gmos, and im the luddite?

[tokeprep]

we have a choice to use cellphones. We have options with regard to most of the other items you mention. However, we don't eat any of those things.

we do eat gmos and the pesticides and herbicides they are drenched with.

I hold that age is already here, in fact the USDA just released nee growing zones.

note again, I am not here taking issues with the genetics but only the acompanying chemicals.

You have a choice with food too. You can buy food that's organic.

also, many farmers have no choice. They are stuck. The transgenic companies have them by the balls.

That's just not true. You have to pay more money to plant GM crops. No one would do it if they didn't make more money considering those costs versus using conventional crops. It is an entirely free choice. No one has them "by the balls." If anything is forcing them against their personal preference it's their own economic self interest, not the malevolent will of some evil corporation. Pretending otherwise is a great way to vilify corporations you obviously dislike but totally naive as well.

the FDA does not test. Companies do. Do you really trust a company that told us that dioxin and agent orange are safe to tell us the food they are making us eat is safe?

Fortunately we're not dependent on those company tests for evidence of GM food safety. There are legions of other studies from other sources that reached exactly the same conclusions, which is why there is an undeniable scientific consensus that there are no additional health risks in GM crops versus conventional ones.

Interestingly, you're incredibly suspicious of corporations knowing that they want to make money and not the least bit suspicious of "scientists" who have precisely the same goal. The most alarming studies on GM food have been published by scientists who are taking cash to write books, give lectures, and make documentary films. The GM food skeptics have created an industry that has allowed them to rake in cash preying on the suspicions and fears of people like you. Wouldn't their research be more meaningful if it was actually disinterested?

 

[canndo]

You have a choice with food too. You can buy food that's organic.



That's just not true. You have to pay more money to plant GM crops. No one would do it if they didn't make more money considering those costs versus using conventional crops. It is an entirely free choice. No one has them "by the balls." If anything is forcing them against their personal preference it's their own economic self interest, not the malevolent will of some evil corporation. Pretending otherwise is a great way to vilify corporations you obviously dislike but totally naive as well.



Fortunately we're not dependent on those company tests for evidence of GM food safety. There are legions of other studies from other sources that reached exactly the same conclusions, which is why there is an undeniable scientific consensus that there are no additional health risks in GM crops versus conventional ones.

Interestingly, you're incredibly suspicious of corporations knowing that they want to make money and not the least bit suspicious of "scientists" who have precisely the same goal. The most alarming studies on GM food have been published by scientists who are taking cash to write books, give lectures, and make documentary films. The GM food skeptics have created an industry that has allowed them to rake in cash preying on the suspicions and fears of people like you. Wouldn't their research be more meaningful if it was actually disinterested?

these are all nice sentiments and they show a quaint faith in the free enterprise system, government regulation and free choice. Lift up a few rocks however and you will come to understand that things are not as you (and I) would love to believe.

I always get a kick out of those who put up money as evidence of motivation. "scientists are making money from their studies, we can't trust them". It stands to reason that we should be able to quantify the degree of falsehood by the amount of money exchanged.

a biased scientist intends to show the dangers of gmo, for profit of course. Where does he go for funding? Government? What is their motivation for issuing a grant that will introduce a schism between a regulatory body and the industry it thrives upon?

now take that same scientist, shopping for a forum and the money he can earn. He can easily go to the manufacturer of the product he intents to whitewash. Not only would the company love to see another "study" in their favor but these companies...HAVE ALL the MONEY.

but if you are really interested in what is going on, I will find some time to get to a computer, I need more than a thumb.

 

[doublejj]

I vote with my wallet. It's all organic & no gmo's for me......just put it on the label, I can do the rest...

 

[tokeprep]

these are all nice sentiments and they show a quaint faith in the free enterprise system, government regulation and free choice. Lift up a few rocks however and you will come to understand that things are not as you (and I) would love to believe.

