Monsanto's Really needs to be STOPPED HELP

[dagnabit]

As grapeman said the only purpose of Monsanto is filling the wallet of a few ......Monsanto seeds (as other seeds corporation) has increased the loss of biodiversity......

the only purpose of any business is to make money sometimes in doing so they do good,sometimes well,sometimes bad and sometimes fail.
why is that a bad thing?
loss of biodiversity..ok lets run with that...
if only one million people lived that would have otherwise perished due to innovations developed by monsanto(a very conservative number) are their lives worth the supposed "loss of biodiversity"
try to understand what true poverty is...
the choice for us is between frankenfood and organic heirloom goodness.
the choice for a LOT of people is monsanto or barren desert.
do we want to take the choice from them?

 

[mosstrooper]

monsanto has increased the life span of people who otherwise would have been eliminated as per natural selection. not allowing those people to starve to death(as per the natural order) has (possibly irrevocably) damaged the entire biosphere.

Dont worry, im sure all the small peasant farmers in India who commit suicide by drinking pesticides after getting into too much debt to monsanto
should help to make up for all the undeserving poor who will be living off of their freak genetics.

Here, see, India even has a suicide belt http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html

"Shankara, like millions of other Indian farmers, had been promised previously unheard of harvests and income if he switched from farming with traditional seeds to planting GM seeds instead.

Beguiled by the promise of future riches, he borrowed money in order to buy the GM seeds. But when the harvests failed, he was left with spiralling debts - and no income.

So Shankara became one of an estimated 125,000 farmers to take their own life as a result of the ruthless drive to use India as a testing ground for genetically modified crops."

"In one small village I visited, 18 farmers had committed suicide after being sucked into GM debts. In some cases, women have taken over farms from their dead husbands - only to kill themselves as well.

Latta Ramesh, 38, drank insecticide after her crops failed - two years after her husband disappeared when the GM debts became too much."

So much for saving the world with their super duper gm genetics guys.


I think that Monsanto are cornering the market for the benefit of their shareholders. When you stop breeding your own seed stock to grow in your own particular local conditions, you become hostage to nightmare corporations like Monsanto.

 

[mosstrooper]

the choice for us is between frankenfood and organic heirloom goodness.
the choice for a LOT of people is monsanto or barren desert.
do we want to take the choice from them?

People just dont live in barren deserts because they want to, they are driven there by war, persecution, ethnic cleansing etc.

Im sure the people in Sudan trying to escape the Janjaweed militias once had Beautiful fields of their own to till, and now they live on the margin of hell, Monsanto is not going to help them, nor any like them, they are more likely to cut a deal with the Janjaweeds to split the profits from siezed lands.

Monsanto's claims to be saving the worlds poor from starvation is just a well constructed lie to stop you realising they are eliminating diversity in the name of control of germplasm and genetics.

 

[elmanito]

No seeds, no independent research

Companies that genetically engineer crops have a lock on what we know about their safety and benefits.

By Doug Gurian-Sherman
February 13, 2011

Soybeans, corn, cotton and canola — most of the acres planted in these crops in the United States are genetically altered. "Transgenic" seeds can save farmers time and reduce the use of some insecticides, but herbicide use is higher, and respected experts argue that some genetically engineered crops may also pose serious health and environmental risks. Also, the benefits of genetically engineered crops may be overstated.

We don't have the complete picture. That's no accident. Multibillion-dollar agricultural corporations, including Monsanto and Syngenta, have restricted independent research on their genetically engineered crops. They have often refused to provide independent scientists with seeds, or they've set restrictive conditions that severely limit research options.

This is legal. Under U.S. law, genetically engineered crops are patentable inventions. Companies have broad power over the use of any patented product, including who can study it and how.
Agricultural companies defend their stonewalling by saying that unrestricted research could make them vulnerable to lawsuits if an experiment somehow leads to harm, or that it could give competitors unfair insight into their products. But it's likely that the companies fear something else too: An experiment could reveal that a genetically engineered product is hazardous or doesn't perform as well as promised.

Whatever the reasons, the results are clear: Public sector research has been blocked. In 2009, 26 university entomologists — bug scientists — wrote a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency protesting restricted access to seeds. The letter went public, but not most of the writers' identities. They were afraid of retaliation from the companies that might further hamper their research.

