Genetically Modified Crops hurting Aquatic Ecosystems!, Page 2

Page:123

Flybinder	November 13th, 2007, 2:28 am
Oregon Coast Posts: 60	Hmmmmmmmm. Since following this "post on a fly fishing based web site forum", (which, has now, become quite debatable), it appears, that the only thing left to do; "is for someone to pour the Kool-Aide, and then talk the followers into drinking it".
	Flybinder: "You should'a been here, NEXT week,the fishing's great!"

Shocking	November 13th, 2007, 2:49 am
Posts: 13	Gene, Speaking of getting things strait. This discussion started with your post of a scientific paper. I brought in other data and opinions from the scientific literature (including conflicting data and opinions from the authors of the paper that you posted). I stuck to the data and science and presented another point of view, and you attacked the character of those opposing your views). We do not disagree on whether extensive re-evaluation of transgenic corn should continue. What we disagree on is whether the current set of data, in total, suggest that this technology is beneficial or detrimental to environmental health. We also disagree on whether this should be settled by politicians in the tabloids, or by scientist based on the results of well-designed studies. Misreprepresenting science by conducting shabby studies, cherry-picking data, over interpretting results, and hyping these results in the popular press is bad no matter who does it. Both industry and academics have been guilty of this, and this behavior only serves to rightly cause lay folks to distrust science. I do not believe that biotech is inherently safe or dangerous, and that strong regulation continues to be needed to maintain food safety. Just like organic food production, misuse can cause problems. This has been clear from the misuse of manure on field crops that caused recent sickness. Only time will tell the legacy of biotech crops, but I urge you to focus on the validity and interpretation of data, not on blasting the character of those that do not share your point of view. You point out that the authors of this letter always side with industry (which is news to me), but it seeems that you always side against it. Where is your passionate defence of industry on any topic? We all carry bias, and to deny it is silly. However, we can fight against it! I am hiding behind anonymity because my sources of funding would not like what I have to say (I am both a high intensity vegetable grower, organic Chistmas tree grower, and a published scientist (peer-reviewed journals not newspapers) and frankly, Gene - you scare me!