I always get a kick out of those who put up money as evidence of motivation. "scientists are making money from their studies, we can't trust them". It stands to reason that we should be able to quantify the degree of falsehood by the amount of money exchanged.

a biased scientist intends to show the dangers of gmo, for profit of course. Where does he go for funding? Government? What is their motivation for issuing a grant that will introduce a schism between a regulatory body and the industry it thrives upon?

There are legions of tenured scientists earnings six figure salaries from universities who are free to do whatever research they want. They've done it. Their conclusions were exactly the same as all of the other conclusions.

now take that same scientist, shopping for a forum and the money he can earn. He can easily go to the manufacturer of the product he intents to whitewash. Not only would the company love to see another "study" in their favor but these companies...HAVE ALL the MONEY.

but if you are really interested in what is going on, I will find some time to get to a computer, I need more than a thumb.

Again, the scientific consensus is not based solely on corporate-funded studies. You're pretending otherwise. It's just not true.

 

[canndo]

I vote with my wallet. It's all organic & no gmo's for me......just put it on the label, I can do the rest...

first, why should we be the ones who must pay more for our food in order to purchase an absence of something.

second, your choices for convenience food are gone.

restaurants are out, medicines and vitamins are suspect, oils as well.

the term organic may no longer get you the advantage you seek. Contamination from gmo products is happening more often.

 

[canndo]

There are legions of tenured scientists earnings six figure salaries from universities who are free to do whatever research they want. They've done it. Their conclusions were exactly the same as all of the other conclusions.



Again, the scientific consensus is not based solely on corporate-funded studies. You're pretending otherwise. It's just not true.

I have been researching this stuff for about two years now, I bring an amount of skepticism to all such endeavors.

one of the first things I discovered was that the predominance of studies that showed evidence of negative affects did not originate in the US. and far fewer positive ones originated in other countries.

now, there are many farmers who are aware that their gmo crops limit their markets to the us, and yet they continue to grow them.

in the instance of corn, a simple profit model does not exist due to government incentive.

crops planted with transgenic plants, in he middle of other fields of transgenic crops are very difficult to convert back to non gmo even if you are able to find pure seed (unless you are willing to pay for the now even more expensive organic seed)

you as a farmer may well have increased the resistance to weeds that are now more capable of competing with your now non roundup ready corn.

 

[doublejj]

Just put it on the label....the rest will take care of itself.......

 

[canndo]

Just put it on the label....the rest will take care of itself.......

Transgenic companies don't want it on the label, and so far, they are getting their wish. Their reasoning sounds good, even if it is not really logical. But I have a problem with labels for GM products. I can see a time where those companies shift (they are already doing it actually) to endorsing labels. Why? because lawsuits will be far easier to win should it be found that GMOs are actually bad for you. The tobacco industry used this very defense.

 

[doublejj]

Virginia is the first state to pass a law requiring GMO labeling, other states will follow...

 

[tokeprep]

I have been researching this stuff for about two years now, I bring an amount of skepticism to all such endeavors.

one of the first things I discovered was that the predominance of studies that showed evidence of negative affects did not originate in the US. and far fewer positive ones originated in other countries.

Like the Seralini study, which was so incredibly flawed the publishing journal retracted it? Well, guess what, I've got a stack of other non-US studies that say exactly the same things as the US studies you're trashing. And I've got a stack of meta-analyses of thousands of peer-reviewed studies from everywhere that found no evidence of health impacts any worse than in conventional crops.

Of course, I would point out that some of the international criticism probably has a lot to do with not wanting to pay US corporations licensing fees. Russia is a prime example of this. Their opposition to GM crops is based on pride, not on science.

now, there are many farmers who are aware that their gmo crops limit their markets to the us, and yet they continue to grow them.

in the instance of corn, a simple profit model does not exist due to government incentive.

