Debunked: March against Monsanto campaign

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Seems there's plenty here who've not done due diligence on the subject, O. Plus ca change, eh?



Just a little taster on how Monsanto threaten and harass any dissenters; anyone daring to point out the dire consequences of using their products.

There's a great Canadian documentary called The World According to Monsanto. If you've not seen it, it's a must watch. In it, you'll meet former EPA and FDA scientists; scientists formerly working on research; independent scientists and researchers. The film effectively documents how Monsanto put its own employees into positions at the EPA and FDA in order to push through non regulation. Ie., as a result of their efforts, there are no GM specific safety checks and balances; the existing legislation for conventional agriculture practice was upheld as the standard. Tests showing potential problems, such as pre-cancerous cells developing in lab animals were swept under the carpet and the products were rushed into the market - corporate profit above all else. You'll also get a potted history of Monsanto which speaks for itself.
Michael Taylor is a character you'll meet in the film. A Monsanto lawyer/employee who took up a position in the FDA to help with all that non-regulation. More recently, Obama appointed him to the position of Food Safety Czar.



Thankfully there are people who do care, O. Compassion in World Farming is a good org; but for me the issue isn't just the abomination of power and profit seeking GM pushers like Monsanto (though it's a big one), it's the globalisation and industrialisation of the whole agri business. It's completely unsustainable - most of the world's soil is exhausted of minerals due to intensive farming of crops; the very act of cropping is the act of removing nutrients from the soil without any replenishment. This permanent state of decline leads to necessary annual additions of man-made organo phosphates, just to keep up. It's soil suicide.
Check out Mark Shepard, O - if you're interested in viable alternatives. Mark runs his farm in Wisconsin (if I remember right) along the lines of what he terms Restoration Agriculture, a permaculture based design and error lead system which aims to use many more perennial crops (trees mainly) plus layering crops from tree canopy to ground, increasing the harvest of sunlight and soil on one acre to an optimal 5-6 acres in one (beats chucking a hard grain on the floor and that's your lot), and through that returning the environment to a savannah type, where the livestock can forage and feast on many plant varieties. Mark's system is economically viable and regenerates the soil to a rich, nutrient packed deep loveliness in no time flat. You can find a talk by him on YT - about two and a half hours - for a good overview of what's what. I recommend it.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Letting DOW chemical off the hook is a North-American tradition. 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. 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.

Quite right, G. And, just to expand on the Roundup thing: it's systemic. The herbicide is sprayed over the entire crop - and the herbicide is designed to enter the system of the plant. It cuts off the plant's ability to uptake vital nutrients and the plant dies, root and branch. Roundup-ready crops have a GE part which makes it resistant to the herbicide - but it still uptakes the poison; then you or your livestock eat it. Roundup spraying is the main cause of injury to agri workers in the US. Roundup has a surfactant (an additive to make the herbicide stay on the leaf long enough to be taken up) which is carcinogenic to humans and animals. Huge areas of crops are sprayed with Roundup - drifting is causing reduced winter hardiness in hedgerows and trees, killing soil microlife, poisoning water courses and killing water borne species from micro-organisms to tadpoles and fish. And, ofcourse, as you point out, there are now other species becoming resistant - an inevitable consequence of introducing GM plants which do not belong in nature. It's nothing short of criminal idiocy.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Roundup spraying is the main cause of injury to agri workers in the US.
I wasn't aware of that, got any figures you can share? What are the common injuries/ailments associated with use of roundup in the US?
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Letting DOW chemical off the hook is a North-American tradition.

What do you mean?

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.

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.

I was addressing Joe's post which is comparing Agent Orange' safety with genetically modified food's safety: "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"

I don't know why the choice has to be Monsanto is benign or Monsanto is evil. How about Monsanto is a huge corporation that makes a lot of money for itself and like viturally every other huge corporation is more concerned with it's own bottom line.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Quite right, G. And, just to expand on the Roundup thing: it's systemic. The herbicide is sprayed over the entire crop - and the herbicide is designed to enter the system of the plant. It cuts off the plant's ability to uptake vital nutrients and the plant dies, root and branch. Roundup-ready crops have a GE part which makes it resistant to the herbicide - but it still uptakes the poison; then you or your livestock eat it. Roundup spraying is the main cause of injury to agri workers in the US. Roundup has a surfactant (an additive to make the herbicide stay on the leaf long enough to be taken up) which is carcinogenic to humans and animals. Huge areas of crops are sprayed with Roundup - drifting is causing reduced winter hardiness in hedgerows and trees, killing soil microlife, poisoning water courses and killing water borne species from micro-organisms to tadpoles and fish. And, ofcourse, as you point out, there are now other species becoming resistant - an inevitable consequence of introducing GM plants which do not belong in nature. It's nothing short of criminal idiocy.


You make it sound as if the fields are being sprayed by planes or something. We used to use round up around the vines in our vineyard and you have to be very careful how windy it is an how you apply it.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Quite right, G. And, just to expand on the Roundup thing: it's systemic. The herbicide is sprayed over the entire crop - and the herbicide is designed to enter the system of the plant. It cuts off the plant's ability to uptake vital nutrients and the plant dies, root and branch. Roundup-ready crops have a GE part which makes it resistant to the herbicide - but it still uptakes the poison; then you or your livestock eat it. Roundup spraying is the main cause of injury to agri workers in the US. Roundup has a surfactant (an additive to make the herbicide stay on the leaf long enough to be taken up) which is carcinogenic to humans and animals.

Bang on and here is the result of all the toxic spraying inc Roundup but not only Roundup.


  • Over the last 50 years, the amounts of protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin and vitamin C in conventionally grown fresh fruits and vegetables have declined significantly. We know this thanks to rigorous analysis of USDA nutrient data by biochemist Donald Davis of the University of Texas. Similar trends have been discovered in the United Kingdom.
  • Wheat grown 100 years ago had twice as much protein as modern varieties.
  • Major declines in protein and several other nutrients have been documented in modern corn varieties (see the chart).
Davis lists the following causes for declines in the nutrient value of food:
Environmental Dilution Effects. Scientists have known for years that high rates of fertilizer and irrigation use can lead to higher yields, but sometimes at the expense of nutrient density of the crops. Nitrogen in particular is difficult to manage in the soil, and when farmers apply too much it causes plants to take up more water, resulting in high yields but giving us foods that have lower nutrient density.
Genetic Dilution Effects. As plant breeders develop “improved” varieties that give farmers ever higher yields, they are inadvertently causing food nutrient values to decline. Consider calcium in broccoli: Widely grown varieties in 1950 had about 13 mg/g of calcium, but today’s varieties provide only about 4.4 mg/g of calcium.
Similar declines are also being documented in meat, eggs and dairy products. Compared with industrial products, foods from animals raised on pasture are consistently richer in vitamins A, D and E, beta-carotene and beneficial fatty acids.
Content from External Source
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
You make it sound as if the fields are being sprayed by planes or something. We used to use round up around the vines in our vineyard and you have to be very careful how windy it is an how you apply it.

