Monsanto - Bayer Engineering Death: Bees, Bats and You?

reply to post by crimvelvet


OOPS forgot the link to the quote: Wildlife Management Institute

(I haven't had my cup of morning tea yet.)

reply to post by marg6043


You have no evidence that GM crops have not helped to deal with famine. Until now we have used cross breeding methods to increase drought resistance, ala Norman Borlaug, however nature restricted Borlaug from making crops that really resist drought. This isn't because nature can't do it, it's just that the cross breeding takes time. GM crops can cut 50 years of cross breeding down to 10 years of research.

The problem is that some people view all GM crops as bad and others view some as bad and some as good. I think the black and white view is idiotic but equally we need to control what some companies, like Monsanto are doing. GM crops can be a very positive force in the world, and if you think otherwise then you are just ignoring the science, GM crops can produce greater yields and that is a fact.

The problem is that companies like Monsanto have done some very bad things and now every single GM crop is deemed awful because of their actions.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


On that I give you credit, yes when GMO started back in the 90s the crops grown in the US, were used for poor countries to fight famine, then Monspanto got greedy, they wanted their new seeds the ready seeds to be the only seeds to be used by poor countries if they wanted to fight famine, but they are only one crop seeds so farmers have to give away the littler profits they will make to buy more ready seeds making a life long circle of profit for monspanto.

Now Monspanto is nothing than a monster and so far their ready seeds and GMO has no hlep anything but themselves and planting their seeds comes with a price.

What you forget also is that Monspanto is the owner of most GMO and ready seeds in the world.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

The problem is that companies like Monsanto have done some very bad things and now every single GM crop is deemed awful because of their actions.

It is not just GM crops it is the whole corporate Monoculture farming techniques that have also cause a major amount of damage.

This is a few excepts from a much larger Pew Report I suggest that you read. It gives a scholarly overview of the farm situation with an emphasis on livestock production

The “Green Revolution,” the worldwide transformation of agriculture that led to significant increases in agricultural production from 1940 through the 1960s. This transformation relied on a regime of genetic selection, irrigation, and chemical fertilizers pesticides developed by researchers such as Norman Borlaug and funded by a consortium of donors led by the Ford and Rockefeller foundations.

The Green Revolution would later prove to have unwanted ecological impacts, such as aquifer depletion, and groundwater contamination, and excess nutrient runoff, largely because of its reliance on monoculture crops, irrigation, application of pesticides, and use of nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizers (Tilman et al., 2002). These unwanted environmental consequences now threaten to reverse many of the yield increases attributed to the Green Revolution in much of North America....

[DISEASE]
Currently, only half of all antibiotics are slated for human consumption. The other 50% are used to treat sick animals, as growth promoters in livestock, and to rid cultivated foodstuffs of various destructive organisms. This ongoing and often low-level dosing for growth and prophylaxis inevitably results in the development of resistance in bacteria in or near livestock, and also heightens fears of new resistant strains “jumping” between species…(WHO, 2000)

Despite increased recognition of the problem, the Infectious Disease Society of America (isda) recently declared antibiotic-resistant infections to be an epidemic in the United States (Spellberg et al., 2008). The CDC estimated that 2 million people contract resistant infections annually and, of those, 90,000 die. A decade ago, the Institute of Medicine estimated that antimicrobial resistance costs the United States between $4 and $5 billion annually, and these costs are certainly higher now as the problem of resistance has grown and intensified worldwide (Harrison et al., 1998).

Because bacteria reproduce rapidly, resistance can develop relatively quickly in the presence of antimicrobial agents, and once resistance genes appear in the bacterial gene pool, they can be transferred to related and unrelated bacteria. Therefore, increased exposure to antimicrobials (particularly at low levels) increases the pool of resistant organisms and the risk of antimicrobial-resistant infections......



[ECONOMIC]
According to a recent Tufts University study, the overproduction of agricultural crops such as corn and soybeans due to US agricultural policy since 1996 has, until recently, driven the market price of those commodities well below their cost of production (Starmer and Wise, 2007  ), resulting in a substantial discount to ifap facility operators for their feed. The Tufts researchers also point out that, because of weak environmental enforcement, ifap facilities receive a further subsidy in the form of externalized environmental costs. In total, the researchers estimate that the current hog ifap facility receives a subsidy worth just over $ 10 per hundredweight, or just over $ 24 for the average hog, when compared with the true costs of production (Starmer and Wise, 2007  ; a Starmer and Wise, 2007  )....

The economic disparity between industrial farms and those that retain locally owned and controlled farms may be due in part, to the degree in which money stays in the community. Locally owned and controlled farms tend to buy their supplies and services locally, thus supporting a variety of local businesses. This phenomenon is known as the economic “multiplier” effect, estimated at approximately seven dollars per dollar earned by the locally owned farm. In contrast, ifap facilities under contract to integrators have a much lower multiplier effect....


Quality of life in rural communities has also declined, partly because of the entrenched poverty and lack of economic opportunity, but also because the linkages that once bound locally owned farms with the community have dissolved in many places and the social fabric of many communities has begun to fray. These changes are evident in negative attitudes about trust, neighborliness, community division, networks of acquaintanceship, democratic values, and community involvement, as well as increased crime and teen pregnancy rates, civil suits, and stress.

Although proponents of the industrialization of livestock agriculture point to its increased economic efficiency and hail ifap as the future of livestock agriculture, the Commission is concerned that the benefits may not accrue in the same way to affected rural communities. In fact, industrialization actually draws investment and wealth away from communities with ifap facilities.



The information in this piece is adapted from the writings of Robyn Van En, CSA of North America (CSANA); Liz Manes, Colorado State University Cooperative Extension; and Cathy Roth, University of Massachusetts Extension Agroecology Program.

www.pewtrusts.org...

reply to post by crimvelvet


Is not that the crops are bad, but that case studies on animals (rat labs) shows that GM is bad for human consumption.

Is plenty of case studies that shows how humans are not reacting very positive to GMO. The government knows this but because money talks and the whores in congress walks they keep pushing GMOs on the population even with negative results in labs test.

reply to post by marg6043


Without talking too much BS, its common sense really

reply to post by PFdiddy


My dear I try to tell that to some in another thread but they don't get it, nothing that is not made in nature can possibly be good for human consumption, we are not genetically engineer in this planet we were made in Harmony with nature, we are no any special than any other animal in our kingdom we just have a brain that rather to use it in sync with nature we are using it to kill ourselves because we are also highly greedy.

reply to post by marg6043


Those with knowledge and wisdom must also be dominant. We can narrow the grey area. The elite, the nwo, the corporations and politicians, whatever you want to call them would rather you argue stupid BS all day. Compile lists of dot points and possibilities that seem ever so plausible to the masses (lower famine, we are good guys rofl). Spread wisdom, spread knowledge. Time will treat us fairly. The fools will remain in the grey, or perish. I'm not sure which I hope for

reply to post by PFdiddy


I always feel that our own planet will take care of us before we kill all. We are the future of those that picture it the way it is now, but our future the way we are picturing doesn't look very good.

Whatever Monspanto is trying to do can not become our future.

When the GMOs became part of our ecosystem it was already patents to enhance women mammary glands to produce more protein in their milk, the UN squash the extension of DNA tampering on human before it became and reality.

Finally the European Patent Office (EPO) received applications from Baylor University for the patenting of women who had been genetically altered to produce proteins in their mammary glands. Baylor essentially sought monopoly rights over the use of human mammary glands to manufacture pharmaceuticals.

www.zimbio.com...

Yes with the GMOs humans tampering is just a step away.

Why they is monspanto creating terminator seeds and trees, this unnatural things will grow infect the earth, will produce no flowers, no pollen and will kill anything that touch them including insects, births and humans

If they are all for helping the world and nature what is the purpose of this aberrations of nature?

Because they are against nature and is all about control

reply to post by marg6043


I totally agree. Anyone who argues is with the terrorists. Being a moron is no excuse.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

You have no evidence that GM crops have not helped to deal with famine.

Actually I do.

GMO has NEVER been about deal with famine. GMO has ALWAYS been about gaining complete control of the Food Supply.

Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world. – Henry Kissinger.

Take a good hard look at the Pew Report and the Article by Nicole Johnson. BOTH tell you the same thing. "The Green Revolution" was funded by the Rockefeller family as in Banking and Oil and the Ford family as in tractors and implements.

BOTH articles tell you the results were increase poverty and the tearing apart of American culture. BOTH articles make it clear it is all about money. The environment and the people have suffered as a result. GMO are just the continuation of the same theme. This time the target is "industrializing " seeds and animals with PATENTS on both!

