Let's be straight I'm just pointing out there are legitimate reasons why many fear Monsanto for many different reasons. (me myself, I fear all mega corporations because their business plans are plain suicidal in the long term.) I agree with that. Lois
MAY 2008 Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/05/monsanto200805 ~ ~ ~Are you serious about this one? Sounds like "Men in Black" conspiracy theory stuff to me. And these articles always rely on the idea that farmers are stupid, "Some farmers don’t fully understand that they aren’t supposed to save Monsanto’s seeds for next year’s planting." They buy the stuff because the higher cost is justified by higher yields. The numbers given for how many lawsuits Monsanto has said are exactly the same numbers they publish on their website. They aren't hiding that they want to protect their patents. If patenting seeds is the problem, don't blame Monsanto, they didn't write the law, they're just following it. If you want it changed, make a logical argument against it. http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/pilot-grove-coop.aspx They lost the case by the way. So, either you make a case that the justice system got this one wrong, or shut up. What's funny is, the article focuses on Rinehart, who was mistakenly and wrongly accused, but does not mention Parr, who was the instigator and perpetrator of the illegal activity.
MAY 2008 Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/05/monsanto200805 ~ ~ ~Are you serious about this one? Sounds like "Men in Black"(3) conspiracy theory stuff to me. And these articles always rely on the idea that farmers are stupid, "Some farmers don’t fully understand that they aren’t supposed to save Monsanto’s seeds for next year’s planting (1)." They buy the stuff because the higher cost is justified by higher yields. The numbers given for how many lawsuits Monsanto has said are exactly the same numbers they publish on their website. They aren't hiding that they want to protect their patents. If patenting seeds is the problem, don't blame Monsanto, they didn't write the law, they're just following it. (2) If you want it changed, make a logical argument against it. http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/pilot-grove-coop.aspx They lost the case by the way. So, either you make a case that the justice system got this one wrong, or shut up. What's funny is, the article focuses on Rinehart, who was mistakenly and wrongly accused, but does not mention Parr, who was the instigator and perpetrator of the illegal activity. (1) You may find that fine and dandy, but it seems a bit repugnant to me. (2) How much did Monsanto do to get such laws passed? First from your pals http://www.monsanto.com/sitecollectiondocuments/jul14-dec14-political-contributions.pdf Then from folks who are a critical of Monsanto http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000055 About their men in black suits, http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientlbs.php?id=d000000055&year;= 2015 Total number of lobbyists: 26 Total number of revolvers: 18 (69.2%) you know switching from lobbying to gov and back again. http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsantos-contributions-to-us-house-and-senate-candidates/5336404 How the Monsanto Protection Act snuck into law - MAR 27, 2013 A provison that protects the biotech giant from litigation passed Congress without many members knowing about it NATASHA LENNARD http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/how_the_monsanto_protection_act_snuck_into_law/ http://www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-protection-act-5-terrifying-things-know-about-hr-933-provision-1156079 "… Furthermore, it sets a precedent that suggests that court challenges are a privilege, not a right. …" _________________ The weird case of the Tomato patent
http://monsantoblog.eu/patently-false-the-militant-organic-hype-machine-chokes-on-a-tomato-patent/#.VZtqj-tyHww An Austrian website suggested that Monsanto had cheated in its application, claiming that the tomato seed was the product of biotechnology so that it would qualify for the patent. What really happened? In fact, Monsanto itself asked the European Patent Office to revoke the patent after the company decided to abandon it for technical and business reasons. This kind of thing happens all the time. As our legal team informed this blog: This case involved a patent for a botrytis resistant tomato. Botrytis is a destructive fungal disease. The application was filed with the European Patent Office and prosecuted in Denmark. After the patent was issued in our favour, an opposition was filed against the patent by Nunhems. Monsanto ultimately made the decision to voluntarily withdraw the patent. … We hope most people aren’t fooled by the activist hype, and invite people who want to know more to consult reliable information sources, not activist hype sites."(but we are supposed to trust their PR department? - I won't bother linking to the other side of that story, since I don't doubt their added their own spin. Just pointing out that Monsanto's explanation doesn't sound all that kosher either.) _________________________________________________________________ Once again this isn't about GMO, it's about mega corporations and their mindset of profits über alles.
