A Dangerous Antibiotic-Resistant Gene Has Spread The World. We Now Know Where It

Sven One wrote: That was a out right immature response Luthien.

I am under no obligation to be polite or mature in response. You said "say what you want," so I did.

Adder wrote: More dangerous!! Got links?? Curious minds are curious....

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/06/the_biggest_myth_about_organic_farming.html

I only say "more dangerous" because more is used due to organic pesticides being less effective. It's really inconclusive as to whether modern pesticides are really any danger to our health. Honestly, if buying organic makes someone feel better about themselves, more power to them. Placebos can induce a healing response if the patient doesn't know that they're not actual drugs.

Thanks for those links, Luthien. I was unaware that organic pesticides were said to be just as bad as chemical pesticides. Tbh i am skeptical but interested. Its certainly reasonable that they arent as wonderful as some might make them out to be.

I have to point out that certain "Organic" labela do actually mean something, depending on what exactly they say. There are FDA criteria that have to be met for a manufacturer to use the word "organic" (unlike the word "natural", which relly doesnt mean anything significant).

Here is a decent article that explains Organic and goes over the basic arguments for and against:
https://lifehacker.com/5941881/what-does-organic-really-mean-and-should-i-buy-it

I want to point out what i consider to be some very important points which are easily missed if all we base our opinions on are scientific studies.

The first is that its functionally impossible to study the effects of organics vs GMOs and the associated hormones and pesticides. These things were introduced to our food supply indiscriminately and we were all exposed to them before most of us even knew they existed or that they were an issue.

Another is that even if you could find enough people who werent exposed, studies tend to be very short in duration. Most last only a few weeks, but the potential effects of exposures may not even appear that soon.

There are cases of toxic exposures that seemed to have no immediate effect on the individual but resulted in birth defects or developmental issues in children conceived years and years later. You could eat or be exposed to something in your youth that doesnt get your attention at the time, but sticks with you and causes problems in your baby when you have one.

The money behind major agriculture, chemical and biotechs is enormous. Its true that there have been some scientific studies done, and the results havent conclusively proven these things we're discussing to be immediately dangerous, but id remind you that there was a time when the same could he said for tobacco and for other chemicals that we now know are in fact dangerous. There are (admittedly a minority of) scientists right now who are still denying climate change, id guess because they are financially beholden to energy industry.

Last is the centrality and ethics (or lack of ethics) of the company Monsanto. This is not just hype or liberal hysteria: Monsanto has a long history of decieving the public (and even its own employees) and all kinds of other serious ethical violations which have resulted in sickness and death and unjust lawsuits, and the ruining of many lives and livelihoods. Its easy enough to learn about that if you want. As far as im concerned, even if some particular Monsanto product is shown not to cause immediate harm, the company has already proven imo itself to be dangerous and untrustworthy generally.

I would postulate that GMOs weren’t created to do anything but to ensure an abundance of food. The food that we eat today, through genetic selection by farmers through the ages, are not the original organic staples that they started out as. The genetic modifications were meant to reduce the amount of pesticides used (naturally resistant to pests) and to enable them to last longer before they spoil or go bad. Monsanto’s practices of limiting farmers to depend on them and fine them for trying to replant seeds that were grown on the farm, rather than buying more from the company, I think is what makes them such a bad company. I don’t stand behind them in that regard.

Yes, though science has been wrong in the past, that’s the beauty of science. New information is discovered, tests are run, then if it holds up, it gets updated to the newest info. Tobacco, at the time, was promoted as beneficial, but information collected over the years led to a different conclusion. That’s just how science works. Nothing should be based on assumption or conspiracy theories. That would just be bad science. So, I agree with you that lack of evidence doesn’t mean lack of existence. But, until that evidence is made known, I will accept the most current science on it.

Luthien wrote:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/06/the_biggest_myth_about_organic_farming.html

I only say "more dangerous" because more is used due to organic pesticides being less effective. It's really inconclusive as to whether modern pesticides are really any danger to our health. Honestly, if buying organic makes someone feel better about themselves, more power to them. Placebos can induce a healing response if the patient doesn't know that they're not actual drugs.

Danke. It's fun to read the regulations around organic farming but its not really a topic I care to know too much about. Over here in Australia it looks like we have a few associations trying to enforce certifications which exceed the standards so hopefully they work.
I personally steer away from non-organic food as much as possible, as I had more then one relative who owned, worked or lived on a busy fruit farm and ended up with different serious neurological conditions later in life... arguably from working and living with synthetic pesticides and fungicides in action. When it comes to profit margins, the balance between health, effectiveness and cost tends to abandon the first in favour of the other two... and so at least organic standards and certifications allow engineering of efforts to actually redress that imbalance. How that translates in reality though is likely less clear or reliable!!!

It's one of the reasons I think GMOs are the way to go. Engineering crops to be resistant to pests so that pesticides are needed less seems like the safer option. That's just my opinion, though.

Also, I would like to apologize to Sven for my brash response. I get friggin amped up about people spreading misinformation and the like. I shouldn't be so hard on ya. You mean well.

Its fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.