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.


Is there any way to ethically destroy Monsanto?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 06:40 AM
reply to post by ziggy1706

Get every major news tv channel, abc new to CNN and broadcast it for an entire week exclusively, the dangers of the food ...

Forget that.
It has already been tried over the last five years by US farmers while we were fighting the (Self snip) Food Unsafe Bill. Derry Brownfield got kicked off the air, two journalists in Floria got fired and a major story on death by food poisoning and the USDA cover-up got squashed by the owner of the paper.

Monsanto OWNS the press thru advertising dollars and their connections in the financial (banking) community.

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 10:32 AM

Monsanto has built a whole department to enforce its seed patents and licensing agreements. It has 75 employees and an annual budget of $10 million. An estimated 400 farmers have received threats of legal action from Monsanto over alleged patent infringement... A clause in Monsanto's licensing agreement allows Monsanto to take such cases in the U.S. before courts in Missouri... Monsanto's latest foray into the courtroom has it suing a dairy in Maine, alleging that Oakhurst Dairy's marketing campaign that touts its milk as being free of artificial growth hormones is misleading.

Is there something bent with the courts in Missouri for Monsanto to based their lawsuits their? Individual farmers do not have much chance going against the resources of Monsanto with the combined efforts of class action the best chance. Even then it can take many years with any compensation an ongoing struggle.

There have been a few cablegate documents that mention Monsanto, if wikileaks has more it would really help releasing it. For any insiders it will help collecting as much evidence as possible to back up any negative claims made.

Another thing that can be done is for a community group to build up a list of products that use GM products and get it out. Here is Australia the labelling laws where subverted so we do not know which products us GM. From some estimates it could be as much as 70-80% of all supermarket goods have at least some derived GM components. This will not help everyone, but will help promote the non GM market and add to the overall political pressure. Without any clear regulatory powers to inspect the supply chain it will be tough to keep an accurate list as things can change from one batch to the next. For food manufactures, labelling food as non GM could provide a competitive advantage if there is some integrity to the labelling process.

It is going to take a lot to stop Monsanto, the internet is helping a lot in this struggle as more and more information is coming to light and being shared around.

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 10:41 AM
I'm in. And all for being just as ethical as they've been. No more, no less.

They are a hydra, but even the hydra was eventually killed. Unfortunately they do have everyone in their pocket. Wouldn't it be nice if this, something that really matters and is so critical, was a big ticket platform issue for the 2012 elections? Instead of say the old stagnant ones (we all know what those are...yawn).

If you do a search on "stop monsanto" a lot comes up. Maybe the efforts are too scattered and it's time for them to unite more?

edit on 2/13/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 11:12 AM

eth·ics –plural noun

1. ( used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.

2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.

3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.

4. ( usually used with a singular verb ) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

#4 is your path, in my opinion. Money is the motive. If money were not valued in the manner it is today, there would be no motive.

Specific to Monsanto, their motive is profit. Their practices are unethical in that there are no boundaries in the pursuit of their motive. Monsanto is only one example of a systemic problem.

Money is viewed more valuable that human life and that seems to be unethical.

I propose we ask "is there an ethical way to destroy money?"


posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 11:56 AM
reply to post by zroth

I propose we ask "is there an ethical way to destroy money?"

Yep, but it is relying on the same technological demons that put us in this position in the first place . Once technology is such that all our needs can be easily meet, the requirement for money will fade. Free energy devices, robotic technology and integrated global cohesion will all help pull us out of slavery to peruse our dreams. This is one possible outcome for technology convergence.

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 11:58 AM
IN my most humble opinion, ANY method of destroying Monsanto is ethical. In fact, as I see it, there is a moral obligation to bring this sinister organization down by any means necessary. They are knowingly killing people and the environemnt with their poison and they celebrate this with their "Profitability". Destroy or be destroyed!

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 12:07 PM
I'm at a loss about how to peacefully bring down Monsanto. They are staggeringly powerful. They own people on the SCOTUS (Thomas) and the EPA/FDA/Administrations have had a revolving door policy with Monsanto.

One thing I would encourage, everyone needs to start writing to Whole Foods Market. They have recently dropped their long term fight against Monsanto: a fact which shocks and depresses me. Though, intellectually, I suppose that underscores just how much money Monsanto has to pour into legal fees. That's part of the problem right there. How do you win against goliath, when David hasn't got the funding to do so. It's how they've managed to put so many farmers out of work in the first place. A farmer doesn't even have to actually be guilty to be shut down. Many have simply been accused, and the legal fees bury them before they even get to trial, so they have no choice but to settle with Monsanto.

What really needs to happen is the SCOTUS needs to reverse their ruling which gave Monsanto the right to patent life. Sadly, I don't see how that is going to happen without a complete overthrow of the system we have now.
edit on 13-2-2011 by ProvehitoInAltum because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 12:19 PM
reply to post by kwakakev

Nice one!

Indeed, human first.