Lausten I get the feeling you want us to think of Monsanto as a warm and fuzzy savor of the world, the poor victim of nasty hippies and what not. Well at least that’s how you are coming across.
Maybe you can overlook stuff like this, but others aren’t as trusting.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Monsanto Post-WWII Expansion and Move into Biotechnology Monsanto expanded into producing herbicides after World War II, including the brands Ramrod, Lasso, and (later on) Roundup. In 1985, it acquired the drug company G. D. Searle, which produced aspartame under the brand name NutraSweet. At the time, Searle faced lawsuits related to its Copper-7 intrauterine contraceptive device.[5] Beginning in the 1980s, Monsanto focused more intensively on agricultural biotechnology. … The company underwent a complicated restructuring in the late 1990s, as a Good Jobs First corporate profile describes:Just saying :)"It announced plans to spin off the remainder of its old chemical business into a company called Solutia (which later filed for bankruptcy as a result of legal settlements relating to PCBs); the sweetener business was also sold off. The agriculture and pharmaceuticals businesses merged with Pharmacia & Upjohn in 2000, with the combined company taking the name Pharmacia. "Pharmacia then spun off the agricultural business as the new Monsanto (the rest of the company was acquired by Pfizer). ...~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Global Pollution and Environmental Impact In the Washington Post article (Jan 1, 2002) "Monsanto Hid Decades Of Pollution PCBs Drenched Ala. Town, But No One Was Ever Told" a grim story of Monsanto's treacherous behavior in Anniston Alabama was revealed. It is summed up in this chilling paragraph: "They also know that for nearly 40 years, while producing the now-banned industrial coolants known as PCBs at a local factory, Monsanto Co. routinely discharged toxic waste into a west Anniston creek and dumped millions of pounds of PCBs into oozing open-pit landfills. And thousands of pages of Monsanto documents -- many emblazoned with warnings such as "CONFIDENTIAL: Read and Destroy" -- show that for decades, the corporate giant concealed what it did and what it knew." ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Environmental and Workplace Safety Cases The following was compiled by Philip Mattera, Research Director and the Director of the Corporate Research Project at Good Jobs First:[5] "In 1986 a federal jury in Galveston, Texas found Monsanto guilty of negligence and ordered the company to pay $108 million to the family of a worker who died from leukemia after being exposed to benzene while working at a Monsanto chemical plant.[15] Monsanto had refused to pay workers compensation to the family, insisting that the disease was not work-related. The award was later overturned and the family settled with Monsanto for $6 million."[16] "In 1987 a state court jury found Monsanto liable for failing to warn the residents of Sturgeon, Missouri about the risks of a 1979 train accident that spilled chemicals including a small quantity of dioxin.[17] The residents were granted more than $16 million in damages, but the award was later overturned."[18] "In 1988 Monsanto agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle a lawsuit[19] that had been brought by a group of workers who charged that their exposure to a rubber additive at the company's plant in Nitro, West Virginia caused them to contract a rare form of bladder cancer." "In 2003 Monsanto (which retained liability for some liability matters relating to its old chemical businesses), along with Solutia and Pfizer (which had acquired Pharmacia), agreed to pay some $700 million to settle a lawsuit[20] over the dumping of PCBs in Anniston, Alabama." "In 2007 The Guardian reported that it had obtained evidence that dozens of dangerous chemicals related to dioxins, Agent Orange and PCBs were leaking from an unlined quarry in Britain that was among various landfills in the country believed to have been used as dump sites for contractors working for Monsanto decades earlier."[5] EPA Superfund Sites Several Monsanto-owned facilities have been deemed "Superfund sites" by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, sites that are so contaminated or full of hazardous waste that they are placed on the "National Priorities List" for clean up by the EPA Superfund.[14][21] Many more plants have been deemed hazardous by the EPA and have been ordered cleaned up through other means, such as litigation.