Monsanto Charged with Chemical Poisoning

Originally posted by steppenwolf86
reply to post by purplemer

 

Grow everything organically and watch the world starve, not just the poor countries.

Too bad you won't live long enough to understand the truly horrific effects these chemicals will have prove to have had upon the Earth and its creatures.

Monsanto on the defense though without a defense.

reply to post by TsukiLunar


Great vid!

Maybe a warning for language?

reply to post by bobs_uruncle


I agree they are all bed together. The Environmental Agency works had in had with Monstanto for example. Its well documented. Its the reason that some organics are labelled as bio hazards...

reply to post by boncho

I would be more worried about groundwater contamination than I would be of pesticide residue left on food. Neither here nor there, famine or decimation of crops by pests is just as troubling. So what's the answer?

There is plenty of farm land that is not used. There is a lot of food wasted in the western world. The transition to organic would loss us about 5-15% in yield depending on what type of crop we are talking about. This could easily be absorbed...

reply to post by Ericthenewbie


Dont know Tin Hortons, but worked at Mickey D's any many years ago.

Food was/is thrown out on a regular basis. It used to be that anything sat for 10 mins was binned.

In the UK they used to have homeless people hanging out round the back of the shop waiting for the food to come out, and it would be given away.

Then the corporate directive came that this had to stop. All waste wast to be counted, then compacted inside the shop before being put into the large, lockable bins outside. On no account was any waste food to be given away.

Why?

Because some greedy tw@ decided that they could sue McDonalds if they got food poisoning from free food that the corporate policy decided was past its best, and therefore unfit for sale to the general public.

So while I agree, theres to much good food going to waste, I can fully understand why corporations like McD, Hortons and other food preperation/sales businesses are wary about giving away produce that they do not want to sell. Its sad, but I do not blame them, I blame the money for nothing, get rich quick, sue everybody culture of modern society, particularly in the US.

I feel that the more warnings on a product, the more dangerous it is. If it comes with 5 pages of do/ do not, and warnings about dire consequences every other sentence... I'd switch to something safer.

Originally posted by steppenwolf86
reply to post by purplemer

 

Grow everything organically and watch the world starve, not just the poor countries.

Not really in my view,you can grow hydro organically,airophonically and many other ways.It would take a lot of work but in my view we could have hectors of green houses on 24 hour a day grow scheldules.as a people we should have these areas in waiting incase we ever need them.aslo with the water shortages ,this is a perfect idea for perfect food for the world without hammering the water tables so much.
I have a friend that has his running machine converted to heat a small room,it takes a while to warm up but think its cool .
shout outs to all them people with amazing veg grows in the back gardens,best food i ever tasted was grown with bird and bat poop.

reply to post by lostgold


Have a look at aquaponics it can out competes all other methods of agriculture. It fertilizers, plants are fertilized by the fish poo. Chemicals are not used because it can harm the fish. Here is a video on it. Not saying its the best video its the first one I found..

Cannot embed soz heres the link.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by wylekat
I feel that the more warnings on a product, the more dangerous it is. If it comes with 5 pages of do/ do not, and warnings about dire consequences every other sentence... I'd switch to something safer.

How about warnings on food labels. Thats whats really lacking. We should have the right to know if our food contains GM products..

reply to post by purplemer

Its the reason that some organics are labelled as bio hazards...

Codex Alimentarious designed to make all organics and homegrown food illegal.

Codex Alimentarious.

The thing I find most disturbing it that they control the majority of the seeds distributed to all the farmers.
Are the seeds I purchase for my garden also controlled by a side corporation of Monsanto's. Are they also genetically modified.

"In 1996 Monsanto purchased Agracetus, the biotechnology company that had generated the first transgenic varieties of cotton, soybeans, peanuts, and other crops, and which Monsanto had already been licencing technology from since 1991. Monsanto first entered the maize seed business when it purchased 40% of DEKALB in 1996; it purchased the remainder of the corporation in 1998. In 1998 Monsanto purchased Cargill's seed business, which gave it access to sales and distribution facilities in 51 countries. In 2005, it finalized the purchase of Seminis Inc, a leading global vegetable and fruit seed company, for $1.4 billion. This made it the world's largest conventional seed company at the time."
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Bluemoonsine

Its the reason that some organics are labelled as bio hazards...

Corporations like Monsanto have gone to war with organic produce. Having legislation passed t curtail there use. Codex Alimentarious is disturbing. It was first conceived over 50 years ago and we are now seeing it in full effect. It is the reason vitamins will and are being removed from the shelves and the reason why governments have gone to war against herbs and herbal products..

reply to post by obnoxiouschick

Are the seeds I purchase for my garden also controlled by a side corporation of Monsanto's. Are they also genetically modified.