No doubt they were your 'organic' vines lol. Most big operations spray it all over the place but assume it is safe because it is done early on when the crop is young. That is incorrect. It does lasting damage
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I wasn't aware of that, got any figures you can share? What are the common injuries/ailments associated with use of roundup in the US?

Now you're asking! I don't recall the exact source for that, G. Sorry. (Was part of my studies a few years back; glyphosate was but a sub-set of the whole). But there's a plethora of available studies/info - and it's mostly eye and respiratory issues (and worse, longer term problems); try some of these for size -

  1. [h=3]Health and Environmental Impacts of Monsanto's Roundup Pesticide[/h]www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/roundup.cfm‎
    (“Herbicide Tolerance,” New Study Links Monsanto's Roundup to cancer,” ... most commonly reported cause of pesticide related illness among agricultural workers. ... This gas mixture could flash or explode, causing serious personal injury, ... such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.



  2. [h=3]Ag Safety Awareness Week Slated for March 3-9 - The Roundup[/h]www.roundupweb.com/story/2013/03/06/ag-roundup/.../2254.html‎

    Mar 6, 2013 – Every day, 243 agricultural workers suffer lost-work-time injury. ... full-time workers were employed in production agriculture in the U.S. in 2009.


  3. [h=3]Monsanto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/h]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto‎
    In 2007, glyphosate was the most used herbicide in the US agricultural sector, .... settled, multiple times for damaging the health of its employees or residents near its ..... deregulation, a plaintiff must show that it has suffered irreparable injury.


  4. [h=3]Glyphosate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/h]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
    It is commonly used for agriculture, horticulture, and silviculture purposes, as well as ... Glyphosate is one of a number of herbicides used by the United States and .... Superficial corneal injury is possible if irrigation is delayed or inadequate. ... Roundup, and it is not ever put on naked cells (we all have skin and workers are ...


  5. [h=3]Focus on Agriculture - American Farm Bureau[/h]www.fb.org/index.php?action=newsroom.focus&year=2013&file...‎
    Mar 6, 2013 – Take Time for Agricultural Safety Awareness ... agricultural workers suffer lost-work-time injuries daily in the U.S. Five percent of these injuries ...


  6. [h=3]Worker Protection Standard (WPS): Agriculture-Related Enforcement[/h]www.epa.gov/agriculture/wpsenf.html‎
    Genoa Tree Nursery misused the pesticides Round-Up Pro, Lontrel, and Amine 4 2,4 ... a Puerto Rico company, for violating the worker protection provisions of U.S. ... Agricultural workers may be injured from direct spray, drift or residue left by ...


  7. [PDF][h=3]Glyphosate Herbicide Information Profile - USDA Forest Service[/h]www.fs.fed.us/outernet/r6/nr/fid/pubsweb/gly.pdf‎
    by PN Region - 1997
    FORMULATIONS: Commercial glyphosate products generally contain one ... Northwest Region, for employees, forest workers, and for the public. ..... but temporary eye injury. Harmful if .... Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,. 1984.


  8. [h=3]Glyphosate fact sheet - Pesticide Action Network UK[/h]www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/glyphosa.htm‎
    Glyphosate product sales are currently worth approximately US$1,200 million ... In UK arable agriculture, glyphosate was the 12th most extensively used ... of the most commonly reported causes of illness or injury to workers from pesticides.


  9. [PDF][h=3]glyphosate - Beyond Toxics[/h]www.beyondtoxics.org/wp-content/.../GlyphosateFactSheet_BEST.pdf‎
    glyphosate and the prevalent myth that it is harmless, this ...Roundup Ready” crops, glyphosate is the .... rate among U.S. agricultural workers is ... injury.13. Beyond Pesticides' own pesticide incident reporting system has received numerous ...







Content from External Source
Hope that's useful, G.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
I was addressing Joe's post which is comparing Agent Orange' safety with genetically modified food's safety
Yar, but you stated you couldn't see any connection between herbicides and GMO's. Evidently you're aware of the connection if you've made use of roundup yourself.
I don't know why the choice has to be Monsanto is benign or Monsanto is evil. How about Monsanto is a huge corporation that makes a lot of money for itself and like viturally every other huge corporation is more concerned with it's own bottom line.
It isn't down to one or the other by any stretch, even if that's how the discussion is framed by some. I don't think Monsanto is 'evil', I just think what they're trying to do is wrong, and given their history should be fought.
Hope that's useful, G.
Indeed it is, thanks for saving me the search!
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
You make it sound as if the fields are being sprayed by planes or something. We used to use round up around the vines in our vineyard and you have to be very careful how windy it is an how you apply it.

So you're a poison sprayer, then? And in that process you directly fund companies like Monsanto - Please consider alternative methods. There are many.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
So you're a poison sprayer, then? And in that process you directly fund companies like Monsanto - Please consider alternative methods. There are many.

Got a good plan to eliminate poison ivy from woodlands?

You people are a few years too late spewing your bile against Monsanto. Their patent on the active ingredients in Roundup expired
thirteen years ago. Much of the glyphosate being used worldwide is coming from China. Probably 90% of the useful idiots marching in the protest had no idea.

Look East for your next demons my furry friends........
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Got a good plan to eliminate poison ivy from woodlands? You people are a few years too late spewing your bile against Monsanto. Their patent on the active ingredients in Roundup expired thirteen years ago. Much of the glyphosate being used worldwide is coming from China. Probably 90% of the useful idiots marching in the protest had no idea. Look East for your next demons my furry friends........


Roundup is a trade name, n'est pas? Made by Monsanto.

Do you really want my advice on removing poison ivy? Probably be the same as it was last time.

Are you still an 'organic' farmer growing GMO corn on the side and spraying glyphosate in your woodlands? Or just a US military contractor?
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
. Roundup spraying is the main cause of injury to agri workers in the US.

I wasn't aware of that, got any figures you can share? What are the common injuries/ailments associated with use of roundup in the US?

Now you're asking! I don't recall the exact source for that, G. Sorry.

Perhaps you can't recall the source because it isn't an accurate statement?


