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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Could Monsanto Destroy Irelands Farmers

24

Comments

  • #52
    Vojera
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,812 ✭✭✭Vojera


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Sure - we've seen that already:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19654825

    But we see knee-jerk reactions to lots of things, be they GM crops, nuclear power or drug side-effects. I don’t think it’s correct to say that this dictates who gets science funding and who doesn’t.

    The point to all this, as you allude to, is there is a difference between the scientific fundamentals and how the technology is put into practice in industry – being critical of the latter does not necessitate being opposed to the former.


    I wouldn't say public opinion has no effect on where funding goes. For governmental agencies at least, they have to be seen to spend taxpayers' money on "relevant" research. If there was significant public outcry on a particular subject then I imagine they would find it hard to justify offering hundred grand towards research on it. Not that that is right-if we went with popular public opinion we'd probably all be prescribed antibiotics on a prophylactic basis >_>

    Companies, of course, can offer money to research whatever they want. They only have to answer to their shareholders, which probably means they aren't going to be too invested in looking into results that damage their product's commercial viability.

    I definitely appreciate that there is a difference between the beginning research and where the company goes with it in the end. I think the biggest problem is that if the government won't impose statutory testing, it's not in a company's interest to try to prove themselves wrong, particularly if, like in America, they have something like GRAS going for them.

    I'm not sure fears about the American situation are validly applied to the Irish situation because European law is a LOT stricter with respect to GMs. There are a lot of hoops to jump through to get ethical approval and to meet the EPA's standards just to do the primary research. I honestly don't know enough about the law to know how hard it would be to bring GM food crops to field trial, let alone market, but I imagine it would be a fair bit tougher than across the pond.


  • #53
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Vojera wrote: »
    I wouldn't say public opinion has no effect on where funding goes. For governmental agencies at least, they have to be seen to spend taxpayers' money on "relevant" research.
    Ok, but does the average person in Ireland really have any idea what kind of (publicly-funded) research is taking place there? I doubt it, particularly given that there seems to be a popular belief at present that Irish third-level institutions do not compare well internationally.


  • #54
    Vojera
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,812 ✭✭✭Vojera


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Ok, but does the average person in Ireland really have any idea what kind of (publicly-funded) research is taking place there? I doubt it, particularly given that there seems to be a popular belief at present that Irish third-level institutions do not compare well internationally.


    That's a good point. I wouldn't say their consideration of our universities' international standing has much to do with it, but more likely than not their awareness of what research is going on is limited to what pops up in the news every once in a while.


  • #55
    Oregano_State
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,290 ✭✭✭Oregano_State


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Ok, but does the average person in Ireland really have any idea what kind of (publicly-funded) research is taking place there? I doubt it, particularly given that there seems to be a popular belief at present that Irish third-level institutions do not compare well internationally.

    I don't know anyone that has that opinion. Are you just saying that this opinion exists, or that you believe it to be true?

    I think Irish Universities are grand anyway. The one I went to was good and well rounded, if not spectacular.
    Vojera wrote: »
    That's a good point. I wouldn't say their consideration of our universities' international standing has much to do with it, but more likely than not their awareness of what research is going on is limited to what pops up in the news every once in a while.

    I definitely think this is the case. The vast majority of people only hear about GM in the news, and usually it only makes the news when there's some negative controversy surrounding it.

    Hence the prevailing suspicion that exists about it.

    I'm all for stringent regulation, but I don't agree with banning GM outright.


  • #56
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Oregano_State wrote: »
    I don't know anyone that has that opinion. Are you just saying that this opinion exists, or that you believe it to be true?
    I'm saying it exists. Go check out the Politics forum for example - Ireland's "third-rate universities" are frequently mentioned. I personally encounter this attitude a lot - people act genuinely surprised when they learn of some of cool stuff coming out of research labs in Ireland.

    Anyways, not really relevant to the discussion at hand.


  • #57
    Oregano_State
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,290 ✭✭✭Oregano_State


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I'm saying it exists. Go check out the Politics forum for example - Ireland's "third-rate universities" are frequently mentioned. I personally encounter this attitude a lot - people act genuinely surprised when they learn of some of cool stuff coming out of research labs in Ireland.

    Anyways, not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

    Jaysus, that's a new one on me. Can't please some people!


