|
reply posted on 26-5-2005 @ 11:06 PM by MBF
|
Originally posted by Dulcimer
I truly think the world needs to become more agriculture aware. It would benefit alot of people if the word was spread on such things.
Our current situation in canada really really sucks.
Border to usa closed because of BSE.
horrible yields all over last year.
Prices now are a joke, selling grain for less than the inputs.
fertilizer and chemicals only go up and up every year, along with fuel.
its pretty hard to make a living when you have such little control on your market. the sad part is alot of people are quitting.
I don't know how much longer we can continue to sell our crops for way less than the input costs. People complain about the farmers here getting
government payments, but there is no way to survive without them. There was a large amount of money posted on a website that I received over 5 years.
If you break it down for each year, the amount that I received was just about what I paid for fuel alone. We farmers are not the ones making the
money. We are the only business that takes whatever price is offered to us, we do not set our prices. Like you said,"the sad part is a lot of
people are quiting",who will take our place when we quit or forced out of business? The younger generation will not do what we have. They will get
a job that is not as stressful with less manual labor and you can't blame them. One day when the politicians wake up hungry things will change, but
then it will be too late. They say that we can get our food from other countries cheaper,but what kind of chemicals are used on this food? What if
our suppliers get mad at us and cut off the food supply? The problem needs to be solved now, not in the future.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 27-5-2005 @ 01:18 AM by Dulcimer
|
one thing that has troubled me with the agriculture issue is that our governments send people to other countries and teach them how to farm and raise
crops.
meanwhile backhome the politicians dont care. (alot of ag problems need to get more attention)
Where were they when the border first closed?
saskatchewans lorne calvert basically ignores farmers completely.
my dad has a saying, like it or not its true.
"We teach poor countries how to farm, the poor countries will teach us how to live in poverty"
Programs like CAIS in canada dont work.
If i could get one message out to the general population it would be this.
When you hear of agriculture programs, and money for farmers, dont just believe it right away and think look how much money they will be getting! When
you crunch the numbers, it doesnt help out much.
Ive always said, get rid o the programs, surveys, studies and reports. get down to business.
We dont need a report every year telling us how poor or how bad of shape we are in. we just need action.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 27-5-2005 @ 10:05 PM by MBF
|
Originally posted by Dulcimer
one thing that has troubled me with the agriculture issue is that our governments send people to other countries and teach them how to farm and raise
crops.
meanwhile backhome the politicians dont care. (alot of ag problems need to get more attention)
Where were they when the border first closed?
saskatchewans lorne calvert basically ignores farmers completely.
my dad has a saying, like it or not its true.
"We teach poor countries how to farm, the poor countries will teach us how to live in poverty"
Programs like CAIS in canada dont work.
If i could get one message out to the general population it would be this.
When you hear of agriculture programs, and money for farmers, dont just believe it right away and think look how much money they will be getting! When
you crunch the numbers, it doesnt help out much.
Ive always said, get rid o the programs, surveys, studies and reports. get down to business.
We dont need a report every year telling us how poor or how bad of shape we are in. we just need action.
All true. The biggest problem with agriculture is we have a bunch of politians that don't know squat about agriculture setting policy. What we need
is a bunch of farmers doing this, we know what is going on and know more about how to fix the problems.
I don't know why this country gives away so much money to other countries and teaches them how to produce way more food than they need so they can
push us out of the markets. These people couldn't care less for us and will kill us at the first chance they get.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-8-2005 @ 12:15 AM by twitchy
|
Monsanto is also wanting to monopolize the livestock industry as well, given the recen genetic contamination of crops in Australia and other areas,
are we willing to let them tamper with animal genetics as well? They will literally own the pigs, bad news for pig farmers, ergo bad news for the
consumers, and really creepy news for the pigs...
today.reuters.com...
