Mon$anto vs. Mother Earth
-
Clearly the solution is GMbees that are resistant to pesticides.
Your GMwatch link says they cant prove their assertions...they say the have no evidence. As usual. I have a problem with banning things till more research is done.
Are they going to ban cars because all the bees in California are smeared all over the windshields of automobiles speeding along the highways next to those huge almond groves?
Probably not.
-
Well, I suppose cars could be banned AND as far as I'm concerned BIG hungry 4x4s with no tow hitch should be banned immediately if the owner has no practical reason to use one other than arguing that they offer more protection to the occupants in a crash.
Cars could be taken out of the equation and their effects on the environment would fade after a while to some extent. However GM products are a different matter from what I can see. Better to be safe than sorry when it comes to bees.
As you say, it looks like we are going to have 'GMbees that are resistant to pesticides'! I suppose the next step would then be GM people that are resistant to GM foods
At the end of the day Nature will level things out as she always does!
-
mics_24
It's a fallacy that glyphosate breaks down in soils (it may break down in some soil types - but not all soils). If glyphosate is applied where the soil is high in phosphate the glyphosate and its breakdown products can remain in that soil for some time seehttp://www.charcoalfinland.fi/Helander%20et%20al.%20Trends%20in%20Plant%20Science%202012.pdf
Also put phosphate glyphosate soil into google scholar - you'll find plenty of concern over this issue.
Certainly many publishers are outside the university/academic spectrum but then Monsanto sponsors many universities and labs so you can't expect researchers to bite the hand that feeds.
-
@unearthed said:
Certainly many publishers are outside the university/academic spectrum but then Monsanto sponsors many universities and labs so you can't expect researchers to bite the hand that feeds.
Nigel, thinking about the above, I did a quick search to see what Greenpeace has to say about Monsanto ..... not good news! BTW, I'd consider to be fairly independent by any measure
Monsanto files patent for new invention: the pig
Greenpeace researcher uncovers chilling patent plans
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/monsanto-pig-patent-111/ -
oh we wouldn't want people resistant to diseases caused by GMfoods now would we...
Oh wait...they already are. -
@mics_54 said:
oh we wouldn't want people resistant to diseases caused by GMfoods now would we...
Oh wait...they already are.What? that makes no sense, what are you saying?
-
-
I recognize anti-GMO protestations as an attack on capitalism and nothing more.
Let's just say that I believe Forbes before GMOWatch.org.
Science can fix natures failings.
-
/me waits for the domed cities needed to survive potentially catastrophic climate swings.
-
@mics_54 said:
I recognize anti-GMO protestations as an attack on capitalism and nothing more.
Let's just say that I believe Forbes before GMOWatch.org.
Science can fix natures failings.
I'll voice my opinion on what I see as dangerous and 'unnatural' food growing methods forced on farmers from companies that appear to me to have no other interests other than hard cash profits.
As I have said earlier in this thread, I really would like to see the farmers and growers having full control over their seeds and now livestock!
On this side of the pond, particular Ireland, there are very successful co-operatives / companies, the Kerry Group for example, where farmers hold a very large and influential shareholding in the company stock. The Kerry Group is a hard nosed business and is run on a global scale. It looks to me that they are being kept 'in check' from what greed driven management can / may like to, get up to GM etc.
Mike, do you trust Greenpeace?
-
"Science can fix natures failings."
Seems to me that science is used more to fix human failings ... Nature has done pretty well when left to her own processes.
-
AHH I knew it! now humans aren't natural!
nature is polio, aids, syphilis, diptheria, drought, black plague, tsunamis, pestilence, floods, fire, tornados, earthquakes, flu, hurricanes, volcanos ...I could go on for an hour.what humans do...no matter what it is...is nature.
...and no...I wouldn't trust greenpeace
-
@mics_54 said:
AHH I knew it! now humans aren't natural!
nature is polio, aids, syphilis, diptheria, drought, black plague, tsunamis, pestilence, floods, fire, tornados, earthquakes, flu, hurricanes, volcanos ...I could go on for an hour.what humans do...no matter what it is...is nature.
