(deadline 16 Feb.) PLEASE HELP TO REJECT MONSANTO'S BID TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD'S FOOD SUPPLY

[thotzRthingz]

SIGN THIS LETTER TODAY! http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/monsanto_alfalfa/

Stop Monsanto's GMO Contamination

During the Bush administration, Monsanto illegally won USDA approval for its genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa by convincing regulators to bypass a mandatory environmental review. In response to a lawsuit by consumer groups, the courts then stepped in and banned GE alfalfa until the USDA followed the law.

In December, the USDA released its belated review of Monsanto's GE alfalfa seed and determined that Monsanto's alfalfa met the Obama Administration's standards, despite the risk of organic contamination.

This conclusion came despite the acknowledgment by USDA researchers that GE alfalfa is virtually certain to "contaminate" normal seeds. Cross-contamination is the number one concern with genetically engineered crops.

Organic contamination is devastating for organic farmers, especially organic dairy farmers, most of whom use organic alfalfa for feed. The presence of even the smallest amount of GE material can cause a farm to lose its organic certification. And court documents indicate that early plantings of GE alfalfa did contaminate conventional alfalfa. Yet the USDA maintains that Monsanto's existing safety protocols are good enough. This is ridiculous!

Even worse, the USDA concluded that the possibility of contamination of organic fields is of no concern, since consumers won't care if their organic food or milk contains genetically engineered components. Yet central to the definition of the USDA Organic label is the total absence of genetically modified ingredients. An overwhelming majority of consumers buy organic to avoid GE products and would be shocked to learn the USDA is so cavalier about the risks of transgenetic contamination.

The USDA is accepting public comments on Monsanto's application through February 16. Make your voice heard today.

[Echo In Light]

1. K&R

[Lesleymo]

2. K&R from me too

This genetic engineering stuff is scary.

[gulfcoastliberal]

3. So disgusting how they deregulated GM plants.. Thank poppy bush for that. Not like the dems are any

better though.

[louis-t]

4. Done.

[nykym]

5. Done

[AndyA]

6. Done. Kicked and recommended. n/m

[peace13]

7. Thanks for that! n/t

[SalviaBlue]

8. K&R

[dgibby]

9. Done!

Thanks for posting.

K&R!

[ceile]

10. Done

[thotzRthingz]

11. thank you all, for your help & PLEASE pass this along via your email as well (16 Feb approaches)!

[Peace Patriot]

12. Done! Thanks for the heads up! K&R!

[Spirochete]

13. Done

Monsanto is the devil...

[thotzRthingz]

14. re: "Monsanto is the devil..." amen to that! I'm no biologist/geneticist... but I can see at least

two areas of concern.

Firstly; organic producers have to jump through some pretty tight HOOPS, and make major investments to do so... now it looks as if they're about to have their livelihoods ended (by a greedy behemoth whose only real interest is to control, via genetic patents, all of the world's food supply).

Secondly; and to me even more importantly... is the concern about these modifications being able to JUMP the animal/plant/human barriers -- which might eventually happen through the natural process called evolution... but which should be vigorously guarded against as much as is possible.

We're already seeing some of that (barrier jumping) happening... and it can have dire consequences. Although not necessarily GM-related, here's what a quick GOOGLE turned-up:

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/et9912-cn.htm

I seem to recall reading, some time ago, that some of the GM stuff also had jumped the "biological barrier" ... yet these assholes are allowed to continue along their greed-mongering path?!

[thotzRthingz]

15. people select food based on: production-method, and/or religious, environmental, or health factors

...so how does a world taken over by genetic engineering affect/limit our choices? I contend that it severely affects each and every human on the planet (regardless of whether or not there are benefits or hazards presented by said genetic engineering)! IMO: current testing is woefully inadequate!

4. Are genetically modified plant foods safe to eat?

4.1 Foodstuffs made of genetically modified crops that are currently available (mainly maize, soybean, and oilseed rape) have been judged safe to eat, and the methods used to test them have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the International Council for Science (ICSU) and are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO).

However, the lack of evidence of negative effects does not mean that new genetically modified foods are without risk. The possibility of long-term effects from genetically modified plants cannot be excluded and must be examined on a case-by-case basis. New techniques are being developed to address concerns, such as the possibility of the unintended transfer of antibiotic-resistance genes.

Genetic engineering of plants could also offer some direct and indirect health benefits to consumers, for instance by improving nutritional quality or reducing pesticide use. More...

4.2 Scientists recommend that food safety assessment should take place on a case-by-case basis before genetically modified food is brought to the market. In such assessments, foodstuffs derived from genetically modified plants are compared to their conventional counterparts, which are generally considered safe due to their long history of use. This comparison considers to what extent different foodstuffs can cause harmful effects or allergies and how much nutrients they contain. More...

4.3 Consumers may wish to select foods on the basis of how they are produced, because of religious, environmental, or health concerns. However, merely indicating whether a product is genetically modified or not, without providing any additional information, says nothing about its content nor about possible risks or benefits. International guidelines are being developed for labelling genetically modified foods. More...

- source: http://www.greenfacts.org/en/gmo/index.htm

[thotzRthingz]

18. as an example of inadequate testing and safeguards...

A few years ago I recall reading about "the standard" being ONE MILE -- as the farthest reach some POLLEN could travel -- and not affect NATURAL grasses. I then recall reading about a test which detected the GM-grass pollen at a distance of 13 miles! I can't readily find the original article which I had read... but here's another one, speaking to the same thing:

In the new study, scientists with the Environmental Protection Agency found that the genetically engineered bentgrass pollinated test plants of the same species as far away as they measured -about 13 miles downwind from a test farm in Oregon. Natural growths of wild grass of a different species were pollinated by the gene-modified grass nearly nine miles away.

Previous studies had measured pollination between various types of genetically modified plants and wild relatives at no more than about one mile, according to the paper.

"It's the longest distance gene-flow study that I know of," said Norman C. Ellstrand, an expert on this subject at the University of California, Riverside, who was not involved in the study but read the paper.

"The gene really is essentially going to get out," he added. "What this study shows is it's going to get out a lot faster and a lot further than people anticipated."

One reason the grass pollen was detected so far downwind was the size of the farm - 400 acres with thousands of plants. Most previous studies of gene flow have been done on far smaller fields, meaning there was less pollen and a lower chance that some would travel long distances. Those small studies, the new findings suggest, might not accurately reflect what would happen once a plant covers a large area.

"This is one of the first really realistic studies that has been done," said Joseph K. Wipff, an Oregon grass breeder. Dr. Wipff was not involved in the latest study but had conducted an earlier one that found pollen from genetically engineered grass traveling only about 1,400 feet. That test, though, used less than 300 plants covering one-tenth of an acre.

- source: http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2004/Monsanto-Scotts-Roundup21sep04.htm

"Best guess" is NOT GOOD ENOUGH ... I don't care how many PHDs one has on their side! And for the governments of the world to allow this sort of testing to take place in an open environment, makes me livid!

This particular test was with "grasses" they do similar things with wheat, corn, rice, etc., etc. etc. ... "contaminating" each of the natural counterparts... saying OH, IT'S SAFE FOR HUMANS. In response to such claims, I say BULLSHIT--just how many decades/centuries worth of tests have they done, in order to make such absurd claims?

It's *ALL* about the MONEY... short term PROFITS and BILLIONARIES ... knowing they'll not be around in a hundred years or so, to suffer the consequences.

[sulphurdunn]

52. The National Alfalfa and Forage Alliance

has a website at http://www.alfalfa.org/pdf/CSExportSeed.pdf They are a pro industry group pushing the idea of coexistence between GE and organic alfalfa growers. The interesting part is that the whole idea behind this coexistence is for organic growers to play defense and to protect their fields from GE crops by placing them between 900ft. and three miles from GE fields depending upon whether or not and upon what kinds of bees might be pollinating them. Of course it comes with the caveat that their are, of course, no guarantees and the assumption (I suppose) that alfalfa fields are portable.

[proverbialwisdom]

131. Pelosi Leads the House to go Organic (non GMO) 12/07

Have a chuckle.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-12-17/news/17274876_1_food-service-organic-democratic-caucus

Pelosi leads the House to go organic in its cafeterias
December 17, 2007|By Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Washington — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may have left her progressive instincts at the barn door when she drove a starch-, sugar- and fat-bloated bill that all but left out organic farmers through the House last summer, but when it comes to food for Congress, it's out with high-fructose corn syrup and in with uncaged hens and hormone-free milk.

Under Pelosi's signature "Green the Capitol" initiative, the House cafeterias will get a full-blown makeover Monday to the very latest in organic and locally grown cuisine...

[zeos3]

16. K&R

[earthboundmisfit]

17. Done & posted to my FB

"...the USDA concluded that the possibility of contamination of organic fields is of no concern, since consumers won't care if their organic food or milk contains genetically engineered components."
:mad:

[thotzRthingz]

19. re: "Done & posted to my FB" ... thanks!!! I don't tweet/twitter, FB, mySpace...but to those who do

please pass the word... link to the letter/petition:

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/monsanto_alfalfa

THANKS!

