Debunked: Monsanto Patents and Chemtrails (Infowars' GMO-Chemtrail Connection)

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member


In this article from Infowars, the writer describes a two year old article on farmwars.info as "groundbreaking", when in fact all it is doing is blaming "chemtrails" for problems that have been around (and understood) for many decades.

http://www.infowars.com/is-there-a-gmo-chemtrail-connection/

In a groundbreaking article at farmwars.info, Barbara Peterson makes a stunning connection between GMO food crops and chemtrails. (“Monsanto Patents and Chemtrails”)
Peterson has looked into a Monsanto patent that expands the genetic engineering of food crops.

Engineering for what purpose? Overcoming the destructive presence of heavy metals like aluminum and barium in the soil.

These are metals which have often been reported in globally sprayed chemtrails.
Content from External Source
The Farmwars article is half an apology for getting it wrong about the Aluminum/GMO connection years earlier (in the film What In The World Are They Spraying):
http://farmwars.info/?p=7760

Here is where we went wrong:

The patent for aluminum resistance mentioned in What in the World are They Spraying? turns out to be owned by the USDA and Brazil’s agricultural department, not Monsanto directly (although a good case can be made for Monsanto actually owning the USDA, but that’s another story) and evidently, made for acidic soil and will not be effective in an alkaline soil caused by chemtrailing.
Content from External Source
But then they go to suggest that all manner of patents owned by Monsanto are indicative of a connection to "chemtrails"

Here is a patent titled “Stress tolerant plants and methods thereof,” that is owned by Monsanto, and seems to address all forms of abiotic stress that weather manipulation and chemtrails can cause:

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

Described herein are inventions in the field of plant molecular biology and plant genetic engineering. In particular, DNA constructs encoding a polypeptide and transgenic plants containing the DNA constructs are provided. The transgenic plants are characterized by improved stress tolerance.

...
This patent is infinitely more inclusive of conditions related to chemtrail activity than the singularly applied aluminum patent as it is a relatively all-inclusive “stress tolerance” patent for everything from cold to drought to heavy metals, to salty soil that involves everything from acacia to zucchini. Monsanto to the rescue, again. And we thought the only thing we had to worry about was sorghum and aluminum. Think again…
Content from External Source
Here's why this is bunk: like the aluminum-resistant seeds, these "stress tolerant plants" are all designed to combat existing problems - and these are problems that have been around for decades, and in some cases for hundreds or even thousands of years. Consider the list:
Improvement of abiotic stress tolerance in plants would be an agronomic advantage to growers allowing enhanced growth and/or germination in cold, drought, flood, heat, UV stress, ozone increases, acid rain, pollution, salt stress, heavy metals, mineralized soils, and other abiotic stresses.
Content from External Source
The first things on the list (cold, drought, flood, heat, UV stress) are simply weather related. These are problems that farmers have been dealing with since the dawn of civilizations. Crops that are more resistant to these factors are simply crops that will grow in a wider range of weather conditions. We already have a wide range of weather conditions - farmers have been losing crops to cold, drought, flood, heat, and UV stress (too much sun) for thousands of years - so having plants being able to resist those factors is a highly desirable thing.

The next three items on the list (ozone increases, acid rain, pollution) are variants of a more modern problem - low altitude industrial air pollution. This is relatively new, but it's something that's not mysterious, or a symptom of covert geoengineering (which would result in relatively small increases in pollution in the upper atmosphere). Air pollution comes from vehicles, factories, and power stations (as well as some natural like forest fires and volcanoes). So again, having crops that can withstand these factors is a good thing.

The final three factors are salt stress, heavy metals, mineralized soils. Here we get to the one thing that gets Infowars the most excited: "heavy metals".
http://www.infowars.com/is-there-a-gmo-chemtrail-connection/
Engineering for what purpose? Overcoming the destructive presence of heavy metals like aluminum and barium in the soil.

These are metals which have often been reported in globally sprayed chemtrails.
...
The new GMO food-plants are specifically designed to be resistant to heavy metals, which happen to be present in chemtrails.
...
"Yes, well, with all this chemtrail activity, and other industrial pollution of the soil and water with heavy metals, we need to create new food crops that won’t fold up and die."
Content from External Source
Yet again though, what is being addressed here is an old problem, not a new problem. And they are problems with known causes, we don't need to invent some mysterious "chemtrail" to get salt or heavy metals into the soil. Salt stress and metal toxicity has been a problem for agriculture for thousands of years - especially since irrigation was invented. Here's a 100 year old article on the subject:
http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/192795/1/B053-1906.pdf


And here is an 1893 article discussing the problem of salt build up in irrigated land since ancient time in Egypt:
http://books.google.com/books?id=HotIAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA169&ots=6f-9wB4oD6&dq="Irrigation and agriculture in Egypt:"&pg=PA179#v=onepage&q&f=false



"Mineralized soils" is similar, but with more generality than just salt (the most common mineral problem). Some soils are higher in minerals than other. Some times minerals are useful plant nutrients, but as with everything if you have too much, then it becomes toxic.

