Monsanto

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (175 of them)

Even if I didn't mind tampering with my food, Monsanto would be the last entity I'd want touching it.

*tera, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 22:56 (3 years ago) Permalink

amonsanto

puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 22:58 (3 years ago) Permalink

Some argue that deregulation is the best way to combat this, because the little guys just can't deal with it (I know wacky idea, and not one I entirely agree with).

Monsanto doesn't think it's a wacky idea!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor

Milton Parker, Thursday, 12 January 2012 00:27 (3 years ago) Permalink

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_24644.cfm

Not only was it exposed that the U.S. is threatening nations who oppose Monsanto with military-style trade wars, but that many U.S. diplomats actually work directly for Monsanto.

In 2007 it was requested that specific nations inside the European Union be punished for not supporting the expansion of Monsanto's GMO crops. The request for such measures to be taken was made by Craig Stapleton, the United States ambassador to France and partner to George W. Bush. Despite mounting evidence linking Monsanto's GM corn to organ damage and environmental devastation, the ambassador plainly calls for 'target retaliation' against those not supporting the GM crop. In the leaked documents, Stapleton states:

"Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices."

Milton Parker, Monday, 23 January 2012 19:49 (3 years ago) Permalink

I know it's not the main problem being addressed in this article, but I've seen the organ damage study referenced a lot. Just to refute that, here is one scientist's take on the problems with the study and conclusions reached: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/01/15/gm-corn-organ-failure-lots-of-sensationalism-few-facts/

Trade wars, government corrupt, environmental devastation, sure, I wouldn't put it past them. But organ damage from GMO corn, not likely.

Jeff, Monday, 23 January 2012 20:43 (3 years ago) Permalink

Not that this is a totally reassuring thought, but if there was a food product introduced into the mainstream food supply -- one that, in fact, was found in almost EVERYTHING we eat -- and it caused organ failure, wouldn't you see a sudden and alarming rise in organ failure?

frogBaSeball (Hurting 2), Monday, 23 January 2012 20:45 (3 years ago) Permalink

> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/01/15/gm-corn-organ-failure-lots-of-sensationalism-few-facts/

interesting

though the last three paragraphs are hardly reassuring

Milton Parker, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 01:05 (3 years ago) Permalink

there was an essay i remember reading in one of those alt-collections from the 90s (i think) - either Apocalypse Culture or Amok Journal or something like that - about how the invention of agriculture ruined human society. does anyone else know of this?

this was prob Jared Diamond?

i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 01:31 (3 years ago) Permalink

it's a common anti-civ talking point, see Derrick Jensen, John Zerzan, Chellis Glendinning, etc. Diamond would fit in there as well.

sleeve, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 01:34 (3 years ago) Permalink

I mean he wrote a lil piece that had exactly that as its thesis.

i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 01:35 (3 years ago) Permalink

http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html

boop

i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 01:37 (3 years ago) Permalink

I'm sure this guy is an evil tool head but it's hard to defend raw milk. Seriously.

Jeff, Sunday, 5 February 2012 23:11 (3 years ago) Permalink

I'm trying to be careful with what I post to this thread, because for whatever reason the anti-Monsanto sentiment is already at fever pitch right now; countless FB posts with a lot of false information (Monsanto owns Blackwater), old information or hyperbole (whole foods)

But cracking down on the Amish with armed raids for selling their own milk seems a little extreme?

Milton Parker, Sunday, 5 February 2012 23:17 (3 years ago) Permalink

Actually I'll back down on this one a bit, reading up on the raw milk craze of the last ten years. I don't suspect these kinds of raids as base acts of removing the competition, but if they really are pulling guns on the Amish, that does seem like an overreaction

Milton Parker, Sunday, 5 February 2012 23:37 (3 years ago) Permalink

True, agree. Just ask them nicely to hand it over.

Jeff, Sunday, 5 February 2012 23:48 (3 years ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...

my 4-5 facebook friends who occasionally post about chemtrails are all about the Mansato hate right now

Big Mr. Guess U.S.A. Champion (crüt), Thursday, 1 March 2012 08:03 (3 years ago) Permalink

also Monsanto

Big Mr. Guess U.S.A. Champion (crüt), Thursday, 1 March 2012 08:05 (3 years ago) Permalink

Gus Mansanto

I have one thing to say: "Roxanne Shanté" (Stevie D(eux)), Thursday, 1 March 2012 14:13 (3 years ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-bee-collapse-buys-bee-research-firm/#ixzz1sUCsUIfh

Monsanto, the massive biotechnology company being blamed for contributing to the dwindling bee population, has bought up one of the leading bee collapse research organizations. Recently banned from Poland with one of the primary reasons being that the company’s genetically modified corn may be devastating the dying bee population, it is evident that Monsanto is under serious fire for their role in the downfall of the vital insects. It is therefore quite apparent why Monsanto bought one of the largest bee research firms on the planet.

