The World According to Monsanto

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Something everyone should see.
http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=172&a=5653

"The gigantic biotech corporation Monsanto is threatening to destroy the agricultural biodiversity which has served mankind for thousands of years. The endless list of genetically modified seeds sold and controlled by Monsanto are putting at enormous risk age-old agricultural patterns under the presumptuous slogan of aiming at solving the huge problem of hunger in the world.

On March 11 a new documentary was aired on French television (ARTE – French-German cultural tv channel) by French journalist and film maker Marie-Monique Robin, entitled 'The World According to Monsanto' (Le Monde selon Monsanto[1]). Starting from the Internet over a period of three years Robin has collected material for her documentary, going on to numerous interviews with people of very different backgrounds. "

Google vid:
http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=World+According+to+Monsanto&hl=en-CA&sitesearch=

Torrent:
http://www.mininova.org/tor/1270297

godpt3

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

The endless list of genetically modified seeds sold and controlled by Monsanto are putting at enormous risk age-old agricultural patterns under the presumptuous slogan of aiming at solving the huge problem of hunger in the world.

How is this any different than the selective breeding of crops that's been done for thousands of years since the time of Gregor Mendel?

inmytree

Monsanto has been flying under the radar for years...patenting seed genetics...I'm not even sure how that's possible...

some think Walmart is evil...Monsanto is cornering the food supply market...it's not going to be pretty...

DriftingByTheStorm

godpt3 wrote:

How is this any different than the selective breeding of crops that's been done for thousands of years since the time of Gregor Mendel?

Uh.
Seriously?

Introducing NEW genetic material in to the biosphere is RADICALY different.

We are talking about a company which is crossing animal and plant genes, splicing a little bit of this, a little bit of that, and slapping it all in to, say an ear of corn.

That ear of corn grows, the wind blows, it fertilizes acres som corn down the road that was indigenous and "heirloom"\indigenous\open pollenated ... sudenly age old crops and organisms are being "infected" with untested\unproven\and UNSTABLE genetic material.

We are talking about stuff that is demonstrated to have the potential to actualy stay active IN YOUR STOMACH and become ACTIVE DNA within the bacteria INSIDE YOU.

No fucking joke.
We have NO idea what the fuck we are doing to nature.

The birds, the fish, the plants, ALL LIFE can be IRREPARABLY ALTERED ... possibly destroyed ...

would you make a Jellyfish\Cat cross and release it in to nature to breed?

So would you release a food crop that has been crossed with genetic material from other life in to nature to breed?

How bout food altered with entirely NEW genetic code?

We are literally making this shit up at this point in time.

And science is proving that some of these alterations can actualy RECOMBINATE, or rearange their structure in to new unitended genetic patterns ...

and all of it is being LITERALY released to the wind ... to infect any & everything.


Uh.
A "LITTLE" different than selective breeding, my friend.

DriftingByTheStorm

inmytree wrote:

Monsanto has been flying under the radar for years...

its partly because of the revolving door between the private sector and washington.

Look up the links on a guy like Donald Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld, Searle, Monsanto

that should get you started.

theroachman

godpt3 wrote:

How is this any different than the selective breeding of crops that's been done for thousands of years since the time of Gregor Mendel?

Corn and fish are close relitives and easly would breed together on their own with out Monsonto's help given a fair chance. :rolleyes:

polaris

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

its partly because of the revolving door between the private sector and washington.

Look up the links on a guy like Donald Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld, Searle, Monsanto

that should get you started.

yup ... washington = corporate headoffice ...

SilverSeed

theroachman wrote:

Corn and fish are close relitives and easly would breed together on their own with out Monsonto's help given a fair chance. :rolleyes:

Hahaha, I just got a nice visual of a trout going to town on an ear of corn.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

godpt3 wrote:

How is this any different than the selective breeding of crops that's been done for thousands of years since the time of Gregor Mendel?

Are you familiar with the term "Roundup ready" in the agriculture biz?

No amount of hybridization is going to give you that....ever.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

On the topic of what's the big diff....how many people are aware the GM seed doesn't sew a second crop? It's an evolutionary dead end after one cycle.

