More Dirt On Monsanto And The Food Industry

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2012 1:08 AM GMT
    A cousin of mine showed me this today.. Monsanto, a GM crop producer.. bans GM in its own cafeteria's... words cannot describe how I feel :/

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gm-food-banned-in-monsanto-canteen-737948.html
  • thadjock

    Posts: 2183

    Mar 05, 2012 1:37 AM GMT
    well i'm a glass half full kind of person. GM crops are here to stay ( it's the only practical way we're going to increase yield and reduce inputs enough to feed a world population increasingly eating higher on the hog) and it creates an opportunity:

    the mere existence of GM crops provides an economic incentive for growers to opt out and grow non GM crops, which can be marketed at a premium price to those who refuse to consume GM food.

    the same way growers can choose to go organic and get more for their product.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2012 1:57 AM GMT
    Opting out will never happen. A farmer who does will go bust. At present, he will not be able to compete. I own a farm that I rent out to a big farmer. He plants GM corn. From his perspective, this is a cost saving effort. He does not have to use labor or fuel cost to plow his crop. He only waits till the corn gets up and the weeds start growing. He then goes in and sprays with RoundUp. Weeds die and corn still grows.

    I have a pretty large yard with all kinds of ornamental plants and trees. RoundUp is my friend as it kills weeds in flower beds. But common sense tells you something is WAY WRONG with anything that survives this herbicide. The genetic modifications they have made to these crops are gonna bite up in the ass in years to come.

    Green is my new hero.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2012 2:01 AM GMT
    thadjock saidwell i'm a glass half full kind of person. GM crops are here to stay ( it's the only practical way we're going to increase yield and reduce inputs enough to feed a world population increasingly eating higher on the hog) and it creates an opportunity:

    the mere existence of GM crops provides an economic incentive for growers to opt out and grow non GM crops, which can be marketed at a premium price to those who refuse to consume GM food.

    the same way growers can choose to go organic and get more for their product.



    1) the first wont happen.. you cant grow forever on a finite planet...

    2) farmers get f*cked over by their patents all the time.. next they think they can patent new "dog breeds".. yeah right

    3) everyone will get wind of this at some point and go back to eating organic.. thats what everybody I know is doing already.... and the poor will be encouraged by us not to accept these companies' incentives and buy into their bullsh*t and be made aware of the despicable measures these companies have taken to commit biopiracy and run poor farmers into the ground.. the fight is not over till its over and we're all dead
  • thadjock

    Posts: 2183

    Mar 05, 2012 2:15 AM GMT
    beachwalk saidOpting out will never happen. A farmer who does will go bust. At present, he will not be able to compete. I own a farm that I rent out to a big farmer. He plants GM corn. From his perspective, this is a cost saving effort. He does not have to use labor or fuel cost to plow his crop. He only waits till the corn gets up and the weeds start growing. He then goes in and sprays with RoundUp. Weeds die and corn still grows.

    I have a pretty large yard with all kinds of ornamental plants and trees. RoundUp is my friend as it kills weeds in flower beds. But common sense tells you something is WAY WRONG with anything that survives this herbicide. The genetic modifications they have made to these crops are gonna bite up in the ass in years to come.

    Green is my new hero.


    how are you using roundup in your flower beds? glyphosate will kill them, i'm not aware of ornamentals available to the public that have been GM'd to be roundup ready. there are some GM turf grasses for ball fields and golf courses out there, but most suburban lawns would be killed by roundup.

    and farmers are profitably growing non GM crops on large scale for sale to countries who ban imports of GM grains, they have been ever since GM varieties came onto the market. A soybean grower can earn almost $2.00 premium per bushel for growing non GM beans. They're not going broke.

  • thadjock

    Posts: 2183

    Mar 05, 2012 2:49 AM GMT
    GreenHopper said



    1) the first wont happen.. you cant grow forever on a finite planet...

    2) farmers get f*cked over by their patents all the time.. next they think they can patent new "dog breeds".. yeah right

    3) everyone will get wind of this at some point and go back to eating organic.. thats what everybody I know is doing already.... and the poor will be encouraged by us not to accept these companies' incentives and buy into their bullsh*t and be made aware of the despicable measures these companies have taken to commit biopiracy and run poor farmers into the ground.. the fight is not over till its over and we're all dead


    the first already is happening, developing nations are eager to adopt our western scale consumption/waste culture. gross population numbers won't be the real problem, resources consumed per capita will be. and water will be a far bigger issue than oil sooner than most realize.

