Monsanto*FDA*USDA***Menage a trois

Interesting fact is that Food Inc. does not take an anti-GMO position as best as I could tell. They were too busy expressing outrage over the fact that Monsanto is going after farmers who are reusing their patented GMO Roundup ready seed. The message I got from this is that farmers should be allowed to use GMO products freely and that corporations shouldn't be allowed to patent life forms. Sounds like they took a GMO tolerant position to me.

I thought they were pro-heirloom and non-modified seeds.

Exactly. Chocolate would be banned based on results of canine consumption. Besides aren't rats an agricultural pest? I'll be alarmed when some sicko fabricates Roundup ready dollar weed.

Food for Thought:

Safety and advantages of Bacillus thuringiensis-pr... [Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2000] - PubMed result

Safety and advantages of Bacillus thuringiensis-protected plants to control insect pests.

Betz FS, Hammond BG, Fuchs RL.

Jellinek, Schwartz and Connolly, Washington, DC, USA.

Comment in:

* Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2001 Feb;33(1):1.

Plants modified to express insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis (referred to as Bt-protected plants) provide a safe and highly effective method of insect control. Bt-protected corn, cotton, and potato were introduced into the United States in 1995/1996 and grown on a total of approximately 10 million acres in 1997, 20 million acres in 1998, and 29 million acres globally in 1999. The extremely rapid adoption of these Bt-protected crops demonstrates the outstanding grower satisfaction of the performance and value of these products. These crops provide highly effective control of major insect pests such as the European corn borer, southwestern corn borer, tobacco budworm, cotton bollworm, pink bollworm, and Colorado potato beetle and reduce reliance on conventional chemical pesticides. They have provided notably higher yields in cotton and corn. The estimated total net savings to the grower using Bt-protected cotton in the United States was approximately $92 million in 1998. Other benefits of these crops include reduced levels of the fungal toxin fumonisin in corn and the opportunity for supplemental pest control by beneficial insects due to the reduced use of broad-spectrum insecticides. Insect resistance management plans are being implemented to ensure the prolonged effectiveness of these products. Extensive testing of Bt-protected crops has been conducted which establishes the safety of these products to humans, animals, and the environment. Acute, subchronic, and chronic toxicology studies conducted over the past 40 years establish the safety of the microbial Bt products, including their expressed insecticidal (Cry) proteins, which are fully approved for marketing. Mammalian toxicology and digestive fate studies, which have been conducted with the proteins produced in the currently approved Bt-protected plant products, have confirmed that these Cry proteins are nontoxic to humans and pose no significant concern for allergenicity. Food and feed derived from Bt-protected crops which have been fully approved by regulatory agencies have been shown to be substantially equivalent to the food and feed derived from conventional crops. Nontarget organisms exposed to high levels of Cry protein are virtually unaffected, except for certain insects that are closely related to the target pests. Because the Cry protein is contained within the plant (in microgram quantities), the potential for exposure to farm workers and nontarget organisms is extremely low. The Cry proteins produced in Bt-protected crops have been shown to rapidly degrade when crop residue is incorporated into the soil. Thus the environmental impact of these crops is negligible. The human and environmental safety of Bt-protected crops is further supported by the long history of safe use for Bt microbial pesticides around the world. Copyright 2000 Academic Press.

They also talked about how they were taking over the industry, limiting number of choices, drawing up blacklists of farmers, and "contaminating" other fields' seeds.

Didn't think it was pro-GM, just that they chose the most extreme case to make a point.

Betz, Hammond, and Fuchs was one of many independent studies. As we can see, some of the other tests are posted on this board.
Jellinek, Schwartz, and Connolly worked for Monsanto.
Beyond Pesticides

The problem I see is the lack of independent study. Seed companies like Monsanto can forbid independent research as a condition of sale of the seed. In other words a signed legal agreement. The law is on the side of the company in this situation, at least according to this article:Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?: Scientific American

That's brilliant on the side of Monsanto, I was wondering why all the articles were so old. They already know it's a bad seed and want people to shut up. Of course the law is on their side here, they paid for it, didn't you see the long list of liaisons within the government? Do you actually think they are going to venture out financially without knowing if they are going to make a huge profit or not- I don't think so.
Just think, if their food makes you sick, you can then purchase their pharmaceuticals. They are in a win-win situation. That would put us in a lose-lose situation if we bought the bait.

I appreciate a difference of opinion, that is what makes this country great. I think you are greatly misunderstanding the role of this company and what they are trying to do. To say biotech break farmers and make them poor and we force them to buy seeds is crazy talk. First this is a free country and nobody forces anyone to do anything. Farmers like anyone else have more options than ever before. They choose Monsanto's products because they are superior and it makes them more profitable, end of point.

Case in point, Monsanto held pricing on branded Roundup last year, even as generics prices bottomed. Guess what? Nobody bought it, thus Monsanto laid off 2000 workers and cut the price 50%. Man if we would just let the free market do its job, everyones life would be better.