  • #58
    Squeaky the Squirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭Squeaky the Squirrel


    EFSA is after discovering a potentially Toxic viral gene (It was always there but since their is very little to no research/testing of GMOs since people are the guinea pigs, it went unnoticed)


    How should a regulatory agency announce they have discovered something potentially very important about the safety of products they have been approving for over twenty years?


    In the course of analysis to identify potential allergens in GMO crops, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has belatedly discovered that the most common genetic regulatory sequence in commercial GMOs also encodes a significant fragment of a viral gene (Podevin and du Jardin 2012). This finding has serious ramifications for crop biotechnology and its regulation, but possibly even greater ones for consumers and farmers. This is because there are clear indications that this viral gene (called Gene VI) might not be safe for human consumption.
    The researchers themselves concluded that the presence of segments of Gene VI “might result in unintended phenotypic changes”. They reached this conclusion because similar fragments of Gene VI have already been shown to be active on their own (e.g. De Tapia et al. 1993). In other words, the EFSA researchers were unable to rule out a hazard to public health or the environment.
    In general, viral genes expressed in plants raise both agronomic and human health concerns (reviewed in Latham and Wilson 2008). This is because many viral genes function to disable their host in order to facilitate pathogen invasion.
    Commercial transgenic crop varieties can also contain superfluous copies of the transgene, including those that are incomplete or rearranged (Wilson et al 2006). These could be important additional sources of Gene VI protein. The decision of regulators to allow such multiple and complex insertion events was always highly questionable, but the realization that the CaMV 35S promoter contains Gene VI sequences provides yet another reason to believe that complex insertion events increase the likelihood of a biosafety problem.
    A further key point relates to the biotech industry and their campaign to secure public approval and a permissive regulatory environment. This has led them to repeatedly claim, firstly, that GMO technology is precise and predictable; and secondly, that their own competence and self-interest would prevent them from ever bringing potentially harmful products to the market; and thirdly, to assert that only well studied and fully understood transgenes are commercialized. It is hard to imagine a finding more damaging to these claims than the revelations surrounding Gene VI.
    Even now that EFSA’s own researchers have belatedly considered the risk issues, no one can say whether the public has been harmed, though harm appears a clear scientific possibility. Considered from the perspective of professional and scientific risk assessment, this situation represents a complete and catastrophic system failure.
    Footnotes
    1) EFSA regulators might now be regretting their failure to implement meaningful GMO monitoring. It would be a good question for European politicians to ask EFSA and for the board of EFSA to ask the GMO panel, whose job it is to implement monitoring.
    ^:eek:


    http://independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/regulators-discover-a-hidden-viral-gene-in-commercial-gmo-crops/


  • #59
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Squeaky the Squirrel wrote: »
    EFSA is after discovering a potentially Toxic viral gene...
    A fragment of a viral gene - there is no evidence of toxicity.

    What's the big deal? A significant percentage of human DNA, for example, is virus-derived:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/abs/nature08695.html


  • #60
    periodictable
    Closed Accounts Posts: 931 ✭✭✭periodictable


    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?


    Never smoked or drank, poultry and fish only, mid 30s, 2.5k swim every other day, blader....and out of the blue I get cancer:eek:
    Quite sure it wasn't GM


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    SiegfriedsMum
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 97 ✭✭SiegfriedsMum


    periodictable wrote: »
    Never smoked or drank, poultry and fish only, mid 30s, 2.5k swim every other day, blader....and out of the blue I get cancer:eek:
    Quite sure it wasn't GM

    What does your oncologist say?

    Seriously, a lot of twaddle is talked about GM foods, and most of it is nudge nudge wink wink stuff. I think if GM foods leads to less pesticides and better crops then that's two advantages. Its funny how many of those opposed to GM (like prince charles) are also advocates of quackery like homoeopathy and such nonsense.


  • #62
    shedweller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,029 ✭✭✭shedweller


    Equating anti gm sentiment with homeopathy is a weak argument. I think you'll find that most people who question gm also think homeopathy is nonsense. I have no links to back that up but neither do you.


  • #63
    two wheels good
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,996 ✭✭✭two wheels good


    SiegfriedsMum wrote: »
    Seriously, a lot of twaddle is talked about GM foods, and most of it is nudge nudge wink wink stuff. I think if GM foods leads to less pesticides and better crops then that's two advantages. Its funny how many of those opposed to GM (like prince charles) are also advocates of quackery like homoeopathy and such nonsense.

