It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Food for Thought

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 08:37 AM
This article announces that two major seed companies are competing to gain market shares in the GMO seed industry. The two are Monsanto and Pioneer. Monsanto originally was working with Pioneer but Pioneer has recently entered the field of Genetically Modified Food and the competition is on.
In the 1980s, Monsanto first developed genetically modified organisms — or GMOs — and sold them through old-school crop companies like Pioneer. Monsanto charged Pioneer a licensing fee to sell the crops and gained access to Pioneer's broad-based sales network.
. One of Pioneer's biggest challenges to Monsanto over the next three years will come in the form of new soybeans that are engineered to resist herbicides, McCarthy said.
Monsanto plans to release its own brand of "Roundup Ready" pesticide-resistant corn and soybean seeds by 2009. Monsanto's first crops were engineered for the same trait.
Monsanto spokeswoman Lori Fisher said the company is gaining sales by selling "triple stack" seeds that have more than one genetically engineered trait — such as herbicide and pest resistance.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

This a perfect example of what’s wrong with reporting these days. This is not reporting it’s a press release. There is absolutely no critical analysis of what exactly genetically modified foods are or what they can do. There is a large body of information, scientific fact that GMO’s can be exceedingly dangerous to humans and animals alike. Information to the contrary has been fabricated by corporation like Monsanto, whose original plan was to produce 100% of the world’s seeds.

These crops have not been proven safe but the industry has lobbied to prevent labeling of GM products as genetically modified. The government has gone along and made it unnecessary to label GMO’s. Unfortunately the cats out of the bag these GMO’s have already spread and cross fertilized. So once again what is best for the people has not come to pass. Why?

It’s all about the money. If Monsanto were to corner the market on seeds they could make billions. You would have to buy new seeds every year. You can not use any that your crop produces because the producer has property rights. It is a dangerous scam. That’s why many countries have already banned the import of many American agricultural products like soybeans and corn. Doesn’t it stand to reason that a plant genetically modified to have a pesticide in it may not be safe?

Two very good sources on GMO’s are
Dinner at the New Gene Café Bill Lambrecht
Seeds of Deception by Jeffrey M. Smith

posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 12:15 PM
Only two companies cornering the entire food market with governments' and patent offices' help. Wonderful, isn't it?

Here's a thread discussing the issue for all of you who are interested

Unfortunately, at this point, there can hardly be any doubt that this catastrophy will unfold like clockwork before our eyes.

posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 01:02 PM
Yes I didn't make it clear, here but I'm not totally against GM foods. Mostly I'm against shoddy scientific research used to support it and when it spreads to non GM fields against the other farmer’s wishes. They needed to take more time too adequately test the products. The attempt by the government to limit the liabilities of Big Businesses that create dangerous products is also a factor. Why bother to adequately test if you only have to pay a $20,000. The recent thread about vaccines and mercury shows the FDA is not serious about protecting the consumer. And the sad part is if they can sell the product here they’ll ship it overseas like they did with DDT.

posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 10:03 AM
I have problems with all this genetic tampering and worry about where it is going and the long term effects.
We are told that GM crops will feed the worlds poor, enabling them to grow in harsher environments etc. We already massively over-produce many foodstuffs though. Huge amounts of food are stored and, quite often, deliberately destroyed to keep prices fixed on the world markets.
How will we be helping the poor to grow these crops and feed themselves when they have to buy seed from these big corps in the first place.

I read an interesting article a year or so ago about the way in which Iraqi law had been changed, with the help of the CPA, to include new copyright laws.
Monsanto and other corps were in there copyrighting seed stock that had been hybridised and grown by Iraqi farmers for hundreds of years. All they apparently had to do was take the seed and write out it's genetic makeup and file a patent. Quite how that was supposed to help Iraqis I am not sure

I am uncomfortable with having the basic necessities of life, food and water, in the hands of mega-corporations who can withhold seed or turn of the tap if someone cannot pay.

posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 12:08 PM
The problem is that yields are often lower than expected, even before adressing side effects (toxictiy vs. consumers and important insects like bees) and sustainability (f-ex this thread, f-ex. Roundup soybeans do not accumulate nitrogen while natural soya does:

Even more alarming is the ecological damage. Native woods have
disappeared as the soya front has advanced
. Sales figures suggest that
each year farmers are deluging the 10 million hectares of land under GM
cultivation with 80 million litres of herbicide.

