Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Monsanto and Pioneer Duke It Out Over Biotech Corn, Farmers Take the Hit
There is an old African saying "Whether elephants make love or war, the grass suffers." The two elephants in the agricultural seed business are now making real war, although they have been wary of each other for years. Monsanto, a relatively recent entry into the business, has become the "dominant male" in the battle after moving to acquire a large number of formerly independent seed companies. Pioneer, content for years to be the premiere corn breeder in the world, has found itself suddenly defending its turf and trying to find ways to move into the new biotech ball game. The Des Moines Register recently covered this ongoing saga.
Monsanto has long been targeted as a corporate villain. From dioxin-laced Agent Orange for Vietnam to the industrial chemical, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), Monsanto was known as producer of persistent, deadly chemicals. Lassotm, the alachlor-based pre-emergent grass herbicide with a long list of toxicity issues, was their first foray into agricultural chemicals.
Monsanto's bottom line was being hurt by lawsuits and clean-up costs associated with dioxin and PCB pollution. Enter RoundupTM (glyphosate), launched in 1976. This is the chemical that made Monsanto the powerhouse it is today. Glyphosate is a broad spectrum nonspecific herbicide that has low acute toxicity and does not persist in the environment. It should be noted however that many questions remain regarding the long-term toxicity of glyphosate.
By 1982 they had the first genetically modified plant cells. Depending on definitions, humans have been genetically modifying crops for thousands of years. More correctly, these are termed transgenic crops, which involves inserting a gene that is not acquired by pollination. I have used genetically modified (GM) because it has become the standard term. Now plant life is patented, permitting GM companies to control technology, and prohibit use of seed from the GM crop.
In 1926, Henry A. Wallace and others founded the Hi-Bred Corn Company in Des Moines to develop and market the expanding hybrid seed corn business. Pioneer was added to the name in 1936. They moved into soybean seed operation in 1973, and soon became the leading corn and soybean seed producers. Pioneer gained the number the one corn seed sales spot in 1982 from its longtime rival, Garst. Pioneer, when I first came to the Leopold Center in 1988, was a family company: friendly, environmentally aware and benevolent. Its advances were based on classic plant genetics, not biotechnology. It was not to last.
Monsanto bought its way into the seed business by acquiring established companies including the number two seed corn producer, Garst. This predatory approach (Monsanto often paid more than market value for the seed companies) combined with its big breakthrough-developing genetically modified corn and soybeans resistant to glyphosate-gave them a huge market advantage. This initiated the trend to GM crops that is now dominant in the seed industry.
The predator habits of Monsanto long made Pioneer nervous. Patented Roundup Ready soybeans were first introduced by Monsanto in 1996. One year later, Pioneer had biotech corn and soybeans on the market, buying the technology from Monsanto. Pioneer Hi-Bred was purchased by DuPont (20 percent in 1997 and the remainder in 1999). Lawsuits began soon after.
By 2000, corn borer protection had been added by Monsanto (called YieldGardtm) and Pioneer had to enter into agreements to use the Monsanto technology in its corn. Pioneer paid big bucks to use the Roundup Ready and YieldGard traits. Now Monsanto is suing Pioneer over infringement of these patent rights and Pioneer is moving ahead with a new set of seed traits called Optimum GAT. Monsanto saw red, and has countersued. Monsanto also became very unhappy when Pioneer recently co-sponsored an anti-Monsanto seminar in St. Louis, the home of Monsanto. The issues are complex, and involve "stacking" of seed traits. This means that genetic characteristics for two or more traits are included in a single seed. Often these stacked seeds have not had full evaluation regarding their safety and efficacy. In the meantime, Pioneer slipped to No. 2 in seed sales.
Monsanto now licenses these traits to about 200 seed companies. Their powerful monopoly has blocked competition. They will not even allow experimenters to evaluate the seed corn for efficacy in other environments.
