Debunked: March against Monsanto campaign

Cairenn

Senior Member.
They may produce more, but a lot of them require less pesticides or weed killer application. That reduces the cost to the farmer and in turn that reduces the cost we pay at the store. Some of them have better storage or shipping qualities, again, that reduces the cost.

If raising them did not help the farmer, and btw, most farms in the US are still family owned, the farmer would chose a cheaper seed.

What the anti GM crowd ignores is that reducing the need to clear more land is a win for the environment.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
My guess is she's saying the resistant crops produce more.

That's been debunked.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/po...-feed-09-04-16
Content from external source:

A study from the Union of Concerned Scientists shows that genetically engineered crops do not produce larger harvests. Crop yield increases in recent years have almost entirely been due to improved farming or traditional plant breeding, despite more than 3,000 field trials of GM crops.

Of course, farmers have typically planted, say, GM corn, because it can tolerate high doses of weed-killer. And the Biotechnology Industry Organization argues that GM crops can boost yields in developing countries where there are limited resources for pesticides.

But it appears that, to date, traditional plant breeding boosts crop yields better than genetic modification. Those old farmers were on to something.

http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/impact.html
Content from external source:

. A press release from the New Soil Association released in April, 2008 shows that genetically modified crops do not result in higher yields than non-genetically modified crops. Realistically, however, most genetically modified crops (including Roundup Ready) are developed to be pesticide and herbicide resistant, rather than directly increase the yield of a given crop.

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/gmo/fullrep/ch3.htm

[SIZE=-1]The adoption of GM crops by farmers in the US, Canada and in Argentina has proceeded at an unprecedented rate compared to the uptake of conventional hybrids. The economic reasons for this rapid and massive adoption are analysed in section 3.1. Farmers had strong expectations on the profitability of GM crops, in particular as regards yield and/or cost savings. However, as shown in section 3.2, GM crops do not prove to be significantly more profitable than conventional counterparts[/SIZE]
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Yield is not the only factor. The cost of PRODUCING the crop is important.

If use Sterling silver earwires for my earrings, the wires will cost me around $1.50 - $2.00 a pair. If I can use titaninum wires that cost me .75 a pair, then changes either the price I charge or my profit on them.

i still ask, if GM crops were not helping farmers, they would make other choices. Farmers and/or farm managers look at many factors in deciding what crops to plant and what varieties of those crops.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Recent study (but based on 2005 data) shows Bt corn yields and profits more, but not a lot:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves...ncreases-yields-and-profits.aspx#.UaFd7iuwxd4

Simple comparisons of averages can be misleading because adopters and nonadopters can differ in ways other than the seeds they plant. Using econometric techniques to adjust for these differences, the researchers confirm that Bt adoption was positively associated with increased variable profits and yields in 2005. More specifically, they found that a 10.0-percent increase in Bt adoption was associated with a 1.7-percent increase in corn yields and a 1.65-percent increase in variable profits (those profit increases were largely driven by the yield gains).
Content from External Source
From Oxy's last link:
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/gmo/fullrep/ch3.htm
Taking into account differences in variable costs, Duffy concludes that there have been no cost savings. However, as a result of yield gains, Bt-corn has been slightly more profitable than conventional corn. Duffy nevertheless considers that the 9 €/ha gain is not significant.
Content from External Source
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
..t's usually tradition to check any and all information using more than one source isn't it?...

I did find another article today addressing the overstatement and misrepresentation around the bill which gives another example of what it designed to address.

In 2007, in Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, a federal court agreed with CFS, prohibiting Monsanto from selling Roundup Ready Alfalfa pending yet another assessment. This was incredibly disruptive to thousands of farmers who had planted alfalfa, which is a perennial crop so does not have to be reseeded each year. The legal status of a field of GM alfalfa planted legally after the USDA had deregulated GE alfalfa was suddenly changed under the court ruling. Farmers were being told that they had to follow a new set of rules in handling their crop.
...

