The food value chain is long and involves lots of actors.  Lots can happen. Take for example the Maple Leaf Foods listeria crisis in 2008 (23 confirmed deaths). Then there was the XL Foods e.coli incident in 2012 where 18+ people were taken ill when they ingested tainted meat. And the anti-GM folks get a bit hot under the collar when I mention this one:  almost 4000 people were affected and 53 died from a rare strain of e.coli in sprouts that were produced on an organic farm in Germany in 2011.

There has been some food-related tragedies.  But there is no documented evidence of harm to human health or deaths from consumption of GM foods since they were introduced to the market two decades ago. None. Here are TWO studies (US and EU – and there are more) that attest to the safety of GM foods (NRC 2004EC 2010). GE crops or GMOs have been the most heavily tested food products in the history of our regulatory system.

7. People don’t want GM foods – so they’re hidden in animal feed

I wonder who thought this little gem up.  GM foods aren’t “hidden.” And they are certainly not “hidden” in animal feed.  Livestock producers use corn and soybean as a base for animal feed, all over the world (including the the European Union where GE soybeans are exported from the US and Brazil for animal consumption). As of 2012, there has been a 100-fold increase in the planting of biotech crops since 1996.  In the US alone, between 67% and 94% of all acreage attributed to corn, soybean, cotton and canola are genetically engineered. Nothing is “hidden” here… genetically engineered crops are ‘front and centre’ in world agriculture production.  Biotechnology is the fastest adopted crop technology in the history of modern agriculture (James 2012).

8. GM crops are a long-term economic disaster for farmers

Wow. That sounds scary.  Yes, GM seed prices are higher than that of conventional seeds.  But farmers that utilize the technology get higher yields and extract higher margins from doing so.  Just ask Brian Scott: “I can get a premium price for the soybeans we grow to be used as seed by other farmers next year.” If you ask Brian, he is neither “dependent” on the technology nor is he a “slave to ‘big ag’”.   Rather he (and other producers like him) are making economic decisions at the farm level based on input costs and projected market outcomes.  And don’t kid yourself.  These folks don’t make these decisions at the expense of the land.  They *care* about the environment (environmental benefits: see #1).  They are not about to willfully destroy land that has been farmed by them and their ancestors – and potentially their children and children’s children – for generations.

9. GM and non-GM cannot co-exist

There’s that word again – – – “contamination”.  It’s an ugly word with ugly connotations.  Did you know that we already operate in a segregated agriculture and food system?  If you want, you can choose to eat organic.  It’s all labeled in your grocery store.  Organics standards were adopted by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in 2009 in Canada.  These standards are enforced by organic inspectors through accredited certification bodies all over the country. Contamination? Organic farm and crop certification is based on the production methods used, NOT on the purity of the end product. So, nothing would happen to an organic grower or his produce if (in the highly unlikely event that) trace amounts of some other variety were found (BTW – there is no testing in organic crops). Organic growers will never lose their organic certification (unless, of course, they are shown to be intentionally growing ‘non-organic’ produce or crops and sending them to market as ‘organic’).

10. We can’t trust GM companies

Don’t believe everything you read. Syngenta, Dow, Bayer, Monsanto and other ‘big ag’ companies are just that–companies. They are profit-motivated and generate revenues to cover the costs of doing business and to provide a return for their shareholders. These companies, and others like Apple or MicroSoft, make no secret of that. And isn’t that the tenet of any business – big or small? Companies step into the space where the public sector can’t and won’t – they bring the products downstream to the market. Did you know that the time that it takes to put a product through the regulatory system has almost tripled in the last 20 years (13 years and $140 million US)? And just to clarify, the regulatory system is no more robust than it ever was. But the political pressures that have been placed on governments by interest groups (anti-GM) have forced a ‘slow down’ in the regulatory process. This means more costs. And, right now the only companies that have the resources to navigate the costly and complex regulatory processes are Big Ag.

The whole “David and Goliath” thing (small defenseless farmer vs big ag company) gets wayyyy overblown in the anti-GM rhetoric.  Like I said before, don’t believe everything you read.  Like ‘em or not, ‘big ag’ companies are the only ones that can take these technologies to the marketplace where society can extract value from them.  Who else? Universities and public research institutes? I don’t think so.  At least, that’s not where I *want* my tax dollar going. These multinational ag businesses invest the dollars in the research and product development and they have a right to protect that investment for a limited period of time. It’s how our patent system works – for EVERYONE.

Want to know more about patents and plants? Check here.

– – – –

We live in a privileged world; one where food is plentiful and varied and one that affords us this seemingly ‘aesthetic’ relationship with what and how we consume.  We have turned our backs on the functionality of food and entered into this realm of ‘food snobbery’ where the ‘food police or elites‘ (as Jayson Lusk refers to them) rule. As my grandmother used to say “Food is food is food. Now eat what’s put in front of you!”

On a final note: For every 10 reasons cited suggesting that we don’t need GMOs, I can list 100 or more of why we *do* need genetically engineered crops and GM food.

rant/off

_____________________________

Huge cheers from this direction!

Key citations:

The Original Skeptical Raptor
Chief Executive Officer at SkepticalRaptor
Lifetime lover of science, especially biomedical research. Spent years in academics, business development, research, and traveling the world shilling for Big Pharma. I love sports, mostly college basketball and football, hockey, and baseball. I enjoy great food and intelligent conversation. And a delicious morning coffee!

97 Replies to “Reblog: “10 ‘scientific’ responses” to “10 reasons we don’t need GMOs””

  1. OK, just a little point. The word "inorganic" is used in chemistry to mean non-carbon based chemistry. But I understand what you mean, but I think the official term is "conventional" foods. Or something like that. Non-organic?

    I would have to rely on someone from the UK to answer your question accurately. In the USA, not all foods are subsidized, but the cost of production is significantly higher. For example, it's more labor intensive for things like weeding.