Gene	November 13th, 2007, 10:59 am
Posts: 107	Shocking: I'm glad I scare you because I've scared a lot of people in industry over the years and the reason is simple they want to disinform the public on everything. I usually get called upon when people, organizations, citizens, and sometimes industry want a really objective viewpoint and someone who can fight their way through the clutter. Call the state of PA and ask them if they like going up against me scientfically! There are no simple answers to our problems on farming but your allegiance to GM or the scientists who work for the industry is not objective. I've never said organic or any other farming method was the answer. If the scientists who did the study are truly wrong then this will show up in future studies and hopefully lots of them. Furthermore, you didn't know the site you listed was owned by the biotech industry! You say you are a scientist in the field and you didn't know that the people listed either work for the biotech industry, received grants from them, or are nothing more than a spokesman for them. I find that very hard to believe! Here's letter I wrote to one of Dr. Miller's articles on Newsback a while back. I'll let the people who visit this forum decide on whether this guy can be objective. I wrote this article on 12-06! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I've watched Dr. Miller fill Newsback with his pretentious ramblings about everyone else including all organizations, groups, scientists, reports, and the media that he and his colleagues are the only ones that know anything about the FDA, gene splicing, biotechnology and where the world should go on these issues. This website does not have the means to begin discussing important scientific debates but the public should be aware of who Dr. Miller really is and who he is affiliated with. I do not deny that Dr. Miller is a brilliant scientist and is well published. His papers speak for themselves and his CV is fabulous to say the least. However, Dr. Miller fronts for the extreme Right Wing Groups which include: The Hoover Institution, George Marshall Institute, and the so called American Enterprise Institute as well as Consumer Alert. Here are a few things you should know about these organizations: Consumer Alert: Founded in 1977 as a nonprofit to limit " so called government interference" This group is run by industry to say the least and funded by Chevron, Eli Lilly, Phillip Morris and others industries. Miller and others signed a declaration of support for biotechnology including Monsanto perhaps the leading biotechnology company in the world. Monsanto as you can google is also one of the nation's largest polluters and is responsible for trying to intimidate organic farmers. Monsanto also funds anti organic groups such as the Center for Global Food Issues. I guess so much for the so called "free market" Dr. Miller and his friends like to talk about. George Marshall Institute: Founded in 1984 another so called nonprofit to investigate science etc. Funded by: You bet---Exxon, John Olin Foundation, Mellon Scaife Foundation and other extreme right wing groups. Did I mention they are great skeptics in global warming and fund such research? But I guess you could figure that out considering Exxon is one of their contributors. American Council on Science and Health: Is another supposedly nonprofit which looks into health and science issues for the public. Here is a list of some of their sponsors, donors and contributors: * ALCOA Foundation * Allied Signals Foundation, Inc. * American Cyanamid Company * American Meat Institute * Amoco Foundation, Inc. * Anheuser-Busch Foundation * Archer Daniels Midland Company * Ashland Oil Foundation * Boise Cascade Corporation * Bristol-Myers Fund, Inc. * Burger King Corporation * Campbell Soup Company * Carnation Company * Chevron Environmental Health Center * Ciba-Geigy Corporation * Coca-Cola Company * Consolidated Edison * Cooper Industries Foundation * Adolph Coors Foundation * Crystal Trust * Shelby Cullum Davis Foundation * Dow Chemical Canada, Inc. * Dow Corning Corporation * E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company * Ethyl Corporation * Exxon Corporation * FMC Foundation * Ford Motor Company Fund * Frito-Lay * General Electric Foundation * General Mills, Inc. * General Motors Foundation * Gerber Products Company * Rollin M. Gerstacker Foundation * Hershey Foods Corporation Fund * Heublein, Inc. * ICI Americas Inc. * Johnson & Johnson * Johnson's Wax Fund, Inc. * Kellogg Company * Ester A. and Joseph Klingenstein Fund, Inc. * David H. Koch Charitable Foundation * Kraft Foundation * Kraft General Foods (now part of Altria Group) * Licensed Beverage Information Council * Thomas J. Lipton Foundation, Inc. * M&M Mars * Merck Company Foundation * Mobil Foundation, Inc. * Monsanto Fund * National Agricultural Chemicals Association * National Dairy Council * National Soft Drink Association * National Starch and Chemical Foundation * Nestlé * Samuel Roberts Nobel Foundation, Inc. * Northwood Institute * NutraSweet Company * John M. Olin Foundation Inc. * Oscar Mayer Foods * Pepsico Foundation Inc. (Pepsi-Cola) * Pfizer Inc. * Pillsbury Company * PPG Industries Foundation * Procter & Gamble Fund * Ralston Purina * Rohm & Haas Company * Salt Institute * Sarah Scaife Foundation, Inc. * Schultz Foundation * G.D. Searle Charitable Trust * Joseph E. Seagrams & Sons, Inc. * Shell Oil Company Foundation * Stare Fund * Starr Foundation * Sterling Drug, Inc. * Stouffer Company * Stroh Brewery Company * Sugar Association, Inc. * Sun Company, Inc. * Syntex Corporation * Union Carbide Corporation * Uniroyal Chemical Co. * USX Corp. * Warner-Lambert Foundation * Wine Growers of California Supposedly, some of their funding disappeared when they actually took a stand against the tobacco industry. However, they still have received grants from: * Abbott Laboratories * Bristol-Myers Squibb * Exxon Mobil * McDonalds * Chevron * Eastman Kodak * 3M * DuPont[14] Hoover Institution: The so called corporate funded right wing think tank at Stanford University. Some faculty members at Stanford have called it the “The Shame of Stanford" in personal conversations but perhaps not publically. Often called a Neocon hot bed of stupidity because all the Neocons that have been there and their support for Bush's failed Iraq War. Funded by Exxon, Ford, General Motors, Archer Daniels and the extreme Right wing Richard Mellon Scaife. Of course, they don't believe in global warming or most environmental issues. American Enterprise Institute: Another Right Wing funded think tank! Did you expect anything else from Dr. Miller's associates! Loaded with many Neocons and funded by you guessed it-- Richard Mellon Scaife and his friends at Amoco, Kraft, Exxon, Coors and others. AEI has a well known anti-scientific bent and wants to promote things like school prayer and doesn't really believe in separation of church and state. I should also add that almost all of these groups are at the extreme end of the Republican Party. These groups have an ideology. When you have an ideology you cannot really look for truth which is the essence of science because your science is tempered by your funding etc. to fit in the context of that ideology. I know how hard it is to be an independent scientist and in today's world that's probably not the way to go but I push on anyway. All of these tanks tow the industry line and don't believe any form of pollution does any damage anywhere. Just check their records. I know because as an environmental scientist I deal with this stuff daily. All of these groups and think tanks which Dr. Miller is a member of have an agenda and are against the rights of the individual although they will tell you that they are protecting your rights. All of them are out of the mainstream of scientific thought and research in most areas. All of them in my mind are part of the problem of corporations controlling our democracy. Some like Richard Mellon Scaife can only be described as one of the most immoral and sleazy contributors the world has ever known. I don't know Dr. Miller personally. I'm sure he is a fine man! If Dr. Miller wants to denigrate all other groups (and some do need to take a hit I don't deny that) he should perhaps look in the mirror and maybe look at who is sitting next to him also! But I'll let you decide whether you think Dr. Miller has compromised his principles of being a scientist and is nothing more than a shill for corporate America because unfortunately one is often judged on you hang with because that's who you may end up hanging with! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't know about you Shocking but if these scientists including Miller are affiliated with all of these groups and everyone in the environmental scientific community knows it but you don't, then I must assume perhaps incorrectly that you are in with these groups! If the letter against the orginal study was written by scientists who did not work for the biotech industry don't you think it would be accepted by many more people! For a scientist you seem to have a truly naieve viewpoint of how the world works, however I do not. And I will repeat what I said: Follow the Money! Best of Luck with Your Farming and tight lines gene www.eugenemacri.com