Monsanto has, in effect, become the drug dealer. Food is the new drug. Farmers get hooked because their seed base gets wiped out by switching to GM seed (unless they stockpile prior to switching) .....not to mention GM food doesn't taste as good, which is common knowledge in the industry.

godpt3

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Are you familiar with the term "Roundup ready" in the agriculture biz?

Yeah, it basically means that, say, your soybeans are genetically modified to resist the effects of herbicide. So a farmer can spray his field, kill the weeds and not damage his crop in the process.


Trust me, there's alot of things that make Monsanto evil, but the whole genetically-modified crop argument isn't backed up by science.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

godpt3 wrote:

Yeah, it basically means that, say, your soybeans are genetically modified to resist the effects of herbicide. So a farmer can spray his field, kill the weeds and not damage his crop in the process.


Trust me, there's alot of things that make Monsanto evil, but the whole genetically-modified crop argument isn't backed up by science.

Monsanto has told one marketing lie after another that they have had to retract. You need to find out more. I suggest you watch this documentary.

godpt3

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

On the topic of what's the big diff....how many people are aware the GM seed doesn't sew a second crop? It's an evolutionary dead end after one cycle.

Actually, they don't. The technology to do it, called Terminator, is available but currently not in use.

In the old days, farmers would save seed from one season to the next. But due to licensing agreements, etc., Monsanto will sue the pants off any farmer that tries that with Roundup-ready seed.

godpt3

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Monsanto has told one marketing lie after another that they have had to retract. You need to find out more. I suggest you watch this documentary.

I'm an agricultural journalist, I have a pretty good idea what's going on. I know a few things about the marketing BS Monsanto has pulled. And if I ever run those stories, I'll be unemployed

RolandTD20Kdrummer

godpt3 wrote:

Actually, they don't. The technology to do it, called Terminator, is available but currently not in use.

In the old days, farmers would save seed from one season to the next. But due to licensing agreements, etc., Monsanto will sue the pants off any farmer that tries that with Roundup-ready seed.

Are you familiar with the practices in Europe? There's a documentary out called "we feed the world" where they make this claim.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

on a side track....Monsanto came up with Dioxin of which the US army sprayed 40 million litres over Vietnam...better know as Agent Orange. 40 years later kids a re still being born pathetically deformed and people are dying from cancer because of it. I could think of better businesses...

Abookamongstthemany

inmytree wrote:

Monsanto has been flying under the radar for years...patenting seed genetics...I'm not even sure how that's possible...

some think Walmart is evil...Monsanto is cornering the food supply market...it's not going to be pretty...

Haha. Remember the pus in the milk thread?

'It's not pus!'

'Yes, it is!'

Monsanto is a group of twisted people. Fighting to keep warning labels off milk cartons that would let people know about the antibiotics and growth hormones. Sick.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Haha. Remember the pus in the milk thread?

'It's not pus!'

'Yes, it is!'

Monsanto is a group of twisted people. Fighting to keep warning labels off milk cartons that would let people know about the antibiotics and growth hormones. Sick.

yeah bovine growth formula has to be countered with antibiotics to avoid cow pus in milk...mmm nice.

Using (patenting) food as a measureto control populations it what is actually happening through transgenic mutation via wind distribution. Big suprise nobody knew this was going to happen when they started messing with the genetics of food.

Nice company indeed. Nothing wrong with this greedy freak of nature corporation eh?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

GM seeds can last for 10 years....spreading over the world like a cancer destroying natural crops the world around through transgenic mutation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7324654.stm

Food...the new weapon for global population control and world domination.

Supersize my fries please..

LaterDays

I'm not going to defend Monsanto (I'm a physicist-turned-Patent-Attorney and I've actually litigated against Monsanto in a number of patent infringement suits), but this alarmist reaction to GMO foods is scientifically unsubstantiated. They're safe and they're here to stay.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Monsanto is a corporation whose products destroy natural crops by default, and take dominion of the worlds food supply into the hands of a few.

Who in their right mind would be ok with that?

That should be beyond illegal. It's genetic warfare. The more one finds out, the uglier it gets...