During this time, the price of seed corn and Rounduptm escalated rapidly. But now Monsanto is starting to lose money on its Roundup herbicide, mainly because it is off patent and others are now undercutting Monsanto on price. Furthermore, the pent up demand for glyphosate in South America had raised prices earlier, but this market now is being met.
So what does all this mean? I first encountered Monsanto in the early 1970s when at a regional research meeting in St Louis they invited the committee to tour their operations. At that time they were just getting into biotech and no one really saw its potential to make money.Then, about the time I was getting the Leopold Center programs underway, Roundup Ready soy field trials were under way on a site east of Ames. I had a tough decision to make on funding for field work that might involve GM materials, and decided we would not fund such work, but it soon became hard to delineate the lines between GM and non-GM. When Pioneer went over to Roundup Ready, and then both companies began stacking genes, I knew the game was lost.
Genetically modified corn and soybeans dominate, especially in countries with high input agriculture. Claims that GM crops will "Feed the World" abound, especially around the time of the World Food Price presentations earlier this month. Other claims include the lowering of pesticide use and lessening of soil erosion.
Monsanto now bills itself as a Sustainable Agriculture company!
These are issues deserving of future blogs. I worry about how the world's farmers are being shortchanged in the quest for improved and adapted seed varieties at reasonable costs. Now they cannot save seed for fear of the Monsanto cops taking them to court and ruining their lives. The seed industry is no longer competitive because about 90 percent of it is in the hands of two companies and the cost of seed is out of reach of small farmers. I worry about how the food system is now dependent on genetically engineered corn, soybean, cottonseed, canola and sugar beets (recently taken back off of the market). GM wheat, rice and other staple crops could follow as pressure continues to adopt these crops. The industry essentially says "We build it, you will use it."
We need to be smarter about these crops, question each claim and insist the government enforce antitrust laws. We should resist the claims that they will solve the food shortage in countries where their use will do more harm than good. Specifically, this means the next food frontier, Africa, must not become a new "Green Revolution" based on the failed western world high technology model, rooted in GM crops.
- Posted in
41 Comments so far
Show AllIt's starting to sound more and more like corporations are using the court system as the equivalent of a gun to the head.
They have been doing that for years with SCOTUS being the biggest goto when even the lower courts rule against bad corporate behavior. The next time you see Republicans and Democrats shouting on social issues for hiring justices, keep in mind that the real litmus test is being carried out behind the scenes by Wall $treet and the corporate interests.
We need to be smarter about these crops? The American public has repeatedly and overwhelmingly stated via poll after poll for the past 10 years that it wants these GMO crops labeled upon entry into the food supply, so we can reject them in the marketplace. We ARE smart about these crops. We don't want to eat them! We distrust the science that says they are safe because we see and understand that there are many revolving doors spinning between Monsanto Corporate headquarters, the FDA, EPA and USDA. We have seen how it is solely the science Monstanto itself provides (as proof of efficacy, consumer safety, and environmental safety) that is put on the regulatory barrelhead, then rubber-stamped by the ex-board members of said corporation that enjoy high appointments in the above agencies that we, the people, depend on to protect our welfare. We see the mendacity, greed and immorality. What we also see is that Ag Academia is complicit in the dominance of this criminal-syndicate-like company (the corporate definition of narcissism bordering on psychosis). How many research scientists have sat quietly and complacently in protection of their tenure and copious Monsanto grant funding, and are now fiddling, while all the horribly disfigured Monsanto chickens come home to roost? I expect nothing less from my own local land-grant college of ag, and have not been disappointed. They could name it Monsanto U, and it would surprise no one, and especially gratify the Dean, who licks the boots of Monsanto with great relish. It was especially chilling when the Dean of our college of ag came to a recent Organic Association meeting on the pretext of touting all the exciting new work his college is doing in organics, only to tell all of us organic farmers in his closing sentence that he wanted us to realize that the wave of the future in organics will be GMO seeds.