Because they make more money. I agree that government policy plays into it, encouraging inefficient production of crops like corn, but that's not something driven purely by Monsanto and its ilk. In reality it's the agricultural lobby from agricultural states that drives government policy. They want their farmers to earn as much as they possibly can from what they plant so that they can tell their constituents about how much they helped them and the farmers in their state. The more you produce, the more you get paid. Using GM corn generates the highest government payments (or potential payments) because the yields are higher despite the licensing costs.

crops planted with transgenic plants, in he middle of other fields of transgenic crops are very difficult to convert back to non gmo even if you are able to find pure seed (unless you are willing to pay for the now even more expensive organic seed)

you as a farmer may well have increased the resistance to weeds that are now more capable of competing with your now non roundup ready corn.

There's no shortage of conventional seeds. Farmers didn't and don't want them. They want GM seeds. They make more money with GM seeds. Period. We already dispelled the myth of the Canadian farmer whose conventional field was supposedly polluted with GM crops. He was lying.

Is it possible farmers are improperly valuing some unknown? Absolutely, yes. But that would be their own mistake. No one is forcing them to do it. It happens all the time, everywhere, in every industry. Actors must weigh the risks and make their own decisions; the less risk you take the lower your return will be. If GM crops cease to outpace conventional crops in profitability, farmers will certainly find a way to go back. I have no doubt.

 

[canndo]

Virginia is the first state to pass a law requiring GMO labeling, other states will follow...

California was the first state to pass a carcenogenic warning label law. That mandate supposedly ensures that we are warned when we are in a building where there are carcenogenic chemicals. No other state has that law.

There are federal laws being proposed that would keep states from being able to mandate labels anyway.

 

[canndo]

Like the Seralini study, which was so incredibly flawed the publishing journal retracted it? Well, guess what, I've got a stack of other non-US studies that say exactly the same things as the US studies you're trashing. And I've got a stack of meta-analyses of thousands of peer-reviewed studies from everywhere that found no evidence of health impacts any worse than in conventional crops.

Of course, I would point out that some of the international criticism probably has a lot to do with not wanting to pay US corporations licensing fees. Russia is a prime example of this. Their opposition to GM crops is based on pride, not on science.



Because they make more money. I agree that government policy plays into it, encouraging inefficient production of crops like corn, but that's not something driven purely by Monsanto and its ilk. In reality it's the agricultural lobby from agricultural states that drives government policy. They want their farmers to earn as much as they possibly can from what they plant so that they can tell their constituents about how much they helped them and the farmers in their state. The more you produce, the more you get paid. Using GM corn generates the highest government payments (or potential payments) because the yields are higher despite the licensing costs.



There's no shortage of conventional seeds. Farmers didn't and don't want them. They want GM seeds. They make more money with GM seeds. Period. We already dispelled the myth of the Canadian farmer whose conventional field was supposedly polluted with GM crops. He was lying.

Is it possible farmers are improperly valuing some unknown? Absolutely, yes. But that would be their own mistake. No one is forcing them to do it. It happens all the time, everywhere, in every industry. Actors must weigh the risks and make their own decisions; the less risk you take the lower your return will be. If GM crops cease to outpace conventional crops in profitability, farmers will certainly find a way to go back. I have no doubt.

All right. Let's address the Serilini study. The short version is that currently over 200 respected scientists are calling for the journal to retract its... retraction. As I said, there were political forces at work there. We can go into them if you like but consider something else, as you look into this you will find more and more people who are in opposition to GMOs being called liars, being debunked and blacklisted. Some were highly respected and far from quacks or radicals but now we see a growing trail of ruined careers and "liars" when those people come into conflict with one particular company. This evidence is not enough to simply denounce the company nor their products but look a little bit deeper and you will find that they managed to do the same thing aboiut the nay sayers over other of their products. Products that eventually we DID find were detrimental to our health.

I spoke of Dioxin, "agent orange", 2,4 d and 2,4,5 t and rBST to name four - I will not begin with DDT. If you want we can do that on another thread as it too was made political and taken from pure science for political reasons.

But back to your post. You don't seem to be addressing the issue, the nature of the plants themselves indicate that it is very difficult to revert to older "technology" (tough to call the act of saving, planting and havesting seeds technology).

Again, you seem to be simply trusting the power of the marketplace without taking into account the particulars.

