Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Mary M
Recent Activity
-
Mary commented on the article |In answer to another question at that talk Pollan also said this:
"Well, when I think about the future I imagine a time where there will not be 1 agriculture system. Where there will be more than one. On a 50 year horizon I don't see industrial agriculture vanishing. And I'm not even so sure that would be a good thing, for it to vanish. I think, you know, coming up with one solution is another form of monoculture thinking. And that we would make a mistake to throw all our eggs in one basket, whether it was pastured beef or organic agriculture or any number of different things. We need a resilient system, which is to say with many many different ways of doing the same thing."
Monoculture thinking is an iinteresting characterization of this topic.
-
Mary commented on the article |
I've had that conversation 1000 times. I actually hate "Monsanto" for that. That name makes conversation/discussion on the substance of the issues impossible.
There are plenty of academic and non-profit projects in plant biotechnology--very cool things that people who call themselves environmentalists would support if they understood: alternatives to chemical dyes, plastics, fibers, safer drug production, and more that are besides the food issues.
-
Mary commented on the article |Neat to see high-tech tools getting acceptance here. But isn't this expensive? Don't most people scream about that for GMOs and Africa--even when they are free? Shouldn't we scream about Lockheed or Boeing or something at this point?
-
Mary commented on the article |Yeah, those last two links are powerful summaries of your case, that's for sure.
-
Mary commented on the article |
Yes, L.S., it's all a giant conspiracy and Rajiv wants you to die.
That's very constructive.
Thanks, I'll stick with the science.
-
Mary commented on the article |I just saw @GMWatch celebrating a Gates Foundation project on cowpeas. Hath hell frozen over?
http://www.wageningenuniversity.nl/UK/newsagenda/news/d091030.htm
Anyway, Katherine--tell me this: are you ok with the technology if it isn't corporate? The academic projects and the foundation projects that specifically aren't IP tied--are they ok?
A lot of people use this fog of IP to dismiss the topic completely, but when you ask about that specifically they move the goalposts again. Just like anti-vaxxers do for each study that comes out contrary to their views.
-
Mary commented on the article |
Huh. My understanding of his background was that he evaluated situations effectively and delivered good outcomes with his previous projects.
' "He's all business," says Robert Paarlberg of Wellesley College in Massachusetts. "He'll ask the right questions, and he is someone who is scrupulous about evidence." ' It goes on to talk about "rigor" in grant evaluation. fromhttp://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/04/usda-nominee-br.html
Sorry. I just don't think "scrupulous about evidence" or "rigor" is ominous.
-
Mary commented on the article |
So you are suggesting he's dishonest and won't evaluate the data correctly? Do you have any evidence that he's misused data in the past?
-
Mary commented on the article |Wow. The tone here has changed a lot since the last time I was around. Nice.
I applaud you for working against what Michael Pollan called "monoculture thinking" that I see so often on this topic.
http://agro.biodiver.se/2009/10/empty-vessels-and-gmos/ for the reference.
-
Mary commented on the article |
Why is it "ominous" that a review and systematic analysis of the programs is coming? Why are you afraid of that data?
This is certainly what I voted for. Science is back!
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits