Debunked: March against Monsanto campaign

Pete Tar said:
Is Monsanto the only company that has GM crops on the market? Everyone sure acts like it.
Click to expand...

That has been why I have been talking about this strain of wheat. It is public funded, noncommercial and open source if successful. Far from the corporate model.
 
Pete Tar said:
Is Monsanto the only company that has GM crops on the market? Everyone sure acts like it.
Click to expand...

No but they are the biggest with enough money to corrupt sorry I mean "lobby" any government on the planet.

Should corporations have that kind of power? When government is supposed to serve it's constituents?
Is anyone aware that in the British Parliament it is forbidden to call someone a liar?
How many campaign promises are kept? Anyone remember one?

It's a standing joke. How do you know a politician is lying? His lips are moving. We laugh because it's true.
 
Do you have an evidence that any country is forcing their farmers to buy Monsanto products? Farmers buy them for various reasons, they can always opt to use non Monsanto varieties.

If Monsanto has so MUCH influence then why are GM products as limited as they are?
 
david darkeststar said:
Should corporations have that kind of power? ...
Click to expand...

No, but that doesn't seem to be the basis of the protest - although I'm sure it drives some of the feeling behind it.
Some will use the protest as a blanket condemnation of GMOs and some will be more focused specifically on Monsanto's perceived lack of ethics. But protests don't have to have a high degree of rationality to them, just emotion.
I wonder if there will be a contingent with a sign saying "I support GMOs but not Monsanto's business practices." (I doubt it, they might get lynched.)
 
david darkeststar said:
No worries.

When people are in a position to eat so much that they have to have their houses disassembled because they won't fit through the door and cranes to move them around to take them to veterinary hospitals because they won't fit in standard human sized machines then I think it's quite fair to suggest that there is already a surplus wouldn't you?
Now I agree, that isn't the only issue here. Space is a factor but right now in this epoch we have the knowledge and the technology to transform deserts into farmland if we want to.
We could live in the deserts and create the infrastructure to live their quite comfortably, leaving arable land free to produce all the food we need. I know I'm being impractical for this era but it wouldn't be technologically difficult. We've already done it in some places have we not?
Click to expand...

Technology is not the issue. Local surpluses of food are not the issue.

You can't just average things out over the entire globe. To suggest "there is already a surplus" is meaningless unless it's a surplus that the people who need it can actually access.

The use of the word "we" here is also meaningless. There is no "we" on this planet. There's no human race who makes decision about its future. There's lots of different people with different backgrounds, needs, and goals. There are lots of groups who don't stop to consider what's best for the planet and then do that. Talking about what "we" should do is pie-in-the-sky nonsense.

Statements like "when are we going to ....", "we could", or "unless we ..." are meaningless. There is no "we".
 
Mick said:
...Talking about what "we" should do is pie-in-the-sky nonsense.
Click to expand...
As an honest appraisal of current human nature this is true; however, there are some issues where thinking in terms of 'we' would not be nonsense but the only necessary way to solve our problems and achieve real progress.
(I'm sure you said this to in context to the conversation, I just hope you don't think that in the larger sense.)
 
Cairenn said:
They aren't some have been developed by non profit groups. Golden rice is one example that comes to mind quickly.

Really doubt that there would be enough fertilizer from all the humans and domestic animals to provide enough fertilizer for crops to feed everyone.

Very few folks get so heavy they they cannot get through doors. Even most morbidly 'obese' folks are active and many are HEALTHY. It depends on the person.
Click to expand...

Output, weight for weight is about the same as input.
How many tons is that per year do you think? Definitely more than a couple. :)
One person could roughly fill a large compost bin (say a 200 litre drum) with their own waste each year. I have read that were you to use composting at home for domestic human waste then a vessel that size would be necessary for each person per year within that household. A household with 2 Adults and 2.4 children works out to 480 litres P/A. Multiply that by 56,000,000 which is the estimated population of the country and that adds up to a whole load of shit.