Gene	November 13th, 2007, 11:15 am
Posts: 107	To Flybinder: I've given over 2 million dollars of pro bono scientific work in the last 15 years to help environmental organizations including 12 years of study on Big Spring in PA. Trout streams don't exist in a fricking vaccumm. The inputs that go into them are important. The studies and the people who do them are important and so is the information derrived from them for public consumption. You go drink the fricking Kool Aid. Because it's people like you who are going to make me quit helping save streams because in the long run it's not worth it to my economic well being. When you have fought the wars that I and others have to save the streams of this country then you can talk about who should drink the fricking Kool Aid! It's about time to let everything crash and burn and experts like you will surely do what is necessary! I think from now on may be it better just to go fishing and pretend nothing is wrong. gene www.eugenemacri.com

Shocking	November 13th, 2007, 11:53 am
Posts: 13	Can't we deal with the the data and stop bashing the messinger? Lets just deal with issues and not just bash people because we disagree with their allegence. I guess that I am niave, if that means evaluating critisism base on its merits not my percieved idea of the merits of the messenger. Also, some of us are offended by obscene language. Is it not possible to make your points without profanity? Come on - obviously you are a bright fellow. I started my life where you are. However, I attended an undergraduate class where a scientific representative for nuclear power was asked to speak. The class heckled the speaker off the stage and the instructor praised the class. This experience openned my eyes. Why would someone with a strong scientific argument not let the oposition state its case? I then began to see that if you cannot support your case then you need to start using tricks like a lawer protecting his guilty client. Divert attention from the logic of your opponent so you can cover your weakness. (sorry about my attrocious spelling - thank goodness for MS spell Check!). Come on Gene - You are smarter than this! Address critism with respect for yourself and those that don't see things exactly like you do.

