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

[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.

[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.

[Steve Rozmiarek]

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.

Sure, be glad to. A little background is probably in order. I am a farmer first, growing corn, sugar beets, hard red wheat, and several types of dry edible beans. My farm has grown around 10% of this nation's great northern bean production for example. I've also worked in boardrooms of companies that take beans from the field to the grocery store shelf.

Monsanto brought out a trait called Round Up ready, more than a decade ago. I doubt that most of the anti GMO crowd even know what it does. What RR does is make the plant tolerant of a non selective Monsanto chemical, Roundup. It'll kill most everything but the RR ready crop. We use the RR corn, soybeans, and sugar beets. The benefits of this are that you can use a simple, safe chemical program of a couple that work very well, vs the massively expensive and much more dangerous cocktails of the past. Atrazine for example is a chemical that the enviros tend to bemoan. RR has pretty much replaced it in corn fields, and is much safer.

These RR crops can now be grown no, or minimum till, which eliminated erosion, ala the dust bowl. They can be grown cheaper now that competition has lowered the prices finally for the seed and chemical, and they are a better quality product, ie you can clean up the toxic nightshade infestations that couldn't be controlled in a beet field, so they don't happen in the food grade beans and end up on your table.

Flip side is, Monsanto acted like a monopoly to get to this point. It was tolerated because they make great products that really work, and probably significant lobbying. You can buy generic glyphosate (Roundup's active ingredient) now for a small fraction of the prices they were charging during the height of their reign. There is a new business model there now though. Sugar beets went RR several years ago. Because of the generic RR availability, the profit is built into a tech fee now. A unit of sugar beet seed will cost around $350, half actual seed, half tech fee. This is tolerable because the RR trait allows a safer cleaner product. The finances are similar at this point.

No RR crops are direct to human consumption. They all get turned into cattle feed, fuels, or processed into something else. Personally, I'd be much more worried about the safety of the processing facilities than the GMO trait. An interesting detail, consumers don't seem to care where their food comes from. There has been a tremendous fight to try to get beef source verified, and the consumer simply doesn't seem to care. They would rather save a buck and import cheaper dry edible beans from China that have potentially been fertilized with raw human waste than by local. To compete with whatever shady activities happen around the world to make "food" to sell to the USA, our farmers need these technologies to raise efficiencies to compete.

I mentioned sugar beets. The industry started growing RR sugar beets 5 years ago. Two years after that, a group of enviro's sued on behalf of a small seed grower. They claimed that the seed was being contaminated by pollinating sugar beets. Sugar beets don't pollinate in farming, they are a biannual, so they get harvested prior to flowering. The suit shut down the beet industry for a bit. It eventually got tossed but it cost many much.

I have to get going, will be happy to add more if any want.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Please post more when you have a chance Steve!

[george wilson]

I am afraid that Monsanto may be causing the bees to die off with their genetically altered plants. We do not know the unseen side effects these crops might have. But,something is very wrong with the bees. If we lose them,we will be in horrible trouble.

[Mike Henderson]

I am afraid that Monsanto may be causing the bees to die off with their genetically altered plants. We do not know the unseen side effects these crops might have. But,something is very wrong with the bees. If we lose them,we will be in horrible trouble.

The cause of colony collapse disorder (CCD) is not clear and is probably due to multiple stress factors affecting the hive at the same time. Researchers have examined GMO pollen as a factor and have not found that it correlates with CCD. I'm not an expert on bees, although I have one hive in my backyard to pollinate my avocado trees. I do follow the research on bees just because I'm interested.

I'll just comment that pollination of the almond crop here in CA is big business but puts real stress on the hives. The hives are transported long distances and the crops around the almond groves may be using certain chemicals which stress the bees, even if the almond growers are not.

Mike

[Greg Peterson]

Japan and Europe cancelled their wheat orders from the NW when it was discovered that a farmer's crop had contaminated by GMO's. Surprisingly, Monsanto has yet to sue the farmer for patent infringement although apparently they would have the right to do so.

The farmers who have customers that require non-GMO product should have standing in the US court system to seek remedy from Monsanto when the farmers crop is compromised by Monsanto's GMO's.

If Monsanto wants to lock farmers into annual leases (licenses), so be it. But if their product contaminates another farmers crop, it is the non-GMO farmer that is the injured party, not Monsanto. It is magnanimous of Monsanto to agree to not sue farmers whose crop is not significantly polluted by their product. But where is the recourse for the farmer when their seed line is contaminated and forever altered? How is this even remotely ethical or reasonable?