Sioux Rose
STEWARDESS: Excellent post. Thank you for sharing it.
The author forgets to mention one important fact. Monsanto is not only heavily subsidized by our taxpayer money, it is defended by the UN of all things. If the UN wants to be taken seriously, the first thing it would do is stop defending Big Agri giants such as Monsanto. This is the second reason why it's tough even for St Louis to rein in Monsanto, the first being that getting people united to get the mayor and the city counsels to rein in this monster is like trying to herd cats. Monsanto would otherwise not be the big bully is it today.
Jennifer, for the first time I feel that I can see Obama's predicament. People, including me, are fond of saying that if Obama can't change things at this time when democrats control both chambers, then we can never expect any progressive change. However, democrats have become so conservative that they're demopublicans just like the republicrats. Status quo is the mantra throughout our government.
Upon reading your comment, I went to the organic consumers website and read this story (synopsis: Obama wanted to sharply cut subsidies to big agribusiness, and the lobby went apoplectic, and as usual, cried "harm to small family farms!!!", like the hypocrites they are). Anyway, link:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_17467.cfm
Thanks Bliss for the link. I don't know what happened in the nearly 7 months since. The only outrage I've heard in favor of small family farms appears to be coming from Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats who come from rural farmland districts. I don't know what Obama plans to do next but I'll have to keep my fingers crossed until he actually succeeds where it counts. Thanks for the information on Obama's predicament. I'll take his predicament into consideration.
Fearmongering about family farms brings us back to corporate personhood. Nebraska had banned corporate ownership of farmland. The Supreme Court overturned the law as "discriminatory". The suit was brought under the Americans with Disability Act by a disabled man who wanted to farm.
The only way to cut subsidies to Big Ag is to get rid of them completely and then replace it with a small farm friendly policy. We've watched attempts to cut subsidies be destroyed in Congress over many years. Not that they'd get rid of them either. And this always gets me back to Instant Runoff Voting.
Of course, there's always Jimmy Carter's plan from his Sec Ag--If you convert to chemical free farming they front end load the subsidies to get the farm through the poor yield transition period, then get them to zero over 10 years. That takes care of family farms and corporate farms can fend for themselves as the subsidies would not be high enough for them, by design of course.
"Glyphosate is a broad spectrum nonspecific herbicide that has low acute toxicity and does not persist in the environment."
That is total BS, and is certainly the Monsanto line. For more info and a list of all the diseases associated with Glyphosate, and the environmental issues around it, see:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/roundup.cfm
"Depending on definitions, humans have been genetically modifying crops for thousands of years."
More BS. Breeding compatible plants does not mess with their genes, and the seed will revert to one or the other of the crossed plants. Selecting plants for the largest and healthiest does not mess with their genes, but only selects for certain genes. Genetic modification involves moving genes across species and from animals to plants. This does NOT occur in nature.
As for "feeding the world", more marketing BS. The world currently has 6 billion and grows enough food for 9 billion. Unless Monsanto plans on giving away seeds, or food or farm land, or money to buy seed or land, no product or plan will feed the world's hungry. Hunger in this world is a function of politics, not the availability of food.
Good, let Monsanto and Pioneer duke it out. Maybe they'll kill each other. The art and science of organic planting must be recovered and developed, or we will ultimately kill ourselves with the pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers in our soil, water and air.
Great points. I would add Mosanto can claim that they offer opinions thus their lies protected under the first amendment.
Hah! You've read the Huffpo piece on S&P, yes.
"That is total BS, and is certainly the Monsanto line. For more info and a list of all the diseases associated with Glyphosate, and the environmental issues around it, see:"
Did you read the next sentence?
"It should be noted however that many questions remain regarding the long-term toxicity of glyphosate."
"More BS. Breeding compatible plants does not mess with their genes, and the seed will revert to one or the other of the crossed plants. Selecting plants for the largest and healthiest does not mess with their genes, but only selects for certain genes. Genetic modification involves moving genes across species and from animals to plants. This does NOT occur in nature."