Heavy metals occur in nature, but the more common problem for agriculture is industrial runoff into rivers that are used for irrigation, and also when treated waste-water is used directly for irrigation. This type of pollution has been around for many decades, and so, like with all the other factors here, it would be a good idea to have crops that could resist it.

Here's a 1974 paper on the heavy metal problem:
http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/54/1/122.full.pdf


And another from 1979


So in summary - these patents are clearly useful for existing condition - condition that have been a problem in all cases for at least 50 years, and in some cases thousands of years. And in all cases, the causes of the plant stressors are known and understood. There's no need to invent a hypothetical reason (like "chemtrails") for developing plants that are more resistant to these stressors. It's obviously a highly desirable thing to do, and in fact something farmers have been trying to do for hundreds of years with selective breeding techniques. Monsanto has simple expanded upon that long heritage of dealing with these problems by adding the new technique of genetic modification.
 
Last edited:

David Fraser

Senior Member.
The patent has courted controversy amidst claims of bio-piracy by Monsanto. Recently the patent application was rejected by India, article here http://www.navdanya.org/news/360-mo...-by-the-intellectual-property-appellate-board

Full decision here http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/146-2013.htm

The EU has granted the patents but having a patent and delivering commercial seeds in the present climate are different issues. The EU is not going to change its stance on GM overnight by which time the patents may be close to expiring. Not a good business model.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
It has always puzzled me that chemtrail proponents speak of "heavy metals", but then talk about aluminum. When I ask them why that they mean by "heavy" metals, they just fall silent. It's just something they heard and decided to repeat without knowing what it even means(typical). I see the above article refers to cadmium and lead as "heavy metals". THAT is what the term is meant to mean- certainly not aluminum.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
It has always puzzled me that chemtrail proponents speak of "heavy metals", but then talk about aluminum. When I ask them why that they mean by "heavy" metals, they just fall silent. It's just something they heard and decided to repeat without knowing what it even means(typical). I see the above article refers to cadmium and lead as "heavy metals". THAT is what the term is meant to mean- certainly not aluminum.
DEFRA class aluminium as a heavy metal not by atomic weight etc but due to its potential toxicity.
http://pollutantdeposition.defra.gov.uk/heavy_metals/
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Originally the term meant "metals that are denser than iron", but usage has expanded to roughly mean "metal or metalloid of environmental concern", and varies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_(chemistry)
A heavy metal is any metal or metalloid of environmental concern. The term originated with reference to the harmful effects of cadmium, mercuryand lead, all of which are denser than iron. It has since been applied to any other similarly toxic metal, or metalloid such as arsenic,[4] regardless of density.[5] Commonly encountered heavy metals are chromium, cobalt, nickel, copper, zinc, arsenic, selenium, silver, cadmium, antimony, mercury, thallium and lead. More specific definitions of a heavy metal have been proposed; none have obtained widespread acceptance.[6]
Content from External Source
I don't think any of the common heavy metals listed above are in any serious geoengineering proposals.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
DEFRA class aluminium as a heavy metal not by atomic weight etc but due to its potential toxicity.
http://pollutantdeposition.defra.gov.uk/heavy_metals/
With the very high concentration of aluminum compounds in our soil and environment, how can it be included with those others? It simply doesn't have the same toxic potential and doesn't belong. Chemtrail believers don't have a clue about what is toxic, in what amounts, and what is not. They are simply repeating stuff they have heard from other chemmies.
 

Rational Bee

New Member
It has always puzzled me that chemtrail proponents speak of "heavy metals", but then talk about aluminum. When I ask them why that they mean by "heavy" metals, they just fall silent. It's just something they heard and decided to repeat without knowing what it even means(typical). I see the above article refers to cadmium and lead as "heavy metals". THAT is what the term is meant to mean- certainly not aluminum.

It's revealing that Aluminum, Strontium & Barium are rarely referred to as 'Earth Metals' by chemtrail proponents. I guess that's because it (quite rightly) implies that those metals occur naturally in soil etc.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
A very common misunderstanding is thinking that it's actual metal - not a salt or other chemical compound.

