March Against Monsanto

[Raymond Fries]

I just got back from participating in our local march. There was an excellent turnout here to protest GMO food manufacturing and our voice to have GMO food labeled.

How was the turnout in your city?

Odd that this is a worldwide protest and I have yet to see anything on the main stream media. I wish the USA would catch up to the European countries where GMO food is illegal. We would be a healthier nation.

Enjoy Life...

[Art Mann]

I didn't hear about any such activities until you posted. Of course, some kinds of genetic manipulation of food crops have been going on for centuries by way of plant breeding. The earth would mostly be starving if it were not for all those hundreds of years of effort. How do you determine what is good genetic manipulation and what is bad? I am not being facetious. I am just not very informed on the issue.

[Mike Henderson]

I hadn't heard about it either. But I agree that some of the GMO is very valuable. For example, "golden rice" which contains a vitamin which prevents blindness because of the deficiency in normal diets in part of the world.

GMO can be a force for good or it can create problems. Banning all GMO is not the right choice, in my opinion.

Mike

[Dave Sheldrake]

I wish the USA would catch up to the European countries where GMO food is illegal

It's not illegal here, it just has to be approved and marked, animals fed on GM feeds aren't required to be notified at all.

cheers

Dave

[Prashun Patel]

Ooh this is a dangerous thread. Gmo's dangers and values are highly debatable and frankly unpredictable.

the bigger problem is the stranglehold monsanto has on commercial seed production and use.

[Roger Feeley]

I have heard that there is some corporate bullying going on. You have an organic farmer growing legacy produce. The wind blows some GMO pollen into his fields and blends with his crop. The corporate guys come around and test his crop find some patented DNA. They sue the farmer for patent infringement. The farmer, being a little guy can't do much.

[Dennis Peacock]

This thread is being watched and subject to being closed. Let's try and keep this on topic...shall we?

[Steve Rozmiarek]

Ok, I'll breathe deeply before posting...

I make my living using GMO tech. Marching against Monsanto is an attack on my livelihood so I take this personally. People who blatantly kowtow to a political agenda by partaking in this nonsense without even bothering to understand the facts of whatever it is they are protesting, are quite frankly being manipulated by a "dog whistle" sent by someone who needs mindless masses to gain power. Don't be used like that.

Prashen put forward a legitimate complaint about Monsanto, their near monopoly on one specific trait for many years probably should have been prosecuted. The patent is up though now, there is competition finally. It's an interesting subject.

Roger, one of those organic producers took a bogus case to a liberal judge and shut down a whole industry for a while. It was thrown out eventually by a sane court. Who's bullying who? I personally had to lay people off over that.

I'm not personally attacking anyone, just keep in mind that there are other sides to this.

[Raymond Fries]

Here is some scientific data if you want to research:
http://foodrevolution.org/blog/forme...gmo-scientist/
http://www.responsibletechnology.org...h-risks/1notes

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Who paid for the studies and the data? What was the scientist's theories and beliefs BEFORE they did the studies?

Everyday new studies come out countering what previous studies found.

Point blank, if you have the money you can buy any study results you want. I would suggest that scientists today will allow their pre-study ideas to sway their research to gain not the unbiased data but rather that which backs their theories.

Food revolution.org...... responsibletechnology.org.....hmmmmm....I would be concerned about their objectivity without even going to the site. I've seen enough.

[Dave Sheldrake]

Sadly Ray on more than one occasion there have been highly qualified members of the community I was a part of who turned against their previous disciplines with some quite scathing reports. There is usually an underlying reason for their sudden change of heart that is rarely reported.

For example:

http://humansarefree.com/2014/02/why...fukushima.html

I suggest that they know that the many of nuclear reactors in the United States are also prone to catastrophic meltdown, and they are doing nothing about it.

Reactors can melt down, as can any fission type reactor but they are not in any way prone to it when operated correctly but the byline suggests it is some wild conspiracy to withold information that half the planet is upon being made uninhabitable for the next 240,000 years.

In the second link the poster has suggested that he/she is providing evidence? without checkable data and blind testing / peer review all it actually provides is anecdote and speculation based on opinion. The data may exist but unless it is presented it means nothing.

cheers

Dave

Edit: Just saw Kens post, that about sums up my tale on it as well

[Greg Peterson]

Ooh this is a dangerous thread. Gmo's dangers and values are highly debatable and frankly unpredictable.

the bigger problem is the stranglehold monsanto has on commercial seed production and use.

