Debunked: March against Monsanto campaign

Critical Thinker

Senior Member.
The 'usual suspects' are promoting the "March against Monsanto" http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/ Not surprisingly the list below is on their home page, right after a sales pitch to sell March against Monsanto T shirts. Just knowing that Alex Jones and the conspiracy crowd are pushing this agenda raises my doubts to it's validity. I thought that having a thread that addresses these concerns might be useful :

"On May 25, activists around the world will unite to March Against Monsanto.

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."



 

  • 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."

A Swiss Study.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0032151
[h=4]6. Conclusion This study provides evidence that Varroa destructor is a key player for winter colony losses and highlights the urgent need for efficient treatments against this parasite. The data suggest an indirect effect of mite infestation on honeybee overwintering abilities through the promotion of opportunistic viral infections, which eventually lead to the impairment of critical physiological functions. The knowledge gathered in this work will help to improve our understanding of bee losses, standardize methods for biomarkers of disease and finally to mitigate causes of bee declines.[/h]
 
It seems the only folks really concerned about GM crops effects on bees, are folks that don't keep bees.
 
I know sod all about bees but if GM crops were to blame why does CCD happen in countries that don't have GM crops? Simple logic.
 
LOGIC something a lot of folks are not big on. Some of the bee keeping sites are also discussing inbreeding and the fact that the bees are being moved so that they only have a single nectar source. It seems that wild bees and even urban hives don't have as much of a CCD problem as commercial bees do.
 
Genetically Modified Tires

BOB TITA Wall Street Journal July 31, 2012, 7:26 p.m. ET

High yielding, genetically modified crops have transformed the economics of U.S. farming. But they also pack an unexpected punch: Their tougher stalks are puncturing tires and stranding farm equipment in the field.

Iowa corn and soybean farmer Mark Dimit said tire damage from the prior season's corn and soybean stalks, much tougher in GM crops, repeatedly brought spring planting to a standstill on his 4,000-acre farm near Grinnell two years ago.

MK-BW141_TIRES_DV_20120731173148.jpg

A stubble-bruised tractor tire, left, next to a Kevlar-reinforced tire.(Titan International)

"It's not as easy as taking a tire off your car," said Mr. Dimit, who blames stubble for at least a half dozen flats on a new planter. "You do that for about two hours every morning, and you start to get a little bit frustrated."

At about $35 a tire to plug a leak, the cost also angered the 53-year-old, who has farmed for 35 years. So, when the 2011 Iowa Power Farming Show in Des Moines gave him access to manufacturers, he got an opportunity to vent to a tire supplier.

"I probably wasn't as nice as I could have been," said Mr. Dimit, who has made a habit of visiting factories and participating in surveys whenever companies solicit customer feedback.

Mr. Dimit's complaints to Titan International Inc., TWI +2.88% one of the largest farm tire suppliers, caused the
company to suggest he test a newly developed tire with four layers of Kevlar, the synthetic fabric best known for its use in military helmets and bulletproof vests. Mr. Dimit installed them on his planter more than a year ago.

"I've not had a flat tire since," he said. "I complained at the right time."

Auto tire makers including Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and Essex
Manufacturing Inc. have put Kevlar belts into durable, run-flat tires for passenger cars and off-road vehicles. But farm equipment makers such as Deere & Co., Fiat Industrial CNH Global and Agco Corp.
don't yet offer the specially-reinforced tires on their tractors.

This year's crop stubble has been particularly tough on tires because a mild winter and a dry spring kept moisture from disintegrating old plant stalks and stems. As farmers cut back on tilling their fields to preserve the top soil, they're frequently planting a new crop right next to the remains of an old one.

Kevlar is made by DuPont, DD +0.72% one of the largest producers of GM corn and
bean seeds through its DuPont Pioneer unit. The company developed the material in the 1960s to strengthen car tires, but the auto industry has largely stuck with cheaper, steel mesh belts.

About 3 million farm tires a year are sold in the U.S. with sales expanding annually by an average of about 4% since 2007, fueled by steadily rising sales of farm equipment.