As for non-fatal injuries in agriculture, machinery was the leading source, with 99,402
reported injuries. In 2011 there were: 41,777 injuries from hand tools and 24,590 injuries from tractors
Content from External Source
http://www.ncfh.org/docs/fs-Occ Health.pdf


According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2009, approximately 1,783,000 full-time workers were employed in the agriculture industry in the U.S. During the same year, 440 farmers and farm workers died from work-related injuries, resulting in a fatality rate of 24.7 deaths per 100,000 workers. Each day, approximately 243 agricultural workers suffer lost-time injuries, with 5 percent of these resulting in permanent impairments, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The leading cause of fatal farm injuries was tractor overturns, which accounts for more than 90 deaths annually.
Content from External Source
http://southwestfarmpress.com/management/farm-safety-emphasized-march-4-10

In 1993, there were an estimated 200,000 work-related injuries on US farms.... National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health agricultural injury survey found that livestock caused 19% of injuries; machinery other than tractors caused 15%; hand tools 11%; working surfaces (slips, falls) 11% and tractors 6%.8
Content from External Source
http://nasdonline.org/document/1001/d000984/agricultural-injury.html

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/aginjury/OISPA/pdfs/AI-19.pdf

Aginjuries.jpg

http://nasdonline.org/document/2905/d002282/farm-injuries-in-ohio-2003-2006-a-report.html

Of the total transported injuries, 15% (1714 injured individuals) came from farms. Falls were the most common cause of injury in all age groups except ages 15-24, in which off-road vehicles were most common. Other leading causes include ridden animal, machinery, and caused by animal. These results are similar to other data sources.
Content from External Source
http://nasdonline.org/document/2758...ury-rates-of-utah-agricultural-producers.html

Nearly half (48.7%) of the injuries reported were treated at home or by a family member. As in the previous Utah studies, working with horses was found to be the single most dangerous activity for agriculturalists in Utah in terms of injuries per unit time of exposure, followed by servicing agricultural machinery.
Content from External Source
more data:

http://nasdonline.org/browse/452/statistics-surveillance-and-survey-instruments.html
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
How would I know if an event was not covered? If people on social media reported an event but there were no news stories about it.
Is this a trick question?
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Roundup is a trade name, n'est pas? Made by Monsanto.

Do you really want my advice on removing poison ivy? Probably be the same as it was last time.

Are you still an 'organic' farmer growing GMO corn on the side and spraying glyphosate in your woodlands? Or just a US military contractor?

Neither of your guesses are correct. The poison ivy is gone, thanks to generic glyphosate. I am currently employed as the Chief Engineer on a 295 ft. vessel which goes about the Gulf of Mexico removing old unused oil production platforms. When wefinish, nothing but mud remains.

Guess you never had to deal with hundreds of poison ivy plants among the trees? Silly me for asking someone who hasn't a clue.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
How would I know if an event was not covered? If people on social media reported an event but there were no news stories about it.
Is this a trick question?

I don't think it's a trick question.

Can you give some historical examples, say over the last decade?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
I don't think it's a trick question.

Can you give some historical examples, say over the last decade?

Well, it's certainly a strange question seeing the term was only used in the context of it being provably drama queen level bullshit to claim a 'media blackout' of the Monsanto march - to which you also responded 'what's your definition of media blackout?'

Not this.

NBC-
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Chicagoans-March-Against-Monsanto-208961781.html
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Protesters-Rally-Against-Monsanto-208989341.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52000920/...sters-march-against-monsanto-seattle-olympia/
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51999785/...e/t/protesters-march-against-monsanto-cities/
http://www.nbc-2.com/story/22423735/locals-march-against

FOX -
http://www.kptv.com/story/22423185/protesters-march-against-monsanto-in-250-cities
http://fox4kc.com/2013/05/25/march-against-monsanto-brings-hundreds-to-plaza/
http://www.fox21online.com/news/video/northlanders-join-world-march-against-monsanto
http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/201...-against-monsanto-genetically-modified-seeds/

ABC -
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/correction-marching-monsanto-story-19265495
http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/march-against-monsanto-in-tampa-st-pete
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/protesters-to-march-vs-monsanto-in-250-cities
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/protesters-march-monsanto-250-cities-19256536

CBS -
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/05/25/hundreds-march-against-monsanto/
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/05/25/protesters-march-against-monsanto-in-north-texas/
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/05/25/march-against-monsanto/


What's yours?

The claim of media blackout was obviously made in hysterical glee following on from the claims of media blackout of the occupy movement - they followed the script started then.

If the question was asked however in the interests of wider discussion - well, my answer stands, as I would either have to rely on time to pass for it to come out, or happening to know of it due to social media, police trackers, forums, etc..., or the efforts of independent investigative journalism.

Examples of media blackout in the last decade - well Wiki gives some -
A media blackout was used during the 2005 New York City transit strike to allow for more effective contract negotiation between the two sides of the dispute.[4] Most typically, the more freedom of the press that any particular country has, and the more sensational the story, the more likely it is that at least one news organization will ignore the "blackout" and run the story.

The 2008 abduction of Canadian journalist Mellissa Fung was given a media blackout to assure her safe return. All media sources obliged making the Canadian public unaware of the fate of Fung.
In 2008, the fact that Prince Harry of Wales, third in line to the British throne, was serving on active duty in Afghanistan was subject to a blackout in the British media for his own safety. He was brought home early after the blackout was broken by foreign media.[5]
On June 22, 2009, when news came that New York Times reporter David Rohde had escaped from his Taliban captors, few knew he had even been kidnapped, because for the seven months he and two Afghan colleagues were in the Taliban's hands, The Times kept that information under wraps. Out of concern for the reporter's safety, The Times asked other major news organizations to do the same; NPR was among dozens of news outlets that did not report on the kidnapping at the urging of Rohde's colleagues. Kelly McBride, who teaches ethics to journalists at the Poynter Institute, says she was "really astounded" by the media blackout. "I find it a little disturbing, because it makes me wonder what else 40 international news organizations have agreed not to tell the public," she tells NPR's Melissa Block. McBride says the blackout could hurt the credibility of news organizations. "I don't think we do ourselves any favors long term for our credibility when we have a total news blackout on something that's clearly of interest to the public," she says. [6]
In 2009, on the 20th anniversary of Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, a number of social media websites were made inaccessible and foreign television reception disrupted in China.[7]
Some media critics have questioned whether the 2000 Wichita Massacre received little to no coverage in the mainstream media due to political correctness regarding the race of the perpetrators and the victims. Such critics also cite the 2007 Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom in Knoxville, Tennessee.[8][9][10]
On January 18, 2012, Wikipedia itself participated in a media blackout to protest SOPA.

