Govt to study genetically modified crops, despite opposition

[xylophone]

Go and look (Google) at the poorest countries in the world and see how the government officials live and how well-equipped the military is. I know because I have worked in amongst a famine which killed tens of thousands of people, and this in a country which is one of the major oil producers in the world.

Genetically modified crops or animals will not change the poverty and squalor in these countries because it is corruption which causes it, so your argument about there being a need "in the long run" is absolute poppycock.There is no need and never has been, (...)

Lovely moving of the goalposts - right along with anecdotal argument.

Both of which are invalid - your purely emotional appeals are non-factual.

It truly is pointless responding to you (or TAH), as arguing with you is no different than debating with anti-vaxxers or anti-fluoride crowds ... or creationists, for that matter.

So your post, to which I replied, doesn't mean anything??........"Just because you eat comfortably, doesn't mean this applies to everyone else in the world. Your relative comfort and ease of access to healthy food represents less than 10% of the world population. The majority of humanity lives in squalor, and has access to little food of good quality - much less healthy food".

My response addressed it directly, that "little access to food of good quality-much less healthy food" is caused by corruption in the main, and producing more GMO food will not change this.

If you cannot see other points of view then don't participate in these forums, after all, other folks points of view seem to annoy you.

[DaffyDuck]

All you are doing is moving the goalposts, and firmly holding your palms pressed over your eyes. Large scale food issue are not related to the class and corruption issues that you so conveniently focus on... but they do make a good narrative for you, so you wouldn't need to deal with actual facts. That is all. As I said, pointless to continue - you just keep moving the goalposts.

[attrayant]

...a Cartel of companies who already hold 2/3rds of global seed sales. Keep them out - once control is gained the prices are theirs to demand. "Monsanto has secured a monopoly control over the U.S. seed market."

Can you be a bit more clear here: control of what? Control of the seed market? What's to stop farmers from going back to traditional non-GM seeds?

Seeds are a fungible commodity, and all of these things are at the mercy of market forces. If Monsanto seeds are too expensive, buy something cheaper.

[DaffyDuck]

[DaffyDuck]

[RPCVguy]

...a Cartel of companies who already hold 2/3rds of global seed sales. Keep them out - once control is gained the prices are theirs to demand. "Monsanto has secured a monopoly control over the U.S. seed market."

Can you be a bit more clear here: control of what? Control of the seed market? What's to stop farmers from going back to traditional non-GM seeds?

Seeds are a fungible commodity, and all of these things are at the mercy of market forces. If Monsanto seeds are too expensive, buy something cheaper.

Having control in the context of the above statement means world-wide supply control and holding legal ownership rights. In the USA Monsanto's control over corn is so dominant that even for a farmer who attempts to reserve organic seed and plant again on his fields, the likelihood increases that cross-pollination from GMO plants will contaminate his fields. Over time the result will be that the seeds on his heritage/ heirloom /organic farm will carry the genes of the GMO trait. That is what I and others have been stating throughout the many comments on this and related posts. Once that happens, Monsanto has claimed and has won in courts the ownership rights to that farmer's crops. Over time, the regions planted with GMO seed will, by simple process of wind borne cross pollination and years to spread those genes throughout the region. The polluting manufacturer gains market share.

Please view the 4 minute video here http://www.cbsnews.com/news/agricultural-giant-battles-small-farmers/

It is counter-intuitive as to common sense, but it is how the laws are written and executed. You and I disagree as to how much that matters. BUT EITHER

1. If a particular GMO is indeed safe, the worst that happens is the loss of financial independence to replant part of a harvest. These seed companies are even working on including "terminator" genes to prevent germination of seeds in successive crops. Seed would then ONLY be available by buying again from one of these companies. Farmers would have no choice... once plant varietal diversity is sufficiently lost.
2. If a particular GMO seed is indeed not safe/ or causes allergies and reactions for some portion of people or animal that eat it - too bad, too late. There is no retraction

The GMO companies are already in agreement with each other as to cross licensing - but the organic farmer who has lost his organic certification and had his crops confiscated. There is no choice to the farmer except to join in and become a customer of the cartel - the 6 dominant seed manufacturers.

ADD in the TPP (or TAPA for the Atlantic side)

The TPP Trade Agreement has been closely guarded in its wording. In the USA the Senate is suppose to ratify it if it is presented as a treaty, requiring a 2/3 vote - but if enacted as a piece of regular legislation (a "Trade Agreement") then a simple majority vote in both the House and Senate, signed by the president makes it the law. The president tried getting authorization to present the eventual agreement for a simple up/ down vote - free of any legislative amendments. What is in the agreement text has been held back from members of congress. The agreement is being drafted / negotiated internationally primarily with the input of industry lobbyists. What little that has leaked has been quite concerning to people desiring a continuation of national sovereignty. All nations signing the agreement will find that corporations will be able to sue governments to void laws that the companies find impose burdens on their ability to make profit. Where will the "lawsuits" be heard? By an international arbitral tribunal assembled by the same corporations collectively. Three samples, many available by searching for "tpp sovereignty issues"

http://economyincrisis.org/content/the-trans-pacific-partnership-would-destroy-our-national-sovereignty

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/17215-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-assault-on-our-sovereignty-our-constitution-our-liberty-video

http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/main-issues-mainmenu-27/food-sovereignty-and-trade-mainmenu-38/1119-la-via-campesina-australian-food-sovereignty-alliance

Sounds like something that would unite citizens in many nations to resist it. It certainly should unite the American Tea Party wing of the Republicans with the Liberal/ Progressive wing of the Democrats but I suspect both houses of congress will pass TPP measures in the next two years. Why? ... because the majority of both legislative chambers now owe most of their allegiance to the business interest that backed their election campaigns... and corporations want passage of the TPP.