To no scientist’s surprise, in June 2010 SCOTUS overturned the lower court’s injunction that had prohibited Monsanto from selling pesticide-resistant alfalfa seeds. “An injunction is a drastic and extraordinary remedy, which should not be granted as a matter of course,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the 7-1 majority, concluding that the US District Court in San Francisco had “abused its discretion.”
The temporary injunction, by then determined to be abusive, proved a financial disaster for the farm industry and many individual farmers who had suspended planting alfalfa pending a final resolution.
Content from External Source
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonenti...behind-the-so-called-monsanto-protection-act/
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
I haven't heard any claims that GM crops are 'currently' boosting yield, ie a GM plant grows more than a conventional hybrid. That is if you plant an equal acreage of 2 seeds, one GM one conventional hybrid, they will have the same yield but the GM crop has 'the potential' to reduce loss, from insects, weeds and drought, which in effect increases a farmers over all yield. Over all across the board, yields are improving for various reasons in each type of farming method,and there is room for more improvement. Conventional farming holds the biggest percentage in the over all picture, its its easy to look at yields being boosted and see conventional has the largest yield increase.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
There was a thread about the french GMO study wasn't there? I searched but couldn't find it. Anyway, here is a guy criticising the criticism of that... (it is from the author of the original study's website)
[Rebelle-Sante:] Essentially, what do you think of the criticisms of Gilles-Éric Seralini’s study?

[Deheuvels:] I studied Professor Séralini’s article in great detail. He speaks of toxicology from an experiment on rats of the strain Sprague-Dawley. He has been criticized, for example, for using this strain of rats that is said to be susceptible to develop tumors. However, it happens that the same strain of rats is used by absolutely everyone, including, moreover, industries that want to demonstrate the safety of their processes. So here is an example of criticism, which is absolutely ridiculous.

Professor Bach voiced another criticism of this study in my presence. He told me: “It is not right that Gilles-Éric Seralini has used young rats. He should have started his investigation with adult rats’’. I told him that if we had started the research with 6 months old rats, most of them would have died before the end, given their average life expectancy of two years. It would therefore be pointless to carry out a study of this length. Here is another example of rash judgement, with no solid foundation, aiming to destroy this piece of work.

There are several types of statistical analysis. Gilles-Eric Séralini’s study is not a certification study seeking to demonstrate that certain substances are harmful, but rather a piece of exploratory research to guide future investigations.
Initially, Séralini did not know what he would find, so he designed his experiment, reproducing almost exactly the protocol already used to put NK603 maize on the market, while increasing its duration, and multiplying the analysis of different biomarkers. He obtained a large set of digital data that enabled him to present a number of findings.
Statistical methods aiming to demonstrate hypotheses (such as the harm, or the reverse, the safety of a product) are called tests. And tests are only a drop in the ocean of statistical methods. Very often there is no universal method allowing us to design tests on large arrays of complex data (such as those based on the observation of functions). We can do it for a limited number of numerical observations, but we do not know how to achieve the operation when the numerical results available are numerous (as, for example, in Séralini’s investigation, where more than 50 biomarkers were measured for each animal at different moments of the study).

In such a context, it is natural to seek to describe first the phenomena observed without aiming to demonstrate the existence of particular effects using hypothesis tests. Many articles in statistics are limited to the description of a phenomenon where the statistician says: “I see the effects,” without providing a demonstration that these effects can be reproduced.

Criticizing Gilles-Eric Séralini because he sometimes says “I see that…”, and he does not demonstrate, is witch hunting. The purpose of exploratory research is to introduce legitimate suspicions, the confirmation of which can only be achieved by further certification studies that can only come afterwards. It is outrageous to forcefully require proof of these effects, particularly from the outset, and establish this once and for all. It does not comply with professional ethics, and this is not what usually happens.

[Rebelle-Sante:] Recently you received the raw data from Gilles-Eric Séralini’s study, do they confirm the validity of the study?

[Deheuvels:] In the first place, I got a count of the animals with and without tumours. The basic analysis of these tables shows that the differences between groups are statistically significant.
Thus, it is not possible to conclude that the two groups of 10 rats are homogenous, when the first has 2 animals with tumors, and the second, for example 8. It is obvious that these tables show statistically significant differences.

