Could Monsanto Destroy Irelands Farmers

zenno · 15-11-2012 4:12am #1

As we know at the moment, monsanto have had trials here in Ireland and in my opinion this is serious and it will be a serious problem for us and farmers in the near future if monsanto get a hold of Ireland just like in the united states.

I won't harp on, but I would like Irish people and farmers to take a look at this video in relation to monsanto and make your own mind up as to the benefits/damage that could exist in relation to monsanto using Ireland as a GM waste-ground and hindering the natural growth of organics as well as taking ownership of said farmers land and crops because of contamination from monsanto GM.

Have a look at this documentary and add your comments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1A31gCeOA4

djpbarry · 15-11-2012 10:37am

zenno wrote: »

As we know at the moment, monsanto have trials here in Ireland...

That's news to me - do you have a source for that?

zenno wrote: »

Have a look at this documentary and add your comments.

I'm afraid I don't have an hour to spare and I doubt many other posters do either. What's the documentary about?

Oldtree · 15-11-2012 1:13pm

seems clear from here that there is no commercial company involved in our gm potatoes research:

http://www.teagasc.ie/news/gm_potato_research/irish-examiner_20120903.asp

http://www.teagasc.ie/news/proposed_gm_potato_research.asp

zenno · 15-11-2012 2:09pm

That should have been "Have Had Trials Here In Ireland"

In 1998, a GM crop trial in Wexford run by Monsanto was sabotaged by environmental campaigners. A 2006 BASF attempt to trial GM potatoes was also halted after a prolonged campaign. What will happen in Ireland remains to be seen. Irish Examiner.

Oldtree · 19-11-2012 11:49am

These 5 year old gm eucalyptus trees have a gene taken from the common, fast-growing Arabidopsis weed

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/15/gm-trees-bred-world-energy

Ballantine · 19-11-2012 2:21pm

I've never understood why GM foods are so terrible for humans. Anyone who eats tomato puree eats GM foods, for example, and many varieties of imported rice are GM. The only evidence we have as to their effects on health is we are all living longer and in better health than our parents or grandparents.

Where is the problem?

RUCKING FETARD · 22-11-2012 3:22am

Ballantine wrote: »

I've never understood why GM foods are so terrible for humans. Anyone who eats tomato puree eats GM foods, for example, and many varieties of imported rice are GM. The only evidence we have as to their effects on health is we are all living longer and in better health than our parents or grandparents.

Where is the problem?

In better health is questionably? Lingering on with some kind(s) of chronic illness be more like it.

Last 5 people I know that died, all died from Cancer. Near two thirds of Cancers are caused by diet, so says literature I've read. How do you know it's not GM?

It should never have got to the stage where it's near impossible to avoid it if you wanted to with the limited studies done on it. 90 day studies and they're good to go!:eek:

Not to mention Bee/Butterfly deaths, cross pollination, suicide seeds. Round up resistant so they shower it in the stuff and it runs off everywhere.

Uh, this is back in the news.

djpbarry · 22-11-2012 10:16am

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

Last 5 people I know that died, all died from Cancer. Near two thirds of Cancers are caused by diet...

I really, really doubt that. Got a source?

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

How do you know it's not GM?

How do you know it's not flying spaghetti monsters?

Oldtree · 22-11-2012 11:15am

:D;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Ballantine · 22-11-2012 1:25pm

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

In better health is questionably? Lingering on with some kind(s) of chronic illness be more like it.

Last 5 people I know that died, all died from Cancer. Near two thirds of Cancers are caused by diet, so says literature I've read. How do you know it's not GM?

If you believe that humans in the USA and Europe are not living longer, and healthier, lives than did our ancestors, then we disagree.

I'm afraid you are simply incorrect to claim that "nearly two thirds" of cancers are caused by diet. Ironically, many cancers are now "caused" by the fact that we are simply living longer and longer.

It's also ironic that you imply that it's ok for science to try to cure cancers, or to try to treat patients with cancer with all sorts of treatments, but not ok for science to try to find ways of producing foods more efficiently or in ways which necessitate less pesticides which, in turn, mean less pesticide residues ingested by the very humans you say you are concerned for. More especially when you claim, incorrectly, that "nearly two thirds of cancers are caused by diet".

