Monsanto has to Accept Full Responsibility for Genetic Contamination

reply to post by starcraft

Stracraft says: "Genetics, friend or foe? I can only speak to plant genetics, and of course, the advances in plant genetics in the last 20 yrs is astounding! In my lifetime alone, corn yields have doubled on the same acreage".

Is there no end to your ignorant, prevaricating? You have ZERO credibilty, Mr. 'Soil Scientist'. Here is a quote from a paper that was written in 2004 that is titled "Trends and Variability in U.S. Corn Yields Over the Twentieth Century", and guess what?

"Corn yield growth rates peaked at an annual-average rate of 3%–5% in the
1960s (124.5 kg ha−1 yr−1), but have steadily declined to a relative rate of
0.78% yr−1 (49.2 kg ha−1 yr−1) during the 1990s. A general inverse relationship between increasing corn yield and decreasing yield growth rates was noted after county-level yields reached 4 T ha−1, suggesting that widespread, significant increases in corn yield are not likely to take place in the future, particularly on irrigated land, without a second agricultural revolution." www.sage.wisc.edu...

I still say you're a troll and a shill, and not a particularly good one. But since the boards you guys usually pile onto with your b.s. is not populated with sentient, educated people who are accustomed to far ranging debates, backed up with FACTS -- your lack of knowledge is being challenged and shown to be non-existent.

As to your ridiculous claims about glyophospahtes and RR being benign, suck on this:

"* U.S. government data reveal a huge 15-fold increase in the use of glyphosate on soybeans, corn and cotton in the U.S. from 1994 to 2005, driven by adoption of Roundup Ready versions of these crops.

* Rising glyphosate use has spawned a growing epidemic of weeds resistant to the chemical in the U.S., Argentina and Brazil. Weed scientists have reported glyphosate-resistant weeds infesting 2.4 million acres in the U.S. alone.

* Increasing weed resistance to glyphosate has led to rising use of other toxic chemicals. In the U.S., the amount of 2,4-D applied to soybeans more than doubled from 2002 to 2006. 2,4-D was a component of the Vietnam War defoliant, Agent Orange. In Argentina, it is projected that 25 million liters of herbicides other than glyphosate will be needed to tackle glyphosate-resistant Johnsongrass.

Overall, GM crops do not yield more and often yield less than other crops

* Roundup Ready soybeans, the world's most widely planted GM crop, have 6% lower yield than conventional soy, according to University of Nebraska researchers

* Even the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture admits that no GM crop on the market has been modified to increase yield. The main factors influencing crop yield are weather, irrigation, soil fertility, and conventional (non-biotech) breeding for increased yield.

GM crops benefit the biotech industry and some large growers, not small farmers."
www.centerforfoodsafety.org...

www.centerforfoodsafety.org...

Crawl back under your rock Troll until you can come back with a few facts, and we're not counting any studies funded by Monsanto, et al

AND PS - That love and light I sent out in my earlier post? I take it back.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

Geez...chill out folks, no sense in getting all your panties in a wad..lol. I don't work for Monsanto ok?...although I wish I would have purchased some of their stock a few years ago.

Did you know you probably ate GM food today? And I'm sure you know your stomach acids took care of those nasty altered genes? Do you know what a gene is?

What's wrong with terminator genes? This is capitalism, what's wrong with protecting one's intellectual property anyway? Oh, you want it for free I see.

Can't we have a logical discussion without hurling insults?? Why are liberals always so meanspirited?

Have you hugged your tree today?

Originally posted by starcraft
reply to post by Zepherian

 

How come folks aren't touting the benefits of reduced pesticide usage on these modified plants?

Replacing one evil with another evil is not any sort of progress for humanity.

As far as pesticides go, it will be entirely possible from the work of Dr. Paul Stamets to entirely revamp "pesticides" so that they are based on human/animal safe compounds from mycelium and and mycoculture in general.

I get my facts from realworld, day to day talks with farmers. I work with them every day. I don't google and cherrypick only "studies" that bolster my argument while disregarding the mountains of evidence to the contrary. Deny ignorance.