  2. OK, just a little point. The word "inorganic" is used in chemistry to mean non-carbon based chemistry. But I understand what you mean, but I think the official term is "conventional" foods. Or something like that. Non-organic?

    I would have to rely on someone from the UK to answer your question accurately. In the USA, not all foods are subsidized, but the cost of production is significantly higher. For example, it's more labor intensive for things like weeding.

  3. OK, just a little point. The word "inorganic" is used in chemistry to mean non-carbon based chemistry. But I understand what you mean, but I think the official term is "conventional" foods. Or something like that. Non-organic?

    I would have to rely on someone from the UK to answer your question accurately. In the USA, not all foods are subsidized, but the cost of production is significantly higher. For example, it's more labor intensive for things like weeding.

  4. OK, just a little point. The word "inorganic" is used in chemistry to mean non-carbon based chemistry. But I understand what you mean, but I think the official term is "conventional" foods. Or something like that. Non-organic?

    I would have to rely on someone from the UK to answer your question accurately. In the USA, not all foods are subsidized, but the cost of production is significantly higher. For example, it's more labor intensive for things like weeding.

  5. OK, just a little point. The word "inorganic" is used in chemistry to mean non-carbon based chemistry. But I understand what you mean, but I think the official term is "conventional" foods. Or something like that. Non-organic?

    I would have to rely on someone from the UK to answer your question accurately. In the USA, not all foods are subsidized, but the cost of production is significantly higher. For example, it's more labor intensive for things like weeding.

  6. OK, just a little point. The word "inorganic" is used in chemistry to mean non-carbon based chemistry. But I understand what you mean, but I think the official term is "conventional" foods. Or something like that. Non-organic?

    I would have to rely on someone from the UK to answer your question accurately. In the USA, not all foods are subsidized, but the cost of production is significantly higher. For example, it's more labor intensive for things like weeding.

  7. I've long ago decided that the "Monsanto Shill" or "Big Pharma Shill" ad hominem arguments are just logical fallacies used by those who fail to provide any other legitimate scientific evidence to the argument. Of course, that's all you've got is to impugn the character of a true scientist. I'm sure you're proud of yourself.

  8. I've long ago decided that the "Monsanto Shill" or "Big Pharma Shill" ad hominem arguments are just logical fallacies used by those who fail to provide any other legitimate scientific evidence to the argument. Of course, that's all you've got is to impugn the character of a true scientist. I'm sure you're proud of yourself.

  9. I've long ago decided that the "Monsanto Shill" or "Big Pharma Shill" ad hominem arguments are just logical fallacies used by those who fail to provide any other legitimate scientific evidence to the argument. Of course, that's all you've got is to impugn the character of a true scientist. I'm sure you're proud of yourself.

  10. I've long ago decided that the "Monsanto Shill" or "Big Pharma Shill" ad hominem arguments are just logical fallacies used by those who fail to provide any other legitimate scientific evidence to the argument. Of course, that's all you've got is to impugn the character of a true scientist. I'm sure you're proud of yourself.

  11. I've long ago decided that the "Monsanto Shill" or "Big Pharma Shill" ad hominem arguments are just logical fallacies used by those who fail to provide any other legitimate scientific evidence to the argument. Of course, that's all you've got is to impugn the character of a true scientist. I'm sure you're proud of yourself.

  12. I've long ago decided that the "Monsanto Shill" or "Big Pharma Shill" ad hominem arguments are just logical fallacies used by those who fail to provide any other legitimate scientific evidence to the argument. Of course, that's all you've got is to impugn the character of a true scientist. I'm sure you're proud of yourself.

  13. Just want to check whether I have something wrong about the price of organic and conventional foods at the point of sale. We pay for conventional foods or inorganic foods through our taxes which subsidise the industry while organic foods cost more at the point of sale rather than through their production. Or is that a wrong assumption?

  14. Just want to check whether I have something wrong about the price of organic and conventional foods at the point of sale. We pay for conventional foods or inorganic foods through our taxes which subsidise the industry while organic foods cost more at the point of sale rather than through their production. Or is that a wrong assumption?

  15. Just want to check whether I have something wrong about the price of organic and conventional foods at the point of sale. We pay for conventional foods or inorganic foods through our taxes which subsidise the industry while organic foods cost more at the point of sale rather than through their production. Or is that a wrong assumption?

  16. Just want to check whether I have something wrong about the price of organic and conventional foods at the point of sale. We pay for conventional foods or inorganic foods through our taxes which subsidise the industry while organic foods cost more at the point of sale rather than through their production. Or is that a wrong assumption?

  17. Just want to check whether I have something wrong about the price of organic and conventional foods at the point of sale. We pay for conventional foods or inorganic foods through our taxes which subsidise the industry while organic foods cost more at the point of sale rather than through their production. Or is that a wrong assumption?

  18. Just want to check whether I have something wrong about the price of organic and conventional foods at the point of sale. We pay for conventional foods or inorganic foods through our taxes which subsidise the industry while organic foods cost more at the point of sale rather than through their production. Or is that a wrong assumption?

  19. Just want to check whether I have something wrong about the price of organic and conventional foods at the point of sale. We pay for conventional foods or inorganic foods through our taxes which subsidise the industry while organic foods cost more at the point of sale rather than through their production. Or is that a wrong assumption?

    1. OK, just a little point. The word "inorganic" is used in chemistry to mean non-carbon based chemistry. But I understand what you mean, but I think the official term is "conventional" foods. Or something like that. Non-organic?

      I would have to rely on someone from the UK to answer your question accurately. In the USA, not all foods are subsidized, but the cost of production is significantly higher. For example, it's more labor intensive for things like weeding.

  20. I like how only the headings are critiqued, and the actual content and sources are not even mentioned.

    Then, invoking the appeal to nature, when that is not the argument at all – an ironic strawman made even more ironic by appealing to the authority of the right journals as compared with supposed 'bad ones'.