Regarding the morbidly obese: I agree that not many people allow themselves to become so large that they can no longer walk but there are those who deliberately want to be that fat and the fact that some do should be very alarming and very telling. In England alone about 25% of adults are obese. Not chunky. Not overweight. Obese. They may be healthy but they are still eating too much for their own good and the disparity between nations should be noted and admitted. Not belittled.
 
Mick said:
Technology is not the issue. Local surpluses of food are not the issue.

You can't just average things out over the entire globe. To suggest "there is already a surplus" is meaningless unless it's a surplus that the people who need it can actually access.

The use of the word "we" here is also meaningless. There is no "we" on this planet. There's no human race who makes decision about its future. There's lots of different people with different backgrounds, needs, and goals. There are lots of groups who don't stop to consider what's best for the planet and then do that. Talking about what "we" should do is pie-in-the-sky nonsense.

Statements like "when are we going to ....", "we could", or "unless we ..." are meaningless. There is no "we".
Click to expand...

I did say that I know I'm being impractical for this era. I might be an idealist but a pragmatic one.

As you said. There is no "we". Have you any thoughts on why that might be?
I have. It has everything to do with the selfish corporate oligarchy which the likes of you and I were not privy to the construction of.
Anyone who suggests that the world could be made a better place by stepping away from that system is told that they are talking "Pie in the sky nonsense".
So the problems remain and the banks and corporations continue with their global domination.
It's high time that there bloody well was a "we". Every now and then a person stands up and says exactly that (In fact the adopted religion of England and most of the western world is based on the teachings of a man who said just that.) but do you know what? People like that get killed.
So the rest sit down, shut up and pretend that everything is just dandy. Deep down inside though. We know it bloody isn't.
I hope that my use of the word "bloody" is not considered offensive. I apologise if it is and offer to retract it if necessary.
 
Pete Tar said:
No, but that doesn't seem to be the basis of the protest - although I'm sure it drives some of the feeling behind it.
Some will use the protest as a blanket condemnation of GMOs and some will be more focused specifically on Monsanto's perceived lack of ethics. But protests don't have to have a high degree of rationality to them, just emotion.
I wonder if there will be a contingent with a sign saying "I support GMOs but not Monsanto's business practices." (I doubt it, they might get lynched.)
Click to expand...

Hahaha I can't disagree with any of those points. :)
 
Cairenn said:
Do you have an evidence that any country is forcing their farmers to buy Monsanto products? Farmers buy them for various reasons, they can always opt to use non Monsanto varieties.

If Monsanto has so MUCH influence then why are GM products as limited as they are?
Click to expand...


The EU "Plant Reproductive Material Law" is certainly an indication of forthcoming issues yes. The USA has a similar piece of legislation too I believe.

Consider how the Monsanto Protection Act was put into place and the power which that gives them. That has to be the most dubiously implemented piece of legislation that has been seen for many a decade. It isn't the only one though.

The US political sphere is riddled with ex Monsanto employees. I say ex but many go back and forth between their two careers. Some examples are Margaret Miller, Michael R Taylor, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Linda J Fisher to name but a few.
Would you agree that that might be a little bit too much influence?

Look at how people are reacting to GM now. Imagine how people would react if GM products were not as limited as they are?
I think they would react badly don't you?
 
david darkeststar said:
The "Plant Reproductive Material Law" is certainly an indication of forthcoming issues yes.
Click to expand...
That law does nothing except bring several EU regulations together in 1 place - it provides no new regulations AFAIK.

So to say it is an indication of "forthcoming issues" is incorrect - it is an indication of an existing issue - mindless opposition by extremists on an issue that they do not understand, or, IMO more probably, do understand but deliberately obfuscate.
 
Cairenn said:
I think folks are reactting badly because they are believing a pile of horse hooey from sites like Alex Jones, naturalnews, mercola and others.

I think they would be be more upset if a loaf of bread was $5 and a can of corn $3.00 and gr meat $20 a lb.

Have you read the Plant Reproductive Material Law? Which parts of it do you object to?


http://www.jordbruksverket.se/downl...00356/Draft+on+plant+reprodutive+material.pdf
Click to expand...