Judgement Day · 22-11-2012 3:10pm

Is it science that's driving GM research though? To me it's just corporate greed from faceless multi-nationals like Monsanto who don't give a fig whether you live or die as long as they make their percentage

djpbarry · 22-11-2012 3:24pm

Judgement Day wrote: »

Is it science that's driving GM research though?

Genetic modification is used extensively in scientific research, if that's what you mean. Cancer research, for example, would not be where it is today without GM technology.

Ballantine · 22-11-2012 3:32pm

Judgement Day wrote: »

Is it science that's driving GM research though? To me it's just corporate greed from faceless multi-nationals like Monsanto who don't give a fig whether you live or die as long as they make their percentage

Are you saying its ok if it's science and carried out by individuals, but not if the science is carried out by corporations?

Whats wrong with corporations making profits? Is it all corporations you are against making profits, or just ones involved in scientific research into GM?

shedweller · 22-11-2012 4:06pm

I would have thought that with food, something so fundamental to life,
there would be a bit more transparency and a bit less ruthlessness. We've all seen how so many farmers got sued for accidently having gm seed on their farms. How do we know that won't happen here? Do we suddenly know everything about this thing we have only just created? (In the bigger picture)
What will we say about this in 100 or more years?

So i'm sorry, i'm suspicious of monsanto et al. It just looks to me as though there is an urgent need for profit above all else.
And feeding the poor starving people of the world argument doesn't wash with me. Sort out corrupt govts first and set up proper education systems for them.

As for us, we are now becoming obese at 3 years of age, if a recent newspaper article is anything to go by. I'd be inclined to believe it too because i have 3 kids of my own and quite a few of their schoolmates are..."chubby" shall we say. (Started by bottle feeding, rather than breastfeeding,continued with too much calorie laden crap afterwards, but thats off this topic!)

Ballantine · 22-11-2012 5:14pm

shedweller wrote: »

I would have thought that with food, something so fundamental to life,
there would be a bit more transparency and a bit less ruthlessness. We've all seen how so many farmers got sued for accidently having gm seed on their farms. How do we know that won't happen here? Do we suddenly know everything about this thing we have only just created? (In the bigger picture)
What will we say about this in 100 or more years?

So i'm sorry, i'm suspicious of monsanto et al. It just looks to me as though there is an urgent need for profit above all else.
And feeding the poor starving people of the world argument doesn't wash with me. Sort out corrupt govts first and set up proper education systems for them.

As for us, we are now becoming obese at 3 years of age, if a recent newspaper article is anything to go by. I'd be inclined to believe it too because i have 3 kids of my own and quite a few of their schoolmates are..."chubby" shall we say. (Started by bottle feeding, rather than breastfeeding,continued with too much calorie laden crap afterwards, but thats off this topic!)

Sure, a lot of people are "suspicious" but thats not to say their suspicions are well founded.

GM food has nothing to do with obesity. The fact is that you probably eat GM food regularly, and have done for years, without realising it. You probably eat radiated food daily without realising it.

In fact, if GM means that foods can be grown without pesticides, or with less pesticides, do you think that is a good or bad thing for the food chain?

Have you ever heard of Golden rice? It's a GM strand of rice which has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives per year. Vitamin A deficiency in the third world is estimated to kill between 600 000 and 700 000 under 5's each year. Golden Rice was developed using GM technology and has the potential to prevent many of those deaths annually. Are you really saying that we should ignore this leap forward, and ban those 600 000 to 700 000 children from living, for no reason other than "suspicions" of well off westeners? Incidentally, the inventor of Golden Rice has donated the varieties free of charge.

GM has the potential to benefit the human race in a variety of ways, and to ban that progress would be more than a shame, it would be tantamount to genocide in the case of golden rice.

shedweller · 22-11-2012 5:22pm

Well put. But do gm crops need less pesticide and are their yields higher? Are farmers costs kept the same or are they paying more to grow gm crops?

Unbiased answers on a postcard please!

Oregano_State · 22-11-2012 5:30pm

Ballantine wrote: »

Sure, a lot of people are "suspicious" but thats not to say their suspicions are well founded.

GM food has nothing to do with obesity. The fact is that you probably eat GM food regularly, and have done for years, without realising it. You probably eat radiated food daily without realising it.

In fact, if GM means that foods can be grown without pesticides, or with less pesticides, do you think that is a good or bad thing for the food chain?

