Groundbreaking Investigation Reveals Monsanto Teamed Up With US Military; Targets Scientists,

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Why don't you ask them?

We oppose current initiatives to mandate labeling of ingredients developed from GM seeds in the absence of any demonstrated risks. Such mandatory labeling could imply that food products containing these ingredients are somehow inferior to their conventional or organic counterparts.

www.monsanto.com...

reply to post by Phage


I guess creating separate compartments for GMO and non-GMO seeds on loading trucks is too far out of their league? There is always an easy solution to everything, and you are making it sound as if it's too difficult or inconvenient for a company who raked in nearly a billion in profits this past quarter.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

There is always an easy solution to everything, and you are making it sound as if it's too difficult or inconvenient for a company who raked in nearly a billion in profits this past quarter.

Requireling labeling would require quite a bit more than "a billion" but why do you think
Monsanto should pay the bill? The farmers are making a profit by growing GMO corn. The brokers are making a profit by selling the corn. The truckers are making a profit by moving it. The storage facilities, the millers, the factories, the grocery stores.

But fine, make Monsanto pay...for some reason...what happens? Now the price of seed corn goes up. Farmers pay more, brokers pay more, truckers pay more. Gee. It ends up in the consumers lap...again.

You have no idea of the science. You have no idea of the practicalities. You have no idea of the economics. You live in a nice litte black and white world where every is nice and simple. How nice.

reply to post by Phage


Why would we need to ask Monsanto, when we have you here
speaking for them. Its almost as if ATS has its own Monsanto rep.

The bottom line for Monsanto is profit, that and its hidden agenda.

So, phage answer me this. If your against Eugenics, why do you support
Monsantan? You know the basic idea behind their company is Eugenics.

reply to post by burntheships

Why would we need to ask Monsanto, when we have you here
speaking for them. Its almost as if ATS has its own Monsanto rep.

Ding ding ding!
There it is. When you can't come up with a response, play the shill card.
What a surprise.

So, phage answer me this. If your against Eugenics, why do you support
Monsantan? You know the basic idea behind their company is Eugenics.

No it isn't. If it is, it doesn't seem to be working very well. But if you paid any attention to that thread you would see that I draw a distinction between the philosophy and the "product". Just because Tesla was a eugenicist does not mean his inventions were not of value.

reply to post by Phage


Sorry, but that's a really pathetic excuse on their part.

That's like saying orange juice that's labeled as "from concentrate" is somehow inferior to regular orange juice or pasteurized milk is inferior to non-pasteurized milk.

Nice to see you have all these quotes and links on stand-by too. It's almost like you're just waiting for the right questions to be asked.

Originally posted by Phage
You have no idea of the science. You have no idea of the practicalities. You have no idea of the economics. You live in a nice litte black and white world where every is nice and simple. How nice.

Oh please! Get off from your popemobile!
You are talking to us about science?
At this point, that is laughable.

And this - very duplicitous .
You speak out of one side saying eugenics can not be supported scientifically,
or morally. Then you defend Monsanto, deny its is the very same thing you pretend to abhor.

:shk:

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

That's like saying orange juice that's labeled as "from concentrate" is somehow inferior to regular orange juice or pasteurized milk is inferior to non-pasteurized milk.

Not really. There aren't a bunch of ill-informed liars claiming that orange juice concentrate is an exercise in eugenics.

reply to post by Phage


How hard is it to go into photoshop and add "GMO" onto the labels that are already being made anyways? Do you really think a bit more ink on a label is going to cost a billion dollars?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships

 

Why would we need to ask Monsanto, when we have you here
speaking for them. Its almost as if ATS has its own Monsanto rep.

Ding ding ding!
There it is. When you can't come up with a response, play the shill card.
What a surprise.

edit on 8/4/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/4/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

well it's better than the "if you cant find a response ignore the questions" card.

it's obvious you're not in it for the science, since your scientific judgment is biased in favor of the money er um moncrapo.

also wondering why you seem to think anyone gives a rats ass about the money, we want safe food and up front labeling, non of which has moncrapo demonstrated or given.

Originally posted by Phage
. When you can't come up with a response

Oh, I have plenty of responses, and proof that much of what you have said
about Monsanto is untrue. Why is it so hard for you to admit that the sole
reasons for everything they do are profits, and its hidden agenda!

It didn't used to be like this. At one time, seed companies were just large-scale farmers who grew various strains for next year's crop. Most of the innovative hybrids and cross-breeding was done the old-fashioned way, at public universities, and the results were shared publicly.