I object to anything which tries to control, restrict or limit what I would choose to buy and grow in my own garden or what I would choose to share from my own garden. Which was the initial intent behind it regardless of how it is now laid out.
Also by placing so many restrictions on farmers and sellers it makes it increasingly difficult for small family farms and other small family run businesses to operate because of the increased requirement to register every detail of the process and product.
It's easy for large businesses to continue operating as normal under such conditions because they can simply create a dedicated department for such things leaving the people who do the work to carry on without interuption. A small businessman has to make more time which could be better spent working. Rather than pushing paper around. The result is that the market is left with considerable bias. The benefits leaning towards towards larger corporate structures.
That's my take on it anyway.
 
david darkeststar said:
...
As you said. There is no "we". Have you any thoughts on why that might be?
I have. It has everything to do with the selfish corporate oligarchy which the likes of you and I were not privy to the construction of.
...
Click to expand...

In my opinion, and probably Mick's point though he can confirm for himself, it's just the reality of human nature, not an 'oppressive system' thing.
We clump together based on where we're born, have similar interests and concerns based on what's local to us, and form groups to achieve things relative to what's around us. Our main concern is that our immediate needs and comfort are met, those of our family, those of our community. It's just tribal problem solving.
 
Pete Tar said:
Could you show what power it gives them? There is no such thing called the Monsanto Protection Act is there? Is that how the bill was presented?
Click to expand...

No that was how it was euphemistically referred to by the media and those who oppose it.
HR 933 is it's official title. Which was meant to be a spending Bill but someone decided to slip in a little extra.
Basically if it is found that there are detrimental effects the courts have no jurisdiction to prevent the continued use of GM products ie: plants, seeds.
 
Pete Tar said:
In my opinion, and probably Mick's point though he can confirm for himself, it's just the reality of human nature, not an 'oppressive system' thing.
We clump together based on where we're born, have similar interests and concerns based on what's local to us, and form groups to achieve things relative to what's around us. Our main concern is that our immediate needs and comfort are met, those of our family, those of our community. It's just tribal problem solving.
Click to expand...

Human nature notwithstanding are you saying that the system isn't oppressive?
 
Cairenn said:
I think folks are reactting badly because they are believing a pile of horse hooey from sites like Alex Jones, naturalnews, mercola and others.

I think they would be be more upset if a loaf of bread was $5 and a can of corn $3.00 and gr meat $20 a lb.

Have you read the Plant Reproductive Material Law? Which parts of it do you object to?


http://www.jordbruksverket.se/downl...00356/Draft+on+plant+reprodutive+material.pdf
Click to expand...

Time after time we have been spoon fed untruths about products which have been proven to be detrimental to us.
So you must forgive those who would prefer to know the ins and outs of how bad something is or is not before we even begin to use it.
Especially something as fundamentally dubious as messing around with the DNA. Which is exactly what we are doing.
It isn't just an old adage when people say "We are what we eat." We are affected profoundly by the materials which we ingest. It's how things in nature adapt. It's how we evolve.
Again your objections like others I've seen here revolve around money. You're prepared to take the risk because it will save you a few quid.
Now when corporate law dictates that the sole purpose of the corporation is to make money for it's shareholders and that anything less is unacceptable and punishable. I see a conflict of interests.
The secret of understanding is don't believe what people tell you. Watch what they do. People are known to fib. Especially when money is involved.
 