...and no...I wouldn't trust greenpeace
Mmmmm ...... you have a point there Mike!Yes, I suppose it could be argued that Big M is acting naturally ...... self preservation etc etc.
I would come back to the original concern, Big M having too much control over food. This I would argue cannot be a good thing. Okay, maybe some to the products they are producing are useful and may even help society to some extent BUT I still think monopolies are a bad thing and should not be allowed.
Have a look at what Philip Howard, a researcher at Michigan State University, has to say, here, The Monsanto Monopoly http://www.gmeducation.org/latest-news/p207220-the%20monsanto%20monopoly.html
It looks to me that monopolies are commonplace in the USA and tolerated by Government to a large extent for various reasons (power of the $) ..... but don't worry as the EU Commission comes down very heavily on monopolies. BTW, I don't have a lot of good things to say about the EU Commission but their stance on monopolies is to be commended.
So when USA farmers get to the stage that they can only get their seeds from Big M etc at exorbitant prices they can always see if its possible to sneak a few seeds in from Europe that can be replanted and replanted and replanted ........ seeds are quite small things after all
BTW, I do trust Greenpeace to a large extent ...... they are one of the only organisations with 'balls'. They believe in action rather than talk!
I have just watched Seeds of Freedom over my lunch break (30 minutes long) and found it quite informative. I recommend it as an eye opener, particularly the case of Percy Schmeiser that nearly lost his farm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-bK8X2s1kI&feature=player_detailpage&hd=1
Liz Hosken, UK Director of Gaia Foundation also truck a cord when she said,
'By controlling the seed you control the farmer, by controlling the farmer your control the whole food system and thats the legacy of genetics in farming'In India small farmers using GM seeds are noticing a new problem with pests. The pests (and weeds) develop their own resistence to the GM crops (with built in Roundup). This is giving rise to 'super pests' and is forcing GM using farmers to use ever more powerful pesticides ...... then again, this suit Big M ...... more cash in the bank!
I would suggest that patents granted and intended patents for seeds should have a built in requirement that they (somehow) don't cross contaminate non GM crops! Fair should be fair after all. Let them have their GM seeds / crops but I don't wan't them blowing into my field contaminating my crops!
I would compare this to noise pollution! if I were living beside an event centre they (the management) would NOT be allowed to pollute by resience with loud noise! I think they same law should apply to GM crops ...... then again Big M is working on bees, so maybe they are getting ready for this battle! Bees that only pollinate their GM crops and overfly 'natural' crops! Sounds farfetched, I know, but I would put nothing past them
-
Mr Mayor..I read the article you posted @ GMeducation.org
I made notes as I read it.
How many companies would you say isnt a monopoly..10...20...1000?
I thought monopoly meant a single controling principle.
The article starts out calling Monsanto a monopoly in the title...but then says there are 4 major players.
I would prefer honesty in a commentary, especially if I am reading it to learn or form an opinion on the subject.
So the author goes ghetto and refers to the 4 corporations as a CARTEL implying nefarious, illegal business.
DoJ inviestigates, finds no anti trust violations, closes the investigation after 2 years. The antagonists suggest that the DOJ is some how part of the evil empire.
I think the higher prices of seeds...like food..in the time frame mentioned isn't due to some phoney monopoly but rather coincides with fuel cost increases... which affects us all....and in costs that have no link to food or Monsanto.
Then the article goes on to blame monsanto for increases in the suicide rate....
I think perhaps the article, and the entire web page, has a little bias...and like greenpeace must illicit a fear response to get donations so they can save the planet from people like me.
So we come to Percy Schmeiser who lost all the cases in court and still claims to have won...which I find weird.
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/percy-schmeiser.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser#Judgment
Percy got caught.
-
Mike,
Just a couple of points. I tend to find that most situations in life are varying shades of gray and never simply black or white.
As regards a monopoly situation. I would regard any company that is trying to achieve this situation as just as bad as one. I honestly don't feel that taking a patent out on an extension on Nature's seeds is acceptable. I have no problem with companies taking out patents on extensions to human's inventions however. This law should be repealed as its just not right!
