Topic: Episode #292

[ttguy]

Even though I'm not from the US, I think I qualified my statements regarding my wide general stance of erring on the side of safety. However, your sweeping, simplistic statements seem quite dogmatic to me.
I don't keep references handy nor do I actively follow such matters, really... However, it took me all of 5 seconds to go to C&L (a site I haven't frequented in years) and find a plethora of reading material you might find ticklish enough to ween you off the arguments from authority you seem to take the EPA and FDA to be.
Hint: search for "epa" or "fda"
If you find the political logical fallacies too numerous to wade through, remember it's a political site and stick with the references  and quotes. If that's not enough to tickle, I may spend 15 seconds next time.

Why would I want to spend any time at a site that by your own admission has too many logical fallacies to wade through. FARK me. You offer up as evidence a site you can't even defend. Wow.   

If it has so many good references to back up your assertion that the EPA, FDA and USDA do not employ experts then why don't you give us the references instead of pointing us to what is -  by your own admission - a crap web site.

BTW it is not an argument from authority to state that the agbiotech industry is regulated by regulators and not by itself as you asserted in a previous post. 

I think it might be the libertarianism in the american gene pool which automatically trusts the regulators - as long as they don't actually do too much to regulate.

I am not from the American gene pool. And it is not about libertarianism for me. It is about the science. Show me the science that shows me I should be scared of rBST. Because for the reasons discussed - the data under discussion here is not it.

And I'm not concerned just for the lowly cows, but for us, the consumers.

To paraphrase Steve N. - where is the biological plausability for your claim that rBST poses a risk to consumers? Milk drinkers already consume BST when they consume milk. rBST is the same as the natural compound.
So you got no plausability and you got no data. Sound like homeopathy mate.

[npoljak]

Even though I'm not from the US, I think I qualified my statements regarding my wide general stance of erring on the side of safety. However, your sweeping, simplistic statements seem quite dogmatic to me.
I don't keep references handy nor do I actively follow such matters, really... However, it took me all of 5 seconds to go to C&L (a site I haven't frequented in years) and find a plethora of reading material you might find ticklish enough to ween you off the arguments from authority you seem to take the EPA and FDA to be.
Hint: search for "epa" or "fda"
If you find the political logical fallacies too numerous to wade through, remember it's a political site and stick with the references  and quotes. If that's not enough to tickle, I may spend 15 seconds next time.

Why would I want to spend any time at a site that by your own admission has too many logical fallacies to wade through. FARK me. You offer up as evidence a site you can't even defend. Wow.   

Oh silly me, I thought I was being fair and objective when I added a caveat that it was a political site and as such had its own ideologies, but that in spite of that, the quotes and references were trustworthy... But I must have simply been stoopid, because I have to wholeheartedly agree with the entire content of any site I link to!
You're absolutely right, and I'll go drool in my corner.

[ttguy]

references were trustworthy...

I am going to take a leaf out of Steve Ns book - give me your best reference that proves your point that ...  . BTW - what exactly is your point again?

rBST is dangerous or agbiotech regulates itself ??

[npoljak]

references were trustworthy...

I am going to take a leaf out of Steve Ns book - give me your best reference that proves your point that ...  . BTW - what exactly is your point again?

rBST is dangerous or agbiotech regulates itself ??

My point was that, in general, regulatory capture happens far more often than you might care to admit, meaning regulatory agencies are not necessarily governed by science as much as by general socio-economics and politics. It takes far more than a single reference to point out a trend, and (lest we forget) not everything is quantifiable in a hard-science way, so when taking into account social and political aspects you must understand that it's like apples and oranges and you can't expect hard data and exact P-values.
I don't have an axe to grind against rBST, necessarily, but it's quite far from a clear cut case, and I, as a rule, see regulatory agencies side with big business. Much of that is definitely a sort of confirmation bias, as you wouldn't see it reported when they actually do their job well, but the trend (throughout the Bush years at least) is clear.
If you don't think you're being ideological, fine, but I still can't see how, for example, you can brush off a 20% to 25% increase in anything, without addressing the direct, indirect, and unintended consequences (the ever-present demon of cost externalisation). That stinks of ideology to me.

[ttguy]

My point was that, in general, regulatory capture happens far more often than you might care to admit, meaning regulatory agencies are not necessarily governed by science as much as by general socio-economics and politics. It takes far more than a single reference to point out a trend, and (lest we forget) not everything is quantifiable in a hard-science way, so when taking into account social and political aspects you must understand that it's like apples and oranges and you can't expect hard data and exact P-values.

So ya got nothing then?

If you don't think you're being ideological, fine, but I still can't see how, for example, you can brush off a 20% to 25% increase in anything, without addressing the direct, indirect, and unintended consequences (the ever-present demon of cost externalisation). That stinks of ideology to me.

No you stink of ideology to me. rBST is made by evil multinational money making company. Therefore any data that shows rBST is bad then I must latch on to.

How come no-one protests against the breeding of cows for increased milk production.
Effect of Selection for Milk Production and General Health of the Dairy Cow

"High pedigree cows produced more milk, but they also had 9% more digestive disorders, 5% more foot rot, 14% more skin or skeletal disorders, 11% more cases of udder edema, and 2% more lactations affected by mastitis."

The reason why no-one protests is ideology. "natural" breeding = good. Scary cloning of cow gene to make hormone = bad.