Imagine a plain of corn and infrastructure geared ONLY for that corn. You are a farmer and there is storage only for corn witihin 50 miles of your farm. Corn has been grown there for the last 30 years and nothig else. You want to plant gmo free corn but as I said, volunteers in your own field and cross pollination not only endanger the purity of your crop but your economic viability due to threats of, and actual lawsuit from the patent holders.

So you must change crops. Which crop other than a grain might you grow? answer, none, they all require different storage and delivery systems that you do not have access to.

You bypass resistant weeds in a vague "well the market will work" hope when as I said, there really is no "market" on the level of individual farmers.

 

[canndo]

We should look at the retraction of the serilini study.

I am not qualified to judge the validity of the study itself but some are:

http://www.endsciencecensorship.org/en/page/press-release

"The journal did not retract the study. But just a few months later, in early 2013 the FCT editorial board acquired a new “Associate Editor for biotechnology”, Richard E. Goodman. This was a new position, seemingly established especially for Goodman in the wake of the “Séralini affair”.
Richard E. Goodman is professor at the Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, University of Nebraska. But he is also a former Monsanto employee, who worked for the company between 1997 and 2004. While at Monsanto he assessed the allergenicity of the company’s GM crops and published papers on its behalf on allergenicity and safety issues relating to GM food (Goodman and Leach 2004).
Goodman had no documented connection to the journal until February 2013. His fast-tracked appointment, directly onto the upper editorial board raises urgent questions."
http://www.earthopensource.org/index.php/news/147-the-goodman-affair-monsanto-targets-the-heart-of-science#

If this were the only coincidence regarding the possible manipulation of appearances then I would have simply a conspiratorial "what if". But it goes much deeper. Remember also that we can easily find concrete motivation for this sort of thing and not so concrete a motivation other than "well, those scientists want more grants". Monsanto alone reaps billlions from the status quo and the expansion of their method of farming. Not so with even the most biased of researchers.

Also, I don't beleive that YOU believe that universities are free from pressure, economic and political. I don't think it would be difficult for you to believe that universities vet their scientist's intended work. The pressure would be enourmous if a researcher used university money and happened to discover that some transgenic product was indeed unfit for hman or animal consumption.

 

[canndo]

What does Monsanto say about the occurence of a revolving door between it and the EPA and the FDA?

Myth: Monsanto has undue influence on governments through lobbying and the hiring practices of governments.
Fact: Opponents have leveled this accusation against Monsanto to discredit the broad, scientific and global support that exists for GM crops. It is true that Monsanto, like our opponents, advocates our position before governments. Specifically, we advocate for supportive policies, regulation and laws that are based on the principles of sound science. In addition, we thoroughly follow local laws and conduct routine audits to ensure our efforts are transparent, appropriate and legal.
Second, governments have occasionally hired a person who – at some point in his or her career – worked at Monsanto or at a company that was a vendor. Instead of the obvious conclusion that these are experienced and highly skilled individuals though, critics will suggest it is instead a quite complicated, global governmental conspiracy.

I am posting this for a reason. See that Monsanto uses the "we always follow the law" argument, as though it has nothing to do with the laws and as though they have... always followed the law.

 

[canndo]

• Home /
• USA /

Obama signs 'Monsanto Protection Act' written by Monsanto-sponsored senator
Published time: March 28, 2013 19:04
Edited time: March 30, 2013 04:11
Get short URL