Flybinder	November 14th, 2007, 1:37 am
Oregon Coast Posts: 60	Well, Gene, that's just "ducky", that you've "given so much of your own money to whatever causes you've deemed worthy to receive it"!! In fact,I'm POSITIVE that you HAD to mention that fact because you were running low, on things to blow your own horn about? But, like your ongoing and increasingly boring rant, here, (you cannot debate, with enough maturity and/or, class,OBVIOUSLY, to allow it to be called a true "debate"), no ones' impressed I'm sure with that fact, either. I swear, Sir, if one was to simply "poke you, with a pin", your escaping ego would keep you shooting about the room for HOURS! I, think, it is truly WONDERFUL, that a man of your obvious self importance, one who has single handedly, and all alone..... "Saved every single fresh water fisheries in the entire country", has had the time to honor us poor, lowly, peons of this site with your infinite wisdom!! It was clearly stated, somewhere in "mid-rant", that "Gene, you scare me". Well, perhaps that is quite true. But, frankly, speaking only for myself....... I haven't laughed at anyone, so long and so hard, as I have, follwing you through this rant-fest!
	Flybinder: "You should'a been here, NEXT week,the fishing's great!"

Shocking	November 14th, 2007, 2:29 am
Posts: 13	Flybinder, This was my first attempt at engaging in a web discussion, and I appologize to you and others observing this. I thought it would be of interest to fly fishermen to see some other information on the possible risk to caddisflies and stream ecosystems. I admit that I got sucked in and have gone on too long. If I contributed to the rant, my appologies. I tried to remain on topic, but obviously failed on numerous occasions. I have certainly learned a lot, but it may not be about this particular issue. Wish I was fishing where it was warm. Signing off for good - happy fishing

Flybinder	November 14th, 2007, 5:02 pm
Oregon Coast Posts: 60	Shocking; I do hope, that you check back into this site, long enough to read the following.............. Unless, I've mistyped something in "my own personal rant", concerning this thread, I surely in no way, insulted YOU, whatsoever nor worded anything, in such a way as to make you want to leave Trout Nut for any reason!! I feel, that you did an excellent job of "holding your own", against "Eddie Ego" and see no reasons, whatsoever, you should abandon your membership here! I think you'd be a great asset to Trout Nut, as a contributing force to the love of our sport, so I truly do HOPE that you reconsider your decision to leave permanently!!?! If, I DID, in ANY way insult you, or make ANY reference to you not "being welcomed here", I truly and sincerely, apologize to you. I, hope, to see you returning here, as evidenced by further posts! Paul aka-flybinder
	Flybinder: "You should'a been here, NEXT week,the fishing's great!"

Martinlf	November 14th, 2007, 10:23 pm
Moderator Palmyra PA Posts: 3233	Shocking, though my own tendencies are more in line with Gene's, I admired the way you handled yourself in the discussion. Someone of your intelligence and self-control will always be welcome anywhere there are thoughtful people. Like Paul, I hope you will stay on.
	"He spread them a yard and a half. 'And every one that got away is this big.'" --Fred Chappell

Gene	November 15th, 2007, 11:57 am
Posts: 107	Flybinder: This has nothing to do with my ego. What it has to do with is people who sit on the sidelines while our streams get raped and then want me to drink the Kool Aid because I have a passion for trying to do something. When you entered the thread you knew it wasn't about fly fishing per se. It was an argument based on who gives the information to the public and whether it's actually disinformation or real stuff? And do you trust information from a group of "supposed scientists" whose pockets are lined with money from the biotech and petroagricultural industry. You prove to me what H.L. Mencken said years ago, "You'll never lose money by underestimating the intelligence of the American People." I live in Pa. the most polluted state in the nation and our streams have been destroyed. You live in Oregon where the population isn't what it is in the East. But that's all right because sooner or later the corporate juggernaut will finish the job in Oregon too. Because in America Corporations define what is progress and that doesn't include protecting your precious trout streams. When you've walked a mile in my shoes M.....F.....then you can criticize my efforts and tell me to drink the Kool Aid...until then your so called pin prick was more than you say it was. I have little hope for the future of our streams because in America there are so many little "pin prickers" like you who like throw the Kool Aid at people like me because the world is such a rosy place in their eyes! gene www.eugenemacri.com