    When will science be the domain of logicians again? The hubris of empirical orthodoxy is becoming stale.

  21. I like how only the headings are critiqued, and the actual content and sources are not even mentioned.

    Then, invoking the appeal to nature, when that is not the argument at all – an ironic strawman made even more ironic by appealing to the authority of the right journals as compared with supposed 'bad ones'.

    When will science be the domain of logicians again? The hubris of empirical orthodoxy is becoming stale.

  22. I like how only the headings are critiqued, and the actual content and sources are not even mentioned.

    Then, invoking the appeal to nature, when that is not the argument at all – an ironic strawman made even more ironic by appealing to the authority of the right journals as compared with supposed 'bad ones'.

    When will science be the domain of logicians again? The hubris of empirical orthodoxy is becoming stale.

  23. I like how only the headings are critiqued, and the actual content and sources are not even mentioned.

    Then, invoking the appeal to nature, when that is not the argument at all – an ironic strawman made even more ironic by appealing to the authority of the right journals as compared with supposed 'bad ones'.

    When will science be the domain of logicians again? The hubris of empirical orthodoxy is becoming stale.

  24. I like how only the headings are critiqued, and the actual content and sources are not even mentioned.

    Then, invoking the appeal to nature, when that is not the argument at all – an ironic strawman made even more ironic by appealing to the authority of the right journals as compared with supposed 'bad ones'.

    When will science be the domain of logicians again? The hubris of empirical orthodoxy is becoming stale.

  25. I like how only the headings are critiqued, and the actual content and sources are not even mentioned.

    Then, invoking the appeal to nature, when that is not the argument at all – an ironic strawman made even more ironic by appealing to the authority of the right journals as compared with supposed 'bad ones'.

    When will science be the domain of logicians again? The hubris of empirical orthodoxy is becoming stale.

  26. I like how only the headings are critiqued, and the actual content and sources are not even mentioned.

    Then, invoking the appeal to nature, when that is not the argument at all – an ironic strawman made even more ironic by the appeal to the authority of the right journals as compared with supposed 'bad ones'.

    When will science be the domain of logicians again? The hubris of empirical orthodoxy is becoming stale.

  27. Doug Ittner I think he's trying to be ironic, calling himself a skeptic.

    The report comes from the Union of Concerned Scientists, an entity with a stellar reputation. The only people who ever question them are rabid climate change deniers.

  28. Doug Ittner I think he's trying to be ironic, calling himself a skeptic.

    The report comes from the Union of Concerned Scientists, an entity with a stellar reputation. The only people who ever question them are rabid climate change deniers.

  29. Doug Ittner I think he's trying to be ironic, calling himself a skeptic.

    The report comes from the Union of Concerned Scientists, an entity with a stellar reputation. The only people who ever question them are rabid climate change deniers.

  30. Doug Ittner I think he's trying to be ironic, calling himself a skeptic.

    The report comes from the Union of Concerned Scientists, an entity with a stellar reputation. The only people who ever question them are rabid climate change deniers.

  31. Doug Ittner I think he's trying to be ironic, calling himself a skeptic.

    The report comes from the Union of Concerned Scientists, an entity with a stellar reputation. The only people who ever question them are rabid climate change deniers.

  32. Doug Ittner I think he's trying to be ironic, calling himself a skeptic.

    The report comes from the Union of Concerned Scientists, an entity with a stellar reputation. The only people who ever question them are rabid climate change deniers.

  33. Cami Ryan isn't much of a source. She is NOT a scientist, she's a shill for the biotech industry. She works for the College of Agriculture and Bioresources at the University of Saskatchewan, which gets a mind-numbing amount of money from the biotech industry.
    Dow
    http://newsroom.dowagro.com/press-release/dow-agrosciences-partners-university-saskatchewans-crop-development-centre-wheat-resea
    Syngenta
    http://agbio.usask.ca/agknowledge/pdf/AgKnowledge_Fall11_websecure.pdf
    Bayer
    http://www.ducks.ca/national-news/2011/01/duc-bayer-invest-u-s-winter-wheat-research/#.UbkWWOfqm8A
    and Monsanto
    http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/university-of-saskatchewan-program-gets-usd150000-boost-from-monsanto-fund-625289.htm
    Monsanto <3 UofS.
    "At Monsanto, we believe in the encouragement and assistance of the next generation.
    of agricultural professionals. That’s why we are proud to support the University of.
    Saskatchewan’s Experience Science in Agriculture program offered by the College.
    of Agriculture and Bioresources."
    http://agbio.usask.ca/agknowledge/pdf/Agknowledge_Issue_1_ONLINE.pdf

  34. Cami Ryan isn't much of a source. She is NOT a scientist, she's a shill for the biotech industry. She works for the College of Agriculture and Bioresources at the University of Saskatchewan, which gets a mind-numbing amount of money from the biotech industry.
    Dow
    http://newsroom.dowagro.com/press-release/dow-agrosciences-partners-university-saskatchewans-crop-development-centre-wheat-resea
    Syngenta
    http://agbio.usask.ca/agknowledge/pdf/AgKnowledge_Fall11_websecure.pdf
    Bayer
    http://www.ducks.ca/national-news/2011/01/duc-bayer-invest-u-s-winter-wheat-research/#.UbkWWOfqm8A
    and Monsanto
    http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/university-of-saskatchewan-program-gets-usd150000-boost-from-monsanto-fund-625289.htm
    Monsanto <3 UofS.
    "At Monsanto, we believe in the encouragement and assistance of the next generation.
    of agricultural professionals. That’s why we are proud to support the University of.
    Saskatchewan’s Experience Science in Agriculture program offered by the College.
    of Agriculture and Bioresources."
    http://agbio.usask.ca/agknowledge/pdf/Agknowledge_Issue_1_ONLINE.pdf

