EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
“Coexistence” with Monsanto: Hell No!
"If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it."
Norman Braksick, president of Asgrow Seed Co., a subsidiary of Monsanto, quoted in the Kansas City Star, March 7, 1994
"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job."
Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications, quoted in the New York Times, October 25, 1998
After 16 years of non-stop biotech bullying
and force-feeding Genetically Engineered or Modified (GE or GM) crops
to farm animals and “Frankenfoods” to unwitting consumers, Monsanto
has a big problem, or rather several big problems. A growing number
of published scientific studies indicate that GE foods pose serious
human health threats. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine
(AAEM) recently stated that “Several animal studies indicate serious
health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune
problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes
in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. The AAEM advises consumers
to avoid GM foods. Before the FDA arbitrarily decided to allow Genetically
Modified Organisms (GMOs) into food products in 1994, FDA scientists
had repeatedly warned that GM foods can set off serious, hard-to-detect
side effects, including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional
problems. They urged long-term safety studies, but were ignored. http://www.responsibletechnology.org
Federal judges are finally starting to acknowledge what organic farmers and consumers have said all along: uncontrollable and unpredictable GMO crops such as alfalfa and sugar beets spread their mutant genes onto organic farms and into non-GMO varieties and plant relatives, and should be halted.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22173.cfm
An appeals court recently ruled that consumers have the right to know whether the dairy products they are purchasing are derived from cows injected with Monsanto’s (now Elanco’s) controversial recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), linked to serious animal health problems and increased cancer risk for humans.
Monsanto’s Roundup, the agro-toxic
companion herbicide for millions of acres of GM soybeans, corn, cotton,
alfalfa, canola, and sugar beets, is losing market share. Its overuse
has spawned a new generation of superweeds that can only be killed with
super-toxic herbicides such as 2,4, D and paraquat. Moreover, patented
“Roundup Ready” crops require massive amounts of climate destabilizing
nitrate fertilizer. Compounding Monsanto’s damage to the environment
and climate, rampant Roundup use is literally killing the soil, destroying
essential soil microorganisms, degrading the living soil’s ability
to capture and sequester CO2, and spreading deadly plant diseases. http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_21039.cfm
In just one year, Monsanto has moved
from being Forbes’ “Company of the Year” to the Worst Stock of
the Year. The Biotech Bully of St. Louis has become one of the most
hated corporations on Earth. http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm
Monsanto and their agro-toxic allies
are now turning to Obama’s pro-biotech USDA for assistance. They want
the organic community to stop suing them and boycotting their products.
They want food activists and the OCA to mute our criticisms and stop
tarnishing the image of their brands, their seeds, and companies. They
want us to resign ourselves to the fact that one-third of U.S. croplands,
and one-tenth of global cultivated acreage, are already contaminated
with GMOs. That’s why Monsanto recently hired the notorious mercenary
firm, Blackwater, to spy on us. That’s why Monsanto has teamed up
with the Gates Foundation to bribe government officials and scientists
and spread GMOs throughout Africa and the developing world. That’s
why the biotech bullies and the Farm Bureau have joined hands with the
Obama Administration to preach their new doctrine of “coexistence.”
“Coexistence” or Cooptation?
The Agriculture Department is dutifully drafting a comprehensive “coexistence policy” that supposedly will diffuse tensions between conventional (chemical but non-GMO), biotech, and organic farmers. Earlier this week industry and Administration officials met in Washington, D.C. to talk about coexistence. Even though the Organic Consumers Association tried to get into the meeting, we were told we weren’t welcome. The powers that be claim that the OCA doesn’t meet their criteria of being “stakeholders.” The unifying theme in these closed-door meetings is apparently that Monsanto and the other biotech companies will set aside a “compensation” fund to reimburse organic farmers whose crops or fields get contaminated. That way we’ll all be happy. Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta, Dow, and Dupont will continue planting their hazardous crops and force-feeding animals and consumers with GMOs. Organic farmers and companies willing to cooperate will get a little compensation or “hush money.” But of course our response to Monsanto and the USDA’s plan, as you might have guessed, is hell no!
There can be no such thing as “coexistence” with a reckless and monopolistic industry that harms human health, destroys biodiversity, damages the environment, tortures and poisons animals, destabilizes the climate, and economically devastates the world’s 1.5 billion seed-saving small farmers. Enough talk of coexistence. We need a new regime that empowers consumers, small farmers, and the organic community. We need a new set of rules, based on “truth-in-labeling” and the “precautionary principle” — consumer and farmer-friendly regulations that are basically already in place in the European Union—so that “we the people” can regain control over Monsanto, indentured politicians, and the presently out-of-control technology of genetic engineering.