Gene	November 15th, 2007, 12:18 pm
Posts: 107	Shocking: I am going to end this discussion and will end posting on this forum for good soon. I don't know who you are and I personally don't care about you or the other clowns on this forum who consider my posting unprofessional because I point out that every single one of the so called scientists on your letter are owned or work for the biotech industry. To the fly anglers out there who believe that these people are objective and you wonder why your streams get destroyed! The messengers are the messengers of the biotech industry..is that so hard for everyone to understand! What do yo think they are going to say ..Shocking...they are in no way objective. If the study is no good other studies should prove it over time! The biotech industry has lied before. They have gotten many things wrong including the transfer to wild strains of crops. You and the other geniuses on this site have automatically assumed because these guys wrote a letter that they must me correct! And now you call that science and the letter was written by whom....independent scientists...no it was written by industry shills. They are industry shills whether you agree with that or not and have been described elsewhere in print and on the web as such. Do you actually think that you would be a member of the Hoover Institution if you didn't share their Right Wing Ideology, and the George Marshal Institute and the American Enterprise Institute? You do remember the AEI don't you they were offering $10.000 to a scientist who would support their anti-global warming disinformation campaign. Oh yes these people are objective....right and there's an Easter Bunny Too! You either work for the industry or are dependent upon them for research and or grants...perhaps? That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the fact that you either pretend not to know these are nothing more than industry scientists or you don't care because that would make it worse. Just follow the money and you can find out just about anything...yes you can. Have a good life Shocking...I'm out of here gene www.limestoner.com

Gene	November 15th, 2007, 12:30 pm
Posts: 107	Martin: I've saved my last post on this forum for you. Get your head out of the poetry books and find out about the real world (at least for just a little bit). I'll go hang out with my unprofessional scientific and piscatorial friends because I just don't want to continue to upset some of you. Some of you just don't seem to get it and that's fine because eventually everyone....will end up getting iT! goodbye, good tying and good fishing and I hope you can fish while we still have some good streams gene www.eugenemacri.com

Mcjames	November 15th, 2007, 1:12 pm
Cortland Manor, NY Posts: 139	is PA really the most polluted state in the country?
	I am haunted by waters

Falsifly	November 15th, 2007, 1:14 pm
Hayward, WI. Posts: 661	Well, that seems to wrap up this weeks episode. Will the star characters return and continue the struggle between right and wrong? I hope so. Please stay tuned for the continuation of DAYS OF OUR LIES.
	Falsifly When asked what I just caught that monster on I showed him. He put on his magnifiers and said, "I can't believe they can see that."

Cynic	November 17th, 2007, 8:53 am
Posts: 2	I am a Cynic. I am not biotech. educated. But, I do fly fish for trout and hike around in what little open and even less wild areas still exist - especially here in the East. First, let me say that I know and am a friend of Gene's. Second, I obviously observe things from a nonscientific perspective. What do I see or do not see. I see: - less insects hatches on various stream then I did years ago. - no bees and other insects in the fields. I see that the bee people complain. They blame various things. Are they right? Do not know, but the fact remains that, there "seems" to be less less insects hatching in trout streams with which I am familiar and less insects on the land - another aspect is that laws, regulations, and rules are far behind our technology. Like males fish growing female organs,etc. This is happening here in the US and in other Countries. And, this stuff is in our drinking water. Yet, the political system refuses to address these issues. I do theorize that the Corporation have a great deal of influence in this area and they see to it that addressing these issues is slow or not at all.

Martinlf	November 17th, 2007, 10:12 am
Moderator Palmyra PA Posts: 3233	Cynic, I like the way you were honest about your background and possible biases. That inspires confidence in your stance. You also approach your comments in a moderate and clear fashion. Like you, I am very suspicious of industry's methods and motives. I would add that worldwide amphibians are on the decline. Locally, the Susquehanna, especially the reaches around and below Harrisburg, is very dirty and virtually devoid of the great schools of smallmouth that used to delight anglers in the area. At the risk of being even more controversial, I'll suggest that one way to combat these kind of problems is to become politically active, analyzing every candidate in every election for her or his stance on the environment, and then encourage those around you to do the same. There are many groups who organize efforts to get people elected who care about the environment. Join them and be active. I know for a fact that they help give people like us a voice. Another way is to help inform others about the facts as you see them. If a local stream is affected, talk to local officials and to the media about your concerns. Join Trout Unlimited and the Sierra Club and get local members involved in your efforts. Finally, as you wage this fight, keep a moderate tone and listen to others calmly. Whether or not you agree with them, this will go farther toward winning support than becoming hostile and shrill. Calm, well-informed analysis is the only hope, then let others have their point of view without attacking them. Do this, and in time they may come around. Attack them and you only harden them and turn them away. One attracts more butterflies with nectar than with vinegar. Welcome to the forum, Cynic. I have been posting here for a long time, and am happy to hear all voices. By the way, I've sent someone a Private Message on this topic. When you log in, look for the little orange envelope at the top right of the screen. It's for you. Click on "my home" to pick it up.
	"He spread them a yard and a half. 'And every one that got away is this big.'" --Fred Chappell