Content from External Source
Also I think there was some controversy over the bodies of soldiers arriving back home being discouraged from being shown to media - but obviously I heard about it, through the media. Though I'm Australian.

Other modern example would be Syria -

On 3 June 2011 the government shut down the country’s Internet network. Although fully restored the following day, the country’s 3G, DSL and dial-up were disconnected the same day massive protests and marches were being organized throughout the country to call for the removal of President Bashar al-Assad and for “Children’s Friday”, to honor children who had died during the uprisings.[14]
Content from External Source
China -
http://www.smh.com.au/world/china-media-blackout-on-fugitive-dissident-20120430-1xv0s.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/world/asia/01crackdown.html
http://www.voanews.com/content/in-china-close-newsreading-the-news-for-political-clues/1540103.html

And apparently the 'day of rage' in America was unreported, but those of other countries was.


I think in a lot of cases the term media blackout is just a propaganda tactic to give validity to something by making it seem suppressed. Monty Python's "Help, I'm being repressed!" scene springs to mind.
It does happen, but is not a sustainable state.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
The problems resulting from the use of Agent Orange was not from the Agent Orange itself, but from the fact that it had been contaminated with dioxin. Agent Orange is NOT Roundup--they are different chemicals.

A 50:50 mixture of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D, it was manufactured for the U.S. Department of Defense primarily by Monsanto Corporation and Dow Chemical. The 2,4,5-T used to produce Agent Orange was later discovered to be contaminated with 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD), an extremely toxic dioxin compound. It was given its name from the color of the orange-striped 55 US gallon (208 l) barrels in which it was shipped, and was by far the most widely used of the so-called "Rainbow Herbicides".[3]
...
But in 1969, it was revealed to the public that the 2,4,5-T was contaminated with a dioxin, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD), and that the TCDD was causing many of the previously unexplained adverse health effects which were correlated with Agent Orange exposure.[16] TCDD has been described as "perhaps the most toxic molecule ever synthesized by man".[17] Internal memoranda revealed that Monsanto (a manufacturer of 2,4,5-T) had informed the U.S. government in 1952 that its 2,4,5-T was contaminated.[18] In the manufacture of 2,4,5-T, accidental overheating of the reaction mixture easily causes the product to condense into the toxic self-condensation product TCDD
Content from External Source

Was Monsanto careless in producing Agent Orange? Probably yes. Was it deliberate, no. Was the dioxin deliberate? NO.

We are not talking about Agent Orange, but we are talking about GM plants.

Trying to drive the thread to a discussion of Agent Orange, seems to be a deliberate attempt to not face the facts about the safety of GM products. The same with discussing factory farming.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
in the context of it being provably drama queen level bullshit to claim a 'media blackout' of the Monsanto march


http://www.foodexposed.co.za/global...ted-2-million-protesters-with-media-blackout/

Headline: Global Monsanto protest gains an estimated 2 million protesters with media blackout.

...Chrissy Magaw was one of about 200 protesters who walked from a waterfront park to the Martin Luther King Jr. memorial in Pensacola. She told WEAR-TV that knowing what you eat and put into your body is the most important decision you make every day.
Content from External Source

WEAR-TV is the ABC-affiliated television station in Pensacola Florida. :rolleyes:
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Well, it's certainly a strange question seeing the term was only used in the context of it being provably drama queen level bullshit to claim a 'media blackout' of the Monsanto march - to which you also responded 'what's your definition of media blackout?'

Interesting, detailed and well thought out post Pete; Appreciated. I largely agree with what you say. However, there are degrees of coverage and whilst it may be factually inaccurate to claim a media blackout, some people use the term in a less precise manner to denote what is perceived, and may factually be, a very low level of coverage or coverage that is biased in that it is portrayed in a derogatory way.

I think this normally happens when Government policy is challenged, such as in anti war protests, Occupy etc, where participants are often reported in a derogatory fashion.

I think the media are very fickle and will often report in a populist vein in the belief that it is better for sales.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Was the dioxin deliberate? NO.
from your own quote:
Internal memoranda revealed that Monsanto (a manufacturer of 2,4,5-T) had informed the U.S. government in 1952 that its 2,4,5-T was contaminated.
The Vietnam War (Vietnamese: Chiến tranh Việt Nam) was a Cold War-era military conflict that occurred in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia from 1 November 1955[A 1] to the fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975.
Monsanto knew what its own product contained, the state department knew as well, and the decision was none the less made by Monsanto to sell it, and by the US to buy it/dump it on Vietnam.
We are not talking about Agent Orange, but we are talking about GM plants.

Trying to drive the thread to a discussion of Agent Orange, seems to be a deliberate attempt to not face the facts about the safety of GM products. The same with discussing factory farming.
You miss the point, and have seemingly missed the thread topic. Agent Orange is very pertinent in evaluating Monsanto as a corporate entity. Their work with chemical herbicides was the backbone of thier GMO business-plan, made entirely obvious by the fact their best-selling products are herbicides and GMO plants designed to resist them. Monsanto is responsible in part for thousands of deaths/injuries, and the decimation of millions of acres of farmland. They knowingly sold large amounts of a product they KNEW to be harmful to people for use on a civilian population. Can anyone honestly believe such a corporation has the best interests of the world's hungry poor at heart? Or are they going to keep marketing their products in a way that yields the most profit? Is anyone so indoctrinated by the fiscal mysticism of modern economics to still believe the hunt for maximum profit has the best possible result for everyone involved?
 

Critical Thinker

Senior Member.
Talking about Agent Orange is a straw man argument. That was back in the 60's, over 50 years ago. Might as well protest Bayer aspirin for using slave labor in WW2. Lets stick with the 'rationale' that the March against Monstanto are using to justify their protest.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Talking about Agent Orange is a straw man argument. That was back in the 60's, over 50 years ago.
There's an old adage about folks who forget their history.... can't remember it for the life of me, though.

Lets stick with the 'rationale' that the March against Monstanto are using to justify their protest.
Ok. Monsanto is the biggest name currently in agribusiness, and are aggressively expanding, with a high level of influence within several governments. They currently have a large, near-quarter share of the global seed market, and have a fair measure of influence over food pricing. The bigger they grow, the greater that influence will be. With enough of a market-share, influence could become manipulation. Monsanto seeks high profits above most all else. Starving poor are not a source of high profits, and are thus less than likely to factor into their thinking/plans.
Those are the facts, the uncertainty of the debate over GMO's themselves aside. Within those facts I see a recipe for disaster, not the end of world hunger.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Monsanto is the biggest name currently in agribusiness

Thats not really an accurate statement- (I guess it depends on what you mean by "biggest name"- they certainly are the biggest lightening rod- but not the biggest Agribusiness company but a large margin )

Monsanto currently has revenues of approximately $11.8 billion...