[14] Examples of such sites include[14]: Monsanto plant in August, Georgia: Superfund-listed in 1984 for arsenic-laden waste and sludge contributing to groundwater contamination Monsanto phosphorous plant in Soda Springs, Idaho: Superfund-listed in 1990 for arsenic, cadmium, radium and other toxins Monsanto plant in Sauget, Illinois: Two super-funded sites still in clean up after initial 1982 listing; plant produced 99 percent of all PCBs in the United States Monsanto PCB plant in Anniston, Alabama: Listed under Superfund Alternative Approach in 2000 for extensive PCB contamination over six decades; city has been characterized as one of the most polluted places in America Solutla (former Monsanto) Plant in Nitro, West Virginia: Monsanto and Pharmacia entered into a Consent Order with the EPA in 2004 to perform evaluation and cleanup for release of dioxin from the 2,4,5-T (a component of Agent Orange) manufacturing plant over a 20-year period. _______________________________________ They certainly aren't good neighbors. And it seems they fight dirty Monsanto Funding and Shutdown of Organic Farming Research at University of Hawai'i-Manoa Read the article, "The Silencing of Hector Valenzuela," by Paul Koberstein and Eliza Murphy, Cascadia Times/PR Watch, May 20, 2015. ... That SourceWatch includes all sorts of other issues that only serve to reinforce my distrust of them - but I'll just include a few section heading to give an idea. Labeling Issues, Revolving Doors, rBGH, and Bribery … Fined $1M for Bribery in Indonesia … Monsanto, Agent Orange, Dioxins & Plan Colombia … Misleading Advertisements In an example of blatantly misleading consumers, Monsanto released advertisements in New York for its "Roundup" herbicide, claiming that it "biodegrades into naturally occurring elements," "will not wash or leach in the soil," and "can be used where kids and pets'll play."[14] The company also claimed that the main ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, "is less toxic to rats than table salt" and is "practically non-toxic."[14] The ads were brought to the then-New York Attorney General, Dennis Vacco, for using misleading information, and all of the claims were found to be false and misleading. Vacco stated that "ads cannot imply that these pesticides, which are used to kill vegetation, are risk free."[14] … Monsanto & Fox News: Partners in Censorship … Lobbying Monsanto spent $4,120,000 on federal lobbying in 2014, including $1.5 million spent on outside firms ...
If you go to my site, I opened a “Monsanto” tab, at the bottom there is a link to someone else’s link page. That one tells you that we have been patenting life forms since 1930.
I don’t “want to think” anything. I form an opinion based on facts. Fact 1) without GMOs and chemicals in farming a lot of people will die.
I’m familiar with the company’s past. Explain to me how what someone in 1972 is related to the sale and production of glyphosate and Bt corn? Other than it is the same company. Corporations are not people, so when you say “they are not nice people”, then talk about what people who are now dead did while they worked for a corporation, it makes you look a little silly.
I’m not going to play gish-gallop with you CC. I acknowledge that you are at least trying to look up both sides of the argument, but then you conclude that what Monsanto says “sounds fishy” with nothing else to back that up.
I read the court’s conclusion on the NY ads. It said exactly what I expected it to, that their statements implied glyphosate is safe under any circumstances. The court was very clear that Monsanto could continue to make qualified statements about the likelihood of glyphosate getting into ground water in certain soils and certain conditions. These warnings are right on their label. Think of a drug ad where they tell you the drug might cause all sorts of complications, including suicidal thoughts. People still buy those drugs because they trust the FDA and they understand all medicine has risk. People don’t understand the relative risk of toxic chemicals in food. They drink coffee every day and never give a thought to how caffeine is rated as more toxic than glyphosate.
I also read the Valenzuela article. I’m surprised you can’t evaluate that given your history with global warming. It is a finely crafted propaganda piece. Valenzuela cries foul despite using university resources to promote his non-scientific point of view. “Valenzuela said he was the only member in his department who wanted the university to teach “farmers how to sustain crops without having to rely on chemicals, rather than genetic modification.” " Besides barely being english, it is a conflation. He just throws in GE with chemicals as if the two are the same, they aren’t.