  35. Cami Ryan isn't much of a source. She is NOT a scientist, she's a shill for the biotech industry. She works for the College of Agriculture and Bioresources at the University of Saskatchewan, which gets a mind-numbing amount of money from the biotech industry.
    Dow
    http://newsroom.dowagro.com/press-release/dow-agrosciences-partners-university-saskatchewans-crop-development-centre-wheat-resea
    Syngenta
    http://agbio.usask.ca/agknowledge/pdf/AgKnowledge_Fall11_websecure.pdf
    Bayer
    http://www.ducks.ca/national-news/2011/01/duc-bayer-invest-u-s-winter-wheat-research/#.UbkWWOfqm8A
    and Monsanto
    http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/university-of-saskatchewan-program-gets-usd150000-boost-from-monsanto-fund-625289.htm
    Monsanto <3 UofS.
    "At Monsanto, we believe in the encouragement and assistance of the next generation.
    of agricultural professionals. That’s why we are proud to support the University of.
    Saskatchewan’s Experience Science in Agriculture program offered by the College.
    of Agriculture and Bioresources."
    http://agbio.usask.ca/agknowledge/pdf/Agknowledge_Issue_1_ONLINE.pdf

  36. Cami Ryan isn't much of a source. She is NOT a scientist, she's a shill for the biotech industry. She works for the College of Agriculture and Bioresources at the University of Saskatchewan, which gets a mind-numbing amount of money from the biotech industry.
    Dow
    http://newsroom.dowagro.com/press-release/dow-agrosciences-partners-university-saskatchewans-crop-development-centre-wheat-resea
    Syngenta
    http://agbio.usask.ca/agknowledge/pdf/AgKnowledge_Fall11_websecure.pdf
    Bayer
    http://www.ducks.ca/national-news/2011/01/duc-bayer-invest-u-s-winter-wheat-research/#.UbkWWOfqm8A
    and Monsanto
    http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/university-of-saskatchewan-program-gets-usd150000-boost-from-monsanto-fund-625289.htm
    Monsanto <3 UofS.
    "At Monsanto, we believe in the encouragement and assistance of the next generation.
    of agricultural professionals. That’s why we are proud to support the University of.
    Saskatchewan’s Experience Science in Agriculture program offered by the College.
    of Agriculture and Bioresources."
    http://agbio.usask.ca/agknowledge/pdf/Agknowledge_Issue_1_ONLINE.pdf

  37. Cami Ryan isn't much of a source. She is NOT a scientist, she's a shill for the biotech industry. She works for the College of Agriculture and Bioresources at the University of Saskatchewan, which gets a mind-numbing amount of money from the biotech industry.
    Dow
    http://newsroom.dowagro.com/press-release/dow-agrosciences-partners-university-saskatchewans-crop-development-centre-wheat-resea
    Syngenta
    http://agbio.usask.ca/agknowledge/pdf/AgKnowledge_Fall11_websecure.pdf
    Bayer
    http://www.ducks.ca/national-news/2011/01/duc-bayer-invest-u-s-winter-wheat-research/#.UbkWWOfqm8A
    and Monsanto
    http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/university-of-saskatchewan-program-gets-usd150000-boost-from-monsanto-fund-625289.htm
    Monsanto <3 UofS.
    "At Monsanto, we believe in the encouragement and assistance of the next generation.
    of agricultural professionals. That’s why we are proud to support the University of.
    Saskatchewan’s Experience Science in Agriculture program offered by the College.
    of Agriculture and Bioresources."
    http://agbio.usask.ca/agknowledge/pdf/Agknowledge_Issue_1_ONLINE.pdf

  38. Cami Ryan isn't much of a source. She is NOT a scientist, she's a shill for the biotech industry. She works for the College of Agriculture and Bioresources at the University of Saskatchewan, which gets a mind-numbing amount of money from the biotech industry.
    Dow
    http://newsroom.dowagro.com/press-release/dow-agrosciences-partners-university-saskatchewans-crop-development-centre-wheat-resea
    Syngenta
    http://agbio.usask.ca/agknowledge/pdf/AgKnowledge_Fall11_websecure.pdf
    Bayer
    http://www.ducks.ca/national-news/2011/01/duc-bayer-invest-u-s-winter-wheat-research/#.UbkWWOfqm8A
    and Monsanto
    http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/university-of-saskatchewan-program-gets-usd150000-boost-from-monsanto-fund-625289.htm
    Monsanto <3 UofS.
    "At Monsanto, we believe in the encouragement and assistance of the next generation.
    of agricultural professionals. That’s why we are proud to support the University of.
    Saskatchewan’s Experience Science in Agriculture program offered by the College.
    of Agriculture and Bioresources."
    http://agbio.usask.ca/agknowledge/pdf/Agknowledge_Issue_1_ONLINE.pdf

  39. Cami Ryan isn't much of a source. She is NOT a scientist, she's a shill for the biotech industry. She works for the College of Agriculture and Bioresources at the University of Saskatchewan, which gets a mind-numbing amount of money from the biotech industry.
    Dow
    http://newsroom.dowagro.com/press-release/dow-agrosciences-partners-university-saskatchewans-crop-development-centre-wheat-resea
    Syngenta
    http://agbio.usask.ca/agknowledge/pdf/AgKnowledge_Fall11_websecure.pdf
    Bayer
    http://www.ducks.ca/national-news/2011/01/duc-bayer-invest-u-s-winter-wheat-research/#.UbkWWOfqm8A
    and Monsanto
    http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/university-of-saskatchewan-program-gets-usd150000-boost-from-monsanto-fund-625289.htm
    Monsanto <3 UofS.
    "At Monsanto, we believe in the encouragement and assistance of the next generation.
    of agricultural professionals. That’s why we are proud to support the University of.
    Saskatchewan’s Experience Science in Agriculture program offered by the College.
    of Agriculture and Bioresources."
    http://agbio.usask.ca/agknowledge/pdf/Agknowledge_Issue_1_ONLINE.pdf

    1. I've long ago decided that the "Monsanto Shill" or "Big Pharma Shill" ad hominem arguments are just logical fallacies used by those who fail to provide any other legitimate scientific evidence to the argument. Of course, that's all you've got is to impugn the character of a true scientist. I'm sure you're proud of yourself.