[Political Heretic]

20. RELATED: India strikes blow against Monsanto

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7694590

[G_j]

22. yes, that was very good nt

[thotzRthingz]

31. thanks for adding the INDIA insight... and here are a few more interesting (?) reads

...about MONSANTO'S bid to take over the world of FOOD (for he that controls the WORLD'S SEEDS, controls everything and everyone which ingests the crops therefrom)...

Monsanto’s terms of business require farmers to buy fresh seed every year
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14904184

Monsanto Offers More Losses to American Farmers
http://pameladrew.newsvine.com/_news/2010/01/28/3822401-monsanto-offers-more-losses-to-american-farmers-

Mexican Farmers Mobilize Against NAFTA's Disastrous Corn Policies & Monsanto's GE Corn
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_6629.cfm

Monsanto Stomps Down Budding Seed Competitors
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/14-5

Monsanto: The Seed Monopoly That Caused Genetically Modified Food To Start Showing Up On Nearly Every Dinner Table
http://disasterandemergencysurvival.com/archives/monsanto-the-seed-monopoly-that-caused-genetically-modified-food-to-start-showing-up-on-nearly-every-dinner-table-in-the-united-states

Federal Court Finds DuPont is Not Licensed to Use Monsanto's Roundup Ready(R) Trait
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Federal-Court-Finds-DuPont-is-prnews-3734921146.html?x=0&.v=1

...and lastly:

Who Owns Life, Not Monsanto? (from the UK's ISIS)
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/whoOwnsLifeNotMonsanto.php


P.S.
I also see we have the expected crop of detractors & nay-sayers springing-up, the irony is like much BAD SEED from MONSANTO! I wish it were as easy to IGNORE monsanto! :dilemma:

[thotzRthingz]

41. ...from the last link on my previous post:

...I strongly suggest reading the whole page, but here's the point I wanted to make:

Monsanto owns all crops or seeds contaminated, the court ruled

The Court ruled after a two-and-half-week trial that it was the first patent infringement case on a higher life form in the world. The Judge’s ruling and Percy Schmeiser’s name became famous overnight:

·It does not matter how a farmer, a forester, or a gardener’s seed or plants become contaminated with GMOs; whether through cross pollination, pollen blowing in the wind, by bees, direct seed movement or seed transportation, the growers no longer own their seeds or plants under patent law, they becomes Monsanto’s property.

·The rate of GM contamination does not matter; whether it’s 1 percent, 2 percent, 10 percent, or more, the seeds and plants still belong to Monsanto.

·It’s immaterial how the GM contamination occurs, or where it comes from.

The Schmeisers tracked down the source of the contamination. It was their neighbour who had planted GM crops in 1996 with no fence or buffer between them. Nevertheless, the Schmeisers’ seeds and plants reverted to Monsanto, and they were not allowed to use their own seeds and plants again, nor keep any profit from their canola crop in 1998.

The Schmeisers appealed against the ruling, and after another two years, it was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal judges even though they did not agree with all the trial judge’s statements. The Schmeisers believe that the case should have been thrown out of Court and not upheld. After having lost the two trials costing them $300 000 of their own money, Percy took the case to the Supreme Court of Canada. He was warned that there was only a very small chance that the case would be heard; but was granted a second leave of Appeal by the Supreme Court of Canada.

...which, IMO, is utter BULLSHIT. MONSANTO needs to be stopped, and all "Genetically Modified Seed/Food PATENTS" need to be revoked... period!

[jeff47]

74. Question:

So....are farmers idiots?

I mean, they have to go ahead and decide not only to plant Monsanto's seed, but do it year after year after year.

It would be pretty damn stupid to keep doing it over and over again when you could just stop buying their seed. After all, that's why the seed that produced sterile plants is no longer offered: farmers didn't buy it.

Could it be that farmers know what they're getting into, and see enough benefit from Monsanto's seed to outweigh the costs?

Just to be clear, I'm not pro-Monsanto. I am pro-science. And having done genetic engineering myself (on bacteria), the knee-jerk anti-science reaction surrounding this entire field bothers me.

[proverbialwisdom]

76. Please check out my links in posts 50 and 71 below.

Also, this describes salient historical information you may be unaware of,
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=1479

and this describes the persecution of UK scientist Arpad Pusztai (awarded the 2009 Stuttgart Peace Prize),
http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Arpad_Pusztai

You may be unaware that animals reject biotech foods,
http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com/2009/08/african-chickens-added-to-list-of.html
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
African Chickens Added To List Of Animals That Reject GMOs

and that rBGH is known to increase breast and prostate cancer risk,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/is-eli-lilly-milking-canc_b_312754.html
Is Eli Lilly Milking Cancer by Promoting and Treating It?

Here's an overview,
http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com/2009/10/genetically-modified-organisms-whats.html
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Genetically Modified Organisms: What's The Problem?

and here's how independent research is being suppressed,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research
From the August 2009 Scientific American Magazine
Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?

Here you'll find recent links to peer reviewed scientific journals disputing the safety of biotech food.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18515.cfm
Scientists Warn of Hazards of GMOs
Agence France-Presse, July 8, 2009

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_20212.cfm
GM Wheat Rejected by 233 Consumer, Farmer Groups in 26 Countries
Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, Feb 9, 2010

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11800-three-approved-gmos-found-unsafe

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_19789.cfm
Scientific Tests Show Monsanto's GE Corn is a Health Hazard

Perhaps you'll reconsider your views.

[thotzRthingz]

94. thanks for the additional links--such evidence is hardly what I would call knee-jerk

...that, along with the government's own admission that GM-contamination is inevitable, should be cause for anyone to be alarmed.

IMO: there is no good science which shows GeneticEngineering to be safe for humans. Add to that the evidence that GE of seed is NOT producing what it was claimed to do (more not less CHEMICALS to protect GE-crops being required; less not more YIELD and NUTRITION; reduced MARKETS as various countries BAN imports of said crops/seed) ... and one might readily conclude that this OUTCOME was PLANNED -- assuring MONSANTO, BAYER, DUPONT, etc., PROFIT margins made to appear to be far beyond their original expectations.

"FEED THE WORLD" (?) my ass... "ENSLAVE THE WORLD" was/is far more likely the intended goal!

[jeff47]

121. Got any useful links?

Really....links to organic farming sites listed as scientific proof?

Uh-huh.

You really think that some scientist out there doesn't want to be the one who becomes famous for 'saving humanity'? That they'll all say "ooh...Monsanto's not very nice. We're gonna just go bury our research that proves it all wrong."

Methinks you haven't spent enough time around scientists.

[sendero]

87. Knee jerk?

No, pal, it is the resistance to taking unnecessary risks to the food supply for NO REASON OTHER THAN CORPORATE PROFITS.

These "advances" are contributing little if any to the common good and NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THE RISKS REALLY ARE.

[jeff47]

115. So you think farmers are idiots then

'Cause if there's "NO REASON OTHER THAN CORPORATE PROFITS", then it's those idiot farmers who are the ones paying for those profits.

[proverbialwisdom]

117. Psst. POST #113 describes how voluntary it's been for farmers (that's sarcasm) . NFM.

[jeff47]

118. Pssst....some farmers have to plant the damn seeds to begin with.

So again, you think farmers are morons.

[proverbialwisdom]

125. Not me. NFM

[proverbialwisdom]

129. International Journal of Society of Agriculture and Food paper

http://www.ethicurean.com/2009/06/03/lotter-gmopaper/

"The Failure of Science": New paper makes a damning case against genetically modified food crops
3 June 2009

...A paper just published May 25 in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Society of Agriculture and Food gives people the tools with which to grasp the science behind transgenic food crops, what questions we should be asking, and a potential path out of this mess. In it Don Lotter, a UC-Davis trained scientist, makes a persuasive case that the transgenic seed industry is built on fundamentally flawed science, and that companies like Monsanto have used their vast market power to reshape university research, manipulate public opinion, and coerce regulatory agencies into reckless acceptance of risky technologies. And that scientists have looked the other way while they did so.

...Lotter has a Ph.D. in agroecology from the University of California, Davis, and a master of professional studies in international agricultural and rural development from Cornell University. At various times he has taught environmental science, soil science, plant science, entomology, and vegetable crop production for Santa Monica College, Imperial Valley College, and UC Davis. He is not tenure track and said in a phone interview last night that this paper certainly "wasn't going to help my chances of getting a job" (for reasons that will become clear in a bit). He was recently a visiting scholar in the department of plant pathology at Colegio Postgraduados in Chapingo, Mexico. His research on organic agriculture has been published in the Journal of Alternative Agriculture and the Journal of Sustainable Agriculture.