I’ll give them a little credit for a mild attempt at balanced reporting, such as, “Harold Keyser, formerly the university extension administrator on Maui, forced Valenzuela’s banishment from that island. Keyser wrote an email accusing Valenzuela of “criticizing CTAHR (College of Tropical Agriculture) faculty and programs with intellectually dishonest arguments and actively supporting the poisonous activities of groups basically opposed to CTAHR, science and progress. It would be insane for me to assist him in Maui County – hiding behind a guise of free-speech on personal time.” " But they don’t help you at all to sort out what is intellectually dishonest.
Instead they bury that in specious claims by putting “Monsanto” in big bold letters, then later finally getting around to mentioning some donations. I couldn’t find budget numbers, but I’m pretty sure those are in line with normal. They follow that up with the usual tropes of “recent studies show” and “new data has emerged”. But providing no such data. It’s difficult to respond scientifically to an article like this because it is not scientific. It begins with an assumption that Valenzuela is a good organic promoting scientist and everything that happened to him is a conspiracy by a chemical corporation. I might as well go read some Jim Steele if this is what you call informative.
Gish Gallop to mislead and derail, or simply sampling of a wide variety of complaints people have?
Monsanto - SourceWatch has plenty more I could have tossed in,
though I’ll agree some of that stuff is too iffy for me to share.
I have experienced how corporations play and how expertly and craftily they edit their words.
so excuse me for not taking their statement at face value.
I also read the Valenzuela article. I'm surprised you can't evaluate that given your history with global warming. It is a finely crafted propaganda piece. Valenzuela cries foul despite using university resources to promote his non-scientific point of view. "Valenzuela said he was the only member in his department who wanted the university to teach “farmers how to sustain crops without having to rely on chemicals, rather than genetic modification." " Besides barely being english, it is a conflation. He just throws in GE with chemicals as if the two are the same, they aren't.Yeah but I have over forty years of interested familiarity with AGW issues. Monsanto's never really been on my radar until your post and I'm just playing devil's advocate here with a minimum of research. PS. Notice I didn't toss in the one about the "lobbyist" who said you can drink the stuff (glyphosate) and then refused to. :lol: I won't argue that lefties can't be as unhinged as righties. But that sure doesn't mean Monsanto is a benevolent force intent on feeding the world out of the goodness of their heart and that every critic is a crank - which is what I'm sensing you are trying to imply.
PS. Notice I didn't toss in the one about the "lobbyist" who said you can drink the stuff (glyphosate) and then refused to. :lol: I won't argue that lefties can't be as unhinged as righties. But that sure doesn't mean Monsanto is a benevolent force intent on feeding the world out of the goodness of their heart and that every critic is a crank - which is what I'm sensing you are trying to imply.That was a sabotage interview. He was making a point about toxicity. I'm going to assume you don't understand the word toxic since I mentioned it before and you respond with this. You are sensing your own bias, not mine. I'm not trying to imply anything. I have no idea what the variety of employees at Monsanto are motivated by. I'm sure it's just a job for most of them. That doesn't mean that I can't detect bias in an article. It's easier for me because when I see something like "the WHO has classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic", it's something I've already read up on and know that there are many other bodies that could give that classification, but don't. So you have to ask why them and not the others. That's what you're not doing. You're reading sourcewatch as if they are an authority, possibly because they do well with global warming, but look at what they do with vaccines or alternative medicine. I do my best to apply the same skepticism to Jim Steele as I do to you or Monsanto or Neil Young. You haven't made of argument that I'm failing at that, you just keep "sensing" something.
PS. Notice I didn't toss in the one about the "lobbyist" who said you can drink the stuff (glyphosate) and then refused to. :lol: I won't argue that lefties can't be as unhinged as righties. But that sure doesn't mean Monsanto is a benevolent force intent on feeding the world out of the goodness of their heart and that every critic is a crank - which is what I'm sensing you are trying to imply.That was a sabotage interview. He was making a point about toxicity. I'm going to assume you don't understand the word toxic since I mentioned it before and you respond with this.Sorry that went over your head. Yes I agree that was obviously a bs PR ploy which is why I didn't toss it out there.