Crop king Monsanto seeks pig-breeding patent clout
Wed Aug 10, 2005 10:05 AM ET
Printer Friendly | Email Article | Reprints | RSS
By Carey Gillam
KANSAS CITY, Mo. (Reuters) - Monsanto Co. (MON.N: Quote, Profile, Research), already a world powerhouse in biotech crops, is shaking up the swine
industry with plans to patent pig-breeding techniques and lay claim to the animals born as a result.
Agricultural experts are scrambling to assess how these patents might affect the market, while consumer activists warn that if the company is granted
pig-related patents, on top of its tight rein on key feed and food crops, its control over agriculture could be unprecedented.
"We're afraid that Monsanto and other big companies are getting control of the world's genetic resources," said Christoph Then, a patent expert
with Greenpeace in Germany.
The patent applications, filed with the World Intellectual Property Organization, are broad in scope, and are expected to take several years and
numerous rewrites before approval.
"We applied for a patent ... for some specific reproductive processes in swine," said Monsanto spokesman Chris Horner. "Any pigs that would be
produced using this reproductive technique would be covered by these patents."
Roundup is more dangerous than we were led to believe...
www.missourinet.com...
Study Finds Monsanto Weed Killer Dangerous to Critters
by Brent Martin
A new study indicates that St. Louis-based Monsanto's best-selling weed killer is doing more than killing weeds. A University of Pittsburgh ecologist
says his experiments indicate Roundup is much deadlier to amphibians than previously thought. In those experiments, Roundup killed nearly all the
tadpoles in simulated shallow ponds. In a separate dry experiment, Roundup killed nearly 80-percent of the young frogs and toads after one day.
Monsanto points out its directions advise that Roundup shouldn't be used near bodies of water. Scientists, though, note that many amphibians live in
shallow puddles and they worry that wetlands within fields and forests are accidently being sprayed.
Superweeds are not just an urban myth anymore either...
www.mercurynews.com...
Herbicide-resistant weed becoming a pest in California
JULIANA BARBASSA
Associated Press
PARLIER, Calif. - Horseweed was once merely a nuisance to farmers - hard to pull out, quick to sprout back after cutting, and capable of towering over
tractors.
Now, it's becoming a full-blown nightmare worthy of an agricultural horror flick: scientists in California have found clusters of the weed that are
resistant to scores of herbicides, leaving farmers to fight an increasingly formidable and costly foe.
Pete Christensen said he watched his costs soar as the most popular herbicide became increasingly powerless to stop the weeds from choking the grapes
on his 75-acre vineyard near Selma.
About five years ago he started noticing that Roundup wasn't withering the weed as usual. Three years later, he had tripled the concentration of the
herbicide, and had doubled the applications, but the weeds were growing thicker than ever, rising over his vines and competing with them for water,
nutrients and sunshine.
I wonder why Monsanto wouldn't want to make a 'reasonable effort to get anti-trust clearance'?...
High court rejects effort by Monsanto
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
JACKSON - The Mississippi Supreme Court has ruled that the Monsanto Co. cannot subpoena documents from three out-of-state companies to bolster its
fight with cotton seed marketer Delta and Pine Land Co. over a failed merger.
In 1998, St. Louis-based Monsanto agreed to buy D&PL for $1.9 billion but later called off the proposed merger and was acquired by Pharmacia & Upjohn.
Monsanto has said it backed out of the deal with D&PL because of what it called the Justice Department's unwillingness to approve the transaction
"on commercially reasonable terms."
Scott, Miss.-based D&PL sued Monsanto in 2000, claiming Monsanto didn't make a reasonable effort to get antitrust clearance. D&PL is seeking millions
of dollars in damages.
I wonder if the following is a good example of how geneticly modified strains can contaminate others without governmental oversight, sure seems like a
good way to get out of hand to me...
www.foodnavigator.com...GM legal loophole exposed
08/08/2005 - GM crops could be grown in the UK without farmers having to notify the authorities, according to a British newspaper.
The Guardian claims that it has discovered a legal loophole that allows individuals to legally grow their own GM maize.
Farmers can apply to biotech companies for a sample pack of GM maize, provided they send back the test results and do not breach patents by selling
the seed to a third party.