... and that returns to the concept of control. The rights of patent ownership over GMO seeds (along with music, video, software, medicines and other "intellectual property") are ways to perpetuate cash flow for years that become decades. If there are no organic GMO free varieties left, then all seed is owned, all farmers of those crops are but modern day share croppers.

Governments at best strive to be benevolent. Some do better than others. But the problem of protecting property and ownership gets more complex as society gets more complex. Lawyers and lobbyists end up being the paid definers of the guidelines/ laws... and the historical tendency is for those laws to favor the biggest players, the big farmers, the big banks, manufacturers, etc. I've worked in those arenas - and come back to this truth as to whom to protect.

Much diversity has already been lost.

[xylophone]

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1417601782.676508.jpg

Dear Daffy,

You seem to be unable to follow a logical course of reasoning, let me explain.

The subject under discussion is GM crops/foods. I said that there was no need for GM crops because there was plenty of food to go round.

You said that the majority of humanity lives in squalor, and has access to little food of good quality - much less healthy food, so I needed to open my eyes (with regards to the fact that GM foods were necessary to alleviate this).

The logical conclusion of this would be that in your opinion GMO foods are necessary because the majority of humanity had little access to food of good quality, much less healthy food,.

No non sequiturs in there as far as I can see, and a logical sequence.

My next point was that the main reason for the majority of humanity not having access to healthy/good food was not to do with a shortage of food, but with corruption (or poor wealth distribution).

Again, this follows a logical course, only you cannot see it, and it does specifically answer the point you made, and because it specifically addresses that point, you accuse me (and others) of moving the goalposts.

And just to support my posts please read the following.........

1). Hunger Notes believes that the principal underlying cause of poverty and thus hunger in Africa and elsewhere is the ordinary operation of the world's economic and political systems. Essentially control over resources and income is based on military, political and economic power that typically ends up in the hands of a minority, who live well, while those at the bottom barely survive. We have described the operation of this system in more detail in our special section on Harmful economic systems. ………….Controlling the government and other sources of power and income is a fundamental way of obtaining income. Freedom in the World is an annual index that measures the degree that people have political rights and civil liberties. See its (mainly low) freedom rankings for sub-Saharan African countries http://www.freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world. One way that those in positions of power obtain income is through corruption. The 2011 map of perceived corruption worldwide done by Transparency International (2011) shows that many sub-Saharan African nations are viewed as corrupt.

2). "Conflict, Corruption Greatest Causes of Hunger"…..The Human Condition (National Geographic online)

3). Corruption is highest in Sub Saharan regions, with resources concentrated in the hands of a few. The fight against this ill in recent years has produced very insignificant results. Misappropriation of state funds and corruption have led to division amongst peoples, wars with massive killings, spending on expensive war equipment, further impoverishment of the population, aggravating the burden and consequences of malnutrition in this part of the world. The policies of national Governments and international institutions over past decades have neglected SSA's rural and agricultural development. Policies such as structural adjustment programs that aimed to close budget gaps, created large human development deficits, especially among the poor, and skewed allocations of national revenue and foreign aid so that agriculture and nutrition were neglected. www.ncbi.nlm.gov

[xylophone]

...a Cartel of companies who already hold 2/3rds of global seed sales. Keep them out - once control is gained the prices are theirs to demand. "Monsanto has secured a monopoly control over the U.S. seed market."

Can you be a bit more clear here: control of what? Control of the seed market? What's to stop farmers from going back to traditional non-GM seeds?

Seeds are a fungible commodity, and all of these things are at the mercy of market forces. If Monsanto seeds are too expensive, buy something cheaper.

Quote attrayant: "What's to stop farmers from going back to traditional non-GM seeds? and "If Monsanto seeds are too expensive, buy something cheaper".

I really can't believe that you have said that. It really does show supreme naivete as to how the Monsanto model works and how crops affected by GM crops will ensure that Monsanto has control.

Sure Monsanto will say that it won't always sue farmers whose crops have inadvertently been contaminated with their GM versions, however once other plants have been contaminated, then eventually Monsanto will have control over what is planted and where.

And here is the thing..........once GMOs are in the food chain it is not simply a case of "changing to other seeds/withdrawing them" because it will be far too late. It's not like the faulty drugs I mentioned earlier on, even though these had undergone hundreds if not thousands of trials and had been issued to many millions of people over a decade and more, whereby they can simply be withdrawn – – end of story. Things will be changed forever, and if GM food (and animals fed it) turns out to have effects on the human body and even our own genes, then there is no hope.

This could be the single biggest mistake that humans ever make.

Quote from an "Holistic Primary Care" article (below), and this is not the only article suggesting that the human gut microbiome can be affected by glyphosate. Just as alarming is the fact that even in this relatively short space of time, weeds are becoming resistant to glyphosate, so they are undergoing changes to be able to survive, so was this not considered by Monsanto when they were testing the stuff, or is it an event which they had not foreseen, because if it is, then what else have they overlooked and if it was foreseen, why did they carry on??

Glyphosate & the Microbiome

Far more difficult to control is the microbial disruption caused by widespread growth of genetically modified crops. While there is still considerable debate over the direct impact of GM foods on human health, Dr. Perlmutter says the issue in this context is the increased use of herbicides that GM crops facilitate.

“By and large, what the crops are modified for is resistance to herbicides. The problem is that the weeds are becoming resistant—just like antibiotic overuse creating MRSA.”

Weeds have become resistant to Monsanto’s glyphosate (aka Roundup)—1.34 million metric tons of which will likely be spread all over the globe by 2017. The biotech industry has already produced glyphosate-resistant soy, corn, cotton, canola and sugar beets. Combined, glyphosate- resistant crops represent 80% of all GM crops planted worldwide, and use of this 1970s era herbicide shows no sign of slowing.