"No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions involving these crops," they wrote. Christian Krupke, a Purdue University entomologist who signed the letter, put it more succinctly to a reporter for a scientific journal. "Industry is completely driving the bus," he said.

Beyond patent law, agricultural companies hold a pocketbook advantage in terms of research. For example, they fund much of the agricultural safety research done in this country. And when deciding whether to allow a genetically engineered crop onto the market, the Department of Agriculture and other regulatory agencies do not perform their own experiments on the performance and safety of the product; instead, they rely largely on studies submitted by the companies themselves.

The dangers ought to be clear. In 2001, the seed company Pioneer, owned by Dow Chemical, was developing a strain of genetically engineered corn that contained a toxin to help it resist corn rootworm, an insect pest. A group of university scientists, working at Pioneer's request, found that the corn also appeared to kill a species of beneficial ladybug, which indicated that other helpful insects might also be harmed. But, according to a report in the journal Nature Biotechnology, Dow said its own research showed no ladybug problems, and it prohibited the scientists from making the research public. Nor was it submitted to the EPA. In 2003, the EPA approved a version of the corn, known as Herculex.

Now, we may find out who was right in the field, possibly at the expense of a beneficial bug.

Research restrictions also hamper scientists' ability to assess how genetically engineered crops perform against other modified crops, traditional crops, approaches such as organic farming and the seed companies' promises. There's reason to be suspicious. Using USDA and peer-reviewed data, the Union of Concerned Scientists analyzed corn and soybean yields since new seeds were introduced. We found increases due to genetically engineered traits that were marginal — not a result promoted by the industry.

Arkansas and West Virginia are suing Monsanto to pursue similar research, trying to force the company to release data on its transgenic soybeans, which officials in these states suspect aren't as productive as cheaper alternatives.

Monsanto, in its defense, will point to an agreement with the USDA that gives the agency's agricultural scientists access to its genetically engineered seeds for a wide range of research, and the company has also had limited agreements with some universities. Several other seed companies are said to be negotiating voluntary deals with universities in the wake of the entomologists' letter to the EPA, and the American Seed Trade Assn., a trade group, is also developing guidelines to improve access to the new seeds.

These are positive steps, but they don't go far enough. For one thing, the deals and the trade association rules are not binding. The companies can back out of them. They are also opaque; the public really has no idea how far these deals go or how common they are. And what about scientists at the universities and research institutions that aren't party to one of the voluntary agreements? They're still out in the cold.

Moreover, few if any of the agreements guarantee opportunities for every kind of independent research. The Monsanto agreement with the USDA covers research into crop production practices, for example, not research into issues such as the health effects of genetically engineered crops.

This is not how science should operate. Agricultural companies are still the gatekeepers, choosing who gets to do research and what topics are studied. To ensure that agricultural science serves the public, Congress should change patent law and create a clear exemption for agricultural research.

The need for this exemption will only increase. As the technology spreads, it's likely that more, and more complex, genetic traits will be introduced in more crops. As a result, future genetically engineered crops could pose even more risks than current ones. Without robust independent analysis, it will be impossible to adequately assess these potential pitfalls.

The companies that produce the seeds claim that genetically engineered crops are safe and are better than traditional crops in a range of ways. It's time for these companies to back up their rhetoric. The only way to test their grand assertions is to let independent science take its course.

Doug Gurian-Sherman is a plant pathologist and senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington.

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

Durood Bar Shoma

 

[elmanito]

The trouble with Monsanto and GMO – Dr David Suzuki spells it out

February 1, 2011 in Food

I’ve been asked why we’re writing so much about Monsanto and genetically modified food. “It’s been tested,” they say. “It’s safe,” they say. “There’s nothing to fear. Why are you spreading disinformation?”

I’m not a geneticist. If I say “We don’t know enough about this,” I’m just one guy. So I’ll let a geneticist answer those questions.

David Suzuki is a geneticist. He’s one of the top scientists in Canada, his textbook is one of the most widely-used in the world, he’s published more than 30 books. As head of the David Suzuki Foundation, he’s both a promoter of science and a popularizer.

