Carbon hoofprint: Cows supplemented with rbST reduce agriculture's environmental impact

[GaryC 7]

Your a riot Steven. A textbook, down the line liberal. Wiki should just put your picture next to the definition of liberal. It's all that needs to be said.

Don't turn this into a personal attack, Gary...it's a worthy argument. You're basically saying that you have no qualms about conflict of interest when it comes to scientific research. Based on that logic, you wouldn't dare to question the legitimacy of a study that concluded smoking wasn't hazardous to one's health if the research was funded by the tobacco industry. Quite an interesting set of principals you uphold.

The study is simple, more milk from fewer cows. Fewer cows less impact on the environment. Yet you attack it and cite a conflict of interest. It's your typical response to everything relating to big business.

It's the conclusion of that report - which basically correlates bovine growth hormone usage to reducing the carbon footprint. While the logic - more milk from less cows, is straight forward - taking that to mean that the use of bovine growth hormone is 'greener' than traditional methods is ridiculous at best.

And this points to a larger problem that is going one with all research in general - there's not enough government funds for independent research. Consumers should be suspicious of any research done by the industries which directly benefit from that research....again the principal of conflict of interest should be upheld.

It's a simple study, one that is intuitive. Fewer cows for the same milk = less impact. Yet you want to attack it as tainted somehow. What's your problem with it?It isn't ridiculous, it's just simple facts. You have a mind set of distrust for anything big business. It shows with every post. I have a more realistic view. Sometimes big business is good and looking out for us and sometimes they are only looking out for themselves. Try judging each one rather than painting them all with the same brush.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's a simple study, one that is intuitive. Fewer cows for the same milk = less impact. Yet you want to attack it as tainted somehow. What's your problem with it?It isn't ridiculous, it's just simple facts. You have a mind set of distrust for anything big business. It shows with every post. I have a more realistic view. Sometimes big business is good and looking out for us and sometimes they are only looking out for themselves. Try judging each one rather than painting them all with the same brush.

Gary, here's an idea. How about trying to argue on the merits of what I'm actually arguing about rather than turn this into something about me personally? I'm asking to kindly try it.

As for Monsanto - they have a track record of public deception and lies. It is by the very nature of all corporations that their primary concern is their survival and not the consumer, the nation's interest or the environment. That's simply the nature of the beast - it's neither good nor bad - as a corporation is not a person. Given that (which is something I've explained to you before), it is reasonable that consumers be skeptical of any reports or studies that conclude a product is good for us or the environment if it was funded by the very industry that would gain financially by that study. I know you understand that logic but you're stubbornly ignoring the legitimacy of that principal. And oddly enough, you've cried fowl in other areas where conflict of interest occurs, which makes it peculiar for you not to at least be consistent as to what principals you do uphold and which ones you let fall by the waist side.

Edited July 3, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[GaryC 7]

It's a simple study, one that is intuitive. Fewer cows for the same milk = less impact. Yet you want to attack it as tainted somehow. What's your problem with it?It isn't ridiculous, it's just simple facts. You have a mind set of distrust for anything big business. It shows with every post. I have a more realistic view. Sometimes big business is good and looking out for us and sometimes they are only looking out for themselves. Try judging each one rather than painting them all with the same brush.

Gary, here's an idea. How about trying to argue on the merits of what I'm actually arguing about rather than turn this into something about me personally? I'm asking to kindly try it.

As for Monsanto - they have a track record of public deception and lies. It is by the very nature of all corporations that their primary concern is their survival and not the consumer, the nation's interest or the environment. That's simply the nature of the beast - it's neither good nor bad - as a corporation is not a person. Given that (which is something I've explained to you before), it is reasonable that consumers be skeptical of any reports or studies that conclude a product is good for us or the environment if it was funded by the very industry that would gain financially by that study. I know you understand that logic but you're stubbornly ignoring the legitimacy of that principal. And oddly enough, you've cried fowl in other areas where conflict of interest occurs, which makes it peculiar for you not to at least be consistent as to what principals you do uphold and which ones you let fall by the waist side.

I don't object to your sceptisinm for big business, just your blanket comdemnation of everything big business. I think it's reasonable that a company can pay for a study and it would be a fair one. You seem to think that if it has the stink of corporate America on it then it has to be tainted.

But back to the OP. All it did was state an obvious truth. This product makes cows give more milk. More milk means less cows. Less cows means less impact. It says nothing about the safety or appropriatness of the product. It had one conclusion and one conclusion only. This product, when used, causes less environmental impact from our dairy industry. You are the one that is interjecting other issues into it and your doing it because it's big bad old Monsanto that paid for the study. You don't even see what your doing.

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

in further news, apparently cornell university can be bought.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't object to your sceptisinm for big business, just your blanket comdemnation of everything big business. I think it's reasonable that a company can pay for a study and it would be a fair one. You seem to think that if it has the stink of corporate America on it then it has to be tainted.

