Just Grounds Community

For Like minded people who like to see-

Monsanto..the company that doesn't understand NO!

http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/Publications/Food-Beverage-Nutri...

USDA report

Monsanto has fought this decision repeatedly in the courts and is now taking the case to the Supreme Court even thought the final EIS report is due for publication next month.

Garrett Kasper, a spokesperson for Monsanto, said the company is continuing the legal battle in order to fight for grower rights and set a legal precedent.

The Center for Food Safety disagrees with this assessment. Andrew Kimbrell, the executive director of the organic lobby group, said Monsanto is pushing the case all the way to the Supreme Court even though the USDA analysis is now complete and the US government has actively opposed further litigation.

This, Kimbrell said: “Underscores the great lengths that Monsanto will go to further its mission of patent control of our food system and selling more pesticides.”

Monsanto LOST the appeal 3x before, yet continue to press the case. they Talk of Growers rights?
when the rights of growers using their products are NIL as far as freedom to sell outside their control to save seed or to choose what chemicals and fertilizers to use.

Monsanto tried to SUE the French government ( really they did) over the Banning of Mon 810 last year, the govt decided there Was enough reason to doubt the safety of it, yet M wanted to force it into a market that didn't want it, to people who do NOT want to eat it or feed it to their animals.

Very thorough checking of the USDA's own data on crops areas and yields and the Limited (very) data supplied by M showed , apart from Some years(when corn borer and cotton bugs were a problem) there is/was NO appreciable increase in yield or saving to farmers.
most (from memory) were 13% lower.( for the full PDF on it go to www.unionofconcernedscientists.com

Mon seeds are up 42% in one news report I blogged on . Hugh Grant wants a fourfold profit increase and any Farmer is the bunny that makes their profit.
sob sob, their profits were down a lot as the Patent rights on Roundup expired so many cheaper copies are now around...enter the next move Multiple traits, up to 6. and If you, like me, were concerned about the unknown issues with one trait, well theres a lot more to be concerned about now.
The first ones took years to hit the market, these are really quite fast, which leads me to wonder just How? and what? testing for safety was done. feeding 4 cows for a few days?
About the same as the first? and that was scant, badly designed and kept very very secret.

I also point out that here in Aus ANY GM pollen taint in honey means its rejected, and many apiarists rely on Lucerne in times between native flora.
If as with Canola the areas are kept as secret as they can, then all honey products are at risk. in a struggling industry, this is just another cruel blow to producers.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Rory Donnellan on January 20, 2010 at 8:51am

Please see the documentary "The World According to Monsanto" produced by ARTE France and the National Film Board of Canada

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt Thompson on January 20, 2010 at 10:21am

Monsanto does not deserve this thrahing they get. They have not done any thing wrong, and have been the ones that have made this new technology available to millions when no one else wants to do anything other than talk. This technology produces better food, cheaper, with less chemicals and burning less fuel. If you don't like them being successful then the only thing you should be able to do is come up with a better way than they have. That is the way the system must work.
Again, this hatred of achievement is astonishing and dissappointing.
I congratulate Monsanto and I hope they keep up this fight and never give up!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rory Donnellan on January 20, 2010 at 10:34am

http://www.cfnews.org/gm-threat.htm

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rory Donnellan on January 20, 2010 at 10:39am

This was posted some time back on Agmates - the first in a 5 part series entitled Monsanto Patent for a Pig...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-ouf_gmA5o

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt Thompson on January 20, 2010 at 10:56am

One of the many things the rock throwers fail to inform the public about. They always claim this terrible genetic modification is done with the intention of allowing Monsanto to monopolize ag chemicals and force farmers to use only their product. Legally they can not force farmers to use their product.

For those of you independent readers in the cities that might be interested.
Monsanto did originally develop the herbecide glyphosate under the trade name Round Up. Glyphosate is now widely used on farms and gardens because it is effective, non toxic, and not harmful to animals.
The patent on Roundup expired a long time ago, and now most farmers use generic versions of glyphosate. Of course, contrary to what you may have been led to believe, "Roundup Ready" genetically modified crops can not distinguish between Monsanto's glyphosate (Roundup) and generic versions of glyphosate.
Therefore, it is fallacy to say that Monsanto is forcing people to use Roundup herbicide. Generic glyphosates are well established and work fine in Round up ready programs.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rory Donnellan on January 20, 2010 at 6:42pm

Matt, you make some good points. Those of us who are skeptical of Monsanto are not against innovation or biotechnology per se - only concerned with safety, and wary of monopolies.
From past experience, many chemicals initially reported to be safe, are with time and further study, shown to have significant side-effects. You may remember that thalidomide (which causes major foetal abnormalities) was initially listed as safe for use in pregnancy.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Laurel Ender on January 20, 2010 at 9:47pm