Bt Corn, RR Beans and corn is here to stay. Get used to it.

Pesticides are evil?

Yes, there's quite a few few fungicides already in use that are toxins created by other fungi....are these evil too?

Bt (Bacillus thuringensis)...is a naturally occuring toxin released by a bacteria. It does a number on several plant destroying insect larva like corn rootworms. Is that evil?

Nicotine sulphate...a natural compound produced by plants..(ie. tobacco)...is one of the oldest insecticides known to man...in fact God created it...It gives you a hell of a jolt when you puff on a cigarette.....is that evil?

Salt is a pesticide...is that evil?

Hot water is a pesticide...is that evil?

reply to post by starcraft

Oh, I'm sorry I thought you got your facts because, as you stated in your first post, you're a "Soil Scientist" (hear the derisve snort?). As to my political ideologies, you have no idea what they are. Just because you are being confronted by FACTS that dismiss every point (and I'm using the word loosely here) you are feebly putting forward does not make me, or any of the other REAL ATS members, republican or democrat. It just makes us informed, and you either a stupid shill or just plain stupid.

There's no scientific consensus declaring glyphosate safe, If you do a search on glyphosate and cancer or cell dysfunction you'll get a tonne of contradictory results. That signals to me that there is a definite concern, remember when asbestos was considered safe? I prefer to stay on the side of caution.

Cell-cycle dysregulation is a hallmark of tumor cells and human cancers. Failure in the cell-cycle checkpoints leads to genomic instability and subsequent development of cancers from the initial affected cell. A worldwide used product Roundup 3plus, based on glyphosate as the active herbicide, was suggested to be of human health concern since it induced cell cycle dysfunction as judged from analysis of the first cell division of sea urchin embryos, a recognized model for cell cycle studies.
Several glyphosate-based pesticides from different manufacturers were assayed in comparison with Roundup 3plus for their ability to interfere with the cell cycle regulation. All the tested products, Amega, Cargly, Cosmic, and Roundup Biovert induced cell cycle dysfunction.
The threshold concentration for induction of cell cycle dysfunction was evaluated for each product and suggests high risk by inhalation for people in the vicinity of the pesticide handling sprayed at 500 to 4000 times higher dose than the cell-cycle adverse concentration.

link

Also It's has been known to runoff into water systems and kill wildlife, Yeah I dare you to drink some Starcraft.

Glyphosate-containing products are acutely toxic to animals, including humans. Symptoms include eye and skin irritation, headache, nausea, numbness, elevated blood pressure, and heart palpitations. The surfactant used in a common glyphosate product (Roundup) is more acutely toxic than glyphosate itself; the combination of the two is yet more toxic.
Given the marketing of glyphosate herbicides as benign, it is striking that laboratory studies have found adverse effects in all standard categories of laboratory toxicology testing. These include medium-term toxicity (salivary gland lesions), long-term toxicity (inflamed stomach linings), genetic damage (in human blood cells), effects on reproduction (reduced sperm counts in rats; increased frequency of abnormal sperm in rabbits), and carcinogenicity (increased frequency of liver tumors in male rats and thyroid cancer in female rats).
In studies of people (mostly farmers) exposed to glyphosate herbicides, exposure is associated with an increased risk of miscarriages, premature birth, and the cancer non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Glyphosate has been called “extremely persistent” by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and half lives of over 100 days have been measured in field tests in Iowa and New York. Glyphosate has been found in streams following agricultural, urban, and forestry applications.
Glyphosate treatment has reduced populations of beneficial insects, birds, and small mammals by destroying vegetation on which they depend for food and shelter.
In laboratory tests, glyphosate increased plants’ susceptibility to disease and reduced the growth of nitrogen-fixing bacteria.

link

These are just a couple from a quick search you can find many more but like I said you'll find contradictory results from scientists sellouts and the Monsanto propaganda machine.

Cheers, Drink up!!

Originally posted by starcraft
Pesticides are evil?

Yes, there's quite a few few fungicides already in use that are toxins created by other fungi....are these evil too?