As an herbicide, glyphosate works by inhibiting a key step in the Shimitake pathway, a 7-step biochemical process through which plants and bacteria convert carbohydrates to aromatic amino acids. While the herbicide doesn’t directly damage human tissues, it does affect many beneficial organisms in the gut.

Exposure to glyphosate inhibits microbial production of tyrosine, tryptophan, and methionine—key building blocks for neurotransmitters. The gut is a major reservoir of key neurotransmitters like serotonin. So while not directly toxic to humans, this herbicide may be indirectly detrimental via its effects on the human microbiome.

Dr. Perlmutter added that glyphosate residues in food also impair cytochrome p450 enzymes, compromise vitamin D3 activation, and chelate iron, cobalt and other trace minerals.

Just as alarming.........

European studies show that people in 18 countries have glyphosate in their bodies.

- people living near Argentina’s vast plantations of genetically modified soy are seeing birth defects and rates of miscarriage 100 times the national average.

- inert ingredients in the most popular formulation of glyphosate have been found to NOT be inert and to in fact amplify toxicity.

- glyphosate wreaks havoc on possibly the most important life form on the planet, the bacteria which colonize our guts. While mammals don’t have the pathways to take glyphosates directly into our systems, our gut bacteria DO, and it is postulated that this may be one of the causes for increased instances of Celiac’s Disease, food allergies, and other chronic diseases and syndromes.

[xylophone]

READ THIS AND WEEP.

WE ARE TRUSTING THIS COMPANY WITH OUR FUTURE……..READ THIS AND BE VERY AFRAID.

In the past Monsanto made this mistake in the production of a herbicide.

TCDD (a dioxin) has been described as "perhaps the most toxic molecule ever synthesized by man".(Galston 1979,^[13] cited in ^[14]) Internal memoranda revealed that Monsanto (a major manufacturer of 2,4,5-T) had informed the U.S. government in 1952 that its 2,4,5-T was contaminated with TCDD.

A terrible record of pollution and mistakes.

The success of Roundup coincided with the recognition by Monsanto executives that they needed to radically transform a company increasingly under threat. According to a recent paper by Dominic Glover, “Monsanto had acquired a particularly unenviable reputation in this regard, as a major producer of both dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) – both persistent environmental pollutants posing serious risks to the environment and human health. Law suits and environmental clean-up costs began to cut into Monsanto's bottom line, but more seriously there was a real fear that a serious lapse could potentially bankrupt the company.”

Hundreds of millions paid out for pollution lawsuits

Such a fear was not misplaced. By the 1980s Monsanto was being hit by a series of lawsuits. It was one of the companies named in 1987 in a $180 million settlement for Vietnam War veterans exposed to Agent Orange. In 1991 Monsanto was fined $1.2 million for trying to conceal the discharge of contaminated waste water. In 1995 Monsanto was ordered to pay $41.1 million to a waste management company in Texas due to concerns over hazardous waste dumping. That same year Monsanto was ranked fifth among U.S. corporations in EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory, having discharged 37 million pounds of toxic chemicals into the air, land, water and underground. In 1997 The Seattle Times reported that Monsanto sold 6,000 tons of contaminated waste to Idaho fertilizer companies, which contained the carcinogenic heavy metal cadmium.

Then in 2002 the Washington Post ran an article entitled, “Monsanto Hid Decades of Pollution, PCBs Drenched Ala. Town, But No One Was Ever Told”. Monsanto began production of polychlorinated biphenyls in the United States in 1929. PCBs were considered an industrial wonder chemical – an oil that would not burn, was impervious to degradation and had almost limitless applications. Today PCBs are considered one of the gravest chemical threats on the planet.

Produced deadly PCBs for over 50 years

Monsanto produced PCBs for over 50 years and they are now virtually omnipresent in the blood and tissues of humans and wildlife around the globe. These days PCBs are banned from production and some experts say there should be no acceptable level of PCBs allowed in the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says, “PCB has been demonstrated to cause cancer, as well as a variety of other adverse health effects on the immune system, reproductive system, nervous system and endocrine system.” But the evidence of widespread contamination from PCBs and related chemicals has been accumulating from 1965 onwards and internal company papers show that Monsanto knew about the PCB dangers from early on. For instance, toxicity tests on the effects of two PCBs in 1953 showed that more than 50% of the rats subjected to them died, and all of them showed damage.

With experts at the company in no doubt that Monsanto's PCBs were responsible for contamination, in 1968 the company set up a committee to assess its options. In a paper distributed to only 12 people but which surfaced at the trial in 2002, Monsanto admitted “that the evidence proving the persistence of these compounds and their universal presence as residues in the environment is beyond question ... the public and legal pressures to eliminate them to prevent global contamination are inevitable”. Monsanto papers seen by The Guardian newspaper reveal near panic. “The subject is snowballing. Where do we go from here? The alternatives: go out of business sell the hell out of them as long as we can and do nothing else try to stay in business have alternative products”, wrote the recipient of one paper. In 1969 the company wrote a confidential Pollution Abatement Plan which admitted that “the problem involves the entire United States, Canada and sections of Europe, especially the UK and Sweden”.

The problem was particularly severe in the town of Anniston in Alabama where discharges from the local Monsanto plant meant residents developed PCB levels hundreds or thousands of times the average. As The Washington Post reported, “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.”

Covering up the truth

Ken Cook of the Environmental Working Group says that based on the Monsanto documents made public, the company “knew the truth from the very beginning. They lied about it. They hid the truth from their neighbors.” One Monsanto memo explains their justification: “We can't afford to lose one dollar of business.” Eventually the company was found guilty of conduct “so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society”.