Truth-in-Labeling: Monsanto and the Biotech Industry’s Greatest Fear
In practical terms coexistence between GMOs and organics in the European Union, the largest agricultural market in the world, is a non-issue. Why? Because there are almost no GMO crops under cultivation, nor consumer food products on supermarket shelves, in the EU, period. And why is this? There are almost no GMOs in Europe, because under EU law, as demanded by consumers, all foods containing GMOs or GMO ingredients must be labeled. Consumers have the freedom to choose or not to consume GMOs, while farmers, food processors, and retailers have (at least legally) the right to lace foods with GMOs, as long as they are labeled. Of course consumers, for the most part, do not want to consume GM Frankenfoods. European farmers and food companies, even junk food purveyors like McDonald’s and Wal-Mart, understand quite well the axiom expressed by the Monsanto executive at the beginning of this article: "If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it."
The biotech industry and Food Inc. are acutely aware of the fact that North American consumers, like their European counterparts, are wary and suspicious of GMO foods. Even without a PhD, consumers understand you don’t want to be part of an involuntary food safety experiment. You don’t want your food safety or environmental sustainability decisions to be made by profit-at-any-cost chemical companies like Monsanto, Dow, or Dupont—the same people who brought you toxic pesticides, Agent Orange, PCBs, and now global warming. Industry leaders are acutely aware of the fact that every single industry or government poll over the last 16 years has shown that 85-95% of American consumers want mandatory labels on GMO foods. Why? So that we can avoid buying them. GMO foods have absolutely no benefits for consumers or the environment, only hazards. This is why Monsanto and their friends in the Bush, Clinton, and Obama administrations have prevented consumer GMO truth-in-labeling laws from getting a public discussion in Congress, much less allowing such legislation to be put up for a vote. Obama (and Hilary Clinton) campaign operatives in 2008 claimed that Obama supported mandatory labels for GMOs, but we haven’t heard a word from the White House on this topic since Inauguration Day.
Although Congressman Dennis Kucinich (Democrat, Ohio) introduces a bill in every Congress calling for mandatory labeling and safety testing for GMOs, don’t hold your breath for Congress to take a stand for truth-in-labeling and consumers’ right to know what’s in their food. Especially since the 2010 Supreme Court decision in the so-called “Citizens United” case gave big corporations and billionaires the right to spend unlimited amounts of money (and remain anonymous, as they do so) to buy elections, our chances of passing federal GMO labeling laws against the wishes of Monsanto and Food Inc. are all but non-existent.
Therefore we need to shift our focus and go local. We’ve got to concentrate our forces where our leverage and power lie, in the marketplace, at the retail level; pressuring retail food stores to voluntarily label their products; while on the legislative front we must organize a broad coalition to pass mandatory GMO (and CAFO) labeling laws, at the city, county, and state levels.
Millions Against Monsanto: Launching a Nationwide Truth-in-Labeling Campaign, Starting with Local City Council Ordinances or Ballot Initiatives
Early in 2011 the Organic Consumers Association, joined by our consumer, farmer, environmental, and labor allies, plans to launch a nationwide campaign to stop Monsanto and the Biotech Bullies from force-feeding unlabeled GMOs to animals and humans. Utilizing scientific data, legal precedent, and consumer power the OCA and our local coalitions will educate and mobilize at the grassroots level to pressure retailers to implement “truth-in-labeling” practices; while simultaneously organizing a critical mass to pass mandatory local and state truth-in-labeling ordinances or ballot initiatives similar to labeling laws already in effect for country of origin, irradiated food, allergens, and carcinogens. If local government bodies refuse to take action, wherever possible we will gather petition signatures and place these truth-in-labeling initiatives directly on the ballot in 2011 or 2012. Stay tuned for details, but please send an email to: information@organicconsumers.org
if you’re interesting in helping organize a truth-in-labeling campaign in your local community. Millions Against Monsanto. Power to the people!
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

71 Comments so far
Show AllSo, some of Monsanto's best customers are Mennonite farmers.
This, despite rather principled positions advocated by the Mennonite Central Committee against such environmentally compromising practices.