Have you ever heard of Golden rice? It's a GM strand of rice which has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives per year. Vitamin A deficiency in the third world is estimated to kill between 600 000 and 700 000 under 5's each year. Golden Rice was developed using GM technology and has the potential to prevent many of those deaths annually. Are you really saying that we should ignore this leap forward, and ban those 600 000 to 700 000 children from living, for no reason other than "suspicions" of well off westeners? Incidentally, the inventor of Golden Rice has donated the varieties free of charge.

GM has the potential to benefit the human race in a variety of ways, and to ban that progress would be more than a shame, it would be tantamount to genocide in the case of golden rice.

This. +1

I find Green Peace's oposition to Golden Rice, and GM foods in general to be disgusting and ignorant.

When that study on a variety of GM Corn was in the news a few months back, I thought the reporting on it from much of the media was pretty awful in terms of a lack of reference to actual science and a lot of the 'sure that GM stuff will only kill ya' mentality.

shedweller · 22-11-2012 5:42pm

shedweller wrote: »

Well put. But do gm crops need less pesticide and are their yields higher? Are farmers costs kept the same or are they paying more to grow gm crops?

But can anybody provide answers to this?

djpbarry · 22-11-2012 6:36pm

shedweller wrote: »

But can anybody provide answers to this?

Maybe you could first answer the question(s) that have been put to you?

A Primal Nut · 22-11-2012 6:56pm

I have no problems with GM crops themselves, however I have a problem with how Mansanto protect their patents by suing farmers and they've been accused of introducing the seeds to the land without the farmers knowledge. It should be Monsanto's responsibility to stop cross contamination and not the farmers.

shedweller · 22-11-2012 7:04pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Maybe you could first answer the question(s) that have been put to you?

Would that be if i had heard of golden rice? Then no, i havent.
Should we ignore this leap forward? Certainly not.
Now, could someone answer my questions above.

two wheels good · 22-11-2012 7:16pm

Ballantine wrote: »

GM food has nothing to do with obesity. The fact is that you probably eat GM food regularly, and have done for years, without realising it. You probably eat radiated food daily without realising it.

I hope that's not the case! I thought EU rules banned GMOs food products for human consumption. I'd believe GMO animal foods stuffs are imported in large quantities but I thought even that was a dubious activity. Can anyone clarify please?

Ballantine wrote: »

Have you ever heard of Golden rice? It's a GM strand of rice which has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives per year. Vitamin A deficiency in the third world is estimated to kill between 600 000 and 700 000 under 5's each year. Golden Rice was developed using GM technology and has the potential to prevent many of those deaths annually. Are you really saying that we should ignore this leap forward, and ban those 600 000 to 700 000 children from living, for no reason other than "suspicions" of well off westeners? Incidentally, the inventor of Golden Rice has donated the varieties free of charge.

GM has the potential to benefit the human race in a variety of ways, and to ban that progress would be more than a shame, it would be tantamount to genocide in the case of golden rice.

GM Golden rice is still under developments i.e not yet approved for general human consumption.

The claims for golden rice have been repeatedly exaggerated. In the early days it turned out children would have to eat kilos of rice to get the recommended daily allowance of vitamin A. Current strains have improved on this situation. Apparently there are better ways of dealing with the deficiency

I've read that Syngenta still haven't said whether growers would be able to collect seeds - it may have a terminator gene. This is last thing poor farmers need - having to buy seed and probably pesticides every year. (Have a look for stories of financial disaster for poor farmers in India growing GM cotton)

The inventor of golden rice may have declined royalties but there are still many patents associated with it . I wonder what plans for the patents or remuneration expectation the patent holders have.

Frankly, golden rice may well be an ideal PR story for big agri to extend it's control on food supply. I will continue to be very sceptical of claims by GM corporations

two wheels good · 22-11-2012 7:28pm

shedweller wrote: »

Well put. But do gm crops need less pesticide and are their yields higher? Are farmers costs kept the same or are they paying more to grow gm crops?

Unbiased answers on a postcard please!

Well, I've read of cases where yields were initially better and then fell back to no better than non-GM varieties.
I've read that the need for pesticides increased due to more resilient "super-weeds"
The inability to collect seeds due to terminator genes (it doesn't apply to all GM varieties) seems the most cynical aspect.

There was the recent court case of the Swiss farmer who's cows died when he was in GM feed trial. He's been in a legal battle for a decade or more.

I can't claim to be unbiased, or well informed just suspicious.