And the author further defined what he means by genetically modified, which pretty much fits your definition. I agree with your positions and your last two grafs, but really, find something genuine to criticize here.
It's the "low acute toxicity" part of the paragraph that is the BS, and for those who follow the issue, it isn't a matter of many questions remaining regarding the long term toxicity of glyphosate. It's a matter of facing the known problems.
"And the author further defined what he means by genetically modified, which pretty much fits your definition."
It's the "by definitions" line that is BS, and I don't like the author saying that. Monsanto is the only entity that defines traditional plant breeding as genetic modification, and they use that argument constantly.
I know that writers are very conservative in addressing the genetic mutilation of life on this planet. They're afraid of being sued by one of Monsanto's 70 permanently retained lawyers. Readers, on the other hand, can certainly call BS when they see it.
Re Bliss Doubt October 29th, 2009 10:35 am, who advises
"Good, let Monsanto and Pioneer duke it out. Maybe they'll kill each other."
I agree with your sentiment, but fault your premise. It's more likely that one will emerge victorious, larger and stronger than before, having perhaps invented some uber-technology which will give it a competitve advantage, but which will further degrade the environment, homogenize the gene pool, and sicken the consumer.
Far better to fight for strict labeling laws, and let "the market" decide who makes the best product. Europeans are allowed to know what they're eating.
Why not us?
"Far better to fight for strict labeling laws, and let "the market" decide who makes the best product. Europeans are allowed to know what they're eating."
Ah yes, the old "market determination" concept, I remember it well. Monsanto fights it by having two dictionaries, one for consumers and regulators, one for the patent office. When it comes to consumers, genetically modified produce is "substantially the same". Corn is corn. There is no difference, sort of like when the makers of lab created gems say "it is a true sapphire". When it comes to the patent office, and intellectual property rights, and suing farmers into oblivion over pollen drift, genetically modified produce is unique, identifiable in any laboratory, substantially different than non-GMO produce.
"Europeans are allowed to know what they are eating."
In fact, at least in France where I visited recently, they have something a lot more like democracy than we have here any more. GMO has not taken off in Europe, due to lack of acceptance in the markets, but via trade organization involvement, US biotech and their puppets in our government are always hammering away against this "restraint of trade".
"Ah yes, the old 'market determination' concept, I remember it well. Monsanto fights it by having two dictionaries..."
And the courts allow it. I once heard the practice of law described as "straining at gnats and swallowing camels." Here we have another example.
Sioux Rose
BLISS DOUBTS: Excellent posts! If ever a company's board deserved to go before a firing squad, Monsanto would qualify. They are war profiteers that have NO respect for life and NO business dismantling what Mother Nature took millions of years (of love-based trial and error) to put together. Genetics = the biological banks of time, and NO ONE is entitled to a copyright on that!
When the Supreme Court granted to for-profit bio-tech companies copyright protection of genes, it essentially granted impunity for the RAPE of nature. This ruling is a far more egregious sin than that of the 30 Republicans who are making light of that poor woman gang-raped by her private army "comrades" in Iraq. Life is far too cheap to too many in positions of power. They trade their temporal satisfaction for the destruction of entire ecosystems, biological blocks of time, the foundation blueprints of our world!
dennis do you feel like the fellows who worked on the a bomb
and in horror watched the result? the problem here is of a greater value. no food for the masses as a result of this.
and where was uncle tom i mean sam in all this? a governments
first responsibility is to its citizens not its corps.
when soylent green becomes a reality we know who the first
donaters should be! as usual i bet that these folks didn't
eat gm food. they knew better. just like the folks who
work for the tobacco companies! until we as a people start
to get involved in mass demonstrations on a regular
basis and wear out the governments will and make it
respond to OUR wishes not some multinational corps!
so folks its time to take a national day off from
work make a plan with your friends and neighbors
and start some shit! we are teetering on the brink
right now with this climate change polluted water
and any other catastrophe in the making that you
would like to mention! pick a action there are certainly
enough to go around. no shortages of these . only
a shortage of enough people willing to stand up and say
i'll do that. lets do it!