It's actually known as the Farmer Assurance Provision. It means that a farmer who is growing produce based on a seed that might be the subject of an inquiry can get still get their harvest and sell it. It makes no claims against protection from any scientifically proven safety issues. I really don't think it overrides any basic public health and safety emergencies.
External Quote:
The inclusion of Section 733 is a positive step to ensure U.S. farmers and our food chain are shielded from supply disruptions caused by litigation over procedural issues unrelated to sound science or the safety of biotech crops.
I think the issue is any one can make a spurious complaint, like has happened before with the beets.
External Quote:
In August 2010, the Center for Food Safety and some organic farmers who may stand to gain by injuring their competition managed to convince a court to void the five-year-old approval of GE sugar beet seeds. This decision, in effect, reverted the sugar beets to "pest" status. In November 2010, a federal judge ordered the sugar beet seedlings pulled from the ground, as required by law. But by this point, nearly 95 percent of domestic sugar beet production was from GE seeds. In other words, if the decision had stood, it could have destroyed as much as half of America's granulated sugar production on purely procedural grounds.
... it protects the farmers that bought Monsanto seeds and planted them under the belief that it was legal to do so by granting them temporary permits for their existing crops and seeds, which have already been subjected to extensive USDA scrutiny.
It does not allow them to keep planting where there are proven health risks or to keep planting at all in fact. In other words, it has nothing to do with "consumer health concerns" or "stripping federal courts of the authority to halt the planting or sale of GMO seed crop" as the RT story claims. In fact, the sale of GE seeds would still be prohibited after a court finding.
Also...
External Quote:
The provisions of this bill remain in effect for six months, until the end of the fiscal year on September 30, 2013.
 
david darkeststar said:
Human nature notwithstanding are you saying that the system isn't oppressive?
Click to expand...

Hmm... it's certainly a strange way to live, but not the worst. I enjoy science-fiction that explores much healthier social alternatives.
And the oppression we experience is relative. It depends on what you focus. I have clean water, electricity, access to food, all the freedom I require. Sure things could be better, but really I live like a prince compared to others in the world today, and certainly most a hundred years ago.
 
MikeC said:
That law does nothing except bring several EU regulations together in 1 place - it provides no new regulations AFAIK.

So to say it is an indication of "forthcoming issues" is incorrect - it is an indication of an existing issue - mindless opposition by extremists on an issue that they do not understand, or, IMO more probably, do understand but deliberately obfuscate.
Click to expand...

If that is the case the real issue is one of transparency then isn't it? If such things were not worded in a way which were so obfuscating then it would be an awful lot more obvious. They don't like obvious though do they? Because you can't hide things when the words are plain and straightforward.
Some call a spade a spade. Others cal a spade a non-automatic instrument pertaining to argillaceous redistribution.
 
Pete Tar said:
Hmm... it's certainly a strange way to live, but not the worst. I enjoy science-fiction that explores much healthier social alternatives.
And the oppression we experience is relative. It depends on what you focus. I have clean water, electricity, access to food, all the freedom I require. Sure things could be better, but really I live like a prince compared to others in the world today, and certainly most a hundred years ago.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Long may it last. Fingers crossed.
 
Pete Tar said:
It's actually known as the Farmer Assurance Provision. It means that a farmer who is growing produce based on a seed that might be the subject of an inquiry can get still get their harvest and sell it. It makes no claims against protection from any scientifically proven safety issues. I really don't think it overrides any basic public health and safety emergencies.
External Quote:
The inclusion of Section 733 is a positive step to ensure U.S. farmers and our food chain are shielded from supply disruptions caused by litigation over procedural issues unrelated to sound science or the safety of biotech crops.
I think the issue is any one can make a spurious complaint, like has happened before with the beets.
External Quote:
In August 2010, the Center for Food Safety and some organic farmers who may stand to gain by injuring their competition managed to convince a court to void the five-year-old approval of GE sugar beet seeds. This decision, in effect, reverted the sugar beets to "pest" status. In November 2010, a federal judge ordered the sugar beet seedlings pulled from the ground, as required by law. But by this point, nearly 95 percent of domestic sugar beet production was from GE seeds. In other words, if the decision had stood, it could have destroyed as much as half of America's granulated sugar production on purely procedural grounds.
... it protects the farmers that bought Monsanto seeds and planted them under the belief that it was legal to do so by granting them temporary permits for their existing crops and seeds, which have already been subjected to extensive USDA scrutiny.
It does not allow them to keep planting where there are proven health risks or to keep planting at all in fact. In other words, it has nothing to do with "consumer health concerns" or "stripping federal courts of the authority to halt the planting or sale of GMO seed crop" as the RT story claims. In fact, the sale of GE seeds would still be prohibited after a court finding.
Also...
External Quote:
The provisions of this bill remain in effect for six months, until the end of the fiscal year on September 30, 2013.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. What was the source?
 
