Mon$anto vs. Mother Earth
-
The cost associated with printing of labels is miniscule.
The cost associated with complying with the regulations is huge. -
If I'm not mistaken EU adpoted a process based labeling law in 2004, replacing their proof based system. I think the threshold may be slightly higher in at least the California proposition. I believe it is 0.5 vs EU's 0.9.
I guess what I am pointing out is somehow it was adopted and paid for. -
for we laymen, could you explain the difference?
-
UC Davis is a great ag science research center, but pretty closely tied to chemical farming industrial complex. My wife went there and then straight to Shell Development, while thery were still doing the ag research. The "science 2.0".. I was wondering what was wrong with "1.0"? Someone thinks science needs redefining for what? creationism, profits? It didn't seem very sound to me but really picking a fight with consumers via fringe arguments.
Yeah scientific.. reminds me of the American Enterprise Institute plenty of alphabet soup there too...never mind.
So all corn in the big conglomerate corn world is all mixed up. Half was probably feed grade in the chips I'm eating. Then mark it all as "possibly contains GMO" (if we even make GMO label law). Seems they should be proud of it, not try to hide it. For labeling I tend to think the non-GMO producers should just label theirs, and like organics, charge more!
-
@mics_54 said:
for we laymen, could you explain the difference?
It's probably obvious that I would like to see labeling of GMO products, which is why something like the change in law status I mentioned above would catch my attention.
I'm not trying to posture as an expert, but I do follow this subject with great interest.
The original law in Europe was proof based. If no DNA detectable markers could be found in the final product, the product did not have to be labeled. Regardless of whether it used GMO components as part of the recipe. It put the responsibility of proving onto the end user.
In the new process based law, if any GMO products are used in the process of manufacturing, they must be identified.
Its also the process by which this can be tracked that I see as straight forward. If you are involved in the creation of genetically modified product offered for sale, that product is given an identification number, which must be passed on to any purchaser of that product, and identified by label on the final product.
To me this seems no more difficult than having to say that the product has 1 mg of monosodium glutemate. -
@pbacot said:
For labeling I tend to think the non-GMO producers should just label theirs, and like organics, charge more!
Peter
The problem I see with this is, because there is no requirement for companies to have to reveal that the oats they offer for sale are genetically modified, those toasty oat flakes in your granola labelled "organic" might currently be GMO, and the final manufacturer, who may have only good intent in producing "organic" products would be unaware. -
Right, Dale. It would have to be a separate designation and those who participate would have to submit to the program, whatever that is. BTW there's not a lot of money for these participatory programs so the level of review may vary. Ongoing technical proof might not be affordable.
-
The "Science 2.0" name irritation would be one of those fringe arguments. I thought it was more a catchy geek/internet/scientific sounding name...but I/m not trying to discredit them because looking at the list of related articles on the subject it appears there are proponents of both sides.
Am I to assume that since your wife attended UC Davis she is complicit in the big evil chemical farming industrial complex? Probably not.
OK so you don't like any of the sources for information on GMOs that I found. Could you please direct me to your favorite "go to" site so I can read some of the more accurate information.
I noticed everyone is stepping over the link to the article on Mark Lynas like a gift someones dog left on the sidewalk.
-
I guess this whole argument is really about perspectives or perceptions.
The evil "better mouse trap" makers aren't interested in inventing "fine designs" or making life better. They only want to make filthy riches and kill the poor lil mice!
I have a question. If you take the wealth possessed by the evil american corporation CEO and give it to a poor person...does the poor person instantly become evil...or does it take time.
-
I'll try to get back to those links. Probably next week. I just read the last one and it didn't impress me.
My wife was slave to the machine, a capitalist running dog or what have you!
Someone else will have to answer your question about evil. I don't know who you are talking about and why they would be evil.
-
..just a little sarcasm but terms like "x industrial complex" implies (to me) a dastardly homogenous characterization..