MOnsato should look to Elli Lily for the "wave of the future".
Elli Lily is a firm that manufactures drugs that treat various cancers and diseases. They also brought the rights to rBGH from Monsanto which tests have shown leads to many of the diseases those same drugs treat.
Poison them with one hand, treat them with the other.
Sioux Rose
GW NORTH: Sci fi becomes today's norm! So, Disaster Capitalism now strives to conquer profit ratios on the biological horizon where mistakes can prove lethal to millions. How bout them Chiquita bananas (wasn't that the brand name wherein an entire mono-culture crop became vulnerable to a parasite)? Nature is all about community, diversity, complex ecosystems, but leave it to the Mars warriors of biogenetics to force plants to line up and essentially take marching orders. The ruination of the natural world WILL boomerang upon human beings. Learning (in this article) that these 2 pro-biotech companies now own 90% of the world's seeds... this is slavery's equivalent enacted upon the plant KINGdom. Sometimes I wish I didn't know all that I am being exposed to in this forum, along with profound analyses from some good books. It just doesn't seem possible that so much can be destroyed so adroitly when money is only a quickly fading, transitory basis for exchanging what's considered of worth. What will the paper or gold mean when the harvests no longer produce, when the seeds turn sterile, and all the Viagra-style pumping mechanisms applied through chemical fertilizers also fail? Like the bees gone wherever, with the isle of plastics in the Pacific a testament to shortsightenedness, species are dying and glaciers melting. For the natural world, the center cannot hold. How could so much be taken for so little so rapidly? It is a travesty against LIFE and all things sacred; however the very concept of sacred never appears on any balance sheet? These days it is only Mammon that gets to define the value of a thing. If humanity survives into future centuries, one can only begin to imagine what it will conclude about this era.
"these 2 pro-biotech companies now own 90% of the world's seeds"
But the remaining 10% of seed is far more valuable, as heirlooms selected for truly beneficial properties by generations of farmers worldwide. And then there is the greatest asset of all, the wild seed. Given the agenda behind the commercial seed (domination of nature and people), the heirloom/wild seed have even greater spiritual value.
Sorry, but this isn't a "disaster in the making." It's already here. Michael Pollan's study of the American diet is but one demo.
You can check this yourself just by looking at what people put in their shopping carts at the supermarket. Or by reading the ingredients labels (not that I trust these anymore...).
And, in response to another agriculture article at CD several days ago I started keeping a shovel in my car and driving around the countryside, pulling over next to a corn field and digging up the "soil." I have yet to find a single worm! Versus any shovelful in my back yard.
I live in rural Indiana and yesterday decided to visit the orchard that produces the minimally processed cider sold by my nearest independently owned grocery store. Sixty miles, round-trip, it is the closest orchard. A pound of honey was over $4.
To find out what is actually being thrown away by a supermarket I have to drive another 60 miles RT because the closer ones have those pneumatic dumpsters you can't open. They are throwing away PRODUCE. Tons of it every week.
From the article:
"The seed industry is no longer competitive because about 90 percent of it is in the hands of two companies and the cost of seed is out of reach of small farmers."
How do you UNDO this disaster? Food security is about as fundamental a social issue as there is. We're teetering on the edge and that fact is being covered up by "the national security state."
This article should be considered a wake up call.
-30-
"And, in response to another agriculture article at CD several days ago I started keeping a shovel in my car and driving around the countryside, pulling over next to a corn field and digging up the "soil." I have yet to find a single worm! Versus any shovelful in my back yard."
Could you please provide the link to the article to which you are referring?
Thank you!