Titan, which also makes farm tires under the Goodyear name, has limited Kevlar to tires for planters and other implements where stubble punctures are frequent due to their softer treads.

The company said the tires haven't been available long enough to determine the market's reaction. The Kevlar tires cost almost $300 apiece, roughly twice as much as regular tires. Titan says the price is offset by lower costs for repairs and tire replacements. Mr. Dimit figures he spent more than $200 on fixing flats in one planting season.

"It's pay me now or pay me later," said Scott Sloan, product engineering manager for Titan. "It only takes one bean stalk to make a tire go flat."

U.S. farmers, many of whom are flush with cash after an extended stretch of high commodity prices and record harvests, have shown a willingness to spend money on productivity-enhancing equipment in recent years.

Titan has been trying to convince equipment makers to offer the tire on new machines.

"We are certainly interested in it," said Martin Richenhagen, chairman and chief executive of Georgia-based Agco, maker of Massey Ferguson-brand equipment. "We're already doing testing with it."

In June, Deere finance chief Jim Field described tire damage from crop stubble as "one of the biggest complaints we have." Still, Deere has yet to offer customers Kevlar tires as an option on new machinery.

Titan's Mr. Sloan said the higher cost of the tires is making them a hard sell to equipment manufacturers. But that may be changing.

Dan McClain, manager of Triple C Farms, a Long Island, Kan., livestock producer that raises about 4,500 acres of corn and soybeans for animal feed, said he recently bought a set of the Kevlar tires for one of the farm's two planters.

"A farmer isn't afraid to pay up for something if it lasts three times as long," he said.

"We don't work the ground like we used to," Mr. McClain added. "All of that stubble is left on top of the ground. You're driving on top of it constantly. A planter would go through a set of tires in a season. That's six or eight tires."

Write to Bob Tita at robert.tita@dowjones.com

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c....4.0...0.2...1c.1.14.psy-ab.0pBs88sFOlM&pbx=1

I'm happy that so many people are willing to be guinea pigs for this new food. If something starts going wrong with your digestive tracts and your organs start deteriorating, don't ask people like me to help pay the bills.
 
I have zero worries about it. Livestock has been fed it for several years and they aren't having any problems with it.

The tests keep failing to show any problems in people.

The strong stalks is a problem, FOR TIRES. We don't eat corn stalks.
 
I have zero worries about it. Livestock has been fed it for several years and they aren't having any problems with it.

The tests keep failing to show any problems in people.

The strong stalks is a problem, FOR TIRES. We don't eat corn stalks.
Sure does tenderize those tires nicely though!
 
I have zero worries about it. Livestock has been fed it for several years and they aren't having any problems with it.

The tests keep failing to show any problems in people.

The strong stalks is a problem, FOR TIRES. We don't eat corn stalks.
I have made no secret that I did my fair share of crop stomping with Greenpeace in the '90's (I was at university and it was a rebellious phase after 14 years in the army), and it was that campaign that got legislation changed for us and labelling etc, as well as putting limits on the corporations. However for many of us that was the goal so everyone could take a step back for a more considered view. Unfortunately Greenpeace have not taken that approach and most of their decisions are based on piss poor science. The trials that have happened have been stomped on even though these are government funded, open source, projects. But people really are in fear that eating GM will make you grow wings/breasts/give you autism/make you vote UKIP.
Sure does tenderize those tires nicely though!
I am just waiting to see a Facebook comment that Monsanto have bought out Goodyear. Mind you they could buy Michelin and genetically develop a real Michelin Man, that would be cool.
 
There is one that says that they own Coke and Pepsi.

GM crops are really better for the environment and for people, because they can reduce the amount of pesticides needed and they can produce more crop. The later can reduce the amount of land needed to be cleared for crops.
 
There is one that says that they own Coke and Pepsi.