Milton Parker, Monday, 23 April 2012 21:57 (3 years ago) Permalink

The most recent Harvard study linked Bee Colony Collapse Disorder to imidacloprid - a pesticide. Not corn or corn syrup. The pesticide can be transmitted via corn syrup or pollen the report said. Nothing to do with genetically modified corn. This story got changed somewhat to "Pesticide-laden corn syrup lead to CCD" which not what the study demonstrated.

I don't know of a credible report that links CCD to genetically modified corn. Anyone?

everything, Monday, 23 April 2012 22:37 (3 years ago) Permalink

By the way, when I said "this got changed somewhat" I mean some websites who report on environmental issues reported it that way and it got passed around Facebook etc like that.

everything, Monday, 23 April 2012 22:39 (3 years ago) Permalink

11 months pass...

what is the deal with the "Monsanto Protection Act"? Seeing this phrase on facebook, but

http://www.travelerstoday.com/articles/5497/20130327/monsanto-protection-act-snuck-through-passage-congress.htm

http://www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-protection-act-5-terriying-things-know-about-hr-933-provision-1156079#

SEC. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated
status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act
is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture
shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request
by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant
temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to
necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a)
or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions
shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation,
commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and
requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize
potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the
Secretary’s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while
ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant,
cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized
activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions
shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the
Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related
to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That
nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s
authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection
Act.

how's life, Wednesday, 27 March 2013 19:50 (2 years ago) Permalink

what are barack obama's flaws?

THIZZ VAN LEER @_@ (lpz), Thursday, 28 March 2013 04:47 (2 years ago) Permalink

he's so perfect that he intimidates everyone else

your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Thursday, 28 March 2013 23:20 (2 years ago) Permalink

it's possible that he cares TOO much. also, sometimes he may be a little too good at doing things, which can discourage those around him who feel that they cannot "keep up". sometimes, arguably, he works too hard - again, intimidating his co-workers.

your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Thursday, 28 March 2013 23:22 (2 years ago) Permalink

I can't form a rational opinion about this issue because I find the anti-GMO crowd to be obscenely obnoxious

Heyman (crüt), Thursday, 28 March 2013 23:36 (2 years ago) Permalink

yeah there's something about the GMO panic crowd that seems just like two notches more sane than the anti-vaccine crowd (and there's obvious overlap) and that prejudices me. I'm mistrustful of monsanto, but I also feel kind of like "Ok, make a case for me WHY it would be dangerous to take a gene from one species and put it in a different species." Like "we don't know all the potential effects" isn't a good enough argument. I have no fucking idea what will happen if I mix my dish soap with some tomato juice, baking soda and pepto bismol and put it in the microwave for 30 seconds, but that doesn't mean I have a good reason to believe it would be dangerous.

i've a cozy little flat in what is known as old man hat (Hurting 2), Friday, 29 March 2013 00:54 (2 years ago) Permalink

p sure that the reason monsanto is bad has more to do with hugeness.

big farming:gmo panic::big pharma:vaccine panic

well if it isn't old 11 cameras simon (gbx), Friday, 29 March 2013 00:55 (2 years ago) Permalink

yeah I am on board with the antitrust and IP concerns, but the "Monsanto Protection Act" seems to be more about food safety fears that don't strike me as warranted.

I found this:

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/03/28/monsanto-protection-act-anti-gmo-conspiracy-theorists-lose-it-over-minor-deregulation/

very sorry for linking to anything called "skeptical libertarian" but it's the first site I've found that actually gets into the details of what the legislation actually does, and their analysis mostly sounds convincing

i've a cozy little flat in what is known as old man hat (Hurting 2), Friday, 29 March 2013 01:05 (2 years ago) Permalink

I can't form a rational opinion about this issue because I find the anti-GMO crowd to be obscenely obnoxious

― Heyman (crüt), Thursday, March 28, 2013 11:36 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

otm, otm for everything tbh

mister borges (darraghmac), Friday, 29 March 2013 01:08 (2 years ago) Permalink

just wanted to belatedly respond to the above post

The most recent Harvard study linked Bee Colony Collapse Disorder to imidacloprid - a pesticide. Not corn or corn syrup. The pesticide can be transmitted via corn syrup or pollen the report said. Nothing to do with genetically modified corn. This story got changed somewhat to "Pesticide-laden corn syrup lead to CCD" which not what the study demonstrated.

