Jump to content
The Corroboree
_Cursive

Monsanto. Round-up. GMO's, it's all in here.

Recommended Posts

Thankyou for those links! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
study1-big.jpg
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ that is a very interesting graphic WW, just demonstrates how deep these agro-terrorists have goten.

No doubt its the tip of the iceberg.

Edited by waterboy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, maybe it's just me and now that I'm fully aware of this, does it seem like this is escalating all of a sudden?

I know this has been going on for over 20 years, but now it seems that the final step is about to fall in place, where food will be under total jurisdiction of the governments?

Edited by JT_NZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps someone should produce a similar chart for Australia, ya just never know it might be an eye opener.

Its not governments that control or own food JT, they just make the rules to suit their lords & masters.

And a story on the upcoming Marsh case in WA

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2012/s3541322.htm

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, maybe it's just me and now that I'm fully aware of this, does it seem like this is escalating all of a sudden?

I know this has been going on for over 20 years, but now it seems that the final step is about to fall in place, where food will be under total jurisdiction of the governments?

Governments is one thing (at least in a democracy of sorts) it's the private individuals with all the wealth who then take over government for their own ends that make me sick. In America the government is entirely owned by corporations and the very wealthier, in Australia it is more democratic - hence Kevin Rudd and other wacky PM's that go against the corporate world (not Julia Gillard though, bought by the mining corps and helped along by the CIA).

Some of this movement towards corporate global rule has been ongoing since the second world war, probably before then, but the plan is certainly falling in to place. Uber governments like the EU and the UN are not democratic (neither is the US Federal Government) and there are lot of global deals like the Codex Alimentarius which are secretive and worldwide which we never get the chance to look at, let alone discuss, that have massive impacts on our freedoms and lifestyle (military spending is like this too). Our democratic "say" covers a tiny range of what really happens in our own country, even then the politicians tend to ignore what we would like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make it sound as if we live in a world that still resembles a democracy WW.

Try getting on a consultation committee, a bloke i knew tried since at the time the grubbyment were talking about changing the rules that would impact on his business, but since he wasn't "one of the important players" he got told to suck it up & F'off.

Oddly enough when the rules changed they just happened to suit the Co's that were invited into the consultation process.

last i heard old mate had closed the doors since he couldn't afford the cost of complying with the new regs & was/is working for someone else to pay off loans for the business.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.hangtheba...ds-food-supply/

Monsanto suing DuPont to see who will dominate the world’s food supply

by Jacque Fresco

26 Jul 2012

Biotechnology giant Monsanto is suing one of its largest rivals, DuPont, for what the company says are violations of a licensing agreement established between the two firms back in 2002. And at the very same time, DuPont is suing Monsanto for allegedly, illegally withholding important details from the federal patent office about its Roundup Ready trait, as well as for allegedly engaging in anticompetitive business practices that restrict competitive agriculture.

Many people are unaware of this, but DuPont’s Pioneer Hi-Bred division, which produces seeds, several years ago tried to develop its own genetically-modified (GM) soybean product known as Optimum GAT that was intended to rival Monsanto’s Roundup Ready GM soy product. When the original Optimum GAT product failed to perform as intended; however, DuPont decided to add Monsanto’s Roundup Ready trait onto Optimum GAT’s existing glyphosate-resistant trait, a fact that did not come to light until 2009.

Once DuPont’s trait-blending activity became public knowledge, Monsanto initiated legal action against DuPont for allegedly using its own Roundup Ready trait in violation of the established licensing agreement between the two companies, which prohibited DuPont’s creation of a GM soy product containing multiple GM traits. According to Monsanto, DuPont illegally used the Roundup Ready trait without a license in hundreds of seed lines back in 2008.

“For years, they told the world GAT was going to work,” said George C. Lombardi, an attorney for Monsanto, during Monsanto’s opening arguments before the jury. “When it failed, they relied on the Roundup Ready product.”

But DuPont, in its own defense, says Monsanto’s Roundup Ready patent is unenforceable because it was not properly obtained. According to the company, Monsanto failed to disclose pertinent details in its patent filing about how Roundup Ready seeds work, and how they are made. In fact, DuPont alleges Monsanto actually lied to the federal government in order to obtain the patent, which means it cannot legally be considered valid.

“(Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybean patent) is invalid and unenforceable because Monsanto intentionally deceived the United States Patent and Trademark Office on several occasions as it procured the patent,” said Thomas L. Sager, DuPont Senior Vice President and General Counsel, in a recent statement.

