Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Could Monsanto Destroy Irelands Farmers

Options
1235

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    zenno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭zenno


    djpbarry wrote: »
    [MOD] What about it? Is it good/bad/indifferent? If so, why? What are the fundamental arguments put forward and do you agree with them? If so/not, why?

    As per the charter, please do not simply post a link to a video without providing some kind of explanation of the content.[/MOD]

    I upped the link so others can decide and make their own opinions on the video, I am not going to plaster my opinion here on it.

    I do find it interesting that monsanto were the sellers of agent orange and many other nasty chemicals and it's quite amazing that monsanto are the pushers of GM, as they say it's good for you. Well i don't trust them, others here can make their own minds up on the video and debate it.

    If you do not like the video posted here then take it down, don't kill the messenger.


  • Options
    #123
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Will we all just use this thread as a repository/dump for videos that make arguments on our behalf, or should we maybe engage with each other instead?


  • Options
    #124
    zenno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭zenno


    Dave! wrote: »
    Will we all just use this thread as a repository/dump for videos that make arguments on our behalf, or should we maybe engage with each other instead?

    Sorry, but i did leave my comment above, i left many as i created the thread, i wanted for people to watch the video and make their own mind up on it.

    I was asked to explain the video...whats the point in me explaining the whole video and ruin it by doing so, can people not watch it if they like and come to their own decision on whether it is rubbish or not ? instead of me telling people.


  • Options
    #125
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    [mod]Hi folks, if you want to discuss moderation, please take it up with djpbarry or myself by PM, not in-thread.

    Also, as Dave! rightly says, let's try to have a respectful, evidence-based discussion. So please be open minded when presenting your case.[/mod]


  • Options
    #126
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    zenno wrote: »
    I do find it interesting that monsanto were the sellers of agent orange and many other nasty chemicals and it's quite amazing that monsanto are the pushers of GM, as they say it's good for you.

    What does agent orange and GM foods have to do with each other?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    zenno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭zenno


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    What does agent orange and GM foods have to do with each other?

    Agent Orange is the combination of the code names for Herbicide Orange (HO) and Agent LNX, one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its chemical warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of its use. The Red Cross of Vietnam estimates that up to 1 million people are disabled or have health problems due to Agent Orange.

    A 50:50 mixture of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D, it was manufactured for the U.S. Department of Defense primarily by Monsanto Corporation and Dow Chemical.

    Does that answer the question you provided. How can you trust Monsanto.


  • Options
    #128
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    zenno wrote: »
    Agent Orange is the combination of the code names for Herbicide Orange (HO) and Agent LNX, one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its chemical warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of its use. The Red Cross of Vietnam estimates that up to 1 million people are disabled or have health problems due to Agent Orange.

    A 50:50 mixture of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D, it was manufactured for the U.S. Department of Defense primarily by Monsanto Corporation and Dow Chemical.

    Does that answer the question you provided. How can you trust Monsanto.

    I know what agent orange is, I was asking what that has to do with GM foods. Besides the fact that Monsanto aren't actually the only producer of GM foods, the fact that they once produced chemical weapons doesn't mean they what they produce now is equivalent to chemical weapons. Many modern car companies used to make fighter planes and rockets during the various wars of the last century (Rolls Royce, BMW etc.). Should we not trust them for the same reasons?


  • Options
    #129
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    Whatever about Monsanto destroying Ireland's farmers, they are certainly doing a number on US wheat farmers after the discovery of their GM wheat growing wild in Oregon http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/03/us-wheat-korea-usa-idUSBRE95201R20130603 The wild GM wheat only came to light when a farmer tried to kill it off with Roundup and it didn't die. Truly the stuff of nightmares but probably too negative for this forum.


  • Options
    #130
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Judgement Day wrote: »
    The wild GM wheat only came to light when a farmer tried to kill it off with Roundup and it didn't die. Truly the stuff of nightmares...
    It truly isn't - such hyperbole isn't really conducive to meaningful discussion.


  • Options
    #131
    A Primal Nut
    Registered Users Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭A Primal Nut


    I am generally positive about GM, but I don't agree with Monsanto's business practices. Suing farmers who accidentally got GM on their farm is unacceptable. It should be Monsanto and their customers who have to try to ensure that non-consumers crops are not contaminated. If the government bring in legislation to protect farmers from litigation, I would like to see GM experimentation here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    A Primal Nut wrote: »
    I am generally positive about GM, but I don't agree with Monsanto's business practices. Suing farmers who accidentally got GM on their farm is unacceptable. It should be Monsanto and their customers who have to try to ensure that non-consumers crops are not contaminated. If the government bring in legislation to protect farmers from litigation, I would like to see GM experimentation here.