US President Barack Obama (AFP Photo / Brendan Smialowsky)
Share on tumblr
Tags
Agriculture, Law, Obama, USA
United States President Barack Obama has signed a bill into law that was written in part by the very billion-dollar corporation that will benefit directly from the legislation.
On Tuesday, Pres. Obama inked his name to H.R. 933, a continuing resolution spending bill approved in Congress days earlier. Buried 78 pages within the bill exists a provision that grossly protects biotech corporations such as the Missouri-based Monsanto Company from litigation.
With the president’s signature, agriculture giants that deal with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically engineered (GE) seeds are given the go-ahead to continue to plant and sell man-made crops, even as questions remain largely unanswered about the health risks these types of products pose to consumers.
In light of approval from the House and Senate, more than 250,000 people signed a petition asking the president to veto the spending bill over the biotech rider tacked on, an item that has since been widely referred to as the “Monsanto Protection Act.”
“But Obama ignored [the petition],” IB Times’ Connor Sheets writes, “instead choosing to sign a bill that effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of GMO or GE crops and seeds, no matter what health consequences from the consumption of these products may come to light in the future.”
James Brumley, a reporter for Investor Place, explains a little more thoroughly just how dangerous the rider is now that biotech companies are allowed to bypass judicial scrutiny. Up until it was signed, he writes, “the USDA [US Department of Agriculture] oversaw and approved (or denied) the testing of genetically modified seeds, while the federal courts retained the authority to halt the testing or sale of these plants if it felt that public health was being jeopardized. With HR 933 now a law, however, the court system no longer has the right to step in and protect the consumer.”


In short then, Monstanto cannot or need not break the law because it wrote the law. Yes, other industries have participated in writing laws that pertain to that industry but we see in this instance that Monsanto has indemnified itself against loss of business at the possible cost of its consumer's health and welfare to say nothing of the farmers who raise their crops. They may continue planting, havesting and selling products even if a judge, state or federal attempts to halt that process based upon any concerns, health or environmental. EPA and FDA have been effectively neutralized, at least for the short term.

Should such a situation come to pass, and Monsanto continue in the face of eminent danger to our environment, finally putting a halt to their practices will likely be too late and Monsanto knows this as it has had experience in other countries in just such a manuver.

 

[canndo]

So far as the freely available alternatives that you claimfarmers have - we can start with seeds:

1. The great seed monopoly
2. The Multiple Ways Monsanto is Putting Normal Seeds Out of Reach
NOTE: Two pieces on the ruthless concentration of corporate power in the seed industry that's allowing Monsanto to drive up costs and aggressively undercut the rights of farmers.
------
1. The great seed monopoly

Extracts from ETC Group's report 'Who Owns Nature?'
http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pu...

In the first half of the 20th century, seeds were overwhelmingly in the hands of farmers and public-sector plant breeders. In the decades since then, Gene Giants have used intellectual property laws to commodify the world seed supply - a strategy that aims to control plant germplasm and maximize profits by eliminating Farmers' Rights.

Today, the proprietary seed market accounts for a staggering share of the world's commercial seed supply. In less than three decades, a handful of multinational corporations have engineered a fast and furious corporate enclosure of the first link in the food chain.

The world's largest seed company, Monsanto, accounts for almost one-quarter (23%) of the global proprietary seed market.

The top 3 companies (Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta) together account for $10,282 million, or 47% of the worldwide proprietary seed market.

ETC Group conservatively estimates that the top 3 seed companies control 65% of the proprietary maize seed market worldwide, and over half of the proprietary soybean seed market.

Based on industry statistics, ETC Group estimates that Monsanto's biotech seeds and traits (including those licensed to other companies) accounted for 87% of the total world area devoted to genetically engineered seeds in 2007.

"The lack of competition and innovation in the marketplace has reduced farmers' choices and enabled Monsanto to raise prices unencumbered." - Keith Mudd, Organization for Competitive Markets, following Monsanto's decision to raise some GM maize seed prices by 35%.
------
2. The Multiple Ways Monsanto is Putting Normal Seeds Out of Reach
By Linn Cohen-Cole
http://tinyurl.com/db7fnf

People say if farmers don't want problems from Monsanto, just don't buy their GMO seeds.

Not so simple. Where are farmers supposed to get normal seed these days? How are they supposed to avoid contamination of their fields from GM-crops? How are they supposed to stop Monsanto detectives from trespassing or Monsanto from using helicopters to fly over spying on them?