GM crops are really better for the environment and for people, because they can reduce the amount of pesticides needed and they can produce more crop. The later can reduce the amount of land needed to be cleared for crops.
I totally agree. We have a real dilemma in the UK as for years the government has provided grants for farmers to go organic. Off the top of my head I would say that organic farms have increased 4 or 5 fold in the past 20 years but the yields they produce are 30 or 40% less. Now given that at best we can produce around 60% of our own food organic appears not to give us food security (off topic but post WWII we had rationing for some products into the '50's, so my parents would moan about). GM would give us the option of a greater self reliance but people are really resistant. Here is a link for the latest, public funded trial for a GM wheat crop that would be resistant to aphids (wheat is our main crop, and the main user of pesticides). Note the comment from someone in the US at the bottom. http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/Content.php?Section=AphidWheat
GMO's are toxic. Please don't allow this to happen in the UK. I live in the US and have been sick from eating Genetically Modified Wheat for years. I thought I had a gluten allergies all of the sudden but that isn't the case at all. I have been sick for years now with kidney pains and intestinal pains along with bloating and weight gain. That is what GMO's do to you. I recently visited the UK and was happy to realize finally that it wasn't an allergy but that it was the GMO's that were causing my symptoms. I didn't realize this until I was able to eat bread without GMO's. I would hate for this to happen out here and for people to be ill because of this. Please look up Mark Hyman's article on GMO's through the huffingtonpost website. Also for history on GMO production you can find it on Wikipedia about Norman Borlaug and his creation of Dwarf Wheat
Content from External Source
 
Content from external source:

GMO's are toxic. Please don't allow this to happen in the UK. I live in the US and have been sick from eating Genetically Modified Wheat for years. I thought I had a gluten allergies all of the sudden but that isn't the case at all. I have been sick for years now with kidney pains and intestinal pains along with bloating and weight gain. That is what GMO's do to you. I recently visited the UK and was happy to realize finally that it wasn't an allergy but that it was the GMO's that were causing my symptoms. I didn't realize this until I was able to eat bread without GMO's. I would hate for this to happen out here and for people to be ill because of this. Please look up Mark Hyman's article on GMO's through the huffingtonpost website. Also for history on GMO production you can find it on Wikipedia about Norman Borlaug and his creation of Dwarf Wheat

There are no GMO wheat
varieties currently on the market. There are hybrids. One thing I don't understand about anti-GMO crowd, is they fear the change of a specific gene but not the change of the entire genome of the pant through hybridization or something like chemical mutagenesis. The old hybrid methods of developing new varieties is a much more trial and error intensive process than changing one or a few genes at a time.


 
Last edited by a moderator:

There are no GMO wheat
varieties currently on the market. There are hybrids. One thing I don't understand about anti-GMO crowd, is they fear the change of a specific gene but not the change of the entire genome of the pant through hybridization or something like chemical mutagenesis. The old hybrid methods of developing new varieties is a much more trial and error intensive process than changing one or a few genes at a time.
ven environmem

It is just down to education, and people think the worst of GM. A classic example of my time stomping crops is the Fish Tomato http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_tomato. Mind you in saying that my issue has never been with the crop in the food chain but one of the effect on biodiversity. For a relatively small place, we in the UK have a lot going on ecologically and my concern has purely been one of cross pollination of native species blah blah. However people do not appreciate that mutation is a natural way of things and even environmental stressors can trigger it, and what is the difference to doing it in a lab or let time take its course?
 
I need to know more, than the biased stories I see a lot of. What I hear makes them sound horrible, but since to many folks they are one of the 'great evils', I don't trust all of those reports.

I do not have any problem with the GM crops. I worry more about the fact that we don't have enough food inspectors in the US. We KNOW that contamination of crops such as cantaloupe and greens have resulted in deaths, also eggs.

Folks are afraid of a non problem while they ignore real problems.
 
To be fair they have been addressed in other threads but it us difficult to talk about Monsanto and GM in general digressing into personal opinion.
 
Just seemed to make sense to address the claims all in one place, rather than the scattered data found in many different places, Oh well.
 
Not sure about GMOs to be honest. But I really don't like Monsanto's business practices.

I wouldn't be suprised if it's not just Monsanto whose practices are dubious. This is very cut throat and competetive industry. I have worked in it (although not for Monsanto) If one company is going to get farmers to sign contracts to only use their seeds, and other priducts which work in conjunction with those seeds (Roundup ready seeds) then that customer has been contractually taken out of the market place, paving the way for unhealthy monopolies to develop in my opinion.
 