...In it, Lotter does an excellent job of briskly walking readers through the growth of the transgenic crops industry and pointing out the critical junctures at which regulatory agencies grabbed the nearest handy rubber stamp. He also explains, in clear, jargon-free language, the science by which transgenic crops are created, and the specific red flags identified by the handful of existing independent studies. In summary, the three most serious concerns about biotech food, feed, and fiber crops are:

•The novel proteins created by accident in transgenic foods and their occasional documented effects on human health (allergies, toxicity), which we can't monitor properly due to the lack of labeling of GMO foods.

•The horizontal transfer of transgenes to other organisms, such as the bacteria in mammals' stomachs, which we were assured couldn't happen. (Might this be behind the rise in Crohn's disease? We'll never know, because as Lotter documents, GMO foods have barely been tested in their food state on mammals, and not over any long-term.)

•Ecological side effects, such as the development of herbicide-resistant weeds and growing pest resistance to the plant-impregnated insecticide Bacillus thurengiensis, along with Bt crops' negative effects on soil organisms such as earthworms and on aquatic ecosystems.

This sounds like a dry helping of doom and gloom, but it doesn't read that way. Lotter salts the paper with statements such as "This is a story of how a grand scientific vision, plant transgenics, a science that its developers believed would vastly improve the world food supply while at the same time generating huge profits, blinded many of those scientist-developers to the increasingly serious flaws in the basic model, mechanics, and end-products of the enterprise." And later: "This early industry pressure and science community compliance for a premature green light for transgenic crops is now coming back to bite the industry and the science community, and bite them very seriously."

More at link.

[proverbialwisdom]

134. Brazilian Farmers Declare War on Monsanto, GM Watch, Feb 9, 2010

Check out these farmers.


http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_20196.cfm

Growers in Mato Grosso have declared war against Monsanto, the multinational corporate owner of the GMO soya technology known as RR (Roundup Ready). After exhausting all attempts to engage the company in dialogue, the growers are now considering legal action. In Cuiaba, Aprosoja (the Association of Soya and Corn Producers Association of the State of Mato Grosso) is preparing a lawsuit. In Sinop (500km North of Cuiaba) the growers are looking to sue the company as well.

Aprosoya wants to determine if the royalty fee paid by the soya growers is actualy due. "We want to know what sort of patent is generating this type of fee, because depending on the type, the company does not have the right to charge us anything at all. We also need to know the patent's validity period," explains the President of Aprosoja, Mr. Glauber Silveira.

In Mato Grosso, growers increased the cultivated area of GMOs from 2.6 million hectares (2008/09 crop) to approximately 3 million hectares in this year's crop. The expansion of the area will increase Monsanto's profit from R$39 million (*15.2m) to R$45 million (*15.6m), an increase of 15.38%. According to calculations made by the producers, the fee Monanto charged for the use of its patent amounts to R$15.00 (*5.85) per hectare.

Aprosoja intends to issue a notification demanding that Monsanto provide proper justification regarding the royalty fees. "We have been informed that Monsanto is inducing the seed producers of Mato Grosso to provide only GMO seeds", denounces Mr. Silveira. In Mato Grosso the GMO plantation now occupies half of the entire cultivated area of soya, comprising about 6 million hectares.

SINOP - Following several meetings without any positive results, the Sinop Rural Union is also planning to sue Monsanto. Approximately 50% of the crop fields in the Northern Region of Mato Grosso are currently cultivated with GMO varieties. These differ from the conventional because of their resistance to herbicides containing glyphosate, used in desiccation before and after planting to eliminate all kinds of weeds.

This kind of resistance enables the growers to apply the herbicide on the soya only, thus reducing their production costs and the number of herbicide applications. But the sectors' questions concern the royalty fees imposed by Monsanto for their use of the seed.

The president of the Union, Mr. Antônio Galvan, explained that two collections are made: The first one being when the seed is bought (by bank order). "In January they charged R$0.45 per kilo of seed, which is equivalent to 30% of the price of each sack.

The main questioning lies on the second collection which is made when the product is leaving the fields. When it arrives at the warehouses the grain is tested and identified as GMO or non-GMO. The problem occurs when, in many cases, conventional oleaginous seeds are contaminated and the growers end up having to pay royalties without having acquired any GMO seeds in the first place.

This contamination occurs in the fields by means of pollination or at the time of planting, as well as at the time of stocking the harvest. "Cross pollination may take place if there's a field of GMO soya next to a Non-GMO one at flowering time. Contamination can also take place if the machines are not well cleaned at harvest time, and some GMO beans remain. In this way, they will be considered GMO when they are tested".

[Foo Fighter]

133. "So...are farmers idiots?"

In a word, no. Monsanto has them over a barrel. They like to sue farmers to "set an example" and since the little guy can't possibly compete with the big guy in court, the farmers often settle, not because they're wrong but because they just can't afford to go up against Monsanto in court. They just don't have that kind of money at their disposal. Monsanto can bankrupt them in just the pre-trial. The farmers don't stand a chance.

Here's a bit background info. I grew up on a farm. Like all farmers, we saved a portion of the previous year's crop for seed the next spring. When it was time to plant, we took the seed to town to have it cleaned and used it to plant the crops for the next year. This was what everyone did. But these days, Monsanto no longer allows this. Farmers are forced to buy seed from them each spring. So what does that mean? Farmers have to sell what would have been their seed at, say, $4/bushel and then have to buy that same, exact, identical "seed" back at whatever price Monsanto decides to pick. And you can be guaranteed that price will be nowhere near $4/bushel. It's the same thing as paying "protection" to the Mafia except that this is legally sanctioned by the great SCOTUS. All thanks to a majority opinion written by none other than Justice Thomas who, surprise, used to work for Monsanto.

So, why don't these "idiotic" farmers just buy their seed from someone else? Well, those that still have non-Monsanto seed on hand are unfortunately having their crops "polluted" by their neighbor's Monsanto crops due to cross-pollination, etc. And if so much as .0000000001% of the Monsanto patented gene is found in their crops (which is unavoidable thanks to things like wind and nature), it's now a "Monsanto" crop and Monsanto owns them.

So don't go blaming the farmers in this. They're the victims. They don't want to have to buy seed from Monsanto and there is no benefit in doing so but not buying their seed = not planting a crop. Monsanto has taken over completely and there is nowhere else to go.

In "Food, Inc.", there's a great quote by a farmer that ended up having to settle Monsanto's case against him. I'm paraphrasing here but the quote went something like this: "You know Lady Justice with the two scales? Well, the way it works is that each side puts their piles of cash on their side of the scale, along with so-called "expert testimony" and whatever else they can buy and in the end, the side with the biggest pile of cash wins."

That pretty much sums up the justice system in this country today.

[G_j]

21. Done, thank you!

[Duval]

23. Unfortunately, I am not in the least surprised

that the USDA is "so cavalier" about this mess. I no longer have confidence in other Federal Agencies, such as the FCC, FDA, etc., since deregulations. I am grateful for the chance to add my name, and thank you for the "heads up",thotzRthingz! :grr: :fistbump:

[cutlassmama]

26. No doubt bribes are involved. n/t

[CreekDog]

24. With a title like that and all that UPPER CASE, how can i disagree?

:rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. This is the worst thing to happen since GOODYEAR STOLE WORLDS ENTIRE SUPPLY OF HELIUM!

[kleec]

27. Done

and thanks for posting.

[KonaKane]

28. Doesn't smell right.

We have a guy out here on Maui who is on a Monsanto tear all the time on craigslist rants and raves (Hawaii) but he is also the most venomous antisemite I have ever heard.

Just a fluke of one nut, or is there a bigger tie to this anti-Monsanto deal? Serious question, please leave flames out of it.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[thotzRthingz]

32. fair question ... rest assured I'm not anti-semite, but I am pro choice (and an unstopped MONSANTO

will, in short order, leave the world NO CHOICE)... IMO!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. Are you in favor of similar restrictions against organic farming?

I mean, what's to prevent some farmer's GM crop from getting contaminated with pollen from somebody's organic farm?

[Junkdrawer]

35. If you were shooting for "Contrarian to the point of self-parody"....

You succeeded magnificently

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. So... no counterargument?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

[Junkdrawer]

I think you should go to a public hearing and make that statement in person:

"I'm more worried that Monsanto's crop will be contaminated by non-GMO alfalfa."

Monsanto needs you!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

40. I'm not worried about either.

I just want to make sure there aren't any hypocrites on the issue.

[Junkdrawer]

38. dupe

[Mithreal]

39. Gets a lot of practice

[tbyg52]

42. That's like comparing the rights of meat people with the rights of corporations.

There was no worry about GMO contamination when there were no GMO's. I'm not anti-science, but I'm anti letting untested things out into the environment. I like to err on the side of caution, especially when dealing with corporations.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. Moving the goal posts, eh?

This alfalfa has been tested, and it's been found safe. Your complaint was that it would spread from one farmers field to another. Now your complaint isn't about one farmers crop spreading from one field to another, but that it's untested.