So when David Suzuki speaks, I listen (see the end of this article for a list of sources). And David Suzuki says,

“Because we aren’t certain about the effects of GMOs, we must consider one of the guiding principles in science, the precautionary principle. Under this principle, if a policy or action could harm human health or the environment, we must not proceed until we know for sure what the impact will be. And it is up to those proposing the action or policy to prove that it is not harmful.”

It’s complicated

One plus one equals two. That’s simple. But one gene inserted into a complex chromosome may not work in a simple, linear fashion.

Transgenic crops are not simple products like widgets, ipods or even automobiles. They are living organisms that can interact with other creatures in the environment in myriad ways. Nature is complicated. When you modify an organism at a genetic level, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the results are also complicated, and often unexpected.

…Science does not proceed in a linear fashion the way we write up our grant applications, you know—experiment A leads to experiment B to C to a cure for cancer. So all of the supposed benefits of our manipulations are purely speculative. We don’t know how it will all turn out. And then when we create new organisms, new products, and release them in the wild, in our food, in our drugs, we simply don’t know enough to anticipate what the consequences will be.

We don’t know…

The bottom line with GMO is very simple: We simply don’t have the science lined up to make any sort of blanket reassurances that GMO is really safe. Here’s Suzuki:

I’m a geneticist. What bothers me is we have governments that are supposed to be looking out for our health, for the safety of our environment, and they’re acting like cheerleaders for this technology, which… is in its infancy and we have no idea what the technology is going to do.

…At the cutting edge of scientific research, most of our ideas are far from the mark – wrong, in need of revision, or irrelevant. That’s not a derogation of science; it’s the way science advances. We take a set of observations or data, set up a hypothesis that makes sense of them, and then we test the hypothesis. The new insights and techniques we gain from this process are interpreted tentatively and liable to change, so any rush to apply them strikes me as downright dangerous.

…Because they won’t tell us

Not only have there not been enough studies done… when studies ARE performed, outside researchers often have to pry the data out of Monsanto via Freedom of Information filings and lawsuits. That’s a big concern concern as well.

Transgenic crops are, in many ways, radically new and should be subject to the greatest of scientific scrutiny, not suppressed by proprietary concerns.

So what is the rush to apply ideas that will prove to be irrelevant or wrong? Money, of course.

Unintended consequences

The history of science is the history of the unexpected.

…History informs us that though we love technology, there are always costs, and since our knowledge of how nature works is so limited, we can’t anticipate how those costs will manifest. We only have to reflect on DDT, nuclear power, and CFCs, which were hailed as wonderful creations but whose long-term detrimental effects were only found decades after their widespread use.

…As we learned from experience with DDT, nuclear power and CFCs, we only discover the costs of new technologies after they are extensively used. We should apply the Precautionary Principle with any new technology, asking whether it is needed and then demanding proof that it is not harmful. Nowhere is this more important than in biotechnology because it enables us to tamper with the very blueprint of life.

Putting genes back in bottles

How do you clean up a potential GMO mess? You don’t.

The difference with GM food is that once the genie is out of the bottle, it will be difficult or impossible to stuff it back. If we stop using DDT and CFCs, nature may be able to undo most of the damage – even nuclear waste decays over time. But GM plants are living organisms. Once these new life forms have become established in our surroundings, they can replicate, change, and spread; there may be no turning back. Many ecologists are concerned about what this means to the balance of life on Earth that has evolved over millions of years through the natural reproduction of species.

We’re experimenting on… us

In effect, by feeding this stuff to the American population without any long-term studies, we’ve made the US one giant petri dish. Europeans – who have banned GMOs (which ought to make you wonder about safety) get to be the control group of this planet-wide experiment.

Anyone that says, “oh, we know that this is perfectly safe.” I say is either unbelievably stupid, or deliberately lying. The reality is, we don’t know. The experiments simply haven’t been done, and now we have become the guinea pigs.

…A review of the science conducted under the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development in 2008 concluded that “there are a limited number of properly designed and independently peer-reviewed studies on human health” and that this and other observations “create concern about the adequacy of testing methodologies for commercial GM plants.”

…Some have argued that we’ve been eating GM foods for years with few observable negative consequences, but as we’ve seen with things like trans fats, if often takes a while for us to recognize the health impacts. With GM foods, concerns have been raised about possible effects on stomach bacteria and resistance to antibiotics, as well as their role in allergic reactions. We also need to understand more about their impact on other plants and animals.