DriftingByTheStorm

LaterDays wrote:

but this alarmist reaction to GMO foods is scientifically unsubstantiated.

really?
and what "scinetifically substantiated" proof can you offer that there are no possible negative consequences of infecting nature with sythesized genetic material?

Because i find your statement to be pretty bold.

Thanks.

DriftingByTheStorm

LaterDays wrote:

I'm not going to defend Monsanto (I'm a physicist-turned-Patent-Attorney and I've actually litigated against Monsanto in a number of patent infringement suits), but this alarmist reaction to GMO foods is scientifically unsubstantiated. They're safe and they're here to stay.

BusinesWeek article\debate on subject

article wrote:

The modification of some crops to improve their resistance to herbicides has given rise to a rapidly growing population of herbicide-resistant weeds, which has led to more herbicide use.

That alone is a valid scientificaly substantiated reason for concern. Its the same way vaccines can cause more rapid mutation of viruses.

Notice that the argument for GMOs hinges on the false logic that because the world is facing one problem (overpopulation) we should offset that with another long term negative (potential destruction of the food supply and of natural ecosystems).

Jeffery Smith explains how "science" backed by the GMO proponets is rigged and not necessarily accurate.

Read his book\books, Seeds of Deception and so forth, it gets worse.

Notice that the arguments in the Businessweek article all hinge on, "have not yet observed" or "it is unlikely" ... okay, so based on your limited observations it is possible but you haven't found it yet, or you say it could happen, but you don't think its really an issue.

Yeah, i don't find much comfort in that.
another short video

Substantiated Scientific Fact: GMO seed can and does infect "natural" plants of the same species.
You don't see how this could turn out to be a very big problem if it was found out that said GMO material caused some great harm, and further it was now "infecting" non-GMO crops with the same defect? You don't see how it is a big problem, even baring some horrible discovery about the effects of GMO? They are plain and simple destroying naturaly cultivated crops and ruining the genetic material of long existing strains of crop.

:(

LaterDays

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

really?
and what "scinetifically substantiated" proof can you offer that there are no possible negative consequences of infecting nature with sythesized genetic material?

Because i find your statement to be pretty bold.

Thanks.

You're getting your burdens of proof mixed up. It isn't on the Ag-Biotech industry to show that there are "no possible negative consequences" associated with their products. Take cell phones for instance -- for all we know, long-term (10+ years) cell phone use could conceivably cause brain cancer. No one anywhere can point to "scientifically substantiated proof... that there are no possible negative consequences" associated with talking on cell phones. But that isn't the relevant question. The relevant question is, what scientific evidence do we have that suggests cell phone use is harmful... and is the risk high enough to justify a legal ban on that use.

So applying the analysis to Ag-biotech... the burden is on the industry to demonstrate that GM foods are reasonably safe for their intended purpose. If they can't do this, they don't satisfy the stringent requirements of the FDA and the EPA and they get killed in the water. This has happened with an abundant number of foods... but it has also happened with an abundant number of, say, pharmaceutical drugs as well. It's just how it goes. The ones that get passed, however, go through a series of clinical trials to test safety (both for consumption and harvest)... the designing company must issue comprehensive environment impact statements, etc.

Once the biotech company has satisfied this burden, the burden shifts to parties wishing to challenge the product as unsafe. And that's where my post above comes into play -- there is scant evidence, at best, to suggest that GMO foods are anything but safe. In many instances, in fact, they have proven to be more safe (several, for example, have been manufactured to excrete pesticides that are non-toxic to humans, meaning we don't have to spray chemical herbicides and pesticides to keep them safe... others are made genetically resistant to freezing, so we can keep them in freezing conditions for transport - without harming them - rather than having to use preservatives to keep them from going bad).