If I have a choice between a non-GMO and GMO product, I would select the non-GMO product. In part because I don't think the science on GMO's is in yet, but also because non-GMO farmers are fighting an uphill battle against the industrial agriculture industry.

Without farmers, there would be no us. I honestly do not understand how they do it. I can imagine few jobs more labor intensive for little in return than farming.

[David Weaver]

Sure, be glad to. A little background is probably in order. I am a farmer first, growing corn, sugar beets, hard red wheat, and several types of dry edible beans. My farm has grown around 10% of this nation's great northern bean production for example. I've also worked in boardrooms of companies that take beans from the field to the grocery store shelf.

Monsanto brought out a trait called Round Up ready, more than a decade ago. I doubt that most of the anti GMO crowd even know what it does. What RR does is make the plant tolerant of a non selective Monsanto chemical, Roundup. It'll kill most everything but the RR ready crop. We use the RR corn, soybeans, and sugar beets. The benefits of this are that you can use a simple, safe chemical program of a couple that work very well, vs the massively expensive and much more dangerous cocktails of the past. Atrazine for example is a chemical that the enviros tend to bemoan. RR has pretty much replaced it in corn fields, and is much safer.

These RR crops can now be grown no, or minimum till, which eliminated erosion, ala the dust bowl. They can be grown cheaper now that competition has lowered the prices finally for the seed and chemical, and they are a better quality product, ie you can clean up the toxic nightshade infestations that couldn't be controlled in a beet field, so they don't happen in the food grade beans and end up on your table.

Flip side is, Monsanto acted like a monopoly to get to this point. It was tolerated because they make great products that really work, and probably significant lobbying. You can buy generic glyphosate (Roundup's active ingredient) now for a small fraction of the prices they were charging during the height of their reign. There is a new business model there now though. Sugar beets went RR several years ago. Because of the generic RR availability, the profit is built into a tech fee now. A unit of sugar beet seed will cost around $350, half actual seed, half tech fee. This is tolerable because the RR trait allows a safer cleaner product. The finances are similar at this point.

No RR crops are direct to human consumption. They all get turned into cattle feed, fuels, or processed into something else. Personally, I'd be much more worried about the safety of the processing facilities than the GMO trait. An interesting detail, consumers don't seem to care where their food comes from. There has been a tremendous fight to try to get beef source verified, and the consumer simply doesn't seem to care. They would rather save a buck and import cheaper dry edible beans from China that have potentially been fertilized with raw human waste than by local. To compete with whatever shady activities happen around the world to make "food" to sell to the USA, our farmers need these technologies to raise efficiencies to compete.

I mentioned sugar beets. The industry started growing RR sugar beets 5 years ago. Two years after that, a group of enviro's sued on behalf of a small seed grower. They claimed that the seed was being contaminated by pollinating sugar beets. Sugar beets don't pollinate in farming, they are a biannual, so they get harvested prior to flowering. The suit shut down the beet industry for a bit. It eventually got tossed but it cost many much.

I have to get going, will be happy to add more if any want.

Contamination of other pollinating crops is a problem, though, even if it's not with sugar beets. Anyone who has crop contaminated will just get rolled, there's nothing they can do about it.

I personally would rather see GMO labeling. To give monsanto a bye would be out of bounds in my book, though I'm sure our renter plants monsanto products. But they (M and not the renter) bought our legislature and got a law put on the books to keep us from being able to label milk has having rBST treated cows or not. Now, I'm not calling for BST to be made illegal or anything, but I'd like to be able to get labeled products. My distaste for them has more to do with how they conduct themselves than with necessarily known problems with their genetic trait.

There's really no reason they should've gone to our legislature and lobbied for a law to ban labeling something that is perfectly honest, factual and true. That's what I don't like.

Should there be a problem (like there was with dioxin laced Agent Orange), their response would probably be the same as it has been for Agent Orange, which is, and I quote:
"Monsanto should not be liable at all for injuries or deaths caused by Agent Orange.....reliable scientific evidence indicates that Agent Orange is not the cause of serious long-term health effects"

(maybe not, but when you lace it with dioxins and they are, you should probably take some responsibility).

I agree, though, too, that eating food grown in heavy concentrations of atrazine isn't an attractive option, either.

Maybe if we weren't so wasteful with our crops, we wouldn't need to have the perfect yield conditions that are needed to meet demands to burn food, etc. Maybe we'd have better quality food, too, instead of so much processed low protein and low vitamin trash.