Gmo

[Drolefille]

The World According to Monsanto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not a lot of detail although I found this criticism: The film claims that GMO use has increased suicide rates of farmers in India. However, research by IFPRI has shown that this is not the case.

I did look into the IFPRI and it looks like their stats are used by both pro/anti GMO/agribusiness/western/etc. groups

Anyway, I mean, OK it's an anti-Monsanto film, but what's the data? Is it valid? Is it just describing experiences which can be absolutely true and yet also non-representative. And even if I turn around and hate Monsanto tomorrow, that doesn't really change my opinion on GM foods, just on the guy making some of them.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Not a lot of detail although I found this criticism: The film claims that GMO use has increased suicide rates of farmers in India. However, research by IFPRI has shown that this is not the case.

I did look into the IFPRI and it looks like their stats are used by both pro/anti GMO/agribusiness/western/etc. groups

Anyway, I mean, OK it's an anti-Monsanto film, but what's the data? Is it valid? Is it just describing experiences which can be absolutely true and yet also non-representative. And even if I turn around and hate Monsanto tomorrow, that doesn't really change my opinion on GM foods, just on the guy making some of them.

Monsanto in India - SourceWatch

If you're not ever going to take the time to watch a documentary, fine. There's no point in talking about it, then.

 

[Revoltingest]

The monoculture strains should have us all concerned. If a disease effects them, there is a potential for it to devastate a massive portion (I've heard up to 90%) of all crops in America.. It's really a game of Russian Roulette on a massive scale.

Aye, it reminds me of the Irish dependence upon not just the potato, but a single
not-too-hardy variety. One good strong blight, & there goes the whole farm economy.
I'd like to say that people are smarter now, but they'd quickly prove me wrong.

Btw, Monsanto got a winner by inventing glyphosate (heavy hitter in Roundup).
It lowers a groundskeper's & farmer's carbon footprint with efficient & safe
weed control. No til farming also reduces soil erosion.

 

[Drolefille]

Monsanto in India - SourceWatch

If you're not ever going to take the time to watch a documentary, fine. There's no point in talking about it, then.

I wonder why you responded then? A documentary isn't the final word in anything. Some are really good, some aren't, but all have an inherent bias. I'm not a GMO expert, and I'll probably never be one. I don't have the expertise to sift through the junk for the truth. I'll have to look into sourcewatch more, but it reads a bit like the "left" version of Conservapedia. I don't have the basic trust in it that I do in Wiki - studies show it's at least as accurate as an encyclopedia, and they have policies to maintain NPOV. But it does at least provide SOME data.

I'm not sitting here sharing biased opinions of why you should LOVE MONSANTO. Cause I don't love them, nor would I try to convince you to agree with me. I'm just sharing my opinions here:

GMOs on the whole are fine and the anti-GMO movement is off base by targeting GMOs and not corporations.

Corporations are primarily focused on making money. That isn't new or shocking.

I don't believe that in the current present/near future we're in danger of a food shortage due to lack of production ability - We have the food as a planet, we lack distribution of that food and even with climate change we have the arable land to continue to grow food - we would have to change what and how we grow, but that isn't something you can necessarily plan for, if you don't know how the land is going to change.

You actually have people trying to develop foods that are more nutritious. Golden rice is one, it combats Vitamin A deficiency a big problem in the world: Golden rice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They gave free patents to subsistence farmers, seeds are permitted to be replanted, and as long as you don't make a $10k profit on it, you don't pay a fee. Monsanto was in on that btw.

GM wheat is being tested to not just create resistance to herbicides - also to insects, fungi, viruses, drought, salinity, and heat. Also increased nutrition, yields, lysine, biofuel properties, glutenin (for bakers), etc.

Genetically modified crops - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So yeah, are there corporations acting in crappy ways? Yes. Are they also researching the very things people are concerned about? YES.

I'm unconvinced of the hazards of GMO crops, particularly foods. That skepticism is independent of Monsanto.

 

[Alceste]

His next crop was 95-98% GMO. That means he specifically saved THOSE seeds and knew that they weren't what he had planted in 97 to plant in 98.
He argued the trespass, he lost because he replanted those seeds.

He did exactly what farmers have been doing since the dawn of agriculture: he saved and replanted seeds from the plants that performed best in the conditions he wanted to grow them in. Whether you think he "should have known" this or that is irrelevant. He was doing exactly what he had done for his entire life - saving and replanting seeds.

Your argument seems to be that since Monsanto has recently talked legislators into agreeing that it OWNS a particular plant variety and is entitled to profit from it regardless of where it self-propagates, all the rest of the world must now play along with this brand new way of doing business. Even when a grower does not enter into a contract with them, finds it growing wild in his own fields, you think that grower is being somehow shifty if he does what gardeners and farmers have ALWAYS done, and cultivates that variety.