Perhaps, those of us who find objection to the further propagation of GMO agriculture, ought to focus pressure upon the Mennonite Central Committee so that they may hold their congregations more accountable to the ethical positions they espouse?
Where do you verify that Mennonite farmers deal with Monsanto? I googled for 15 minutes and couldn't find any info about it, so I don't believe it.
duplicate post, for some odd reason
so sorry
There is coverage from the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/oct/22/paraguay-mennonite-environment
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/05/chaco-paraguay-deforestation
What's more, you can take a drive anytime through the rural Heartland and pass by the poultry CAFOs they operate along with their of thousands of acres of GMO corn, soy, wheat, and canola.
Thank you.
peacekeepertwo; Non of this surprizes me after reading an Articule durring the Bush, which discribed How new Companies had been created who could take part in Writing legislation. Their were other Companies which had A relationship with the CIA, and could use the CIA to investage competitors.
"under EU law, as demanded by consumers, all foods containing GMOs or GMO ingredients must be labeled"
" every single industry or government poll over the last 16 years has shown that 85-95% of American consumers want mandatory labels on GMO foods."
These two statements say it all. Regulators in Europe listen to the people, whereas ours declare that we are not "stakeholders."
This article failed to mention the US the diplomatic cable discussing ways to punlish the EU for their law.
have you heard about the Canadian farmer whose crops were contaminated w/ these GMO crops cross pollinating and then Monsanto suing the farmer for their fees for using the GMO crops?
These bastards have no shame, morals or empathy for anything but their own PROFITS
Oh, yes, that would be Percy Schmeiser from Saskatchewan, who won the Right Livelihood Award for his fight against Monsanto.
Do you have a link?
Thanks
punishing EU for resistance to GMO
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/23/wikileaks_cables_reveal_us_sought_to
Yes, go to Wikileaks!
If everyone here is either "afraid" or too lazy to NOT be browsing Wikileaks daily than something is seriously wrong.
SaboCat-
Do you mean this one?
•••Craig Stapleton, former US ambassador to France at a Memorial Day service in Fere-en-Tardenois, France. Stapleton was concerned that a French decision to suspend cultivation of Monsanto's MON-810 corn could spread anti-biotech policy across the EU.
The former United States ambassador to France suggested "moving to retaliation" against France and the European Union (EU) in late 2007 to fight a French ban on Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) corn and changes in European policy toward biotech crops, according to a cable released by WikiLeaks on Sunday.
Former Ambassador Craig Stapleton was concerned about France's decision to suspend cultivation of Monsanto's MON-810 corn and warned that a new French environmental review standard could spread anti-biotech policy across the EU.
"Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits," Stapleton wrote to diplomatic colleagues.
President George W. Bush appointed Stapleton as ambassador to France in 2005, and in 2009, Stapleton left the office and became an owner of the St. Louis Cardinals baseball team. Bush and Stapleton co-owned the Texas Rangers during the 1990s. Monsanto is based in St. Louis.
The EU's 1998 approval of MON-810 corn has since expired. In recent years, several European countries joined France in banning MON-810 and similar biotech crops while the products are reassessed in light of research showing they could harm the environment and human health.
It is not clear if Stapleton's retaliation scheme was ever implemented.
"In our view, Europe is moving backwards not forwards on this issue with France playing a leading role, along with Austria, Italy and even the Commission ... Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices," Stapleton wrote.
MON-810 is engineered to excrete the Bt toxin, which is poisonous to some insect pests. A stacked version of MON-810 is also engineered to be resistant to glyphosate, an herbicide first popularized by Monsanto under the brand name Roundup.
The debate in France over Monsanto's GM products has grown ugly in recent years.
A recent report detailed the story of Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini, a scientist at the University of Caen in France. Seralini claims he has faced intimidation from within the French scientific community after he published several studies showing Monsanto GM corn and glyphosate posed risks to human health.
In fascist America, to regulators operating under corporate rule, "stakeholders" means "shareholders" - not consumers or workers, who are considered only as fodder and grist for the profit-making capitalist money machine.
Government of by and for the corporation = FASCISM
Government of by and for the people = SOCIALISM
Which would you really rather have?
Monsanto is one of the truly EVIL companies on the face of the earth....
One of their plans is to plant their crops in Africa and thruout the 3rd world to cross-pollinate w/ the native plants in order to destroy SEED CROPS......
usually these subsistence farmers keep a portion of the crops as the seeds for the next planting cycle....