The trial, which is expected to last several weeks, officially began on July 9, 2012. Some commentators believe the case will more than likely be settled rather than take its full course because neither Monsanto nor DuPont want to be hit with a surprise verdict. If the case does proceed; however, Monsanto’s Roundup Ready patent could end up being declared null and void, which would be a significant victory for food freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"....Monsanto’s Roundup Ready patent could end up being declared null and void, which would be a significant victory for food freedom."

OH that did make me laugh..... and now I am really concerned.My reading is that it will just allow any biotech company to create Glyphosate resistance using Monsanto's coding if the patent is lost.

And since Monsanto's dominance with Roundup lapsed, and any chem company can produce glyphosate it makes sense from a business model to get a hold of technologies that are attached to it.

"buy our seeds, and here is a drum of glyphosate for x amount of$"

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nice links thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of GMO's, the US Food and Drug Administration said: 'We know of no information showing that the foods created from these new methods differ in any meaningful or uniform way.' It was a big lie, a statement of sheer insanity, and people like FDA/Monsanto double agent, Michael Taylor, knew it.

A lawsuit later brought to light 44,000 internal FDA documents which revealed that GMO can produce allergies, toxins, new diseases, antibiotic-resistant diseases, nutritional problems and cancer-causing agents. They also confirmed that scientists and experts at the FDA had said that GMO food was different from that produced normally and therefore had different risks. The effect on human health in GMO-soaked America has since proved catastrophic and potentially genocidal.

How come, then, that the FDA said publicly that there was no difference between non-GMO food and that produced with GMO, especially by Monsanto, which has led to the FDA not requiring independent safety checks on GMO products? One of the key people responsible for taking that line was Michael Taylor, the number two at the FDA, a former attorney to Monsanto and later a Monsanto Vice-President for Public Policy. Taylor was also at the US Department of Agriculture between 1994 and 1996 and in his government roles he was highly influential in the decision not to insist that GMO had to be labelled which has denied the public the free choice to eat or not eat GMO food. He also wrote a paper saying that if producers of milk without the growth hormone labelled their milk as such they should be mandated to include a disclaimer from the FDA saying that there was no difference between milk with bovine growth hormone and milk without it.

All this must have cost the lives of multiple millions of people and animals since then and caused suffering to untold numbers who have had their health devastated by GMO. It was also Taylor at the FDA who ensured that Monsanto's genetically-engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH/rbST) could be injected into cows to increase milk production without any labelling for people to make a choice. Taylor has been described as possibly being responsible for more food-related illnesses and deaths than anyone in history.

However, he was appointed by Obama to be his 'food safety czar' in charge of all United States food safety policy at the FDA and is now Senior Advisor to the Commissioner of the FDA. Taylor's policy is Monsanto's policy and there can be no greater confirmation that corporations control governments than Taylor's career with Monsanto and government agencies which are supposed to protect us from Monsanto.

This is why Big Biotech is getting virtually all that it wants from the FDA while organic farmers and growers and small farms in general are being destroyed by a mass of new and ludicrous laws on the grounds of 'food safety' imposed by FDA SWAT teams made up of monumental goons with guns in their hands and air in their heads.

Food fascism isn't coming - it's here.

Edited by whitewind
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These rats fed GM corn surely dont look normal!

http://www.cbsnews.c...about-research/

Those rats are specially bred to be highly susceptible to those types of tumours, so what they 'look' like is meaningless. What matters it the experimental design and statistical analysis which separates out the effects of the treatment from the background rates of tumour formation. In the case of that study, the design and analysis were not really adequate to convincingly show that the GM food or glyphosate had any effect. The fact that that photo was even included in the study (it has no scientific value) suggests that the authors had a political point they wanted to make; and the fact that it is endlessly posted, shared, and retweeted suggests that they succeeded in making it.

I am all for examining the health effects of GM foods, and I am particularly concerned about the close relationship of Big Ag and regulators as seen in the image above, however I think that rational concern about those issues needs to distance itself from that very poor study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. -- the first sixteen years

Charles M Benbrook

Background

Genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant and insect-resistant crops have been remarkable commercial successes in the United States. Few independent studies have calculated their impacts on pesticide use per hectare or overall pesticide use, or taken into account the impact of rapidly spreading glyphosate-resistant weeds. A model was developed to quantify by crop and year the impacts of six major transgenic pest-management traits on pesticide use in the U.S. over the 16-year period, 1996--2011: herbicide-resistant corn, soybeans, and cotton; Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn targeting the European corn borer; Bt corn for corn rootworms; and Bt cotton for Lepidopteron insects.

