Monsanto is Evil (politicians, retired, propaganda, world)

[Omaha Rocks]

Originally Posted by effie briest

i am no expert on farming, nor do i know any american farmers personally.

but even as an ordinary city-dwelling consumer in europe, i do care about health and nutrition as they are largely dominated by monsanto ...

the arguments brought forward here, are puzzling to me.

the case against monsanto - Google Search

needs much time to read .... about concerns beyond one's own interests.
don't just hate me for trying to get your attention ....

Effie ~ I've been reading those sites for weeks. You need to as well.

First of all, most of those articles site lawsuits that are anywhere from 5-10 years old.

Second, you have to look at what the lawsuit entails. One lawsuit was a bunch of farmers that sued Monsanto for financial loss they claim they sustained because global consumers didn't like American farmers - and it was Monsanto's fault.

Third, you need to see the verdict reached in these lawsuits. Most of them are simply dismissed because they have no legal merit.

Fourth, it is important to ask what is being battled legally. Many of the lawsuits involve Monsanto suing other companies over patent infringements. As you know, when a company patents a technology, or product, other companies cannot profit from it. That constitutes a MAJORITY of these lawsuits.

Fifth, one MUST consider the source. THOUSANDS of blogs have copy & pasted that nonsense article by Greenpeace, claiming that Monsanto was trying to "patent the pig." It has become internet fact, even though it simply isn't true. Monsanto was patenting a GENE TRACER, not a pig.

Sixth, I appreciate the fact that you openly admit you live in a city in Europe, and not only don't know any farmers, but aren't even aware of any of these agricultural products. As you know, as a result of that, you're at a distinct disadvantage in understanding what's going on.


Monsanto is no more or less evil than any other giant corporation, whose bottom line is their bottom line.

[effie g-tad]

Thanks, Omaha Rocks, for a friendly rebuke, points taken.

i was searching for the movie, but can only find the german version in full length and free.

so what i want to get across now is at least one summary emphasizing the concerns with permanent environmental damage and health hazards possibly beyond remedy due to legalistic wizardry ordinary folks as victims cannot adequately "beat"...

Monsanto film screened at European Social Forum - GMWATCH temporary site

reading through this thread so far, i need to catch up with facts and a certain pragmatism just accepting them, while struggling with the impression of vast environmental and human rights conflicts just being dismissed: legal battles done, must be ok, sort of.

[Omaha Rocks]

Originally Posted by effie briest

Thanks, Omaha Rocks, for a friendly rebuke, points taken.

i was searching for the movie, but can only find the german version in full length and free.

so what i want to get across now is at least one summary emphasizing the concerns with permanent environmental damage and health hazards possibly beyond remedy due to legalistic wizardry ordinary folks as victims cannot adequately "beat"...

Monsanto film screened at European Social Forum - GMWATCH temporary site

reading through this thread so far, i need to catch up with facts and a certain pragmatism just accepting them, while struggling with the impression of vast environmental and human rights conflicts just being dismissed: legal battles done, must be ok, sort of.

I apologize for what wrongly sounded like a rebuke. That was not my intent.

But I will admit that it is very frustrating when people make up some absurd story, then say, "Prove it wrong!" It's kind of like the old, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question...


There is this absurd Greenpeace article about how Monsanto is trying to patent the pig, and as a result, everyone in the world would have to pay them a royalty for each pig born and raised. Then hundreds (thousands?) of bloggers ran with the story and it became "fact" to thousands of people.

The reason the story cannot be proven false, via internet links, is because it simply doesn't exist. Monsanto simply was not trying to patent the pig. And they can't. What they were patenting is a pork "gene tracer" they had spent millions of dollars developing. And that sort of patent is extremely common. In addition, that Greenpeace article is over 5 years old. If Monsanto was patenting the pig - 5 years ago - would we not now know about it?


On the flip side of the coin, there are some GOOD things that are directly attributable to Monsanto. RoundUp Ready seeds, for instance, have revolutionized farming - making it possible for farmers to drastically reduce their herbicide usage and fuel consumption, while increasing yields. In addition, BT Corn has almost double the stalk and leafage of comparable corn. What this does is greatly increase ground-cover, increase residue that actually helps create topsoil.


Monsanto is simply a major corporation that is doing what corporations do - pursuing profit. That pursuit, in and of itself, is common to every for-profit business. What is necessary is competition and legislation that keeps any corporation from having too much control, with no accountability.