What I sense is that mega corporations are all about a form of self-cannibalism,
as the direction they are taking our society and planet amply demonstrates.
What I sense is that mega corporations are all about a form of self-cannibalism, as the direction they are taking our society and planet amply demonstrates.Is that the entire basis of your argument or is there more? Because it's ill defined. We are discussing this using tools created by corporations. The people running those corporations are mostly the same jeans and T-shirts people that we praised for being innovative. Did they become evil at some point? Is so, did their product become evil also? So why are you still us a computer? I can't make sense of that. In the same way, there was very little controversy about Norman Borlaug going to Mexico and helping them deal with the diseases in their wheat crops. We started out calling sending food to what we used to call the Third World, "humanitarian". Now it's just "aid" and depending on who says it can be a good or bad thing. Did the corporations cause that? Which ones? Whole Foods Market is a corporation. Do they fit your theory about direction? I sense that you have created an enemy that you can be angry at and consider yourself righteous.
Worked with Monsanto some years back and found they were a great company to do business with. I wish all companies would operate like Monsanto did. Mainly Government, Inc. It is like night and day between dealing with Monsanto and trying to get anything done within our government departments.
On this GMO. The way I understand it is that GMO just cuts the time out of selective farming methods. Example, wheat. Wheat took over 40,000 years to GMO (or what we could call a type of GMO, because it ended up changing the DNA of a wild grass to what is known as wheat today) using selective farming. Now they can do the same thing in 50 years. That’s what I would call progress. But I got to say that the use of none plant genes and all this Frankenstein type of experiments, scares the hell out of me.
When I buy vegetables at the market, I watch the time of year. I do not want my vegetables coming from Mexico or other nations where the only watch dog is the government. I prefer to buy products raised in the United States by methods of Monsanto and the farmers here.
What I am afraid is going to happen with Monsanto is the same thing that happened to our oil companies. They end up being controlled and run by lawyers because of all the regulations and laws. And not the farmers and growers. The lawyer’s goals are without morals and are profit generated and they are loyal to no country. To blame Monsanto at this point is a waste of time. Laws were passed years ago that made our country a service county and not a manufacturing country. We have run our oil, auto and airline business overseas as much as they can. The agriculture and medical business is the main industry keeping this country afloat. Screw that up and expect to see the dollar fail. Your milk and cheeses will come from South America, along with your meats. Your vegetables will come from Mexico. But expect to see major growth in the welfare and unemployment lines.
But I got to say that the use of none plant genes and all this Frankenstein type of experiments, scares the hell out of me. .Why? You have to realize this is gut reaction and not in any way a rational one. I have heard similar responses from people who say they don't want fish DNA in their beef yet as it stands every single animal product you eat has fish DNA in it because all land animals descended from fish ancestors and carry that ancient DNA with them. The hamburger and fried chicken you eat are all infested with fish DNA. DNA is just a chain of atoms. They are neither fish, nor plant, nor land animal. The are simply a code for a protein. If there is a protein in one organism that imparts a useful characteristic to another then I don't see the problem from an aesthetic standpoint ( and I hate fish by the way). Nature has been doing this for millennia. When it comes to these sorts of decisions it behooves us all to try and separate out the emotional response from the science and the facts or we are destined to make bad decisions.
When it comes to these sorts of decisions it behooves us all to try and separate out the emotional response from the science and the facts or we are destined to make bad decisions.And I hope that's the end of that discussion. If someone has that emotional reaction, fine, admit it. But don't go back to blaming Monsanto for your fears. There are no commercial products where animal DNA is mixed into other foods. This fear of Frankenstein is irrelevant to the actual issue. It's as bad as the pictures of cow's heads growing out of people's arms when vaccines were first being introduced.
I love to bring out this photo when people talk about Frankenfoods. This is about the most alien looking vegetable I have ever seen but its a photo I took at a farmers market in PA and its Cauliflower bred the old fashioned way through selective breeding. For that matter all cauliflower and broccoli are genetically modified forms of cabbage that did not exist until man started monkeying around with the cabbages DNA through selective breeding.