It is only recently that I received more complete data, which I have committed to keep confidential. Nevertheless, I can confirm the existence of statistically significant differences in observation data other than counts. It seems to me that if they were not identified by the agencies, which may have processed this data, it is seemingly due to the use of insufficiently sensitive methods. It is easy not to see anything through an optical instrument, the focus of which one has not sought to adjust.

[Rebelle-Sante:] What do you think about the Academy’s probity?

[Deheuvels:] This case shows the pressures that are applied to manipulate the Academy, and to transform it into a lobbying tool. For me, the Academy must remain a forum where divergent views can be freely expressed and coexist. Seeking to find a consensus on everything is not scientific. The truth cannot be decided by a vote, and trying to manipulate it by dishonest processes is unhealthy. Financial interests associated with certain issues are always likely to distort the debate.
It is no longer the science that speaks, but the wallet! Everyone should have to clearly specify the source of funding of their research before claiming to speak for or against some studies. In some cases, conflicts of interest are so obvious that they leave you speechless!
Note:
(1) The study was supported by the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering www.criigen.org. CRIIGEN has filed several libel suits against scientific criticisms made ​​against this study.
Content from External Source
http://gmoseralini.org/french-academy-of-sciences-the-gmo-scandal/

Also this apparently just happened...
Early Sunday morning, French police stood helpless as sixty people, locked inside an open-air field of genetically modified grapevines, uprooted all the plants.
Content from External Source
The article, which is anti GMO, summarises the current situation of GMOs thusly...
In the US, GMOs were secretly foisted on the public in the mid-1990s, and only now is the US Supreme Court addressing the scourge. In June, the high court upheld partial deregulation of GM alfalfa, which permits limited planting while the USDA prepares an Environmental Impact Statement. Natural and organic alfalfa supply is threatened by the very real potential of GM contamination. This would destroy the organic meat and dairy industry.

Last Friday, a federal court took a tougher position on GM sugar beets. Judge Jeffrey S. White revoked USDA approval of the GM beet, while allowing for its planting this year only.

Also this month, a British farmer exposed that milk and meat from cloned animals had secretly entered the food supply.

Public opposition to GM crops has grown in recent years as more evidence surfaces that DNA-altered crops:

Require massive chemical inputs which destroy local biodiversity and poison the water tables;[/*]Cross-pollinate with natural and weedy crops;[/*]Create superweeds; and[/*]Have been shown to cause organ damage, sterility, and diabetes and obesity in mammals.[/*]
[/list]
Meanwhile, President Obama has stacked his Administration with biotech insiders going so far as to appoint Islam Siddiqui as Agriculture Trade Negotiator. Siddiqui is a former pesticide lobbyist and vice president of CropLife America, a biotech and pesticide trade group that lobbies to weaken environmental laws.
Content from External Source
http://www.blacklistednews.com/GMO_...destroy_trial_vineyard/26148/0/38/38/Y/M.html
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Yield is not the only factor. The cost of PRODUCING the crop is important.

If use Sterling silver earwires for my earrings, the wires will cost me around $1.50 - $2.00 a pair. If I can use titaninum wires that cost me .75 a pair, then changes either the price I charge or my profit on them.

Seems a bit of a weird business model to me. Your profit margins are entirely up to you to set, (within what the market will stand), but if you are selling titanium earrings as silver that sounds dishonest, (which I am sure you are not), so why make the comparison.

i still ask, if GM crops were not helping farmers, they would make other choices. Farmers and/or farm managers look at many factors in deciding what crops to plant and what varieties of those crops.

You may be better employed asking why, 'if GMO food is so wanted and loved and healthy and cheap', they have just blocked the bill compelling them to label foods containing GMO products?

