March Against Monsanto
- Thread starter YowYan
- Start date
King Of Crows
Active member
Monsanto is a biotech giant that produces 'genetically modified organisms' aka GMO's that are practically poisoning us on the long run. Monsanto is a powerfull company that has its ties within the american government as you can see in the image.I don't understand!!
hernandez93901
Member
**** Monsanto, it has been banned by around 40 countries or so world-wide but yet the government continues to go along with it. Ironic how so many marches have been put on in this nation but yet we don't hear about it in the current media. Coincidence? I dont think so 
Would you care to provide evidence of this?
That Genetically Modidified crops constitute a toxicity risk to humans, that is.
Any large company is.
The Farmers Unions are far more destructive in their policies, to be perfectly honest with you. They throw away, easily, half their yearly crop yield on any average year in price-fixing schemes that are technically anti-competitive. There's also a tie-in with the food-stamp program that I'm still researching and trying to get a 'boots on ground' perspective of. Small family farms are all but forced to join the farmers unions (outside of negligibly small operations) - once they 'are on the radar' - the farmers' Unions will release the stores they typically end up throwing away to send market pricing well below what those operations can afford to operate on.
That is something that is not within consumer power to correct - and would justify public attention and corrective legal action.
If you don't like Monsato - buy certified organic.
My biggest qualm with produce from the grocery store is that most of it must be picked green and, thus, must ripen on the shelves. You, also, have little control over the breeds/varieties of a given produce. Which is why I prefer to have a garden. There is greater nutrient content in vine-ripened foods, and many foods take on a completely different hue of flavors. There's nothing quite like the taste of a vine-ripened seeded watermelon. I'm not quite sure why Americans have developed such a love affair with the bland, stunted seedless varieties that appear in stores to insult me... but they have, and I hate them for it with a passion (because every god damned one of them in the store is 'seedless').
I do it mostly for the flavor, and because I'm a paranoid survivalist. I'd eventually like to get to where I'm plausibly able to support myself purely with what I can harvest (protein gets a little tricky, here - I expect the years immediately following the apocalypse to be very taxing on meat supplies with over-hunting and collapse of livestock numbers to force a largely vegetarian approach to survivalist strategies).
I've no qualms with genetic engineering.
Hakairyoku
Active member
Awards
I went to the march here. I feel like it was pretty successful, and the amount of people that turned out was really good. But GMOs in general are killing the diversity of seeds and honey bees, to name a few things. Monsanto definitely doesn't help, that's for damn sure. :erm:
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
Don't let their marketing confuse you. They say what they want to get people to buy their products, true, scientific, or not.
The fact is - there are huge varieties of seeds for sale - and the variety continues to increase through a number of means.
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
That's a variety I've got growing (actually, I have a strain that is alleged to predate the strain released commercially as the "Indigo Rose" - called the P20... whether or not that is really what it is could only be determined through a level of genetic analysis that is beyond my ability to perform - but they're of the OSU derived variety).
The fact is that GMO seeds are really only popular among farmers who have massive fields to maintain. Heirlooms and even some of their interesting hybrids (hybrids are not bad - they are just not a stable crop. If you take two separate heirloom varieties and cross them - you'll get a hybrid. The hybrid may or may not produce fertile seeds - but if it does, its offspring will not be the same as the hybrid - they will be a mixed group of the original heirlooms) - have always been the domain of small farmers and home gardners.
... No. That's not GMO at all.
The main factor in limiting the variety of honeybees is commercial bee keeping, itself. The overwhelming majority of commercial bee keepers travel - they load their bees up into specially designed trucks that they then park in regions to polinate the crops. This is a sort of requirement in modern farming - it's not practical to sustain bee colonies large enough to handle the polination duty locally throughout the season.
Of course - that's hard on the bees.
There are other factors contributing to something known as Colony Collapse Disorder:
You must be registered for see links
It's mostly noticed by commercial bee keepers who travel (which is where it has the most impact). Local bee keepers have reported the phenomena, on occasion - but there is reason to believe that it's always been present - it is just that it is now more problematic for corporate farming due to the bee keeping practices (which dramatically increase the types and variety of pathogens a colony will be exposed to).
Monsato is an eventuality of the farming market. They represent a centralized seed recovery and packaging service for farmers that would, otherwise, have to take on such expenses themselves. Rather - they simply buy the seed from a specialized service.
Monsanto and co has been found illegally killing off honey bees and remaining queens in what was it..Virginiam perhaps? Not sure.
Because Monsanto has good ties with government officials, they managed to get a law accepted that protects them grom proscecution and such.
