Mon$anto vs. Mother Earth
-
Ok I assume you mean DNA and of course nobody wants that.
Gilles...I always wanted to ask you..what is your avatar? I'm not seeing it. Is it something flying..dancing perhaps?
-
I suspect his Avatar fits you well.
-
Don't be rude Box,
just a pissing dog
My thought about humans. -
@mics_54 said:
Is Trimble and evil corporation as well?
http://www.trimble.com/corporate/about_at_glance.aspx
Oh my GOSH! Trimble is AMERICAN AND RICH!
I suggest the management team here make some adjustments to their official and unofficial PR policies.
Okay after that gem, lets actually discuss Monsanto, why do I disagree with them.
They use genetically modified seeds with something called terminator technology. When a harvest happens, the seeds produced by the new crops are rendered useless. Although in 1999, Monsanto agreed to not commercialize terminator technology. This means farmers have to repeatedly purchase these seeds.
Most crops Monsanto grows are heavily fertilized. In essence your eating pesticides, fertilizer, antibiotics etc.
They have uprooted countless agricultural traditions in places like India, Mongolia, Vietnam. For example in India sesame seed oil was once the way people made their money and cooked their food cheaper. Monsanto lobbied the Indian government to use soy bean oil (soy is their main product). This destroyed the economic stability of India's subsistence farmers. It is awful for their economy, but also for their health. Immediate heavy intakes of soy can be extremely harmful for the body.
Monsanto because of its recent growth by buying out its competitors is imposing a monopoly on the world grain trade...this largest agricultural market in the world. The grain trade feeds cows, pigs, chickens, us, everything we eat comes from grain food. Monsanto by having a monopoly kills smaller businesses, makes us unhealthy, uproots local agriculture etc.
Now they are patenting everything they create and destroying all the natural seed, so the future is only possible through them, control all the food and you control the money.
-
So...are all you anti American sketchuppers gonna bail on trimble because they are a defense contractor? hmmm?
-
Can you point to any post here saying anything about being anti american.
-
I guess you gave up on the debate and started waving your flag.
@unknownuser said:
So...are all you anti American sketchuppers gonna bail on trimble because they are a defense contractor? hmmm?
Edited as I found a better comparison to your statement.
So...should all Christians get off their computers as Linux, Windows and OSX were created by very vocal atheists? You see how stupid your statement sounds now?
-
just as I suspected..hypocrite
-
@mics_54 said:
just as I suspected..hypocrite
You do know the definition of that word right?
Okay, time to redeem yourself, show you are brighter than you appear, above I posted why I dislike Monsanto, can you tell me why I'm wrong and why you are right?
-
-
Pete, Michael, er ... Box -please, chill. Jeez.
-
How about this, can we at least agree on one issue?
Should food purchased at a store be labeled GMO or not?
@unknownuser said:
A key component of the U.S./Monsanto plan to dominate world agriculture with genetically modified seeds is the absence of labeling of genetically engineered foods. All U.S. foods must carry labels listing the ingredients: salt, sugar, water, vitamins, additives, etc. However, three separate U.S. government agencies -- the Food & Drug Administration (FDA, the. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -- have ruled that genetically- modified foods deserve an exception: they can be sold without being labeled "genetically modified."
-
I deleted the last post as per TomDCs request..
-
May I interject that the "debate" might be limited to Monsanto and not inferring everyone's other views or politics.
It's both political and scientific, IMO. Political in the "policies" that dictate how a business reaches it's goal. This goal is generally making money, no one can deny that or denigrate it. A sub-debate is "anything is OK for free enterprise". If you can't agree it's NOT then where are the grounds for debating further?
Scientifically I don't think the Monsanto discussion is just about GMO's. I don't believe there is any appreciable group of scientists that find them categorically "evil" or anything like that. I think the advisable uses are debatable and that would be a pretty technical discussion if you want to stay scientific about it.
Speaking about policy I think it's fair to debate how far monopoly and power shall be used to control the production and food markets, and force practices and ingredients in each. Evidence of these policies and their harm should be up for scrutiny. This is different than Apple dominating the cell phone market. The potential damage becomes pervasive and affects everyone's food choices and environment.
If you think what happens to farmland, farmers, food, and consumers is none our business, again based on free-market principles, what's the use of debating facts on either side?
-
I don't think we ever got to debate any real points about Monsanto.
You sound reasonable pbacot
-
Back to the subject matter. Food! It is equally important as shelter! These conglomerates should not be allowed to have carte blance Worldwide as they seem to have in the USA.
We are what we eat, after all!
-
I learnt about Monsanto a while back from a good friend who is a chef who explained to me how they operate. It is just absurd that any government have allowed this monster to the size it has...
Is it true that they have patented corn seeds which means no farmer is allowed to grow their own corn and must buy from and sell to the thieves?
Possibly the largest wrongdoing in history!