This article should be considered a scare mongering piece full of misinformation. For instance, one would not save any of the seed from Hybrid GM corn as it would not be satisfactory to plant. Hybrid seed needs to be produced with a special method using detasseling to get uniform plants that yield well. By far the largest part of this corn is either fed to animals, used for ethanol, or shipped overseas. That part should pose no problem for the nations food supply. It is doubtful that much, if any of the GM corn is used for human consumption as field corn is not palatable compared to sweet corn.
It is like stopping the wind from blowing to persuade farmers to go back to ordinary methods to produce grains as the benefits of hybrid GM seed and Roundup weed control are so effective. Farmers have to pay their bills also, and will use the method that works for them. GM seed permits much less dangerous chemicals to be sprayed on the crop or soil, so there are benefits to consider.
What nonsense ! Go tell the rising suicide among Indian farmers thanks to Monsanto and the rest. Farmers in the USA and all over the world did much better before Monsanto and GM crap took over. I have older friends and relatives who have specialized in agriculture and biology enough to discuss the financial schemes and tricks to distort the studies. GM seeds are the result of dangerously altering the DNA. Check this article out:
Monsanto GM seeds contain 'rogue' DNA
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20000528/ai_n13949744/
This was written in 2000 but the warnings were dead on.
Here's another article that smashes the myths about the benefits of GM seeds:
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Newsletter/Jan2008-GMSugarBeets/index.cfm
Mother Earth and Lord Krishna are punishing farmers who choose to take such shortcuts !
Thanks for these great links!
"By far the largest part of this corn is either fed to animals, used for ethanol, or shipped overseas. That part should pose no problem for the nations food supply. It is doubtful that much, if any of the GM corn is used for human consumption as field corn is not palatable compared to sweet corn."
More BS. Starlink already contaminated the human food supply quite some time ago, and massive amounts of food had to be recalled from store shelves. GMO rice that was only in an experimental phase contaminated the american rice crop, and was fast track approved for human consumption on an emergency basis, safe or not. I suspect, furthermore, that there have been cover-ups of other incidences of contamination of the supply of food for human consumption. Pollen drift can't be controlled.
Organic is the only way to safely plant, increase yields, spare wildlife, spare the environment, and have plenty of food for all.
Not to mention the animals fed GM crap are then eaten by people. Oops.
That's defunct rhetoric. The world is wising up. This is the news of the day. Let's congratulate the people for the great progress made so far in saving and distributing HEIRLOOM OPEN-POLLINATED crop varieties. The world is fascinated with the diversity, enjoying the taste, and thriving from the health benefits. USan style industrial monocropping is a dinosaur doomed to extinction.
Heirloom open-pollinated crop selection is a fascinating process performed for all the right reasons, unlike hybrid/commercial crop selection. Open-pollination maintains pest resistance and production efficiency and reliable transfer of traits to progeny. Open-pollinated varieties are typically selected for best taste/nutrition, grown near the point of consumption, field ripened, and eaten within a few days. Many are grown with organic fertilizer. The non-commercial growing methods require more labor inputs but typically produce twice the nutrition per unit of weight and three times the value when full costs are considered.
Fantastic post, thank you.
I was wondering where the GMO apologists had gone - still some here rehashing the same old debunked crap.
The name NonSanto is more appropriate
Almost forgot. The Audubon Society magazine has a 3 page "ad" from Monsanto promoting the sustainability theme. I could even sort of see it if it was just an ad for their stuff, but it's pure propaganda.
To no surrender:
Sorry. Can't provide the earlier article due to relatively severe constraints on my local computing power and my covering too much stuff to nail it, but I really don't see where the history here is necessary. You can get your own shovel and check out the local corn fields near you. The "soil" isn't really "soil" any more; better termed a substrate.
To rtdrury:
You wrote in no small part: "Let's congratulate the people for the great progress made so far in saving and distributing HEIRLOOM OPEN-POLLINATED crop varieties."