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 02:40 PM
So I just realized that ats is supported by advertising from companies that work with montsanto. While that may not be on purpose, we should still leave, as to not promote monsanto.

Anyway, I don't think we should do anything necessary to get rid of montsanto. I think we should follow the law. Provide some sort of elegant cruise for the people running the companies that own the stocks to montsanto, then once out in international waters slaughter them all, quickly, but not too quickly.

There, now I haven't brken any laws or told anyone to break any laws, although I want to bring up again that if our own government can call for the murder of someone who hasn't even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted, on the msm, why is calling for the murder of murderers not allowed here? I'm saying that I think I can get away with inciting murder if it's approved by the government.
edit on 2/13/2011 by Adlai because: added, didn't want to double post

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 06:13 AM
What about an international body like the 'International Atomic Energy Agency' to help manage the genetic issues? If a bad strain gets out it could be as damaging as nuclear war and serious scientific review and guidelines needs to be put in place to manage and provide over site to this new technology. Establishing such a body without Monsanto hijacking it would be difficult, but with enough global support it could provide the critical regulation to the GMO industry that is currently lacking. If such a body is to sell out, then it is wasting every ones time. If it is well established then it could have the integrity and power to snap Monsanto back in line or cut it down.

I know a lot of the science, media, parliaments and courts are behind Monsanto, but there is also a growing resistance to all this. If a UN resolution can be put together to establish an independent scientific body to provide regulation and put the burden of proof back on Monsanto and other GMO organisations, it could help with all the complex science.

One of the biggest threats I see with Monsanto is the correlation between terminator seeds and infertility, it can take a few generations but there is mounting evidence that we will have to rely on cloning technology to continue reproduction if these trends continue.

edit on 14-2-2011 by kwakakev because: added 'out'

edit on 14-2-2011 by kwakakev because: included main threat

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:52 AM
reply to post by kwakakev

Establishing such a body without Monsanto hijacking it would be difficult, but with enough global support it could provide the critical regulation to the GMO industry that is currently lacking. If such a body is to sell out, then it is wasting every ones time. If it is well established then it could have the integrity and power to snap Monsanto back in line or cut it down.

dont all these organizations become corrupt eventually anyway ....

I mean yea an international type of new FDA which governs and decides all of the worlds "stuff" ....well there is just too much room in there to slide in a monsanto croonies ...too much room for corruption, bribes, and even NWO type globalization...

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:09 AM
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

one of the purposes of a corporation is to serve as a mask behind which
the stockholders hide,and avoid accountability.

just find out who the stockholders are,
then we'll know who to go after

SIGHHhhhh in this post a couple of comments before yours, I showed the Banksters are using innocent people's money to buy the stock through mutual funds, but it is the mutual funds that VOTE the stock. Most if not ALL of the "stockholders" do not even KNOW there money is invested in MONSANTO.

What I am trying to saying is go after the OWNER of those mutual funds. People like the Johnsons!

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:20 AM

Originally posted by CitizenNum287119327
Well when Monsanto sent GM Grain seed to Haitian farmers after the quake.

The farmers just burnt the lot!

Perhaps the activist's who go around exposing bad animal farming practices could start
looking into monsanto seed warehouses.
Let It Burn

Upon arrival, these rewarded farmers took their collective Easter baskets of more than 400 tons of vegetable seeds and burned them all. "Long live the native maize seed!" they chanted in unison. "Monsanto's GMO & hybrid seed violate peasant agriculture!"

Despite all the tech thats out in the world for the masses, you have to get off your @ss to make your point
edit on 12-2-2011 by CitizenNum287119327 because: spelling

Thanks for the link I wasn't aware the farmers told Monsanto to shove it. Maybe they should do it here but would just be run out of business or killed most likely. These guys are pure evil. My wife worked at Pioneer years back and they were always suing monsanto for stealing their hybrid stuff. DuPont bought up Pioneer and she moved to a new job.

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:22 AM
reply to post by dominicus

dont all these organizations become corrupt eventually anyway ....

With some of the stories going around, absolutely. As for the actual evidence and prosecution cases it does get a bit harder to find, I suspect a lot of these matters are handled internally. The benefit of a more global body is that there is more review and recourse for other nations. Monsanto owns America so support there is present, but tough. Other nations like Chile, India, China, Russia and others may have had GM forced onto them, but there is a higher level of resistance to this technology. By establishing a body on the international stage it allows nations to pool their resources together and take on this hydra in a more targeted and effective way.

I acknowledge there is a risk that the big money will try and run the show and increase their power even further. Under the international spot light this is becoming harder to achieve with so much review by other nations. There are a huge amount of issues with GM and it is highly complex with many repercussions. If this technology is taken as seriously as the nuclear issue then an International body will be relatively effective. With the power Monsanto has, I see it as an effective and ethical way to hold them and the GM industry to account. As Lucidity said:

Maybe the efforts are too scattered and it's time for them to unite more?

Currently any questions and accountability with GM is divided and as such defeated.