    Maybe you'd benefit from a little more reading on the subject - and a lot less generalising. You could start with the topic of "super weeds" - nudge , nudge.


  • #64
    SiegfriedsMum
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 97 ✭✭SiegfriedsMum


    shedweller wrote: »
    Equating anti gm sentiment with homeopathy is a weak argument. I think you'll find that most people who question gm also think homeopathy is nonsense. I have no links to back that up but neither do you.

    It was merely an observation and not an argument that some of those who oppose GM also promote homoeopathy. Both positions require a great deal of woolly thinking and have that in common.
    two wheels good wrote: »
    Maybe you'd benefit from a little more reading on the subject - and a lot less generalising. You could start with the topic of "super weeds" - nudge , nudge.

    Boards is a discussion forum, and not a place where we come to direct others to other sites. If you have an argument, rather than just unasked for advice, I’ll respond to your argument.

    OED Definition of patronize
    verb
    [with object]
    • 1 (often as adjective patronizing) treat with an apparent kindness which betrays a feeling of superiority:


  • #65
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    SiegfriedsMum wrote: »
    Boards is a discussion forum, and not a place where we come to direct others to other sites.
    [MOD]Less of the back-seat modding please.

    Let's keep it civil folks.[/MOD]


  • #66
    two wheels good
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,996 ✭✭✭two wheels good


    SiegfriedsMum wrote: »
    Boards is a discussion forum, and not a place where we come to direct others to other sites. If you have an argument, rather than just unasked for advice, I’ll respond to your argument.

    Directing you to other sites is exactly what I was avoiding. You think GM reduces the amount of pestidices\herbicides. Many reports assert this is often not the case.
    If you pursue my suggested topic you can choose your own source of information - and avoid any of my woolly thinking.

    I'll try to not to infer that I am better informed than your comment suggests if you try not to associate my anti-GM view with support of homeopathy or quackery.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    SiegfriedsMum
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 97 ✭✭SiegfriedsMum


    two wheels good wrote: »
    You think GM reduces the amount of pestidices\herbicides. Many reports assert this is often not the case.

    GM as a science is not perfect. No science is. One of the goals of GM is to reduce the pesticides necessary in the production of crops, and while in some cases that goal has been achieved, in other cases that's still a work in progress, while in others that goal has been achieved.

    The research in GM is ongoing, and one can only assume that the longer it goes on, the better it will get. I welcome the research which aims for that, and welcome the continuing research which also gives us better cropping yields.
    two wheels good wrote: »

    I'll try to not to infer that I am better informed than your comment suggests if you try not to associate my anti-GM view with support of homeopathy or quackery.

    I never said your views included support of homoeopathy, or quackery, as I have no way of knowing if they do.

    You have concerns about GM and that's entirely valid. I probably don't share many of those concerns, but I do welcome research into making some crops give better yields, and with with less pesticides. I simply don't understand why some are against even research in the area, when the potential benefits can be highly significant, and the downside seems negligible.


  • #68
    Squeaky the Squirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭Squeaky the Squirrel


    SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

    Seriously, a lot of twaddle is talked about GM foods, and most of it is nudge nudge wink wink stuff. I think if GM foods leads to less pesticides and better crops then that's two advantages. Its funny how many of those opposed to GM (like prince charles) are also advocates of quackery like homoeopathy and such nonsense.
    No need to go elsewhere, lots of links in this very thread about the huge increase in pesticide use since GM came along, in sync with massive pest population booms and super weeds.

    Super Weeds are resistant to Round Up, so new, more poisonous chemicals are to be used/added.

    Australian Research shows that conventional Crops are well out preforming GMs, even when the GM receive multiple doses of herbicides. I read somewhere that Chinese Farmers were considering dropping BT Cotton due to crop collapse.

    A link earlier in this Thread referenced a study that linked Roundup and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, study was from 1987 - 1990.

    Monsanto received permits for a three fold increase on herbicide residues on genetically engineered soybeans in Europe and the U.S., up from 6 parts per million (PPM) to 20 PPM in 1998.

    So overused it's turning up in the air you breath and even in pregnant women.