Cynic	November 17th, 2007, 12:20 pm
Posts: 2	Louis, I am familiar with the Susquehanna and its problems. I think it is one of the Rivers in which they found some of those male bass with spawn in them. I have fly fished both the Juniata and Susquehanna for bass - with a guide. Did not do so this year as the reports on how they were fishing were not good. Politics involves losing and winning plus compromise. Some times when you compromise on a conservation issue, you lose because the parameters required to reach or achieve you goals are insufficient to reach those goals. (Hope I am making sense.) For example, say you have to remove at least 75% of some pollutants from a discharge or discharges to have a viable, self sustaining trout stream or a bass fishery, but those polluting the streams convince the politicians to have the law require that only 40% be removed. Under those conditions, you have not comprised; you have lost. But, I think that the basic problem is overpopulation. And, I think there is nothing we humans can do about it other then make the best of things while you are alive!

Martinlf	November 17th, 2007, 1:20 pm
Moderator Palmyra PA Posts: 3233	Cynic, I agree that compromise is an unfortunate reality in most political situations, but if you have reduced pollutants at all when no action would have left all of them in, I see this as a step in the right direction, not a loss. Every time a step forward is made, it encourages others to take a step. It's painfully slow, and sometimes we move backward, but I believe that when passionate people take wise actions, sometimes there is progress. In this world I'll take any steps forward that can be made. I am hopeful that my grandchildren and theirs will have places to fish, not to mention clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. As for overpopulation, the more people become aware of the problem, the more solutions for the problems it causes can be found.
	"He spread them a yard and a half. 'And every one that got away is this big.'" --Fred Chappell

Shawnny3	November 17th, 2007, 6:05 pm
Moderator Pleasant Gap, PA Posts: 1197	For example, say you have to remove at least 75% of some pollutants from a discharge or discharges to have a viable, self sustaining trout stream or a bass fishery, but those polluting the streams convince the politicians to have the law require that only 40% be removed. Well said. Here's another convoluting factor that makes this even more difficult - there are some pollutants that have been shown to actually have a worse effect at lower concentrations. The study I'm specifically referencing involved sexual mutations in frogs. The researchers hypothesized that the pollutant (can't remember what exactly they were studying - some pesticide, I think) triggered some kind of defense mechanism on the part of the frogs if present in high enough concentrations and the mutations did not develop, but flew under the frog's internal radar if present in lower concentrations and mutations developed. This stuff just can't be simple, can it? -Shawn
	Jewelry-Quality Artistic Salmon Flies, by Shawn Davis www.davisflydesigns.com