I don't feel that the wording is strange, it is very straightforward. Legal language is more complex because it has to define EXACTLLY what the words mean.

I was able to write a simple legal contract when I was 20 and I had not had any law classes. I had a lawyer review it for me and I had nailed it.

I notice that you did not say if you had read the EU proposal. It is obvious from your above post that you have not read the Farmer Assurance Provision either.

Reading the law that you are attacking should be the first thing one does.
 
No need to apologise it's quite alright. Besides, you have treated me with the utmost respect during my visit, for which I give my sincere thanks.
I'll leave you with some more questions which you can consider rhetorical if you wish.
Now bearing in mind that this is the internet. Which contains much that is apocryphal it has to be said. It's usually tradition to check any and all information using more than one source isn't it? Also, considering the way that Wiki is written, it isn't considered to be a completely reliable source is it?
I was going to ask why Senator Mikulski would make a public apology for her part in the situation but it occurs to me that she is an experienced politricksian so naturally she knows how to back peddle.
My final thought as it were, is this though and I feel that it is quite a compelling one, although you are of course free to draw your own conclusions.

What does "introduce into commerce" mean?

Thanks again for your polite and respectful conversation. It has been a pleasure sir.

My sincere thanks
Dave
 
Well!... Thanks :) Not just me I hope. It doesn't always work out like that, some topics bring out more impatience than others.

Um... wiki is usually a summary of a subject which has been added to by different sources - a good article will give its references for every point made. Yes edits can be made, but if they aren't backed up by other sources I don't think they last long, an article will tend to 'evolve' into the most informative version - depending on how much interest there is in a subject.
So if you're ever skeptical about info someone gives you from wikipedia, scan the references for the bits you suspect and check them out to be sure.
You ask for more than one source, well the wikipedia summary is from more than one source to begin with, and does have language from the actual bill itself, and that Skeptical Libertarian article is the best simple explanation I could find - there's a snopes article too, but it doesn't really give that specific an explanation. Also if a source explains something in an easy to understand way, other sources aren't necessary.
It's also a response to earlier claims about the bill so to me it's 'newer' information- if a counter-claim was made in response to it that addressed the points and showed why they were wrong I would have to re-evaluate it, but it seems to make sense as it is.

I don't know about the Senator thing.
My first instinct was just that she signed it without knowing exactly what it was, as many do, then when it seemed there was a lot of concern about it she responded to the concern, without knowing what the bill really said. Either she's mistaken, or there are sinister wordings in there that she should perhaps point out.

What does 'introduce into commerce' mean? Get produce to market I imagine and sell a year's worth of work. But here's the context.
External Quote:
...which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary's evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary's authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.
A temporary exemption, if a product is in the middle of being re-evaluated, to let the growers finish their job. But no mention of exemption in the case of a proven health concern. Note the last section which seems to say 'nothing we've written here overrides these previous laws or restricts the usual authority from doing their job.'

Cheers! :)
 
David Darkeststar, you seem like an intelligent person and well spoken. The people saying all the stuff about Mansanto and GMO being this evil thing, are banking that you are not. They are banking that you will not go read the bills or do any research on your own. Next time someone wants you to hate something, google it with the word 'debunked' before what ever it is you're searching for. If you get some hits read them with an open mind and don't form a conclusion and then go out looking for evidence to back it. There are some legitimate concerns over GM crops, farming methods and even Mansanto, but when you dig deep you find they are not the things people are try to scare you about.
 
Cairenn said:
I don't feel that the wording is strange, it is very straightforward. Legal language is more complex because it has to define EXACTLLY what the words mean.

I was able to write a simple legal contract when I was 20 and I had not had any law classes. I had a lawyer review it for me and I had nailed it.