Results

Herbicide-resistant crop technology has led to a 239 million kilogram (527 million pound) increase in herbicide use in the United States between 1996 and 2011, while Bt crops have reduced insecticide applications by 56 million kilograms (123 million pounds). Overall, pesticide use increased by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%.

Conclusions

Contrary to often-repeated claims that today's genetically-engineered crops have, and are reducing pesticide use, the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied. If new genetically engineered forms of corn and soybeans tolerant of 2,4-D are approved, the volume of 2,4-D sprayed could drive herbicide usage upward by another approximate 50%. The magnitude of increases in herbicide use on herbicide-resistant hectares has dwarfed the reduction in insecticide use on Bt crops over the past 16 years, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its important to separate the debate of GMO food to the sprays used on the food rather than treating it as one in the same thing, which it quite obviously isnt.

btw.... i hate Monsanto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Edited by bℓσωηG
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YEARS ago, I read an article, that said a field of gmo corn, had crossed-over, and pollinated with non-gmo corns, and had changed their structures also. They likened it, to a Pandoras box, now that the gmo was outta the bag, they could no longer control it. (not sure if that was touched upon in the links, as I tend to gloss over words, when I've read too much, oh, and I'm new here, hi all, didn't really know where to intro self, so I'll just jump in like I belong too, LOL! Not meaning to be rude or intrusive about it).

Imho, it's not good to live in a continually prohibitive state (of mind, body, or spirit). When it comes to GMO's, Monsanto, Dow, big ag, big chem, and big pharm: Be afraid. Be very afraid!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you look into the genetics of something like Canola, you realise that is incredibly closely related to heaps of really important food and vegetable crops, all of which interbreed very easily and readily, even in the wild (if truly wild populations exist any more). In fact, it would be incredible if the genetic modifications hadn't crossed into other strains of that group of plants, especially in the US. Wikipedia has a very brief overview of the Brassicas for anyone who hasn't looked into it.

Triangle of U

However, something like potato is a different matter, the seeds are rarely grown except for deliberate hybridisation purposes; the crop is propagated by tubers and cross-pollination isn't so much of a problem. I read an article, which concerned me but haven't been able to find online again, which told the story about another corporation that tried to remove the saponins on the seed coat of Quinoa, to reduce the time taken to wash the seed after harvest. Unfortunately the trials failed, because the seed was eaten by birds which quickly realised that the seed was very edible, even though they had previously avoided it. Quinoa had been bred over thousands of years in it's current location, and was perfectly suited to that environment. GM trials had quickly shown that there were factors which were important to it's having the saponins in the seed coat; luckily the birds were so smart, if it had taken them a few years to realise there was a new crop to be eaten the trials would have become full-blown commercial production and the original strains and varieties (thousands of years of traditional breeding) may have been lost. Of course, the saponins may also have been a deterrent to certain insects, who knows? The consequences for production would have been the necessity for netting all fields of Quinoa or the destruction of birds - if it was economically viable to do so.

I don't have a problem with genetic modification in principle; it's the practice, the secrecy, and the principles behind the crop production (profit and control) which I am extremely concerned about. The science is incredibly young and untested - the only thing Monsanto et al are worried about is getting the crop to market as quickly as possible. They already know that proving something is causing damage is insanely difficult, and getting people to believe there is a problem and behaving appropriately even when the science is clear, is something else again! We should be much more cautious about these technologies, they are completely unnecessary and may cause irreparable damage to the natural world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/apr/04/monsanto-protection-act-gm

Monsanto Protection Act put GM companies above the federal courts

Genetically-modified-corn-008.jpg
A seed corn kernel is held in position near the blade of a chipping machine, which will remove a small piece of the seed for testing, inside a Monsanto lab in St Louis, Missouri, US. Photograph: Daniel Acker/Getty Images

Monsanto and the US farm biotech industry wield legendary power. A revolving door allows corporate chiefs to switch to top posts in the Food and Drug Administration and other agencies; US embassies around the world push GM technology onto dissenting countries; government subsidies back corporate research; federal regulators do largely as the industry wants; the companies pay millions of dollars a year to lobby politicians; conservative thinktanks combat any political opposition; the courts enforce corporate patents on seeds; and the consumer is denied labels or information.