    I don't know what the second point you're trying to make is. A farmer isn't required to plant a monsanto patented GM variety , there's hundreds of non GM varieties the farmer can plant that aren't patented by anybody, in fact with soybeans, the farmer can save seed from one year's crop to plant the next years crop so i'm not sure why you think farmers have been fucked by monsanto patenting a variety that the company spent alot of R&D on.

    a better argument would be to endict Monsanto for fucking with the genetic code of plants and animals, and unleashing an unknown set of chromosomal consequences on the food chain. Bio-ethics is my main objection.

    and as far as everybody already eating 100% organic? don't think the numbers are there to support that. maybe among urban locavores, but not in the general population.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2012 12:54 PM GMT
    thadjock said
    the first already is happening, developing nations are eager to adopt our western scale consumption/waste culture. .


    which is why Ecuador and India are both constantly trying to take action against biopiracy?

    http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1087730/how_india_squared_up_to_monsantos_biopiracy.html

    http://confirmado.net/nacionales/294-nacionales/13910-ecuador-elabora-ley-para-frenar-la-biopirateria
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2012 1:02 PM GMT
    thadjock said and water will be a far bigger issue than oil sooner than most realize.


    that has been known for decades.. that has nothing to do with this issue even



    I don't know what the second point you're trying to make is. A farmer isn't required to plant a monsanto patented GM variety , there's hundreds of non GM varieties the farmer can plant that aren't patented by anybody, in fact with soybeans, the farmer can save seed from one year's crop to plant the next years crop so i'm not sure why you think farmers have been fucked by monsanto patenting a variety that the company spent alot of R&D on.


    That is not even proven, in fact, from what Ive read.. its entirely untrue and an empty statement to push their crops..

    http://stopogm.net/sites/stopogm.net/files/MythReality.pdf

    If you read the article, you will see that GM so far, it may even have reduced yields... The real problem is not low yields, but people not affording the food that is available..

    and as for the population growth: it is set to shrink at some point as growth is leveling off.. according to wiki, it peaked in 1962 and has been slowing down since.. it will level off and reverse at some point..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#Human_population_growth_rate

    regardless of that though.. touting GM as the answer is not even based on sound consensus.. it is based on lobbying:


    "I think the debate about higher prices and being able to meet the demand of people in the world forfood is a perfect opportunity to make the case (for GMO crops)…We may have a window ofopportunity here and I would encourage you to exploit that."
    -Bob Stallman, President of the American Farm Bureau Federation speaking to the NFU conference 2008

    anyways, and this point stands.... the planet is finite.. as your comment about water resources shows
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2012 1:19 PM GMT
    Wiki has some interesting points about it as well: concerning the green revolution.. another source, not entirely reliable, but points for discussion

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution

    here, some claims are being made that increases in yields were dependent on increased use of water and pesticides.. thus not really a sustainable method.. and it casts doubt on the effectiveness of these technologies.. since input to output ratio stays pretty much the same regardless of the use of GM or not.. That is only one point of criticism though.. there is lots more.. just have a look...

    On another, pretty definitive note... the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) concluded that GM was no solution to world hunger...

    http://www.bangmfood.org/feed-the-world/17-feeding-the-world/6-gm-no-solution-to-global-hunger

    i quote from the link:



    Asked at a press conference whether GM crops were the simple answer to hunger and poverty, IAASTD Director Professor Bob Watson (former director of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and as of 2008, chief scientist at Defra) replied, "I would argue, no ". The UK Government approved the IAASTD report on 9 June 2008.

    In a recent letter in the UK press, the chairman of the government agency Natural England (formerly English Nature), Sir Martin Doughty, is equally blunt: "We need to be mindful of the lessons of the past before rushing headlong to embrace genetically modified crops as the solution to rising food prices... GM crops can in no way be seen as a quick fix."
    To continue to pretend otherwise is unforgivable as it diverts valuable attention and resources from reliable, accessible and low cost alternatives that are available NOW to help meet the needs of the poor and hungry.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2012 3:00 PM GMT
    First.... Monsanto is giving farmers what they want which is increased yields lower fuel costs resulting in increased profit margins.

