It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Kansas Farmer Sues Monsanto Over Rogue GMO Wheat

page: 5
41
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike.Ockizard
 


Good question, I am looking now for the answer.

It could be, that like other Bt GMO crops, it was found to be unsafe.

Here is recent finding on Bt Eggplant, found to be unsafe, therefore it will
not be approved for farming. newsinfo.inquirer.net...




posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I thought they were Protected now? B•stards



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Here is recent finding on Bt Eggplant, found to be unsafe, therefore it will
not be approved for farming.

My goodness. You completely misstate what is in that article.
That isn't what it says. It isn't about farming and the eggplant has not been found to be unsafe.

“the field trials of genetically modified organisms Bacillus thuringiensis (bt) eggplants could not be declared…as safe to human health and to our ecology with full scientific certainty, being an alteration of an otherwise natural state of affairs in our ecology.”


newsinfo.inquirer.net...

That was the court's opinion and finding. It does not say the eggplant was found to be unsafe anywhere in the decision but decided that unless safety could be "fully guaranteed" there should be no field trials. Sort of a strong statement. I wonder how you can "fully guarantee" the safety of anything.

Are automobiles "fully guaranteed" safe? No? Get 'em off the road! Do they have no effect on "the natural state of affairs of our ecology." Pretty large effect as a matter of fact. Get 'em off the road!

For crying out loud, agriculture of any sort is "an alteration of an otherwise natural state of affairs in our ecology.” Corn doesn't grow on it's own. No corn allowed! Are farm fields a "natural state"? Nope, they just ain't natural!

It wants "full scientific certainty"? Well, besides the fact that there really is no such thing about any scientific work, how do you go about getting "certainty." The court succumbed to political pressure and ignored science. It's an idiotic decision to stop field tests under controlled conditions.

edit on 6/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

It's an idiotic decision to stop field tests under controlled conditions.


In your opinion, your entitled to it.

So, the egglant was not found to be safe, according to the approval process.
Why does that bother you so?



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
... look at India, and how all of the GMO cotton seed failed its
Indian farmers....it absolutely did not deliver. Monsatan sold them
GMO cotton, they paid the bucks and it failed. To those farmers,
that is their livelihood, their life.


More on the BT cotton in India and its 40% failure rate.


The government of Maharashtra, a state in western India, has acknowledged for the first time that Bt cotton is a failure that will likely reduce yields by 40%, from 3.5 to 2.2 million quintal. The region’s cotton farmers will face about Rs6,000 crore, over 1 billion USD. Accumulated losses are to be even more staggering: Rs 20,000 crore, or about 3.6 billion USD, due to rising cultivation costs.

Faced with unbearable debt and health problems, the National Crime Records Bureau predicts that 5,000 farmers will have committed suicide by the end of the year, compared to last year’s 3,500. If you’re surprised by this number, know that Monsanto’s cost-inflated and ineffective seeds have been driving farmers to suicide for quite some time, and is considered to be one of the largest — if not the largest — cause of the quarter of a million farmer suicides over the past 16 years.
www.nationofchange.org...


Thats not just one farmer, that is the Indian Government acknowledging Bt cotton a failure.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships
 


Here is recent finding on Bt Eggplant, found to be unsafe, therefore it will
not be approved for farming.

My goodness. You completely misstate what is in that article.
That isn't what it says. It isn't about farming and the eggplant has not been found to be unsafe.

“the field trials of genetically modified organisms Bacillus thuringiensis (bt) eggplants could not be declared…as safe to human health and to our ecology with full scientific certainty, being an alteration of an otherwise natural state of affairs in our ecology.”


newsinfo.inquirer.net...

That was the court's opinion and finding. It does not say the eggplant was found to be unsafe anywhere in the decision but decided that unless safety could be "fully guaranteed" there should be no field trials. Sort of a strong statement. I wonder how you can "fully guarantee" the safety of anything.

Are automobiles "fully guaranteed" safe? No? Get 'em off the road! Do they have no effect on "the natural state of affairs of our ecology." Pretty large effect as a matter of fact. Get 'em off the road!

For crying out loud, agriculture of any sort is "an alteration of an otherwise natural state of affairs in our ecology.” Corn doesn't grow on it's own. No corn allowed! Are farm fields a "natural state"? Nope, they just ain't natural!

It wants "full scientific certainty"? Well, besides the fact that there really is no such thing about any scientific work, how do you go about getting "certainty." The court succumbed to political pressure and ignored science. It's an idiotic decision to stop field tests under controlled conditions.

edit on 6/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Whew, thanks for posting that link! That news outlet is for the Philippines =D

Eggplant grows well here and is cheap, I get it at $0.50 usd/kilo usually. You raise some excellent points too.

The way I look at biotech is something like this...

The ecology is not fully understood on long term effects on human meddling. Humans has altered plants in a way using trans-species genetics (transgenic), from one creature to a plant, in order to prevent another specie(s) from attacking that plant. The plant has evolved/adapted it's own defense mechanisms in order to survive against a certain threat. The organisms, like insects, are behaving in their normal fashion, when now the food they used to enjoy kills them.