I don't know of a credible report that links CCD to genetically modified corn. Anyone?

― everything, Monday, April 23, 2012 10:37 PM (11 months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

If it wasn't clear, I was not trying to link CCD directly to genetically modified corn. Of course, use of imidacloprid has increased dramatically with the global marketing of Monsanto's Roundup + Roundup Ready GMO product chain over the last ~15 years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/science/earth/soaring-bee-deaths-in-2012-sound-alarm-on-malady.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The European Union has proposed to ban their use on crops frequented by bees. Some researchers have concluded that neonicotinoids caused extensive die-offs in Germany and France.

Neonicotinoids are hardly the beekeepers’ only concern. Herbicide use has grown as farmers have adopted crop varieties, from corn to sunflowers, that are genetically modified to survive spraying with weedkillers. Experts say some fungicides have been laced with regulators that keep insects from maturing, a problem some beekeepers have reported.

Eric Mussen, an apiculturist at the University of California, Davis, said analysts had documented about 150 chemical residues in pollen and wax gathered from beehives.

“Where do you start?” Dr. Mussen said. “When you have all these chemicals at a sublethal level, how do they react with each other? What are the consequences?”

Experts say nobody knows. But Mr. Adee, who said he had long scorned environmentalists’ hand-wringing about such issues, said he was starting to wonder whether they had a point.

Of the “environmentalist” label, Mr. Adee said: “I would have been insulted if you had called me that a few years ago. But what you would have called extreme — a light comes on, and you think, ‘These guys really have something. Maybe they were just ahead of the bell curve.’”

Milton Parker, Friday, 29 March 2013 18:28 (2 years ago) Permalink

Of course, use of imidacloprid has increased dramatically with the global marketing of Monsanto's Roundup + Roundup Ready GMO product chain over the last ~15 years.

I had to read a few articles to double-check, but you're talking about a seed treatment as a pesticide and a seed product that has resistance to a herbicide. The two may have both become popular in the same timeframe, but they're not otherwise related?

☠ ☃ ☠ (mh), Friday, 29 March 2013 18:39 (2 years ago) Permalink

Hurting 2, that article you linked referred to "GMO expert Gregory Conko." Google tells me that Conko is better known as a right-wing thinktank guy who writes predictable articles

Gregory Conko is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC.
Henry I. Miller, a physician and fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, was the founding director of the FDA's Office of Biotechnology.

curmudgeon, Friday, 29 March 2013 18:53 (2 years ago) Permalink

they became popular in the same timeframe because they are being marketed by Monsanto as an integrated line of products

Roundup = their herbicide, patented in the 70's
Roundup Ready = their line of GM seeds which somehow does not die when you spray Roundup on it, 1996

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Monsanto.27s_Roundup

if a company is good at making poison, and at making food, why not combine those two into one irresistible product?

Milton Parker, Friday, 29 March 2013 18:57 (2 years ago) Permalink

Milton, imidacloprid is an insecticide and Roundup (glyphosate) is an herbicide

☠ ☃ ☠ (mh), Friday, 29 March 2013 18:58 (2 years ago) Permalink

apologies for my conflation, I hear your point clearly now. Admittedly a bit emotional after reading that ny times article.

imidacloprid is apparently not Monsanto, it is Bayer?

Milton Parker, Friday, 29 March 2013 19:11 (2 years ago) Permalink

that changes everything. I love asprin.

Milton Parker, Friday, 29 March 2013 19:11 (2 years ago) Permalink

mon petit santo

buzza, Friday, 29 March 2013 19:13 (2 years ago) Permalink

x-post

so we have the published anti-GMO cliches on one side and the conservative thinktank and libertarian ones on the other...

curmudgeon, Saturday, 30 March 2013 18:51 (2 years ago) Permalink

ah dammit didn't think of searching for a thread with this title

quite strangly im attracted to the lass (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 30 March 2013 18:54 (2 years ago) Permalink

When it became law that corporations could patent organisms, we saw one of the most breathtaking power grabs ever devised. The difficulty with putting all this power to fuck with the foundations of life on earth into the hands of mega corporations is that mega corporations are greedy, short-sighted, profit-driven entitities which will predictably act to fuck over everyone on earth if it will enrich their corporate officers and shareholders and bury the competition. If the Chief Executive Lizard of Monsanto (or Bayer) could with impugnity become the new Pharoah, it would not blink twice before it reached for that crown and scepter.