I haven't yet investigated the full Monsanto history. When I do so I will then form a more solid personal opinion of the company in my mind. To date from what I read, I am putting them into the dark gray area of business as hypocrisy doesn't cut it for me.
On the other hand if they are to have their patents, so be it. And they can charge what they like for their Roundup resistant sterile seeds. My only requirement would be that they don't contaminate non GM neighbouring crops that are growing as nature intended. I imagine the only way they could do this is to put all their crops under cover while growing! And while they at at it, they should retain the 'super pests' that develop because of these GM crops.
I know this sounds totally ridiculous and impractical but I see no other way to protect neighbouring non GM crops and heritage seeds that I have no doubt will be needed when Big M and Co mutates the hell out of Nature's core seeds and renders them next to useless in the future.
As regards Percy. He didn't win nor did he loose as he was not liable for Big M's legal costs. Again, this was yet another gray area. BTW, the video didn't indicate the court decisions.
So Mike, you are happy with the idea of future fruit, veg and cereals with built in re-seeding obsolescence?
-
-
Wow now I trust Monsanto even more! Thanks Solo!
-
Thanks Pete for doing the footwork for me. As the say, a 'picture is worth a thousand words' and this particular picture shows what I suspected regarding political connections
Mike! More fool you! Are you going to answer my question, 'So Mike, you are happy with the idea of future fruit, veg and cereals with built in re-seeding obsolescence?' I'll understand if you don't want to
-
Mayor,
@unknownuser said:
Just a couple of points. I tend to find that most situations in life are varying shades of gray and never simply black or white.
I agree and have been trying to convince the anti corporation fan club of this for the entire thread
@unknownuser said:
As regards a monopoly situation. I would regard any company that is trying to achieve this situation as just as bad as one.
Idon't think that's in Monsantos plan
@unknownuser said:
I honestly don't feel that taking a patent out on an extension on Nature's seeds is acceptable. I have no problem with companies taking out patents on extensions to human's inventions however. This law should be repealed as its just not right!
Monsanto's patents are human inventions.
@unknownuser said:
I haven't yet investigated the full Monsanto history. When I do so I will then form a more solid personal opinion of the company in my mind. To date from what I read, I am putting them into the dark gray area of business as hypocrisy doesn't cut it for me.
We have time. I suggest perhaps reading some of the pro GMO information along with the "other stuff"
@unknownuser said:
On the other hand if they are to have their patents, so be it. And they can charge what they like for their Roundup resistant sterile seeds. My only requirement would be that they don't contaminate non GM neighboring crops that are growing as nature intended. I imagine the only way they could do this is to put all their crops under cover while growing! And while they at it, they should retain the 'super pests' that develop because of these GM crops.
Most of this sounds like conjecture and rhetorical So I don't see a need to rebut. I've not seen any verified conclusive study reports beyond those admitting a bias and lacking proof. To a hammer everything looks like a nail.
@unknownuser said:
I know this sounds totally ridiculous and impractical but I see no other way to protect neighboring non GM crops and heritage seeds that I have no doubt will be needed when Big M and Co mutates the hell out of Nature's core seeds and renders them next to useless in the future.
Is this another one of your grey areas? It sounds more black and white by your description...almost as thought you've already made up your mind even though it sounds ridiculous and impractical
@unknownuser said:
As regards Percy. He didn't win nor did he loose as he was not liable for Big M's legal costs. Again, this was yet another gray area. BTW, the video didn't indicate the court decisions.
I think the link I gave you indicated he lost 3 court cases and the SC case and had to pay Monsanto his profit earned by the stolen tech. He also had to pay his own legal bills totaling, by his estimate to be C$400,000.00
@unknownuser said:
So Mike, you are happy with the idea of future fruit, veg and cereals with built in re-seeding obsolescence?
I'm not sure what the term means so you might point me to an explanation of the phrase for clarity. Does re-seeding obsolescence mean there is no need to ever re-seed? What ever it means I would say it depends on THE BOTTOM LINE as in any cost benefit analysis
-
Now you're getting impatient for my answers? Would you rather I just post pasted images from code pink blogs like some lazy troll?
Advertisement