One of Monsanto's goals is to produce non-seed producing crops - or infertile crops so these subsistence farmers CANNOT simply save their seeds for the next season but must buy the seeds from Monsanto -
this will leave the extremely poor DYING......
Does Monsanto care? Of course NOT!
Can you imagine the reaction if we forced the main MONSANTO stockholders and executives into a similar position?
They'd get the US army to attack and wipe out any threat of this magnitude - but Monsanto calls it "Maximizing Profits"
Truly evil stuff by truly evil humans hiding behind the corporate structure........
Isn't the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation helping Monsanto spread their products throughout the third world ?
duplicate for some reason
of course- but only thru backdoor channels of "helping the poor" such as CIMMYT -
hey but it's purely humanitarian right? no profit motives involved?
i'd say a more efficient use of all that money would be a FAIR tax on the wealthy and then handed out in micro-loans to the women of these 3rd world nations....
But there is definitely no profits in those....
Yes, and it seems that would be a place to focus some energy and attention. I try to be fair and say that Gates is just a tech wonk who sees biotech as one more great tech advancement. But he and his wife are both smart, and an education effort in that direction might pay big dividends.
Yes, Gates Foundation has been involved in spreading Monsanto's crap for a long time:
http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/286029_gatesplan22.html
And some time in the past year Gates bought half a million shares of MON.
MT DON: I couldn't agree with your opening line more. But isn't the following symbolic of karmic blowback:
"In just one year, Monsanto has moved from being Forbes’ “Company of the Year” to the Worst Stock of the Year. The Biotech Bully of St. Louis has become one of the most hated corporations on Earth. http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm."
I love it!
I've often said that Monsanto (given its track record in using chemical agents to wreak major destruction in places like Vietnam and Columbia) being left in charge of a great deal of our food supply, is like hiring a serial killer as a babysitter.
Because Monsanto sees LIFE as material, it does not understand that by seeking to control sales through sterile seeds, those same sterile seeds will play havoc with human fertility.
Maybe Bill and Melinda Gates don't mind that? I am far more apprehensive about their alleged philanthropy given the fact they're behind the awful school programs designed to make the poor fail, and ultimately toss public education into the waste-bin of Amerikan empire.
considering that a stated aim of Gates is Population Reduction, would not this completely suit their ends?
thus I must take to task your statement "Because Monsanto sees LIFE as material, it does not understand that by seeking to control sales through sterile seeds, those same sterile seeds will play havoc with human fertility." Only that in I suspect that they understand quite well and it suits their goals...
"Even though the Organic Consumers Association tried to get into the meeting, we were told we weren’t welcome. The powers that be claim that the OCA doesn’t meet their criteria of being “stakeholders.”"
US Govt + Monsanto = stakeholders
Citizens not= stakeholders
This, in a nutshell, is the definition of fascism.
nice try.
Accept the compliment. Really, it was a nice try. You will have more luck on a lower-information poster site.
MARK: Unless Mother Nature got drunk at a cosmic cocktail party, she is not given to combining fish genes with potatoes, or chicken with tomatoes. Genetic engineering is turning the natural world into a Pandora's Box open to inestimable collateral damage. So your little post trying to make this about yuppies who want expensive veggies is about as authentic as your prior shilling positions.
Nature's hybrids do NOT cross major genetic lines, or push animal life and planet life together.
Nice try, bah humbug!
I am too tired right now to debate you point for point; so for now, I'll just put it in the vernacular to cut through all your scientific sounding jargon:
Pigs generally don't fuck rose bushes, nor do conceptions result from such bonding.
Geneticists, unlike nature, play fast and loose across species' boundaries.
If I feel like it, I'll get back to you tomorrow. For the record, I don't trust your motives. I think you're an industry shill.
M.A. Your final paragraph and analogy are SO far out on a limb, that I hope you don't break your already-damaged mind when the bough breaks.
I'm glad to see others show up with the DATA that refutes your ridiculous claims IN FAVOR of Monsanto and/or genetic engineering. With the same arrogance that speaketh through the offshore oil drilling companies, that what they do for profit is perfectly safe... so that when the carnage finally spills out harming SO much, they lean on their attorneys like a corrupt Bush did Mr. Yoo in search of just the right semantics application to make all accountabilty disappear.