I find it very disturbing that a company like Monsanto one of the largest chemical companies in the world is gaining increasing control over seeds and food. Common sense says this is not a correct move. Especially when profit is put before health and the environment. It would ad least be a lot fairer if these seeds where labelled so that we knew what we where getting. If GM seeds and crops are safe you think they would be proud to label there products. There actions speak louder than words....

reply to post by purplemer

But they are against labeling.
They fought against the milk companies using labels saying they didn't use Monsanto's bovine growth hormones. They will fight to keep those labels off seeds and produce and everything else.
It is scary and sad.

reply to post by purplemer


hopefully this will make people finally realise how damn dangerous GMO and Monsanto is...

and hopefully if the French go through with the GMO ban then maybe Europe and hopefully the rest of the world will follow...!

nice thread s+f

The French convicted George Soros and he's making even a bigger manipulation of the economy and still roams the land free to do whatever damage he wants. George Soros owns the Democrat Party. I'm still waiting for them to oust him.

I got excited about the title of this thread (and French articles) until I realized it's a judgment related only to the inhalation of fumes and subsequent poisoning of this one farmer. I'd hoped it was broader, i.e. found in the soil in high concentration.

I really don't think this one judgment will do anything at all.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


University sells out to corporate interests

The University's primary function is exactly what's been recently called "tobacco science." My research has exposed that there are over 350 different corporations "donating" tax-deductible finances at the University -- including over 225 corporate-driven genetic engineering projects. With research costs tripling since the 1980 corporate "free lunch" laws, as Lawrence Soley documents in his "Leasing the Ivory Tower: The Corporate Takeover of Academia," the University is now financially, as well as socially and environmentally, unaffordable.

Consider that Minnesota's largest citizen-run environmental organization, Clean Water Action Alliance, was forced to resign this spring from the state agriculture (genetic engineering review board) because of the "Corporate U." As the resignation letter states, "The institution responsible for conducting the research must be credible and one which inspires public confidence in the (genetic engineering review) process. We do not believe that the University is capable of such trust. Many already know that the University has had long and close ties with the livestock industry and corporate agribusiness. The University is viewed as an integral part of the problem."

The recent dean of the College of Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Sciences, Mike Martin, exposes the true priorities of the University to be bold, elite marketing. In his lead Research Review, May 1998, article, "This University Must and Will Lead in Biotechnology Research," Martin states: "The millers told our breeder, Jim Orf in Agronomy and Plant Genetics, that it would be a little better for them if the bean could be just a little bit bigger. Jim, a good biotechnologist, said, 'for enough money I'll make 'em the size of basketballs.'" Martin continues in a context of glee, "We've acquired the rights to Monsanto's Roundup-ready gene: You put the gene into a crop plant, plant the plant, blast the area with the weed-killer Roundup, and everything dies but the crop. In southern Minnesota, they raised a lot of Roundup-ready soybeans last year, and we're working on Roundup-ready turf grass, Roundup-ready canola, and perhaps Roundup-ready barley."

With concentrated corporate control comes unaccountability, and my report details a long list of white-collar crime indicative of the Corporate U. It's to be expected, then, that Martin left the state while at the center of a scandal. Sen. Ember Reichgott Junge, DFL-New Hope, chair of the State Ethics Committee, stated, "Dean Martin has provided us now with two to three different accounts of the facts." The alleged issue: State Sen. Dallas Sams was paid University funds ($12,500) to secure public funding ($1 million) that will be focused on corporate agriculture. Junge added that she "believe(s) that Dr. Martin was the center person in all of this." Tragically, the University's image of sifting through the ethics of biotechnology is a blatant lie.

For instance, the scientific hazards of rBGH, already pushed onto suicidal farmers and exploited consumers, was exposed recently by the distinguished Codex Alimentarius. The commission ruled unanimously that rBGH is unsafe on the grounds that the resulting milk has excessive levels of an insulin growth factor that is linked to spreading of various cancers, notably breast, prostate and colorectal. In the United States, 1 out of 2 men and 1 out of 3 women now get cancer. The University still has Monsanto tax-deductible financing of synthetic growth hormones on campus. All of this might seem shocking, since the University constantly promotes an image of ethical analysis regarding genetic engineering technology. But the public continues to become guinea pigs to this fundamentally deadly technology, and the Corporate University does public relations damage control. For the 25-year Celebration of the Women's Studies Program, an anti-genetic engineering presentation was held, titled, "The Sacred Cow and the Mad Cow: metaphors of ecofeminism and technofeminism" by physicist and ecologist Dr. Vandana Shiva, Director of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology.
Inherent dangers of genetic engineering include: genetically engineered potatoes, being poisonous and damaging to mammals; increased cancer risks from genetically engineered products; damage to food quality and nutrition, increased antibiotic resistance, increased pesticide residues, genetic pollution, damage to beneficial insects and soil fertility, creation of genetically engineered "superweeds" and "superpests," creation of new viruses and pathogens, genetic "bio-invasion," socioeconomic hazards and ethical hazards. Cargill's genetic engineering partnership with Monsanto and Cargill

I read the following quote on infowars.com recently and it literally rattled my soul:

Corporations and government enjoy a mutually beneficial relationship – getting one to regulate the other is asinine and only hurts smaller businesses who are legitimately trying to compete in a free market economy that barely exists.

www.infowars.com...

When I read that I thought of Monsanto! If the government won't regulate these evil organizations and the quote above is right, there's no hope whatsoever as far as I can see.