[tbyg52]

46. >>This alfalfa has been tested, and it's been found safe.

Sorry, I had not read thoroughly enough this thread. But now that I know it's been "tested and found safe," I do have a comment:

Tested by whom, and do I trust them? I seriously doubt that I trust them.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

48. You don't have to read the whole thread. It's there in the OP.

It's the USDA.

Do I trust the USDA? Certainly more than conspiracy theorists. Especially conspiracy theorists who claim they want testing, then disregard testing once it's found safe based on vague conspiracy theories.

[tbyg52]

49. >>Do I trust the USDA?

Now that you mention it, not really. I'm sure Bu$hco loaded it with cronies just like everywhere else they could.

[riderinthestorm]

54. My problem with Monsanto is that they contaminate organics

10 times/10 times and then claim that those of us who are organic farmers are trying to "steal" their product. They then proceed with a lawsuit that will destroy any family/organic farmers that cannot possibly fight this mega-corp.

Monsanto owns patents on these crops that invariably, through the air or birds or bees or whatever, pollinate with heirloom producers. It contaminates organic prodce and dilutes the brand "organic". Moreover, Monsanto is trying to monopolize food production. If you have crops that are "their" genetic variety, you must pay them royalties. Even if it's their crop that contaminates YOUR crop.

I have never once seen any case of an organic farmer's crop contaminating Monsantos. As far as I'm aware, it's always the other way around since their genetically bred stock is everywhere. They own something like 98% of the food crops produced right now so please provide a link substantiating that it's the other way around. I'm very curious to see it.

[tbyg52]

56. Thank you. nt

[thotzRthingz]

59. re: "I have never once seen any case of an organic farmer's crop contaminating Monsantos" ... and if

that DID happen, wouldn't the ORGANIC FARMER have claim to ALL of the Monsanto crop & seed springing forth therefrom? That's a rhetorical question, of course... but isn't it absurd that it works in the reverse?!

BTW: I would like to thank you, and ALL organic farmers, for your contributions to the human family!

[jeff47]

72. Could you provide some links?

Could you provide some links to all those lawsuits?

'Cause every time I ask that, someone provides a link to where the farmer who lost his case rants about Monsanto, or it's an anti-GM site ranting about it. Once I finally have the name of the farmer and can look into their case it turns out the guy was actually intentionally planting the Monsanto crop, not that his farm was contaminated.

[proverbialwisdom]

110. Here ya go, 'MONSANTO'S HARVEST OF FEAR' published in Vanity Fair magazine

MUST READ:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805
Monsanto's Harvest of Fear

Investigation Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear

Monsanto already dominates America’s food chain with its genetically modified seeds. Now it has targeted milk production. Just as frightening as the corporation’s tactics–ruthless legal battles against small farmers–is its decades-long history of toxic contamination.

by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele May 2008



MUST WATCH:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/6/monsantos_harvest_of_fear
DEMOCRACY NOW INTERVIEW
May 06, 2008
...AMY GOODMAN: Monday’s top story on the popular financial website Kiplinger.com begins with this advice to potential investors: “Everywhere you look people are grumbling—and in many cases rioting—about the high price of food. Before you buy a 20-pound bag of rice at Costco, consider hording shares of Monsanto.”

It’s true. While the rising cost of food pushes millions around the world into deeper hunger and scarcity, agricultural companies like Monsanto are posting record profits. The top seed maker in the world, Monsanto’s stock has gained 95 percent over the past year and 1,600 percent over the past five years. Monsanto’s profits topped $1.6 billion in the first quarter, up 37 percent from the same quarter last year.

Monsanto rose to prominence as one of the leading chemical giants of the twentieth century, but its focus today is agriculture. A company statement says, “At Monsanto, we apply innovation and technology to help farmers around the world be more successful, produce healthier foods, and better animal feeds, and create more fiber, all while reducing agriculture’s impact on the environment.”

But critics have accused Monsanto of undermining local farmers and public health through a wide means of corporate bullying. The latest issue of Vanity Fair has a lengthy article profiling some of Monsanto’s controversial corporate practices, from patenting seeds to fighting warning labels on milk cartons. It’s called “Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear.”

Vanity Fair contributing editor James Steele joins us here in our firehouse studio. He is the co-author of the piece, along with Donald Bartlett. And we welcome you to Democracy Now!, Jim.

JAMES STEELE: Nice to be with you, Amy.

[proverbialwisdom]

111. Also, MUST SEE 'The World According To Monsanto' DVD (for interviews with farmers sued by Monsanto)

"Devastating exposé . . . Will freeze the blood in your veins"—The Gazette

"Extraordinary documentary" —LeMonde

"Scrupulous, thorough, and damning" —Montreal Mirror

"Presents a cogent and horrifying enough picture of the world's leading seed manufacturer to warrant concern and fury." —Hour


http://www.truthout.org/111208A
Dominique Dhombres' review of Marie-Monique Robin's movie, "The World According to Monsanto", shown on French TV this spring, provoked so much reader interest, I obtained a copy of the book in French (to be released this coming spring in English) and the movie in English to see for myself.

Both text and film are extraordinary models of investigative reporting, each comprising chilling and compelling indictments of a company with a long history of producing varieties of poison. I have no doubt that had a human individual, rather than a multinational corporation, been responsible for the death, suffering and destruction Marie-Monique Robin documents, the International Criminal Court and other jurisdictions around the world would be clamoring for that person's head. Yet, Monsanto continues to operate so much more freely than the disguised Radovan Karadzic. Only last week The Independent reported that Gordon Brown and other European leaders are secretly planning to promote GMO food - 90 percent of which is produced by Monsanto - over the objections of their own populations.

While "The World According to Monsanto" excoriates Monsanto executives and their enablers, what Marie-Monique Robin most effectively documents are the perverse effects - the moral, social, technological, economic and market failures - of Western society's economic organization, most specifically with respect to science and the products of science, and, ultimately, with respect to the preservation of the public commons and human life on the planet...

[thotzRthingz]

112. i understand that there are those who want SCIENTIFIC PROOF, before they commit... unfortunately:

irrefutable PROOF of HARM, from the likes of MONSANTO, BAYER, DUPONT, etc., will likely never be forthcoming. Therefore; one needs to observe what is actually happening "in the wild", and then decide. IMO: there's more than enough cause for concern and even outrage.

Thanks again for providing the links within this thread!

[proverbialwisdom]

122. There certainly is ample scientific evidence that biotech food harms humans.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_20042.cfm

An FDA Ban on Genetically-Engineered Milk is Twenty Years Overdue
Cancer Prevention Coalition, Jan 15, 2010

Straight to the Source: http://www.world-wire.com/news/1001150001.html

In May 2007, Samuel S. Epstein, MD, Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, and four other leading national experts on genetically-engineered, recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) milk filed a Petition to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), "Petition Seeking the Withdrawal of the New Animal Drug Application Approval for Posilac®-Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH)."

In the absence of any response, on January 12, 2010, Dr. Epstein resubmitted this Petition to Michael Taylor, Deputy Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration.

As detailed in this Petition, Posilac® poses major public health hazards. Dr. Epstein requested his review and support of an early ban of Posilac®.

This Petition requests the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to suspend the approval of rBGH, a genetically engineered bovine growth hormone, and require milk and other dairy products produced with its use to be labeled with a warning such as, "Produced with the use of rBGH, and contains elevated levels of insulin-like growth factor, IGF-1, which poses major risks of breast, prostate, and colon cancers."

STATEMENT OF GROUNDS 1.THE VETERINARY TOXICITY OF rBGH
Evidence of these toxic effects was first detailed in confidential Monsanto reports, based on records of secret nationwide rBGH veterinary trials, submitted to the FDA prior to October 1989 when they were leaked to one of the petitioners, Dr. Epstein. He then made these reports available to Congressman John Conyers, Chairman of the House Committee on Government Operations. On May 8, 1990, Congressman Conyers issued the following statement, "I find it reprehensible that Monsanto and the FDA have chosen to suppress and manipulate animal health test data." Details of these toxic effects were subsequently admitted by Monsanto, and by the FDA, and were disclosed on the drug's veterinary label (Posilac®) in November, 1993. These toxic effects include injection site lesions, a wide range of other toxic effects, and an increased incidence of mastitis requiring the use and antibiotics, with resulting contamination of milk.

2.ABNORMALITIES IN rBGH MILK
A January 1994 Monsanto Executive Summary on rBGH, claimed that "natural milk is indistinguishable" from rBGH milk, and that "there is no legal basis requiring its labeling." However, there are a wide range of well-documented abnormalities in rBGH milk. These include: reduction in short-chain fatty acid and increase in long-chain fatty acid levels; increase in levels of a thyroid hormone enzyme; contamination with unapproved drugs for treating mastitis; and frequency of pus cells due to mastitis.