Humans have altered that plant to "protect" it from threats that humans perceive. In the meantime, the "created", patented, transgenic plant (for money) has been introduced into the wild. During this time, the plant interacts with countless insects, soil microbiology organisms, and whatever else in their environment. I don't think it is right for humans to intervene with the evolution of these plants by using transgenic methods -- and hope for the best outcome of all the other organisms interacting with these plants, and in many cases dying. How else will that impact the regional ecology?

I don't think there is much long term thinking here except the protection of IP rights and monopolizing the agriculture industry, and others in time most likely.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchitburn
reply to post by burntheships
 


I find it humorous that their lawyer's name is Snively.

Monsanto is scum, it is also funny that they act like anyone considers them as anything other than scum. I have yet to meet someone with a favorable opinion of that company.

You obviously haven't met Hopechest the forums CIA employee.

-On Topic-
GREAT! I hope all the farmers unite and take them down! **** monsanto i hope all their heads die!

edit on 6-6-2013 by Arolexion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Philippines
I don't think there is much long term thinking here except the protection of IP rights and monopolizing the agriculture industry, and others in time most likely.


I think it's pretty easy to predict what comes next once control of all agriculture is seized. Didn't Bechtel try to do this with water in South America? Didn't turn out well, from what I've read.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by KyrieEleison

Originally posted by Philippines
I don't think there is much long term thinking here except the protection of IP rights and monopolizing the agriculture industry, and others in time most likely.


I think it's pretty easy to predict what comes next once control of all agriculture is seized. Didn't Bechtel try to do this with water in South America? Didn't turn out well, from what I've read.


Yep, it's in the pipeworks with the AquAdvantage Salmon salmon from AquaBounty Technologies. I can only imagine new patents on other organisms will continue indefinitely and at an increasing rate over time.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Philippines
 




I don't think it is right for humans to intervene with the evolution of these plants by using transgenic methods -- and hope for the best outcome of all the other organisms interacting with these plants, and in many cases dying.

Yes, many people think there is something inherently "wrong" about transgenic (and other genetic modification) methods. Many people thought there was something inherently "wrong" about taking baths at one time. That doesn't mean there is.

What other organisms are dying as a result of GMO crops? Boll weavels? They've been dying for a long time. Before there was Bt cotton, boll weavels were sprayed with insecticides. Are insecticides wrong?
edit on 6/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Philippines
 




I don't think it is right for humans to intervene with the evolution of these plants by using transgenic methods -- and hope for the best outcome of all the other organisms interacting with these plants, and in many cases dying.

Yes, many people think there is something inherently "wrong" about transgenic (and other genetic modification) methods. Many people thought there was something inherently "wrong" about taking baths at one time. That doesn't mean there is.

What other organisms are dying as a result of GMO crops? Boll weavels? They've been dying for a long time. Before there was Bt cotton, boll weavels were sprayed with insecticides. Are insecticides wrong?
edit on 6/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Nice points! On insecticides, in particular commercial varieties, I guess they can be wrong depending on perspective. Here, the rice fields which are commercially chemical free, will provide edible food like small fish and shellfish. When chemicals (let's say any kind) are introduced into the environment, this kills the food chain from the smallest creatures up. This kills the small creatures from the top of the mountain down to the rivers in the valley. Are insecticides wrong? From my perspective the commercial chemical ones are wrong. These chemicals also makes the water non-potable for drinking, yes? Perhaps that water is being drunk by other organisms that are dying from the contamination. I don't believe the ecology/biology on this subject is fully understood by science.

What other organisms are dying as a result of GMO crops? You mention boll weavels? Ok, what other organisms are dying as a result of the death of boll weavels or other organisms dependent on one another. I don't think the dependencies in the ecology are known or understood of all the different interactions going on in nature.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Philippines
 


Ok, what other organisms are dying as a result of the death of boll weavels or other organisms dependent on one another.
The same ones that were dying as a result of the death of boll weavels before the introduction of Bt cotton. In fact, since the cotton is not sprayed for weavels now, probably fewer other insects are affected.

Organic farming is great. It has often been shown that it can be more productive (per hectare) than farming which uses pesticides and artificial fertilizers. The problem is, it does not scale up well. It is not possible to apply the same techniques to farms of hundreds or thousands of hectares that can be applied to farms of 2 hectares.

edit on 6/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

Organic farming is great. It has often been shown that it can be more productive (per hectare) than farming which uses pesticides and artificial fertilizers. The problem is, it does not scale up well. It is not possible to apply the same techniques to farms of hundreds or thousands of hectares that can be applied to farms of 10 hectares.



Arguing in agreement on the organic farming part.

Scaling up should be relevant on people participating in wanting to eat -- ie: farming and having a carbon footprint for their lifestyle. (I hate using the term carbon footprint, but it is a good term.)