    Crops today, have much higher yields than 50 years ago, or even 20 years ago. But, it's not all due to the GM crops. It's due to more pesticide use and more chemical fertilizers, better utilization of soil testing, etc. The higher yields are due to many factors, all of which organics cannot compete. Organic crops will not get as high a yield on average. If organics got as high a yield and held the profit margins, most farmers would go back to organics.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2012 3:07 PM GMT
    I like the pun in the thread title. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2012 3:10 PM GMT
    PaulNKS saidFirst.... Monsanto is giving farmers what they want which is increased yields lower fuel costs resulting in increased profit margins.

    Crops today, have much higher yields than 50 years ago, or even 20 years ago. But, it's not all due to the GM crops. It's due to more pesticide use and more chemical fertilizers, better utilization of soil testing, etc. The higher yields are due to many factors, all of which organics cannot compete. Organic crops will not get as high a yield on average. If organics got as high a yield and held the profit margins, most farmers would go back to organics.



    Sorry, but most research has proven this to be little but claims, I repeat as before:

    http://www.bangmfood.org/feed-the-world/17-feeding-the-world/6-gm-no-solution-to-global-hunger

    i quote from the link:



    Asked at a press conference whether GM crops were the simple answer to hunger and poverty, IAASTD Director Professor Bob Watson (former director of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and as of 2008, chief scientist at Defra) replied, "I would argue, no ". The UK Government approved the IAASTD report on 9 June 2008.

    In a recent letter in the UK press, the chairman of the government agency Natural England (formerly English Nature), Sir Martin Doughty, is equally blunt: "We need to be mindful of the lessons of the past before rushing headlong to embrace genetically modified crops as the solution to rising food prices... GM crops can in no way be seen as a quick fix."
    To continue to pretend otherwise is unforgivable as it diverts valuable attention and resources from reliable, accessible and low cost alternatives that are available NOW to help meet the needs of the poor and hungry.


    Th article also states and shows clearly how many other innovations, including organic ones.. have improved farming yields much more so than GM. There is little doubt to GM's uselessness from the standpoint of even the IAASTD

    BTW, most of those "profit margins" you speak of in the developed world are nothing but subsidies..., (omg, they're socialists.. ew!).. or they do not belong to farmers but to mass industries
  • thadjock

    Posts: 2183

    Mar 06, 2012 3:16 PM GMT
    you guys all demonize GM as a conspiracy the big dark evil corporations engineered to rape the public.

    the origins of GM started in research labs at land grant univerisities where they've been developing improved varieties of plants and animals for decades. GM has introduced pest and disease resistance, drought tolerance and has reduced or eliminated the need to spray millions of tons of herbicides and pesticieds into the environment, but hey if' you'd like to go back to the days when a farmer would spray a field 4 times with DDT to control one pest, I guess you can pick your poison.

    Curious to know if you're also against medical companies patenting genetic work in human cells to fight cancer and other diseases, or mapping the human genome and stem cell research that phizer or Libbey or some medical giant will absolutely own. research follows the money.

    The only way you're gonna stop the march of science is through the extinction of the human race, and the elimination of our species big brains. Which should happen soon enough given your doomsday scenario.

    But In the meantime hope you're able find an organic island so you can live the life of a banana slug in happy harmony with all of nature.

    oh ya and btw: you're destroying the planet by posting on the internet. have you done the environmental impact study on how much toxic waste was created when your computer was built, and how much coal burning electricity is consumed by the server that supports this site?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2012 3:29 PM GMT



    Without these little critters it's game over, GM crops are designed so you can spray poison and they survive, but you're killing more than weeds.

    http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/2000/2161.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2012 3:33 PM GMT
    thadjock said

    oh ya and btw: you're destroying the planet by posting on the internet. have you done the environmental impact study on how much toxic waste was created when your computer was built, and how much coal burning electricity is consumed by the server that supports this site?


    you're right, now... did any big corporation or government leave me the choice of a greener option? Or did they try to stop themselves from producing all this stuff for people to buy, knowing it would damage us, but selling it to us anyway for them to make money off of us?

    i think not...

    so conspiracy it is icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2012 3:35 PM GMT
    thadjock said

    The only way you're gonna stop the march of science is through the extinction of the human race, and the elimination of our species big brains. Which should happen soon enough given your doomsday scenario.