3.INCREASED LEVELS OF INSULIN-LIKE GROWTH FACTOR 1 (IGF-1) IN rBGH MILK
A wide range of publications have documented excess levels of IGF-1 in rBGH milk, with increases ranging from four- to 20-fold. Based on six unpublished industry studies, FDA admitted that IGF-1 levels in rBGH milk were consistently and statistically increased, and that these were further increased by pasteurization. These increases were also admitted by the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly, in application for marketing authorization in the European Community. It should also be noted that pasteurization of milk increases IGF-1 levels.

4.IGF-1 IS READILY ABSORBED FROM THE INTESTINE INTO THE BLOOD
IGF-1 is a small protein component known as a peptide. As such it is readily absorbed into the blood. It survives digestion, and has marked growth promoting effects following short-term feeding tests in rats.

5.INCREASED IGF-1 LEVELS IN MILK INCREASE RISKS OF BREAST, COLON AND PROSTATE CANCERS
Increased levels of IGF-1 have been shown to increase risks of breast cancer in 19 scientific publications, risks of colon cancer in 10 publications, and prostate cancer in 7 publications.

6.INCREASED IGF-1 LEVELS INHIBIT "APOPTOSIS"
Of critical importance is the fact that increased IGF-1 levels block natural defense mechanisms, known as apoptosis, against early submicroscopic cancers.

7.rBGH INCREASES TWINNING RATES
An increased rate of twinning in cows injected with rBGH was admitted by Monsanto on its November 1993 Posilac® label, and the incidence of fraternal twins. Monsanto also admitted that it increases "and complications such as premature delivery, congenital defects and pregnancy-induced hypertension."

8.THE INTERNATIONAL BAN ON THE USE AND IMPORTS OF U.S. rBGH DAIRY PRODUCTS
Based on well-documented veterinary and public health concerns, in June 30, 1999, the United Nations Food Safety Agency, representing 101 nations worldwide, ruled unanimously not to endorse or set a safety standard for rBGH milk. Effectively, this has resulted in an international ban on U.S. milk, approximately 20% of which is rBGH.

9.FDA POLICY ON LABELING rBGH MILK
The FDA continues to mislead dairy producers and consumers with regard to its requirement for labeling of rBGH milk, with its deliberately false claim that "No significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBST-treated and non-rBST treated cows." "In fact," warns Dr. Epstein, "rBGH milk continues to pose major cancer and other risks to the entire U.S. population."
The 2007 Petition has been endorsed by four other leading experts on genetically-engineered, recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) milk. We look forward to a response.

[thotzRthingz]

135. ...what I said, and what I meant to say:

here's what I said:

irrefutable PROOF of HARM, from the likes of MONSANTO, BAYER, DUPONT, etc., will likely never be forthcoming

what I meant was:

irrefutable PROOF of HARM will likely never be forthcoming, from the likes of MONSANTO, BAYER, DUPONT, etc.

IOW: those who rely of the VESTED INTERESTS corporations, to come clean and admit they are DOING HARM... likely will not see such "scientific proof" :eyes:

Those corporations are interested in only one thing... PROFIT, and the more the better (and what better way to ensure same, than by taking over the entire world's food supply?).

Thanks again, for your efforts (and info/links) which you've provided here!

[proverbialwisdom]

123. Human Health Overview

http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com/2009/10/genetically-modified-organisms-whats.html

An Interview with Jeffrey M. Smith
Oct/Nov 2009
by Susan Booth

Susan Booth: What is the difference between genetic modification versus just regular hybridization or selective breeding?

Jeffrey M. Smith: Genetic engineering is not natural. It carries unique risks and is fraught with unpredicted side effects.

In normal hybridization or selective breeding you take plants from the same species or related species and they essentially have sex and their offspring share genes from both parents. With genetic engineering, you take a single gene or combination of genes from other species, and you manipulate the gene in the laboratory. You add, typically, an "on switch" called a Promoter from a virus and other materials and then you force it into the DNA of the plant. Then you clone the cell into a plant…

The process of insertion, whether through "gene gun" technology or bacterial infection, plus cloning, causes massive collateral damage in the DNA. It leads to hundreds or thousands of mutations up and down the DNA, and hundreds or thousands of genes that can change their levels of expression in the natural plant. These changes can lead to unpredicted side effects, such as new or higher levels of toxins, carcinogens, allergens, or anti-nutrients. And this is not theoretical. They have actually found these types of things in the genetically engineered crops already on the market.

Booth: If it’s that dangerous and has that many problems, why do they do it?

Smith: The White House had been convinced that genetically engineered foods would increase U.S. exports and our domination in world food trade. They ordered the FDA and the other regulatory agencies to fast-track GM foods.

Booth: What are some of the bad things that could happen to children who are consuming a lot of genetically modified foods? I know you talk about allergies and the fact that soy allergies skyrocketed in the U.K. when genetically engineered soy was introduced.

Smith: Well, with allergies, I just found out… Emergency room visits due to allergies doubled in the United States in the five years following the introduction of genetically modified foods.

One top biologist in the world recently told me that he sees the increase in so many health problems in the US in the last 10 or 15 years and he believes that the introduction of genetically engineered foods into the American diet is largely responsible for those changes. So, these could be any of the "new" diseases, or the increases in diseases, from autism and allergies to obesity and diabetes, to digestive system cancers to virtually anything.

Children’s digestive systems, their gut bacteria, their whole defense system is not particularly well-developed, and we find in the only human feeding study ever published, that genes can transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines. There’s more opportunity for the DNA to transfer into the gut bacteria DNA is broken down at a slower rate or not at all.

Also, the gut bacteria in the infant, I’m told by doctors, is first populated by the bacteria inside the womb of the mother. So if there are already gut bacteria problems and imbalances due to GMOs in the mother, then that’s also a problem.

If the Bt toxin, which is part of genetically modified corn, causes disturbance in the walls of the intestines, as it may in fact be doing, it might cause some kind of leaky gut which could cause toxicity in the blood. And since the blood-brain barrier in children is not well developed, it could also result in toxicity of the brain, which could contribute to a whole host of some of the psychological disorders and learning disabilities.

I’m mentioning just a small list compared to what could be happening due to GMOs. They’ve found, for example, that both soy and corn have higher levels of lignan, which was not supposed to happen. The metabolic pathway that produces lignan also produces Rotenone, a plant pesticide which is linked to Parkinson’s Disease.

[proverbialwisdom]

124. ENOUGH?

http://americas.irc-online.org/am/6254

Study Released in Argentina Puts Glyphosate Under Fire
Marie Trigona | July 13, 2009

Argentina has seen an explosion in genetically modified (GM) soy bean production with soy exports topping $16.5 billion in 2008. The fertile South American nation is now the world's third largest producer of soy, trailing behind the United States and Brazil. However, this lucrative industrial form of farming has come under fire with environmental groups, local residents, and traditional farmers reporting that GM soy threatens biodiversity, the nation's ability to feed itself, and health in rural communities.

Criticism of the soy farming model intensified recently when research released by Argentina's top medical school showed that a leading chemical used in soy farming may be harmful to human health. The study has alarmed policymakers in the South American nation.

A study released by an Argentine scientist earlier this year reports that glyphosate, patented by Monsanto under the name "Round Up," causes birth defects when applied in doses much lower than what is commonly used in soy fields.

The study was directed by a leading embryologist, Dr. Andres Carrasco, a professor and researcher at the University of Buenos Aires. In his office in the nation's top medical school, Dr. Carrasco shows me the results of the study, pulling out photos of birth defects in the embryos of frog amphibians exposed to glyphosate. The frog embryos grown in petri dishes in the photos looked like something from a futuristic horror film, creatures with visible defects—one eye the size of the head, spinal cord deformations, and kidneys that are not fully developed...


...The study on the top-selling agrochemical has alarmed policymakers, so much so that Dr. Carrasco has received anonymous threats and industry leaders demanded access to his laboratory immediately following the study's release. Industry leader Monsanto wouldn't talk to the Americas Program for this story, but in a press release on its website, the company says that "glyphosate is safe."

Many in the agro-business sector claim that Dr. Carrasco's study has little scientific basis. Guillermo Cal is the executive director of CASAFE—Argentina's association of agrochemical companies that counts Monsanto, Dow Agro-sciences, Dupont, and Bayer CropScience among its members. Cal dismissed the recent study conducted at the University of Buenos Aires. In an exclusive interview with the Americas Program, Cal rebuked Dr. Carrasco's study, stating, "There are hundreds of articles about the impact of glyphosate in amphibians and none of these articles have shown the disastrous effects that Dr. Carrasco is mentioning. I have the suspicion that these are headlines and probably politically motivated article."

On further investigation, it turned out that the studies that Guillermo Cal cited in the interview were all financed and conducted by the companies that market glyphosate. When asked about that Cal replied, "The developing companies are the ones that have to finance these studies because we need to have proof of the innocuous character of the product before the product is launched."