I wouldn't be suprised if it's not just Monsanto whose practices are dubious. This is very cut throat and competetive industry. I have worked in it (although not for Monsanto) If one company is going to get farmers to sign contracts to only use their seeds, and other priducts which work in conjunction with those seeds (Roundup ready seeds) then that customer has been contractually taken out of the market place, paving the way for unhealthy monopolies to develop in my opinion.

I must admit I am confused. What stops farmers using different seeds (outside of economics of buying more in) and I can't find anything to say farmers are forced to use Round up on Round Up Ready seeds. What stops them using a generic brand?
 
I must admit I am confused. What stops farmers using different seeds (outside of economics of buying more in) and I can't find anything to say farmers are forced to use Round up on Round Up Ready seeds. What stops them using a generic brand?

Hi Dave. For now Monsanto still hold the patent for glyphosate. The US patents actually do expire in 2014 and my understanding is that normally other companies will then be able to jump into the market with generics, but in the case of Roundup it may not be quite so simple due to regulatory mechanisms in place to protect the patented MOA technology behind the molecule. I suspect the whole saga will eventually unrvael when either Monsanto or a competitor comes up with some thing more effective and even cheaper.

No farmer is 'forced' to do anything by Monsanto. They are assertively encouraged to enter into contracts to work specifically with Monsanto seeds - at a very reasonable price - which of course deliver good yeilds. If the farmer wishes to go another major seed vendor he first has to free himself from Monsanto which could cost him millions.
 
Just knowing that Alex Jones and the conspiracy crowd are pushing this agenda raises my doubts to it's validity.
Precisely what Alex Jones is there for.

I must admit I am confused. What stops farmers using different seeds (outside of economics of buying more in) and I can't find anything to say farmers are forced to use Round up on Round Up Ready seeds. What stops them using a generic brand?
Monsanto sells its seed on contract wherever the law allows. These contracts often oblige a farmer not to switch crops until they've run their course. To switch seeds while under contract would mean either having to buy double the seed (both Monsanto-brand to oblige the contract and the other to plant) or try and break their contract with Monsanto, which is not at all likely to end well for the farmer. They keep a close eye on farmers under contract, and signing a contract with them allows their private investigators to examine a farmers property/investigate their sales. They even hire out PI's to investigate farmers who aren't on contract for suspected violations of patent/vendors for suspected sale of patented seed. Monsanto has endured a great deal of criticism for 'alleged' intimidation tactics. They've even tried to engage in legal actions against entire districts for having a 'Quality Trademark Seal' where their milk is concerned, because this particular stamp of approval didn't allow for the presence of their bovine growth hormone. Though their milk was still on sale in the region, Monsanto claimed it was an 'unfair business practice' to imply milk without artificial growth hormone was of a higher quality than milk with it.
 
First are the contracts for just one season? Secondly I cant find anything stating that a farmer is contractually obliged to plant the seeds that he has bought. I would have thought such a clause would be redundant.
 
They aren't obliged to plant the seed so far as I know, just to purchase it. As you said, it'd be redundant for them to enforce planting, they already have their money. Contracts, though indeed seasonal, aren't limited to a single season. If a farmer feels its a good idea to sign for ensuing seasons, Monsanto will happily oblige them in that as I understand it. With non-patented seed, you'd be able to collect seed from your crop to save and replant in future seasons, reducing or even removing the need to buy new seed. You could even sell/give/trade your seed with other farmers. If you contract with Monsanto, you're legally obliged to purchase a set amount of fresh seed with every season. If you end your contract with Monsanto, you're legally obliged not to save your seed, and even to raze any perennials in many cases grown from Monsanto seed. Of course, selling/giving/trading Monsanto seed your plants produced in a season isn't an option, unless you want to risk suffering harsh legal action and massive fines.
 
Precisely what Alex Jones is there for.