Monsanto's biotech seeds and traits (including those licensed to other companies) accounted for almost 90% of the total world area devoted to GM seeds by 2007. Today, over 80% of the worldwide area devoted to GM crops carries at least one genetic trait for herbicide tolerance. Herbicides account for about one-third of the global pesticide market. Monsanto's glyphosate-resistant (Roundup Ready) seeds have reigned supreme on the biotech scene for over a decade – creating a near-monopoly for the company's Roundup herbicide – which is now off patent. Roundup is the world's biggest selling pesticide and it has helped make Monsanto the world's fifth largest agrochemical company.

Virtual monopoly drives up prices

This concentration of corporate power drives up costs for farmers and consumers. Retail prices for Roundup have increased from just $32 per gallon in December 2006 to $45 per gallon a year later, to $75 per gallon by June 2008 – a 134% price hike in less than two years. Because gene technologies can be patented, they also concentrate corporate power – by 2000 five pesticide companies, including Monsanto, controlled over 70% of all patents on agricultural biotechnology. And this concentration again drives up costs. According to Keith Mudd of the U.S.-based Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM), “The lack of competition and innovation in the marketplace has reduced farmers’ choices and enabled Monsanto to raise prices unencumbered.”

At a July 2008 meeting, Monsanto officials announced plans to raise the average price of some of the company's GM maize (corn) varieties a whopping 35 percent, by $95-100 per bag, to top $300 per bag. Fred Stokes of OCM describes the implications for farmers: “A $100 price increase is a tremendous drain on rural America. Let's say a farmer in Iowa who farms 1,000 acres plants one of these expensive corn varieties next year. The gross increased cost is more than $40,000. Yet there's no scientific basis to justify this price hike. How can we let companies get away with this?” What holds good for maize, also holds good for other GM crops. The average price for soybean seed, the largest GM crop in the US, has risen by more than 50% in just two years from 2006 to 2008 – from $32.30 to $49.23 per planted acre.

Remember that Monsanto was described as..........“so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society”.

Yet we are trusting Monsanto with our future despite it clearly showing that it has no morals, does not care about the environment or the amount of damage to crops and humans and will willing falsify documents to back its case. It is all about the money.

[DaffyDuck]

The only weeping I'm doing is from laughing so hard. At you.

[xylophone]

The only weeping I'm doing is from laughing so hard. At you.

Oh dear, I don’t suppose you can see the irony of your comment……you tell me to “open my eyes”, whilst you close yours to the appalling history of the company you support.

In case the tears are clouding your view, I have noted a few details for your perusal. Please try to read and then tell me what parts you don't understand.

In 1991 Monsanto was fined $1.2 million for trying to conceal the discharge of contaminated waste water. In 1995 Monsanto was ordered to pay $41.1 million to a waste management company in Texas due to concerns over hazardous waste dumping. That same year Monsanto was ranked fifth among U.S. corporations in EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory, having discharged 37 million pounds of toxic chemicals into the air, land, water and underground.

But the evidence of widespread contamination from PCBs and related chemicals has been accumulating from 1965 onwards and internal company papers show that Monsanto knew about the PCB dangers from early on. For instance, toxicity tests on the effects of two PCBs in 1953 showed that more than 50% of the rats subjected to them died, and all of them showed damage.

Monsanto admitted “that the evidence proving the persistence of these compounds and their universal presence as residues in the environment is beyond question ... the public and legal pressures to eliminate them to prevent global contamination are inevitable”.

…..discharges from the local Monsanto plant meant residents developed PCB levels hundreds or thousands of times the average. As The Washington Post reported, “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.”

One Monsanto memo explains their justification: “We can't afford to lose one dollar of business.” Eventually the company was found guilty of conduct “so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society”.

It’s all about the money. Open your eyes.

[xylophone]

Tut, tut, naughty Daffy……..ad hominem again!!

Please try and stay on subject Daffy and read and learn about a company which is at the forefront of GMOs.

Since you support GMO’s, by association you therefore “support” the companies which produce them and advocate their use (not too hard to understand surely?).

A quick recap would show that you stated that GMOs were necessary to feed the poor and starving of the world, whereas my post said there was enough food to go round and that corruption and poor distribution of wealth were the main causes of poverty and malnutrition, and this was backed up by reports from the UN and other reputable bodies (obviously you didn't like being proven wrong and mentioned something about goalposts).

I then post just some of the records relating to a company and their totally dishonest and disgraceful background with regards to damaging the environment on many occasions, and the fact that courts of law have found against them (and you reply ad hominem as seems to be your way).

Your response is extremely poor, nevertheless I will not comment as to my opinion on your personality or state of mind as I don't want to be dragged down to your level.

PS. Thank you for the free online psychological assessment, but don't give up your day job!

[DaffyDuck]

Since you support GMO’s, by association you therefore “support” the companies which produce them and advocate their use (not too hard

Factually and logically incorrect - albeit not surprising you feel that way, as you have shown to not care for either facts or logic.

[xylophone]

Since you support GMO’s, by association you therefore “support” the companies which produce them and advocate their use (not too hard

Factually and logically incorrect - albeit not surprising you feel that way, as you have shown to not care for either facts or logic.

Somewhat weak, but a "link" all the same............but no comment on the other points I notice!!

[DaffyDuck]

Why waste time commenting when you continue to be factually and logically incorrect, and biased to boot, while unwilling to consider other viewpoints.

In short - your points aren't worth responding to.

[attrayant]

READ THIS AND WEEP.

WE ARE TRUSTING THIS COMPANY WITH OUR FUTURE……..READ THIS AND BE VERY AFRAID.

It's statements like this that put me off coming back to this thread. And all caps too, that's the icing on the cake. Why not "read this and tell me what you think" or "Read this and come to your own conclusion"? No - you have to immediately poison the well by letting us know we're about to read something that's Stephen King scary. And just in case we don't embrace your fear after we read it, you're prepared to follow up with dramatic judgments about the reader's inferior level of understanding or sophistication:

I really can't believe that you have said that. It really does show supreme naivete...