  40. Nice appeal to authority, guess you think vitamin C is a cure for the cold too. Clearly logic isn't your strong point.

    You couldn't even address my criticism of the study. Just goes to prove you must be completely scientifically illiterate. The thing about farm sizes is that you don't need to measure them in a laboratory. Do you even know how science works? Pathetic.

    It's obvious that you didn't even bother reading the study I referenced. Why bother telling people to publish in peer reviewed journals if you don't even read them? Never mind that the blog you speak so highly of mentions a meta analysis paper, the sort of paper you concluded isn't scientific. Lovely double standard.

    The average farm size in India is 3.3 acres, not the average farm size your beloved economics study showed (economics study, was that done in a lab too?).
    http://www.fas.usda.gov/country/India/Indian%20Agricultural%20Economy%20and%20Policy%20Paper.pdf

    Seriously, get some basic education in science. You criticize others for being scientifically illiterate but it's obvious you're projecting.

  41. Nice appeal to authority, guess you think vitamin C is a cure for the cold too. Clearly logic isn't your strong point.

    You couldn't even address my criticism of the study. Just goes to prove you must be completely scientifically illiterate. The thing about farm sizes is that you don't need to measure them in a laboratory. Do you even know how science works? Pathetic.

    It's obvious that you didn't even bother reading the study I referenced. Why bother telling people to publish in peer reviewed journals if you don't even read them? Never mind that the blog you speak so highly of mentions a meta analysis paper, the sort of paper you concluded isn't scientific. Lovely double standard.

    The average farm size in India is 3.3 acres, not the average farm size your beloved economics study showed (economics study, was that done in a lab too?).
    http://www.fas.usda.gov/country/India/Indian%20Agricultural%20Economy%20and%20Policy%20Paper.pdf

    Seriously, get some basic education in science. You criticize others for being scientifically illiterate but it's obvious you're projecting.

  42. Nice appeal to authority, guess you think vitamin C is a cure for the cold too. Clearly logic isn't your strong point.

    You couldn't even address my criticism of the study. Just goes to prove you must be completely scientifically illiterate. The thing about farm sizes is that you don't need to measure them in a laboratory. Do you even know how science works? Pathetic.

    It's obvious that you didn't even bother reading the study I referenced. Why bother telling people to publish in peer reviewed journals if you don't even read them? Never mind that the blog you speak so highly of mentions a meta analysis paper, the sort of paper you concluded isn't scientific. Lovely double standard.

    The average farm size in India is 3.3 acres, not the average farm size your beloved economics study showed (economics study, was that done in a lab too?).
    http://www.fas.usda.gov/country/India/Indian%20Agricultural%20Economy%20and%20Policy%20Paper.pdf

    Seriously, get some basic education in science. You criticize others for being scientifically illiterate but it's obvious you're projecting.

  43. Nice appeal to authority, guess you think vitamin C is a cure for the cold too. Clearly logic isn't your strong point.

    You couldn't even address my criticism of the study. Just goes to prove you must be completely scientifically illiterate. The thing about farm sizes is that you don't need to measure them in a laboratory. Do you even know how science works? Pathetic.

    It's obvious that you didn't even bother reading the study I referenced. Why bother telling people to publish in peer reviewed journals if you don't even read them? Never mind that the blog you speak so highly of mentions a meta analysis paper, the sort of paper you concluded isn't scientific. Lovely double standard.

    The average farm size in India is 3.3 acres, not the average farm size your beloved economics study showed (economics study, was that done in a lab too?).
    http://www.fas.usda.gov/country/India/Indian%20Agricultural%20Economy%20and%20Policy%20Paper.pdf

    Seriously, get some basic education in science. You criticize others for being scientifically illiterate but it's obvious you're projecting.

  44. Nice appeal to authority, guess you think vitamin C is a cure for the cold too. Clearly logic isn't your strong point.

    You couldn't even address my criticism of the study. Just goes to prove you must be completely scientifically illiterate. The thing about farm sizes is that you don't need to measure them in a laboratory. Do you even know how science works? Pathetic.

    It's obvious that you didn't even bother reading the study I referenced. Why bother telling people to publish in peer reviewed journals if you don't even read them? Never mind that the blog you speak so highly of mentions a meta analysis paper, the sort of paper you concluded isn't scientific. Lovely double standard.

    The average farm size in India is 3.3 acres, not the average farm size your beloved economics study showed (economics study, was that done in a lab too?).
    http://www.fas.usda.gov/country/India/Indian%20Agricultural%20Economy%20and%20Policy%20Paper.pdf

    Seriously, get some basic education in science. You criticize others for being scientifically illiterate but it's obvious you're projecting.

  45. Nice appeal to authority, guess you think vitamin C is a cure for the cold too. Clearly logic isn't your strong point.

    You couldn't even address my criticism of the study. Just goes to prove you must be completely scientifically illiterate. The thing about farm sizes is that you don't need to measure them in a laboratory. Do you even know how science works? Pathetic.

    It's obvious that you didn't even bother reading the study I referenced. Why bother telling people to publish in peer reviewed journals if you don't even read them? Never mind that the blog you speak so highly of mentions a meta analysis paper, the sort of paper you concluded isn't scientific. Lovely double standard.

    The average farm size in India is 3.3 acres, not the average farm size your beloved economics study showed (economics study, was that done in a lab too?).
    http://www.fas.usda.gov/country/India/Indian%20Agricultural%20Economy%20and%20Policy%20Paper.pdf

    Seriously, get some basic education in science. You criticize others for being scientifically illiterate but it's obvious you're projecting.