Ask yourself this, though - if Monsanto didn't want farmers doing what farmers do, saving and replanting seeds, with "their" patented plants, they could have engineered them to be sterile. Problem solved. Why do you suppose they didn't do that, and instead went sneaking through Percy Schmeiser's fields and peering at his crops in a lab to find out if they were legally entitled to extort money from him?

And that's fine, it's your opinion. There's something of a difference from being a gardener and a professional farmer. And the court disagrees with your opinion. (Also the corporation isn't so much inserting itself into YOUR business, you replaced all your crops with their seed without paying them... that isn't the same as your neighbor sharing her seedlings from you. )

For me though this case doesn't demonstrate that Monsanto's evil. Nor that GMOs are evil bad things.

Whether or not the court agrees with me is irrelevant. Even if they had found Schmeiser legally obligated to pay fees to Monsanto (which they didn't), it would only demonstrate that the patent law is wrong. Also oppressive, unrealistic and impractical. And I'll throw in unenforceable for good measure, given the blatant disregard self-propagating plants have for property lines.

If GMO producers want to nip this kind of "patent infringement" in the bud, all they need to do is engineer infertile plants. That way, every individual growing their "intellectual property" enters into a voluntary agreement with them, and is therefore obliged to abide by the terms and conditions.

This case would be like you finding a big box of computer games in your front yard, taking them inside, and then EA busting your door down and demanding you pay them full market price.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Whatever, Drolle. You have fun with your Wikipedia as the final word on everything.

 

[Alceste]

I'll have to look into sourcewatch more, but it reads a bit like the "left" version of Conservapedia.

Sourcewatch is the brainchild of John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, who have written several very entertaining and informative books on the subject of how the PR industry tricks us into buying their clients' physical and ideological crap.

It's a crowd-sourced wiki where one can check whether individuals and organizations commenting on various issues have significant financial ties to affected industry, which may introduce pro-industry bias into their commentary.

I find it useful, since the PR industry goes to great lengths to conceal how their stealth advertising (for example, fake grassroots movements, think tanks, "neutral" websites) is funded, and why.

Conservapedia, in contrast, is basically just lies, weak writing and bad jokes.

 

[Alceste]

Whatever, Drolle. You have fun with your Wikipedia as the final word on everything.

The irony is that one of the creators of Sourcewatch is also one of the creators of Wikipedia. I looked him up on Wikipedia. Funnily enough, his own entry there is very critical and badly written (by somebody else), and doesn't meet Wikipedia's editorial standards.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The irony is that one of the creators of Sourcewatch is also one of the creators of Wikipedia.

Lol. That's funny.

 

[Thief]

Citation? I'm genuinely curious.


Same, citation please?


For me though this case doesn't demonstrate that Monsanto's evil. Nor that GMOs are evil bad things.

I remember the interview as part of Food Inc.
A video that exposes the efforts of mass food producers.

It's not reassuring.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Maybe we need a Monsanto thread to give them the due criticism they deserve? Their history goes far beyond just farming, and includes polluting communities, false advertisement, Agent Orange, rBGH, child labor, and other atrocities committed by Monsanto.

 

[Drolefille]

He did exactly what farmers have been doing since the dawn of agriculture: he saved and replanted seeds from the plants that performed best in the conditions he wanted to grow them in. Whether you think he "should have known" this or that is irrelevant. He was doing exactly what he had done for his entire life - saving and replanting seeds.

I don't think he "should have known," the courts said he did know or if he somehow didn't he was negligent in not knowing. Negligence for things people should have known is a pretty standard thing. We charge parents with negligence even if they were uneducated.

Your argument seems to be that since Monsanto has recently talked legislators into agreeing that it OWNS a particular plant variety and is entitled to profit from it regardless of where it self-propagates, all the rest of the world must now play along with this brand new way of doing business. Even when a grower does not enter into a contract with them, finds it growing wild in his own fields, you think that grower is being somehow shifty if he does what gardeners and farmers have ALWAYS done, and cultivates that variety.

I didn't say he was shifty, actually. I don't think he is shifty. I think he tried to get the benefit of the crop without paying for it.

Ask yourself this, though - if Monsanto didn't want farmers doing what farmers do, saving and replanting seeds, with "their" patented plants, they could have engineered them to be sterile. Problem solved. Why do you suppose they didn't do that, and instead went sneaking through Percy Schmeiser's fields and peering at his crops in a lab to find out if they were legally entitled to extort money from him?

And people would complain about companies manufactoring sterility - I've seen that. It's a no win.