When you don't have anything of substance to say, flood the thread with appeals to emotion and scare tactics.

And as I scan over recent posts, I don't really see anything of substance worth responding to. Just a lot of mud slinging and scary 'what ifs':

Monsanto pollutes. Fine - so do paper mills and other manufacturing plants. Go after them for it. Hit them with the full force of the EPA or whatever regulatory force is responsible for overseeing such things. But what does that have to do with the future of GMO crops around the world?

Monsanto is an evil force bent on world domination! Just like Microsoft and Google have done. Oh wait, they haven't. All those pesky regulatory bodies (both at home and abroad) are keeping them in check.

Farmers will be slaves to Monsanto, who will (some day) hold rights to the only available seed supply! Sure, just like has already happened to farmers of seedless grapes or bananas, who are slaves to their seed suppliers. Oh wait, no that hasn't happened.

Monsanto sues farmers into the poor house (e.g. Monsanto v. Schmeisser)! Yeah... no that didn't happen. Will it happen in the future? Perhaps, if some farmer violates the license they agree to when they buy the seed. But so far, not so much.

And so many other points of minutiae that I am not about to waste a Sunday typing up responses. If I've missed anything concrete - that has solid evidence behind it, then point it out. But don't waste your time prognosticating agricultural armageddon, because nobody can see the future. Unless you've got some precedent to support your hypothesis, it remains nothing more than a scary 'what if' story.

If you've got a problem with polluting or patent enforcement, then you need to tighten up that legislation.

From an earlier post:

These seed companies are even working on including "terminator" genes to prevent germination of seeds in successive crops. Seed would then ONLY be available by buying again from one of these companies. Farmers would have no choice... once plant varietal diversity is sufficiently lost.

Again, seedless grapes, watermelons, bananas, pineapples, oranges, tangerines and most hybrid seeds which are sterile. Why are these farmers not slave to their seed providers?

Anyway, I thought we were supposed to be "very afraid" of Monsanto suing the pants off farmers who are innocent victims of seed blowing into their fields. Seems like terminator seeds would be the solution to that (if they existed).

Regarding the "tree of dwindling agrodiversity" infographic, which is prefaced with the sad-sounding phrase "Much diversity has already been lost". I couldn't find a source for the graphic, but doing a reverse image search seems to point to this NatGeo page. And I know that you're not trying to lay the entire loss of biodiversity problem at Monsanto's feet. According to the NatGeo article, apple varieties have been dwindling since the 1800s. Thanks to Monsanto? Of course not, but that's exactly what readers who do nothing more than look at that graphic are likely to walk away thinking. Could it just be possible that there's no room in the market for 7000 different kinds of apples, and that market forces drove them into insignificance?

Look, I understand the argument for biodiversity - it's a hedge against potential disease and climate change. Reliance on "generic" crops is partly to blame for the Irish Potato Famine in the mid-1800s and Mexican Wheat Famine in the mid-1900s. By the way - how was the wheat stem rust problem resolved? Through genetic modification!

Neither farmers nor seed providers are altogether ignorant of the problem. To ignore history's lessons would be shooting one's self in the foot. Do you think that you and I are the only ones who've seen this problem? I don't think Monsanto is that stupid. Suggesting that Monsanto is an enemy to biodiversity is really missing the big picture of what they do - they go out of their way to look for diverse traits in different breeds in order to mix them. Without that biodiversity, their GMO business would soon be extinct.

[attrayant]

I wanted to isolate this because I tried to get a response earlier in the thread, but no takers.

...there was enough food to go round and that corruption and poor distribution of wealth were the main causes of poverty and malnutrition...

So what's your solution to the problems of corruption and wealth distribution? Embargoes? Sanctions? Let's put your solutions to those problems on the table along with the GMO crops solution and see which is more viable.

Although I would point out that this is simply a false dilemma - the solution doesn't have to be one or the other. Why not move forward with GMO crops while at the same time trying to relieve pressures of corruption and wealth distribution? In short, why can't we do both?

[xylophone]

Why waste time commenting when you continue to be factually and logically incorrect, and biased to boot, while unwilling to consider other viewpoints.

In short - your points aren't worth responding to.

You wanted facts so here they are. But of course if the facts don't suit your view, you resort to personal attacks.

1). Monsanto Fined $700 Million for Poisoning People with PCBs (2003)

2). The US agrochemical giant Monsanto has agreed to pay a $1.5m (£799,000) fine for bribing an Indonesian official. Monsanto admitted one of its employees paid the senior official two years ago in a bid to avoid environmental impact studies being conducted on its cotton. (2005)

3). The West Virginia State Supreme Court finalized a big blow to the biotech giant Monsanto this month, finishing a settlement causing Monsanto to pay $93 million to the tiny town of Nitro, West Virginia for poisoning citizens with Agent Orange chemicals.(2014)

4). Monsanto was fined $19,000 dollars in a French court on January 26th, 2007 for misleading the public about the environmental impact of its record selling herbicide Roundup.

5). On February 22 2002, Monsanto was found guilty of “negligence, wantonness, suppression of truth, nuisance, trespass, and outrage.”[

6). A French court on Monday declared U.S. biotech giant Monsanto guilty of chemical poisoning of a French farmer (2012)

7). Monsanto was found guilty of conduct, "so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society".

I would not trust this company one iota.

[attrayant]

Monsanto Fined $700 Million for Poisoning People with PCBs (2003)

Translation: Company did something bad decades ago and therefore is evil and can never be trusted again.

There are something like a thousand superfund sites in the US alone. Do we need to play connect-the-dots with the companies that contributed to them so we know which businesses not to trust ever again? If so, you've got a lot of work to do. The rest of your list is much the same - just random reasons to hate a company without explaining what that has to do with the good things that can come with GMO proliferation.