They complain about the pricing because it is something they need not something they want. They cannot make enough money doing it as grandpa did. Yes seed costs are higher but so are yields, productivity, and efficiency and other inputs they would have had to put in are now gone. Not to mention the time it saves. Altough they have that option and no one is forcing them to choose otherwise. As a matter of fact there are more seed companies now than there were 20 years ago. The reason Monsanto is penalized so severly is that they are the leader in biotech arena and while every other company was making fun of them in the 80s and 90s as they almost went broke while investing into biotech, now they are years ahead of the competition.

To someone else's point of GMO seed does not germinate the year after you harvest it. Yes it does. How do you think Monsanto has product to sell the next year, it doesn't just magically appear.

Lastly to the retards that say biotech does not increase yield. I challenge you to call 10 farmers randomly and ask would they rather plant the hybrids that were around 10 years ago. I bet 30 bushels of corn they say no........Next.....

I appreciate a difference of opinion, that is what makes this country great. I think you are greatly misunderstanding the role of this company and what they are trying to do. To say biotech break farmers and make them poor and we force them to buy seeds is crazy talk. First this is a free country and nobody forces anyone to do anything. Farmers like anyone else have more options than ever before. They choose Monsanto's products because they are superior and it makes them more profitable, end of point.

Lastly to the retards that say biotech does not increase yield. I challenge you to call 10 farmers randomly and ask would they rather plant the hybrids that were around 10 years ago. I bet 30 bushels of corn they say no........Next.....

This bit of eloquence in your rebuttal ends any desire for me to even attempt to reason with you. You are certainly entitled to your (mistaken) opinion, and the "bum" part of your name would seem at least to be accurate. ;-)

I still find it amazing that everyone continues to gang up on the fact that Monsanto is Satan of the world. People in Hawaii do not need to blame Monsanto for water problems, I mean are you serious? First they make it illegal to view a youtube clip in a free country, they rewrite laws that if anyone else would do would be tarred and feathered in the streets, now they are stealing water from Hawaiian natives. Did you notice anything about that paragraph, one blip was about Monsanto, "Monsanto certainly contributes to that." WOW, what a revelation? Sounded a like a problem with the water board more than Monsanto. Have you seen what happens when companies actually do something wrong? (Toyota, Worldcom, Enron) Are you listening to yourself?

This is not a conspiracy to take over the world as bad as you want it to be, why would they do that? Do you actually think the government will yield its power to a corporation? Ha. (E.g. Social Insecurity, Healthcare, Bailouts, GM, AIG, shoudl I go on?). Sure they are not perfect no corporation is, but the accusations you make about them are boderline insane. Yes the University of Florida relaeses varieties for farmers to use, just like every other land grant university, it is what they do. Once again they are a public program and believe it or not, nothing is free (hence the taxes and tuition they pay). On the other hand Monsanto is private and reserves the rights to charge whatever they want to as long as people want to buy it, called supply and demand. (See Roundup Example).

Also, please document one case where Monsanto sued a farmer based on a few seeds "thrown" into their field. YOU CANNOT DO IT. More importantly whenever a lawsuit is brought against a farmer if the farmer is found in the wrong all proceeds go to a youth leadership initiatives or scholarship funds, none are taken for profit. Oh by the way with the over 300,000 customers that use Monsanto every year, only 141 have been taken to court. Lets see if we do 300,000 x 13 years (number of years this patent infrigement has been around = 3.9 million times a farmer has purchased their seeds divided by 141 lawsuits = .0000361% that Monsanto takes a farmer to trial, quite the pandemic, watch out for big bad Monsanto. Ohhh! I'm scared.

By the way Monsanto was just named #31 as one of the best corporate citizens in America. Crazy how they are the spawn of Satan, they just have everyone fooled, don't they?

QFT





I'd love to sink your ship, but it's already so full of holes it'd be a waste of time.

Do you actually think the government will yield its power to a corporation? Ha.
QUOTE]

Yes, it will and it has. If you believe otherwise, you are the one who's naive.

Also, please document one case where Monsanto sued a farmer based on a few seeds "thrown" into their field. YOU CANNOT DO IT. More importantly whenever a lawsuit is brought against a farmer if the farmer is found in the wrong all proceeds go to a youth leadership initiatives or scholarship funds, none are taken for profit. Oh by the way with the over 300,000 customers that use Monsanto every year, only 141 have been taken to court. Lets see if we do 300,000 x 13 years (number of years this patent infrigement has been around = 3.9 million times a farmer has purchased their seeds divided by 141 lawsuits = .0000361% that Monsanto takes a farmer to trial, quite the pandemic, watch out for big bad Monsanto. Ohhh! I'm scared.

Typical response when you have no facts to back up what you are saying.