Monsanto is using bully boy tactics and it is well known what they are up to and why.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
There was a thread about the french GMO study wasn't there? I searched but couldn't find it. Anyway, here is a guy criticising the criticism of that... (it is from the author of the original study's website)
He has been criticized, for example, for using this strain of rats that is said to be susceptible to develop tumors. However, it happens that the same strain of rats is used by absolutely everyone, including, moreover, industries that want to demonstrate the safety of their processes. So here is an example of criticism, which is absolutely ridiculous.
Content from External Source
This I believe is the main criticism in the study. What the writer fails to realize is if you are going to be testing for cancer, you probably shouldn't use rats that get tumors a high percentage of the time (I believe like 90%) no matter what you feed them. They are used in industries to test on, I believe they are even used in cancer research, when the cause of a certain type of caner are to be known, so there is a high likely hood the rat will develop the cancer being tested. They are not used to test for new ways of getting cancer because of the high likely hood of tumors. If you want to know if something is going to make a rat get cancer you want a rat that is as healthy a rat as possible.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
This I believe is the main criticism in the study. What the writer fails to realize is if you are going to be testing for cancer, you probably shouldn't use rats that get tumors a high percentage of the time (I believe like 90%) no matter what you feed them. They are used in industries to test on, I believe they are even used in cancer research, when the cause of a certain type of caner are to be known, so there is a high likely hood the rat will develop the cancer being tested. They are not used to test for new ways of getting cancer because of the high likely hood of tumors. If you want to know if something is going to make a rat get cancer you want a rat that is as healthy a rat as possible.

See discussion here on: https://www.metabunk.org/posts/21583
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Where did I say I sold them as sterling? I don't. My big concern is that ladies not have allergy problems from my jewelry. That means that I am limited on my earwires. I can use sterling, but some folks are allergic to it, I am. I can use gold filled or 14 caret gold, most can wear both, but there are some that can't wear gold filled, and a few that can't wear 14 carat gold. Fine silver is anothe option. None of those are economical for earrings that sell for $20 and under. I could use copper, but I object since it is biologically active, or 'surgical steel' (the cheapest option)-but since 95% of those wires come from China, there are 'bad' batches that are contaminated with nickle. I can buy surgical steel that meets EU standards, (every batch has to be tested), they are over twice the cost of the cheaper ones or titanium which is a little more expensive than the good (US made) surgical steel ones or I can use niobium (about the same cost as the sterling ones but they come in colors).

I have a line of $10 earrings made from guitar picks. I will often have 50 pairs of these on display and the same amount in back stock. If I have to have $200 in just the cost of the earwires tied up, that hurts me. If I only had 10 pr of earrings, the base cost would not be as big an issue.

It is called economies of scale. Remember when glide on deoderants came in a box? It was Wal Mart that demanded that that stop. The fraction of a cent that they could save on packaging was important to them. Concentrated detergents is another thing that Wal Mart has demanded. More concentrated, less shelf room needed and shipping costs are reduced.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
I haven't heard any claims that GM crops are 'currently' boosting yield, ie a GM plant grows more than a conventional hybrid. That is if you plant an equal acreage of 2 seeds, one GM one conventional hybrid, they will have the same yield but the GM crop has 'the potential' to reduce loss, from insects, weeds and drought, which in effect increases a farmers over all yield. Over all across the board, yields are improving for various reasons in each type of farming method,and there is room for more improvement. Conventional farming holds the biggest percentage in the over all picture, its its easy to look at yields being boosted and see conventional has the largest yield increase.


Perhaps I used the wrong word. I was referring to being resistant to disease or pests. Thereby producing more. Isn't that one of the points of GMO? Resistance?
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Perhaps I used the wrong word. I was referring to being resistant to disease or pests. Thereby producing more. Isn't that one of the points of GMO? Resistance?
Exactly, I wasn't trying to correct anyone, just pointing out what you just did.
 