And for the record - no I am not in favor of poisoning people with PCBs (because I know those words will be put in my mouth in a subsequent post). But I am in favor of genetic modification of crops, alongside of traditional genetic hybridization and mutation farming. Just because I like the latter does not mean I must also like the former. Once again you're trying to frame this as a purely black and white issue. You must either love or hate Monsanto - choose your side! Sorry but those aren't the only options. Watch them closely and fine the bejesus out of them for environmental abuses, but at the same time allow GMO research to move forward.

[xylophone]

READ THIS AND WEEP.

WE ARE TRUSTING THIS COMPANY WITH OUR FUTURE……..READ THIS AND BE VERY AFRAID.

It's statements like this that put me off coming back to this thread. And all caps too, that's the icing on the cake. Why not "read this and tell me what you think" or "Read this and come to your own conclusion"? No - you have to immediately poison the well by letting us know we're about to read something that's Stephen King scary. And just in case we don't embrace your fear after we read it, you're prepared to follow up with dramatic judgments about the reader's inferior level of understanding or sophistication:

I really can't believe that you have said that. It really does show supreme naivete...

When you don't have anything of substance to say, flood the thread with appeals to emotion and scare tactics.

And as I scan over recent posts, I don't really see anything of substance worth responding to. Just a lot of mud slinging and scary 'what ifs':

Monsanto pollutes. Fine - so do paper mills and other manufacturing plants. Go after them for it. Hit them with the full force of the EPA or whatever regulatory force is responsible for overseeing such things. But what does that have to do with the future of GMO crops around the world?

Monsanto is an evil force bent on world domination! Just like Microsoft and Google have done. Oh wait, they haven't. All those pesky regulatory bodies (both at home and abroad) are keeping them in check.

Farmers will be slaves to Monsanto, who will (some day) hold rights to the only available seed supply! Sure, just like has already happened to farmers of seedless grapes or bananas, who are slaves to their seed suppliers. Oh wait, no that hasn't happened.

Monsanto sues farmers into the poor house (e.g. Monsanto v. Schmeisser)! Yeah... no that didn't happen. Will it happen in the future? Perhaps, if some farmer violates the license they agree to when they buy the seed. But so far, not so much.

And so many other points of minutiae that I am not about to waste a Sunday typing up responses. If I've missed anything concrete - that has solid evidence behind it, then point it out. But don't waste your time prognosticating agricultural armageddon, because nobody can see the future. Unless you've got some precedent to support your hypothesis, it remains nothing more than a scary 'what if' story.

If you've got a problem with polluting or patent enforcement, then you need to tighten up that legislation.

From an earlier post:

These seed companies are even working on including "terminator" genes to prevent germination of seeds in successive crops. Seed would then ONLY be available by buying again from one of these companies. Farmers would have no choice... once plant varietal diversity is sufficiently lost.

Again, seedless grapes, watermelons, bananas, pineapples, oranges, tangerines and most hybrid seeds which are sterile. Why are these farmers not slave to their seed providers?

Anyway, I thought we were supposed to be "very afraid" of Monsanto suing the pants off farmers who are innocent victims of seed blowing into their fields. Seems like terminator seeds would be the solution to that (if they existed).

Regarding the "tree of dwindling agrodiversity" infographic, which is prefaced with the sad-sounding phrase "Much diversity has already been lost". I couldn't find a source for the graphic, but doing a reverse image search seems to point to this NatGeo page. And I know that you're not trying to lay the entire loss of biodiversity problem at Monsanto's feet. According to the NatGeo article, apple varieties have been dwindling since the 1800s. Thanks to Monsanto? Of course not, but that's exactly what readers who do nothing more than look at that graphic are likely to walk away thinking. Could it just be possible that there's no room in the market for 7000 different kinds of apples, and that market forces drove them into insignificance?

Look, I understand the argument for biodiversity - it's a hedge against potential disease and climate change. Reliance on "generic" crops is partly to blame for the Irish Potato Famine in the mid-1800s and Mexican Wheat Famine in the mid-1900s. By the way - how was the wheat stem rust problem resolved? Through genetic modification!

Neither farmers nor seed providers are altogether ignorant of the problem. To ignore history's lessons would be shooting one's self in the foot. Do you think that you and I are the only ones who've seen this problem? I don't think Monsanto is that stupid. Suggesting that Monsanto is an enemy to biodiversity is really missing the big picture of what they do - they go out of their way to look for diverse traits in different breeds in order to mix them. Without that biodiversity, their GMO business would soon be extinct.

First of all, let me say that I have enjoyed reading your posts and I think you have a great deal of knowledge on the subject and you are passionate about it, which I admire. You also attempt to explain your reasoning and you do so very well.

You did say one thing that on the one hand I will apologise for (my statement regarding you being naive) yet on the other I will point out that "dramatic judgements" were started by others, including you, in advance of my "naive" statement, namely:-

"The other common factor is usually total ignorance of the actual sciences involved, replaced with fearful arm waving" (Daffy Duck Nov 30^th)

"It's only irrelevant because of your tunnel vision" (attrayant Dec 1^st)

"Always remember when you make your tinfoil hat, shiny side out" (attrayant Nov 30^th)

"ROTFLOL. Damn, this is better than a sitcom. Here, have a tinfoil hat" (Daffy Duck Dec 1^st)

"Obviously, people like Seastallion need serious professional help" (Daffy Duck Dec 1^st)

"I guess seeing past an exclusively black/white world composed of only two extreme sides isn't really an option for you? (all part of the pathology of your psychological disorder, in fact)" (Daffy Duck Dec 6^th).

So as you can see, quite possibly more guilt can be attributed to both you and Daffy Duck on this.