I'm subscribed to several reliable news sources concerning Monsanto. Sadly, I'm not at my home this week so I can't share the sources atm.
Other than needing proof, ask yourself: If GMO's aren't harmfull and elevate yhe productiveness of agriculture, then why is it that so many countries already banned GMO's, the people fiercely protesting against the gmo crop distribution in their country and why do animal test subjects develop tumors after consuming gmo's? So, you're telling me all those thousands of protestors, all the scientists proving gmo's to be harmfull, are misinformed fools?
If only you were as half as intelligent as you think you are.
Scuse my engrish (touch screen phone)
Because Monsanto has good ties with government officials, they managed to get a law accepted that protects them grom proscecution and such.
I'm subscribed to several reliable news sources concerning Monsanto. Sadly, I'm not at my home this week so I can't share the sources atm.
Other than needing proof, ask yourself: If GMO's aren't harmfull and elevate yhe productiveness of agriculture, then why is it that so many countries already banned GMO's, the people fiercely protesting against the gmo crop distribution in their country and why do animal test subjects develop tumors after consuming gmo's? So, you're telling me all those thousands of protestors, all the scientists proving gmo's to be harmfull, are misinformed fools?
If only you were as half as intelligent as you think you are.
Scuse my engrish (touch screen phone)
Last edited:
Darthlawsuit
Active member
I could say a lot about this but ill just give ya this:
Monsanto requires farmers to sign multi-year contracts with them before they will even let them sample the seeds. If you don't sign the contract and buy non-trademarked seeds they will sue you if even one of those seeds cross pollinated with their trademarked crop, forcing you to burn your entire crop. You cannot grow your own crops with seeds from the last harvest due to Monsanto and their attack lawyers trademarked a genetic line and if those genetics appear in your crop then they can force you to burn your entire crop, as if farmers could politely tell pollinators not to cross contaminate.
They also manipulate genes without enough testing and have made some nasty mistakes due to that.
Monsanto requires farmers to sign multi-year contracts with them before they will even let them sample the seeds. If you don't sign the contract and buy non-trademarked seeds they will sue you if even one of those seeds cross pollinated with their trademarked crop, forcing you to burn your entire crop. You cannot grow your own crops with seeds from the last harvest due to Monsanto and their attack lawyers trademarked a genetic line and if those genetics appear in your crop then they can force you to burn your entire crop, as if farmers could politely tell pollinators not to cross contaminate.
They also manipulate genes without enough testing and have made some nasty mistakes due to that.
They have?
Do tell.
What large company doesn't?
That is a completely separate issue - and changes within our government are necessary to ensure that companies have reduced ability to use the law to protect themselves.
Reliable, accurate, and complete are three different things.
Your loyalty is inspiring. You were just saying, in another thread, how governments are malevolent and our leaders are puppets. Now they are looking out for us and expressing differing opinions?
You just kind of go wherever the moment takes you, don't you?
So, now the masses are reliable?
I thought they were sheep who did whatever the puppets in office told them.
This comments specifically on that study:
You must be registered for see links
I'll quote the part most relevant to that study:
The percentage means the percentage of GMO corn in the rat chow, specifically the Roundup resistant strain NK603, and “R” means that Roundup had been applied to the corn. R(A) through R(C) are different concentrations of Roundup in the rats’ drinking water. This is way too many groups to have a high likelihood of producing interpretable data, particularly with only 10 females and ten males in each group. In essence, there were 20 experimental groups with ten rats in each group. Most problematic is the small number in the control group. There’s an old study on this line of rats published in 1979 that looked at the spontaneous development of endocrine tumors. After two years, 86% of male and 72% of female rats had developed tumors of the sort described by Séralini et al. Note that the time period of this 1979 study was the same as that of Séralini et al, two years. In other words, the “treated” rats developed as many tumors as expected for this particular strain of rats allowed to live to their natural lifespanand in fact the control groups arguably had an unusually low incidence of tumors.
I encourage you; start reading:
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
Yes. I am. And I'm lumping you in with them.
Why?
Son, to you - I may as well be God.If only you were as half as intelligent as you think you are.
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
I am glad that you choose to voice your opinion - and I do not want you to ever stay silent out of fear that you may be wrong - because there may, indeed, be a shred of knowledge you have that I have not already considered - but do know your place.
You insult the very notion of being intelligent by being little more than a parrot for an agenda.
You think that is the most critical of your behaviors for me to excuse?
This is not much different than the way Farmer's Unions essentially force small farms into their membership.