In effect, this would allow Monsanto maize to be grown in the UK without the need to notify the department of environment, food and rural affairs
(Defra).
There remains a great deal of public opposition to genetically modified foods in Europe, a fact that has made food ingredients companies highly
concerned about any possible contamination.
I couldn't agree more with the following...
www.greenpeace.org...
'It's official. Monsanto Corporation is out to own the world's food supply, the dangers of genetic engineering and reduced biodiversity
notwithstanding, as they pig-headedly set about hog-tying farmers with their monopoly plans.
Brazil tells Monsanto to stick it where the beans don't grow... .88 per kilo? Jesus that's almost as high as the Gas Tax here in NC LOL.
www.truthabouttrade.org...
BZL growers reject Monsanto deal
Sao Paulo - Soy seed producers in southern Brazil rejected Monsanto's proposal to charge an 0.88 real per kilo royalty for its genetically modified
seeds, in the first season that GMO soy sales will be legal in the country.
Earlier this month, Monsanto struck a deal with Brazil's national Association of Seed Producers (Abrasem) on royalty payments for using its GMO
Roundup Ready soy seeds. "Monsanto's proposal is unrealistic. It promotes illegal behavior by the producers and hurts legitimate seed producers,"
said Narciso Barison Neto, the president of the Seed Producers Association of Rio Grande do Sul State (Apassul).
Rio Grande do Sul seed producers voted on Wednesday to reject Monsanto's GMO soy royalty.
A new law that Congress approved in March legalized for the first time the sale of Monsanto's Roundup Ready GMO soy seeds, although local growers,
particularly in the south, have long ignored the ban and bought them on the black market.
Over almost a decade, illegal GMO soy planting in Rio Grande do Sul has grown to account for more than 90 percent of total soy production in Brazil's
No.3 soy state.
Monsanto has struck a deal with cooperatives to extract a 2 percent royalty on RR soy at the point of sale by the producer for this year's harvest
which finished in May.
Until this year GMO seed sales were illegal and it was impossible to charge the royalty on the front end.
That's today's dirt on Monsanto, if i had a better grasp of financial news there has been a wealth of recent mergers and buyouts surrounding
Monsanto recently as well you guys might want to dig around and have a look, I'm pretty ignorant of financial matters but that much activity with a
rising monopoly given their track record is a good indication they are gaining some serious clout.
When one or two companies owns the rights to the food on your table as well as everyone else's, it's time to worry.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 11-8-2005 @ 01:24 PM by frayed1
|
About five years ago he started noticing that Roundup wasn't withering the weed as usual. Three years later, he had tripled the concentration of the
herbicide, and had doubled the applications, but the weeds were growing thicker than ever, rising over his vines and competing with them for water,
nutrients and sunshine.
Could the maker of herbicides quietly slip something into the 'formula' that would work to build this resistence, there by creating a market for
their next product.....a 'patented weed', so to speak, that only their herbicide will kill.
And once they have the monoply on agriculture, what will stop them from selling everything to say, China....there by selling us all in the bargain?
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 13-8-2005 @ 12:26 AM by MBF
|
Originally posted by frayed1
Could the maker of herbicides quietly slip something into the 'formula' that would work to build this resistence, there by creating a market for
their next product.....a 'patented weed', so to speak, that only their herbicide will kill.
And once they have the monoply on agriculture, what will stop them from selling everything to say, China....there by selling us all in the bargain?
About 1% -2% of some weeds have some resistantance to herbicides. When you use a low rate of herbicide it is easy for some of these to survive and
reproduce and grow more resistant.
I agree that once they have a monoply it will be bad for the entire world. Food prices will skyrocketwhen they dominate food crops like they have
cotton and soybeans.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 13-8-2005 @ 02:25 AM by billybob
|
biblically, it's "the harvest". ya, know? seperating the wheat from the chaffe?
in beast world, it's, "roundup".