Monsanto contaminates the fields, trespasses onto the land taking samples and if they find any GMO plants growing there (or say they have), they then sue, saying they own the crop. It’s a way to make money since farmers can’t fight back and court and they settle because they have no choice.

And they have done and are doing a bucket load of things to keep farmers and everyone else from having any access at all to buying, collecting, and saving of NORMAL seeds.

1. They’ve bought up the seed companies across the Midwest.

2. They've written Monsanto seed laws
<http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/news/10040.htm> and gotten legislators to put them through, that make cleaning, collecting and storing of seeds so onerous in terms of fees and paperwork and testing and tracking every variety and being subject to fines, that having normal seed becomes almost impossible (an NAIS approach to wiping out normal seeds). Does your state have such a seed law? Before they existed, farmers just collected the seeds and put them in sacks in the shed and used them the next year, sharing whatever they wished with friends and neighbors, selling some if they wanted. That's been killed.

In Illinois, which has such a seed law, Madigan, the Speaker of the House, his staff is Monsanto lobbyists.

3. Monsanto is pushing anti-democracy laws (Vilsack's brainchild, actually) that remove community control over their own counties so farmers and citizens can't block the planting of GMO crops even if they can contaminate other crops. So if you don't want a GM-crop that grows industrial chemicals or drugs or a rice growing with human DNA in it, in your area and mixing with your crops, tough luck.

Check the map of just where the Monsanto/Vilsack laws are <http://www.environmentalcommons.org/image/seed-preemption...> and see if your state is still a democracy or is Monsanto’s. A farmer in Illinois told me he heard that Bush had pushed through some regulation that made this true in every state. People need to check on that.

4. For sure there are Monsanto regulations buried in the FDA right now that make a farmer's seed cleaning equipment illegal (another way to leave nothing but GM-seeds) because it’s now considered a "source of seed contamination." Farmer can still seed clean but the equipment now has to be certified and a farmer said it would require a million to a million and half dollar building and equipment … for EACH line of seed. Seed storage facilities are also listed (another million?) and harvesting and transport equipment. And manure. Something that can contaminate seed. Notice that chemical fertilizers and pesticides are not mentioned.

You could eat manure and be okay (a little grossed out but okay). Try that with pesticides and fertilizers. Indian farmers have. Their top choice for how to commit suicide to escape the debt they have been left in is to drink Monsanto pesticides.

5. Monsanto is picking off seed cleaners across the Midwest. In Pilot Grove, Missouri, <http://www.grain.org/bio-ipr/?id=548> in Indiana (Maurice Parr), and now in southern Illinois (Steve Hixon). And they are using US marshals and state troopers and county police <http://www.opednews.com/articles/MONSANTO-investigator-in...> to show up in three cars to serve the poor farmers who had used Hixon as their seed cleaner, telling them that he or their neighbors turned them in, so across that 6 county areas, no one talking to neighbors and people are living in fear and those farming communities are falling apart from the suspicion Monsanto sowed. Hixon’s office got broken into and he thinks someone put a GPS tracking device on his equipment and that’s how Monsanto found between 200-400 customers in very scattered and remote areas, and threatened them all and destroyed his business within 2 days.

So, after demanding that seed cleaners somehow be able to tell one seed from another (or be sued to kingdom come) or corrupting legislatures to put in laws about labeling of seeds that are so onerous no one can cope with them, what is Monsanto's attitude about labeling their own stuff? You guessed it - they're out there pushing laws against ANY labeling of their own GM-food and animals and of any exports to other countries. Why?
http://nonais.org/index.php/2008/02/15/monstersanto-in-ka...

We know, and they know, why.

As Norman Braksick, the president of Asgrow Seed Co. (now owned by Monsanto) predicted in the Kansas City Star (3/7/94) seven years ago, "If you put a label on a genetically engineered food, you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it."

And they've sued dairy farmers for telling the truth about their milk being rBGH-free, though rBGH is associated with an increased risk of breast, colon and prostate cancers.
http://www.keepmainefree.org/suesuesue.html

I just heard that some seed dealers urge farmers to buy the seed under the seed dealer's name, telling the farmers it helps the dealer get a discount on seed to buy a lot under their own name. Then Monsanto sues the poor farmer for buying their seed without a contract and extorts huge sums from them.

