March Against Monsanto Explodes Globally

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

Don't know about you but I'm not too keen on feeding my 6 year old a plant that has been designed in a lab to kill grasshoppers and worms.

Um...just about all plants have built in pesticides.

Organic plants and you can't tell the difference unless (as before stated) DNA mapping is done.

If you can't tell the difference, what's the problem?

And since pro-GMOers claim that they are perfectly harmless....why the hesitation to label?

Well, because such labeling implies that there is something dangerous about GM plants for one reason. But actually, what makes more sense? A lable that says "this product may contain GM material" or one that says "this product does not contain GM material?" www.abovetopsecret.com...

If consuming GMOs causes damage to DNA,

Why would it?

Maybe GMOs are completely harmless, maybe not. Just label them so me and my family can avoid them.

In the US, it is safe to assume that if you are eating corn flakes, you are eating GM material (and have been for a couple of decades). Unless it has a label that says you aren't.

a reply to: Metallicus

Anyone who thinks 'ownership' grants complete immunity to what you do on 'your' land has a really myopic view of eras and eons.
If this crap was completely contained on that property perhaps an argument can be made for such an allowance.
These crops and chemicals do not recognize artificial boundaries. As such I want proof of generational dimensions, that these practices will NOT (leave off probables) cause permanent changes to a stressed environment.
We already know that isn't true.
So, I marched.

a reply to: Phage

"Just about all plants have pesticides built into them."
Natural. Yes. Introduced via recombinant DNA in a lab. Umm....no.

"If you can't tell the difference, what's the problem?"
At face value they may look the same, but there is a POSSIBILITY of GMO food causing long term- as in generational- damage. The fact is, nobody knows.

"Such labeling implies there is something dangerous about GM crops."
BS It doesn't imply anything. True, some people would avoid food labeled GM and that's what GMO producers are afraid of. Grams of sugar is on the nutritional information and that doesn't imply anything, it's a fact. And sugar is just as dangerous, if not more so than GMOs. Clearly not many people are deterred by THAT labeling. Luckily food producers are catching on that being certified Non-GMO boosts their sales so the number of products to choose from is constantly increasing. But as it stands there is no regulation as to whether a food item HAS to label in respect to GM status, it's completely voluntary.

"Why would it?"
We don't know what it does. That's my point. If I ate one GMO apple I would probably be totally fine. The human body is a miraculous thing. Small amounts of radiation, poison, pollution, toxic chemicals, UV rays, X rays...lab created DNA...can be filtered. Small amounts of damage can be repaired. The problem is, what if I don't know I'm eating GMO apples and I eat them every single day? What if I eat them while I'm pregnant, then my baby gets old enough to eat solid food and THEY start eating them every day? Plus, their cornflakes are GMO, their meat has antibiotics, their soda is full of chemicals. What if there is a snowball effect? We don't know. I don't know. You don't know. Nobody knows. Hell, they test mascara before putting it on store shelves and that just goes on your eyelashes. There was virtually no testing of GM crops before they were slapped on shelves for public consumption.

"In the US, it is safe to assume that if you are eating corn flakes, you are eating GM material. Unless it has a label that says you aren't."
Which is why I don't eat name brand cornflakes. The checkers at my local grocery store recognize me as 'the lady that buys all the organic stuff'. I specifically gravitate toward Non-GMO labeled stuff, because I have a sneaking suspicion that even some stuff labeled 'organic' could still contain GMOs. Organic testing mainly deals with herbicide/pesticide use. I have no idea if they do DNA testing. Although if a farmer is conscientious enough to grow organic, then they are much more likely to grow non-GMO.

I'm not even trying to demonize GMOs. Maybe they're totally harmless. I just want to know FOR SURE before I feed them to my kids.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: reldra
Seeds have been patented since before there were GM crops.

How much cross contamination has occurred? What have been the consequences?

Yes, farmers have been sued for knowingly replanting patented seed. People have also been sued for other patent and liscensing agreement infringements in other industries.


Monsanto and Dupont (and others to a lesser degree) certainly dominate the seed market but cornered? Not really.
Market Shares

Farmer suicides? Really? That myth?
India had a high rate of suicide among farmers (and others) before the introduction of GMOs and the rate of increase declined after they were introduced in 2002.