Bt (Bacillus thuringensis)...is a naturally occuring toxin released by a bacteria. It does a number on several plant destroying insect larva like corn rootworms. Is that evil?

Nicotine sulphate...a natural compound produced by plants..(ie. tobacco)...is one of the oldest insecticides known to man...in fact God created it...It gives you a hell of a jolt when you puff on a cigarette.....is that evil?

Salt is a pesticide...is that evil?

Hot water is a pesticide...is that evil?

So now your whole argument is using biological agriculture examples to justify artificial compounds and genetic engineering? That was the point I was making all along, there are natural, time tested and healthy ways to do all that monsanto advertises doing (and usually falls short of). Oh, and they don't come with IP, because nature is more generous than a few greedy businessmen.

reply to post by Zepherian


I agree, myself coming from a culture that food including animals were grown in the backyard free of anything manufactured I have to say that for some reason I am getting older I am getting all this reactions and allergies to certain foods, while before with home grown I never had any problems.

Occurs this just a personal opinion, nature had provided humans and animals with all the nutrients needed from natural sources.

Now we are living longer thanks to manufactured remedies AKA big pharmacy and better health care and availability but our longer lives are full of all kind of medical problems and ailments.

God figure, or should I say monsanto knows better than nature.

But when it comes to men helping hand everything turns to caca.


[edit on 7-7-2008 by marg6043]

This is good, now the local small farmer wont get hurt when some corn with 20 husks shows up in his field but the fact still remains that 60 % major industrial farms will continue to "water" their crops with pesticides and we will continue to evolve into a pesticide resistant race.

Originally posted by starcraft
Can't we have a logical discussion without hurling insults?? Why are liberals always so meanspirited?

You mean like this?

Originally posted by starcraft
I'm a soil scientist...careful with the broad, irrational statements based on ignorance. Chemophobia with its' basis in misinformation and paranoia is not treatable with knowledge and common sense unfortunately. I won't respond any more. Arguing with these folks is quite unfair, they're not equipped.

Seems there’s a liberal amount of insults to go around.

Originally posted by starcraft
I get my facts from realworld, day to day talks with farmers. I work with them every day. I don't google and cherrypick only "studies" that bolster my argument while disregarding the mountains of evidence to the contrary. Deny ignorance.

Oh, brother! Yes, obviously you're in no way partisan concerning the facts.

Originally posted by starcraft
Bt Corn, RR Beans and corn is here to stay. Get used to it.

Spoken like a true elitist. Sure you have big money on your side, but people are waking up to the obvious deceptions of you and your ilk. The human spirit and it's will to live free and healthy will always overcome would be tyrants like your owners who wish to monopolize food and everything else on this planet. Enjoy your little power trip while you can, because eternity is a very long time indeed. Real food, the way God made it will be here long after you would be monopolists have passed into history.

Originally posted by starcraft
[
FYI....glyphosate( Tradename: Roundup)...when applied to the soil surface, is immediately broken down into CO2 and water.

Q: how can something that looks like

this

break down into H2O and CO2? it also contains Nitrogen and Phosphor... Transmutation?

even if it was true, plant life is obviously harmed and nothing happens 'immediately' in chemical reactions, either. noone claimed that glyphosphate was responsible for everything, either, it's mostly the cocktail which has to be used once reistant weeds appear.


PS: roundup soy does not effectively accumulate nitrogen, unlike its unadulterated brethren. if you're so savvy, will you explain the mechanism?

Originally posted by starcraft

Advancements in plant genetics has led to decreased pesticide applications, reduced fertilization, better utilization of water resources and bottom line: more food being produced on a finite resource...arable land.

Verdict?...FRIEND....in a VERY big way.

no, it hasn't.

yields remained stagnant or declined. you even said that today's varieties were designed to be resistant to herbicides, mostly, no yield improvements, in aprevious post. various people have posted links refuting claims of increased yield.

since all GM varieties i know of work along the lines of modifying plants themselves for toxin production, the overall amount of toxin leaching into soil might even have increased, because plants produce it at all times instead of a basis of need. ie. in case of outbreak and even then, dosage can be adjusted.