Whether or not the court agrees with me is irrelevant. Even if they had found Schmeiser legally obligated to pay fees to Monsanto (which they didn't), it would only demonstrate that the patent law is wrong. Also oppressive, unrealistic and impractical. And I'll throw in unenforceable for good measure, given the blatant disregard self-propagating plants have for property lines.

Seemed rather enforceable, actually. Again he was only not required to pay anything because he didn't make money on it. Which sounds like a really reasonable outcome. Disagreeing with it is perfectly valid, I'm describing the IS not the SHOULD BE.

If GMO producers want to nip this kind of "patent infringement" in the bud, all they need to do is engineer infertile plants. That way, every individual growing their "intellectual property" enters into a voluntary agreement with them, and is therefore obliged to abide by the terms and conditions.

Again, I've seen a TON of this

This case would be like you finding a big box of computer games in your front yard, taking them inside, and then EA busting your door down and demanding you pay them full market price.

That really doesn't work as an analogy, but if we try to stretch:
It's like a bunch of stolen computer games without product keys were left on my lawn - maybe they fell off a truck, and when I put them in and register, EA demands a product key - if you don't have one, you have to pay for one.
That's pretty much exactly how computer games work.

Whatever, Drolle. You have fun with your Wikipedia as the final word on everything.

That isn't what I said, and you're well aware of it. If you don't want to discuss with me because I disagree with you fine. I requested more information. Wiki is nothing more than a tool.

Sourcewatch is the brainchild of John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, who have written several very entertaining and informative books on the subject of how the PR industry tricks us into buying their clients' physical and ideological crap.

It's a crowd-sourced wiki where one can check whether individuals and organizations commenting on various issues have significant financial ties to affected industry, which may introduce pro-industry bias into their commentary.

I find it useful, since the PR industry goes to great lengths to conceal how their stealth advertising (for example, fake grassroots movements, think tanks, "neutral" websites) is funded, and why.

Conservapedia, in contrast, is basically just lies, weak writing and bad jokes.

Interesting, thanks for the information.

The irony is that one of the creators of Sourcewatch is also one of the creators of Wikipedia. I looked him up on Wikipedia. Funnily enough, his own entry there is very critical and badly written (by somebody else), and doesn't meet Wikipedia's editorial standards.

It should be written by someone else, it is ironic that it isn't up to standards.

I remember the interview as part of Food Inc.
A video that exposes the efforts of mass food producers.

It's not reassuring.

Ok, if you have anything written I'd be interested.

 

[ShivaFan]

I am not sure if I am qualified to form a final opinion on GMOs, and despite that I was told by "internet members" claiming that most "locals" (e.g. Hawaiians, e.g. those who are not "newcomers" to the islands such as hippy types) OPPOSE GMOs, I found exactly the opposite while I was in Hawaii and conversing with true locals, Hawaiians and those who have been there for generations at least those I spoke to SUPPORTED GMOs so I tend to trust them more than the white guy who came to the island after college but couldn't get a "real job" and who was preaching against GMOs.

However ...

I read some list of cancer causing foods and this list had GMOs on the top 20. As in other like lists, those fast food popcorn snacks are deadly, but I am not so sure about these lists. Maybe there are folks who eat that crap, not me. But I suspect these lists overall as probably agenda based to sell health food.

In my opinionl ANY FOOD that is heavily treated by PESTICIDES is the cause, not GMOs specifically, so I wait on the true long term scientific study on this, such as coming from U.C. Davis and not "health food" extremists. Once we get real data, then perhaps it will be more clear, not suspect "studies" mixing in foods treated by pesticides but also happen to be GMO as "proof" of something.

Chemicals in society, and the imbalances they can cause in the human body, brain and ecosystem is a prime suspect to me, including the cause of some (if not many) mental illness. Pesticides may be a cause, no doubt. Then again, if you cut off these pesticides, fertilizers and chemicals, there will be large parts of the world who are borderline and would be facing cycles of famine and starvation. So you die now from famine, or die in your 70s from cancers. Your choice (well in many parts of the world there is no choice, look what the eradication of DDT has done, millions are now dead from malaria).

There are no good answers.

I don't care what the propagandists say, there is no question to me the number one polluter is Communist government of China. And when "scientists" mess with heavy things like genetics and "modifying" things, folks hope they know what they are doing, but worry about Frankenstein. But if this is indeed "dangerous" in my prediction it is going to be the Reds in China messing with this stuff who will mess it up and create a monster turnip that spreads a vicious morph of anthrax that grows and spreads in the soil and then into the gut of blood sucking migit bugs.

I will reserve my judgement however at this time.

 

[icehorse]

ShivaFan:

There are no good answers.