-
Imagine this:
Itās the year 2023. An epidemic has swept the country, sickening and even killing millions of otherwise healthy citizens. When the outbreak was first noticed, some three years prior, government scientists went to work to determine the cause of the disease. Early symptoms included headaches, dizziness and hive-like rashes on the trunk of the body. Those were soon followed by gastrointestinal disorders that caused severe bloating, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. The progression of the disease could not be halted, no matter what treatments or combination thereof were administered. Physicians could only stand helplessly by as their patients either died or became permanently disabled. The rising cost of the epidemic, both in terms of the cost of care and lost productivity, demanded that an answer be found and a solution developed.
Then the government scientists found the answer. It was the food on Americaās dining tables that was the culprit. Over time, the genetically modified foods that have become a staple of the American diet caused the disease that now plagues the population of the United States.
There is a cry of outrage from the public and a demand that the corporations that have enriched themselves by the billions should be made to pay for the damage that has been done, not only individually but collectivelyāto the land, our citizens and the economy that is faltering under the stress of an unprecedented epidemic.
But there will be no reparations from the likes of Monsanto and the other corporate interests that have profited so immensely by undermining the health of a nation. Why? Because in 2013, buried within H.R. 933, was a provision (Section 735: the Farmer Assurance Provision) that opponents called the āMonsanto Protection Act.ā This provision allowed agricultural giants that dealt with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically engineered (GE) seeds a free hand to continue to plant and sell man-made crops, even though there were unaddressed concerns about the impact of the products on public health. Moreover, the provision prevented federal courts from halting the continued sale and planting of those products despite any future discoveries that proved the genetically altered materials were hazardous to humans.
Science fiction? Perhaps. Maybe corporations like Monsanto that are assuring us there is nothing to fear from genetically modified foods are right. Then again, the assurances by the tobacco industry that smoking cigarettes was not harmful and actually good for us was a pack of lies designed to improve their bottom line and to hell with the health of the public.
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Missouri), who worked with Monsanto to craft the language of the bill, defended it. āWhat it says is if you plant a crop that is legal to plant when you plant it, you get to harvest it. But it is only a one year protection in that bill.ā
Although the rider will only stay in effect for six months, experts fear the introduction of unknown organisms into the soil of the countryās breadbasket could seriously impact the condition of the soils for years to come. If health risks arise from the introduction of those organisms, Section 735 limits the ability of the courts to redress grievances.
Food Democracy Now posted on its website, āThis dangerous provision, the Monsanto Protection Act, strips judges of their constitutional mandate to protect consumer and farmer rights and the environment, while opening the floodgates for the planting of new untested genetically engineered crops, endangering farmers, citizens and the environment.ā
Ann Verner.
-
Power corrupts. Any organization that gets to a certain size becomes more concerned with serving and protecting itself at the expense of everything and everyone around it. Governments, corporations, unions, all of them and more. It doesn't always have a deleterious effect, or if the organization is small enough, the effect is contained to a small scope and doesn't really affect the lives surrounding it enough to cause concern.
The problem is serious when we have corporations that get so large they affect the stability of the world. A prime example is the banking/lending crisis of this decade. Given free reign, greed wins, and they seek to absolve themselves of any wrongdoing while simultaneously taking government money that comes from the very people hurt by the actions and greed of the massive corporation.
Monsanto is no different. They seek to protect themselves and, above all else, profit. Damage to people and the environment is the cost of doing business, it's factored in. The problem with Monsanto is the global span of their bad practices. Pesticide that contaminates the ground and (miraculously!) the only seeds that will grow in that ground are the ones owned by Monsanto. What a racket that is! Nevermind the effects of GMO plants spreading beyond their fields and terrible labor practices. Monsanto will do anything to control the people they need to, the ones that will tell us it's all OK. Go ahead and eat that. You don't need a peer-reviewed study. Just buy that corn-based cereal. Our study says it's just fine.
-
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/genetic_engineering/
India was on the brink of mass famine. Huge shipments of food aid from America were all that stood between its swelling population and a terrible fate.
...
Borlaug refused to be so pessimistic. He arrived in India in March 1963 and began testing three new varieties of Mexican wheat. The yields were four or five times better than Indian varieties. In 1965, after overcoming much bureaucratic opposition, Swaminathan persuaded his government to order 18,000 tonnes of Borlaug's seed.
ā¦
Eager farmers took it up with astonishing results. By 1974, India wheat production had tripled and India was self-sufficient in food; it has never faced a famine since. In 1970 Norman Borlaug was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for firing the first shot in what came to be called the āgreen revolutionā.
Today scientists use thermal neutrons, X-rays, or ethyl methane sulphonate, a harsh carcinogenic chemicalāanything that will damage DNAāto generate mutant cereals. Virtually every variety of wheat and barley you see growing in the field was produced by this kind of āmutation breedingā. No safety tests are done; nobody protests. The irony is that genetic modification (GM) was invented in 1983 as a gentler, safer, more rational and more predictable alternative to mutation breedingāan organic technology, in fact. Instead of random mutations, scientists could now add the traits they wanted.
In 2004 200m acres of GM crops were grown worldwide with good effects on yield (up), pesticide use (down), biodiversity (up) and cost (down). There has not been a single human health problem. Yet, far from being welcomed as a greener green revolution, genetic modification soon ran into fierce opposition from the environmental movement.
Advertisement