Since Argentina's soybean boom in the late 90s, clinical studies have been conducted in communities reporting suspiciously high rates of cancer, birth defects, and neonatal mortality. However, industry leaders also refute these clinical studies, saying they are anecdotal and have little scientific basis. Among a corporate controlled scientific community it is notoriously difficult for clinical studies to "prove" the link between environmental contamination and health results, since life is not a "controlled environment."

In a small town bordering soy farms in the province of Cordoba, the Mothers of Ituzaingo group was formed in response to sudden increases in the local cancer rate. Ituzaingo has 5,000 residents—in 2001 they reported more than 200 cases of cancer and by 2009 that number has jumped to 300. This is 41 times the national average. (I conducted this calculation: the national average or percentage is 0.145 of the population diagnosed with cancer—in this town 6% of the population has cancer.) They have fought for regulations against fumigating soy crops in residential areas and a ban of agrochemicals...


...Authorities and industry representatives maintain that the clinical studies and citizen complaints must be backed up by "serious studies" in order for them to act. Gatica says that GM seed and agrochemical companies have converted Argentina into an experimenting ground to test the toxicity of their herbicides and pesticides, principally glyphosate and endosulfan. "We can prove that agrochemicals have harmed us. We can prove this with studies and with whatever is left of our children," says Gatica. The anger in her voice reflects the grief and rage she has channeled into this David and Goliath battle.

The expansion of soy means the increased use and concentration of glyphosate. Over time, Round Up herbicide loses its technological battle with evolution and new weeds develop that are more resistant to the herbicide, explains Javier Souza Casadinho, professor at the University of Buenos Aires and regional coordinator of the Latin American Action Network for Alternative Pesticides. "Producers must use more applications, and in higher doses with higher toxicity—the application has gone from three liters in 1999 to the current dose of 12 liters, per hectare," says Souza.

More at link.

[proverbialwisdom]

128. Twenty-two Scientists Condemn Using Children in GM Food Trials as Unacceptable

http://prismwebcastnews.com/2009/02/19/scientists-protest-unethical-clinical-trials-of-gm-golden-rice/
Scientists Protest Unethical Clinical Trials of GM Golden Rice
Thursday, February 19, 2009


http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_16910.cfm
Twenty-two Scientists Condemn Using Children in GM Food Trials as Unacceptable
By Sean Poulter
Common Dreams, February 17, 2009
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/02/17-12

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/...acceptable.html

Youngsters aged 6-10 were fed so-called Golden Rice, which has been modified to contain enhanced levels of beta carotene or vitamin A. The rice is being developed to combat Vitamin A deficiency, which is linked to damage to the sight, poor brain development and immune system failure.

However high consumption can also have harmful toxic effects and cause birth defects.

Critics are furious that the GM rice was not put through animal feeding trials to ensure it was safe before being given to children.

The decision to use the children has been condemned as 'completely unacceptable' by a group of 22 scientists - all GM critics - from Britain and around the world...


...The scientists have written an open letter to the team behind the experiments, condemning the way they were conducted.

It states: 'We are writing to express our shock and unequivocal denunciation of the experiments being conducted by your colleagues which involve the feeding of genetically modified Golden Rice to human subjects.'

The letter says there has been 'woefully inadequate pre-clinical evaluation' of the rice.

The scientists argue there is a large body of evidence showing GM food production can trigger gene mutations which 'can result in health damaging effects when GM food products are fed to animals'.

More at link.

[proverbialwisdom]

130. Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to ... in Weaning and Old Mice

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf802059w?prevSearch=Intestinal+and+peripheral+immune+response&searchHistoryKey

Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice
J. Agric. Food Chem., 2008, 56 (23), pp 11533"11539 DOI: 10.1021/jf802059w
Publication Date (Web): November 14, 2008

I'm not a physician but this does potentially have very serious implications for young children consuming GMOs. I know that moderate to severe infection is a contraindication to vaccination according to CDC guidelines. I wonder whether asymptomatic 'intestinal and/or peripheral immune response' occurs in weaning children consuming GMOs and whether that should constitute a contraindication to vaccination, too.

The recent explosion in chronic childhood diseases (autism, allergy, asthma, diabetes) corresponds to the introduction of biotech food, too, doesn't it?

[jeff47]

120. So....again, the answer is no?

'Cause "for interviews with farmers sued by Monsanto" is exactly what I'm complaining about. Farmer spouts off about how his field was contaminated by wind/bees/etc and he's innocent! Right until it turns out he had a big sack of Monsanto's seed in his barn.

[jeff47]

119. So....your answer is no then?

Your links are exactly the kind of story I'm complaining about. Lots of people spouting lots of accusations, with lots of 'OMG IT'S FRANKENFOOD!!!!!!!" bias. Typically, when you look into their stories some more, it turns out they were doing exactly what Monsanto accused them of.

[proverbialwisdom]

126. Not me. NFM

[riderinthestorm]

113. I got bogged down with work and just came back online and saw some great links

So just a few other details: Monsanto has built a whole department to enforce its seed patents and licensing agreements. It has 75 employees and an ANNUAL budget of $10 million for legal issues.

An estimated 400 farmers have received threats of legal action from Monsanto over alleged patent infringement. While Canadian farmers are familiar with the trial of Percy Schmeiser who actually won in a ground breaking action against Monsanto, there are other "big names" who tried to take on Monsanto and lost - Homan McFarling and Nelson Farms being some of the biggest. However few of these cases ever get to court because most farmers look at the odds of outlasting Monsanto and simply give in. A clause in Monsanto's licensing agreement allows Monsanto to take such cases in the U.S. before courts in Missouri. This can add a huge amount to the legal bills of farmers who might be thousands of miles away.

Several of the cases that have gone to court are enough to scare farmers into meek submission to Monsanto's demands since the damage awards can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and even millions against small family farms.

I've gotta say though that Monsanto must be pleased with the results of its aggressive legal campaign because it has now decided to branch out. Monsanto's latest foray into the courtroom has it suing a dairy in Maine, alleging that Oakhurst Dairy's marketing campaign that advertises its milk as being free of artificial growth hormones is misleading. Monsanto further claims Oakhurst's ads and labels are deceptive and disparage Monsanto's products by implying that milk from untreated cows is better than milk from hormone-treated cows.

Monsanto is the world's only producer of artificial bovine growth hormone (BGH). This product is banned in Canada and elsewhere because of concerns about its impact on humans and the cows that are injected with it. In the U.S., where BGH is legal, some dairy farmers have captured a niche market by declaring that they do not use it on their cows. The Oakhurst Dairy label is simple enough: "Our Farmers' Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones." Who would have thought that a simple statement of the truth could have such dire consequences - a Monsanto lawsuit that will most likely destroy this dairy?

Monsanto has this lovely buffer in that it doesn't sell directly to consumers. It's customers are farmers who often have no other place to go if they want to grow certain products. Because of this dependency relationship, farmers can't afford to stay angry at Monsanto forever. Monsanto, on the other hand, can enjoy the exercise of its brute power with little fear of repercussions. It's a situation that could easily get worse.

So a morning bump in hopes for more weekend exposure.

[thotzRthingz]

116. thank ye kindly, for the info and the bump! (one good bump deserves another--the 16th is Tuesday!)

[Occulus]

81. Have you ever noticed that that poster shuts right the fuck up when rational arguments are used?

I have.

[riderinthestorm]

55. Provide a link that organics are contanimating Monsantos crops.

Just one would do.

Instead of the literally hundreds of other episodes of Monsanto ruining an organic producers "certified" label with their GMO crop drift. Pretty easy to follow Monsanto's trail of woe since they actually SUE anyone whose been unfortunate enough to have bird droppings filled with Monsanto remnants contaminate their organics, and who have been ruined in the process.

Hvae you seen Food Inc.? Watch and get back to me. As an organic farmer, I live this life daily.

Thanks.

[tbyg52]

57. If it weren't for the fact that

I don't want to give money to this site (I've been a donor for years, but the wool has been pulled from my eyes) I'd give you another heart. Thank you.

http://oldelmtree.com/discussion/index.php

[thotzRthingz]

63. re: "(I've been a donor for years, but the wool has been pulled from my eyes)"

I'm not "brand new" here, posted a little under a different username (neither username has come anywhere close to 1000 posts)... but, if I have ever offended you in any way, please accept my apology.

As a registered-INDEPENDENT, this is not the only forum which I frequent... but I have found MOST users here to be fairly reasonable (even if I do not agree with some of their viewpoints). It's the poison-pills (on any online forum) which I choose to NOT interact with... and thankfully, DU has an "IGNORE" feature that really works (some other forums do not allow one to be completely IGNORED).

[tbyg52]

65. No, no, you have not offended me in any way!

It's the owners (and their policies). Yeah, I know, PM them (party line). I prefer openness. Like the subthread that got deleted here, for example. (It deserved it, but I would have preferred it be locked and preserved for posterity, and proof). Memory hole. You can get rid of things that deserve to be gotten rid of, but you can also cover up a lot. That's not the whole of it, by any means, and every once in a while I grumble here. Mostly I go away to better places. Eventually I'll probably get TS'd. ;->

(Edited to add: Especially when they realize I've stopped giving money!)

