Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
From what I am reading they are not happy about those losses in court, but it is my understanding that Bayer intends to fight them. From what I heard, the Bayer stockholders are still smoldering over the Monsanto deal and the unexpected hit that is causing Bayer.
I don't have all of mine to play with anymore.Thar's a visual.
I'll add mine and we'll have a game. Whats say?
It would seem I put "too much" into the timing from the Bayer buyout (or whatever it technically legally was) and the announcement of that suit.
I have one for haggis, but I am not sure if it fits within the rules, but it is probably no more racy than some of the things I have seen on here.I've been thinking of summat smart to say in reply.......but.....not enough marble power
That I did not know. But I also avoid antibiotics because they are rampantly overused, contribute to treatment-resistant strains of bacteria, and I've long suspected detrimental to our immune system when overused.
It is still possible that it is a carcinogen, though one wonders where all the bodies are if that is the case, considering how long it has been available. Most studies do not show any link to cancer or manipulation of hormonal balance. The biggest driver behind the move to litigation was the declaration that it was a probable carcinogen by some obscure UN/FAO panel. This was based on some pretty weak data and may have been political as much as anything. Not everything a big company does is pure evil or harmful. But sometimes it is.
Antibiotic use in animal production was, maybe still is, one of the biggest non-therapeutic uses of antibiotics and probably has a significant impact on the development of resistance. It has been some time since I looked into it, but years ago, it was still unknown what the mechanism of the antibiotics in animal production was. All that was known was that significant growth occurred when antibiotics were included in feeding. When getting size and quickly is an important aspect of production, most producers and companies were not really worried about why or what else might happen. We now know something else that should have been researched more widely.
Yup. I've felt comfortable thinking glysophate should be studied more, but it might be a "scary thingy" like GMOs in general. But, one downside I am definitely seeing is the spread of "super weeds," which are becoming resistant to even the "super weed killer." Basic evolution, but we're clearly fighting an unwinnable war against "pests and bugs" and will inevitably and perpetually fuel the negatives of how we are and have influenced the evolution of other species. We really need to rethink things from the ground up.
I do not consider GMO's to be all that scary. In many ways, we have been modifying the genomes of animals and plants for 10 or 15 thousand years and modern genetic techniques actually allow for that modification to be done much more precisely and accurately without bringing in a host of unwanted and unneeded traits. However, there are risks and resistance is one of the biggest and well-studied one of those.
We do need to continue to find new approaches to production that will be sustainable and still meet the needs of a growing population within a changing climatic environment too.
I think that may be our "agriculture salvation." The way we do things now is extremely inefficient, ineffective, and it involves tons wasted food and resources with tons more that could be cut out if we depended more upon local farmers. And of course we also need to learn what healthy amounts of meat consumption are, and significantly cut down on that. We also need to stop wasting so much food on products that are basically made to waste (cases of food at grocery stores, mountains of still good food at fast food and restaurants being thrown out, and we could probably spare a few less holidays of gluttony). McDonalds may be convenient, but really we would be better off without, as would the Earth.
I agree, and I see the fears of GMOs on par with the fears of vaccines. And really with bad results too boot. We don't have to involve chemicals or bioengineering to produce "genetically modified organisms," and with our brains alone we have made wonderful progress in diversifying and enhancing our food supply. And in some places, even with bioengineering, it may be the only option we are left with to address hunger and starvation in impoverished nations while addressing our species exponentially growing need for food. Studies are needed still so we can find out more, but I do believe it will be GMO substances that will ultimately end the human desire and want for meat from living animals.
There are also other techniques where advances in molecular biology can be applied to agriculture that do not involve any genetic engineering. Molecular breeding combines the techniques developed in molecular biology with traditional breeding to produce new varieties of plants and animals that have desirable traits with fewer undesirable traits. Techniques like marker assisted selection and mapping are observational and not used to move genes around, but still allow for increased efficiency in breeding.
There is a company that has moved into Missouri from its start in California that is producing meat substitutes using plant protein as the basis. I do not know much about it, but replacing meat seems to be one of their goals. There is another, older business, that uses fungal protein as the basis of meat substitutes, but what I recall is long out of date, though I know some of the companies in that area are still around.
I may be too optimistic, but I believe once we have a viable and satisfying meat alternative there will be nothing holding back the "flood gates of guilt." It won't be overnight, and hunting/fishing will still be a necessary source of food for some, but after a couple generations I think the harvesting and slaughtering of animals will be reexamined and requestioned, and we may see a generational shift in meat consumption that will carry on into the next and so on, until humans have given up meat.
I do not have philosophical objections to meat consumption, but lean on more practical reasons for reducing the consumption. I am against cruelty to animals that are produced with that end in mind, though I know that some consider that end to be part of the cruelty. Without sounding completely objectionable, I like eating steaks, ham, bacon and all the rest. But diets heavy in that are just not healthy and people can exist without it, even if I am reluctant to go that far.
New engines or old engines?