    Why? Is it so that Monsanto can feed the world's starving? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #133
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Judgement Day wrote: »
    Why? Is it so that Monsanto can feed the world's starving?
    No, it's because genetic engineering, in general, is a technology that has already been of tremendous benefit to humanity, yet still has huge untapped potential.


  • Options
    #134
    le sigh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26 ✭le sigh


    djpbarry wrote: »
    No, it's because genetic engineering, in general, is a technology that has already been of tremendous benefit to humanity, yet still has huge untapped potential.
    Benefits of Genetic Engineering

    ^For anyone wondering.



    http://action.responsibletechnology.org/p/salsa/web/common/public/content?content_item_KEY=11129
    It was “supposed” to be harmless to humans and animals—the perfect weed killer. Now a groundbreaking article just published in the journal Entropy points to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, and more specifically its active ingredient glyphosate, as devastating—possibly “the most important factor in the development of multiple chronic diseases and conditions that have become prevalent in Westernized societies.”

    is now linked to “autism … gastrointestinal issues such as inflammatory bowel disease, chronic diarrhea, colitis and Crohn’s disease, obesity, cardiovascular disease, depression, cancer, cachexia, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, and ALS, among others.”
    You really have to wonder how they keep managing to come out with some of the most deadly "products" on the planet and continually get away with exposing people to them.

    Edit:But this engineering is just weirding me out.

    Put a human stem cell (Liver, Pancreas whatever) into an animal embryo, a pig cuz we are similar, put this embryo into a female pigs womb and let it develop and be born and grow with the human organs until it's fit to be slaughtered and organs harvested.

    And the rest of the pig will end up in Burgers.


  • Options
    #135
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    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

    :rolleyes: I'm shocked.
    The pesticides were used on the GM crops. Big deal. Pesticides are also used on non-GM crops. This is just scaremongering.
    If they genetically introduced more pest resistance into the crop, in addition to the roundup weedkiller resistance (which is the basis for Monsanto's profits) then the GM crop would have less pesticide residue than the non GM one.


  • Options
    #136
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    djpbarry wrote: »
    RUCKING FETARD wrote: »
    Well you see that's the thing, their is

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/does-genetically-modified-gm-food-increase-the-incidence-of-obesity/29869
    The paper on which that article is supposedly based does not even mention the word “obesity”:
    http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.pdf
    Probably worth mentioning that the above paper has just been retracted by the publisher:

    http://www.nature.com/news/study-linking-gm-maize-to-rat-tumours-is-retracted-1.14268


  • Options
    #137
    Voodoo_rasher
    Registered Users Posts: 521 ✭✭✭Voodoo_rasher


    A Primal Nut: "It should be Monsanto and their customers who have to try to ensure that non-consumers crops are not contaminated. If the government bring in legislation to protect farmers from litigation.."

    Monsanto cannot be compelled to do anything; they are now above the law

    in the U.S. A law was passed last April dubbed the 'Monsanto Protection Act'? Look it up folks its pretty recent.


  • Options
    #138
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Voodoo_rasher wrote: »
    Ever hear of the Monsanto Protection Act?
    Nope.
    Voodoo_rasher wrote: »
    Look it up folks its pretty recent. This is the level of power they can wield now.

    See here.

    http://rt.com/news/monsanto-march-berlin-protest-115/
    Unless I am very much mistaken, that article does not mention any "Monsanto Protection Act"?


  • Options
    #139
    shedweller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,029 ✭✭✭shedweller


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Nope.
    Unless I am very much mistaken, that article does not mention any "Monsanto Protection Act"?
    In all but name perhaps?


  • Options
    #140
    two wheels good
    Registered Users Posts: 1,996 ✭✭✭two wheels good


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Nope.
    Unless I am very much mistaken, that article does not mention any "Monsanto Protection Act"?

    Oh, that's just the unofficial moniker to distinguish it from all the other examples of successful lobbying by GM corps.

    AFAIR I read that this provision was inserted anonymously, and late in the debate, into the Bill. Yes, there is apparently a provision for public representatives to anonymously add clauses to a bill.

    One interpretation of the the provision is it "effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of controversial genetically modified or genetically engineered seeds, no matter what health issues may arise concerning GMOs in the future"


  • Options
    #141
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    That bill was already debunked in this thread.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Voodoo_rasher
    Registered Users Posts: 521 ✭✭✭Voodoo_rasher


    E U promotes genetic tampering with our crops.

    http://article.wn.com/view/2014/02/11/EU_executive_set_to_back_new_GM_crop_member_states_divided_2/


  • Options
    #143
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Probably worth mentioning that the above paper has just been retracted by the publisher:

    http://www.nature.com/news/study-linking-gm-maize-to-rat-tumours-is-retracted-1.14268
    An update on this if anyone's interested.