BINGO! Monsanto's business practice is beyond heavy handed.

People often confuse hybridization with genetically modifying a plant. Inserting DNA into a plant is not the same as cross fertilizing.

In 2012, Dr. Charles Benbrook of Washington State University had a study on Roundup ready crops published in the peer reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe. The use of glyphosate based herbicides had increased each year by upwards of 25% due to the emergence of glyphosate tolerant weeds. In the first few years the GE crops worked well. But weeds migrated that were tolerant and existing weeds developed tolerance. In 1999, growers applied 1.5 million pounds of the herbicide. By 2011, 90 million pounds were being applied. The frequency and quantity per application increased each year in order to remain effective.

"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."

"A June 2013 ruling of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC conceded to the plaintiffs' argument that contamination from Monsanto seeds would occur, but ultimately dismissed them: "because Monsanto has made binding assurances that it will not 'take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes (because, for example, some transgenic seed or pollen blew onto the grower's land)." (source)

As Rady Ananda points out, a "trace amount" in this ruling, only means less than one percent contamination of a crop! Those are not the percentages of contamination in the real world - i.e. Monsanto can sue, sue, sue. Furthermore, less than one percent contamination still leaves the integrity of an organic crop ruined. It does not settle the issue of Monsanto trespassing on private land to take samples for infringement cases."

"Organic farmer and President of Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA), Jim Gerritsen, had said:
Our farmers want nothing to do with Monsanto. We are not customers of Monsanto. We don't want their seed. We don't want their gene-spliced technology. We don't want their trespass onto our farms. We don't want their contamination of our crops. We don't want to have to defend ourselves from aggressive assertions of patent infringement because Monsanto refuses to keep their pollution on their side of the fence. We want justice."

Link

Regardless of whether one supports GMO or not, consumers have a right to make an informed decision when it comes to something as fundamental as choosing the food they feed their family. We know the country of origin, why can we not know if the food contains GMO's? Or more likely the case, foods that do not contain GMO's.

[John C Lawson]

I hadn't heard about it either. But I agree that some of the GMO is very valuable. For example, "golden rice" which contains a vitamin which prevents blindness because of the deficiency in normal diets in part of the world.

GMO can be a force for good or it can create problems. Banning all GMO is not the right choice, in my opinion.

Mike

While I am undecided about GMO food, I would like to point out that GMO e. coli and yeast (depending on manufacturer) produce the human insulin that keeps Type 1 and many Type 2 diabetics alive with many fewer complications.

[Dennis Peacock]

Steve Rozmiarek,
If you make your living via GMO....then why don't you share what you know to be "truth"...real truth if you please. I am far more impressed by people who see the bad AND the good side of things when they post supporting arguments about "stuff". I don't mean this in a derogatory manner....just that if you complain because we don't know the truth? Then why not tell us?

I am against Monsanto because of their very poor business ethics and practices. It would suit me fine if someone shut them down for good...IMHO.

But....allow me to say this.....A Woodworking forum is not the place to fight nor bicker about stuff like this. I realize this is an Off Topic Forum section, but still, a woodworking forum is not the platform to get truth out to the general public that is causing your livelihood to be threatened.

[Dale Murray]

Who paid for the studies and the data? What was the scientist's theories and beliefs BEFORE they did the studies?

Everyday new studies come out countering what previous studies found.

Point blank, if you have the money you can buy any study results you want. I would suggest that scientists today will allow their pre-study ideas to sway their research to gain not the unbiased data but rather that which backs their theories.

Food revolution.org...... responsibletechnology.org.....hmmmmm....I would be concerned about their objectivity without even going to the site. I've seen enough.

You response actually contained zero useful information, instead tried to call into question the validity of the material.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to the thread in general.

How would you feel if a Frisbee manufacturer drove around your neighborhood flipping Frisbees onto your lawn then later sent lawyers around to sue you for possession of their Frisbees? I know it is not exactly the same but it is equally as ridiculous as them sewing somebody who is involuntarily using their tech via pollination. They should be sued for crop contamination in such cases.