I completely disagree. As just one example, permaculturists can produce astounding amounts of food with small acreage, no pesticides and normal amounts of water. The thing is that Big-Agri-Biz can't profit from local permaculturists so they do everything to discourage such farming practices. The truth is that in the long run pesticides DO NOT cut costs or improve yields. Those "positive" effects don't last long.

Here's the first of many links:Permaculture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Drolefille:

It's like a bunch of stolen computer games without product keys were left on my lawn - maybe they fell off a truck, and when I put them in and register, EA demands a product key - if you don't have one, you have to pay for one.

No, it's more like EA snuck into your house, inserted one of their games into your Xbox, glued the Xbox shut, and then demanded payment.

 

[Drolefille]

Drolefille:

No, it's more like EA snuck into your house, inserted one of their games into your Xbox, glued the Xbox shut, and then demanded payment.

Not really no. They didn't put a gun to his head and make him plant it nor did they plant it for him. and we can argue intent back and forth - I have a hard time buying it was an accident that from ALL his saved seed he managed to plan primarily RR stuff - but he did act - bringing in stuff left on the driveway is comparable. A product key is very similar to a fee for use of intellectual property. Even if I buy the disc, if i don't buy the key I got nothin. EA is in fact disliked for this practice, they're complained about fairly widely among gamers for it. I see a lot of parallels actually.

Unless you're arguing that Monsanto planted the seed there deliberately in 97 so he'd plant his fields in 98 and then they could come after him for money. That's like a whole other level of conspiracy for me though.

And again this whole thing dodges the point - lets say I hate Monsanto, why would that make me hate GMOs?

 

[icehorse]

Lots of reasons to hate GMOs.

But back to the farmer - he never asked for these seeds to blow into his fields correct? Why should he have to work one extra minute to change his long standing farming practices?

 

[Drolefille]

Lots of reasons to hate GMOs.

But back to the farmer - he never asked for these seeds to blow into his fields correct? Why should he have to work one extra minute to change his long standing farming practices?

Like what? And how do those things apply to Golden Rice, to drought resistance, heat resistance, etc. in new crops?

--
But he did, he specifically planted a crop almost exclusively of those seeds. That's a change. If he'd harvested say 15% of his seed from RR canola and then planted a field that was like.. 15-20% RR canola I'd feel he was not directly responsible. To me, however (and to the court) the evidence suggests that it was not accidental. Whether this means the laws should be changed or not, is up to others. I don't have a strong stake in it.
--
(I keep going back to GMOs in general rather than Monsanto because that's the heading of the thread, this individual case is really not that important to me.)

 

[ShivaFan]

Hello Icehorse

.. you note the term permaculturists, so there you go confirming what I admitted that I am no expert on this stuff but just a "layman", because I am unfamiliar with permaculturist methods. But I will check into it, there may be investment opportunity if this method is for real and works.

One of my dreams is to see the advancement of large rice, grain and nuts production to help provide food. I admit openly, that large quantities of food are higher on the scale of priority personally in such discussion than healthy food. But I am open to all innovation, and why not?

So let's see if what you say is square, it is something interesting to look at.

What I consider bad food is those horrible burgers in those fast food joints, and my observation is I am seeing is a lot of Hispanics feeding themselves and their kids on it like there is no tomorow. I don't think this bodes well for America, and I certainly don't feel obliged to pay for "new hearts" and stems and treatments for these junkies.

But if a good product can be produced, fruit, vegie, grain etc, let's do it! And if you are personally keen on it then I would think you are already involved or should do it yourself, eat your own dog food, start your own permaculturist business.

Who is going to stop you? You change it yourself, you change the dynamic with action and results. Hungry people await.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What I consider bad food is those horrible burgers in those fast food joints, and my observation is I am seeing is a lot of Hispanics feeding themselves and their kids on it like there is no tomorow. I don't think this bodes well for America, and I certainly don't feel obliged to pay for "new hearts" and stems and treatments for these junkies.

I'm sure that amalgam of stuff that is called "food" that is served by fast food joints is most likely far worse than most of the GMOs being eaten, but yet there are McDonald's all over the place even though what they call a burger is really nothing more than a tasteless bun and a flavorless, greasy meat patty that wont fill you for long and is really only good for clogging arteries.
More research into GMOs can't hurt anything, but we know for sure what the McKing of heart disease is, and yet the only effort I can recall to reduce the amount of them in a community was met with fierce resistance.

 

[icehorse]

Hi ShivaFan,

Well I'm not a gardener at this stage, but I have many friends who are. I buy locally and organically and non-GMO as much as possible.

It's interesting to me that Big-Agri-Biz fights HARD (like spending millions of $ hard), to defeat GMO labeling laws. If their stuff is safe, why should they care if it's labeled "GMO"?