This is killing off all forms of life except RR soya and is interrupting
the normal biological cycles of growth. The soil is turning into a kind
of cinder or sand - neither of which, says Rulli, can retain moisture.
Not surprisingly, the country is suffering from severe flooding.

In the past farmers used to grow soya in the summer and wheat in the
winter. The non-GM soya used to capture nitrogen from the air, helping
to retain the fertility of the soil.

These paragraphs should be read in reverse order, as yields and margins are declining, farmers have no choice but to expand (even if on credit) to grow a sufficient amount of crops to make a living.

none of this is ever discussed in the MSM (MainStream..), because the subject would most certainly upset a few sponsors. lying is a trade skill, let's see:

JAKARTA - Though a battle between big business and environmental concerns in Indonesia has led to a monetary loss for publicly listed US agrochemical giant Monsanto for breaking US anti-corruption laws, there has been no loss of liberty for any of the company's US nationals involved in the corruption. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibits bribing foreign officials and can lead to a maximum fine of $2 million per violation and up to five years' imprisonment.

St Louis-based Monsanto has been forced to pay $1.5 million in fines after owning up to spending more than $700,000 on bribes in a country where it has been losing money for the past few years, and one which has long been ranked one of the most corrupt in the world. The Department of Justice and the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) charged Monsanto with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by bribing an Indonesian government official to waive a strict environmental requirement needed to plant the controversial genetically modified (GM) cotton seeds in Indonesian soil.

question: why are they doing this if their product is alledgedly superior?

likewise, you won't find ANY reference to catastrophc drought in Indian provinces once hailed as the pinnacle of industrial agriculture:

Punjab and Haryana were at the forefront of the Green Revolution in the late 1960s and early 1970s, in which farm machinery, pesticides and fertilisers, irrigation and the replacement of traditional crops with high-yielding varieties dramatically increased productivity. The two states together now provide 80 per cent of the country's food surplus.

But the land is increasingly unable to support this burden of intensive agriculture. Crop yields--and water resources--are declining alarmingly, and some parts are close to becoming barren. Many farmers are heavily in debt from their investments in new equipment and reliance on chemicals, and rural unemployment is increasing. These are ominous signs of a deteriorating farm economy.

Everyone can be a millionaire for a day.

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 01:25 PM

While Monsanto walked away with its first year profits from selling prohibitively expensive inferior seeds, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) in India gets ready to accord approval to yet another strain(s) of Bt cotton for the northwestern parts of the country and too after a hurridly conducted one-year of farm trials. Cotton farmers, in the bargain, have been left high and dry.

That in the very first year of commercial planting, Bt cotton should be faced with American bollworm attack (the insect against which it is supposedly resistant), is a clear pointer to the fact that the science/technology was not at all perfect. Bt cotton has also seen an increased infestation of other sucking pests. The crop came under an increased attack of wilt disease and of course has proved to be a water guzzler. And as far as the economics is concerned, it has gone wrong everywhere.

This says it all imho, people fell for the marketing and the most probable main goal of these corporations has been achieved, reduce supply so they can reap higher margins. typical cartel economics.

of course soaring prices or even famine will have the progrssivists screaming on top of their lungs for more GM crops, becaues of their superior yields, right?

a vicious cycle leading to ever more profits, control and suffering.

alternative link:

i'm a bit upset that NOONE found this worthy of comment, if you don't agree and see flaws or find what i write biased - at least say so.

[edit on 13-12-2006 by Long Lance]

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 02:09 PM
I definately agree, it's a scam to raise prices. Unfortunately they haven't even tested the product. It's just out there.

posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 11:50 AM
Yet another thread could be made on the yields of crops that are organic vs not organic.

new topics

top topics


log in