    SiegfriedsMum wrote: »
    It was merely an observation and not an argument that some of those who oppose GM also promote homoeopathy. Both positions require a great deal of woolly thinking and have that in common.



    Boards is a discussion forum, and not a place where we come to direct others to other sites. If you have an argument, rather than just unasked for advice, I’ll respond to your argument.

    OED Definition of patronize
    verb
    [with object]
    • 1 (often as adjective patronizing) treat with an apparent kindness which betrays a feeling of superiority:
    Only person linking GM and Homeopathy like this is you.

    Haven't read through it all but this is everything thats wrong with GM et al.


  • #69
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    SiegfriedsMum wrote: »
    You have concerns about GM and that's entirely valid. I probably don't share many of those concerns, but I do welcome research into making some crops give better yields, and with with less pesticides. I simply don't understand why some are against even research in the area, when the potential benefits can be highly significant, and the downside seems negligible.
    According to the UCUSA, it's the likes of Monsanto who are against the research (unless it's theirs)
    http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/suppressing-research.html
    "But multibillion-dollar agricultural corporations, including Monsanto, have fought independent research on their genetically engineered crops. They have often refused to provide independent scientists with seeds, or they've set restrictive conditions that severely limit research options."
    Food for thought...


  • #70
    SiegfriedsMum
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 97 ✭✭SiegfriedsMum


    Squeaky the Squirrel wrote: »

    Australian Research shows that conventional Crops are well out preforming GMs, even when the GM receive multiple doses of herbicides. I read somewhere that Chinese Farmers were considering dropping BT Cotton due to crop collapse.

    Are you claiming that all conventional crops outperform all GM crops? I assume not, and no one ever claimed the reverse was true.

    Chinese farmers should be free to make their own decisions about which crops they wish to use, and they will presumably only choose GM crops which have advantages over "conventional" crops. As will all farmers.
    Squeaky the Squirrel wrote: »

    A link earlier in this Thread referenced a study that linked Roundup and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, study was from 1987 - 1990.

    And in the years since 1990 (thats 23 years) what further research has confirmed that? Or what further research has found no link?

    "Studies" find all sorts of things, and homoeopaths will point you to "studies" which link their products to making people better. If there is one thing we all should learn is that studys which suggest links are of no value when subsequently proper clinical trials and meta analyses don't bear that out.
    Squeaky the Squirrel wrote: »

    Monsanto received permits for a three fold increase on herbicide residues on genetically engineered soybeans in Europe and the U.S., up from 6 parts per million (PPM) to 20 PPM in 1998.

    And what's happened in the 15 years since? GM is a developing science and I am not sure why that scares you. If it's not going to be better than conventional crops, no one is going to use it. If it is better in one way or another, then we might use them. Why does that seem to scare you?
    Squeaky the Squirrel wrote: »
    So overused it's turning up in the air you breath and even in pregnant women.

    I am reliably told that every time I have a glass of water there are molecules in it which have previously been through the bladder of King Henry the VIII. presumably pregnant women and the rest of us all breathe the same air. What is it you are claiming has been found in pregnant women, where has it been found in them, and what does it do to them?
    Squeaky the Squirrel wrote: »

    Only person linking GM and Homeopathy like this is you.

    I am afraid you have misread what I said and I never made a link between homoeopathy and GM.

    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    According to the UCUSA, it's the likes of Monsanto who are against the research (unless it's theirs)
    http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/suppressing-research.html
    "But multibillion-dollar agricultural corporations, including Monsanto, have fought independent research on their genetically engineered crops. They have often refused to provide independent scientists with seeds, or they've set restrictive conditions that severely limit research options."
    Food for thought...

    I cant think of many companies engaged in research and having invested huge amounts of money in research who don't give away the results of their research to anyone who asks for it. The same could be said for the pharmaceutical industry, the automotive industry, and virtually any other industry you can think of engaged in research.

    Do you really think it normal practice in industry, for example, for the pharmaceutical companies to give their drugs which are being tested to other companies before the drugs are patented and ready for market? It would be madness to do as you seem to suggest.

    I can’t think of any industry where a company invests huge sums of money in research, and then before they can patent any products which may result from that, they simply give those products and results away to independent scientists and others. If they did they would be bankrupt very quickly.