I don't have a dog in this fight either way... but having litigated in the field and having spoken extensively w/ experts on both sides, it has become clear to me that those pushing the anti-GMO agenda are in it strictly for economic incentives (usually small farm unions, etc). It's the familiar fear-based politics that we've all grown sadly accustomed to over the last decade.

polaris

LaterDays wrote:

You're getting your burdens of proof mixed up. It isn't on the Ag-Biotech industry to show that there are "no possible negative consequences" associated with their products. Take cell phones for instance -- for all we know, long-term (10+ years) cell phone use could conceivably cause brain cancer. No one anywhere can point to "scientifically substantiated proof... that there are no possible negative consequences" associated with talking on cell phones. But that isn't the relevant question. The relevant question is, what scientific evidence do we have that suggests cell phone use is harmful... and is the risk high enough to justify a legal ban on that use.

So applying the analysis to Ag-biotech... the burden is on the industry to demonstrate that GM foods are reasonably safe for their intended purpose. If they can't do this, they don't satisfy the stringent requirements of the FDA and the EPA and they get killed in the water. This has happened with an abundant number of foods... but it has also happened with an abundant number of, say, pharmaceutical drugs as well. It's just how it goes. The ones that get passed, however, go through a series of clinical trials to test safety (both for consumption and harvest)... the designing company must issue comprehensive environment impact statements, etc.

Once the biotech company has satisfied this burden, the burden shifts to parties wishing to challenge the product as unsafe. And that's where my post above comes into play -- there is scant evidence, at best, to suggest that GMO foods are anything but safe. In many instances, in fact, they have proven to be more safe (several, for example, have been manufactured to excrete pesticides that are non-toxic to humans, meaning we don't have to spray chemical herbicides and pesticides to keep them safe... others are made genetically resistant to freezing, so we can keep them in freezing conditions for transport - without harming them - rather than having to use preservatives to keep them from going bad).

I don't have a dog in this fight either way... but having litigated in the field and having spoken extensively w/ experts on both sides, it has become clear to me that those pushing the anti-GMO agenda are in it strictly for economic incentives (usually small farm unions, etc). It's the familiar fear-based politics that we've all grown sadly accustomed to over the last decade.

the problem with this thinking is that you are looking at it strictly in a legal manner ... as well as presuming that monsanto acts with integrity ...

monsanto controls the fda ... they could have studies that show that their products have significant risk to human health but they still get approved because agencies such as the fda and epa no longer serve the citizenry ...

in considering gmo products - it's not only long-term health issues to people (lord knows there is a lot of shit we do to our bodies between food and other crap) but it's the long-term effects on the environment as well ... maintaining ecological diversity, it's impact to other organisms ..

godpt3

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Monsanto is a corporation whose products destroy natural crops by default, and take dominion of the worlds food supply into the hands of a few.

Who in their right mind would be ok with that?

That should be beyond illegal. It's genetic warfare. The more one finds out, the uglier it gets...

You do realize that, because of these technological advancements, we are able to reduce hunger worldwide.


Of course, we could just let the Africans DIE, you know.

LaterDays

polaris wrote:

the problem with this thinking is that you are looking at it strictly in a legal manner ... as well as presuming that monsanto acts with integrity ...

monsanto controls the fda ... they could have studies that show that their products have significant risk to human health but they still get approved because agencies such as the fda and epa no longer serve the citizenry ...

I assure you, even if Monsanto could "control the FDA" or the EPA, agency decisions are subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedures Act (chapter 7). The Supreme Court, or at least Federal Circuit courts, have jurisdiction to review agency decisions for abuse of discretion... and there are powerful groups opposed to Monsanto (Greenpeace comes to mind) that have the clout, money, and means to fight in court any and all issues of material fact regarding GMO health or environmental safety. They offer their scientists, Monsanto offers their's, and the Courts decide on the merits. This has happened in several instances, and the pro-GMO side has prevailed on scientific grounds. The arguments against have been described as "alarmist" and "overly subjective and hypothetical."

I do sympathize with the premise of your cause. I'm very liberal, particularly in respect to the environment, but there are big companies on both sides, each with substantial monetary interests at heart. Both sides play on fear (pro-GMO side says "people world-wide are starving, technology can help feat them"... anti-GMO side says "we're going to destroy biodiversity and make ourselves sick w/ harmful foods). I tend to defer to (1) scientists in the field and (2) the legal process. I do recognize that both (1) and (2) can and do get it wrong from time to time, but there aren't any truly independent, trustworthy sources of information I know of... these are the best I can find.