This is the reality of GMO

When Prince Charles claimed thousands of Indian farmers were killing themselves after using GM crops, he was branded a scaremonger. In fact, as this chilling dispatch reveals, it's even WORSE than he feared


...Unable to pay back the equivalent of two years' earnings, he was in despair. He could see no way out.

There were still marks in the dust where he had writhed in agony. Other villagers looked on - they knew from experience that any intervention was pointless - as he lay doubled up on the ground, crying out in pain and vomiting.

Moaning, he crawled on to a bench outside his simple home 100 miles from Nagpur in central India. An hour later, he stopped making any noise. Then he stopped breathing. At 5pm on Sunday, the life of Shankara Mandaukar came to an end....

Farmer suicides in India:

Now the full toll—surely among the largest sustained waves of suicides in human history—is becoming apparent. And as Sainath emphasizes, these numbers still underestimate the disaster, since women farmers are excluded from the official statistics...

It is important that the figure of 150,000 farm suicides is a bottom line estimate....

As Professor Nagaraj puts it: "There is likely to be a serious underestimation of suicides...what has driven the huge increase in farm suicides, particularly in the Big Four or ’Suicide SEZ’ States? "Overall," says Professor Nagaraj, "there exists since the mid-90s, an acute agrarian crisis. That’s across the country. In the Big Four and some other states, specific factors compound the problem....

Cultivation costs have shot up in these high input zones, with some inputs seeing cost hikes of several hundred per cent...

Meanwhile, prices have crashed, as in the case of cotton, due to massive U.S.-EU subsidies to their growers. All due to price rigging with the tightening grip of large corporations over the trade in agricultural commodities." alternatives-international.net... www.counterpunch.org...

This is the Politics behind GMO

Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) introduction of intellectual property rules on plants, animals and seeds under WTO’s Agreement “could damage the livelihoods of these 1.4 billion farmers worldwide and undermine food sovereignty and food security ” Joint Communication from the African Group to the Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (2003) www.fao.org...


Global Diversity Treaty: Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA) a standardized contract that will enable much easier access to crop diversity. [ germplasm for patenting] royalty payment (1.1% of sales) is paid only if product is unavailable for further breeding and research. funds will be devoted to conservation efforts. Translation: Bio-techs Corporations steal seed from third world farmers, patents it and pay money to Bioversity International www.bioversityinternational.org...


Feb 2007 GRAIN press release USA: Seed companies want to ban farm-saved seeds
A new report from GRAIN reveals the new lobbying offensive from the global seed industry to make it a crime for farmers to save seeds for the next year's planting. See History at www.gmfreeireland.org...

FAO is supporting harmonization of seed rules and regulations in Africa and Central Asia in order to stimulate the development of a vibrant seed industry...

An effective seed regulation harmonization process involves dialogue amongst all relevant stakeholders from both private and public sectors. Seed quality assurance, variety release, plant variety protection, biosafety, plant quarantine and phytosanitary issues are among the major technical areas of a regional harmonized seed system. The key to a successful seed regulation harmonization is a strong political will of the governments involved www.fao.org...

So WHO is going to OWN that "vibrant seed industry" in Africa??? How many African Farmers are going to follow the Indians into suicide???

This same Ag-Cartel has already managed to wipe out 75% of the farmers in Mexico, 60% of the farmers in Portugal has targeted over a million farmers in Poland.

reply to post by marg6043

Is not that the crops are bad, but that case studies on animals (rat labs) shows that GM is bad for human consumption.

Yes even rats will not eat GMO unless force fed. Just google "rats refuse GMO" and see what you come up with! Think about that RATS, the garbage dump scavengers, no better than to touch the stuff!

This is an example:

By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception

In a study in the early 1990’s rats were fed genetically modified (GM) tomatoes. Well actually, the rats refused to eat them. They were force-fed. Several of the rats developed stomach lesions and seven out of forty died within two weeks.1 Scientists at the FDA who reviewed the study agreed that it did not provide a “demonstration of reasonable certainty of no harm.” In fact, agency scientists warned that GM foods in general might create unpredicted allergies, toxins, antibiotic resistant diseases, and nutritional problems. Internal FDA memos made public from a lawsuit reveal that the scientists urged their superiors to require long-term safety testing to catch these hard-to-detect side effects.2 But FDA political appointees, including a former attorney for Monsanto in charge of policy, ignored the scientists’ warnings. The FDA does not require safety studies. Instead, if the makers of the GM foods claim that they are safe, the agency has no further questions. The GM tomato was approved in 1994.....
www.healthfreedomusa.org...

reply to post by crimvelvet


I asked for evidence, not conspiracy theories.