Here’s a youtube video that is worth your time. Vandana Shiva is one of the leading anti-Monsanto people in the world. In this video, she says (and this video is old), Monsanto had sued 1500 farmers whose fields had simply been contaminated by GM-crops. Listen to all the ways Monsanto goes after farmers.
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/CFSMOnsantovsFarm...

Do you know the story of Gandhi in India and how the British had salt laws that taxed salt? The British claimed it as theirs. Gandhi had what was called a Salt Satyagraha, in which people were asked to break the laws and march to the sea and collect the salt without paying the British. A kind of Boston tea party, I guess.

 

[canndo]

Thousands of people marched 240 miles to the ocean where the British were waiting. As people moved forward to collect the salt, the British soldiers clubbed them but the people kept coming. The non-violent protest exposed the British behavior, which was so revolting to the world that it helped end British control in India.

Vandana Shiva has started a Seed Satyagraha - nonviolent non-cooperation around seed laws - has gotten millions of farmers to sign a pledge to break those laws.
http://www.myhero.com/myhero/hero.asp?hero=Shiva

American farmers and cattlemen might appreciate what Gandhi fought for and what Shiva is bringing back and how much it is about what we are all so angry about - loss of basic freedoms.

The Seed Satyagraha is the name for the nonviolent, noncooperative movement that Dr. Shiva has organized to stand against seed monopolies. According to Dr. Shiva, the name was inspired by Gandhi’s famous walk to the Dandi Beach, where he picked up salt and said, “You can’t monopolize this which we need for life.” But it’s not just the noncooperation aspect of the movement that is influenced by Gandhi. The creative side saving seeds, trading seeds, farming without corporate dependence–without their chemicals, without their seed.

” All this is talked about in the language that Gandhi left us as a legacy. We work with three key concepts.”

” (One) Swadeshi…which means the capacity to do your own thing–produce your own food, produce your own goods….”

“(Two) Swaraj–to govern yourself. And we fight on three fronts–water, food, and seed. JalSwaraj is water independence–water freedom and water sovereignty. Anna Swaraj is food freedom, food sovereignty. And Bija Swaraj is seed freedom and seed sovereignty. Swa means self–that which rises from the self and is very, very much a deep notion of freedom.

“I believe that these concepts, which are deep, deep, deep in Indian civilization, Gandhi resurrected them to fight for freedom. They are very important for today’s world because so far what we’ve had is centralized state rule, giving way now to centralized corporate control, and we need a third alternate. That third alternate is, in part, citizens being able to tell their state, ‘This is what your function is. This is what your obligations are,’ and being able to have their states act on corporations to say, ‘This is something you cannot do.’”

” (Three) Satyagraha, non-cooperation, basically saying, ‘We will do our thing and any law that tries to say that (our freedom) is illegal… we will have to not cooperate with it. We will defend our freedoms to have access to water, access to seed, access to food, access to medicine.’
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_16844.cfm
Now, you are not going to see a whole lot of main stream media sources here. If you intend to attack the sources rather than follow the links then we really havn't much to talk about. The mainstream media is loath to report on these things for a variety of reasons. They are not sexy, they know that Monsantlo will show its colors in the same way they did over the rBST reporting by Jane Akre and her husband (two MORE liars?), and the issues are complex.
So we work with what we have and try to glean the truth.

 

[Pinworm]

Thanks for this thread Canndo. I've been doing tons of reading about this since you posted. I'm sort of blown away.

 

[canndo]

Thanks for this thread Canndo. I've been doing tons of reading about this since you posted. I'm sort of blown away.

It gets worse and worse as you dig.

However, in an effort to either make more money or set up a cover for their practices, Monsanto has done something, perhaps, possibly, admirable - we shall see.

http://www.wired.com/2014/01/new-monsanto-vegetables/?amp%3Bco=f000000009816s-1158206718

 

[tokeprep]

All right. Let's address the Serilini study. The short version is that currently over 200 respected scientists are calling for the journal to retract its... retraction.