"It was done in a completely open-sourced way," says Benbrook. "Scientists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture exchanged all sorts of seeds with other scientists and researchers all over the world. This free trade and exchange of plant genetic resources was the foundation of progress in plant breeding. And in less than a decade, it was over." ..............

Monsanto would soon go on its buying spree, gobbling up every rival seed company in sight. It patented the best seeds for genetic engineering, leaving only the inferior for sale as conventional, non-GM brands. (Monsanto declined an interview request for this story.) www.villagevoice.com...

www.responsibletechnology.org...

indianapublicmedia.org...

www.stltoday.com...

www.browardpalmbeach.com...

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You don't understand a word I've said.

reply to post by LittleBlackEagle

well it's better than the "if you cant find a response ignore the questions" card.

Did I miss a question somewhere? I may have because a lot are being thrown. Can you re-ask it, please?

reply to post by burntheships

Oh, I have plenty of responses, and proof that much of what you have said
about Monsanto is untrue.

Please respond to my question about the food production network. What did I say about Monsanto that is untrue?

Why is it so hard for you to believe that the sole reasons for everything they do are profits, and its hidden agenda!

*gasp* you mean they're out to make a profit? I am truly shocked. I did not know that! That is horrible!

Ok, I just want to pose some curious questions on this heated subject...

Let's pretend transgenic GMO everything is banned from being produced worldwide.

Are there enough organic/heirloom seeds to substitute the market demand? Can the world survive on existing stocks while the new crops are growing?

What is the way to "ween" the world off of transgenic GMOs in a way that does not risk the existing small amount of food supply, while transitioning to non transgenic produce?

I think there are so many inter-dependencies coexisting now that there is no sensible solution.

Also at this point I want to point out that it looks like everyone agrees that labeling should be a requirement on all products possibly containing transgenic GMO ingredients.

reply to post by Phage


Like I said earlier, there is no end to your Monsanto talking points,
and no reason to answer every question twice, after you have chased
your tail around over 12 pages of your twisted rhetoric.

Please go back and re-read my answers starting here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

all of the way to here www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships

 

So, phage answer me this. If your against Eugenics, why do you support
Monsantan? You know the basic idea behind their company is Eugenics.

No it isn't. If it is, it doesn't seem to be working very well. But if you paid any attention to that thread you would see that I draw a distinction between the philosophy and the "product". Just because Tesla was a eugenicist does not mean his inventions were not of value.

Yes, its working perfectly. Its soft kill eugenics, you know perfectly well what it is.
And Tesla was not a eugenicist, what an experiment your conducting.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle

 

well it's better than the "if you cant find a response ignore the questions" card.

Did I miss a question somewhere? I may have because a lot are being thrown. Can you re-ask it, please?

you missed a lot but that's okay. i wont re ask anything nor will i humor you any longer, your views on this issue have spoke for themselves, you claim you do not agree with monsanto's practices on an ethical or moral basis so i'm a little confused as to why you seem to believe their science and blatant lack of any empirical study done or submitted to the public?

meh never mind,you speak far to much with what some may call a forked tongue and i have not the time or willingness to accommodate your circus any longer.

reply to post by Philippines


Not a problem on the seed, there are plenty. They system would need a reboot
back to the way it used to be. Only a short time ago....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Its not going to happen though, Monsanto, Bayer and Syngenta have
an agenda, its going have to be a mandate from The Government.

Hmmm.....

reply to post by LittleBlackEagle

you claim you do not agree with monsanto's practices on an ethical or moral basis

I don't recall saying that. I did say that some of their business practices can be considered less than responsible.

so i'm a little confused as to why you seem to believe their science and blatant lack of any empirical study done or submitted to the public?

How do know there is a lack of empirical study if it has not been submitted to the public? As to why I "believe" their science (and that of others who actually do science), it's because I see no reason to "believe" that GMOs are inherently dangerous and I can appreciate the difference between bad science and good science.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Phage

 

How hard is it to go into photoshop and add "GMO" onto the labels that are already being made anyways? Do you really think a bit more ink on a label is going to cost a billion dollars?

It looks like we all agree on the labeling.

But IMO, some of the companies involved are concerned about WHO would be 'liable' in a lawsuit.

That's what scares them the most.

Legal issues are handled and advised by lawyers and insurance companies.

And of course, how would an individual be able to 'verify' the contents are genuine ?

The bottom line is all about WHO we would / can trust.

The same 'trust' issue applies to these scientific reports.

WHO should WE as individuals trust ?

IMO, many times the ones who are funded by the highest bidder are the ones we should be suspicious of the most. 'They' have the resources to sway a study as well as fund a campaign to discredit any opposition.