Jmd123	November 19th, 2007, 8:30 pm
Oscoda, MI Posts: 2611	GEEZ, guys, the scales really flew on this one! Having burned myself out on the "global warming" debate, I kept my head down on this topic, but I thought I would just put in my 2 cents. First, anyone can see that Gene is extremely passionate about what he believes in, and that he has many frustrations with this. I can understand why this is, having worked in the environmental field for over 2 decades, and especially with the strong anti-science attitude of the Bush administration and the Neocons in general. Yep, I do think Gene got too emotionally carried away and definitely used excessive profanity & etc. But when you see ecosystems getting systematically destroyed while being told that there are actually MORE of these ecosystems than there used to be (e.g., Bush administration's supposed "increase" in wetland acreage within the U.S. was actually created by including lakes, rivers, and reservoirs - these are NOT WETLANDS!!), it kinda gets you pissed off. REALLY pissed off. Been there myself, too many times. Second, it IS true that certain companies promote their own "science" to counter less favorable research that has been done more objectively. Newsweek did an expose on the energy industry's funding of the anti-global warming campaign. Hey, they're just looking out for the bottom line, aren't they? Well, getting exactly the results that you desired doesn't constitute good science. Myself, I was quite taken aback by the vehement criticism in the letter towards the PNAS. I must wonder this: do these scientists write in to other journals to complain about methodology and statistical design and etc. in articles that FAVOR their point of view? Or are perhaps unrelated to what they do for a living? I would be very interested to know what their responses would be to an article that supports the safety of GMOs with the same "sloppy" science. Third, Shocking did an excellent job of trying to keep the discussion civil and focus on the science. However, he did give away a tad of info on what he does for a living and himself admitted that his "sources of funding" wouldn't be happy with what he has to say. My employer wouldn't criticize me at all for the things I say on this site - in fact my boss would encourage me (he knows about this site as well and is a fly fisherman). I would have a very difficult time being able to say one thing at work and having the freedom to say what I wanted in my personal life. Sadly, I think it's that way for most people. Fourth, and perhaps foremost, LOTS more studies need to be done on GMOs and their effects on non-target organisms. Hey, if the EPA did perfectly good science when they originally evaluated GMOs, publish it and let it be peer-reviewed (if it hasn't been done already). Otherwise, this is a field RIPE for research, as little has been investigated and there is a LOT at stake. Long-term, intensive, ecosystem studies should be done to look at not only specific non-target organisms, but to look at whole ecosystem effects such as changes in nutrient flow, functional feeding groups, diversity, presence of tolerant/non-tolerant organisms, etc. In summary, I do tend to agree with Gene, though I won't use profanity or threaten never to appear here again. I have major qualms with the pronouncements of big industry, since we have been mislead so many times in the past. Perhaps it all comes down to this: Milton Freedman, considered by some to be the architect of modern American capitalism, stated that the ONLY moral obligation a company has is to make profit. Does that make anyone else here feel uneasy? Jonathon P.S. I myself work for private industry - JJR, a landscape architecture firm in Ann Arbor, MI. My job is to identify and map natural resources - wetlands, streams, sensitive habitats, threatened and endangered species, tree surveys - on undeveloped properties prior to project initiation, so they can be avoided or mitigated for. Anybody wants to see a resume, just ask.
	No matter how big the one you just caught is, there's always a bigger one out there somewhere...

Page:123

Quick Reply

You have to be logged in to post on the forum. It's this easy:

Related Discussions

Title	Replies	Last Reply
Re: Scientific journal 'Nature' endorses Obama (as do I) In General Discussion by Troutnut	14	Nov 7, 2008 by CaseyP
Re: Rhithrogena (species?) In the Identify This! Board by Millcreek	9	Jan 10, 2015 by Entoman
Re: Crazy Weather In General Discussion by Motrout	15	Apr 6, 2011 by Jmd123
Re: new edition to fly realm In the Photography Board by Jtberez	6	Jun 24, 2011 by JOHNW
Re: NY Times article on stream restoration In General Discussion by Mcjames	1	Jun 24, 2008 by Taxon
Re: Mayfly Classification Conundrum - Subspecies or Variation? In the Identify This! Board by Entoman	15	Dec 15, 2012 by Brookyman
Re: My usual success continues In Fishing Reports by Stokes	6	Aug 25, 2015 by PaulRoberts
Re: Water temperature effect In General Discussion by Mind2it	8	Jun 15, 2008 by Leakywaders
Re: Need help identifying this nymph please!! In General Discussion by Cussfly16	44	Apr 2, 2012 by Entoman
Re: Global Warming and Flyfishing In General Discussion by Shawnny3	92	Apr 20, 2008 by Wbranch

Troutnut Forum > Fly Fishing > Genetically Modified Crops hurting Aquatic Ecosystems!, Page 2

Quick Reply

Related Discussions

Troutnut Forum
>
Fly Fishing
> Genetically Modified Crops hurting Aquatic Ecosystems!, Page 2