However, that is dwarfed by the true giants of Agribusiness- Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland with revenues of $113 Billion and $80 billion respectively.

Both Cargill and ADM have a much larger role in a wider range of foodstuffs and effect a larger number of people than a seed company.

Most people have never heard of Cargill:

http://www.cargill.com/company/glance/
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Neither Cargill or ADM are big names in agriculture itself. They're processors, meaning they buy up what farmers produce and turn it into the products companies like Kraft or other major food-corps make use of, i.e buying up corn and turning it into sweetener/ethanol/whatever. Cargill isn't even exclusive to this roll, also offering financial services and industrial products. Monsanto is the biggest corporate name in agriculture itself.
 

Critical Thinker

Senior Member.
There's an old adage about folks who forget their history.... can't remember it for the life of me, though.

Ok. Monsanto is the biggest name currently in agribusiness, and are aggressively expanding, with a high level of influence within several governments. They currently have a large, near-quarter share of the global seed market, and have a fair measure of influence over food pricing. The bigger they grow, the greater that influence will be. With enough of a market-share, influence could become manipulation. Monsanto seeks high profits above most all else. Starving poor are not a source of high profits, and are thus less than likely to factor into their thinking/plans.
Those are the facts, the uncertainty of the debate over GMO's themselves aside. Within those facts I see a recipe for disaster, not the end of world hunger.


So they are a big business, which claim is it that you are saying is valid that has not already been addressed?


Why do we march?



  • Research studies have shown that Monsanto’s genetically-modified foods can lead to serious health conditions such as the development of cancer tumors, infertility and birth defects.



  • In the United States, the FDA, the agency tasked with ensuring food safety for the population, is steered by ex-Monsanto executives, and we feel that’s a questionable conflict of interests and explains the lack of government-led research on the long-term effects of GM products.



  • Recently, the U.S. Congress and president collectively passed the nicknamed “Monsanto Protection Act” that, among other things, bans courts from halting the sale of Monsanto’s genetically-modified seeds.



  • For too long, Monsanto has been the benefactor of corporate subsidies and political favoritism. Organic and small farmers suffer losses while Monsanto continues to forge its monopoly over the world’s food supply, including exclusive patenting rights over seeds and genetic makeup.



  • Monsanto's GM seeds are harmful to the environment; for example, scientists have indicated they have contributed to Colony Collapse Disorder among the world's bee population."
 

Grieves

Senior Member


  • In the United States, the FDA, the agency tasked with ensuring food safety for the population, is steered by ex-Monsanto executives, and we feel that’s a questionable conflict of interests and explains the lack of government-led research on the long-term effects of GM products.
Valid. Monsanto does have an inordinate level of influence within American politics.

For too long, Monsanto has been the benefactor of corporate subsidies and political favoritism. Organic and small farmers suffer losses while Monsanto continues to forge its monopoly over the world’s food supply, including exclusive patenting rights over seeds and genetic makeup.
Valid. Monsanto's inordinate level of influence within American politics give it an advantage over others.

Research studies have shown that Monsanto’s genetically-modified foods can lead to serious health conditions such as the development of cancer tumors, infertility and birth defects.
Possible. There has been evidence of infertility in livestock as the result of GMO feedstock.


  • Monsanto's GM seeds are harmful to the environment; for example, scientists have indicated they have contributed to Colony Collapse Disorder among the world's bee population."
Possible. Colony Collapse Disorder is a big concern, and roundup/other pesticides remain a major suspect.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Neither Cargill or ADM are big names in agriculture itself. They're processors, meaning they buy up what farmers produce and turn it into the products companies like Kraft or other major food-corps make use of, i.e buying up corn and turning it into sweetener/ethanol/whatever. Cargill isn't even exclusive to this roll, also offering financial services and industrial products. Monsanto is the biggest corporate name in agriculture itself.

What???

Thats not even remotely accurate.

"Agribusiness" is much more than seeds. Cargill DWARFS Monsanto in terms of size and importance in global agribusiness. They yield much more influence politically, globally and financially than Monsanto.

Cargill may not be a household name (because they are private) but they have a much greater role in the food you eat than Monsanto.

And yet, the four giant transnationals that dominate the raw materials of the global food system have largely stayed below the radar of European consumers. Known as the ABCD group for the alphabetic convenience of their initials, ADM, Bunge, Cargill and (Louis) Dreyfus, account for between 75% and 90% of the global grain trade
Content from External Source
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-de...s/2011/jun/02/abcd-food-giants-dominate-trade

With $119.5 billion in revenues in its most recent fiscal year, ended May 31, Cargill is bigger by half than its nearest publicly held rival in the food production industry, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM, Fortune 500). If Cargill were public, it would have ranked No. 18 on this year's Fortune 500, between AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) and IBM (IBM, Fortune 500). Over the past decade, a period when the S&P 500's revenues have grown 31%, Cargill's sales have more than doubled.

But those numbers alone don't begin to capture the scope of Cargill's impact on our daily lives. You don't have to love Egg McMuffins (McDonald's (MCD, Fortune 500) buys many of its eggs in liquid form from Cargill) or hamburgers (Cargill's facilities can slaughter more cattle than anyone else's in the U.S.) or sub sandwiches (No. 8 in pork, No. 3 in turkey) to ingest Cargill products on a regular basis. Whatever you ate or drank today -- a candy bar, pretzels, soup from a can, ice cream, yogurt, chewing gum, beer -- chances are it included a little something from Cargill's menu of food additives. Its $50 billion "ingredients" business touches pretty much anything salted, sweetened, preserved, fortified, emulsified, or texturized, or anything whose raw taste or smell had to be masked in order to make it palatable.
Content from External Source
http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/24/news/companies/cargill_food_business.fortune/index.htm

Here is an interesting report on the truly big Agribusiness companies from OxFam:

http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfa...ets-grain-traders-agriculture-30082012-en.pdf

the ABCDs stand out for their size, their breadth, and their economic power at multiple points of the agri-food system
Content from External Source
Cargill operates across a wide range of commodities, products, and
services around the globe. It is organized into five business segments:
1) agricultural services;
2) food ingredients and applications;
3) origination and processing;
4) risk management and
financial; and
5) industrial ; each business segment has several business units.