…Without our consent

We have learned from painful experience that anyone entering an experiment should give informed consent. That means at the very least food should be labeled if it contains GMOs so we each can make that choice.

I am most definitely not in favour of release of GMOs in the food stream and given that it’s too late, I favour complete labelling of GMO products.

But wait, there’s more:

And that’s only the beginning. Other issues include:

Monsanto monopolizing the seed supply for the US… and the world
Monsanto’s GMO seeds are designed to maximize use of pesticides, as well, further impacting the environment

Use of pesticides has already led to super-weeds that acquire resistance

Bacteria transfer genes directly. This could lead to super-bugs with unknown consequences
Monocultures – reliance on one crop – is bad agriculture. Reliance on a single strain could be disastrous. Biodiversity is nature’s insurance policy.

Traditionally, farmers have saved some of their crop as seed to plant the next season. It’s the heart of sustainability. Not with Monsanto – they want you to buy new seed from them every year. Keeping some of your crop to plant next season is a violation of your contract, and farmers get sued for it.

American farmers with access to credit can buy seed every year. But Monsanto is also pushing their product line in the developing world, destroying a 10,000-year-old system of sustainable agriculture.

Monsanto has a history of suing farmers for “stealing” their patented genes… when they get contaminated by pollen from nearby GMO fields. And the court system has generally backed Monsanto.

That same GMO gene contamination has already led to some farmers losing their organic certification.

Monsanto hired the mercenary company Blackwater (now Xe) to spy on anti-GMO activists.
http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/02/01/the-trouble-with-monsanto-and-gmo-dr-david-suzuki-spells-it-out/

Durood Bar Shoma

 

[headband 707]

do you really believe monsanto seed has not filled bellies that otherwise would have gone empty?
lets at least acknowledge the positives alongside the negatives. more horrendous than the GMO seed potential negatives are the known negatives of chemical "icides" juxtaposed with the poly synthetic blend fibers they developed that save lives every day. weighed against the development of chemicals like agent orange. offset by the lives saved in Tunisia alone in the past decade by drought resistant vegatables.

this issue is not so black and white as folks would like to believe. it really is impossible to say whether monsanto disappearing today would help to save the world,but many arguments can be made for the position that the world is a better place to live because they do exist.

Making a strong water resisitant crop was their mandate when they started to play this game. To say our food crop is not subjected to the parels of everyday farming would be wrong. Not only do we not pay farmers enough for their crops but to fight big corps for bullshit is a bit much. Unfortunately ppl have moved away from growing our own crop and or promoting local farmers markets. Ppl need to get back to the land and what we are doing to it. peace out Headband707

 

[Montana]

Unfortunately this is a deep rooted (harhar) problem that goes very deep withing the administration(s)

During the GW bush era.....Every single person on the Bush admin, is a chair member of monsanto, this problem has been brewing for many years, I'm not sure how many IF any on the Obama admin are connected to monsanto........but I bet with a little digging and reading......

Monsanto has been around since 1909, along with dupont and a few other OG old school chem companies, monsanto is the inventor of astro-turf, this was the first product that got them started, and dupont can be directly credited for pushing the anti MJ bill through ainslinger, they knew that with the cannabis plant in the way, chemies wouldn't stand a chance, they eliminated the competition and attached this whole narcotic law/propaganda twist to complicate things even more, most chemical plant ferts are made from crude oil, alot being made from the leftovers of the nazi chemical death gasses from the holocaust which they had huge stocks of once the war was over, alot of commercial/chem growers have no idea they are supporting monsanto and big brother on their quest for world domination, it's a direct by design manipulation of the food chain to get their hands in the pockets of farmers by "teaching" the world that the only way to feed people is with fuel burning tractors and crude based chems for plant food..........

Ironically enough, the battle against monsanto, we are already on the front lines by cultivating cannabis, it's not just about GMO, it's a war to eliminate the competition, that's you and me........once the world catches on that everything the large polluting billionaire/satanic corporations do, can be done sustainably with Cannabis.......

 

[Montana]

o and btw......the FDA, and the USDA, were created by monsanto higher ups...

 

[mean mr.mustard]

alot of ad hominem making positions look weak.

I suppose you are right. Very weak indeed.