I notice that you did not say if you had read the EU proposal. It is obvious from your above post that you have not read the Farmer Assurance Provision either.

Reading the law that you are attacking should be the first thing one does.
Click to expand...
Much of the bunk out there can be debunked by simply reading the laws people are complaining about.
 
These rules seem to actually not be so new.

In 2008, this UK seed saving organization was already saying:
http://www.gardenorganic.org.uk/members/hsl_pdfs/SeedSavingGuidelinesComplete.pdf

We are not legally allowed to sell our seed. Under European law only seed that is listed on a National List (and
ultimately the EU Common Catalogue) can be marketed. To be on the list a variety must go through a series of
tests, termed DUS tests. The D stands for distinctiveness, as in different from another variety, the U for uniformity,
or all plants are the same, and the S for stability, which means the same over generations. Many of the varieties
we look after would not pass these tests as they are inherently highly variable. The tests cost money. There is
also a cost for maintaining a variety on the list.
With the costs incurred in breeding and maintenance of a variety, a large, profitable market is sought. This
means that seed companies often decide against maintaining varieties suitable for 'niche markets', e.g. gardeners,
in favour of those more acceptable to large scale growers. The varieties available are therefore more likely to
ripen at the same time to make harvesting with machinery easier, tough enough to withstand travel and handling
in supermarkets, and familiar in visual characteristics so that they are acceptable to the average shopper. Flavour
often takes a back seat.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Soulfly said:
Did the U.K. and EU nations that have banded GM crops also ban the import of GM grains, produce or food made with GM crops?
Click to expand...

No. But there is compulsory labelling on products for human consumption. That brought about an effective ban as the supermarkets just did not stock GM products. I guess there is a plus side to consumerism as people did not want to buy the stuff. There is some issue with GM on animal feed as when slaughtered the meat does not have to be labelled and there is some groups trying to change the situation. At the end of the day you are going to have to see a dramatic shift in attitude by the supermarkets to stock GM and, personally, I can't see that happening soon.
 
Biggerdave said:
No. But there is compulsory labelling on products for human consumption. That brought about an effective ban as the supermarkets just did not stock GM products. I guess there is a plus side to consumerism as people did not want to buy the stuff. There is some issue with GM on animal feed as when slaughtered the meat does not have to be labelled and there is some groups trying to change the situation. At the end of the day you are going to have to see a dramatic shift in attitude by the supermarkets to stock GM and, personally, I can't see that happening soon.
Click to expand...
I thought there were UK based companies developing GM crops.
 
Soulfly said:
I thought there were UK based companies developing GM crops.
Click to expand...

Yeah there are a few and they get licensed to plant test crops. There are very small crop patches and there are no commercial crops grown. I may be wrong but restrictions are different for GMO grown in the lab or under glass. The UK government is always going to lengths to stress any development is aimed at the third world and does seem to be trying to make such crops acceptable.
 
Cairenn said:
I think folks are reactting badly because they are believing a pile of horse hooey from sites like Alex Jones, naturalnews, mercola and others.

I think they would be be more upset if a loaf of bread was $5 and a can of corn $3.00 and gr meat $20 a lb.
Click to expand...

And why would that be... are you speculating that GM keeps prices down?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dan Wilson
Zika Virus, Pyriproxyfen, and Monsanto: What's Causing Brazil's Microcephaly Outbreak?
Replies
12
Views
15K
Dan Wilson
Dan Wilson
deirdre
Debunked: Monsanto to replace honey bees with genetically engineered ants
Replies
5
Views
14K
Spectrar Ghost
Spectrar Ghost
Critical Thinker
Hoax: Madagascar Pranks March Against Monsanto
Replies
12
Views
8K
Hevach
Hevach
Mathias Olsen
Partially Debunked: List of Monsanto Employees in Government
Replies
30
Views
70K
Mick West
Mick West
Leifer
Myth: GMO-free seeds available for home gardens
Replies
13
Views
12K
Pete Tar
Pete Tar

Latest posts

Trending content

Back
Top