Judgement Day · 22-11-2012 7:47pm

Ballantine wrote: »

Are you saying its ok if it's science and carried out by individuals, but not if the science is carried out by corporations?

Whats wrong with corporations making profits? Is it all corporations you are against making profits, or just ones involved in scientific research into GM?

You're twisting my words. Of course corporations should be able to make money but at not at the cost of the greater good. Anyway it matters not. Stick around, you're well suited to this forum.

RUCKING FETARD · 23-11-2012 3:10am

djpbarry wrote: »

I really, really doubt that. Got a source?

I read it in those pamphlets/Booklets you get in Hospitals, looking it up their though... http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-many-cancers-are-caused-by-the-environment

More than 60 percent of U.S. cancer deaths are caused by smoking and diet.

I should have included smoking.

djpbarry wrote: »

How do you know it's not flying spaghetti monsters?

Surprising comment coming from you...I thought it was a valid question, still do. How do you know?

You and me are the long term trial. Mobiles/wireless devices had been declared safe numerous times in last decade and now these...

Mobile phones can cause brain tumours, court rules.

A landmark court case has ruled there is a link between using a mobile phone and brain tumours, paving the way for a flood of legal actions.

No Health Risks From Cell Phones... But Still Be Cautious

It also warned that "exposure should not be higher than needed to achieve the intended purpose."

"cancer registries should follow the development of cancer incidence in the future and research should not cease"

Won't be surprised if I'm reading similar bout GM down the road, that's if I'm not dead from some rare cancer that's statistically linked back to GM from helpful research.

Ballantine wrote: »

If you believe that humans in the USA and Europe are not living longer, and healthier, lives than did our ancestors, then we disagree.

1 in 3 with Cancer now.

Ballantine wrote: »

It's also ironic that you imply that it's ok for science to try to cure cancers, or to try to treat patients with cancer with all sorts of treatments, but not ok for science to try to find ways of producing foods more efficiently or in ways which necessitate less pesticides which, in turn, mean less pesticide residues ingested by the very humans you say you are concerned for.

Ffs, I had to go back to try and find where I was implying all this.

Toxic pesticides from GM food crops found in unborn babies

Toxic pesticides which are implanted into genetically modified food crops have lodged in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn babies, research shows.

Traces of the toxin were found 93 per cent of the pregnant mothers and in 80 per cent of the umbilical cords.

The findings appear to contradict the GM industry’s long-standing claim that any potentially harmful chemicals added to crops would pass safely through the body.

To date, most of the global research which has been used to demonstrate the safety of GM crops has been funded by the industry itself.

:rolleyes: I'm shocked.

GM crops promote superweeds, food insecurity and pesticides, say NGOs

Most worrisome, say the authors of the Global Citizens' Report on the State of GMOs, is the greatly increased use of synthetic chemicals, used to control pests despite biotech companies' justification that GM-engineered crops would reduce insecticide use.

In China, where insect-resistant Bt cotton is widely planted, populations of pests that previously posed only minor problems have increased 12-fold since 1997.

A 2008 study in the International Journal of Biotechnology found that any benefits of planting Bt cotton have been eroded by the increasing use of pesticides needed to combat them.

Additionally, soya growers in Argentina and Brazil have been found to use twice as much herbicide on their GM as they do on conventional crops, and a survey by Navdanya International, in India, showed that pesticide use increased 13-fold since Bt cotton was introduced.

Ballantine wrote: »

GM food has nothing to do with obesity.

Hmm, how do you know?

RUCKING FETARD · 23-11-2012 3:33am

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/19/gm-crops-insecurity-superweeds-pesticides

The companies have succeeded in marketing their crops to more than 15 million farmers, largely by heavy lobbying of governments, buying up local seed companies, and withdrawing conventional seeds from the market, the report claims. Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta, the world's three largest GM companies, now control nearly 70% of global seed sales. This allows them to "own" and sell GM seeds through patents and intellectual property rights and to charge farmers extra, claims the report.

The study accuses Monsanto of gaining control of over 95% of the Indian cotton seed market and of massively pushing up prices. High levels of indebtedness among farmers is thought to be behind many of the 250,000 deaths by suicide of Indian farmers over the past 15 years.

It won't take an Apocalypse at all to have to crack open the Svalbard Seed Vault.