In addition to being a large grain trader in the USA, Cargill is one of the largest meatpackers, owning operations that produce poultry, beef, pork, and pet foods. Cargill also has operations in animal
feed, corn, barley, sorghum, vegetable oils, cotton, sugar, petroleum, financial trading, pharmaceutical and health products sales of crop protection products, biofuels, oils and
lubricants, and many other industrial products. Cargill has 142,000 employees in offices that span 66 countries. Its subsidiaries buy and process grain and beef in Australia, soy in Brazil and
Argentina, palm oil and animal feed in Malaysia, palm oil and cocoa in Indonesia, grain, oilseed,
coal and financial services in South Africa, cotton in Uzbekistan, cocoa in Ghana, and much more
Content from External Source
The business model of the agricultural commodity trading companies combines specific and unique features that have enabled them to become major and significant actors in the ongoing restructuring of the overlapping food, feed, and fuel complexes. Through their roles in biofuels investment, large-scale land acquisition, and the financialization of agricultural commodity markets, the ABCDs are at the forefront of the transformation that is determining where money in agriculture is invested, where agricultural production is located, where the produce is shipped, and how the world’s population shares (or fails to share) the bounty of each harvest.They are also, directly and indirectly, shaping the world in which the majority of the worlds’ food producers primarily female small scale producers in developing countries must somehow survive, and be allowed to thrive.
Content from External Source
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Here is an interesting report on the truly big Agribusiness companies from OxFam:

http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam...0082012-en.pdf

This research report provides an analysis of the role and impacts of the world’s largest commodity traders on the modern food system.

"Agribusiness" is much more than seeds. Cargill DWARFS Monsanto in terms of size and importance in global agribusiness. They yield much more influence politically, globally and financially than Monsanto.

Cargill may not be a household name (because they are private) but they have a much greater role in the food you eat than Monsanto.
You're right. In the broader context of Agribusiness beyond food production itself, Cargill is the bigger name. Once again though, Cargill is a processor/trader, not a producer, in the words of their own CEO. They buy produce from farmers and render that produce into other products which they sell. They do indeed have massive influence over foodstuffs, but that influence usually doesn't begin until those foodstuffs have left the farm. Cargill will buy your grain, Cargill will sell you crop insurance, and they'll even sell you Canola seed 'manufactured' by DOW, but that's the limit of their influence over agriculture itself. They do indeed have extreme influence over food the world over, but they are beholden to the prices of the produce they buy, and the prices other companies will pay for their additives/ingredients/products. If they pay too little for the produce they need, farmers will sell elsewhere and the business fails. If they charge too much for the products/ingredients they make, companies like Kraft will go elsewhere. In other words, its a more traditional business model with a real potential for failure. Competition can actually keep them 'in check' to an extent.
Monsanto is different. Their influence over the developments in patent-law has given them a considerable advantage in the field of GMO's over their competitors, and has allowed them to use the science to develop monopolies on several key crops in North America, monopolies which allow them to manipulate pricing and choke out competition. This is the insidious brilliance of their business model, as it does what companies like Cargill can't do, which is grab agriculture itself by the balls and squeeze. Whereas rising prices and poor conditions lead companies like Cargill to suffer, Monsanto's business model is a brilliant profit-machine, basically printing more money the more tenuous the global food situation becomes.

Cargill and the other 'ABCD's aren't innocents by any stretch of the imagination, and do also have inordinate influence over food. They are, however, intrinsically beholden to the agricultural process, and its the agricultural process itself around which Monsanto is gaining a hold, right at the very earliest stage. This is what makes Monsanto rather unique comparatively, and gives them far more influence over agriculture itself if not all aspects of the business that surrounds it.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
You're right. In the broader context of Agribusiness beyond food production itself, Cargill is the bigger name. Once again though, Cargill is a processor/trader, not a producer, in the words of their own CEO. They buy produce from farmers and render that produce into other products which they sell. They do indeed have massive influence over foodstuffs, but that influence usually doesn't begin until those foodstuffs have left the farm. Cargill will buy your grain, Cargill will sell you crop insurance, and they'll even sell you Canola seed 'manufactured' by DOW, but that's the limit of their influence over agriculture itself.

Thanks...but its not true to say Cargill is not a producer- They produce a lot of food- mostly livestock. They also DO have influence on farmers prior to the crop leaving the farm as farmers make production decisions based on the price they expect to receive from Cargill.

But they are big enough that they can dictate (to some extent) prices they pay.

In the Pacific Northwest, the Justice Department estimated that Cargill would have been in control of 53 per-cent of corn purchases and 94 percent of soybean purchases. In Central California, Cargill would have been virtually the only wheat purchaser for farmers.
Content from External Source
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7470879/Cargill-A-Threat-to-Food-and-Farming

Monsanto is different. Their influence over the developments in patent-law has given them a considerable advantage in the field of GMO's over their competitors, and has allowed them to use the science to develop monopolies on several key crops in North America, monopolies which allow them to manipulate pricing and choke out competition. This is the insidious brilliance of their business model, as it does what companies like Cargill can't do, which is grab agriculture itself by the balls and squeeze. Whereas rising prices and poor conditions lead companies like Cargill to suffer, Monsanto's business model is a brilliant profit-machine, basically printing more money the more tenuous the global food situation becomes.

What?? I do not think you seem to understand how global food trade works....rising prices -in general- means greater profits for Cargill- see any correlation(click to enlarge):

Cargill profits.jpg


Their profits dropped last year because of increased feed costs for their livestock production:

“The current quarter demonstrated the balance that comes from Cargill’s diversified portfolio,” Chairman and CEO Greg Page said in a statement. “In North America, our meat processing businesses were pressured by the drought-related high cost of feed ingredients. Even though many of our global food ingredients businesses experienced higher input costs, they nearly matched their strong performance in last year’s third quarter.”

The prolonged impact of the drought, which reduced crop yields in North America, hurt Cargill’s agricultural services business. The company said that its animal nutrition results were negatively affected by Venezuela’s currency, which was devalued by a third on February 8. The company did, however, see strong demand for U.S. soybean exports due to limited harvest supplies in South America.

Cargill’s animal protein business was hurt throughout North America due to high feed costs, tight cattle supplies, and an oversupplied turkey market. Cargill’s earnings also took a hit when a beef processing plant in Texas was idled in February due to the low cattle supply caused by the drought.
Content from External Source
http://tcbmag.com/News/Recent-News/2013/April/Cargills-Profits-Plunge-42-Due-to-Drought

Cargill and the other 'ABCD's aren't innocents by any stretch of the imagination, and do also have inordinate influence over food. They are, however, intrinsically beholden to the agricultural process, and its the agricultural process itself around which Monsanto is gaining a hold, right at the very earliest stage.