And to drive the point home further which of the following ears of corn would you prefer to eat. The one on top which is a GMO variey or the non-GMO ear on the bottom which has been infected by the asian corn borer and fungus that the GM version is modified to resist?
But I got to say that the use of none plant genes and all this Frankenstein type of experiments, scares the hell out of me. .Why? You have to realize this is gut reaction and not in any way a rational one. I have heard similar responses from people who say they don't want fish DNA in their beef yet as it stands every single animal product you eat has fish DNA in it because all land animals descended from fish ancestors and carry that ancient DNA with them. The hamburger and fried chicken you eat are all infested with fish DNA. DNA is just a chain of atoms. They are neither fish, nor plant, nor land animal. The are simply a code for a protein. If there is a protein in one organism that imparts a useful characteristic to another then I don't see the problem from an aesthetic standpoint ( and I hate fish by the way). Nature has been doing this for millennia. When it comes to these sorts of decisions it behooves us all to try and separate out the emotional response from the science and the facts or we are destined to make bad decisions. From science and facts. The facts that genesis may be telling us, is that in the age of domestication, mankind had about seven plagues that wiped out most of the population. Then we had a few plagues in the time of history. I don’t think the plagues in domestication really had anything to do with the domestication process of creating the foods that we eat today. So, that does not worry me too much. On the science side we have switches that we are trying to figure out how they operate. So, we have chemical biological plants and animals that are built upon chemical processes going way back in time. Flip the wrong switches and the lights are out for mankind. As far as selective breeding, that’s fine. But just last week in the news there was someone eating a sheep with jellyfish genes. Not cool at all. I am all for GMO in the food chain on a scientific basics. But I don’t think we are ready yet for all the other experiments until we understand what controls the on and off of the switches better.
From science and facts. The facts that genesis may be telling us, is that in the age of domestication, mankind had about seven plagues that wiped out most of the population. Then we had a few plagues in the time of history. I don’t think the plagues in domestication really had anything to do with the domestication process of creating the foods that we eat today. So, that does not worry me too much. On the science side we have switches that we are trying to figure out how they operate. So, we have chemical biological plants and animals that are built upon chemical processes going way back in time. Flip the wrong switches and the lights are out for mankind. As far as selective breeding, that’s fine. But just last week in the news there was someone eating a sheep with jellyfish genes. Not cool at all. I am all for GMO in the food chain on a scientific basics. But I don’t think we are ready yet for all the other experiments until we understand what controls the on and off of the switches better.There is really no logic to this line of reasoning. Every minute of every day nature introduces random changes to DNA that create entirely new proteins which have never existed before in any organism. The idea that its riskier to transfer a gene and its resultant proteins from between animals and plants rather than within them has no scientific validity. Exactly how would it be lights out for man if the "wrong switches are flipped"? This may sound poetic but I know of no line of reasoning that would support the idea that the dangers of genetically manipulating organisms ( whether by selective breeding or modern methods) are any greater when genetic material is transferred between kingdoms than it is when transferred between species. As far as people eating sheep with jelly fish genes, this is really not the issue people seem to think it is. These were genes for fluorescence which are not harmful to people at all. The only concern is that you had a rogue employee who released the animal for human consumption apparently to get back at the company. In theory a rogue employee could have done something that was actually harmful but this is a concern when employees are responsible for anything that is potentially harmful to others. In this case it was not harmful to anyone. People eat luminescent jellyfish. Why would it matter if the luminescence is consumed through the ingestion of sheep?
You know Mike is like this right? He puts random thoughts together and calls them research.
I have no problem with foods produced with GMO. I would like to be informed when it is being used. The fact that GMO companes like Monsanto are against labeling makes me worry. If the use of GMOs is as benign as Monsanto et al. say, why are they against labeling? If the food coloring industry (as one example) was against labeling foods that are colored, wouldn’t you be concerned? Should we know how much salt, fat and additives are in our food, or should that information be kept secret?
Lois