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:27 AM
reply to post by ~Lucidity

There ARE big ticket Items. The Monsanto's food laws and the change in the tax code. BOTH of these combined will bring our economy to its knees. It will effect EVERYONE. We have to start NOW to blitz this information to every small business person and every farmer and every home gardener.

They are targeting horse owners too. I mention it because a farmers group noticed Monsanto was well represented in a BLM meeting on what to do about the wild horse problem. Monsanto was floating the idea of slaughter and shipping overseas....

....Summit of the Horse in Las Vegas was organized by Sue Wallis, Bob Abbey and a number of others who have ties to Monsanto. A good majority of their speakers also have ties to Monsanto through various outlets. They have come up with a “plan” to save the American horse, which looks like it will lead them blindfolded right into Codex. Rather than actually dealing with the problem of too many horses, creates a worldwide market for horsemeat, thus allowing for factory farming of horses for both domestic and foreign consumption....

Proposed Oregon law:

Briefly, horse owners will be required to register their animals with a state agency (similar to the DMV) and do a transfer of ownership (like the DMV) when selling an equine (horse, donkey, etc.). Initially one must register the animals one owns now and pay “up to $100″ (in government-speak “up to” means “at least”) fee per animal!

There are many provisions in this bill for private sales as well as “registered dealers” etc. But there are also lots of seemingly humane requirements regarding shipping, etc - don’t let these fool you. Unless you are five years old, you must have noticed how everything the Government gets involved in escalates exponentially! You know the fees will continue to go UP and UP and UP! ....

(I posted this else where)
50% of the US labor force work for small business. Obamacare makes a change in the tax law governing 1099's that is going to be a NIGHTMARE for ALL businesses and force many small businesses to close their doors. Worse it will greatly impede the start of new small businesses. It effects not only businesses but all the store clerks, salesmen and anyone fills out an expense report or sells to a business.

The second fiasco is the Food Safety Law. Most American farmers, despite the media's hype, have to work a second job to support their farm. The average net income for US farms is $19K. Very few farms actually get tax payer money and those are normally the large corporate farms. The addition of food safety regulation and the new 1099 tax changes are going to push many out of business and the Tester Amendment Does NOT Help Small Food Producers. A Lawyer says the new law May effect home gardens.

The USA produces 25% of the world's grain. 40% of the USA is farmland and come 2012 when the Food Safety Law goes into effect, the US government will have just put out of business the majority of
the 2,055,230 family farms leaving just the 73,752 Corporate farms. (2002 Ag Census)

This destruction of American farming is intentional and started right after WWII. The key moves were the 1995 World Trade Organization Agreement on Ag and the 1996 farm bill called the "Freedom to Farm Act" both written by the VP of Cargill Dan Amstutz. Those two not only wiped out many farmers in the US but all over the world. The "Freedom to Farm Act" also got rid of the US strategic grain reserve. As of 2008 the USDA reported "The Cupboard is bare" see: History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job

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. PEW REPORT

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:28 AM
the way you beat monsanto is to build a bigger better machine. just supply the world with better safer products and flood the markets with cheaper, it will drive them under because they cannot compete and survive

buy up all their stock then dismantle them

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:34 AM
reply to post by anumohi

Indeed.. Like finding some venture capitalists and buying up a lot of old empty skyscrapers and converting them into vertical farms. Then hiring locals to tend to the farms and selling the produce out of a store on the first floor of the building.
That would be a fund project.. and something like that could be a way to both provide good food at low cost to people who have limited access to it as well as really harming the people who sell monsanto products.

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 12:15 PM
reply to post by rogerstigers

Indeed.. Like finding some venture capitalists and buying up a lot of old empty skyscrapers and converting them into vertical farms. Then hiring locals to tend to the farms and selling the produce out of a store on the first floor of the building.

Monsanto's new Food law will squash that. Monsanto and her buddies RUN the FDA. Monsanto, Cargill, ADM, ConAgra, Continental, IBP, Nestlé, Unilever, Philip Morris, Bunge and Born, Louis Dreyfus, are the principal companies that constitute the international food cartel. They want complete control of the food supply and that means they want ALL the farmland. They have allready wiped out 75% of Mexico's farmers, 60% of Portugal's, they targeted a million of Poland's farms and now they want the farms in the USA.

LOOK at the Food Law and then look at the international guides to farming practices. A farmer is going to run his farm according to rules made up by Bureaucrats and spend over 60% of his time doing paperwork per the experience of one farmer in England. If you raise food you will have to comply with an ever changing bureaucracy. As one farmer said in frustration LET THEM EAT GRASS

This is a general overview:

This is one of the finished international plans: Guide to good farming practices for animal production food safety:

This is one of the finished plans by a state Univ:

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 01:00 PM
reply to post by rogerstigers

exactly, and you could even go farther.

if everyone on the planet that wanted serious change, invested $100 dollars, that would be enough to sink monsantos ship

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 01:04 PM
reply to post by crimvelvet

the bureaucrats can be eradicated like rats when the people stand up and are finally tired of being controlled..

this day is coming soon

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in