Aimless, Saturday, 30 March 2013 19:01 (2 years ago) Permalink

Yeah this "Monsanto Protection Act" thing I'm like 90% sure after reading it that it's pretty minor. It basically prevents federal courts from IMMEDIATELY, during an interim period, halting the use/planting/sale of GMO foods in the event of some kind of adverse finding. But federal courts are not typically the avenue by which food safety is regulated anyway -- in fact as far as I can tell the only reason this provision even exists is that certain GMO foods have been given a special regulated status that other foods don't have, so the provision only comes into play if a regulatory body decides to deregulate them and then a court tries to stop them from doing that.

In any case, this certainly does not in any way "protect Monsanto from litigation" as some people are claiming.

i've a cozy little flat in what is known as old man hat (Hurting 2), Monday, 1 April 2013 16:04 (2 years ago) Permalink

Like, farmers can still sue Monsanto, individual consumers can still sue Monsanto, the Government can still sue Monsanto.

i've a cozy little flat in what is known as old man hat (Hurting 2), Monday, 1 April 2013 16:05 (2 years ago) Permalink

but I also feel kind of like "Ok, make a case for me WHY it would be dangerous to take a gene from one species and put it in a different species." Like "we don't know all the potential effects" isn't a good enough argument.

fyi we have been cross-breeding for over 100 years, which is a form of genetic modification, except with traditional cross-breeding you introduce all of the traits/genes of one plant into another instead of just the aspects that you want (whereas w/ science lab-y genetic modification you can isolate just the traits/genes that you want to introduce into the new strain); in a lot of ways sciencey genetic modification can be *safer* than traditional cross-breeding, which the anti-GMO crowd seems to have v little qualms with. Like, at this point, iirc virtually everything has been genetically modified at some point due to cross-breeding.

All that is from my friend who is pursuing a PhD in genetics at Yale.

Room 227 (Stevie D(eux)), Thursday, 4 April 2013 14:36 (2 years ago) Permalink

The difficulty with comparing traditional cross-breeding with genetic modification is that there is no traditional way to cross-breed cats with jellyfish, or corn with sequoias. Traditional cross-breeding is a method whereby humans select modifications that were theoretically possible without human intervention. This is not true of direct genetic modification as it is practised in the lab.

Aimless, Thursday, 4 April 2013 15:38 (2 years ago) Permalink

If a jellyfish cat is wrong then I don't want to be right.

Jeff, Thursday, 4 April 2013 15:39 (2 years ago) Permalink

The difficulty with comparing traditional cross-breeding with genetic modification is that there is no traditional way to cross-breed cats with jellyfish, or corn with sequoias. Traditional cross-breeding is a method whereby humans select modifications that were theoretically possible without human intervention. This is not true of direct genetic modification as it is practised in the lab.

― Aimless, Thursday, April 4, 2013 11:38 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

that's true, it's just that assuming that that = more likely to be dangerous seems like subscribing to some kind of Intelligent Design/frankenstein's monster/don't tamper with mother nature fallacy, as though nature had somehow put the jellyfish genes on this shelf and the corn jeans on this shelf because they should never be mixed. Again "we don't know what will happen" isn't a convincing argument to me -- why SHOULD something happen?

--808 542137 (Hurting 2), Thursday, 4 April 2013 16:18 (2 years ago) Permalink

it's pretty obv to me that jellyfish corn should happen immediately

relentless technosexuality (DJP), Thursday, 4 April 2013 16:46 (2 years ago) Permalink

I'm against the entire legal principle that allows the patenting of a genetic code

Οὖτις, Friday, 22 May 2015 20:58 (1 hour ago) Permalink

mh:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co.

http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-patents-sue-farmers-547/

same story, different article:

http://www.rodalenews.com/research-feed/organic-vs-monsanto-organic-farmers-lose-right-protect-crops

The company is notorious for suing those farmers when their non-GMO crops become contaminated by GMOs growing in nearby fields.

sleeve, Friday, 22 May 2015 21:05 (1 hour ago) Permalink

The Bowman case is interesting in that it is kind of a self-defeating move and was done almost completely as trolling. iirc he had previously purchased seed, signed the contracts involved with that seed, and then decided he was going to be clever and try to get something for free, and in fact rub it in the face of the people who sold him the original seed. I can't vouch for the completeness of this article, but it gets into the fact that he was a licensee who was trying to get around a license he signed: http://www.patentdocs.org/2011/09/monsanto-co-v-bowman-fed-cir-2011.html

I think the legislation, as-is, is problematic although the public understanding of plant breeding is more so. If hybrid maize was saved and planted year-over-year, you'd have a completely different crop than originally planted -- hybrids do not breed true. I'm less versed with the soy end of things (as is the industry, as soy is a distant second as far as planted acres go), but I believe the same holds true.