While I respect the sentiment here, many reports out of Mexico say that GM corn is contaminating their many native corn varieties due to pollen drift of GM corn even though Mexico prohibits the latter. I do not pretend to understand this phenom (for example, why don't their native crops cross-contaminate?). What I do sense is that what I grew up being told about genetics was probably wrong---that species are individuated, when it appears that there is far more gene-mixing than earlier reported. That the latter would be so would of course go against the "racial purity" mythologies of America. Genetic drift. Corn pollen in the air. Can't control it. It's like aerosolized DEPLETED URANIUM. It just keeps on spreading.
Oh, and golly, at the viral level, they just keep on "cross-pollinating" like there's no tomorrow. They didn't teach that when I went to college. Back then, everything was "neater" don't you know.
Was it Henrik Ibsen who wrote "An Enemy of the People," about a doctor who tried to warn that the springs upon which the town depended for tourist dollars were CONTAMINATED? Instead of blaming the polluters we are once again blaming the messenger who tells us about them. Has this not been going on at least since Jesus and the money-changers? When will we start to learn?
Throw the bastards from the Temple! Who are the real Philistines?
-30-
Nanoo
You've brought up a very important point. Get a shovel and check out the farmer's field. The soil really isn't soil, is correct. My dad has a farm. the land being rented out to another chemical farmer, like my dad was when he personally worked the land. to death I might add.
Presently, my son and daughter have started to reclaim a very small part, considering, for vegtable gardening. Many pick up loads of manure and personally watering and weeding. It's a damn shame the farmer overshot his spraying and took out, killed, a couple of boundary rows, even though the personal section was clearly stacked out. It's amazing that the farmer's soybeans can even grow considering, no rain and the ground is dead. Chemical farming can't be cheap. Another bonus is there's nothing binding or holding the "soil" together. Last spring I was in the area and witnessed what could be called the dust bowl. Driving at 30mph, windshield wipers flapping, no rain mind you but wind, on a state highway and was worried it was so thick out there it would kill the engine. This is in Minnesota.
Nanoo, your comment about your windshield wipers reminds me of something I read here in a post awhile back, something I had really not thought of for many years. S/he said, "Remember many years ago how your windshield would get just covered with bugs after a drive in the country?". And it's true! I hadn't thought of that for years. But I too remember all those bugs that were so hard to clean off the glass. I always rather liked bugs and so I used to notice all the different kinds, big, small, different colors... But for many years now, no bugs.
I was visiting my grandchildren in Florida some years ago and I was telling them about different bugs, but deciding that a picture is worth a thousand words, I said, "Well, let's go out and collect some to look at first hand!". We looked and looked but could not find a single bug. Finally we did find one, a beautiful lacewing. The kids were so excited and we brought it in the house. They treated it much like a pet, keeping it in a box but letting it out to "play". Sadly, one of them accidently kneeled on it. They really felt bad.
We laugh about it now--the last bug in Miami and they accidently killed it. Something to think about.
I note that this author uses the Wikipedia site for reference on Roundup. I'd like to use this as an excuse to get on my Wikipedia soap box and say how important it is for us to do a little editing at Wikipedia from time to time. Back in April I added the following to the Roundup article:
Although Roundup is not registered for aquatic uses[22] and studies of its effects on amphibians indicate it is toxic to them,[23] scientists have found that it may wind up in small wetlands where tadpoles live due to inadvertent spraying during its application. A recent study found that even at concentrations one-third of the maximum concentrations expected in nature, Roundup still killed up to 71 percent of tadpoles raised in outdoor tanks.[24]
No one has removed or altered it...yet. On the other hand, I added information about a study on, I think it was Atrazine, that showed that tadpoles developed abnormalities when exposed to it, and it was quickly cut to about 1/3 of what I wanted. I have found that without support on the talk page, one often has to just give in and not expect to get everything one would like. But if say one of you here at CD would have been watching over the article, we most likely would have been able to get my full contribution into the article.