Anyone who argues for the trespasser deserves NO respect in my book. The ecocide is rampant, the evidence of the false claims of the for-profit "industrial food suppliers" who regard all LIFE as collateral damage deserve nothing short of anything but the CONTEMPT they have amply earned.
Maybe the Ghost of Christmas to Come will pay you a visit and show you an earth where seeds no longer produce fruit, where lands lay fallow. Maybe you'll get IT in time. Or maybe you'll read the DATA that is part of the article we're responding to and realize it completely negates anything you think you can drum up in the way of practiced P.R.
Have you seen the movie or read the book The Road? I highly recommend both unless you're feeling depressed. Trespass is a difficult argument. Where does it end? Harmful fumes emanating your way if a neighbor paints his house when the wind is blowing in your direction, for instance? As a technological society we have a great many things to attempt to get a legislative handle upon. Rich interests always have the upper hand in these debates. A robust "big government" is our best hope. Government funded study and regulatory action are all we really have. Applying the precautionary principle to a too large array of ideas and products will move scientific innovation to other nations. I think that would be a bad mistake. I hope you have a nice Christmas. I know you're a good person.
"I just want to add that genetic modification, scrambling and rearranging DNA, in a completely uncontrolled manner, is the process by which every living thing that groweth or creepeth or walketh upon the Earth has been created. Except for most of the ones we eat, "organic" or otherwise, which have been highly modified by hundreds and thousands of years of crossbreeding and selection by humans, creating, for example, broccoli, cauliflower, brussels sprouts and more from the same ancestral cabbage."
Thus you are pretty much explicitly acknowledging by this statement, combined with your previous posts, that you feel that the very processes by which life has come to be on this planet should no longer be allowed to take a natural course, but should instead of being "uncontrolled" as you state here, it should be "controlled" by certain corporations invested in that field.
You, sir, seem to be perhaps the most profound illustration of an extreme Mussolini style fascist mindset I have seen. Rather than just have the corporations control the government, you would have them control the very essence of life itself.
"Also, your proscription against "pigs fucking rose bushes" is of exactly the same character as the fundamentalists' abhorrence of men fucking other men or blacks fucking whites."
The argument made was that, in nature, no offspring, thus no combination of the genetic material would take place. I no of no one who argues that "men fucking other men" produces offspring either. As far as "blacks fucking whites", I no of no one who thinks that offspring is not created naturally from such occurrences. I also notice the order of the statement, and the implications of this choice of order seems rather apparent and enlightening as to your perspective.
How you make the leap from effectively saying that combinations of DNA from sources that can not combine outside of a laboratory may have unforseen longterm consequences (as more and more reports are now coming to light that they, in fact, can and do) and should be treated with caution considering the stakes, and liken it to simple racism or bigotry?
Are you actually making a claim that when they gave spider DNA to goats so that the goats would produce silk in their milk (an actual case) they got the consent of both the goat and the spider to participate in this?
If not wouldn't your analogy, completely flawed as it is, need to replace "fucking" with "raping"? Perhaps for you they are synonyms?
'yuppies' and 'silly'???
Judge orders Monsanto GMO sugar beets destroyed
http://www.tgdaily.com/opinion-features/52946-judge-orders-monsanto-gmo-sugar-beets-destroyed
GMO crop catastrophe in USA a lesson for EU:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article166785.html
The International Journal of Biological Sciences analyzed the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health and researchers found that agricultural giant Monsanto's GM corn is linked to organ damage in rats.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html
I sure hope you get your troll X-mas bonus this year.
"this genetic-purity food fetish, a luxury for those who can afford it."
Tell that to Vondana Shiva and the farmers of India and the rest of the global South for that matter. Food is of paramount importance to human life and human as opposed to corporate sovereignty. So while the other issues you name are certainly important, this one is no less so.
>>Mark Abram wrote: "Vandana Shiva is an ideologue and political activist posing as a scientist."<<
Personally, I don't care if she's an activist and not a scientist (though she has a Ph.D. from a Canadian university, it's in physics - quantum theory). I just wish there were a 1,000 more like her in India alone - because India's biodiversity - nature's gift - is under **extreme threat** like never before. To protect India's (and the world's) biodiversity and to stop "bio-piracy" by multinational corporations, a 1000 more activists like her are needed - again, in India alone. The group "Navdanya" (http://www.navdanya.org), co-founded by Vandana Shiva, is one of the last best hopes to safeguard traditional seeds used by Indian farmers before they are lost or contaminated forever.