Critical Thinker

Senior Member.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/?p=11271#.UaIZVUDVB_k

The Cartoonish March Against Monsanto

By Keith Kloor | May 25, 2013 11:45 pm
Because the crazy train on genetically modified foods has already left the station, I’m puzzled by the headline of a recent post:
Biotechnology Industry Organization: It’s not too late to change the conversation on GMOs
That’s the equivalent of the IPCC saying, “It’s not too late to change the conversation on climate change.”
If you want to know the state of the GMO discourse, look at the event that has just attracted worldwide attention. As AP reports:
Organizers say two million people marched in protest against seed giant Monsanto in hundreds of rallies across the U.S. and in over 50 other countries on Saturday.
“March Against Monsanto” protesters say they wanted to call attention to the dangers posed by genetically modified food and the food giants that produce it. Founder and organizer Tami Canal said protests were held in 436 cities in 52 countries…The group plans to harness the success of the event to continue its anti-GMO cause. “We will continue until Monsanto complies with consumer demand. They are poisoning our children, poisoning our planet,” she said. “If we don’t act, who’s going to?”
No, the only thing that’s truly being poisoned is the biotech debate by such rhetoric. I’m also willing to bet that organizers are being as truthful about the number of marchers as they are about the science on genetically modified foods. (Kinda interesting that the Guardian headline for the AP story states the estimated protesters as fact, when it’s just a claim by the march organizers.)
Nonetheless, there does seem to be many people who buy the notion that dangerous GMOs are being foisted on the world by Monsanto. I suspect this owes to influentials like Vandana Shiva, the globe-trotting environmental activist who is held in high esteem by foodies and greens. In a video filmed several days ahead of the GMO protest, Shiva characterized Monsanto’s corporate power and its patenting of seeds as “a new form of fascism” and a “new form of dictatorship.” She elaborated:
When Hitler came to power and the Nazis came to power, with their kind of genocide, people created resistance movements everywhere. Today, this new fascism is over life itself, in all its diversity. It’s not just controlling one religion, one race. It’s wanting to outlaw all diversity of all life on earth…This march against Monsanto is a call to end the dictatorship over seed, over life, over our food, and over our freedom.
I could write a few choice words about Shiva’s Nazi and genocide analogy, but I’ll let it speak for itself. (She made another offensive equivalence a few months ago.) You can listen to the whole thing here, if you’d like.
Content from External Source
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
It's no wonder Mansanto makes their farmers sign a contract, with all the people out to get them they have to protect themselves against scrupulous people. I just wonder how long before there is a defamation suit.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
It's no wonder Mansanto makes their farmers sign a contract, with all the people out to get them they have to protect themselves against scrupulous people. I just wonder how long before there is a defamation suit.

Related to your point...

They claim to invest over $2.6 million per day to develop and bring new products to market.
More than 275,000 farmers a year (out of 2.5 million total) buy Monsanto seed in the United States.
Monsanto filed 145 lawsuits since 1997 in the United States against farmers under contract. (no idea how many lawsuits against farmer who are not their customers)
To date, only 9 cases have gone through full trial.

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Related to your point...

They claim to invest over $2.6 million per day to develop and bring new products to market.
More than 275,000 farmers a year (out of 2.5 million total) buy Monsanto seed in the United States.
Monsanto filed 145 lawsuits since 1997 in the United States against farmers under contract. (no idea how many lawsuits against farmer who are not their customers)
To date, only 9 cases have gone through full trial.

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx
This goes into some detail about specific cases.
http://www.monsanto.com/food-inc/Pages/seed-saving-and-legal-activities.aspx
It is interesting to point out, that while Mr. Roush is a harsh and frequent critic of Monsanto and GM crops, he remains a customer of Monsanto having purchased a considerable amount of corn and soybean seed from us during 2008.
Content from External Source
 

Critical Thinker

Senior Member.
https://www.facebook.com/ExposingTheTruth/posts/465464413514460

" six-month study by AgriSearch, an on-campus research arm of Dalhousie University, has shown that genetically modified (GM) cucumbers grown under license to Monsanto Inc. result in serious side effects including total groin hair loss and chafing in "sensitive areas", leading to the immediate and total ban of sales of all that company's crop and subsequent dill pickles."

Yikes!! A satirical 'news story' is being reposted by the conspiracy crowd..... I am amused.

Cuccumber.JPG




http://earthfirstnews.wordpress.com...l-baldness-immediately-banned-in-nova-scotia/
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
...
More than 275,000 farmers a year (out of 2.5 million total) buy Monsanto seed in the United States.
...