As for your Monsanto quote regarding the fact that they go out of their way to look for diverse traits in different breeds in order to mix them, well if that is all they were doing, then there certainly would not be an outcry against the company. However you and I know that this is not actually the case because breeders of such things as wheat have been looking for those diverse traits for centuries and have been ensuring that the strains have been cross fertilised and bred to produce the final crop.

Monsanto have altered the genetic make up of a plant to function in a different way so as to ensure that it can withstand spraying by a herbicide, even though the plant "ingests" some of the spray which then can find its way into the human body, and that is not anywhere close to what plant breeders have been doing for centuries,

[xylophone]

Monsanto Fined $700 Million for Poisoning People with PCBs (2003)

Translation: Company did something bad decades ago and therefore is evil and can never be trusted again.

There are something like a thousand superfund sites in the US alone. Do we need to play connect-the-dots with the companies that contributed to them so we know which businesses not to trust ever again? If so, you've got a lot of work to do. The rest of your list is much the same - just random reasons to hate a company without explaining what that has to do with the good things that can come with GMO proliferation.

And for the record - no I am not in favor of poisoning people with PCBs (because I know those words will be put in my mouth in a subsequent post). But I am in favor of genetic modification of crops, alongside of traditional genetic hybridization and mutation farming. Just because I like the latter does not mean I must also like the former. Once again you're trying to frame this as a purely black and white issue. You must either love or hate Monsanto - choose your side! Sorry but those aren't the only options. Watch them closely and fine the bejesus out of them for environmental abuses, but at the same time allow GMO research to move forward.

No the translation is not, "company did something bad decades ago and therefore is evil and can never be trusted again".

The translation is: "this company has consistently poisoned people, crops and land over decades and has consistently lied about its involvement, and whose internal memos show that the main driver of their business is money and they will go to any lengths to protect it. And accordingly they have been fined in different courts of law in different countries, and have been found guilty in a court of law in the USA, "of conduct so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society".

That to me shows a company and culture that is not to be trusted.

[xylophone]

I wanted to isolate this because I tried to get a response earlier in the thread, but no takers.

...there was enough food to go round and that corruption and poor distribution of wealth were the main causes of poverty and malnutrition...

So what's your solution to the problems of corruption and wealth distribution? Embargoes? Sanctions? Let's put your solutions to those problems on the table along with the GMO crops solution and see which is more viable.

Although I would point out that this is simply a false dilemma - the solution doesn't have to be one or the other. Why not move forward with GMO crops while at the same time trying to relieve pressures of corruption and wealth distribution? In short, why can't we do both?

I did not see this in an earlier post, however I will attempt a reply.

I don't think you will ever be able to successfully stop third world countries with very little in the way of structure/rule of law/freedom of speech/add whatever you like, from corruption and unequal wealth distribution.

Even if third world countries have ties to the first world via governments/large companies etc, corruption is very evident and wealth is held by a few. Witness Zimbabwe which was once labelled the "food basket of Africa" which is now a basket case because of corruption.

If this is the case, and I agree I am playing the "what if" card, what is to stop any company doing business with one of these countries and finding that its patents or whatever it holds on such things as seeds are then seized by the government which then holds the farmers to ransom?

This really is a separate case from GMO and even if we agreed that GM foods were the way to go, I'm not sure that it would help the poor folk in these countries, one iota.

From my perspective I look at India which has hundreds of millions of its population on or below the poverty line, where extreme wealth is evident, as is corruption, and the fact that they have spent millions upon millions of dollars acquiring jet fighters, the latest armaments and a nuclear deterrent.

It just does not make any sense to me.

[attrayant]

Tunnel vision is not a personal attack, it's merely a term coined to refer to somebody who prefers to focus on a single point when far-reaching, broad issues are being discussed. As for the tinfoil hat remark, well look at the post I was referring to. I know it's probably best just to ignore posts like that, which border in being unhinged (look there I go again) but every once in a while you have to call a nut a nut.

As for your Monsanto quote regarding the fact that they go out of their way to look for diverse traits in different breeds in order to mix them, well if that is all they were doing, then there certainly would not be an outcry against the company.

I disagree. There will continue to be a broad base of fear and resistance to things as long as there are 'celebrity scientists' (Food Babe, et al.) who continue to promote scare campaigns and peddle ignorance. The fact that scientific illiteracy is popular does not mean it's justified.

[attrayant]

From my perspective I look at India which has hundreds of millions of its population on or below the poverty line, where extreme wealth is evident, as is corruption, and the fact that they have spent millions upon millions of dollars acquiring jet fighters, the latest armaments and a nuclear deterrent.

Good things can happen alongside the bad things:

Bt cotton boosted average income of Indian farmers by 575%

Cultivation of hybrid Bt cotton seeds, which began in 2002-03, has seen the average income of farmers increasing by almost 575% with average net returns at Rs 64,113.96 per hectare and per hectare value of production has gone up by 79.45% per cent across Andhra Pradesh, even as pesticide consumption has declined to 0.15kg per hectare in post Bt cotton period of 2002-09 from 0.42kg per hectare in pre-Bt cotton period of 1996-2000, said the study.

Link to the study

[DaffyDuck]

The translation is: "this company has consistently poisoned people, crops and land over decades

An assertion that you consistently fail to support or prove. Instead, what we get from you, consistently, are hyperbole, sensationalist, lies and FUD.

All you do, consistently, is peddle fear, and sow ignorance.

[xylophone]

The translation is: "this company has consistently poisoned people, crops and land over decades

An assertion that you consistently fail to support or prove. Instead, what we get from you, consistently, are hyperbole, sensationalist, lies and FUD.

All you do, consistently, is peddle fear, and sow ignorance.

There you go Daffy..........support and proof. Next please.

Monsanto found guilty of chemical poisoning.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/02/13/france-pesticides-monsanto-idINDEE81C0FQ20120213

Monsanto Fined $1.5 Million for Bribing Over 140 Indonesian Officials. This to circumvent testing.