That said - I do not necessarily agree with Monsanto's policies. I have no problem with their product - even the fact that the seed sold is a terminal crop (the reality is that most farmers would be purchasing normal seed again next year, anyway, from groups that specialize in collecting and packaging seed - it's not worth it to select a portion of their crops to conserve for seed since there are other demands on time, money and equipment).
I live in the western plains of Missouri. There's a lot of corn and soy bean farming that goes on, here - mostly for cattle consumption. I know of a few of their sources for the seed they use - and it's not Monsanto. I know that only speaks for small portions of the country's whole farming community - but, there are sources of seed that do not come with such far-reaching contracts.
It is also law in the U.S. that any GMO crop must be offset by a non-GMO crop of at least 10% the plot size of the GMO variety. ... It may have even been 1/4 ... I'd have to go back and check that, honestly - but there is a law that states you cannot grow all GMO crops as a commercial farmer.
Most of the food you eat on a daily basis is untested.
Tomatoes, Eggplant, Peppers (all varieties), potatoes - all are part of the Solanacae family... the nightshade family that produces tropane alkaloids that can drop an elephant. Tomatoes are toxic until ripened. Potatoes are toxic if they are green (and the variety you buy in the store are constantly tracked for alkaloid content by oversight groups). Nightshade is one of the deadliest plants on the planet. Simply touching it has killed people.
You should -never- cook or store Nightshades in aluminum containers. All of them leech aluminum via chemical reactions; high aluminum intake is linked to alzheimer's and other not-good conditions.
Any random copy error, any strange mutation... could easily turn your garden variety tomato into a death sentence.
That's an improbable example... but still within the realms of possible. The fruit of a potato is highly toxic in any state of growth. The fruit of a tomato is edible... unless it were to track toward the potato for whatever random reason biology comes up with.
By contrast - no GMO line is released without years of testing to ensure it is behaving as intended - that new compounds are being expressed in the tissues desired and only in those tissues. The lines are run for several generations to get a measure of stability. The terminal crop process is tested to ensure it is producing crops that behave as expected and that limit their environmental impact (from a business standpoint - you don't want the millions of dollars spent to develop a new line of corn to be wasted if the gene migrates to an heirloom variety that will require huge amounts of legal action to solidify patent jurisdiction and other fun things).
Hahahaha unbelievable.. so much effort to prove his right, quoting every little thing.
1: The masses I'm talking about this time are the ones that are aware of the fact govts. Do not have a interest in the wellbeing if the people. It's a secundary priority to companies. I'm not talking about the sheeple like you.
2. About the rats: that experiment dates back to the late 70's, I see. The lab results presented by some of my sources were held recently.
3. About: countries banning gmo's. Quit the misplaced arrogance in your counter question and just answer mine.
This insolence xD..
Btw, I don't have time to read the articles. Will do so when Iget back home in two days. I just have wifi now for a little while gtg to work now.
1: The masses I'm talking about this time are the ones that are aware of the fact govts. Do not have a interest in the wellbeing if the people. It's a secundary priority to companies. I'm not talking about the sheeple like you.
2. About the rats: that experiment dates back to the late 70's, I see. The lab results presented by some of my sources were held recently.
3. About: countries banning gmo's. Quit the misplaced arrogance in your counter question and just answer mine.
This insolence xD..
Btw, I don't have time to read the articles. Will do so when Iget back home in two days. I just have wifi now for a little while gtg to work now.
*rolls eyes*
I'm a sheeple?
Really?
Because I refuse to join a mass of people all mindlessly walking against Monsanto? I refuse to 'march?'
Just because I don't hop aboard the pro-disestablishment bandwagon every time I turn around doesn't mean I'm beating the drum for the establishment. Choose what bandwagons you jump on very, very carefully. Most people don't even realize they are aboard until the damned thing crashes.
People out there will twist your mind and use you to their ends.
Let me ask you... do you buy into global warming?
Many governments support carbon taxes. Government pannels have been set up to review the risk it causes and to devise strategies against it. They deliberately talk-up the issue to make it sound like the world is going to come to an end - and it is only through accepting government regulations and policies that we can be saved from ourselves.
There's no real money to be made in oil. The market is mature and investment relatively saturated. The main area of making money is for investors to sponsor new ways of keeping their production competitive with other producers and hunting for new territory. They've kept their trade secrets relatively close - and you're not going to win the lottery and find yourself striking out to make your own oil company.
But there's money in striking out to create electric cars. There's money in striking out to make different home power solutions. Money is made in changing markets and creating new ones. At least - new money is made there. To be the first Microsoft, or the first Walmart, McDonald's, Intel, Google, or IBM - that's where the real money is.