Monsanto sells its seed on contract wherever the law allows. These contracts often oblige a farmer not to switch crops until they've run their course. To switch seeds while under contract would mean either having to buy double the seed (both Monsanto-brand to oblige the contract and the other to plant) or try and break their contract with Monsanto, which is not at all likely to end well for the farmer. They keep a close eye on farmers under contract, and signing a contract with them allows their private investigators to examine a farmers property/investigate their sales. They even hire out PI's to investigate farmers who aren't on contract for suspected violations of patent/vendors for suspected sale of patented seed. Monsanto has endured a great deal of criticism for 'alleged' intimidation tactics. They've even tried to engage in legal actions against entire districts for having a 'Quality Trademark Seal' where their milk is concerned, because this particular stamp of approval didn't allow for the presence of their bovine growth hormone. Though their milk was still on sale in the region, Monsanto claimed it was an 'unfair business practice' to imply milk without artificial growth hormone was of a higher quality than milk with it.
Please provide links with your claims, you know this!

I don't know about a contract, I have heard this before. Usually it involves farmers not being able to plant back their seeds, though Grieves does not mention that. Somehow it is thought Monsanto is forcing the farmers to buy seeds that will produce no viable seeds for replanting the next year.

This guy explains it well in section 13 and 14.
http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/hypocrisy.html
Thirteenth, the statement that farmers cannot plant back their seeds from year to year SHOWS A COMPLETE IGNORANCE OF GENETICS! Farmers can plant back seeds from conventional varieties. However, HYBRID SEEDS (genetically engineered or not) need to be produced each year. WHY? Hybrids are crosses between two parental lines. They are valuable because NEW GENES ARE COMBINED IN THE OFFSPRING. According to the experiments of Mendel 150 years ago, these gene combinations segregate and assort in the next generation! Any HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY STUDENT KNOWS THIS! Hybrids are much higher yielding than non-hybrid plants. You may know that we did a lot of pioneering work in this area to be able to produce hybrid crops that did not exist before -- like oilseed rape -- and get 30% increases in yield That means, 30% increase in numbers of plants on the SAME amount of space! Hybrids have to be made NEW every year..by anyone...genetic engineer, organic farmer, conventional breeder. THAT'S A FACT OF BIOLOGY!
However, recent work has the GOAL of using genetic engineering to produce hybrids WITHOUT conventional crosses -- that is, make seeds without fertilization. This is the "holy grail" of plant genetics these days and if successful it will mean that genetic engineering can produce HYBRID VARIETIES IN WHICH THE FARMERS WILL, I REPEAT WILL, BE ABLE TO KEEP THEIR SEEDS AND RE-PLANT YEAR AFTER YEAR HYBRID CROPS. This can only be done with genetic engineering because there are plants that naturally do this -- like dandelions -- and if we can transfer those genes from dandelions to soybeans, corn, wheat we can make the hybrids which are higher yielding and then allow the plant to produce seeds forever without ever making the genetic cross again!
Fourteenth, we live in a market system. FARMERS ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE ADOPTED GENETICALLY ENGINEERED VARIETIES. WHY, BECAUSE, THEY MAKE MORE MONEY. No corporation holds a monopoly on agriculture or any other segment of society in which technology is rapidly advancing. Besides, look at Microsoft...there ARE antitrust laws in this country! Are the organic farmers using PCs with Windows? I doubt whether Wild Oats or Whole Foods Markets would survive long without making a profit. FARMERS HAVE ADOPTED GENETICALLY ENGINEERED VARIETIES. BUT THEY HAVE ALWAYS ADOPTED NEW TECHNOLOGIES. AND SEED COMPANIES EXISTED THAT SOLD SUPERIOR VARIETIES OF SEEDS TO FARMERS BEFORE GENETIC ENGINEERING WAS INVENTED. It's a market system....farmers will buy the most superior forms of seeds and will be able to make a greater profit...and grow higher yielding crops...on less land! Everyone is a winner. In the past Land Grant Universities developed seeds and gave them to farmers...but that has been taken over by SEED COMPANIES. I think that's the "American way" and IT WORKS!
Content from External Source
Basically if farmers are buying from Mansanto it is because they like their seeds.
 
http://www.monsanto.ca/ourcommitments/Documents/TUG_English.pdf
See 'terms and conditions' toward the bottom, and look for the key words 'contract' and 'patent', for a general notion of how contracts work with Monsanto.

http://thefarmerslife.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/scan_doc0004.pdf
Here's a short-form of a Monsanto patent agreement. The bit on 'binding arbitration' is a good read, stating any claim made against Monsanto must be handled out of court if one signs the contract.