SOURCE: Agence France Press / IAfrica, South Africa DATE: 7 Jan 2005

www.business.iafrica.com

Monsanto Ordered to Pay $93 Million to Small Town for Poisoning Citizens. The court found Monsanto guilty "of conduct so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society".

http://wvmetronews.com/2014/07/10/monsanto-settlement-claims-office-opens-in-nitro/

Monsanto settles $700 Million Settlement in Alabama PCB Lawsuit. The New York Times [internet]. [cited 2008 Oct 14]; 2003 Aug 21;Sect. Business. Available from:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F03E5DC1F30F932A1575BC0A9659C8B63

[xylophone]

Tunnel vision is not a personal attack, it's merely a term coined to refer to somebody who prefers to focus on a single point when far-reaching, broad issues are being discussed. As for the tinfoil hat remark, well look at the post I was referring to. I know it's probably best just to ignore posts like that, which border in being unhinged (look there I go again) but every once in a while you have to call a nut a nut.

As for your Monsanto quote regarding the fact that they go out of their way to look for diverse traits in different breeds in order to mix them, well if that is all they were doing, then there certainly would not be an outcry against the company.

I disagree. There will continue to be a broad base of fear and resistance to things as long as there are 'celebrity scientists' (Food Babe, et al.) who continue to promote scare campaigns and peddle ignorance. The fact that scientific illiteracy is popular does not mean it's justified.

"Tunnel vision is not a personal attack".

Well we will have to agree to disagree on that, because accusing someone of having "tunnel vision" can be construed as an insult in as much as, "tunnel vision is a common occurrence among people who suffer from personality disorders and has been referred to as a “psychological condition”. As for calling someone "a nut"........?

I know for a fact that if I had accused someone In my division of having "tunnel vision" then the HR department would have been down on me like a ton of bricks, irrespective of the fact that I started and ran the $2 billion unit and it was one of the most successful in the country.

You may well be right that there will continue to be a broad base of fear and resistance to things "unknown/different" however as I said in my previous post if Monsanto were purely responsible for breeding new strains of plants/foods, then I doubt if there would be that fear, but, "Monsanto have altered the genetic make up of a plant to function in a different way so as to ensure that it can withstand spraying by a herbicide, even though the plant "ingests" some of the spray which then can find its way into the human body, and that is not anywhere close to what plant breeders have been doing for centuries"

And Monsanto has an extremely poor record of lying, cover-ups and disregard for the safety of human beings, as proven in my links above provided to Daffy.

[attrayant]

Due in part to that public fear/ignorance of the unknown, we have only been able to benefit from the current short list of sever or eight GM crops. Farmers might like that their crops are 20% more robust or that they can use half as much herbicides with GMO crops, but those aren't really tangible benefits that consumers can feel.

There are some potentially promising crops on the horizon, including a slow-browning apple and the new Simplot potato, which makes less acrylamide (a suspected carcinogen) than a non-GMO potato does when it's deep-fried. That'll be an interesting new choice for consumers to make: do you want the new GMO french fries, or the "natural" non-GMO ones that are more likely to cause cancer? Unfortunately, McDonald's isn't quite ready to embrace the Simplot for its french fries just yet, and I can't say that I blame them. Companies live and die by public perception, no matter how flawed it might be.

Hopefully the Simplot doesn't go the way of the Flavor Saver tomato.

[attrayant]

And Monsanto has an extremely poor record of lying, cover-ups and disregard for the safety of human beings, as proven in my links above provided to Daffy.

I tried (in vain, I suppose) to preempt this lingering discussion point with my post #26, where I said:

While Monsanto's business practices may be ethically questionable, they are not the only company involved in GMO research. Many non-profit organizations and academic institutions are involved in this field. You can disagree with Monsanto all you like but that should not muddy a strictly technical or scientific discussion of GMOs. If you have a problem with Monsanto, have a problem with Monsanto. Don't extend that grudge to every application of GMOs.

Would you like Monsanto to go away and some other company to spring up in its place? Do we choose the devil we know or the devil we don't know? Well we can't snap our fingers and make Monsanto go away. I saw we continue to encourage responsible GMO research and keep a close watch on them.

[xylophone]

Good post attrayant and I agree that Monsanto's business practices have been unethical in the past, so I'm not sure that I would trust them in the future.

I am all for selective breeding in plants, however I for one, and I suspect this is the reason why there is a backlash, do not want a plant to be altered so that it can be sprayed with a chemical (glyphosate) which may be able to find its way into my body. Already there are "warning bells" relating to research being carried out as to how this chemical may affect human gut bacteria.

In addition, Monsanto's practices have resulted in super weeds.......... did they foresee this? If they didn't then surely that is poor research on their behalf, but if they did, then why did they go ahead with glyphosate in the first place. Next to produce a genetically altered weed? Where does this stop?

I fear that we have not learned from history and that once something like this is changed, it is changed forever.

Dioxin/PCBs/TCDDs were heralded as the new chemicals which could change the future for mankind, and all was considered well with them. That was until health problems were established and in 1979 the EPA banned the manufacture of products containing PCBs.

In 2001 the Stockholm Convention listed its "dirty dozen" chemicals which included PCBs. Unfortunately these have found their way into marine life and human beings, sometimes with fatal results.

I mentioned a drug earlier on, Actos (Released in 1999) which had undergone all the necessary clinical trials, double-blind trials, phase 1/2/3 and whatever else is necessary to get a drug to market, Only for it to be banned in 2011 in France and Germany, because of a substantial increase in the risk of heart failure and bladder cancer for people taking this drug.

We are not infallible and even the best research and oversight can fail.

I guess you and I will have to disagree on what we believe, and I have no problem with that, after all that's what healthy discussion is about (please take note Daffy).