But even people used to the closeness of the US administration and food giants like Monsanto have been shocked by the latest demonstration of the GM industry's political muscle. Little-noticed in Europe or outside the US, President Barack Obama last week signed off what has become widely known as "the Monsanto Protection Act", technically the Farmer Assurance Provision rider in HR 933: Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act 2013

The key phrases are a mouthful of legal mumbo jumbo but are widely thought to have been added to the bill by the Missouri republican senator Roy Blunt who is Monsanto's chief recipient of political funds. For the record, they read:

"In the event that a determination of nonregulated status made pursuant to section 411 of Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the secretary of agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412c of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorise the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialisation and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimise potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the secretary's evaluation of the petition for nonregulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorised activities in a time manner …"

According to an array of food and consumer groups, organic farmers, civil liberty and trade unions and others, this hijacks the constitution, sets a legal precedent and puts Monsanto and other biotech companies above the federal courts. It means, they say, that not even the US government can now stop the sale, planting, harvest or distribution of any GM seed, even if it is linked to illness or environmental problems.

The backlash has been furious. Senator Barbara Mikulski, chair of the powerful Senate appropriations committee which was ultimately responsible for the bill, has apologised. A Food Democracy Now petition has attracted 250,000 names and sections of the liberal press and blogosphere are outraged. "This provision is simply an industry ploy to continue to sell genetically engineered seeds even when a court of law has found they were approved by US department of agriculture illegally," says one petition. "It is unnecessary and an unprecedented attack on US judicial review. Congress should not be meddling with the judicial review process based solely on the special interest of a handful of companies."

Remarkably, though, it has also offended the Conservative right and libertarians. FreedomWorks, the conservative thinktank that helped launch the Tea Party, says corporations should "play by the rules of the free market like everyone else, instead of hiring insider lobbyists to rewrite the rules for them in Washington". Dustin Siggins, a blogger for the Tea Party patriots has called it a "special interest loophole" for friends of Congress. "We are used to subsidies, which give your tax dollars to companies to give them advantages over competitors. We are used to special interest tax loopholes and tax credits, which provide competitive and financial benefits to those with friends in Congress. And we are familiar with regulatory burden increases, which often prevent smaller companies from competing against larger ones because of the cost of compliance. This is a different kind of special interest giveaway altogether. This is a situation in which a company is given the ability to ignore court orders, in what boils down to a deregulation scheme for a particular set of industries," he writes.

Even Monsanto appears a touch embarrassed. The company whose seeds make up 93% of US soybeans, 88% of cotton and 86% of maize and which on Wednesday announced a 22% increase in earnings, has sought to align itself with others in the industry, even though it is far and away the main beneficiary. In a statement, it says: "As a member of the Biotechnology Industry Organisation (BIO), we were pleased to join major grower groups in supporting the Farmer Assurance Provision, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Seed Trade Association, the American Soybean Association, the American Sugarbeet Growers Association, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Cotton Council, and several others."

The company's friends are now on the defensive, seeking to blame "activists". Here is John Entine, director of the Genetic Literacy Project, and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the pro-business, anti-regulation think tank: "The legislation does not, as critics allege, allow farmers or Monsanto to sell seeds proven to be harmful. Rather, it provides legal consistency for farmers and businesses so that they will not be jerked around by temporary findings by competing court systems as activist challenges make their way up the legal food chain."

The only good news, say the opponents, is that because the "Monsanto Protection Act" was part of the much wider spending bill, it will formally expire in September. The bad news however is that the precedent has been set and it is unlikely that the world's largest seed company and the main driver of the divisive GM technology will ever agree to give up its new legal protection. The company, in effect, now rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see why we use poisons though. when it comes to conservation and land management theree really only one option when it comes to managing weeds, especially when you've got acres and acres of it and no other control methods work. they might not be feasible economically, logistically or environmentally. when time is money and you're working against the clock to cover a few hectares of infested pasture, chemical controls are honestly pretty much the only hope you have of dealing with it. anyone whose actually worked in these areas will know. carting around a backpack sprayer full of round up for 8 hours in a day isn't fun but its sure as shit gonna knock those weeds on their ads if you do it right.

I have no concerns about using chemicals on a few hundred square meters of Singapore daisy at home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

double postaccident

Edited by whoami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×