But back to the OP. All it did was state an obvious truth. This product makes cows give more milk. More milk means less cows. Less cows means less impact. It says nothing about the safety or appropriatness of the product. It had one conclusion and one conclusion only. This product, when used, causes less environmental impact from our dairy industry. You are the one that is interjecting other issues into it and your doing it because it's big bad old Monsanto that paid for the study. You don't even see what your doing.

Yes - the straight forward logic is more milk produced from one cow means less cows, means less of a carbon footprint. The part that is ridiculous is then taking that to conclude that bovine growth hormone would be good to use, which is what the study implied.

I'll give another example (hypothetical) - study finds that children who play with knives develop good hand-eye coordination. The study was funded by the knive industry. I think most people would agree that while the study's conclusion may be straight forward, the implication is ridiculous. Even if you don't see that point, Gary, I'm thinking that others here do.

[GaryC 7]

I don't object to your sceptisinm for big business, just your blanket comdemnation of everything big business. I think it's reasonable that a company can pay for a study and it would be a fair one. You seem to think that if it has the stink of corporate America on it then it has to be tainted.

But back to the OP. All it did was state an obvious truth. This product makes cows give more milk. More milk means less cows. Less cows means less impact. It says nothing about the safety or appropriatness of the product. It had one conclusion and one conclusion only. This product, when used, causes less environmental impact from our dairy industry. You are the one that is interjecting other issues into it and your doing it because it's big bad old Monsanto that paid for the study. You don't even see what your doing.

Yes - the straight forward logic is more milk produced from one cow means less cows, means less of a carbon footprint. The part that is ridiculous is then taking that to conclude that bovine growth hormone would be good to use, which is what the study implied.

I'll give another example (hypothetical) - study finds that children who play with knives develop good hand-eye coordination. The study was funded by the knive industry. I think most people would agree that while the study's conclusion may be straight forward, the implication is ridiculous. Even if you don't see that point, Gary, I'm thinking that others here do.

I see your point. Your point is that big business always has motives other than what they state. It's in your basic make-up. Distrust of the very institutions that made life in this country what it is. Don't get me wrong, if a company gets out of line then they should be corrected but you take your distrust to the far limit. This was a straight forward study and you made it into something it isn't. Charles baited you and you took it hook line and sinker. This goes back to what I said earlier, your easier to read than a first grade textbook.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't object to your sceptisinm for big business, just your blanket comdemnation of everything big business. I think it's reasonable that a company can pay for a study and it would be a fair one. You seem to think that if it has the stink of corporate America on it then it has to be tainted.

But back to the OP. All it did was state an obvious truth. This product makes cows give more milk. More milk means less cows. Less cows means less impact. It says nothing about the safety or appropriatness of the product. It had one conclusion and one conclusion only. This product, when used, causes less environmental impact from our dairy industry. You are the one that is interjecting other issues into it and your doing it because it's big bad old Monsanto that paid for the study. You don't even see what your doing.

Yes - the straight forward logic is more milk produced from one cow means less cows, means less of a carbon footprint. The part that is ridiculous is then taking that to conclude that bovine growth hormone would be good to use, which is what the study implied.

I'll give another example (hypothetical) - study finds that children who play with knives develop good hand-eye coordination. The study was funded by the knive industry. I think most people would agree that while the study's conclusion may be straight forward, the implication is ridiculous. Even if you don't see that point, Gary, I'm thinking that others here do.

I see your point. Your point is that big business always has motives other than what they state. It's in your basic make-up. Distrust of the very institutions that made life in this country what it is. Don't get me wrong, if a company gets out of line then they should be corrected but you take your distrust to the far limit. This was a straight forward study and you made it into something it isn't. Charles baited you and you took it hook line and sinker. This goes back to what I said earlier, your easier to read than a first grade textbook.

Aye, Gary...whatever gets your goat. I wish we could have arguments that don't focus on the person(s) making the argument and instead focus on the argument itself. Perhaps I'm too idealistic...sigh.

[HAL 9000 96]

From the folks I´ve known that have worked on GM crops at Monsanto, their reviews of corporate ethics are not exactly spit-shining images of transparency.

I mean, engineering seeds to not be reproductively viable past harvest... that´s business sense indeed. Guarantee the need for your customers to buy again I suppose.

As for the OP... we get enough hormones in most milk products now. Some with very clear effects. We should find other ways of reducing CO2 imprint without continuing the drive for more exogenous hormones and peptides in our products. Perhaps eating one serving of cereal instead of four???

FYI- any company sponsored study is OK as long as they state it clear that there are no competing interests of clear conflicts of interest-- in reputable scientific journals, that is.

[DairyFarmer 1]

I can't believe I missed this. Question to you all. How many are actually dairy farmers?????

How many of you have actual experience with rBST?????? Have you seen the actual cost????

Where does your knowledge come from other than reading the propaganda and anecdotal / editorial evidence.

Rather than bandwagon jumping take the time to learn both sides of an argument before you take a side.

And check your fridge for dairy products first.