'Superior yield' has been scientifically debunked.
See:
http://ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield.html
Mark Abram said, "Vandana Shiva is an ideologue and political activist posing as a scientist."
But Mark Abram is a fascist ideologue and industry shill posing as an informed consumer. He doesn't fool us, rather he angers and disgusts us.
Let me just say that until Monsanto is dismantled and its evil frankenfoods removed from the planet, life on Earth is in danger.
Mark Abram: If you will go to www.drmercola.com and use their Google search engine for GMO Food Research you will find many references about reputable research and "credible science". One can also not ignore Monsanto's mafia tactics which, at the very least, should call their integrity into question.
Additionally, research has demonstrated that sustainable agricultural techniques are quite capable of feeding the planet. Monsanto got big into biotech when the long term effects of Norman Borlag's Green Revolution became apparent and pesticides and herbicides declined in popularity.
We already have round-up resistant weeds that have taken over thousands of acres as well as Bt resistant caterpillars (this was predicted from the start).
Someday, all the tech wonks must come face to face with the fact that it isn't nice to fool Mother Nature. Think of it this way: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."
Nice. Thank you for pointing that out. Another way of saying that is "Nothing's for nothing". In real life, you don't get something for nothing. There's a cost to every "solution" and the potential cost of Monsanto's GM seeds is just way too high.
Maybe Mother Nature herself will bring Monsanto's insane business to a close. It's hard to imagine a more foolhardy pursuit, messing with the genetics of the world's food supply! No one knows what havoc that might wreak on the world. Who would even want to take the chance? Monsanto would -- for money.
Just because there's no legislation against something doesn't mean it's ok to do.
CASSANDRA: Nice work, but I get the distinct feeling that Mr. Shill will not countenance anything his paycheck won't confirm. I would also add... how bout the birds and the BEES? Since this crap started contaminating nature, a significant labor force in the form of pollinating bees, has disappeared.
You were incorrect in saying, "not a single proven instance to support any of this".
See:
www.gmwatch.org/gm-crops-research-documenting-the-limitations-risks-and-alternatives
Industry shills like Monsanto propagandist "Mark Abram" don't care about facts, but thanks for posting that link, which categorically debunks his flagrant lie.
Mark,
How do you explain away the mountain of evidence that indicates associated GMO technology is destroying the pollinators?
I wonder why this seems to be of little concern---could it be that in their development horizon line, firms such as Monsanto, have in the ready a whole range of self-pollinating hybrids?
Certainly crops such as corn are already no problem since they are naturally self-pollinating.
But, concerning other crops, such as alfalfa, why such a careless approach? Unless, of course, provisions are already in the works.
Imagine a world of self-pollinating seed stock in all varieties---that, in a world absent of natural pollinating sources.
Consider the implications.
Consider the profits for those selling the patented, self-pollinating seed.
All the more so having rid the planet of pollinating species!
and on it continues...
non placet, I don't think it's quite fair to "associate" a pesticide that may be killing pollinators with gm technology. If one or more neonicotinoids needs to be banned, that's fine, but my gm soybeans will definitely have no neonicotinoids of any type applied to them.
The pesticides are an integral part of the planting system, therefore, it is fair to to consider it as an aspect of the applied technology.
The need to seriously evaluate the process has been well recognized for many years.
Perhaps you'll find this time line of interest:
http://www.panna.org/sites/default/files/Clothianidin-Condl-Reg-Timeline.pdf
Dear Mark,
Your GMO boosting rhetoric is truly excreable. I'd like to formally invite you to http://rudegmocritics.com/ so that we can engage in non-polite forms of debate on this topic.
Anyone at all interested in this question should read "The World According to Monsanto" by Marie-Monique Robin, published earlier this year by The New Press. Mark Abram, for one, might find some credible scientific evidence for the health and environmental risks of GMOs in general and Monsanto's practices in particular.
"Hell No!" indeed! Forcefully written article - I could almost hear Ronnie Cummins speaking these words.
HELL F'I-N-G NO!!!
Every farmer who finds Monsanto GM crops contaminating his field the tiniest bit should become part of a class action against Monsanto. Hammer the beast with lawsuits. It can be done.
Here's another idea. What if a world-wide consortium of farmers and consumers got together and made a successful tender offer for Monsanto and then dismantled it and destroyed the intellectual property to save Earth's food supply! I'd contribute to that effort. It could be done.