I'm trying to confirm that Monsanto has a monopoly - that quote doesn't make it seem like it does.
It does seem to have a GMO monopoly.

monsanto-corporations-global-vegetable-seed-market-share_1075.jpg
(2005)
monsanto-share-gm_h328.gif
(not sure of year)
Some of the claimed monopoly issues -
More than 80% of US corn and more than 90% of soybeans planted each year are attributable to Monsanto.
...
But if you consider that Monsanto - the largest and the best known – licenses its genetically modified traits to other seed companies and as a result, more than 80% of US corn and more than 90% of soybeans planted each year are attributable to Monsanto then monopoly comes to mind.
...
The first is the removal of choice. The pushing out of the marketplace of conventional and older seed varieties and their replacement by genetically modified seeds backs farmers into a corner, making it nearly impossible to grow conventional crops, even if they want to.
...
as GM soybeans started to take over the market (2000-2010) the price for seed increased 230%. The cost for Monsanto’s Roundup Ready2 soybeans in 2010 was $70 per bag, a 143% increase in the price of GM seed since 2001.According to the US Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service, the average per-acre cost of soybean and corn seed increased 325% and 259%, respectively, between 1995 and 2011. This is corresponds to the time period when acreage of GM corn and soy grew from less than 20% to more than 80-90%
The plants do not command a higher price once they are grown, and the savings promised by biotech companies due to a reduction in pesticides have not come to fruition. Many GM farmers have had to increase pesticide use due to the emergence of resistant weeds and pests, and all this results in is farmers being squeezed by higher costs with less returns, and unable to get off the GM treadmill because of fear of infringing ‘intellectual property rights’ by having residual crops in their fields.
...
The cost of corn seeds has risen 282% from its introductory price and accounts for 18-21% of a farmer’s total cost of production. It is often farmers in developing countries that feel the impact of these prices most keenly. Farmers are at the mercy of seed suppliers and lenders who are one and the same in the Philippines and refuse to provide lending unless the farmers grow GM corn.

Content from External Source
http://www.gmeducation.org/latest-news/p207220-the monsanto monopoly.html
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
If you harvest all of your crop, you will not have "residual crops in their fields'. Of course if you cheat and save seed, you will.
 
J

Joe

Guest
They may produce more, but a lot of them require less pesticides or weed killer application. That reduces the cost to the farmer and in turn that reduces the cost we pay at the store. Some of them have better storage or shipping qualities, again, that reduces the cost.

If raising them did not help the farmer, and btw, most farms in the US are still family owned, the farmer would chose a cheaper seed.

What the anti GM crowd ignores is that reducing the need to clear more land is a win for the environment.
A win win for the environment the hell with the long term effects on people of eating GMO which is still not known .
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
They may produce more, but a lot of them require less pesticides or weed killer application. That reduces the cost to the farmer and in turn that reduces the cost we pay at the store. Some of them have better storage or shipping qualities, again, that reduces the cost.

If raising them did not help the farmer, and btw, most farms in the US are still family owned, the farmer would chose a cheaper seed.

What the anti GM crowd ignores is that reducing the need to clear more land is a win for the environment.

What like stuffing ever more chickens into smaller and smaller spaces... Why leave it there... pigs, sheep, cows whatever. Sure the 'scientists' lol, will say the 'food' is 'safe'.

You eat it if you want but it's not for me.

If it's so good why not market it as GMO... why hide the crap that they are forcing down peoples throats by denying them the opportunity to see what it is and refusing to buy it? I mean who on earth do we think we are that we should have a choice? How dare people object to Soylent Green.

Brainless Feetless Chicken Growing

http://farmwars.info/?p=7897
In an attempt to further industrialize our food supply rather than create actual humane conditions for animals used for meat, there is a new proposal afoot. This new “humane” CAFO method requires rendering the chickens blind by “removing the cerebral cortex of the chicken” so that “its sensory perceptions are removed. It can be produced in a denser condition while remaining alive, and oblivious. The feet will also be removed so the body of the chicken can be packed together in a dense volume. Food, water and air are delivered via an arterial network and excreta is removed in the same manner. Around 1000 chickens will be packed into each ‘leaf’, which forms part of a moving, productive system.”