Given that Cargill is the largest buyer and processor of wheat...and wheat is the single largest source of vegetable protein for humans in the World....and there is currently no GMO wheat being grown anywhere in the World...I think Cargill's influence is greater than Monsanto's.
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
Jay, you an employee or something?
You seem inordinately defensive where Monsanto is concerned.

I could echo a lot of what Jay has said and Monsanto is on my top ten list of shitty multinational corporations.

I know I'm tired of a lot of the mythology around glyphosphate and now GM crops. Seems like half my friends have bought into the idea that their tomatoes have no nutrients or flavor and that bread is nutrient poor carbohydrate loaded poison because of GMOs from Monsanto. I actually have real life friends that think that GM Wheat from Monsanto gave them a metabolic disorder and made them fat. Then there are the people out on the St. Johns River that think that the Corps of Engineers is using Agent Orange to control water hyacynth. I'm really just tired of having to correct such bullshit when there are important real issues that need addressing.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
I actually have real life friends that think that GM Wheat from Monsanto gave them a metabolic disorder and made them fat.

According to this there is no GM wheat- is it inaccurate??:

http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/crops/22.genetically_modified_wheat.html

Right now, no genetically modified wheat is being grown anywhere in the world. Plans to introduce GM wheat in North America were abandoned in 2004. Nevertheless, scientists are still exploring ways of improving wheat using genetic engineering.
Content from External Source
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
The poison ivy is gone, thanks to generic glyphosate.

Guess you never had to deal with hundreds of poison ivy plants among the trees? Silly me for asking someone who hasn't a clue.

Let's just recap on what you've said previously.

PS, on my organic farm I did try out the GMO corn which carried the bacillus thurigiensis gene

Hm. BT corn, organic? And, when it's pointed out, your answer:

Genes are organic, well, so is gasoline, and few organic farmers use "horse"power anymore.

Interesting angle. But a hopeless defence for your bad practice. When pointed out, you [...] say:

I could go on and on..... like saying that people who have different genetic skin color are not human!

Which is [irrelevant]


It becomes clearer to me when you then say:

In my area, the only way to escape corn worms is to plant extremely early to beat the worm season, still, even using bt organic permtted spray I always got some worms. It was useless to plant again because later in the summer more generations had passed so that the worm pressure was so great that 1/2 the ear was infested.

Because it's obvious to me that you're trying to grow the wrong crop. If you're fighting with input after input against what nature's up to, then you're going to lose. Or resort to further detrimental inputs, just like you did. It's a no-brainer. The best way to avoid corn worms -would be to not grow corn, but something else. Obvious innit! When you think about it.

You then stated your use of glyphosate on your 'organic' farm, which prompted my reply:



do you work for Monsanto?
Blimey. What a lot of nonsense. Matey, if you're chucking Glyphosate all over your farm, I think you need to check out the real meaning of organic. In fact - How dare you call yourself an organic farmer? You're nothing more than an apologist for a corrupt corporation. You should learn some facts about the herbicide you use on your 'organic' enterprise:

Glyphosate is a non-selective systemic herbicide. It kills all plant types including grasses, perennials and woody plants. It works by being absorbed into the plant mainly though its leaves but also through soft stalk tissue. It is transported throughout the plant where it acts on various enzyme systems inhibiting amino acid metabolism. This pathway exists in higher plants and microorganisms but not in animals. Plants treated with glyphosate slowly die over a period of days or weeks, and no part survives.
Glyphosate itself may be relatively harmless, some of the products with which it is formulated have a rather less benign reputation. Marketed formulations of glyphosate generally contain a surfactant. Some of these are serious irritants, toxic to fish, and can themselves contain contaminants which are carcinogenic to humans.
In glyphosate formulations are ethylated amines. Polyoxy-ethyleneamine refers to a group of ethylated amine products used in glyphosate formulations. These are significantly more toxic than glyphosate. They are serious irritants of eyes, the respiratory tract and skin, and have been found to contain dioxane (not dioxin) contaminants which are suspected of being carcinogenic.

In California, glyphosate is one of the most commonly reported causes of illness or injury to workers from pesticides. The most common complaints are eye and skin irritation. The US authorities have recommended a no re-entry period of 12 hours where glyphosate is used in agricultural or industrial situations

The Forestry Commission (UK) believes - and they should know - that glyphosate and other herbicides commonly affect hedgerow trees causing die-back. In the US it has been suggested that herbicides, including glyphosate reduce winter hardiness in trees and their resistance to fungal disease. It has been suggested that damage to maple trees increases during the second year following treatment with glyphosate, and that clover planted 120 days following treatment showed reduced nitrogen fixation and growth. This implies that glyphosate which is bound to soil particles can remain active and may be released from soil and taken up by plants.
The US-EPA stated that many endangered plants may be at risk from glyphosate use

Glyphosate is sprayed indiscriminately over vast areas and will inevitably kill non-target vegetation

The toxicity of glyphosate to mammals and birds is generally relatively low. However, its broad spectrum of herbicidal activity has led to the destruction of habitats and food sources for some birds and amphibians leading to population reductions.
Fish and aquatic invertebrates are more sensitive to glyphosate and its formulations. Its toxicity is increased with higher water temperatures and pH. Some soil invertebrates including springtails, mites and isopods are also adversely affected by glyphosate. Of nine herbicides tested for their toxicity to soil microorganisms, glyphosate was found to be the second most toxic to a range of bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes and yeasts.

In Australia most formulations of glyphosate have been banned from use in or near water because of their toxic effects on tadpoles and to a lesser extent on adult frogs. There is also concern about non-lethal effects of the herbicide on frogs. New non-irritant formulations such as Roundup Biactive are excluded from the ban.

Resistance
Crops with genetically engineered resistance to glyphosate have been developed so that weeds can be controlled in fields where the crops are growing without harming the crop plants themselves. This strategy will make farmers more dependent on particular pesticidal products and will probably lead to increased use. There is also concern that the genes which display glyphosate resistance may be transferred to non-crop species including weeds.

Reports in professional journals indicate that resistance to glyphosate has developed in annual ryegrass in Australia. Anecdotal evidence from users in the UK suggests that similar signs of resistance in annual ryegrass and knotgrass have existed for some time.

Conclusion
Glyphosate can be an effective tool in weed control programmes, there is nevertheless evidence of toxic effects on humans as well as environmental toxicity, indirect environmental damage and resistance in some target weed species. Since glyphosate is being marketed as a safe and environmentally friendly product and its use is so extensive, there is a danger that damage to non-target plants including endangered species will increase. Habitat damage and destruction will occur more frequently and more instances of weed resistance will appear. Cultivation of glyphosate resistant crops will potentially exacerbate these problems.