It's worth noting that the last article isn't about Monsanto suing anyone -- it's about a group preemptively suing Monsanto. It's also inconsistent in that they start out with

The company is notorious for suing those farmers when their non-GMO crops become contaminated by GMOs growing in nearby fields.

and later state
The judge dismissed the case on the grounds that none of the plaintiffs had actually been sued by Monsanto and therefore their reasons were "unsubstantiated."

while failing to cite a single case of Monsanto suing a farmer for having a field that has picked up GMO traits via cross-pollination.

ultimate american sock (mh), Friday, 22 May 2015 21:33 (39 minutes ago) Permalink

yeah, that might be repeating misinformation from the Saskatchewan case. that's what I get for a cursory search.

you are correct abt hybrids not breeding true, I think that is the case for all crops

sleeve, Friday, 22 May 2015 21:44 (28 minutes ago) Permalink

fwiw, Monsanto's background in crop biotech is illuminating as far as their motives go

Until the 80s, they were pretty much completely a chemical company, but (as several companies did) they decided that biotechnology was going to be huge and started tinkering with plant genetics in the 80s. They didn't really bring anything to market until the mid-90s, at which point they licensed the technology to many companies, and got into the maize business. That was in 1996 -- they didn't actually own any means of commercial production before then, afaik.

Following that, they bought as many of the mid-sized maize seed companies as they could. Others have been bought or merged into other corporations. As far as mass industrial feed stock goes, the majority is Roundup Ready seed.

ultimate american sock (mh), Friday, 22 May 2015 21:45 (27 minutes ago) Permalink

a better article, which notes that many farmers settle because they can't afford to go to court:

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/05/monsanto200805

sleeve, Friday, 22 May 2015 21:48 (25 minutes ago) Permalink

What I know from friends/family involved in farming (of the corn variety) and what I've heard in my professional career, you can break down the corn industry like this:

  • Small growers, low acreage: No real net positive for buying expensive seed. They use the same seed year-over-year, or more likely just buy something cheap and local. If they own equipment it's old or small-scale. Pretty unsophisticated as far as chemicals go (you see bugs, you spray for bugs?)
  • Mid-sized growers: Might own some of their own equipment, might rent out or pay teams to come harvest/spray. Real entry level for the high-end seed, more likely to take shortcuts, very interested in whatever it takes to get better yield. Unsophisticated about chemicals, but can afford them.
  • Large-scale operations: Own large tracts of contiguous land, tens of thousands of acres. Own really expensive equipment. Precision agriculture, including yield monitoring by location, fertilizer and chemical application appropriate down to the acre. Probably have drones flying over their fields.
The large scale ones, while they're using tons of land and probably not doing the crop rotation they should, are most likely not the ones screwing up the water table or patent-trolling seed companies. They're too busy trying to optimize every planted acre. They aren't going to play loose with regulations -- if they don't personally have an agronomist on staff, they are provided agronomy services by at least one of the companies they work with. They're the ones who make sure to plant the refuge area in their field -- the non-biotech crops with no insect resistance to make sure tolerant bugs don't become dominant. There are in-bag refuge products where 20% of the seed complies, but the mid-sized growers might get greedy and not plant it.

ultimate american sock (mh), Friday, 22 May 2015 21:57 (15 minutes ago) Permalink

that VF article kind of shows the way they are being assclowns, though -- afaik, they hire jerks to lurk around farms that have signed a license agreement, wait for them to plant seed that wasn't purchased under that agreement but has patented traits, and then drop paperwork

ultimate american sock (mh), Friday, 22 May 2015 22:03 (9 minutes ago) Permalink

the fact that their goons can't even tell which farmer (or store owner) is which is kind of the prime indicator that they don't give a shit about farmers, even while they're buying up seed companies

ultimate american sock (mh), Friday, 22 May 2015 22:05 (8 minutes ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.