I think humanity went a bit wrong with agriculture to begin with, but really screwed up with the Green Revolution. And many other reasons, but more food leads to a larger population imo.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Monsanto bought blackwater quite a few years ago . I'm surprised people are just finding out .
Disney is involved in all of this. Check the connections between Monsanto Disney and Blackwater. It's for some interesting reading.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by PtolemyII
 


Monsanto bought blackwater quite a few years ago . I'm surprised people are just finding out .

You mean around 2009?

No. Monsanto did not buy Blackwater. They contracted (2008-2010) with Total Intelligence Solutions to provide information about groups that may have posed a risk to its personnel and operations. Of course, that would just be paranoia on their part, right? No would would want to do anything to its personnel or operations.

Unless you can show me otherwise, I have no reason to believe that Monsanto "bought" either Blackwater or Total Intelligence Solutions.
www.sourcewatch.org...,_LLC


edit on 6/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   


Organic farming is great. It has often been shown that it can be more productive (per hectare) than farming which uses pesticides and artificial fertilizers. The problem is, it does not scale up well. It is not possible to apply the same techniques to farms of hundreds or thousands of hectares that can be applied to farms of 2 hectares.

edit on 6/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Phage is this subject one of your strengths? I have seen better from you. I have another quote for you "Argue your limitations and they are yours" Not possible to scale up? we as a species have become very capable, and we can, if we choose feed the world for all time - organically. What do we not have?

Some of your writing is perilously close to the lie of "substantial equivalence" that has been used to put aside the testing of these new organisms. Surely you know that the insertion of a gene has created a new organism, making sure that people spell their arguments correctly doesn't dispel the truths contained in them.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Peter Brake
 


Not possible to scale up? we as a species have become very capable, and we can, if we choose feed the world for all time - organically. What do we not have?
We don't have the labor force required, for one thing. Is it not true that organic farming is more labor intensive? There's a reason organic produce costs more.

But the problems of pest control in a field of 10,000 acres is an entirely different thing from pest control in a 2 acre plot, labor or not. The same techniques used in organic farming cannot be used in large scale agriculture.



Surely you know that the insertion of a gene has created a new organism, making sure that people spell their arguments correctly doesn't dispel the truths contained in them.
Yes, the insertion of a gene has created a new organism. That's sort of the whole point. I'm not sure how the second part of your sentence applies to the first though. I'm not even sure what it means.

edit on 6/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Peter Brake
 


Not possible to scale up? we as a species have become very capable, and we can, if we choose feed the world for all time - organically. What do we not have?
We don't have the labor force required, for one thing. Is it not true that organic farming is more labor intensive? There's a reason organic produce costs more.

But the problems of pest control in a field of 10,000 acres is an entirely different thing from pest control in a 2 acre plot, labor or not. The same techniques used in organic farming cannot be used in large scale agriculture.



Surely you know that the insertion of a gene has created a new organism, making sure that people spell their arguments correctly doesn't dispel the truths contained in them.
Yes, the insertion of a gene has created a new organism. That's sort of the whole point. I'm not sure how the second part of your sentence applies to the first though. I'm not even sure what it means.

edit on 6/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Not enough labour? Perhaps some of the 26% unemployed in Greece could help out. Seriously though Mr Science man if you were farming 10000 acres, wouldn't you make sure someone was building a machine to do this work? We organic growers are allowed to use machinery too. Scaling up means our budget grows as well, weeding, mulching, with GPS we can almost do that from an armchair now.

We do not need to take risks on untested new organisms - period.

Another thing - how in your mind do you see an outdoor field test, being controlled? Are you incinerating the neighbouring fields daily? are all birds & bees lasered? If it rains do you microwave the runoff at the boundary?

As too the 2nd part - the corrections in peoples arguments that you have made on this thread, didn't make their arguments incorrect. I'm suggesting your normal informative impartial intelligence can be more constructively used by making a correction and also acknowledging the truth they have spoken. Adding a counter argument is fine (informative), ignoring their argument because of some incidental doesn't move the thread along merely creates sticking points, that get circled adding little value.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Interesting thread and very good to read one that is on the "Polite" side of things considering the topic at hand.
Our city too had the Monsanto march and it was quite popular indeed.

As far as I am concerned this "Rogue GMO Wheat" is as bad as radiation on the loose.
The worrisome aspect is they have no idea how this got loose, yet they claim its ok?

Now in a nut shell this stuff is illegal in the States yes?
This company is known for suing anyone in sight for breech of contract...yes?
I do believe that this time around Monsanto is in serious doo-doo because they cannot or will not answer how this came about.

Sure as anything they know why and how but they are spending all their time saying it is ok nothing to see here.

They will get ripped to shreds in a court of law and I for one would love to sit in and watch.
Go Farmers GO!

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by PtolemyII
 


Monsanto, while they did not buy Blackwater, has hired them to infiltrate groups
protesting Monsantos BioTech.


One of the most incendiary details in the documents is that Blackwater, through Total Intelligence, sought to become the "intel arm" of Monsanto, offering to provide operatives to infiltrate activist groups organizing against the multinational biotech firm.


www.thenation.com...
edit on 6-6-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join