  46. Cute, so that blog was a peer reviewed paper? Nice double standard. Let's look at the post below, you appeal to authority when a person has a Ph.d. So it's your conclusion that everyone who contributed to the paper doesn't have a Ph.d? That's easily debunked.

    Of course the obvious thing you neglect is the reference section at the end of the paper which lists the studies where they got their information from. In other words, you didn't bother reading it, you just dismissed it because you didn't agree with it. Don't bother calling yourself a skeptic, it's pathetic.

  47. Cute, so that blog was a peer reviewed paper? Nice double standard. Let's look at the post below, you appeal to authority when a person has a Ph.d. So it's your conclusion that everyone who contributed to the paper doesn't have a Ph.d? That's easily debunked.

    Of course the obvious thing you neglect is the reference section at the end of the paper which lists the studies where they got their information from. In other words, you didn't bother reading it, you just dismissed it because you didn't agree with it. Don't bother calling yourself a skeptic, it's pathetic.

  48. Cute, so that blog was a peer reviewed paper? Nice double standard. Let's look at the post below, you appeal to authority when a person has a Ph.d. So it's your conclusion that everyone who contributed to the paper doesn't have a Ph.d? That's easily debunked.

    Of course the obvious thing you neglect is the reference section at the end of the paper which lists the studies where they got their information from. In other words, you didn't bother reading it, you just dismissed it because you didn't agree with it. Don't bother calling yourself a skeptic, it's pathetic.

  49. Cute, so that blog was a peer reviewed paper? Nice double standard. Let's look at the post below, you appeal to authority when a person has a Ph.d. So it's your conclusion that everyone who contributed to the paper doesn't have a Ph.d? That's easily debunked.

    Of course the obvious thing you neglect is the reference section at the end of the paper which lists the studies where they got their information from. In other words, you didn't bother reading it, you just dismissed it because you didn't agree with it. Don't bother calling yourself a skeptic, it's pathetic.

  50. Cute, so that blog was a peer reviewed paper? Nice double standard. Let's look at the post below, you appeal to authority when a person has a Ph.d. So it's your conclusion that everyone who contributed to the paper doesn't have a Ph.d? That's easily debunked.

    Of course the obvious thing you neglect is the reference section at the end of the paper which lists the studies where they got their information from. In other words, you didn't bother reading it, you just dismissed it because you didn't agree with it. Don't bother calling yourself a skeptic, it's pathetic.

  51. Cute, so that blog was a peer reviewed paper? Nice double standard. Let's look at the post below, you appeal to authority when a person has a Ph.d. So it's your conclusion that everyone who contributed to the paper doesn't have a Ph.d? That's easily debunked.

    Of course the obvious thing you neglect is the reference section at the end of the paper which lists the studies where they got their information from. In other words, you didn't bother reading it, you just dismissed it because you didn't agree with it. Don't bother calling yourself a skeptic, it's pathetic.

  52. Dr. Cami Ryan has a Ph.D. I think I'm going to buy her analysis over yours. Oh, unless you're going to pull some "she's a paid shill" gambit on me. At that point, conversation over, and I'll be laughing at you.

    Seriously dude. If you're going to reinvent science, then here's a suggestion. Get off your lazy ass. Go to college, if they accept you, but maybe you can get into some community college. Then try to graduate with a science degree. Then after that, please go to a graduate school and study one of the sciences germane to this topic. Let's say genetics. Or epidemiology. Or crop science. I don't care. Do some hard work. Now graduate school isn't for the lazy. And given that there's really only about 100 top level science universities that matter in the USA, you better be prepared to work your ass off. You'll be competing with people, who's IQ probably far exceeds yours.

    Then, if you get that Ph.D., and if you're still denying real science, please head off to do some real research in a real world class laboratory.

    I'm going to tell you, I did all that. And my left hand is more scientifically literate than you are. Because you bring nothing to table for this discussion by straw men, ad hominems, pseudoscience, and well, let's be frank, lies.

  53. Dr. Cami Ryan has a Ph.D. I think I'm going to buy her analysis over yours. Oh, unless you're going to pull some "she's a paid shill" gambit on me. At that point, conversation over, and I'll be laughing at you.

    Seriously dude. If you're going to reinvent science, then here's a suggestion. Get off your lazy ass. Go to college, if they accept you, but maybe you can get into some community college. Then try to graduate with a science degree. Then after that, please go to a graduate school and study one of the sciences germane to this topic. Let's say genetics. Or epidemiology. Or crop science. I don't care. Do some hard work. Now graduate school isn't for the lazy. And given that there's really only about 100 top level science universities that matter in the USA, you better be prepared to work your ass off. You'll be competing with people, who's IQ probably far exceeds yours.

    Then, if you get that Ph.D., and if you're still denying real science, please head off to do some real research in a real world class laboratory.

    I'm going to tell you, I did all that. And my left hand is more scientifically literate than you are. Because you bring nothing to table for this discussion by straw men, ad hominems, pseudoscience, and well, let's be frank, lies.

  54. Dr. Cami Ryan has a Ph.D. I think I'm going to buy her analysis over yours. Oh, unless you're going to pull some "she's a paid shill" gambit on me. At that point, conversation over, and I'll be laughing at you.

    Seriously dude. If you're going to reinvent science, then here's a suggestion. Get off your lazy ass. Go to college, if they accept you, but maybe you can get into some community college. Then try to graduate with a science degree. Then after that, please go to a graduate school and study one of the sciences germane to this topic. Let's say genetics. Or epidemiology. Or crop science. I don't care. Do some hard work. Now graduate school isn't for the lazy. And given that there's really only about 100 top level science universities that matter in the USA, you better be prepared to work your ass off. You'll be competing with people, who's IQ probably far exceeds yours.

    Then, if you get that Ph.D., and if you're still denying real science, please head off to do some real research in a real world class laboratory.

    I'm going to tell you, I did all that. And my left hand is more scientifically literate than you are. Because you bring nothing to table for this discussion by straw men, ad hominems, pseudoscience, and well, let's be frank, lies.