Invest in these new energy groups - back the idea that the end of our planet is nigh unless people buy what your invested company manufactures. Set up a small business that is awarded a very good ratio of carbon credits for the investment... trade them on the open market for huge profits while backing legislation for cap-and-trade.
It's no different here. Set up a small farm that can use organic labeling - back legislation that forces Genetically engineered crops to have drawings of Resident Evil zombies supporting "GMO FOOD" on it and garner all the media flare you can about how men will be rendered impotent with early-onset erectile dysfunction and women will develop breast and ovarian cancer if they eat genetically engineered food.
If you can't create a completely new market - change how an existing one is played.
It doesn't really matter what the facts are. What matters is what gets people to buy your product. Bonus points if you get free advertising in the form of activist groups who think you represent their salvation.
Monsanto is no saint. Genetic Engineering is not the solution to everything in agriculture. But why settle down and listen to reason when, at this very moment, the green beans you ate could be shriveling your testicles and forever banning you to the same humiliation circumcised males face from women every day?
Don't you love how I work all of these inflationary topics into each other? Same mentality. Same rythm. Slightly different words.
If you put as much effort into learning as you did to talking...
The experiment you talk about is the same one that is being cited as having far too small of a control group.
The particular line of rats used in testing have been shown since tests in the 70s to spontaneously develop tumors at a rate of about 78% in the population after 2 years of life. Which is exactly the length of time that the "GMO causes tumors" study was. Thus, the results were not, at all, anomalous for the rats. Not to mention that a population size of ten rats for male and female test groups is ridiculous... and that the experimental setup would not have yielded data that could have been used to form any kind of meaningful conclusion.
I did.
Environmental scientists, food scientists/researchers, and genetecists who do not work in the field of genetically engineered crops all agree that the social response is due to misinformation and distortion of the facts. At best - half-truths are used to rally people behind these causes.
If you bothered to actually look - you would find that many of the anti-GMO groups are funded by "organic" farmers unions and other groups that stand to make a monetary gain. You'll notice that most of the studies that conclude 'GMOs pose a statistically significant risk to the human population' are under contract from the Anti-GMO groups (who are, in turn, funded by businesses that are seeing record profit margins due to social response).
There is never much money to be made in sustaining an empire. There is always money to be made when overthrowing one.
This is why you come off as retarded. You speak before you listen.
I believe you would have chosen your words differently had you first read the articles.
Naruto D Luffy
Active member
edo tensai wilmaso
Active member
GMO has been proven by european countries that they cause breast cancer therefore they have been banned so is flouride which is actually banned in some states here but they still put it in your toothpaste ....as far as this situation monsato has the equal rights of a person....all corporations do....because that bill they passed that gave blacks equality also gave corporations the same equality ....but they don't teach you that in school tough. they also don't teach you that fast and furious was real and that it was a gov't funded project and they don't teach you that the govt gave arms to "terrorist" they weren't called terrorist back then they were called "freedom fighters" ... they also don't teach you in school that there are other sources of energy and physics that are viable and that can change the planet as we know it.
Kira was Righteous
Active member
You seem to have quite a good understanding of how the world works but irregardless it is still a problem when a food organization can do practically whatever they want to the food you eat without consequence or at least nothing immediate.I say this as im struggling to figure out what your stance on them are rather then reading your skeptical albeit seemingly true view on the world.
1 article
Monsanto Found Guilty of Chemical Poisoning in Landmark Case
Read more at
Monsanto Found Guilty of Chemical Poisoning in Landmark Case
Read more at
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see images
A French farmer who can no longer perform his routine farming duties because of permanent pesticide injuries has had his day in court, literally, and the perpetrator of his injuries found guilty of chemical poisoning. The French court in Lyon ruled that Monsanto’s Lasso weedkiller formula, which contains the active ingredient alachlor, caused Paul Francois to develop lifelong neurological damage that manifests as persistent memory loss, headaches, and stuttering during speech.
Reports indicate that the 47-year-old farmer sued Monsanto back in 2004 after inhaling the Lasso product while cleaning his sprayer tank equipment. Not long after, Francois began experiencing lasting symptoms that prevented him from working, which he says were directly linked to exposure to the chemical. Since Lasso’s packaging did not bear adequate warnings about the dangers of exposure, Francois alleged at the time that Monsanto was essentially negligent in providing adequate protection for its customers.
To the surprise of many, the French court agreed with the claims and evidence presented before it, declaring earlier this year that “Monsanto is responsible for Paul Francois’ suffering after he inhaled the Lasso product … and must entirely compensate him.” The court is said to be seeking expert opinion on how to gauge Francois’ losses in order to determine precisely how much Monsanto will be required to compensate him in the case.