186 days in the soil and longer in certain circumstances to me do NOT make it enviro friendly, yeah its is "safer " than 24D, Imidacloprid and the Atrazine families..doesn't mean its good.
Forcing? hmm well when a seed/plant IS tailored for Only that poison to be used?
and as to Choice? well as shown in USA and Canada after they manage to get a few farms in any area growing the seed and pollens do the rest, the law suits on Contaminated farms always seem to go Mons way...hmm?
The only winners I know of in recent history is Rice Growers in america who had their crops contaminated with GN abd DI manage to claim compensation, and not before time!
I think it was another company too Syngenta or Dow, seems they don,t fight as dirty.
and even Dow is complaining about Mons 80% starnglehold on world seed supplies.
and wether Roundups licence expired if you grow their seeds they Expect you to buy the chemicals and fertiliser They make to "comply with the contract" or else if something goes wrong,(as it often seems to) they could easily use it as an Out.
see the Massive empty corn harvest in Sth Africa last year, they blamed farmers, planting, water, mis/under use of fertilizers etc..
eventually they said: and this is goofy! "that underfertilization of seeds in the LAB??? in 3! varieties? was the reason. we are talking thousands of acres of seed, and the plants needed to breed that seed would have been rather a large volume, not a small lab, more a controlled area.
wonder what did? if anything? get fertilized:-)

as to the aboce this comment.
better food, says them..not anyone else.
cheaper? at 50 + times MORE per acre sown, and 100% whatever the cost of self saved area adapted standard heritage seed that breeds true.
highest chemical fertilizer and high water use dependant?
and most importantly the consumers do not want it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Laurel Ender on January 20, 2010 at 9:54pm

yes, and also see my BPA post. how many Industry?govt collusions kept saying it was safe?
now even the FDA is admitting they ignored vast documentation saying to be wary and relied on 2! Industry funded tailored safety assessments.
This is exactly what we the NON hysterical sane and sceptical consumers are concerned about.
ALL seed for testing is rarely handed out anyway, when it is Mon want control of results, and will stop any info they see as predjudicial , being published.
see the NYTimes report on the Corn researchers who were studying the root system and effects on biota and life in soils of the BT corn residues. they had funding pulled and were unable to continue..
and the "safe natural??" same as the organic folks use BT.
uh uh
the mon version is thousands of times stronger and is itself Modified genetically.
not a good look! and we eat it? it kills bugs and remains in the entire plant including stubble. it was found to survive in the human bowel after digestion, yummo??
see,
www.seedsofdestruction.com
or better yet the libraries have Genetic Roulette by Jeffrey Smith and before you say its fine and anyone protesting is a luddite or a nut. read what the reports say.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rory Donnellan on January 21, 2010 at 1:53pm

Matt's right. If you don't want to buy from Monsanto, you are not being forced.
However, if you do decide to buy from Monsanto, you need to be fully aware of the consequences and base your decision on facts - not false advertising.
Monsanto don't win all the lawsuits - for instance they have been found guilty in at least 2 major court decisions (one in the US and one in Europe) of falsely advertising that Roundup is biodegradable.
Monsanto have a shocking record when it comes to safety - PCB's dumped into creeks and buried in back-yards, dioxins poisoning employees, Agent Orange causing major problems in Vietnam-vets etc etc. In an out-of-court settlement, Monsanto had to relinquish 700 million US dollars to residents of one neighborhood where they dumped PCBs. Posilac, although a very nice idea, has been demonstrated to cause increases in insulin-like growth factor in the milk of treated cows, which in turn has been associated with cancer in humans - not just rats. Posilac was not banned in Europe and Canada for no reason. The ban in Canada came in spite of a 1-2 million US dollar "incentive" offered to agriculture and health officials over there.
All of this and more is well-documented in "The World According to Monsanto", which is available free on youtube. Here's the first in the 10 part series, which again, has been highlighted on Agmates previously...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r30edIuaZto

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rory Donnellan on January 21, 2010 at 5:41pm

Alan,
You are right. Monsanto are by no means the only villains out there.
I'd like to think they learned some valuable lessons from their past safety problems, but I wouldn't bet the bank on it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt Thompson on January 21, 2010 at 7:01pm

If farmer's can't produce better crops cheaper using this technology, then you have nothing to worry about, they won't do it.

I think what Monsanto has done is absolutely fantastic and I hope other companies can get more involved in this. I would like to see University research in WA working on saline tolerant lucern. We could solve the salinity problem in three years.

Why does everyone still have to attack success. Why do we hate companies that improve and innovate. Why do we insist on teaching our children that bad is good, and good is bad.
It is a very destructive thing.