Unfortunately though that requires a bit of chemistry. It's best to just explain to them that these metals are found in the ground naturally - and only discuss the metal/compound distinction if they bring it up.
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
only discuss the metal/compound distinction if they bring it up.

I'm not sure about this strategy; in my opinion this is the central misunderstanding in the "metal" claims.

Don't you think it would deflate the dramatization considerably if we would explain that the metals are coming in the form of "minerals"?
That term may even evoke positive associations.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm not sure about this strategy; in my opinion this is the central misunderstanding in the "metal" claims.

Don't you think it would deflate the dramatization considerably if we would explain that the metals are coming in the form of "minerals"?
That term may even evoke positive associations.

Yes, but the problem is that many people don't understand the distinction. So it's not helpful to bring it up unless you know they will understand it.

Things like atoms vs. molecules, elements vs. compounds, or metal vs. salt, might seem simple and obvious to you, but to most people it's utterly meaningless. And it's not something you can teach them, especially if it's an adversarial discussion. It's hard enough explaining it in a friendly chat. You have to remember that most people lack even a very basic understanding of science, but do not realize that they do.

This diagram is utterly meaningless to many people:


This one is a bit less so
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
it's not helpful to bring it up unless you know they will understand it.
Even if they don't understand the actual science (at first), my point is that the association may change.

Metal = shiny, 'unnatural', possibly dangerous

Mineral = dull, inert, but sometimes advertised on vitamin supplements and therefore healthy
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
"Ions"? That part isn't correct at all.

That would be free-standing Na+ ions and Cl- ions (in aqueous)* or the damn thing would be a crystal of salt. Which?

* I reckon I have a fifty-per-cent chance of getting away with those polarities. :)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
"Ions"? That part isn't correct at all.

The would be free-standing Na+ ions and Cl- ions (in aqueous) or the damn thing would be a crystal of salt. Which? :)

The diagram is an oversimplification.

NaCl is an ionic compound, so table salt is a compound of ions held together by ionic forces, you could say water is a compound of molecules, but it's really a compound of atoms held together by molecular forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionic_compound

Dividing compounds into molecular and ionic bonding (which is probably what the diagram was trying to do) is itself a simplification:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_compound
Chemical compounds can be molecular compounds held together by covalent bonds, salts held together by ionic bonds, intermetallic compounds held together by metallic bonds, or complexes held together by coordinate covalent bonds.
Content from External Source
Once you go down this road, you are opening up a can of complicated worms. I'd stick with "The earth's crust is 8% aluminum" unless it's safe to proceed.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Even if they don't understand the actual science (at first), my point is that the association may change.

Metal = shiny, 'unnatural', possibly dangerous

Mineral = dull, inert, but sometimes advertised on vitamin supplements and therefore healthy

But first you've got to get them to agree that aluminum can be an ingredient in a mineral.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
you could say water is a compound of molecules
No, you couldn't. Well, you could, but you'd be terminologically, er, incorrect.

Oh, maybe you mean, like, water being hydrogen hydroxide or some such thing. Gerraway. :)

Well, don't mind me.

Concerning oneself with confronting absolute ignorance is not worth sweating over IMO.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
No, you couldn't. Well, you could, but you'd be terminologically, er, incorrect.

Which was was my point :) Hence the next bit "but it's really a compound of atoms held together by molecular forces."

Anyway, "keep it simple" is the message here :)
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
But first you've got to get them to agree that aluminum can be an ingredient in a mineral.
That is true, but if we tell people that clay and precious stones like topaz or aquamarine are made partly of Aluminum, they can check this right away. Not an opinion thing, therefore not easily refuted.

Addendum: It's probably not even necessary to mention atoms. When asked, talking about "elements bonding together to form a new substance" might be sufficient. I'm very much in favour of simplification.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
if we tell people that clay and precious stones like topaz or aquamarine are made partly of Aluminum, they can check this right away.

I agree. Maybe just stick with clay though, as it's so common. Otherwise you'll get "yeah, like I've got a backyard full of topaz!"
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
With the very high concentration of aluminum compounds in our soil and environment, how can it be included with those others? It simply doesn't have the same toxic potential and doesn't belong. Chemtrail believers don't have a clue about what is toxic, in what amounts, and what is not. They are simply repeating stuff they have heard from other chemmies.
DEFRA classify due to the toxicity in low pH. This is not so much in soil but in aqueous environments. Mobile aluminium in rain can affect flora and fauna alike, e.g. mosses and invertebrates. Aluminium does put fish under stress as well.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Yes, they tend to think it's free metallic aluminum being rained down on them and that that is what is found in soil samples. They just don't seem to grasp the concept of aluminum oxide and that that is what is on the sandpaper in their garage.
 
Top