    If the products are patented and are on the market, any scientist is free to but them and carry out whatever they wish to carry out.


  • #71
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    SiegfriedsMum wrote: »
    Do you really think it normal practice in industry, for example, for the pharmaceutical companies to give their drugs which are being tested to other companies before the drugs are patented and ready for market?
    No I know it's not normal practise and obviously release before patent and marketing is an issue.
    However once a big company has a product patented and to market, their investment may well be at its peak to date and subsequently their defence of their product will be paramount in reaping their returns - any criticism of their product will likely be strongly rebuked - the current system has its flaws too.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    hyperborean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 655 ✭✭✭hyperborean


    Is it not biodiversity that is the real issue here? GM crops have great potential for increasing yield and protection from treats without pesticides etc but
    Introducing a strong viralant strain of one species of plant could potentially wipe out others, others which could have advantages not seen right now, reducing the genetic pool is one hell of a mistake whether it be plants or humans, look at the royal families :-) and not just plants but the animals that depend on the plants, balance!

    Simple examples can be found showing harm to butterflies and other insects due to changes in crop growth patterns and toxin structures, if you are bothered have a quick look at this

    http://www.ask-force.org/web/Bt/Felke-Langenbruch-Bt-Mais-Journal-2002.pdf

    and many other similar study's that show negligible effects of introducing stronger species into local ecosystems

    The real problem with monsanto and others is that they spend more time trying to debunk these studies than actually contributing to solving the issue's shown, it breeds a lack of trust insofar as the normal man on the street feels they are hiding something.

    So feeding the poor(bull really, making money is more like it) now may contribute to reduces ability in the future if we dilute the gene pool.


  • #73
    SiegfriedsMum
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 97 ✭✭SiegfriedsMum


    hyperborean wrote: »
    Is it not biodiversity that is the real issue here? GM crops have great potential for increasing yield and protection from treats without pesticides etc but
    Introducing a strong viralant strain of one species of plant could potentially wipe out others,

    Are you not aware that something like 98% of all species which ever existed on this planet no longer exist?

    For example, the Irish potato which was around in times of famine was a pretty disgusting specimen, and new and better varieties have been developed since then which are much more drought resistant too. Someone might well have said in the 1860's "oh what a shame to develop new varieties of potatoes as they could potentially wipe our our existing variety", but that would have been pretty silly.
    hyperborean wrote: »

    Simple examples can be found showing harm to butterflies and other insects due to changes in crop growth patterns and toxin structures, if you are bothered have a quick look at this

    http://www.ask-force.org/web/Bt/Felke-Langenbruch-Bt-Mais-Journal-2002.pdf

    and many other similar study's that show negligible effects of introducing stronger species into local ecosystems

    The real problem with monsanto and others is that they spend more time trying to debunk these studies than actually contributing to solving the issue's shown, it breeds a lack of trust insofar as the normal man on the street feels they are hiding something.

    So feeding the poor(bull really, making money is more like it) now may contribute to reduces ability in the future if we dilute the gene pool.

    To be honest, if Monsanto wants to spend its own money on debunking others, or on looking for life on Mars, then that's their concern and it causes me no issues what they spend their money on so long as its legal and decent. If you think thats the real problem, then I disagree.

    We live in a capitalist society where the making of money is useful for paying people's salaries, paying tax and so and so on. What's wrong with making money especially if the way one makes money is by helping others?


  • #74
    hyperborean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 655 ✭✭✭hyperborean


    SiegfriedsMum wrote: »
    Are you not aware that something like 98% of all species which ever existed on this planet no longer exist?

    For example, the Irish potato which was around in times of famine was a pretty disgusting specimen, and new and better varieties have been developed since then which are much more drought resistant too. Someone might well have said in the 1860's "oh what a shame to develop new varieties of potatoes as they could potentially wipe our our existing variety", but that would have been pretty silly.



    To be honest, if Monsanto wants to spend its own money on debunking others, or on looking for life on Mars, then that's their concern and it causes me no issues what they spend their money on so long as its legal and decent. If you think thats the real problem, then I disagree.

    We live in a capitalist society where the making of money is useful for paying people's salaries, paying tax and so and so on. What's wrong with making money especially if the way one makes money is by helping others?