That's it? Now how many scientists said the study was total bullshit? Improper sample sizes. Blaming cancer on GM foods when 70%-80% of the test subjects would normally be expected to get cancer anyway during the course of the study. How much were the cancer-prone rats fed? We have no idea, which is rather interesting considering that it has a direct relation to cancer rates in the rats.

The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Health Canada, the French Haut Conseil de biotechnologies, the National Agency for Food Safety, the Vlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie, the Technical University of Denmark, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, the Brazilian National Technical Commission on Biosafety, and the European Food Safety Authority, the French Académies nationales d’Agriculture, de Médecine, de Pharmacie, des Sciences, des Technologies, et Vétérinaire were in universal agreement: the Seralini study was hopelessly flawed. But those Europeans and other non-Americans are all in Monsanto's pockets, right? Monsanto paid them to say that, right?

As I said, there were political forces at work there. We can go into them if you like but consider something else, as you look into this you will find more and more people who are in opposition to GMOs being called liars, being debunked and blacklisted. Some were highly respected and far from quacks or radicals but now we see a growing trail of ruined careers and "liars" when those people come into conflict with one particular company.

Like who?

This evidence is not enough to simply denounce the company nor their products but look a little bit deeper and you will find that they managed to do the same thing aboiut the nay sayers over other of their products. Products that eventually we DID find were detrimental to our health. I spoke of Dioxin, "agent orange", 2,4 d and 2,4,5 t and rBST to name four - I will not begin with DDT. If you want we can do that on another thread as it too was made political and taken from pure science for political reasons.

It's a logical fallacy to presume that company studies cannot possibly be accurate ever, under any circumstances, because some company's past study on some other subject was inaccurate.

Not that it matters. You're back to talking about company studies and ignoring all of the independent and publicly funded studies that have made exactly the same conclusions.

But back to your post. You don't seem to be addressing the issue, the nature of the plants themselves indicate that it is very difficult to revert to older "technology" (tough to call the act of saving, planting and havesting seeds technology).

Again, you seem to be simply trusting the power of the marketplace without taking into account the particulars.

Imagine a plain of corn and infrastructure geared ONLY for that corn. You are a farmer and there is storage only for corn witihin 50 miles of your farm. Corn has been grown there for the last 30 years and nothig else. You want to plant gmo free corn but as I said, volunteers in your own field and cross pollination not only endanger the purity of your crop but your economic viability due to threats of, and actual lawsuit from the patent holders.

I have to stop here because you mentioned patents. In cases of legitimate cross-pollination there is no threat whatsoever of a successful law suit from a patent holder. Testing of the crop would make it obvious whether a farmer intentionally tried to violate a patent or not. In Canada, it was blatantly obvious that the farmer was a liar in his claim of cross-pollination because his crop was 90-something percent Monsanto seed. There's just no way. It was impossible.

In cases of legitimate cross-pollination the courts have concluded that there is no patent violation. Period.

So you must change crops. Which crop other than a grain might you grow? answer, none, they all require different storage and delivery systems that you do not have access to.

You bypass resistant weeds in a vague "well the market will work" hope when as I said, there really is no "market" on the level of individual farmers.

Now then...how do organic farmers not have a problem with this right now if it's such a substantial issue? I'm genuinely ignorant. Are you telling us that supposedly organic food is actually already substantially contaminated by GM crops?

I think the rest of what you're saying makes my case. If that GM corn becomes less economical than its rival and it's impossible to grow the rival, it would make sense to replace all of the infrastructure to plant something else, wouldn't it? Doesn't that eliminate or at least vastly reduce the risk of cross-pollination? The cost would certainly be justified if the profits to be made from GM corn decline over other possible alternatives, counting the necessary refurbishments or improvements, if the rival cannot possibly be produced. That's the market working with no magic required. It happens all the time already.