    Yup, which you are clearly not interested in helping to avoid
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2012 3:37 PM GMT
    thadjock said
    But In the meantime hope you're able find an organic island so you can live the life of a banana slug in happy harmony with all of nature.


    not possible.. I was born and raised on islands.. there is no such thing as an organic beach left.. I refer you to my post about plastics and how it shows there is no such thing as a piece of uncontaminated earth left without harmful chemicals

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2225376

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2012 3:40 PM GMT
    It's not a conspiracy if it's common public knowledge...

    And GM crops are just the latest technique for doing what humans have been doing ever since we bred teosinte into corn.

    I'll start worrying about GM crops, GM fish, GM chickens and test tube beef just as soon as they actually cause someone somewhere actual measurable harm. That is, harm beyond the general fugue of living the decadent lifestyle of late Capitalism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2012 3:48 PM GMT
    thadjock said but hey if' you'd like to go back to the days when a farmer would spray a field 4 times with DDT to control one pest, I guess you can pick your poison.


    Which is why they now spray happily without any protection eh? Just fresh air in the sun, whistling with wheat dangling from their mouths, tanning their bodies in the wild outdoors when riding horses eh?

    4665547528_b146fd110f_z.jpg


    O I would love that myself icon_smile.gif


    But last time I looked, it was like this:

    pesticide-lasso_monsanto.jpg

    I guess you can pick your pic: above or below icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2012 3:49 PM GMT



    This makes me grieve, so much so I wrote about it in one of my works (there is a happy ending to the story, though)

    "Over There, in the world as Men knew it, an illness was progressively and subtly unfolding itself, unlike any seen in the planet’s long, long history. Dreadful, complicated, the environment that made the world liveable was coming apart.

    Manufactured chemicals had found their way into the very cells of all that lived. The sky had developed holes in the protective envelope that stopped dangerous radiations from reaching the delicate stuff of life. Right down to the atomic, those tiny orbiting bits that made up the fabric of existence, there was an encroaching corruption.

    It affected Man in more than just physical aspects. Emotional balances were being knocked out of kilter. Anxiety and denial warred with each other in the human heart. Depression over the unspoken knowledge that the world was, after all, finite, weighted the aspirations of the human soul like heavy stones. As always, humanity had science and religious faith to mitigate these effects, but both were starting to fail. Depressed, sad, hopeless and resigned to a much believed in apocalyptic future, humanity accelerated the degradation of the world by vast consumption of the very things that needed to be spared. Doing so seemed to alleviate feelings of concern and foreboding with a temporary happiness that seemed all the more sweeter for its fleeting warmth.

    The waste from this consumption found its way into the geological makeup of the world. Areas that were uncorrupted, unpolluted were now scarce and isolated pockets. Weather patterns had intensified. Great deserts were born and conversely, incursions of the oceans into and over the lands of Men occurred. Storms of hitherto un-experienced proportions caused massive destruction. Large numbers of the displaced became refugees in their own countries. Whole species of animals were dying out.

    Balances had been lost, and the world’s natural self, plant life, animal life, insect life and the lives of the microscopic began to invade each others’ territories, seeking survival. Existence was a slow and creeping poison, as pervasive as the air that was beginning to kill those that depended on it for life. Canisters of the invisible death that Man had eventually harnessed to produce the electrical power so absolutely necessary had been tossed into the oceans and were beginning to disintegrate, releasing lethal emanations that would last eons as they dispersed. "

    from A Ribbon Of Beauty

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2012 3:51 PM GMT
    Larkin said

    I'll start worrying about GM crops, GM fish, GM chickens and test tube beef just as soon as they actually cause someone somewhere actual measurable harm.


    Better start worrying then.. since they long have.. also, just look at the links i put up

    Edit: btw.. do you always wait for the harm to be done before taking preventative measures? Like what they did with DDT? First put out the product.. and then see if it harms things?
  • thadjock

    Posts: 2183

    Mar 06, 2012 4:07 PM GMT
    GreenHopper said
    thadjock said

    The only way you're gonna stop the march of science is through the extinction of the human race, and the elimination of our species big brains. Which should happen soon enough given your doomsday scenario.