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 15-8-2005 @ 12:25 AM by twitchy
|
Genetic modifications to our basic global food crops needs to be handled with the same precautions as handling deadly pathogens, the implications of
contamination could be global disaster. Contamination which has already happened in many areas. This technology has been poorly researched, and
handled like any other money grab and market cornering, Monsanto has been agressive to the point of criminality in in persuance of profit at the
expense of safety and careful research. This never leads to anything but trouble, but in the case of genetic alterations of our crops and livestock
particularly, this is gambling with the literal survival of human civilization. It isn't a matter of what they have done, it is a matter of what they
are trying to do and what they could do.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 17-8-2005 @ 02:54 PM by Zadeh Redux
|
So here's a scenario:
Monsanto develops, shall we say accidentally, a gene, that gets into corn, wheat, rice, potatoes, etc. This gene shows up not only in Monsanto's
patented seeds but cross-pollinates with ease.
Now what this gene does is suppress certain enzymes/peptides and this makes the food indigestible by humans unless a certain medication is taken. As
it stands today, people who are lactose intolerant can take a pill that allows them to eat and digest milk products.
This new unedible food Monsanto develops, accidentally, contains a gene that alters all the sugars (all those -ose ingredients: fructose, maltose,
glucose, saccharose, etc) so that our digestive enzymes are prevented from activating. These elements are fundamental to the digestive process.
If these enzymes don't work, then the sugars don't work. And if these sugars don't work, then the food is not converted into the proteins and
carbohydrates, digestible vitamins and minerals.
You can eat all the corn and wheat and whatever food containg this gene you want. You are still going to starve to death. Malnutrition.
But we needn't worry because Monsanto-Searle just happens to have a medication that re-activates the sugar functions and people can now eat without
starving. All Hail, Monsanto. Now, this drug isn't cheap but, hey, what price life.
Thank God, this gene did not impede the digestion of the frankenfoods by livestock and poultry. OMG ... this litle bugger gene does seem to fold more
than a few proteins in the flesh of these creatures. Aw heck, what are a few prions between lifeforms especially when at great expense
Monsanto-Searle was able to develop a treatment for this 'problem'.
What was fortunate for Monsanto-Searle (and us) was that one of the characteristics of this protein is that it will only fold one way, making a
universal treatment possible in one formula. Truly serendipitous.
Phew, that was close. All Hail, Monsanto.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But wait, order now and Monsanto will include at no additional cost a genetic modification which makes food preparation so much easier.
Look! Our new foods can be cooked at a temperature below the boiling point of water at sea level.
Caution: Exceeding 212f/100c will cause product to explode, releasing highly corrosive acids. People preparing our foods should take extra care at
higher elevations ... just kidding ... really.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 20-8-2005 @ 01:36 PM by Zadeh Redux
|
Actually I really would like someone to comment on this scenario (see above). It came to me in a dream after researching the impact of food supply
control by companies like Monsanto.
I think it was after watching a program on TV. I can't remember exactly what broadcast but it impacted me deeply.
It has been a while but the idea has not gone away.
Anyway, does this scenario seem to 'far out'?
Thanks for your input.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 20-8-2005 @ 02:24 PM by billybob
|
Originally posted by Zadeh Redux
Actually I really would like someone to comment on this scenario (see above). It came to me in a dream after researching the impact of food supply
control by companies like Monsanto.
I think it was after watching a program on TV. I can't remember exactly what broadcast but it impacted me deeply.
It has been a while but the idea has not gone away.
Anyway, does this scenario seem to 'far out'?
Thanks for your input.
i think your intuition is good. engineer the food with deffiencies that can be 'cured' with pharmeceuticals. it's just good business.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 21-8-2005 @ 05:16 AM by Majic
|
Measure Of Sanity
Originally posted by Zadeh Redux
Anyway, does this scenario seem to 'far out'?
If it does, then it must be true.
Looks like the makings of a pretty cool novel to me. The Perfect Crime.
Nice scenario. Is it actually happening? Hard to say, but if it is, it's a pretty clever plan.