Bt. plants are toxic as a whole, the toxin eventually acumulates in soil from toxic roots. insects are environmentally significant, only a few are pests. needless to say, the pests will adapt first, leving no biological controls in place, resulting in

*drumroll*

increased pesticide use. manufactured by

....


?

Originally posted by starcraft


Bt (Bacillus thuringensis)...is a naturally occuring toxin released by a bacteria. It does a number on several plant destroying insect larva like corn rootworms. Is that evil?

well, the naturally occuring variant needs to be ingested to be effective, while GM crops produce it in already activated form, therefore makeing the entire plant toxic on contact.

ie. everything gets killed, not just pests. funny, huh?

[edit on 2008.7.8 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by starcraft
I get my facts from realworld, day to day talks with farmers. I work with them every day. I don't google and cherrypick only "studies" that bolster my argument while disregarding the mountains of evidence to the contrary. Deny ignorance.

Perhaps in our quest to deny ignorance here, you might be willing to get your farmer friends to go on the record to support your account. Perhaps if you cannot get them on video, maybe you could get them in contact with one of the ATS podcaster guys to interview them to help support your opinions (All my farmer friends hate the lower production of GMO seeds and the inability to save seeds season to season due to the legal documents Monsanto forces them to sign, but then again maybe we don't know the same farmers...)

I wonder if you work with farmers on a day to day basis selling them Round-Up.
You don't have to work for Monsanto directly to 'work' for Monsanto. You could work for 'xyz ag chemicals' distributing all different pesticides and fertilizers. You could even get a company bonus free and clear of Monsanto buy being the number one Travelling Salesman for the company, with Round-Up being a key part of your business...
Just a thought...

DocMoreau

If a farmer removes weed competition, his yields go up. It aint rocket science. It has nothing to do with the genetic makeup in general, that's just good crop management. Remove a weed with a hoe or a herbicide, and yield goes up due to reduced competition...and I don't need to provide a link to back that up.

If a corn plant produced 1 ear in the 70's...but due to plant breeding, the stalk now produces 3, the yield has gone up on the same acreage. And that has absolutely nothing to do with genetic modification.

Bt only controls a certain type of insect...it doesn't kill any insect that comes into contact with it...get your facts straight.....yeah, do more googling. I'll use my brain. *giggle*

I live in the corn belt. I work with farmers, and no, I don't sell Roundup...I don't have to...it sells itself. I have never in my career seen a farmer save seed from one year to the next. It's actually kinda stupid in modern agribusiness. Know why? Because they chomp at the bit waiting for next years' varieties. Farmers are businessmen...not tree huggers.

Have you ever eaten seedless watermelon??...Yummmy. Is that a terminator gene? Google it. *giggle*

reply to post by DocMoreau


I thought from some of your other posts I've read that we were on the same page there. It's always good to know one has fellow soldiers fighting against this war on food.

In case anyone hasn't heard of Raoul Robinson:

en.wikipedia.org...

Highly recommended reading.

reply to post by starcraft


There we go again. You seem to be deliberately ignoring all the posts that are not fitting your agenda, and are pulling straw man arguments. Your claims were practically all proven to be wrong. If you want to continue this debate, I suggest you to bring up some non biased evidence yourself. Also, how would you comment this?

Starcraft said: "yeah, do more googling. I'll use my brain. *giggle* "

reply to post by starcraft

Uh-huh, but not as hard as we'll *giggle* every time you attempt to use it...



[edit on 8-7-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

Interesting how the yeilds have become the common rebuttal, but consider a quote of myself, and then compare the facts.

Originally posted by smirkley
I do not condemn them for trying to protect their patented product line, as the black market even in countries where farmers 'protest',.... flourishes.

The black market exists for this product and is bigger than the 'yeild' question alone.

Why is that you think.





[edit on 10-7-2008 by smirkley]

I abhor Monsanto. I don't know if this ruling will help all the other farmers screwed by Monsanto but I sure hope it does. I would love to see this company go down. Hopefully this ruling will carry over to other courts and maybe, just maybe, something will be done to stop this company from all it's evil deeds.