Oh please Phage, playing advocate of the devil, sure, but for Monsanto? They pay enough people to do that for them.

Seeds have been patented since before there were GM, very true, however, never before with the possible impact, and on the scale that Monsanto is, and plans on, doing it.


It is not about how much has occurred. It is about how much COULD occur. The consequences? If seeds or crops are patented, and they "oops" cross contaminate other species, doesn't that mean they fall under the patent? Even if they don't, the patented crops will likely become the dominant one. They're resistant for a reason you know. Then what? Pay Monsanto for seeds you harvested?


And really now, that is your line of defense when it comes to Monsanto's patenting scheme, that it has been happening before?


Has it ever happened to life sustaining goods? Has it ever happened to natural resources that don't belong to anyone specific?
Global food production is dependent upon seeds and you're going to argue for it falling into the hands of a mere few corporations, corporations that have created this mess we're in, TO BOOT??

There's a difference between trying to dominate this industry and trying to patent a damn car design, Phage, and I'm 100% sure you know that. They can patent alllll the cars they want, a car is not a natural thing, it is a man made creation, and despite the fact you will argue "but mankind has cross-bred food to be what it is", you know full well that argument holds no ground.


I'd even dare go as far and say that if you are pro-Monsanto, you are anti-evolution. If nature had intended for its flora to produce it's own similar pesticides (not the "already happens" ones), don't you think it's had enough time to make that happen? Ahh but no, they're "humanitarian", they're going to help people in poor countries by every year charging them hands full of money for their super strains! What's that mumbo jumbo about collecting your own seeds for next harvest? That's pre-corporatocracy conspiracy!!


Red Cross is humanitarian, red cross doesn't have a million dollar department dedicated to public image, red cross doesn't need to get involved with corporate mercenaries, red cross doesn't charge recurring fees to the people they have helped.




Lastly, you have no idea what Monsanto has up their sleeves. You're going to argue in this day and age, where billion dollar bailouts occur rather than actually jailing white collar criminals, that we should just wait and see, and hope that monsanto is all for the good of mankind?


I don't believe it and I never will, I will know it when I see it, and so far, what they've shown is not pretty. You don't know what they will try, you don't know how government will respond, you don't know what coverups might already have occured, you don't know a thing of what might happen behind closed doors. And if that's too "conspiracy" for you, then maybe I joined the wrong forum, but I'm sure I didn't.


What happened to agent orange again? Oh that was a *different* monsanto, right! Like the banks that are corrupted to the bone today, are *different* banks now


Don't you see this is the entire damn problem with "corporations are people too"? No they're not, they're not held accountable for their actions in the same way, so why would they be? Prime example right here, you know what this company has on their record, stop pretending otherwise.


You wouldn't hire someone in your kitchen who has a record of poising prison food, why is this case any different



(btw, you didn't disprove farmer suicides, and calling it a myth is plain disrespectful, to be honest.)

originally posted by: Phage

Organic plants and you can't tell the difference unless (as before stated) DNA mapping is done.

If you can't tell the difference, what's the problem?

Oh i don't know, the fact that there still IS an actual difference?

originally posted by: Phage

And since pro-GMOers claim that they are perfectly harmless....why the hesitation to label?

Well, because such labeling implies that there is something dangerous about GM plants for one reason. But actually, what makes more sense? A lable that says "this product may contain GM material" or one that says "this product does not contain GM material?" www.abovetopsecret.com...

How does that imply they are dangerous exactly? It doesn't, it implies "this food did not just come from the ground, scientists first went and altered the DNA for your enjoyment!"


IF gmo are perfectly safe, there is ZERO reason NOT to label them



Why are you playing lap dog to some corporation JUST to protect their profits, because that's the only thing your argument is based on?


Since if people could think GMO are dangerous for labeling them, they COULD avoid the product, and the only result of that, is loss of profits, nothing else.


Are you going to support a ban on labeling gluten next? Because you know, some people think it's really bad, maybe we should stop labeling it, just so not too many people get worried about it being in their foods... /irony off




And again, where is the humanitarian angle in all this, Phage? Are we not human enough to have rights too? The right to know what we're eating?