  55. Dr. Cami Ryan has a Ph.D. I think I'm going to buy her analysis over yours. Oh, unless you're going to pull some "she's a paid shill" gambit on me. At that point, conversation over, and I'll be laughing at you.

    Seriously dude. If you're going to reinvent science, then here's a suggestion. Get off your lazy ass. Go to college, if they accept you, but maybe you can get into some community college. Then try to graduate with a science degree. Then after that, please go to a graduate school and study one of the sciences germane to this topic. Let's say genetics. Or epidemiology. Or crop science. I don't care. Do some hard work. Now graduate school isn't for the lazy. And given that there's really only about 100 top level science universities that matter in the USA, you better be prepared to work your ass off. You'll be competing with people, who's IQ probably far exceeds yours.

    Then, if you get that Ph.D., and if you're still denying real science, please head off to do some real research in a real world class laboratory.

    I'm going to tell you, I did all that. And my left hand is more scientifically literate than you are. Because you bring nothing to table for this discussion by straw men, ad hominems, pseudoscience, and well, let's be frank, lies.

  56. Dr. Cami Ryan has a Ph.D. I think I'm going to buy her analysis over yours. Oh, unless you're going to pull some "she's a paid shill" gambit on me. At that point, conversation over, and I'll be laughing at you.

    Seriously dude. If you're going to reinvent science, then here's a suggestion. Get off your lazy ass. Go to college, if they accept you, but maybe you can get into some community college. Then try to graduate with a science degree. Then after that, please go to a graduate school and study one of the sciences germane to this topic. Let's say genetics. Or epidemiology. Or crop science. I don't care. Do some hard work. Now graduate school isn't for the lazy. And given that there's really only about 100 top level science universities that matter in the USA, you better be prepared to work your ass off. You'll be competing with people, who's IQ probably far exceeds yours.

    Then, if you get that Ph.D., and if you're still denying real science, please head off to do some real research in a real world class laboratory.

    I'm going to tell you, I did all that. And my left hand is more scientifically literate than you are. Because you bring nothing to table for this discussion by straw men, ad hominems, pseudoscience, and well, let's be frank, lies.

  57. Dr. Cami Ryan has a Ph.D. I think I'm going to buy her analysis over yours. Oh, unless you're going to pull some "she's a paid shill" gambit on me. At that point, conversation over, and I'll be laughing at you.

    Seriously dude. If you're going to reinvent science, then here's a suggestion. Get off your lazy ass. Go to college, if they accept you, but maybe you can get into some community college. Then try to graduate with a science degree. Then after that, please go to a graduate school and study one of the sciences germane to this topic. Let's say genetics. Or epidemiology. Or crop science. I don't care. Do some hard work. Now graduate school isn't for the lazy. And given that there's really only about 100 top level science universities that matter in the USA, you better be prepared to work your ass off. You'll be competing with people, who's IQ probably far exceeds yours.

    Then, if you get that Ph.D., and if you're still denying real science, please head off to do some real research in a real world class laboratory.

    I'm going to tell you, I did all that. And my left hand is more scientifically literate than you are. Because you bring nothing to table for this discussion by straw men, ad hominems, pseudoscience, and well, let's be frank, lies.

  58. For that matter, again on point #2. Studies comparing yields between organic and conventional does not automatically conclude that GM yields are greater since that's not what was studied. The other of the blog is instantly assuming that the conventional crop is GMOs. For that matter, the study linked to wasn't even about yields, it was about nutrition. Not so much a failure of scientific literacy than one of reading comprehension.

    Here's a study about yields:
    http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html

  59. For that matter, again on point #2. Studies comparing yields between organic and conventional does not automatically conclude that GM yields are greater since that's not what was studied. The other of the blog is instantly assuming that the conventional crop is GMOs. For that matter, the study linked to wasn't even about yields, it was about nutrition. Not so much a failure of scientific literacy than one of reading comprehension.

    Here's a study about yields:
    http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html

  60. For that matter, again on point #2. Studies comparing yields between organic and conventional does not automatically conclude that GM yields are greater since that's not what was studied. The other of the blog is instantly assuming that the conventional crop is GMOs. For that matter, the study linked to wasn't even about yields, it was about nutrition. Not so much a failure of scientific literacy than one of reading comprehension.

    Here's a study about yields:
    http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html

  61. For that matter, again on point #2. Studies comparing yields between organic and conventional does not automatically conclude that GM yields are greater since that's not what was studied. The other of the blog is instantly assuming that the conventional crop is GMOs. For that matter, the study linked to wasn't even about yields, it was about nutrition. Not so much a failure of scientific literacy than one of reading comprehension.

    Here's a study about yields:
    http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html

  62. For that matter, again on point #2. Studies comparing yields between organic and conventional does not automatically conclude that GM yields are greater since that's not what was studied. The other of the blog is instantly assuming that the conventional crop is GMOs. For that matter, the study linked to wasn't even about yields, it was about nutrition. Not so much a failure of scientific literacy than one of reading comprehension.

    Here's a study about yields:
    http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html

  63. For that matter, again on point #2. Studies comparing yields between organic and conventional does not automatically conclude that GM yields are greater since that's not what was studied. The other of the blog is instantly assuming that the conventional crop is GMOs. For that matter, the study linked to wasn't even about yields, it was about nutrition. Not so much a failure of scientific literacy than one of reading comprehension.

    Here's a study about yields:
    http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html

  64. For that matter, again on point #2. Studies comparing yields between organic and conventional does not automatically conclude that GM yields are greater since that's not what was studied. The other of the blog is instantly assuming that the conventional crop is GMOs. For that matter, the study linked to wasn't even about yields, it was about nutrition. Not so much a failure of scientific literacy than one of reading comprehension.