-
I guess from experience that's what I see. I don't consider it evil. When Eisenhower warned of "the military industrial complex", I don't believe he thought it was evil, just dangerous. You could be onto something: different perceptions.
-
I actually had written another few lines about perceptions and thought it too obvious.
-
To anyone partaking in the march, if you cannot find the details about your area let me know and I will pass it on to you.
-
Be sure and take video!
-
Reading a little more on the progress re: Monsanto vs. Mother Earth
While I am all for progress and when it comes to it, patent protection, I do draw the line at total monopolies!
There is a case coming up which might clarify matters!
*Monsanto sued small farmers to protect seed patents, report says
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents
Agricultural giant has won more than $23m from its targets, but one case is being heard at Supreme Court this month
"Corporations did not create seeds and many are challenging the existing patent system that allows private companies to assert ownership over a resource that is vital to survival and that historically has been in the public domain,"
The Bowman case has come about after the 75-year-old farmer bought soybeans from a grain elevator near his farm in Indiana and used them to plant a late-season second crop. He then used some of the resulting seeds to replant such crops in subsequent years. Because he bought them from a third party which put no restrictions on their use, Bowman has argued he is legally able to plant and replant them and that Monsanto's patent on the seeds' genes does not apply.*
The shareholders in Monsanto are of course entitled to their dividends and protection of their investment but at the same time I feel farmers, the real human food cultivators / providers of the planet must be allowed to use the best available methods of growing even if this involves getting into 'gray' areas!
Ideally its farmers that should be the major shareholders in the likes of Monsanto, not stockbrokers and such. I would have much more faith in farmers doing the right thing for the economy and society in general. From my experience they are not primarily motivated by the bottom line ($$$), at least the ones that I have know over my life. Both my parents came from farmer stock and I spent much of my youth on my grandparents' farms. I imagine my grandparents would not be able to comprehend the concept of being able to patent a seed which resulted in a crop they grew not withstanding that they initially purchased the seed from a supplier!
-
This article is quite revealing in regard to the case in point.
I'm not sure where the patent law thing will end up but I can understand how a bad decision could impact future R&D in all areas.As for farmers being more trustworthy and amenable to humanities welfare and their likelihood to "do the right thing for the economy and society in general" ...
...they do seem to be pretty shrewd in knowing a good thing when they see one...They apparently like GMOs. Note that Bowman's motive was apparently the bottom line ($$$) by his own statements.
I also find the title of this thread amusing in that we apparently have the left, the right and the more pragmatic moderates flip flopping sides and playing goose goose duck or musical chairs or something.... I couldn't find a more ironic title than Monsanto (science) vs Mother Earth (????) If there is a "mother earth" she'd be telling you...adapt or die.
I have to say I really enjoy this topic...I have learned a lot about GMO.
anyway I seem to be hogging the thread so I will let you have it...unless you address me specifically.
-
Mmmmm, farmers! Yes, I agree they are a shrewd bunch when it come to looking for a bargain! I have done business with lots of them over the years and have found that they like to squeeze the last penny out of a deal. But I have always found them quite fair and honourable.
I do however feel that in general they put the welfare of the land (Mother Earth) before profits as they realise that she demands respect and slaps back when abused.
I don't know how much more farm productivity can be pushed. I somehow doubt that there is much more in it. I think we should be looking a ways of encouraging a sustainable World human population rather than pushing Mother Earth beyond what she can deliver in a sustainable way. Then again, thats another debate, one that we have broached here many times.
-
Got some time to learn?
Here is a course of lectures on Permaculture, the crux of this whole debate IMO.
Permaculture means ‘permanent culture,’ (or ‘permanent agriculture’) and …’is the conscious design and maintenance of cultivated ecosystems that have the diversity, stability, and resilience of a natural ecosystem.’ (Bill Mollison)
-
@unknownuser said:
the conscious design and maintenance of cultivated ecosystems that have the diversity, stability, and resilience of a natural ecosystem
I can't think of a better description of what Monsanto does.
...except they make improvements much faster than nature.
Advertisement