Even IF you don't think GMO are bad, why are we not allowed to choose what we want to eat?

Why do you want to hide GMO to the point they become prevalent in all foods and we no longer have a choice, just because YOU don't want that choice?

What's your agenda?? Because I support your freedom of choice.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: reldra
Seeds have been patented since before there were GM crops.

How much cross contamination has occurred? What have been the consequences?

Yes, farmers have been sued for knowingly replanting patented seed. People have also been sued for other patent and liscensing agreement infringements in other industries.


Monsanto and Dupont (and others to a lesser degree) certainly dominate the seed market but cornered? Not really.
Market Shares

Farmer suicides? Really? That myth?
India had a high rate of suicide among farmers (and others) before the introduction of GMOs and the rate of increase declined after they were introduced in 2002.

“The issue of farmer suicides is not just entirely a farmer issue, or rural issue, or a village issue — it is a much more broader political-economic problem,” said Raju Das, a developmental studies professor at York University.

While the spotlight is on farmers, forgotten is a suicide crisis among Indians where the suicide rate is twice as high for the general population and even higher for young females.

The issue of farmer suicides first gained media attention in 1995 as the southern state of Maharashtra began reporting a significant rise in farmers killing themselves.

But in 2008, the International Food Policy Research Institute, an alliance of 64 governments, private foundations, and international and regional organizations that aims to end hunger in the developing world, reached an entirely different conclusion.

“It is not only inaccurate, but simply wrong to blame the use of Bt cotton as the primary cause of farmer suicides in India,” said the report, stating that the introduction of Bt cotton in India had actually been effective in producing higher yields and decreasing pesticide usage by nearly 40%.

news.nationalpost.com...

Farmer suicides:
SOURCE
SOURCE

Patented seeds:
What other company-before GMOs- has sued over the seed's reuse beyond one season? India is turning that on Monsanto...suing it for BIOPIRACY

Monsanto has the largest seed market share in the world, followed by Syngenta and Cargill and/or DuPont. The top 10 seed companies own 75% of all of the seeds currently on the planet.
SOURCE
Consolidation of smaller seed companies into the top 6
In 2008, Monsanto had nearly 1/4 of the market
Difficult to stop GMO contamination and track it, due to different regulations per country:
GM Contamination register
1/3 of organic growers report cross contamination problems
GMO growers are not specifically required to mitigate the risk of contamination while Non-gmo growers ahave to take complicated steps to attempt to protect their crops from contamination in order to sell to specific markets.
GMO contamination prevention - NOT EASY

96% of all corn crops and almost the same amount of soy in the US are GMO---how can anyone expect no cross contamination for that? I don't don't need a link to know that is futile.


The source for your metabunk.org chart is THIS and it's almost 3 years old.

the Earth has taken billions of years to make it what it is today.
so we can all be a part of it. and live.

some one comes along and thinks they can do a Lot better in 50 years?
how many times did Nature lose some species?
I hope its only humans this time.

because nature can do a LOT better than humans Next Time.

I think we should thank Phage for his good points for GMO.
its nice to know what the government wants us to think.

originally posted by: buddha
the Earth has taken billions of years to make it what it is today.
so we can all be a part of it. and live.

some one comes along and thinks they can do a Lot better in 50 years?
how many times did Nature lose some species?
I hope its only humans this time.

because nature can do a LOT better than humans Next Time.

Yep, how arrogant do you really have to be to believe after millions of years of evolution;

"scientists can do it better"

I claim it is anti-scientific to support monsanto. If you believe monsanto is doing the right thing, you must also believe nature did a bad thing, that evolution has failed us, and that rather than using what was given to us naturally, we should now start messing with that in order to try and fix things


We never even gave fair and honest distribution of resources a shot, but nahh, there's little profit in that compared to actually dominating said resources, and THEN distributing them!



Of course, all the pro-monsanto folk will scoff at this since they know for a fact that this will never be the case! Ironic, since I know I don't have a crystal ball, I'm just expressing what I fear MIGHT happen, yet they? They have it all figured out! Monsanto will save humanity with these new super foods, because we all know, without those, humanity would be doomed!

originally posted by: buddha
I think we should thank Phage for his good points for GMO.
its nice to know what the government wants us to think.