    That paper has been republished, bizarrely, without any further peer-review:
    A controversial paper linking genetically modified maize to the development of tumours and other severe disease in rats, which was published in 2012 and retracted in 2013, has now been published again, by a different journal.

    ...

    The journal that originally published the paper, Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), retracted it in a storm of criticism in November 2013 after Séralini’s team refused to withdraw it (see ‘Study linking GM maize to rat tumours is retracted’). A post-publication review of the paper found that “the data were inconclusive, and therefore the conclusions described in the article were unreliable.” However FCT found “no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data”, according to the journal's publisher, Elsevier in Amsterdam.
    http://www.nature.com/news/paper-claiming-gm-link-with-tumours-republished-1.15463

    I could be wrong, but in terms of scientific publishing, I think this may be unprecedented. I've never heard of a retracted paper being republished elsewhere without any further review.


  • Options
    #144
    The_Captain
    Registered Users Posts: 1,376 ✭✭✭The_Captain


    A Primal Nut wrote: »
    I am generally positive about GM, but I don't agree with Monsanto's business practices. Suing farmers who accidentally got GM on their farm is unacceptable. It should be Monsanto and their customers who have to try to ensure that non-consumers crops are not contaminated. If the government bring in legislation to protect farmers from litigation, I would like to see GM experimentation here.

    I don't like Monsanto, but to be fair to them, the farmers who say they "accidentally got them on their farm" are normally sued because it's clear that they've also accidentally ploughed the land, accidentally planted the seeds and accidentally fertilised them for months before being caught


  • Options
    #145
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    The_Captain wrote: »
    I don't like Monsanto, but to be fair to them, the farmers who say they "accidentally got them on their farm" are normally sued because it's clear that they've also accidentally ploughed the land, accidentally planted the seeds and accidentally fertilised them for months before being caught

    I think the point is that the seeds get caught up in their seeds. GM seeds don't exactly come visibly tagged.


  • Options
    #146
    The_Captain
    Registered Users Posts: 1,376 ✭✭✭The_Captain


    Macha wrote: »
    I think the point is that the seeds get caught up in their seeds. GM seeds don't exactly come visibly tagged.


    You buy the seeds from Monsanto and sign an agreement not to save seeds from grown crops. Where are the seeds going to get caught up with other seeds?


  • Options
    #147
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    The_Captain wrote: »
    You buy the seeds from Monsanto and sign an agreement not to save seeds from grown crops. Where are the seeds going to get caught up with other seeds?

    I'm talking about accidental cross-pollination cases, not the farmers who argued about buying it from third parties. Many of the farmers involved are organic farmers who stand to lose their organic status due to cross-pollination with GM. The idea that they're somehow sneakily doing it on purpose makes no sense to me.


  • Options
    #148
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    From this post
    In 1997, Percy Schmeiser found Monsanto's genetically modified “Roundup Ready Canola” plants growing near his farm. He testified that he sprayed his nearby field and found that much of the crop survived, meaning it was also Roundup Ready.[2] He testified that he then harvested that crop, saved it separately from his other harvest, and intentionally planted it in 1998.[2] Monsanto approached him to pay a license fee for using Monsanto's patented technology without a license. Schmeiser refused, claiming that the actual seed was his because it was grown on his land, and so Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement.

    Have we any actual examples of "innocent" farmers being sued for "accidentally" growing Monsanto crops?

    BTW does anyone know how the Monsanto trials for blight resistant spuds went? They had them planted in Carlow behind a high fence, it was last year or the year before I think.


  • Options
    #149
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    recedite wrote: »
    From this post

    Have we any actual examples of "innocent" farmers being sued for "accidentally" growing Monsanto crops?

    BTW does anyone know how the Monsanto trials for blight resistant spuds went? They had them planted in Carlow behind a high fence, it was last year or the year before I think.
    Yes. You are giving examples and referring to the type that were testing the law or, like I said, thought buying it from 3rd party was different. I am talking about different cases.


  • Options
    #150
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Macha wrote: »
    Yes. ... I am talking about different cases.
    Go on.....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Re the GM potato trials, it seems they are still ongoing, but appear to be successful.
    In Irish climatic conditions unless conventional farmers use chemical fungicides 100% crop loss is a real possibility, 15- 20 sprays are required to protect each potato crop!...Arising from the preliminary study completed in 2012, we now know that the GM potato variety we are researching has the potential to resist Irish blight strains (see below) but much more work is required and this will commence in 2013.
    from teagasc

    Also I was mistaken in that Monsanto are not involved in this, although they did trial GM beet there some years ago. It is this publicly funded Dutch research facility.That is logical enough, because blight resistant potatoes would not earn money for the chemicals industry, quite the opposite.


Advertisement