“It is a historic decision in so far as it is the first time that a (pesticide) maker is found guilty of such a poisoning,” said Francois Lafforgue, Paul Francois’ lawyer, to Reuters earlier in the year.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), exposure to alachlor can cause damage to the liver, kidneys, spleen, and eyes, and may lead to the development of anemia and even cancer. The EPA apparently views alachlor as so dangerous, in fact, that the agency has set the maximum contaminant level goals (MCLG) for alachlor to zero in order to “prevent potential health problems.” (
In 2007, France officially banned Lasso from use in the country in accordance with a European Union (EU) directive enacted in 2006 prohibiting the chemical from further use on crops in any member countries. But despite all the evidence proving that alachlor can disrupt hormonal balance, induce reproductive or developmental problems, and cause cancer, the chemical is still being used on conventional crops throughout the U.S. to this very day. (
“I am alive today, but part of the farming population is going to be sacrificed and is going to die because of (alachlor),” added Francois to Reuters.
Read more at
Reports indicate that the 47-year-old farmer sued Monsanto back in 2004 after inhaling the Lasso product while cleaning his sprayer tank equipment. Not long after, Francois began experiencing lasting symptoms that prevented him from working, which he says were directly linked to exposure to the chemical. Since Lasso’s packaging did not bear adequate warnings about the dangers of exposure, Francois alleged at the time that Monsanto was essentially negligent in providing adequate protection for its customers.
To the surprise of many, the French court agreed with the claims and evidence presented before it, declaring earlier this year that “Monsanto is responsible for Paul Francois’ suffering after he inhaled the Lasso product … and must entirely compensate him.” The court is said to be seeking expert opinion on how to gauge Francois’ losses in order to determine precisely how much Monsanto will be required to compensate him in the case.
“It is a historic decision in so far as it is the first time that a (pesticide) maker is found guilty of such a poisoning,” said Francois Lafforgue, Paul Francois’ lawyer, to Reuters earlier in the year.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), exposure to alachlor can cause damage to the liver, kidneys, spleen, and eyes, and may lead to the development of anemia and even cancer. The EPA apparently views alachlor as so dangerous, in fact, that the agency has set the maximum contaminant level goals (MCLG) for alachlor to zero in order to “prevent potential health problems.” (
You must be registered for see links
)In 2007, France officially banned Lasso from use in the country in accordance with a European Union (EU) directive enacted in 2006 prohibiting the chemical from further use on crops in any member countries. But despite all the evidence proving that alachlor can disrupt hormonal balance, induce reproductive or developmental problems, and cause cancer, the chemical is still being used on conventional crops throughout the U.S. to this very day. (
You must be registered for see links
)“I am alive today, but part of the farming population is going to be sacrificed and is going to die because of (alachlor),” added Francois to Reuters.
Read more at
You must be registered for see links
Monsanto's crops are actually a very small portion of the overall food market:
"As of 2012, the agricultural seed lineup included Roundup Ready alfalfa; Roundup Ready canola; cotton with Bt, Roundup Ready, or both traits; sorghum hybrids; soybeans with various oil profiles, most with the Roundup Ready trait; Roundup Ready sugarbeet; and a wide range of wheat products, many of which incorporate the nontransgenic "clearfield" imazamox-tolerant[80] trait from BASF.[81]
Two patents have been especially important to Monsanto's GM soybean business; one expired in 2011 and another reissued patent expires in 2014.[82] The expiration of the second patent will mean that glyphosate resistant soybeans will be "generic", which has generated a great deal of discussion in the soybean industry.[83][84][85][86]"
You must be registered for see links
Most of their crops are various utility crops and not really marketed for human consumption. The Maize and Soybeans are largely used in cattle feed and agricultural byproducts.
Their main source of income is actually the sale of various pest and herbicides.
Monsanto isn't nearly as big of a player or the type of monopoly that a lot of the alarmists like to make it out to be. They gained considerable market traction in certain sections with the "Roundup Ready" seed lineup. When you have a brand name crop to go with your brand name product in a complementary setup - it tends to catch on fairly well.
*rolls eyes*
How inflationist can your news sources get?
Monsanto wasn't found guilty of poisoning. They were found liable (somehow) for the damage to this man's life because he didn't follow proper handling procedures. He blatantly stated he was inhaling fumes while cleaning his spraying equipment.
He was applying a chemical, didn't take the industry standard precautions, and this circus court decided to favor him for being stupid.