EXTRACT: Currently, farmers with crops that become contaminated by patented seeds or pollen have been the target of harassing lawsuits brought by biotech patent holders, particularly Monsanto. --- --- California Legislature Passes Bill Protecting Farmers Against Monsanto Lawsuits

The Roushes? experience is not unique. Monsanto told Arkansas farmer Ray Dawson that it spent over $250,000 on hiring Pinkerton investigators to inspect his property for three to four weeks. The company apparently fired these investigators, as well as the attorneys that initially had been hired to handle the case, because they could not find proof of patent infringement. The second group of investigators hired by Monsanto spent two days conducting the same inspection, only this time they claimed to have found sufficient evidence of infringement.50

WASHINGTON ? Jan 13, 2005 - (NATURALWIRE) - The Center for Food Safety released today an extensive review of Monsanto?s use and abuse of U.S. patent law to control the usage of staple crop seeds by U.S. farmers. The Center (CFS) launched its investigation to determine the extent to which American farmers have been impacted by litigation arising from the use of patented genetically engineered crops. Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers details the results of this research, discusses the ramifications for the future of farming in the U.S. and outlines policy options for ending the persecution of America?s farmers.
?These law suits and settlements are nothing less than corporate extortion of American farmers,? said Andrew Kimbrell executive Director of CFS. ?Monsanto is polluting American farms with its genetically engineered crops, not properly informing farmers about these altered seeds, and then profiting from its own irresponsibility and negligence by suing innocent farmers. We are committed to stopping this corporate persecution of our farmers in its tracks.?
Review of Monsanto's Abuse of Patent Law

"As interviews and reams of court documents reveal, Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents in the American heartland to strike fear into farm country. They fan out into fields and farm towns, where they secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners, and co-ops; infiltrate community meetings; and gather information from informants about farming activities. Farmers say that some Monsanto agents pretend to be surveyors. Others confront farmers on their land and try to pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records. Farmers call them the 'seed police' and use words such as 'Gestapo' and 'Mafia' to describe their tactics" Monsanto?s Harvest of Fear.
​

Monsanto has sued many a farmer when their GM crops have turned up on the farmer's fields even though the farmers say they never planted them (examples [1] [2]). Farmers who get into the Roundup-Ready (RR) System lose their independence, and are obliged to sign a lengthy and restrictive agreement. [3]. What's more Monsanto contracts out to private investigation firms like Pinkerton, to regularly check up on their farmers (and independent, non-GM farmers as well), taking samples unannounced from their fields to make sure they are not in violation [4] [5]. It also maintains a hotline so farmers can turn in their neighbors for suspected violations.
According to Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers Monsanto pursues hundreds of new investigative leads a year, 600 in 2003 for example, aimed at farmers.
"The odds are clearly stacked against the farmer: Monsanto has an annual budget of $10 million dollars and a staff of 75 devoted solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers. The largest recorded judgment made thus far in favor of Monsanto as a result of a farmer lawsuit is $3,052,800.00. Total recorded judgments granted to Monsanto for lawsuits amount to $15,253,602.82. Farmers have paid a mean of $412,259.54 for cases with recorded judgments".

I appreciate a difference of opinion, that is what makes this country great. I think you are greatly misunderstanding the role of this company and what they are trying to do. To say biotech break farmers and make them poor and we force them to buy seeds is crazy talk. First this is a free country and nobody forces anyone to do anything. Farmers like anyone else have more options than ever before. They choose Monsanto's products because they are superior and it makes them more profitable, end of point.

Case in point, Monsanto held pricing on branded Roundup last year, even as generics prices bottomed. Guess what? Nobody bought it, thus Monsanto laid off 2000 workers and cut the price 50%. Man if we would just let the free market do its job, everyones life would be better.

They complain about the pricing because it is something they need not something they want. They cannot make enough money doing it as grandpa did. Yes seed costs are higher but so are yields, productivity, and efficiency and other inputs they would have had to put in are now gone. Not to mention the time it saves. Altough they have that option and no one is forcing them to choose otherwise. As a matter of fact there are more seed companies now than there were 20 years ago. The reason Monsanto is penalized so severly is that they are the leader in biotech arena and while every other company was making fun of them in the 80s and 90s as they almost went broke while investing into biotech, now they are years ahead of the competition.

To someone else's point of GMO seed does not germinate the year after you harvest it. Yes it does. How do you think Monsanto has product to sell the next year, it doesn't just magically appear.

Lastly to the retards that say biotech does not increase yield. I challenge you to call 10 farmers randomly and ask would they rather plant the hybrids that were around 10 years ago. I bet 30 bushels of corn they say no........Next.....

, but, the White House had ordered the agency to promote biotechnology and the FDA responded by recruiting Michael Taylor, Monsanto?s former attorney, to head up the formation of GMO policy. That policy, which is in effect today, denies knowledge of scientists? concerns and declares that no safety studies on GMOs are required. It is up to Monsanto and the other biotech companies to determine if their foods are safe. Mr. Taylor later became Monsanto?s vice president.