Edited to add: http://tinyurl.com/possibly-of-interest

[Nikki Stone1]

66. Hey, you've got hearts!

:)

[tbyg52]

67. I know. I thank whoever gave them to me.

I'd give out lots and lots if I could bring myself to give money to this place. I'm even going to put up with the ads when my current donation runs out. If they prove to be too annoying, I guess I'll have to find another source of left wing news and commentary. Any suggestions (other than OET, where I already am!) appreciated.

May I offer you an imaginary heart? Is that a heart times the square root of negative one? ;->

[Nikki Stone1]

114. A real "i" heart!

:rofl:

Square root of negative one must have been constant for hope and change. ;)

[jeff47]

73. As I said in post 72:

Could you provide some links to all those lawsuits?

'Cause every time I ask that, someone provides a link to where the farmer who lost his case rants about Monsanto, or it's an anti-GM site ranting about it. Once I finally have the name of the farmer/seed cleaner and can look into their case it turns out the guy was actually intentionally planting the Monsanto crop, not that his farm was contaminated.

[Go2Peace]

70. OMG.... I can't even believe you made that "observation"

it would be hillarious except that you obviously are trying to be serious.

[happy_liberal]

29. Thank you for this!

I let them know how I felt. And since they really don't care about that....I tried to make them feel guilty for the future they are leaving for their grandchildren... and their grandchildren.

[thotzRthingz]

64. re: "I tried to make them feel guilty for the future they are leaving for their grandchildren"

let's hope that somehow gets through, on some level ... planting this sort of SEED (thotz) is the only way to deal with the world around us.

...just my 2cents

[Vidar]

33. done

[Junkdrawer]

37. Done. K&R

[Trillo]

43. Thank You! K&R n/t

[thotzRthingz]

45. ...here's the bottom line... READ IT, HEED IT, and PASS IT ON!

GM in Canada - lessons learnt

Thirteen years ago when GM soya and rapeseed was introduced in Canada (and in the US) the Corporations and Government told farmers that GM would increase yields, be more nutritious, use less chemicals, and feed a hungry world. Now we will always have a sustainable agriculture, they claimed. The Canadian Department of Agriculture figures states canola yields have decreased at least ten percent and soya at least fifteen percent <4>, but worst of all, farmers are using three to five times more chemicals because of the GM superweeds that have developed. The reality is that the nutritional content of all crops are down fifty percent of what they were before GMOs were introduced and now we have less yields and more chemicals used, exactly the opposite of what Monsanto promised.

Percy Schmeiser said, “Once you introduce GMOs, believe me the days of organic farmers are over, the days of the conventional farmer are over, it all becomes GMOs in a matter of a few years.”

- source: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/whoOwnsLifeNotMonsanto.php

And verily I say unto you: it is then, that MONSANTO (or whomever owns the patent) shall REIGN in the house of EVIL, forever and ever, AMEN!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. The bottom line: The Institute for Science in Society is not a credible organization.

Just an FYI.

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/nonrecorg.html

http://www.dcscience.net/?p=129

[proverbialwisdom]

50. RUDE AWAKENING

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/rude-awakening_b_436384.html
Rude Awakening
by Jeffrey M Smith
Posted: January 25, 2010 11:36 PM


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/vilsack-mistakenly-pitche_b_319998.html
Vilsack Mistakenly Pitched "GMOs-Feed-The-World" to an Audience of Experts--Oops
by Jeffrey M Smith
Posted: October 13, 2009 11:22 PM

[thotzRthingz]

51. thanks for the additional links! ...and from the 2nd link you provided...

(which will also likely be discredited as quackery), comes this:

"The American Academy of Environmental Medicine this year said that genetically modified foods, according to animal studies, are causally linked to accelerated aging, dysfunctional immune regulation, organ damage, gastrointestinal distress, and immune system damage. A study came out by the Union of Concerned Scientists confirming what we all know, that genetically modified crops, on average, reduce yield. A USDA report from 2006 showed that farmers don't actually increase income from GMOs, but many actually lose income. And for the last several years, the United States has been forced to spend $3-$5 billion per year to prop up the prices of the GM crops no one wants.


"When you were appointed Secretary of Agriculture, many of our mutual friends--I live in Iowa and was proud to have you as our governor--assured me that you have an open mind and are very reasonable and forward thinking. And so I was very excited that you had taken this position as Secretary of Agriculture. And I'm wondering, have you ever heard this information? Where do you get your information about GMOs? And are you willing to take a delegation in D.C. to give you this hard evidence about how GMOs have actually failed us, that they've been put onto the market long before the science is ready, and it's time to put it back into the laboratory until they've done their homework."

So, if Genetic Engineering of SEEDs does NOT produce the results as claimed (see one of my previously links... CANADIAN LESSONS LEARNT after less than two decades) ... this GE-stuff is also likely to cause great HARM to human health.

I guess we should all just BEND OVER and loudly exclaim:

Thank you MONSANTO, may we have another?!

[proverbialwisdom]

71. You're welcome, but it's not quackery, quite the contrary.

Jeffrey M Smith's columns for Huffington Post on biotech food here, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith

He has written the two definitive books on the subject (extensive excerpts online) here,

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/SeedsOfDeception/index.cfm
Seeds of Deception (politics, history)

http://www.geneticroulette.com/
Genetic Roulette (peer reviewed scientific journal references)

and, best of all, provides lots of helpful, practical information here,

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/documentFiles/144.pdf
Non-GMO Shopping Guide.

I welcome all skeptics to explore these links. The rBGH discussion is another good place to explore, especially for anyone concerned with breast or prostate cancer. 'Think Before You Pink,' a project of Breast Cancer Action against rBGH in dairy here, http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org/

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/rBGHinDairyProducts/index.cfm

[thotzRthingz]

78. ...just adding a bit more: 08DEC09--"Bayer Admits GMO Contamination is Out of Control"

Bayer Blamed at Trial for Crops ‘Contaminated’ by Modified Rice Share Business Exchange

Nov. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Bayer CropScience AG is responsible for financial damage sustained by Missouri farmers when their rice crops were contaminated by genetically modified seeds, the growers’ lawyer told a federal court jury in St. Louis.

<...snip...>

Defense lawyer Mark Ferguson said Bayer CropScience wanted to do right by its farmer clientele.

“Everyone at Bayer regrets that this happened. Farmers are Bayer’s customers,” Ferguson told jurors during his opening remarks. “The one thing that they were trying to avoid, happened.”

<...snip...>

“Even the best practices can’t guarantee perfection,” Ferguson said.

<...snip...>

- source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aT1kD1GOt0N0

[pleah]

53. K&R

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

58. Obama Appoints Monsanto Man as FDA Food Safety Czar

http://current.com/items/92009377_obama-appoints-monsanto-man-as-fda-food-safety-czar.htm

We are fucked.

[butterfly77]

60. Well, I guess its time..

to start emailing Whitehouse.gov and tell him how we feel about that..

[proverbialwisdom]

77. VOTE WITH YOUR FORK

Jeffrey M Smith's and Michael Pollan's idea, great T-shirt here, http://watershedmedia.org/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=67&products_id=190

Consumers have the power.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Smith/jeffrey129.htm
SUPERMARKET NEWS FORECASTS NON-GMO UPRISING
By Jeffrey Smith
January 17, 2010

...Consumer Opinion Already Poised Against Biotech

We're already seeing the momentum build against genetically engineered bovine growth hormone. Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Dannon, Yoplait, and most dairies have shunned the controversial drug that is now synonymous with "increased cancer risk" in the minds of many consumers. (The recent condemnation of the hormone by the American Public Health Association (below) will help nail its coffin shut.)

In the case of GMOs, the proportion of US consumers needed to avoid brands that contain GM soy and corn, etc. is quite small—probably only 5%. That means that the purchasing power (and trend setting ability) of 15 million people or 5.6 million households can turn GMOs into a marketing liability. But when you look at the numbers, no matter how you slice it, they add up to a coming non-GMO tidal wave...


http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1379
APHA Home » Advocacy & Policy » Policy Statements » Search Policy Statement Database

Opposition to the Use of Hormone Growth Promoters in Beef and Dairy Cattle Production
Policy Date: 11/10/2009
Policy Number: 20098

[scentopine]

61. once again the "free" market screwing us over -nt

[Kurovski]

62. Kick. (nt)

[Slit Skirt]

68. these basterds

...along with all the other basterds

K&R:kick:

[LWolf]

69. K & R

[me b zola]

75. K&R

[thotzRthingz]

79. should we fail, take comfort knowing that our *soylent green* will be GeneticallyEngineered ;-)

We've managed to fail in a number of ways to-date. <...sigh...>

Let's not fail on this issue! We owe at least that much to all future generations...