I actually found his questions to me to be very like an exam for a class. One asking for a short essay. I am not sure what his opinions really are. Other than he believes the farmer suicides due to prices/market share of GMO companies in India is bunk based on the Forbes article I also found. Forbes used to be really good magazine.

a reply to: Phage

Why do you work around the topic? You know people like you are #ing annoying, In sweden we call it lobbyism. Anything chemical needs to be processed in a human body. The topic in itself is that we eat #, or do u wanna report another one of my statements so it gets taken off topic, because you couldnt work around it.

a reply to: reldra

Farmer suicides:

Yes, farmers have been committing suicide in India since before there were GM crops in India. The rate of farmer suicide declined after the indroduction of GM crops. It is not true that Indian farmers commit suicide because of GM crops.

What other company-before GMOs- has sued over the seed's reuse beyond one season?

Here you go.
search.rpxcorp.com...

Monsanto has the largest seed market share in the world, followed by Syngenta and Cargill and/or DuPont.

Yes, I know. I said that. Having the largest market share is not the same as cornering the market.

GMO growers are not specifically required to mitigate the risk of contamination while Non-gmo growers ahave to take complicated steps to attempt to protect their crops from contamination in order to sell to specific markets.

Yes, organic growers have to take a number of steps to maintain their certification. Tell me, have any lost their certification due to GM contamination?
Your source:

Non-GMO growers – While there are no regulations pertaining to non-GMO production practices and label claims, organic growers are prohibited by the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and the National Organic Program (NOP) Regulation from planting or using any genetically engineered crops, inputs, or planting stock,
referred to as “excluded methods.” Any organic growers who knowingly plant or use GMOs are subject to revocation of their organic certification and may be prosecuted for violation of OFPA.

www.extension.umn.edu...

Or are you saying that their produce is tested for GM contamination before reaching "specific markets?"

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
a reply to: Phage

"Just about all plants have pesticides built into them."
Natural. Yes. Introduced via recombinant DNA in a lab. Umm....no.

"If you can't tell the difference, what's the problem?"
At face value they may look the same, but there is a POSSIBILITY of GMO food causing long term- as in generational- damage. The fact is, nobody knows.

"Such labeling implies there is something dangerous about GM crops."
BS It doesn't imply anything. True, some people would avoid food labeled GM and that's what GMO producers are afraid of. Grams of sugar is on the nutritional information and that doesn't imply anything, it's a fact. And sugar is just as dangerous, if not more so than GMOs. Clearly not many people are deterred by THAT labeling. Luckily food producers are catching on that being certified Non-GMO boosts their sales so the number of products to choose from is constantly increasing. But as it stands there is no regulation as to whether a food item HAS to label in respect to GM status, it's completely voluntary.

"Why would it?"
We don't know what it does. That's my point. If I ate one GMO apple I would probably be totally fine. The human body is a miraculous thing. Small amounts of radiation, poison, pollution, toxic chemicals, UV rays, X rays...lab created DNA...can be filtered. Small amounts of damage can be repaired. The problem is, what if I don't know I'm eating GMO apples and I eat them every single day? What if I eat them while I'm pregnant, then my baby gets old enough to eat solid food and THEY start eating them every day? Plus, their cornflakes are GMO, their meat has antibiotics, their soda is full of chemicals. What if there is a snowball effect? We don't know. I don't know. You don't know. Nobody knows. Hell, they test mascara before putting it on store shelves and that just goes on your eyelashes. There was virtually no testing of GM crops before they were slapped on shelves for public consumption.

"In the US, it is safe to assume that if you are eating corn flakes, you are eating GM material. Unless it has a label that says you aren't."
Which is why I don't eat name brand cornflakes. The checkers at my local grocery store recognize me as 'the lady that buys all the organic stuff'. I specifically gravitate toward Non-GMO labeled stuff, because I have a sneaking suspicion that even some stuff labeled 'organic' could still contain GMOs. Organic testing mainly deals with herbicide/pesticide use. I have no idea if they do DNA testing. Although if a farmer is conscientious enough to grow organic, then they are much more likely to grow non-GMO.

I'm not even trying to demonize GMOs. Maybe they're totally harmless. I just want to know FOR SURE before I feed them to my kids.