The full and final contracts Monsanto has many farmers sign are confidential, so I've never been able to find one online, but apparently they can run over 30 pages in length.
The vast majority of farmers respect patent laws and honor their agreements to abide by that law. When one farmer sees another farmer saving patented seed, they will often report them. Many of the tips Monsanto gets about farmers saving patented seeds come from other farmers in the same community. Usually, cases come to us when someone reports they believe seed is being saved illegally. Monsanto’s attorneys look into these allegations and may have a licensed private investigator look into the facts. If infringement is a possibility, a Monsanto manager will meet with the individuals involved. There have been farmers who were contacted and provided information that resulted in Monsanto closing the case. The vast majority of farmers who are presented with facts showing infringement admit the violation and pay a settlement.
A statement from Monsanto's own PR page, speaking on their policy of independent investigation into farmers. If you rummage around google a little, you'll find plenty of stories of farmers complaining about the treatment they received from Monsanto investigators.
 
Usually it involves farmers not being able to plant back their seeds, though Grieves does not mention that.
Again, I don't think Monsanto really cares if you save/replant your seed so long as you're buying the contracted amount of seed with the new season, which would make saving/replanting your seed somewhat pointless, leaving you with more seed than you can plant, and that you cant sell/trade/give away. However, if your contract ends, saving/replanting seed becomes a crime, in violation of patent-law.
 
What part says they are obligated to remain their seed slave for life?

Maybe a good place for you to start would be to see what is involved when a farmer wants to terminate their contract with Mansanto.
Once
effective, this agreement will remain in effect until either Grower or Monsanto choose
to terminate the Agreement by written notice to the other party.
Content from External Source
 
I don't try and make it sound any way but the way I'm flatly stating it. Whenever you read comments made by someone on the 'other team', you seem to be hearing Alex Jones' voice blarfing on about GMO's rotting your testicles or something. Throughout, my position has been that corporate exploitation of patents in regard to foodstuffs made possible through the modern law surrounding GMOs is dangerous, given scarcity and profit go hand in hand, and a corporation like Monsanto can't be expected to choose people over profit. Thus, though the science of GMO's is definitely worth extensively exploring and utilizing wherever beneficial, allowing that process to be the face of the profit-driven effort to gain the biggest market-share of food in the history of the world is something to be wary of.
 
Grieves, someone called you anti-capitolist, not sure if this is true but if so, it seems ironic to me that you don't see how this anti-GMO, anti-Mansanto fight is purely market based. Lets just say for a minute that Mansanto is taken down and the organic crowd wins and eliminates all GMO crops and food. What would that be? exactly what they fear in reverse. The anti crowd fears GMO are going to take over the whole worlds food, no organic will remain. Kind of like a monopoly, even if it were not controlled by one company. A monopoly on an industry is what they fear. Vilify it and the companies that promote it and they could possibly turn that monopoly on an industry their way.
 
Grieves, someone called you anti-capitolist, not sure if this is true but if so, it seems ironic to me that you don't see how this anti-GMO, anti-Mansanto fight is purely market based.
It's a fair assessment.
Lets just say for a minute that Mansanto is taken down and the organic crowd wins and eliminates all GMO crops and food.
Not something I want in the slightest.

The anti crowd fears GMO are going to take over the whole worlds food, no organic will remain. Kind of like a monopoly, even if it were not controlled by one company. A monopoly on an industry is what they fear. Vilify it and the companies that promote it and they could possibly turn that monopoly on an industry their way.
Sorry, can you run this by me again? Not sure I catch your meaning.
 