[effie g-tad]

^
i recognize a dilemma with the real experts absent here. and even if any were here to explain chemical formulae and statistical calculations, i41 at least would have to believe them one way or another.

as i suspect you do as well. (no personal offense intended.)

here is the movie, i found it. you may get a better understanding of conflicting interests on a global scale affecting living conditions so much more than benefits to any national farming association could justify, imho.

New Monsanto movie | Greenpeace International


as to business and profit-making, what can i say, except that it appears to have gone way out of control...

[Swansen]

i said i was done, but i've just done more searching and reading. Are GMOs bad? who knows, but all the information leads one to believe they aren't that great, and considering so many people around the world don't trust them, why are they so widely used in the US? Yeah, sure, we have a choice, but an ignorant one. I bet people would be MUCH less enthusiastic if they knew about half the crap we ingest, or how poorly GMOs are tested. Of what little testing has been done, only poor results have been returned. Ok, so fine, we don't know exactly what they do, but i do know that what nature produces if enough of a miracle for me, so i choose natural. One day we will see real man made miracles when we can manipulate things on an atomic level, or just create our own biological enzime system(make are our plants) but again, until then natural products just make more sense to me. Why is GreenPeace any less credible than Monsanto?? There aren't to many out there who have the greater good of the people and planet in mind, and that i can admire, even if i don't aree with everything they promote. It says right in the summary of the film here they aren't trying to parent a pig, but still outlines the extreme problem with their "gene tracer" and the specific genetic material they are looking to patent. Patent For A Pig: The Big Business of Genetics | Top Documentary Films

As for the rest of these sources, they don't all have absolute truth, but reasonable logical ideas. However this one Bad Week for GMO Crops has outlined that GMO crops have ether not increased yield or not increased yield worth mentioning.

GMO. The good, the bad and the ugly. « IK. Today.
OCA: Genetically Engineered Food, Biotechnology, and GMOs
Bad News For Big Ag — GMO Crops Don’t Increase Yields | Food Renegade
No Patents on Seeds - THE PIG MONOPOLY CASE (Monsanto) - Patent aplications on pigs and herds of pigs
^(contains gene patent and patent overview)^
Patent For A Pig: The Big Business of Genetics | Top Documentary Films
GMOs: Good or Bad for the Planet?| Kids&#39 Environmental Report Card 2008 | Scholastic.com
GMOs: Bad For the Poor and Bad For Science

[Omaha Rocks]

If these "experts" knew the purpose of herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant hybrids, they would know that increased yields is NOT the goal.

But let me ask you two very simple and practical questions. I'd appreciate a simple "yes" or "no" answer.


1. Is it a good thing to be able to use a mere fraction of the herbicide, to control weeds, that was necessary just 25 years ago?

2. Is it a good thing to be able to use virtually no insecticide on farm fields?



It seems ironic to me that the SAME people who have - for decades - been screaming about the evils of herbicides and insecticides, are now screaming about the evils of crops that make the use of herbicides and insecticides virtually unnecessary.

[effie g-tad]

Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks

If these "experts" knew the purpose of herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant hybrids, they would know that increased yields is NOT the goal.

But let me ask you two very simple and practical questions. I'd appreciate a simple "yes" or "no" answer.


1. Is it a good thing to be able to use a mere fraction of the herbicide, to control weeds, that was necessary just 25 years ago?

2. Is it a good thing to be able to use virtually no insecticide on farm fields?



It seems ironic to me that the SAME people who have - for decades - been screaming about the evils of herbicides and insecticides, are now screaming about the evils of crops that make the use of herbicides and insecticides virtually unnecessary.

good rhetoric, and superb logic, used on people usually excluded from long-term strategies of their supposed benefactors!!!

no, you and i cannot win that game, can we? but hang my head in shame and resignation??

[Swansen]

Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks

If these "experts" knew the purpose of herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant hybrids, they would know that increased yields is NOT the goal.

But let me ask you two very simple and practical questions. I'd appreciate a simple "yes" or "no" answer.


1. Is it a good thing to be able to use a mere fraction of the herbicide, to control weeds, that was necessary just 25 years ago?