So the master plan is to render the chickens unconscious, blind and footless, while keeping the bodies alive until ready for processing by pumping fluids through the living “meat.” After all, according to this “science-based” approach to animal husbandry, “‘animals’ bred for consumption are crops and agricultural products like any other. We do not, and cannot, provide adequate welfare for these agricultural products and therefore welfare should be removed entirely.” No dear, that chicken you are eating did not come from a real live animal, it is just an agricultural product. Not to worry.

Content from External Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_Animal_Feeding_Operation

In the terminology of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) is an animal agricultural facility that has a potential pollution profile. Specifically, the EPA defines a CAFO as an animal feeding operation (AFO) that (a) confines animals for more than 45 days during a growing season, (b) in an area that does not produce vegetation, and (c) meets certain size thresholds. The EPA's definition of the term "captures key elements of the transformations" observed in the animal agriculture sector over the course of the 20th century: "a production process that concentrates large numbers of animals in relatively small and confined places, and that substitutes structures and equipment (for feeding, temperature controls, and manure management) for land and labor."[1]





The economic role of CAFOs has expanded significantly in the U.S. in the past few decades, and there is clear evidence that CAFOs have come to dominate animal production industries. The rise in large-scale animal agriculture began in the 1930s with the modern mechanization of swine slaughterhouse operations.[26]

The growth of corporate contracting has also contributed to a transition from traditional "family farming" to large industrial factory farming. This has dramatically changed the animal agricultural sector in the United States. According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, "In the 1930s, there were close to 7 million farms in the United States and as of the 2002 census, just over 2 million farms remain."[27] From 1969 to 2002, the number of family farms dropped by 39%,[28] yet the percentage of family farms has remained high. As of 2004, 98% of all U.S. farms were family-owned and -operated.[29] The current growth of CAFOs is considered one of the most influential factors to the disappearance of family farming.[citation needed]​ Most meat and dairy products are now produced on large farms with single-species buildings or open-air pens.[30]

Content from External Source


http://practicingresurrection.wordpress.com/2011/09/11/chicken-insanity/

Yum Yum... What a Brave New World Order.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JRBids

Senior Member.
Here is an article about the protests:

http://badskeptic.com/?p=490




Brainless Feetless Chicken Growing

Yikes.

I know this if off topic, but I live near the only duck farm left on Long Island. One farm used to raise 250,000 a year. We were famous for our Peking Duck:
http://www.longislandgenealogy.com/ducks.html

One day I was riding my bike and I ended up behind the duck farm and peeked over the fence. I saw all these little duck heads peeking back at me through an open door. I felt terrible. However I did have curried LI Duck the other night for dinner. It was gooooood.
 
J

Joe

Guest
Are the long term effects of any food known?
Monsanto invented Agent Orange they said it was safe as well ? If you are what you eat and your food is genetically modified what does that make your descendants ? pure evil he who controls the food or water controls the world , that should be there motto
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Marchers are claiming a 'media blackout', but if you search 'march against monsanto' then nbc, fox, abc, cbs, several stories come up for each one.
Not sure what their definition of media blackout is.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
I'm trying to confirm that Monsanto has a monopoly - that quote doesn't make it seem like it does.
It does seem to have a GMO monopoly.

monsanto-corporations-global-vegetable-seed-market-share_1075.jpg monsanto-share-gm_h328.gif

Perhaps they have monopolies within certain crop types in the United States only. There are about 2.5 million farmers in the US but that figure is an aggregate that probably includes farm types that Monsanto does not sell to.

For instance, what is Monsanto’s markets share of all corn farmers in the US; Those that use both GM and non-GM seeds. Ask the same for onions, tomatoes, etc.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Soylent green is people, not GMOs. It's also fictional.

I know perfectly well what Soylent Green is.