What I don't know about is how all you lemmings can board a train to no-where while thinking you are really going somewhere and pat yourself's on the back while you do so.

It's laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.

At least you understand that it's about the bottom line. That's a big step for most here.

I'm still waiting for one of you scared little children to post up some facts on how dangerous GM crops are.

All I read here is crap taken from the internet and magnified into stupidity by the scared uninformed lemmings herein.

All the while advances in farming and farm science will insure you dopes will still get to eat even if you don't understand how to feed yourself. I laugh at all the self proclaimed experts here who not only say they feed themselves with pure organically grown vegetables but are experts on seed issues also. Pretty much a self perpetuating bullshit society.

LOL - I speak of the myth that has found it's way into cultural lore.

Since most children like to visualize, this seems the easiest for many here.

Damnit MM - now you've gone and confused the kids.

for you to say people are not healthier is just plain stupid. And for you to think that science and genetics are not involved in having fruit (grapes also0 in the market 12 months out of the year just shows your ignorance. You have no idea what it takes to bring food to market.

And for every failed example of GM, there are plenty of successes.

Without science, you wouldn't even know how to can you freaking tomatos, yet you can pass the fattie and dream of the good old days that were not very good at all. You'd know that if you listened in school.

WTF - do you children even know what science is?

Yet you call me a moron. The entire paper you quoted tries to set forth a proper metod of risk assessment for future research. You fucking idiot!

You fucking children with google don't even understand what you are throwing up as proof of your fear. LOL
Find another cause because it if obvious you do not understand this cause whatsoever.

And now the master/king of google "cut and paste" (and pretend he really knows this stuff) is on the scene. LOL. More bullshit to follow I'm sure.

But the title of this thread is "Monsanto needs to be stopped".

Yet you children are critiquing me for posting up no science, when the burden is upon you fucking clowns to post up science proving your points. I am just pointing out that no one has yet proved much of anything in their posts.

If you fucking children don't understand that the burden of proof is on the claimant to post FACTS backing up his post & thesis, then there is no hope for you.

Anti - the title of the thread is "Monsanto needs to be stopped". Any intelligent person would know that science needs to be posted to SUPPORT the theme of the thread.

dumb ass.

So....

This is from a PhD who was denied further GM soy to research after she published results.

Science or "self perpetuating bullshit society"?

 

[grapeman]

Maybe if Monsanto would develop a "freeze" resistent vegetable, Everyone in the US today would not be seeing a 300% increase in peppers, squash and some lettuce. Last week bell peppers were $8-$10/unit. Today it's over $40.

Oh but wait. Monsanto does do that sort of thing for drought & pest resistant strains of grain. Keeping food cost artificially lower then it would be without such GM products.

Oh - is that a bad thing?

 

[mean mr.mustard]

My peppers still cost $10 bucks a unit.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

I must have missed your response to my "science" that I posted.

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=4227352&postcount=285

 

[Thomkal Vwalaa]

I must have missed your response to my "science" that I posted.

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=4227352&postcount=285

He obviously has nothing. It's been pages of his trolling crap. The science is evident, he would rather troll than read.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

What he has is a vested intrest in the industry.

If nobody changes anything, regardless of the result, he will still have business as usual.

His bottom line is different than posterity's interests and he's simply rubbing it in... even worse he's acting like they won't eat if we don't pollute genomes.

 

[mosstrooper]

even worse he's acting like they won't eat if we don't pollute genomes.

When most likely, they wont eat if we do.

 

[elmanito]

Perhaps he can't read it because his brain is fermentated.Since his comments i've never seen any scientific reference from his point of view.

Another topic about Roundup

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=195982&highlight=monsanto

Durood Bar Shoma

 

[420empire]

This is so wrong!!. GMO is a big joke, it has never been proven, that GMO gives a better crop!! If you know how to be a part of nature and live in the beautiful eco system that is guided by Mother Natures hand, then we dosen´t need this GMO shit.
Peace

 

[smokefrogg]

it's not going to matter once brawndo buys the fda, it's what plants, people, and cows crave after all.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

If you really want to make a difference you will just go physically destroy there test grows by releasing every kind of pest and rodent you can find in there test fields.

 

[mosstrooper]

Your not wrong Hash Zepplin, raising awareness is important too though.