Monsanto

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.

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?

> 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

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?

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

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

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

boop

http://m.examiner.com/green-living-in-national/monsanto-lobbyist-uses-power-as-fda-food-czar-to-target-amish

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

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?

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

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

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

also Monsanto

Gus Mansanto

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.

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?

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.

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.

what are barack obama's flaws?

he's so perfect that he intimidates everyone else

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.

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

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.

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

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

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 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

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.’”

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?

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.

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

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?

that changes everything. I love asprin.

mon petit santo

x-post

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

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

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.

http://www.monsanto.com/investors/Pages/stock-performance.aspx

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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

this has been going on for a while now guys

http://images.wikia.com/capcomdatabase/images/9/97/CatDog_by_deadPxl.jpg

I agree that there is a chance that splicing genetic material from a jellyfish into a cat might result in a cat which is in some way superior for human purposes than could be achieved in any other way. This opens amazing possibilities. Where I start to have misgivings is when these exotic modifications are injected into the food supply by profit-driven corporations.

The profit motive is wholly driven by the desire for personal benefit. As Adam Smith noticed, this drive can be harnessed for public good. But he never made the mistake of thinking that the profit motive never results in public harm. He understood that strong laws and regulations must place limits around individual selfishness and canalize it into safe boundaries.

Most of the bitching and moaning I hear about how the public are idiots who don't understand how wonderful genetic modification is comes from interested parties with a profit motive. Your friend the PhD in genetics is an interested party just like any of us.

What I mostly hear the public demanding are extremely strong safeguards against unwanted side effects from sloppy, selfish, shortsighted or malicious use of genetic modification. Very few people are saying this new science must be strangled in its crib and buried at midnight with a stake through its heart. We, the public, get that this is powerful stuff. We're convinced. It was the scientists who convinced us. We've seen powerful new technologies unleashed with no regard for their consequences. This science strikes at the very core of life. That's heavy stuff in the hands of mere humans. We want to be protected from its potential excesses.

That position is extremely reasonable even if it makes genetic scientists gnaw at their fingers in exasperation. We don't exist for their pleasure. Fuck 'em. I want to go slow on this shit.

jellyfish corn tho

it's sweet, nutritious, and stings the fuck out of your face

chipotle is full of shit, I go into there and wear a little towel over my eyes as if I was eating an ortolan, so as to not see the "gmo free" banner

I know a few beekeepers, and most of the concern I see about Monsanto/GMOs is about the effect on bee populations from using additional pesticide. Can anyone point to a good, solid article that defends against this?

The bee issue is complex and most likely related to insecticides, if there is a link. I know a single study was about honeybee confusion in presence of glyphosate (a herbicide), but that was in isolation and was fairly circumstantial. There's a stronger case for neonicotinoids (a seed treatment, which a seed is coated in, in order to avoid predation of the seed and seedlings) being toxic to bees, but I am not aware of any evidence that it happens when used as intended.

There is a case in Europe where a field was planted with a neonicotinoid treatment that was powdered, it was windy, and it blew on to a neighboring field that was pollinating. Pretty atypical, not how that pesticide is recommended to be used.

The "articles that defend against" policy is kind of one of those "can you show an article saying you didn't beat your wife?" things. I think there might be something messing with honeybees, but every agriculture chemical-based argument I've read is usually a petition saying "ban neonicotinoids and glyphosate and save the bees!"

also worth noting that people throw neonicotinoids under the weird GMO umbrella (and under the Monsanto thread!) when it's just a nicotine-like chemical

fwiw original Roundup (glyphosate) isn't under patent anymore and you can buy it generically.

also, the glyphosate tolerance gene? for soybeans, it's no longer under patent. it's expired elsewhere, but as of this year, it's open in the US

yeah it is my understanding that a lot of nicotine-based pesticides actually qualify for organic certification.

I will try to look up some good links for the neonicotinoid/bee issue, it's been talked about a lot in the Willamette valley lately.