The treatment of the animals we choose to eat is a serious and disturbing issue.
Maybe if they can go with the 'growing meat in a lab' idea that would solve a lot of the ethical problems.

That's where they are going isn't it.

They mess around with the food at every level and lie lie lie lie lie lie and then lie some more about it.

They put poisons and addictive substances in it and people get fatter and fatter and iller and iller and then are pumped full of drugs and wind up like the cows and chickens they couldn't give a shit about whilst they were stuffing it down their necks... now that's ironic... talk about Karma.

GMO, low fat but high fructose/sugar 'health foods' lol, hydrogenated fats, human growth hormones, pharmaceuticals... and you wonder why people call them Frankenfoods?

And what is it all about... higher profits for the big companies and extending shelf life (if possible to infinity). It has nothing to do with providing good healthy food to people.



Where's Waldo... anyone recognise theirself in this pic?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Marchers are claiming a 'media blackout', but if you search 'march against monsanto' then nbc, fox, abc, cbs, several stories come up for each one.
Not sure what their definition of media blackout is.

What is your definition of a media blackout?
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Here is what a different seed company says about seed saving.
http://www.kussmaulseeds.com/about/saved-seed.html

Kussmaul seeds, once more, is a vendor of Monsanto products. Their policy on seed-saving is inherently hand-in-hand with Monsanto's.
Monsanto invented Agent Orange they said it was safe as well ?
Yeah, a lot of people seem to overlook the fact that before Monsanto was developing herbicide-resistant plants and such, they were engaged in wholesale deforestation efforts, aiding in poisoning an entire landscape, killing and rendering ill hundreds of thousands, and consigning hundreds of thousands more unborn Vietnamese to defects and cancers... not to mention ruining twenty-five million acres of good farm-land for years to come. Wasn't up to them what the US did with their product though, right? It's not like they'd have any oversight from a moral standpoint over how much of this stuff they'd produce for use in Vietnam. Why should such things even enter the corporate mindset? Who cares about the externalities? Profit is profit.
This is why I'm caught between laughing and groaning every time someone suggests Monsanto attaining a food-monopoly, or anything close to one, wouldn't be a bad thing. Short-term profit will always trump long-term humanitarian concerns for them so long as the profit-doctrine reigns. It might not be 'evil', but it's certainly wrong, especially where daily bread is concerned.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Soylent green is people, not GMOs. It's also fictional.

The treatment of the animals we choose to eat is a serious and disturbing issue.
Maybe if they can go with the 'growing meat in a lab' idea that would solve a lot of the ethical problems.

It's easy to forget where our meals come from, when we see them in a celophane package in the meat bin. My friend wanted fresh eggs, and bought some chickens. She no longer eats chicken, because she treats them like pets and feels that way towards them. Her husband told me he has forbidden her from buying a cow, LOL.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Monsanto invented Agent Orange they said it was safe as well ? If you are what you eat and your food is genetically modified what does that make your descendants ? pure evil he who controls the food or water controls the world , that should be there motto


Why does everyone let Dow Chemical off the hook? They also produced Agent Orange. I don't know how "safe" an herbicide sprayed from the air on populated areas can claim to be. According to Wiki, 20,000,000 gallons mixed with jet fuel were sprayed on Vietnam. I see absolutely NO equality between herbicides and genetically modified food. What point are you making?
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Marchers are claiming a 'media blackout', but if you search 'march against monsanto' then nbc, fox, abc, cbs, several stories come up for each one.
Not sure what their definition of media blackout is.

It's whatever they say it means.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Why does everyone let Dow Chemical off the hook?
Letting DOW chemical off the hook is a North-American tradition.

I see absolutely NO equality between herbicides and genetically modified food.
One of Monsanto's best selling products is 'round-up', a potent herbicide that only GMO 'round-up ready' plants are likely to survive//. aside from the 'super weeds' that are naturally developing resistances and are giving GMO cotton/soy farmers I think it was a terribly hard time.

What point are you making?
That people shouldn't be so silly as to think Monsanto benign, or their intentions good. They have in the past, they do now, and by that pattern almost certainly will in the future put profit far before people.
 
Top