This is probably one of the best and most honest responses I've read concerning the Genetically Modified Food arguments and their labeling.

Instead of trying to push GMO labels on food product, because let's face it there's more GMO then not, in this era..

The food companies thst do not sell GM food, keep labeling "Non-GMO". That's where all my $$ has gone the past couple years, labels work

a reply to: Phage


You only address what you want/can?



Can we get a short response from you on how you think monsanto (*cough*agent orange*cough*) has the right to claim they are a humanitarian organization?

And, if you believe they are, then don't you think the likes of red cross etc, deserve a new badge, as I find it quite disgusting to put them under the same banner as monsanto? Or maybe you think red cross should start making a profit off of helping people too in your opinion?



You can defend them all you want Phage, truth of the matter is, your average person who has ever read or heard about monsanto and their products, will disagree with you, whether you think you're better or smarter than them or not, will not mean a thing to them, nor to the fact that monsanto is doomed to fail in the long run.


If you think people are anti-monsanto allll because of some organic agenda, I don't know what to say honestly. They're anti-monsanto because most people have enough common sense to understand that our food has always been fine the way it was, and to now have OUR food altered so other countries can get "humanitarian" seeds, for profit, is utter bs.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

"Just about all plants have pesticides built into them."
Natural. Yes. Introduced via recombinant DNA in a lab. Umm....no.

Pesticides are chemicals. Plants produce chemicals.

How is intentional genetic modification different from natural mutation? We eat mutated DNA everyday.

I specifically gravitate toward Non-GMO labeled stuff, because I have a sneaking suspicion that even some stuff labeled 'organic' could still contain GMOs.

Which is exactly my point when it comes to labeling. "May contain GM material" tells you nothing you do not already know.

I just want to know FOR SURE before I feed them to my kids.

Are you FOR SURE you won't get hit by a drunk driver on your way to the store to buy your labeled non-gm corn flakes? See, that's the problem with "proving" that GM is safe. There is nothing that can satisfy that requirement. What does "safe" mean? Is organic food "safe?"
www.mnn.com...

a reply to: HalfLeaf

You can defend them all you want Phage,

Where have I defended Monsanto?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

"Just about all plants have pesticides built into them."
Natural. Yes. Introduced via recombinant DNA in a lab. Umm....no.

Pesticides are chemicals. Plants produce chemicals.

How is intentional genetic modification different from natural mutation? We eat mutated DNA everyday.

I specifically gravitate toward Non-GMO labeled stuff, because I have a sneaking suspicion that even some stuff labeled 'organic' could still contain GMOs.

Which is exactly my point when it comes to labeling. "May contain GM material" tells you nothing you do not already know.

I just want to know FOR SURE before I feed them to my kids.

Are you FOR SURE you won't get hit by a drunk driver on your way to the store to buy your labeled non-gm corn flakes? See, that's the problem with "proving" that GM is safe. What does "safe" mean? Is organic food "safe?"
www.mnn.com...

How is intentional mutation NOT different from natural mutation? Do you believe god did all this or something?



And getting hit by a car is totally the same thing as avoiding non-tested foods, totally.

a reply to: HalfLeaf

How is intentional mutation NOT different from natural mutation?

Because both are the same thing. The alteration of genes.

And getting hit by a car is totally the same thing as avoiding non-tested foods, totally.

Non-tested? Are you sure?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: HalfLeaf

You can defend them all you want Phage,

Where have I defended Monsanto?

In pretty much every one of your posts? No, wait, I know, you like to stay in the middle and incite people with your "neutral knowledge" to then back out and claim you don't hold a position or an agenda. Sorry, from your postings, I'm pretty certain you do...


It shows in you ignoring my entire questing regarding the humanitarian issue.


I would love for you to address that, but seeing as you're now going to pretend you don't pick sides, I guess this conversation is over. I sure wonder if you debate like that in real life too, it's rather annoying, either you stand by your claims, or you don't make them, and you are obviously defending them around every turn, claiming there is no link to suicides, no risk to gmo,...


Preventing the labeling of gmo because "people might think they are dangerous" is defending monsanto and protecting their profits, nothing more, nothing less. If you think I use monsanto as an umbrella term too much, fine, you can hold that one against me, I gladly admit.