Look im' all for conspiracy theories when there is evidence but there is none here, at least not referring to the crops that increase drought resistance. Are you honestly telling me that using genetic engineering to further increase drought resistance won't save lives? What utter nonsense.

As i said, there are two types of GM crops, the first are genuinely trying to help the world, the second are designed around profit and profit only.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


The problem is that Monspanto control everything they are the pioneers and the ones have patented the GM seeds.

They have managed with money and power to buy into small companies that had been engineer the seeds to feed the hungry.

Actually is not engineer seed in the world that is not link now to them.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


I understand your line of thinking. However I don't appreciate it, or possibly its your attitude.

As has been stated, Monsanto Control it. And they're not nice people. Read about them.

Secondly, the earth is self healing. Everything living has a natural rebirth. Man has denied this and in turn has destroyed. rather than address of change this, you seem to assume a superior idea is GMO crops to adapt to are retarded way of life. And Monsanto Control it. And they're not nice people. Read about them.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by amazed
No, that is called "natural selection", and is something which nature can do. Genetically modifying means going in and adding things which nature, would never do. IE: adding scorpion genes to cabbage. Nature would never do this.

No sorry there are no crops as far as i am aware that currently use animal, reptile or any other genes that end up in our food chain.

I find it odd that people hear genetic engineering and think they will somehow take these genes into their own genome.

But understand that GM food can be perfectly healthy and good, simply an acceleration of selective breeding we already use.

Not once did I make a comment stating "people hear genetic engineering and think they will somehow take these genes into their own genome." Where did you get that from what I said? I DO believe it can be harmful to humans, and harmful to the environment. If YOU like it, eat it, but I should have the right to choose NON GMO foods. But I do not have that right, because foods are not labeled GMO.

Again, I don't care how much GMO apologist claim genetic engineering and natural selection = the same thing, I recognize it is NOT. Nature does NOT put scorpion genes into cabbage, or silk spider genes into goat milk, or human genes into chicken eggs. GENETIC engineering by humans is what does that. Not to say that if I was starving, and I found a scorpion, I wouldn't eat it, I just may.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Scientists have recently taken the gene that programs poison in scorpion tails and combined it with cabbage. Why would they want to create venomous cabbage? To limit pesticide use while still preventing caterpillars from damaging cabbage crops. These genetically modified cabbages produce scorpion poison that kills caterpillars when they bite leaves — but the toxin is modified so it isn’t harmful to humans.

www.mnn.com...

People may soon be getting vaccinated for diseases like hepatitis B and cholera by simply taking a bite of banana.

Harm None
Peace

Originally posted by amazed

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by amazed
No, that is called "natural selection", and is something which nature can do. Genetically modifying means going in and adding things which nature, would never do. IE: adding scorpion genes to cabbage. Nature would never do this.

\These genetically modified cabbages produce scorpion poison that kills caterpillars when they bite leaves — but the toxin is modified so it isn’t harmful to humans.

\

Yeah it obvious if you dont wante to debate nonsense all day. I also find that a big claim.....not harmful to humans. What do you define as harmful. I'm sure it influences you in another way than had you of eaten something else, a Mcdonalds burger even.

I'm not sure they have completely researched the long term effects, be them physical or psychological, of ingesting scorpion venom

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

I asked for evidence, not conspiracy theories.

Hows this for evidence..A new leak from Wiki..

It's not just the State and Defense departments that are reeling this month from leaked documents. The Environmental Protection Agency now has some explaining to do, too. In place of dodgy dealings with foreign leaders, this case involves the German agrichemical giant Bayer; a pesticide with an unpronounceable name, clothianidin; and an insect species crucial to food production (as well as a food producer itself), the honeybee.

THread here..
www.abovetopsecret.com...

People. Please remain ignorant. Please disregard.

Leaked document shows EPA allowed bee-toxic pesticide despite own scientists' red flags
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's not just the State and Defense departments that are reeling this month from leaked documents. The Environmental Protection Agency now has some explaining to do, too. In place of dodgy dealings with foreign leaders, this case involves the German agrichemical giant Bayer; a pesticide with an unpronounceable name, clothianidin; and an insect species crucial to food production (as well as a food producer itself), the honeybee.

www.grist.org...

Edit to add... Oh DARN beat me to it