I have to admire the thinking that went into this. 
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 22-8-2005 @ 02:09 AM by twitchy
|
No, not far out at all IMO. The Pharmaceutical and Medical Industry have been at this sort of scenario for a long long time, and if you look at who
sits on what coporate board, find the commonalities, it wouldn't suprise me at all. How many times has your doctor reccomended Valarian Root Extract
for sleeping disorders, but he will be more than happy to prescribe you some Valium.
What concerns me more I think, is the genetic manipulation of food source species, it has been poorly researhced and rushed through legislations and
industry quicker than scientists can decide what to look out for. The scenario I fear is gene splicing something nasty into a major food crop, and it
turns out to be some genomes from say a jellyfish that creates cells to manufacture some neurotoxin. One or two experimental fields is no big deal,
but if we let a company monopolize this industry and an entire crop of corn is found to be toxic, we are in serious trouble.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 22-8-2005 @ 07:00 AM by Corinthas
|
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 24-8-2005 @ 10:50 AM by Zadeh Redux
|
www.scidev.net...
A chemical that South American frogs excrete from their skin could protect potatoes and other crops from a range of diseases, according to
biotechnologists in Canada.
Researchers at the University of Victoria inserted a modified frog gene into potato plants to make them produce the chemical.
also (and there's a lot more: Goooogle 'gene frog potato'):
archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca...
Hmmm ... I'm thinking of a non-PC comment about French fries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks billybob, majic, twitchy, corinthas ... for your comments and links.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 14-10-2006 @ 04:50 AM by Long Lance
|
this thread deserves a bump
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 20-10-2007 @ 10:26 PM by Landis
|
After watching the Smith vids, it's hard to believe one can absolutely avoid all GM foods. Yikes!
Edit: PS to the OP, kudos for bringing this to the attention of ATS members.
[edit on 10/20/2007 by Landis]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 21-10-2007 @ 08:11 PM by roadgravel
|
It's good to see people becoming aware of the situations posted on this thread.
I remember a conversation a had with my late father 15 or 20 years ago. He was concerned about corporations gaining control of the food chain. Seems
as though we are seeing it slowly come to pass.
By the time most people realize what has happened it will not be reversible.
I was talking to a tenant rice farmer about this and he didn't seemed concerned. He had just lost use of a large plot a land. The owners got
government money for rice use whether the land was planted or not. With the gas production now on the land they just took the both rice and gas money
and told him not to plant any longer.
This man believes it is more efficient for the single farmer to grow crop versus a corporation. Seems to me once big business has enough land and
enough of the production they can do whatever they want. Any costs can be added to the price to the consumer. Where else will the majority of the
people get their food. They will have to pay the price.
Just seems that most people are not getting concerned because they are not feeling the future result yet.
[edit on 10/21/2007 by roadgravel]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 21-10-2007 @ 11:40 PM by MBF
|
If the farmers could get double what we get paid now, you would hardly notice the price increase in the stores if only the price increase was the
amount that was paid to the farmers. Then we could survive for a while longer and it would help the economy from the job increases as a result of us
buying new equipment. If the corporations get their hands on the food production, you WILL notice the price increase and it will be TOO LATE!!!
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 5-11-2007 @ 04:56 PM by twitchy
|
Source
Crops That Shut Down Pests' Genes
Monsanto is developing genetically modified plants that use RNA interference to kill the insects that eat them.
Researchers have created plants that kill insects by disrupting their gene expression. The crops, which initiate a gene-silencing response called RNA
interference, are a step beyond existing genetically modified crops that produce toxic proteins. Because the new crops target particular genes in
particular insects, some researchers suggest that they will be safer and less likely to have unintended effects than other genetically modified
plants.
Will somebody please stop these crazy greedy bastards before this crap leaks out into the natural gene pool? Why in the world would you want to eat
something that disrupts gene expressions? If I was ever against GM foods, this signed the deal for me.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
<< 1 2 3 4 >>
|
|
|