You can find scientists on both sides of any argument... see Global Warming or Evolution. But the overwhelming consensus believes in Evolution, a consensus (perhaps, however, not "overwhelming") believes Global Warming is man-made and is a threat... and the consensus (again, however, probably not "overwhelming") is that GMO foods do not pose a threat to either health or the environment. If the scientific opinion shifts, so will the policies. But at this point I believe the controversy is resolved (legally, anyway). GMOs have been legal in this country for close to 20 years now... they don't even require separate labeling (see Bt milk) because there are no significant differences in taste, nutrition, or composition between most GM and non-GM products. But due to consumer concern and advances in genetic engineering, GMOs are becoming more, not less, safe and effective.

polaris

LaterDays wrote:

I assure you, even if Monsanto could "control the FDA" or the EPA, agency decisions are subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedures Act (chapter 7). The Supreme Court, or at least Federal Circuit courts, have jurisdiction to review agency decisions for abuse of discretion... and there are powerful groups opposed to Monsanto (Greenpeace comes to mind) that have the clout, money, and means to fight in court any and all issues of material fact regarding GMO health or environmental safety. They offer their scientists, Monsanto offers their's, and the Courts decide on the merits. This has happened in several instances, and the pro-GMO side has prevailed on scientific grounds. The arguments against have been described as "alarmist" and "overly subjective and hypothetical."

I do sympathize with the premise of your cause. I'm very liberal, particularly in respect to the environment, but there are big companies on both sides, each with substantial monetary interests at heart. Both sides play on fear (pro-GMO side says "people world-wide are starving, technology can help feat them"... anti-GMO side says "we're going to destroy biodiversity and make ourselves sick w/ harmful foods). I tend to defer to (1) scientists in the field and (2) the legal process. I do recognize that both (1) and (2) can and do get it wrong from time to time, but there aren't any truly independent, trustworthy sources of information I know of... these are the best I can find.

You can find scientists on both sides of any argument... see Global Warming or Evolution. But the overwhelming consensus believes in Evolution, a consensus (perhaps, however, not "overwhelming") believes Global Warming is man-made and is a threat... and the consensus (again, however, probably not "overwhelming") is that GMO foods do not pose a threat to either health or the environment. If the scientific opinion shifts, so will the policies. But at this point I believe the controversy is resolved (legally, anyway). GMOs have been legal in this country for close to 20 years now... they don't even require separate labeling (see Bt milk) because there are no significant differences in taste, nutrition, or composition between most GM and non-GM products. But due to consumer concern and advances in genetic engineering, GMOs are becoming more, not less, safe and effective.

the consensus amongst scientists is that global climate change is man-made IS overwhelming ...

and you can't compare lawyers from monsanto to greenpeace ... it's not even close ... i used to be an activist and these things always favour the corps because of the lobbyists that these big multi-nationals have on their side ...

look at the whole cover up with rBGH ... not to mention crap like aspartame ...

orgs like greenpeace don't have the millions of dollars to spend on court cases and wooing politicians ...

i would question your consensus on gmo foods ... if so, why is it banned in europe? ...

theroachman

godpt3 wrote:

You do realize that, because of these technological advancements, we are able to reduce hunger worldwide.


Of course, we could just let the Africans DIE, you know.

Not in slightest bit of truth in your rather utopian statement

Canada has seen nothing but drops in yeilds since allowing these fucked up practices.

Here is a US example

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_9858.cfm


Plus GMO wheat and rice are designed for the US and Canada. Takes huge amounts of water to grow them and huge amounts of poisions. And you think that will some how save Africa? Where is Africa going to get all that water? And how are they to afford buying seed every year, since GMO seeds only work for one year?

Africa would be better off telling Monsonto to fuck off and go back to growing Amaranth and other native foods.

LaterDays

polaris wrote:

i would question your consensus on gmo foods ... if so, why is it banned in europe? ...

The legislature there subscribes to what it is known as the "Precautionary Principle," which holds that when human/environmental health is *potentially* at risk, a lack of scientific certainty shouldn't prevent protective action. The logic behind PP seems sound enough - when a new technology could pose a potential hazard to human life or to the environment, govts should be permitted to err on the side of caution - especially if the harm could be irreversible. An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure, in other words.