2. Is it a good thing to be able to use virtually no insecticide on farm fields?



It seems ironic to me that the SAME people who have - for decades - been screaming about the evils of herbicides and insecticides, are now screaming about the evils of crops that make the use of herbicides and insecticides virtually unnecessary.

To both questions Yes.

At what cost though, at what cost? When is it ok to put a dollar sign on a persons head. GMOs are relatively new, problems like cancer don't start showing up thirty to forty years later. Everyone hailed artificial sweeteners but look at all the trouble they have brought. I mean, yes, those are great things, but at the same time, there are natural systems that can be used to control weeds and pests. Genetics are pretty cool, breeding plants so they are resistant to certain problems. A human life is a human life, to me its just not worth the risk. Like i said, one day we will make amazing things, but right now the dollar is just more important.

Hypothetical situation, Bob's seeds makes seeds that are garunteed to grow plants twice as tall and twice as fast, meaning we can harvest plants twice a growing season that have twice the yield garunteed. Yet they have an overly large strain on the land, even more so that a plant that large that would grow twice in a season, potentially robbing the land of all its usefulness, and ultimately rending the land barren. Would it be worth it then? the circumstances of useless land are not proven, but they are a possibility, so should we still use Bob's seeds?

Ulitimately, we just disagree on these issues, and this is how it goes. We can only understand each others views and take them for what they are. I thank you for your input and even though it might not seem so, i understand your position and your points.

[Omaha Rocks]

Originally Posted by Swansen

To both questions Yes.

At what cost though, at what cost? When is it ok to put a dollar sign on a persons head. GMOs are relatively new, problems like cancer don't start showing up thirty to forty years later. Everyone hailed artificial sweeteners but look at all the trouble they have brought. I mean, yes, those are great things, but at the same time, there are natural systems that can be used to control weeds and pests. Genetics are pretty cool, breeding plants so they are resistant to certain problems. A human life is a human life, to me its just not worth the risk. Like i said, one day we will make amazing things, but right now the dollar is just more important.

Hypothetical situation, Bob's seeds makes seeds that are garunteed to grow plants twice as tall and twice as fast, meaning we can harvest plants twice a growing season that have twice the yield garunteed. Yet they have an overly large strain on the land, even more so that a plant that large that would grow twice in a season, potentially robbing the land of all its usefulness, and ultimately rending the land barren. Would it be worth it then? the circumstances of useless land are not proven, but they are a possibility, so should we still use Bob's seeds?

Ulitimately, we just disagree on these issues, and this is how it goes. We can only understand each others views and take them for what they are. I thank you for your input and even though it might not seem so, i understand your position and your points.

Thank you.

I fully understand that you don't agree - and that's fine.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by Swansen

To both questions Yes.

At what cost though, at what cost? When is it ok to put a dollar sign on a persons head. GMOs are relatively new, problems like cancer don't start showing up thirty to forty years later. Everyone hailed artificial sweeteners but look at all the trouble they have brought. I mean, yes, those are great things, but at the same time, there are natural systems that can be used to control weeds and pests. Genetics are pretty cool, breeding plants so they are resistant to certain problems. A human life is a human life, to me its just not worth the risk. Like i said, one day we will make amazing things, but right now the dollar is just more important.

Hypothetical situation, Bob's seeds makes seeds that are garunteed to grow plants twice as tall and twice as fast, meaning we can harvest plants twice a growing season that have twice the yield garunteed. Yet they have an overly large strain on the land, even more so that a plant that large that would grow twice in a season, potentially robbing the land of all its usefulness, and ultimately rending the land barren. Would it be worth it then? the circumstances of useless land are not proven, but they are a possibility, so should we still use Bob's seeds?

Ulitimately, we just disagree on these issues, and this is how it goes. We can only understand each others views and take them for what they are. I thank you for your input and even though it might not seem so, i understand your position and your points.

Good reasoned discussion guys. You both are making great points.
One nice thing is that certain countries have taken a strong stance one-way or another so the pros\cons should become apparent.

Farming in the US is a cut-throat low-margin business so if the GM crops aren't producing the yields etc. then they will be shown the door by the farmers (who are not dumb about production, costs and the bottom line)
So basically, the true experts will vote with their wallet so to speak.

A neat example of this was the movement in the US towards "no-till" farming which has been a major improvement both financially and environmentally. These guys aren't dumb, they are the survivors of the difficult financial times and industry consolidation over recent decades.