    Here's a study about yields:
    http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html

    1. Cute, so that blog was a peer reviewed paper? Nice double standard. Let's look at the post below, you appeal to authority when a person has a Ph.d. So it's your conclusion that everyone who contributed to the paper doesn't have a Ph.d? That's easily debunked.

      Of course the obvious thing you neglect is the reference section at the end of the paper which lists the studies where they got their information from. In other words, you didn't bother reading it, you just dismissed it because you didn't agree with it. Don't bother calling yourself a skeptic, it's pathetic.

    2. Doug Ittner I think he's trying to be ironic, calling himself a skeptic.

      The report comes from the Union of Concerned Scientists, an entity with a stellar reputation. The only people who ever question them are rabid climate change deniers.

  65. Can't take point 2 seriously if they consider the study by Bennett, Kambhampati, Morse and Ismael to be a good study. One would assume a random sample survey of average farms in India would actually pick average sized farms (under 5 acres) but specifically choose a minority of farms (those larger than 5 acres) then tout the success of bt cotton. Yeah, it's like those prayer studies which just look at those patients that lived from cancer and conclude that prayer cures cancer. Makes you wonder how scientifically literate the pro-GMO crowd really is.

  66. Can't take point 2 seriously if they consider the study by Bennett, Kambhampati, Morse and Ismael to be a good study. One would assume a random sample survey of average farms in India would actually pick average sized farms (under 5 acres) but specifically choose a minority of farms (those larger than 5 acres) then tout the success of bt cotton. Yeah, it's like those prayer studies which just look at those patients that lived from cancer and conclude that prayer cures cancer. Makes you wonder how scientifically literate the pro-GMO crowd really is.

  67. Can't take point 2 seriously if they consider the study by Bennett, Kambhampati, Morse and Ismael to be a good study. One would assume a random sample survey of average farms in India would actually pick average sized farms (under 5 acres) but specifically choose a minority of farms (those larger than 5 acres) then tout the success of bt cotton. Yeah, it's like those prayer studies which just look at those patients that lived from cancer and conclude that prayer cures cancer. Makes you wonder how scientifically literate the pro-GMO crowd really is.

  68. Can't take point 2 seriously if they consider the study by Bennett, Kambhampati, Morse and Ismael to be a good study. One would assume a random sample survey of average farms in India would actually pick average sized farms (under 5 acres) but specifically choose a minority of farms (those larger than 5 acres) then tout the success of bt cotton. Yeah, it's like those prayer studies which just look at those patients that lived from cancer and conclude that prayer cures cancer. Makes you wonder how scientifically literate the pro-GMO crowd really is.

  69. Can't take point 2 seriously if they consider the study by Bennett, Kambhampati, Morse and Ismael to be a good study. One would assume a random sample survey of average farms in India would actually pick average sized farms (under 5 acres) but specifically choose a minority of farms (those larger than 5 acres) then tout the success of bt cotton. Yeah, it's like those prayer studies which just look at those patients that lived from cancer and conclude that prayer cures cancer. Makes you wonder how scientifically literate the pro-GMO crowd really is.

  70. Can't take point 2 seriously if they consider the study by Bennett, Kambhampati, Morse and Ismael to be a good study. One would assume a random sample survey of average farms in India would actually pick average sized farms (under 5 acres) but specifically choose a minority of farms (those larger than 5 acres) then tout the success of bt cotton. Yeah, it's like those prayer studies which just look at those patients that lived from cancer and conclude that prayer cures cancer. Makes you wonder how scientifically literate the pro-GMO crowd really is.

  71. Can't take point 2 seriously if they consider the study by Bennett, Kambhampati, Morse and Ismael to be a good study. One would assume a random sample survey of average farms in India would actually pick average sized farms (under 5 acres) but specifically choose a minority of farms (those larger than 5 acres) then tout the success of bt cotton. Yeah, it's like those prayer studies which just look at those patients that lived from cancer and conclude that prayer cures cancer. Makes you wonder how scientifically literate the pro-GMO crowd really is.

    1. Dr. Cami Ryan has a Ph.D. I think I'm going to buy her analysis over yours. Oh, unless you're going to pull some "she's a paid shill" gambit on me. At that point, conversation over, and I'll be laughing at you.

      Seriously dude. If you're going to reinvent science, then here's a suggestion. Get off your lazy ass. Go to college, if they accept you, but maybe you can get into some community college. Then try to graduate with a science degree. Then after that, please go to a graduate school and study one of the sciences germane to this topic. Let's say genetics. Or epidemiology. Or crop science. I don't care. Do some hard work. Now graduate school isn't for the lazy. And given that there's really only about 100 top level science universities that matter in the USA, you better be prepared to work your ass off. You'll be competing with people, who's IQ probably far exceeds yours.

      Then, if you get that Ph.D., and if you're still denying real science, please head off to do some real research in a real world class laboratory.

      I'm going to tell you, I did all that. And my left hand is more scientifically literate than you are. Because you bring nothing to table for this discussion by straw men, ad hominems, pseudoscience, and well, let's be frank, lies.

    2. Nice appeal to authority, guess you think vitamin C is a cure for the cold too. Clearly logic isn't your strong point.

      You couldn't even address my criticism of the study. Just goes to prove you must be completely scientifically illiterate. The thing about farm sizes is that you don't need to measure them in a laboratory. Do you even know how science works? Pathetic.

      It's obvious that you didn't even bother reading the study I referenced. Why bother telling people to publish in peer reviewed journals if you don't even read them? Never mind that the blog you speak so highly of mentions a meta analysis paper, the sort of paper you concluded isn't scientific. Lovely double standard.

      The average farm size in India is 3.3 acres, not the average farm size your beloved economics study showed (economics study, was that done in a lab too?).
      http://www.fas.usda.gov/country/India/Indian%20Agricultural%20Economy%20and%20Policy%20Paper.pdf

      Seriously, get some basic education in science. You criticize others for being scientifically illiterate but it's obvious you're projecting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.