Instead of putting words in my mouth and lying to yourself and anyone else - why don't you change your bad practices and be honest with yourself and everyone else who might be unfortunate enough to believe what you're selling them is in any way 'organic'?
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Their profits dropped last year because of increased feed costs for their livestock production
precisely. An increase in the cost of livestock feed due to natural pressures, which these days typically refers to corn or soy, had a major negative impact on their business, resulting in almost half the earnings. Monsanto adversely experienced increased profits as a result of the exact same issue, that being the greater cost of corn/soy due to scarcity. Whereas scarcity of the produce through which they make their products impacts Cargill negatively, increased scarcity of produce has a positive influence on Monsanto's profits. Yes, Cargill's profits correlate well with increasing food prices, but as has been emphatically pointed out to me in the past, correlation doesn't equal causation. An increase in the price of food at the end of the production line, once its been processed and packaged, may well be damn good for Cargill, but scarcity of the basics with which they produce their ingredients/additives/feeds/ect. effects them negatively. Monsanto, the leading name in the technology that's supposedly going to solve world hunger, benefits from scarcity of the basics. As you pointed out:
In the Pacific Northwest, the Justice Department estimated that Cargill would have been in control of 53 per-cent of corn purchases and 94 percent of soybean purchases.
Given that Monsanto has a monopoly on the production of both of these crops in America, isn't it fair to say that Monsanto seed pricing has more of an impact on Cargill's bottom line that Cargill's buying price has on Monsanto's bottom line?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Let's just recap on what you've said previously.
Hm. BT corn, organic? And, when it's pointed out, your answer:
Interesting angle. But a hopeless defence for your bad practice. When pointed out, you get a bit tetchy, and say:
Which is a particularly facile chunk of shit covered straw.
It becomes clearer to me when you then say:
Because it's obvious to me that you're trying to grow the wrong crop. If you're fighting with input after input against what nature's up to, then you're going to lose. Or resort to further detrimental inputs, just like you did. It's a no-brainer. The best way to avoid corn worms -would be to not grow corn, but something else. Obvious innit! When you think about it.
You then stated your use of glyphosate on your 'organic' farm, which prompted my reply:
You've no idea what my knowledge is on this subject, but I must say, when someone like you says
I take it as a compliment. Though of all your comments - from denying that Nasa was populated with former nazis - to gasoline is organic - my favourite is
Still makes me chuckle.

I am appalled that someone can use these products and still claim to be 'organic'... What do you have to do to not be organic? It makes a mockery of everything. There should be a law against it... in fact I'd be surprised if there wasn't even in the U.S

Get your brainless-feetless steroidal, irradiated, four legged organically grown, glow in the dark chickens here!
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Given that Monsanto has a monopoly on the production of both of these crops in America, isn't it fair to say that Monsanto seed pricing has more of an impact on Cargill's bottom line that Cargill's buying price has on Monsanto's bottom line?

Why do you persist with this myth of Monsanto's "monopoly" ?

DuPont has a larger market share of BOTH corn and soybean seeds in the US.

Neither has a monopoly.

market_share_shifts.jpg


http://www.agweb.com/article/behind_the_seed_scene/
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Debunked: The Science Claims of Global March Against Chemtrails and Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 4
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 9
Mick West Debunked: Cop Car Towed to Media Location then Torched at Million Mask March - BX10 LNV Conspiracy Theories 111
derwoodii Debunked: UFO ATTACKS TALIBAN CAMP !!! March 2014 UFOs and Aliens 6
Oystein Debunked: Gibraltar cancels Christmas Coronavirus COVID-19 5
Mythic Suns [Debunked] Viral internet meme indirectly claiming that Greenland has already fully melted. Science and Pseudoscience 6
T AiG Debunked: Fossils Fail to Find Major Transition From Dinosaurs to Birds Science and Pseudoscience 10
Rory Debunked: UK undertaker's claim that Covid vaccine is responsible for spike in deaths Coronavirus COVID-19 7
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosions preparatory to demolition of the WTC North Tower are visible as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower 9/11 7
Mick West Debunked: Pfizer Developing a Twice-Per-Day COVID Pill, Taken Alongside Vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition “squib” is visible at top of WTC North Tower before Flight 11 crash 9/11 67
Marc Powell Debunked: Construction worker Philip Morelli experienced an explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower 9/11 0
Marc Powell Debunked: ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported an explosion in the subway 9/11 1
Marc Powell Debunked: Debris from twin towers was projected upward by explosives 9/11 13
Marc Powell Debunked: Government officials revealed having foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse 9/11 58
Marc Powell Debunked: NIST computer simulation of Building 7 collapse is inaccurate 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: FEMA reported finding evidence that steel had melted. 9/11 47
Marc Powell Debunked: VP Dick Cheney ordered a standdown of jet fighters on 9/11 9/11 16
Oystein Debunked: Claim that Bobby McIlvaine's injuries ("lacerations") are best explained as result of glass shards and debris from bombs 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: World Trade Center should not have collapsed due to 9/11 fires 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Firefighter reports of secondary explosions 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Steel was hurled hundreds of feet by explosives 9/11 4
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition Explosion Before Collapse of South Tower 9/11 8
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosion in South Tower Lobby 9/11 7
Marc Powell Debunked: Mysterious Explosion Before the Flight 11 Crash 9/11 48
J.d.K Debunked: Marx: "The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions must give way... They must perish in the revolutionary Holocaust" Quotes Debunked 0
dimebag2 Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 74
Mick West Debunked: Diving Triangle UFO Photos from Reddit [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 37
Theferäl [Debunked] Object Seen From Airplane Above Canberra: 04 Apr 2012 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
bird_up Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 76
Patrick Gonzalez Debunked: missing cable on Perseverance landing footage proves it is fake. General Discussion 3
TEEJ Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
derrick06 Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs and Aliens 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs and Aliens 9
Mick West Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 27
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs and Aliens 3
Mick West Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: "Missile Strike" caused Nashville Explosion General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: Nashville Explosion was "Across the Street" from the RV General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: "Error rate of 68.5% Allowable is .0008%" [Neither is True] Election 2020 4
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Trump's Claim of "1,126,940 votes created out of thin air" in PA Election 2020 9
Mick West Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
JFDee Debunked: Democratic senators complained about 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines in 2019 Election 2020 2
Mendel Debunked: The Democrats are trying to take away freedom of religion Election 2020 6
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top