    I have a feeling you didn't read the study or make an effort to look at other peer reviewed studies regarding biodiversity and the weakening of the environment were GM plants are the primary factor researched?

    Please tell me you are not a believer in creationism?


  • #75
    SiegfriedsMum
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 97 ✭✭SiegfriedsMum


    hyperborean wrote: »
    I have a feeling you didn't read the study or make an effort to look at other peer reviewed studies regarding biodiversity and the weakening of the environment were GM plants are the primary factor researched?

    Please tell me you are not a believer in creationism?

    I don't even know what creationism is, so think it unlikely I "believe" in it.

    Are you just going to ignore the points I made in response to your last post?


  • #76
    Squeaky the Squirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭Squeaky the Squirrel


    SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

    Are you just going to ignore the points I made in response to your last post?
    are you going to keep ignoring the links provided for you?


  • #77
    hyperborean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 655 ✭✭✭hyperborean


    SiegfriedsMum wrote: »
    I don't even know what creationism is, so think it unlikely I "believe" in it.

    Are you just going to ignore the points I made in response to your last post?

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

    Your points are probably the stupidest arguments for GM plants I have ever come across, and with some of the silly stuff I have seen on the internet that takes the biscuit,

    But since its friday I will throw you a bone,

    you wrote:
    Are you not aware that something like 98% of all species which ever existed on this planet no longer exist?

    And currently the rate of extinctions are running at 1,000 and 10,000 times the natural order, this is mainly due to one animal, I was going to try and be clever and say " guess which one" but after your previous post I will tell you, its MAN
    you wrote:
    For example, the Irish potato which was around in times of famine was a pretty disgusting specimen, and new and better varieties have been developed since then which are much more drought resistant too. Someone might well have said in the 1860's "oh what a shame to develop new varieties of potatoes as they could potentially wipe our our existing variety", but that would have been pretty silly.

    Are you saying Monsanto could have prevented the great famine (gorta mor)?
    You knowledge of the famine is astoundingly sparse, the potato blight was a factor but by no means the problem, the potato blight hit the whole of Europe but Ireland had a whole host of political and economic problems that exacerbated it, you need to go have a read, take a day off work and cram, it will be of value.
    you wrote:
    To be honest, if Monsanto wants to spend its own money on debunking others, or on looking for life on Mars, then that's their concern and it causes me no issues what they spend their money on so long as its legal and decent. If you think thats the real problem, then I disagree.

    Do you know anything about PCBs or agent orange, look up Kemner v. Monsanto and go from there, these point to the ethical standards this company has shown in the past.
    you wrote:
    We live in a capitalist society where the making of money is useful for paying people's salaries, paying tax and so and so on. What's wrong with making money especially if the way one makes money is by helping others?

    Potentially causing biodiversity destruction for money is immoral. Your views are not uncommon to that extent but then Humans are all different,

    Its the future you should be worried about,

    As for Monsanto, I would be delighted if they found a safe and environmentaly friendly way to increase yield and reduce pesticide use.


  • #78
    SiegfriedsMum
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 97 ✭✭SiegfriedsMum


    hyperborean wrote: »

    And currently the rate of extinctions are running at 1,000 and 10,000 times the natural order, this is mainly due to one animal, I was going to try and be clever and say " guess which one" but after your previous post I will tell you, its MAN

    As this thread is about GM, I don't understand how you think GM is causing that?
    hyperborean wrote: »

    Are you saying Monsanto could have prevented the great famine (gorta mor)?
    You knowledge of the famine is astoundingly sparse, the potato blight was a factor but by no means the problem, the potato blight hit the whole of Europe but Ireland had a whole host of political and economic problems that exacerbated it, you need to go have a read, take a day off work and cram, it will be of value.



    No, I didn't say that. Again, my point had nothing to do with the irish famine, but about the developments in potatoes since the Irish famine which have made the potatoes available then more or less extinct because the more modern potatoes are so much better.

    Why you want to discuss the economic, political and social problems of the Irish Famine seem unclear, as they have no relevance to this thread on GM crops.
    hyperborean wrote: »

    Do you know anything about PCBs or agent orange, look up Kemner v. Monsanto and go from there, these point to the ethical standards this company has shown in the past.