[onestepforward]

80. Done. K&R

[DeSwiss]

82. K&R

[NecklyTyler]

83. Monsanto must die

[NecklyTyler]

84. K&R

[Yurovsky]

85. Done & thanks for the link...

corporate irresponsibility never ceases to amaze...

[Little Star]

86. k&r

[april]

88. done.. sign

[handmade34]

89. many thanks for posting this.

[SpiralHawk]

90. Done

k and r

[AllyCat]

91. Done. I got this email, but didn't act. Thanks for getting this up there

[thotzRthingz]

100. when I saw this, i came to DU and did a quick search... seeing none, I thought i'd

better post it... as the 16th of February is fast upon us.

Many thanks to everyone who has SIGNED-ON, and also to those who are helping to spread the word!

[1monster]

92. Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse ...

Starvation. War. Pestilence. Death.

Starvation will come when the diversity of plants is destroyed by one altered plant crowding out all other varieties of the same species, thereby weakening the ability of a species of plant to ward off disease and parasites when something unexpected attacks and the the dominant plant.

When people face starvation, they will go to war to ensure a food supply.

Starvation and War brings on Pestilence and Death.

[WhiteTara]

93. thanks for posting this

this is a life threatening situation and somehow we must stop this...even if we have Monsanto Vilsack for Ag Sec. I hope everyone send this to at least 10 people they know.

[WhiteTara]

95. thanks for the heads up!

I just sent this to my email list. This is madness!

[prairierose]

96. Done, I am so tired of Monsanto and their determination to...

own all seeds as well as their insistance that there is not danger from their GE seeds. So much of the rest of the world has learned (to their horror) the truth about these GE crops and have banned them. What will happen if we are the only ones growing these crops and everyone else has banned them? Once upon a time ag exports kept our exports higher than our imports.

[lonestarnot]

97. Done!

Thank you for caring!

[defendandprotect]

98. OK done - K&R

[Politicub]

99. Monsanto can effectively do anything it wants

If you watch Food, Inc. you'll know what I mean. What created the beast was a decision by the Supreme Court (with majority opinion written by Clarence Thomas, former legal counsel for Monsanto) that allowed companies to patent genetic code.

Immoral doesn't even begin to describe how horrible that decision turned out to be. They seem to rise above our right to free speech by shutting down criticism.

The contaminate our food supply on purpose so they can turn around and sue organic or traditional farmers whose crops have been cross pollinated by Monsanto's genetically modified seeds. Because you see, mother nature has the audacity to fertilize crops as it has done since the evolution of flora.

If our congress really did care about doing the right thing for the ALL people, they would push to ratify an amendment to reign in the hijacking of the world's food supply. And before an amendment would need to go through the process to be passed, the congress should use everything in its power to regulate the fuck out of them.

[proverbialwisdom]

106. Don't forget those pesky 'food disparagement' laws, too.

http://www.alternet.org/story/12910?page=entire

Industry Attacks on Dissent: From Rachel Carson to Oprah
By Laura Orlando
Posted on April 19, 2002

[Politicub]

107. Those laws put Oprah "in her place"

I was watching when Michael Pollan was on, and Oprah seemed downright freaked out to endorse healthier eating. Oprah of all people seemed afraid of the beef industry's retaliation. Even though she won the fight the first time around, something has spooked her in to not disparaging big beef, chicken, etc.

Big food producers already have a competitive advantage through their scale as compared to smaller and more sustainable family farms. Tyson, the Beef Council, etc. need to be brought down a notch or two, but so many of our congress people are bought and paid for. And now that corporate personhood has been established by the Supreme Court, who knows what they'll do next to quash criticism?

[tpsbmam]

101. K&R n/t (it's been said pretty well already)

[vanlassie]

102. Done.

[demwing]

103. "An overwhelming majority of consumers buy organic to avoid GE products " does not sound true

Do you mean "An overwhelming majority of consumers who buy organic, do so to avoid GE products"? What the letter implies is that an overwhelming majority of consumers prefer organic, and overall sales number don't support that assertion.

[thotzRthingz]

104. re: "An overwhelming majority of consumers who buy organic, do so to avoid GE products"

I think that to be more correct.

I also think more Americans are demanding "organic" ... I base this on the fact that the "Navy Commissary", at which we shop, now carries a good selection of "organic" (just 5 years ago, one would be hard pressed to find "organic" anything on their shelves).

I also think that as more people become aware of the potential risks which GE-products present... the numbers of consumers protesting "GE" will increase... let's hope that AWAKENING doesn't come too late.

The above aside: thanks for your insight!

[onestepforward]

137. K&R! Please sign! n/t

Oops! Was trying to reply to OP! :)

[proverbialwisdom]

105. American Academy of Environmental Medicine Press Release on Biotech Food

http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopressrelease.html

Press Advisory
May 19, 2009

Contact Information:
Dr. Amy L. Dean, D.O.
Public Relations Chair
Member, Board of Directors
American Academy of Environmental Medicine
734-213-4901
[e-mail]

The American Academy Of Environmental Medicine Calls For Immediate Moratorium On Genetically Modified Foods

Wichita, KS - The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) today released its position paper on Genetically Modified foods stating that "GM foods pose a serious health risk" and calling for a moratorium on GM foods. Citing several animal studies, the AAEM concludes "there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects" and that "GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health."

The AAEM calls for:


•A moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term safety testing and labeling of GM food.


•Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community and the public to avoid GM foods.


•Physicians to consider the role of GM foods in their patients' disease processes.


•More independent long term scientific studies to begin gathering data to investigate the role of GM foods on human health.

"Multiple animal studies have shown that GM foods cause damage to various organ systems in the body. With this mounting evidence, it is imperative to have a moratorium on GM foods for the safety of our patients' and the public's health," said Dr. Amy Dean, PR chair and Board Member of AAEM...

More at link.

[thotzRthingz]

108. thanks again for the additional link... it makes great commentary to be included in

one's SIGNED-SUPPORT (in stopping MONSANTO) to the USDA:

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/monsanto_alfalfa

[AmyDeLune]

109. Done! nt

[proverbialwisdom]

127. New Website Exposes Myths and Propaganda of Biotech Industry

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18760.cfm

New Website Exposes Myths and Propaganda of Biotech Industry
GMWatch, August 6, 2009

GMWatch has just launched its new website: http://www.gmwatch.org which replaces the one forced off the web by 14 months of cyber attacks. A network engineer brought in to advise on the damage described these as the worst attacks he'd seen in his 20 years in the industry.<1>

The new site has been designed to be user-friendly, making it easy to navigate what George Monbiot has called "the world's most comprehensive database on the impacts and the politics of genetically engineered crops."<2> This includes GMWatch's archive of nearly a decade of news and analysis from GMWatch's daily, weekly and monthly lists including material translated into several other languages...

[thotzRthingz]

136. a final "bump" and a final "thank you" for your contributions here, especially for sharing this

OUT-FRIGGIN-STANDING resource... http://www.gmwatch.org

[proverbialwisdom]

132. Scottish Government Supports Global Opposition to GMOs

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_17692.cfm

Scottish Government Supports Global Opposition to GMOs
GM Watch, April 26, 2009

1.Scottish Government supports global opposition to GMOs
2.Scottish Government wants no cultivation of GM crops in Scotland

ABSTRACT: "Consumers in Scotland, the UK, Europe and across the world are opposed to GM. It is up to their Governments to listen to them and take action to keep GM at bay.

"We are ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with other nations who are opposed to GM and fight for what our people want." - Scotland's Environment Minister Roseanna Cunningham (item 1)

1. News Release - Cunningham Re-Affirms Scottish Government's Anti-GM Stance - 24 April 2009
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2009/04/24150325

Consumers don't want genetically modified (GM) foods in their supermarkets and shops which is why Scotland must remain GM-free, Environment Minister Roseanna Cunningham said today.

In a video address to the fifth international conference on GM-free regions in Europe, the new Environment Minister strongly re-affirmed the Scottish Government's anti-GM stance. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2009/04/24150325/Q/Video/548

Ms. Cunningham told delegates that countries had a duty to adopt the democratic principle as well as the precautionary and preventative principles when it came to GM.

The Minister said:

"We know very little, if anything, about the long-term effects of growing GM crops. To take risks with our natural environment is wholly indefensible and irresponsible.

"When you consider our natural environment is worth around GBP17 million per year to the Scottish economy, we simply cannot afford to take risks with untested technologies.

"Consumers in Scotland, the UK, Europe and across the world are opposed to GM. It is up to their Governments to listen to them and take action to keep GM at bay.

"We are ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with other nations who are opposed to GM and fight for what our people want."

This is the fifth international conference of GM free regions in Europe. It is being held in Lucerne, Switzerland on April 24 and 25 and will focus on the issue of food and democracy...

More at link.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

138. You misspelled "teh." n/t