But the PP approach can be detrimental itself, perhaps doing more harm than good, as (1) virtually all new technology poses some potential for harm, even if wildly minute, and (2) potentially harmful technologies can also be potentially very beneficial, and their avoidance can forego valuable opportunities.

....

A couple of other points. First, there is a spectrum when it comes to GMOs. Some are very mildly transgenic (only minute presence of genetically modified organisms)... some are much more so. Failing to account for this hurts the strength of the anti-GMO arguments, as many GMO foods do have a wide consensus of safety. Focus on the techniques and products that pose a higher potential risk, I'd say, because there is - whether good or bad - virtually no practical chance of getting all GMOs banned. In fact, if you look at the ISAAA's reports over the last five years, GMO agricultural production worldwide is booming, not showing any indication of slowing down.

Second, as is the case with many technological problems/controversies, the solution isn't likely to involve "banning GMOs" or abandoning the technology. Instead, if GMOs truly do pose a risk to human health or to the environment, all that means is that we don't know enough about genetic modification right now. Rather than jumping ship and halting production of GMOs altogether, what's more likely to happen is that the focus in the industry will shift to making GMOs more safe and efficient. It's like with fossil fuel use or the cell-phone-causing-cancer analogy from earlier. When already adopted technology proves to pose a risk, we don't retreat to a time before the technology... we move forward and use technology to figure out ways to correct the harm done and avoid the future risks posed.

That's what the organic food industry should be pushing... rather than an abandonment of this booming industry, which simply isn't going to happen no matter how much any of us want it to, we should be urging the biotech companies (and the courts, FDA, EPA, etc) to develop safer, more efficient, more environmentally friendly GMOs.

polaris

LaterDays wrote:

The legislature there subscribes to what it is known as the "Precautionary Principle," which holds that when human/environmental health is *potentially* at risk, a lack of scientific certainty shouldn't prevent protective action. The logic behind PP seems sound enough - when a new technology could pose a potential hazard to human life or to the environment, govts should be permitted to err on the side of caution - especially if the harm could be irreversible. An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure, in other words.

But the PP approach can be detrimental itself, perhaps doing more harm than good, as (1) virtually all new technology poses some potential for harm, even if wildly minute, and (2) potentially harmful technologies can also be potentially very beneficial, and their avoidance can forego valuable opportunities.

....

A couple of other points. First, there is a spectrum when it comes to GMOs. Some are very mildly transgenic (only minute presence of genetically modified organisms)... some are much more so. Failing to account for this hurts the strength of the anti-GMO arguments, as many GMO foods do have a wide consensus of safety. Focus on the techniques and products that pose a higher potential risk, I'd say, because there is - whether good or bad - virtually no practical chance of getting all GMOs banned. In fact, if you look at the ISAAA's reports over the last five years, GMO agricultural production worldwide is booming, not showing any indication of slowing down.

Second, as is the case with many technological problems/controversies, the solution isn't likely to involve "banning GMOs" or abandoning the technology. Instead, if GMOs truly do pose a risk to human health or to the environment, all that means is that we don't know enough about genetic modification right now. Rather than jumping ship and halting production of GMOs altogether, what's more likely to happen is that the focus in the industry will shift to making GMOs more safe and efficient. It's like with fossil fuel use or the cell-phone-causing-cancer analogy from earlier. When already adopted technology proves to pose a risk, we don't retreat to a time before the technology... we move forward and use technology to figure out ways to correct the harm done and avoid the future risks posed.

That's what the organic food industry should be pushing... rather than an abandonment of this booming industry, which simply isn't going to happen no matter how much any of us want it to, we should be urging the biotech companies (and the courts, FDA, EPA, etc) to develop safer, more efficient, more environmentally friendly GMOs.

so ... we are to use the human population as our testing ground? ... look at the increase in nut allergies amongst kids ... ever since they spliced the nut into soya beans ... that number has skyrocketed ...

should there not be a guardian of the food supply? ... we can't leave it to a company like monsanto to look out for us ...