Monsanto sells its seed on contract wherever the law allows. These contracts often oblige a farmer not to switch crops until they've run their course. To switch seeds while under contract would mean either having to buy double the seed (both Monsanto-brand to oblige the contract and the other to plant) or try and break their contract with Monsanto, which is not at all likely to end well for the farmer. They keep a close eye on farmers under contract, and signing a contract with them allows their private investigators to examine a farmers property/investigate their sales. They even hire out PI's to investigate farmers who aren't on contract for suspected violations of patent/vendors for suspected sale of patented seed. Monsanto has endured a great deal of criticism for 'alleged' intimidation tactics. They've even tried to engage in legal actions against entire districts for having a 'Quality Trademark Seal' where their milk is concerned, because this particular stamp of approval didn't allow for the presence of their bovine growth hormone. Though their milk was still on sale in the region, Monsanto claimed it was an 'unfair business practice' to imply milk without artificial growth hormone was of a higher quality than milk with it.
I'm sorry I don't know how to read into this without hearing your scare tactics, you make it sound so evil and sinister. Yet really provide no proof their contracts are, for one unusual in the industry and two, that they are actually hurting farmers.
 
Monsanto contracts don't always hurt farmers. Sometimes they're a godsend. Sometimes they're a huge disappointment. They're products like any other, hit sometimes, miss elsewhere.

Yet really provide no proof their contracts are, for one unusual in the industry
The agriculture industry is thousands of years old. GMOs and the patent-law surrounding them certainly aren't. Monsanto's rise to prominence in the agriculture industry is a very new phenomenon, built on the back of their involvement both in GMOs and their fierce lobbying of lawmakers.
and two, that they are actually hurting farmers.
Again, sometimes they do help farmers by increasing yields, sometimes they do hurt farmers such as the crisis-crop in India. It's not just about farmers though. It's about the people they feed, and the influence Monsanto can have on the price those people pay.
Done debating with you Grieves! Don't hurt your neck looking over your shoulder all the time!
lol, so rather than explain your position, you accuse me of paranoia..? Nice.
 
Grieves, someone called you anti-capitolist, not sure if this is true but if so, it seems ironic to me that you don't see how this anti-GMO, anti-Mansanto fight is purely market based. Lets just say for a minute that Mansanto is taken down and the organic crowd wins and eliminates all GMO crops and food. What would that be? exactly what they fear in reverse. The anti crowd fears GMO are going to take over the whole worlds food, no organic will remain. Kind of like a monopoly, even if it were not controlled by one company. A monopoly on an industry is what they fear. Vilify it and the companies that promote it and they could possibly turn that monopoly on an industry their way.

Off topic for this thread but it is possible to hold conflicting ideals, I certainly do. As a generalisation I myself am anti capitalist but I am a realist and pragmatic about my views. I don't like the philosophy of the corporations (i.e. making money) but I accept it as a fact and move on.

Anyway, I think you are simplifying the sides in the GM debate. To be anti GM does not mean you are organic although it seems most of the arguments come from organic farmers. I do have a general anti-GM stance (yeah it may not seem it) but I am far from being totally pro-organic as I believe chemicals do have a place in agriculture.

Sorry, reading that back it all sounds like total pants.
 
Off topic for this thread but it is possible to hold conflicting ideals, I certainly do. As a generalisation I myself am anti capitalist but I am a realist and pragmatic about my views. I don't like the philosophy of the corporations (i.e. making money) but I accept it as a fact and move on.

Anyway, I think you are simplifying the sides in the GM debate. To be anti GM does not mean you are organic although it seems most of the arguments come from organic farmers. I do have a general anti-GM stance (yeah it may not seem it) but I am far from being totally pro-organic as I believe chemicals do have a place in agriculture.

Sorry, reading that back it all sounds like total pants.

I think that what might be seen as holding "conflicting ideals" is really just admitting the complexity of the situation - and as you say the practical reality that comes with that complexity. I'm anti-abortion, but I'm pro-choice. Seems like a conflict yet these are just simple labels that can't encompass the entire picture. I think it would be ideal if there were no abortions, but I don't think that making it illegal is a good thing.

Labels like anti-capitalist, pro-organic, and anti-GMO often serve to hide the complexity of a situation. One should always try to avoid applying a label to someone, especially if they have not used that label themselves.
 
Back
Top