RUCKING FETARD · 23-11-2012 3:41am

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/incidence/age/

All Cancers Excluding Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer (C00-C97 Excl. C44) Average Number of New Cases per Year and Age-Specific Incidence Rates, UK, 2007-2009

Can't help but notice women of child bearing age higher there and slowly drop off.

Im sure its just a coibcidence.

Ballantine · 23-11-2012 9:08am

two wheels good wrote: »

The claims for golden rice have been repeatedly exaggerated.

Please point out where I have made exaggerated claims.

two wheels good wrote: »

This is last thing poor farmers need - having to buy seed and probably pesticides every year.

I have no idea what "poor farmers" may or may not need, and I'll also not patronise them by telling them what I think they may or may not need, and leave it up to them to decide from the options available. (At a guess, the "last thing" they probably "need" is their children dying from Vitamin A deficiency).

two wheels good wrote: »

The inventor of golden rice may have declined royalties but there are still many patents associated with it . I wonder what plans for the patents or remuneration expectation the patent holders have.

Frankly, golden rice may well be an ideal PR story for big agri to extend it's control on food supply. I will continue to be very sceptical of claims by GM corporations

I agree that to be sceptical is the right position to take, but are you not confusing cynicism with scepticsim? Your post if full of innuendo and half truths, and seems to suggest you are against any GM foods in principle, although you don't put forward your arguments as to why that is.

Ballantine · 23-11-2012 9:22am

Ballantine wrote: »

Are you saying its ok if it's science and carried out by individuals, but not if the science is carried out by corporations?

Whats wrong with corporations making profits? Is it all corporations you are against making profits, or just ones involved in scientific research into GM?

Judgement Day wrote: »

You're twisting my words. Of course corporations should be able to make money but at not at the cost of the greater good. Anyway it matters not

I don’t understand how asking you two questions to clarify your position can be viewed as twisting your words.

Judgement Day wrote: »

Stick around, you're well suited to this forum.

I have no idea what this means. Can you explain what you mean?

djpbarry · 23-11-2012 1:37pm

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

Surprising comment coming from you...I thought it was a valid question, still do. How do you know?

Because there is no evidence to suggest that it is.

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

Mobiles/wireless devices had been declared safe numerous times in last decade and now these...

Mobile phones can cause brain tumours, court rules.

And now what? Tabloid journalism?

You’re telling me there’s a link between mobile phone use and brain tumours because one guy, who happened to be a heavy mobile-phone user, developed a tumour? Seriously?

How many heavy mobile phone users have not developed brain tumours? The overwhelming majority perhaps?

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

Won't be surprised if I'm reading similar bout GM down the road...

I’m already reading plenty of sensationalist nonsense about GM, so I won’t be at all surprised if I see more in the future.

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

Ffs, I had to go back to try and find where I was implying all this.

Toxic pesticides from GM food crops found in unborn babies

Are you even reading these articles?

“It is not known what, if any, harm the chemicals might cause...”

I think you need to put down The Telegraph now.

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

Hmm, how do you know?

Because there is no evidence linking GM foods with obesity.

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/incidence/age/

All Cancers Excluding Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer (C00-C97 Excl. C44) Average Number of New Cases per Year and Age-Specific Incidence Rates, UK, 2007-2009
...
Can't help but notice women of child bearing age higher there and slowly drop off.

What are you talking about? Based on that plot, women of child-bearing age are extremely unlikely to be diagnosed with cancer.

two wheels good · 23-11-2012 2:11pm

Ballantine wrote: »

Please point out where I have made exaggerated claims.

I have no idea what "poor farmers" may or may not need, and I'll also not patronise them by telling them what I think they may or may not need, and leave it up to them to decide from the options available. (At a guess, the "last thing" they probably "need" is their children dying from Vitamin A deficiency).

I agree that to be sceptical is the right position to take, but are you not confusing cynicism with scepticsim? Your post if full of innuendo and half truths, and seems to suggest you are against any GM foods in principle, although you don't put forward your arguments as to why that is.

I wasn't referring to any of your claims re. golden rice just repeating what is readily available in reports\commentaries online. Do take a look.

I think it is self-evident that the ability to save seed is a vital resource for poor farmers.
If golden rice is to be offered to poor farmers with the terminator gene activated (i.e denying the ability to collect seeds) then that will be a very cynical approach by the GM corps.

As I mentioned in another earlier post I am not unbiased on the matter and I am sceptical\cynical\suspicious of the claims of the GM corp.

Could Monsanto Destroy Irelands Farmers

Comments