    Yup, which you are clearly not interested in helping to avoid


    actually i am, it's just that my solution needs a little more work on the PR end before it could be rolled out to the general public. I"m in favor of death panels to reduce the human "load" on the planet. not firing squads or anything, just a resoned approach, letting mortality rates return to a more natural equilibrium instead of the artificially low, medically induced rate we have worked ourselves into.

    as soon as we start shaving off all these blighters we'll have less waste, and more for the rest of us. (ya, probably not good for the bumpersticker huh?)

    you recoil in horror but trust me, someday there will come the time when global resources are thin, and we as a species won't place such a high value on rescuing every starving baby or warehousing grandma in a nursing home for the last 30 years of her incapacitated life, and by then even republicans will be squarely behind gay marriage, birth control AND abortion, all limits to procreation. gays are well position to become the vaunted royalty in this epoch.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2012 4:11 PM GMT
    thadjock said
    GreenHopper said
    thadjock said

    The only way you're gonna stop the march of science is through the extinction of the human race, and the elimination of our species big brains. Which should happen soon enough given your doomsday scenario.


    Yup, which you are clearly not interested in helping to avoid


    actually i am, it's just that my solution needs a little more work on the PR end before it could be rolled out to the general public. I"m in favor of death panels to reduce the human "load" on the planet. not firing squads or anything, just a resoned approach, letting mortality rates return to a more natural equilibrium instead of the artificially low, medically induced rate we have worked ourselves into.

    as soon as we start shaving off all these blighters we'll have less waste, and more for the rest of us. (ya, probably not good for the bumpersticker huh?)

    you recoil in horror but trust me, someday there will come the time when global resources are thin, and we as a species won't place such a high value on rescuing every starving baby or warehousing grandma in a nursing home for the last 30 years of her incapacitated life, and by then even republicans will be squarely behind gay marriage, birth control AND abortion, all limits to procreation. gays are well position to become the vaunted royalty in this epoch.


    I certainly dont recoil in horror.. I have seen and heard a lot more horrible things like that in history.. in WWII to be exact.. and a lot of the eugenics programmes that were rolled out aiming to exterminate people, and sterilise them... your idea is not original.. they thought of it before
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2012 4:17 PM GMT
    thadjock saidwell i'm a glass half full kind of person. GM crops are here to stay ( it's the only practical way we're going to increase yield and reduce inputs enough to feed a world population increasingly eating higher on the hog) and it creates an opportunity:

    the mere existence of GM crops provides an economic incentive for growers to opt out and grow non GM crops, which can be marketed at a premium price to those who refuse to consume GM food.

    the same way growers can choose to go organic and get more for their product.



    Except, even if a farmer opts out, they can get sued if GM seeds somehow end up on their property, even if it's because of the wind. GM crops should be outlawed. Thanks to GM foods, Monsanto was able to patent life. Yes, life. It's wrong. And you shouldn't be defending it. Man is not smarter than nature. We have the ability to grow natural, healthy food for the world. We choose to do this crap for profit. Stop defending it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2012 4:21 PM GMT
    Shawnathan said
    thadjock saidwell i'm a glass half full kind of person. GM crops are here to stay ( it's the only practical way we're going to increase yield and reduce inputs enough to feed a world population increasingly eating higher on the hog) and it creates an opportunity:

    the mere existence of GM crops provides an economic incentive for growers to opt out and grow non GM crops, which can be marketed at a premium price to those who refuse to consume GM food.

    the same way growers can choose to go organic and get more for their product.



    Firstly, please present evidence that GM crops out produce conventional and organic crops.

    Secondly, the whole objective behind GM crops is to increase inputs that are sold by the GM company (Monsanto, Dupont), so they will not decrease inputs.

    Thirdly, Yes, there is an economic incentive to grow non-GM, but farmers cannot control the transfer of GM genes into their field if their neighbours are growing GM, so an entire jurisdiction would need to look at this as an economic incentive and be very careful. We sell GM free crops to Japan right now, but there is a high risk of contamination if some farmers decide to grow GM on our Island. A few years ago PEI looked at banning GM crops, but found that it was too much of a niche market. Hahaha, for a jurisdiction the size of PEI, Japan and Europe are pretty big niches.

    Fourthly, it is extremely arrogant and anthropocentric to think that we can allow our population to continue to grow unchecked. Family planning and education WILL NOT cause the population to level off. The population will only level off when food production levels off, and will only decrease if food production decreases. Why do we think that we are somehow exempt from the most universal ecological principle?



    Why do we think we are exempt from the most universal ecological principle? Because the people who think that way are Republican, and they live in a world that doesn't exist.