Whether one likes Wikipedia or not, it is a fact that many people go to it for information, so it is in our best interests to keep it honest. Look for instance at the information at the site the author used to explain his use of the term transgenic:
http://cls.casa.colostate.edu/Transgeniccrops/what.html
What a bunch of propaganda! I did a little checking at that site and really was upset when I read the section on teaching. They used a class exercise supposedly to teach children how to use critical thinking, and for a subject they used the Roundup/Monarch controversy. I am not certain, but as far as I know that study actually has been found to not be able to stand to criticisms. But how perfect, to use that study from all the studies they could have chosen to teach critical thinking. I hope that there is a special hell for people that twist children's minds so as to make for good consumers of what ever is the latest invention that claims to know more than Mother Nature.
OK, I will get down off the box now...
I have an ironic footnote to offer.We now have Glyphosate ready Coca,and soon Glyphosate resistant Cannabis will be available.Coming to a street corner near you soon, no labeling or safety studies needed. Cough ,Choke, Gag wheeze!
To gandydancer---
Your comments on wikipedia are most interesting. A few months ago I did some error-checking and correction of a tiny little entry on a local creek, where I knew the original entry was just plain wrong. For example, the entry said the creek was west of a certain town when I knew it to be east. I found the entire wiki editing process to be somewhat daunting.
Meanwhile, per your comment on Roundup versus atrazine as a killer of or mutation-generating of tadpoles, I spend a lot of time walking local streams. They used to have tadpoles but now they are for all intent and purpose GONE. This extinction is by no means the first for midwestern streams. Thus, for example, this summer I picked up a sun-bleached fresh-water clam shell along a creek beach the size of my fist. When I was a kid much smaller clams still lived in local creeks. Today I know of only one Indiana creek that still has living clams, about 80 miles from home, and being downstream from a highly protected state park. Such clams were once an important source of protein for native Americans as certain local archaeological sites can attest, where it is impossible to walk without stepping on their shells.
I do not know whether it is the Roundup or the atrazine but am inclined to think that it is actually the combination that is doing the extinctions. Atrazine has been around since at least the 1950s while the clams, the tadpoles, and the crawdads survived it. Enter Monsanto's Roundup and within a few years there are massive extinctions. Problem is, there were concurrent introductions of other chemicals so it is nearly impossible to isolate any single cause. Probably, that is intended! Try taking this kind of science before a JURY of your peers...if you can even gain STANDING to sue.
I used to be kind of paranoid but then had an epiphany and got empirical instead. If you live in one place for half a century you tend to learn about it. In my experience there are EXTINCTIONS occurring right before my eyes. The disappearance of the crawdads has been the most sudden. The lack of worms in cornfields as I have discovered in the past few weeks is truly alarming. As I said, the "soil" is now a substrate, like gelatin in a Petri dish.
***
To johnny hempseed---
"...soon Glyphosate resistant Cannabis will be available."
Just in time for our government's form of "universal health INSURANCE"! What a hoot.
Monsanto is killing the natural world. Those people believe that human science can MANAGE the destruction and PROFIT from it. Our government is complicit in this process by subsidizing via billions of taxpayer money the corn-and-beans duoculture of midwestern agriculture. The pretense is that all they have to do is balance the nitrogen level in the "soil," while the actual trace nutrient levels in the crops keep dropping, which probably goes far to explain today's obesity epidemic.
***
As for the commenters above on "wild seed" I would love to hear and read more. I get the impression that there exist perhaps a half dozen commercial sources of vegetable and fruit seeds and they are struggling. I save my legacy lettuce, tomato, and radish seeds on a semi-annual basis, but I am peripatetic. Meanwhile, of course, "legacy" seed does not equal "wild." Humans have spent thousands of years "taming" several plant species and along comes Monsanto, corrupting the entire gene pool. And I mean the ENTIRE gene pool.
If you really think about it, at this level our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are diversions. Be sure to take your flu shot!
-30-