    Henry Ford used slaves in the 1940's to build his cars and Marks & spencer has used child labour to produce garments. Many companies have done things which are disgraceful, and if you dont want to buy a Ford, or a twin set from M&S, or products from Monsanto, then thats your choice. It's not a reason to ban those companies and force them to disband.

    I am not a cheer leader for any company, although you seem to have a particular hatred of one called Monsanto. Thats your choice, and my arguments are about GM as a science, and not about the history or about my own particular views on one company.
    hyperborean wrote: »

    Potentially causing biodiversity destruction for money is immoral. Your views are not uncommon to that extent but then Humans are all different,

    It could well be argued that it's immoral to not use the science of GM to find ways of feeding the enormous world population. However, morality isn't really the issue for me as its more an issue of finding solutions for problems.

    That you appear to think those solutions should only be found without the use of GM science is a perfectly valid position, and it just happens that we disagree.
    hyperborean wrote: »

    Its the future you should be worried about,

    Its kind to tell me what I should worry about. However, I think the future will be better served by using GM science to try to feed the world in conjunction to existing technology. You seem to think GM technology should be banned, which is where we differ.
    hyperborean wrote: »

    As for Monsanto, I would be delighted if they found a safe and environmentaly friendly way to increase yield and reduce pesticide use.

    I agree, except I don't see why you only want Monsanto to do that. You may not be aware but there are GM trials taking place all the time here, in Ireland, which have nothing to do with Monsanto, so why you single them out is not clear.


  • #79
    Squeaky the Squirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭Squeaky the Squirrel


    Nearly Half of All US Farms Now Have Superweed
    Last year's drought took a big bite out of the two most prodigious US crops, corn and soy. But it apparently didn't slow down the spread of weeds that have developed resistance to Monsanto's herbicide Roundup (glyphosate), used on crops engineered by Monsanto to resist it. More than 70 percent of all the the corn, soy, and cotton grown in the US is now genetically modified to withstand glyphosate.
    blog07-graph%20copy.jpg

    • Nearly half (49 percent) of all US farmers surveyed said they have glyphosate-resistant weeds on their farm in 2012, up from 34 percent of farmers in 2011.
    •92 percent of growers in Georgia said they have glyphosate-resistant weeds.
    • It's spreading at a faster pace each year: Total resistant acres increased by 25 percent in 2011 and 51 percent in 2012.
    • More and more farms have at least two resistant species on their farm. In 2010 that was just 12 percent of farms, but two short years later 27 percent had more than one.
    So where do farmers go from here? Well, Monsanto and its peers would like them to try out "next generation" herbicide-resistant seeds—that is, crops engineered to resist not just Roundup, but also other, more toxic herbicides, like 2,4-D and Dicamba. Trouble is, such an escalation in the chemical war on weeds will likely only lead to more prolific, and more super, superweeds, along with a sharp increase in herbicide use. That's the message of a peer-reviewed 2011 paper by a team of Penn State University researchers led by David A. Mortensen. (I discussed their paper in a post last year.)
    corn and soy farmers will likely have to muddle along, responding in the same way that they have been for years, which is by upping their herbicide use in hopes of controlling the rogue weeds
    "The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." — Albert Einstein
    For a good idea of what's in store, check out this piece in the trade mag Corn & Soy Digest on "Managing Herbicide-Resistant weeds." Here's the key bit—note that "burndown" means a complete flattening of all vegetation in a field with a broad-spectrum herbicide such as paraquat, an infamously toxic weed killer that's been banned in 32 countries, including those of the European Union:
    For those with a known resistance problem, it’s not uncommon to see them use a fall burndown plus a residual herbicide, a spring burndown before planting, another at planting including another residual herbicide, and two or more in-season herbicide applications. “If you can catch the resistant weeds early enough, paraquat does a good job of controlling them. But once Palmer amaranth [a common glyphosate-tolerant weed] gets 6 ft. tall, you can't put on enough paraquat to kill it," [one weed-control expert] says.
    Oh my God!!
    But of course there's another way. In a 2012 study I'll never tire of citing, Iowa State University researchers found that if farmers simply diversified their crop rotations, which typically consist of corn one year and soy the next, year after year, to include a "small grain" crop (e.g. oats) as well as offseason cover crops, weeds (including Roundup-resistant ones) can be suppressed with dramatically less fertilizer use—a factor of between 6 and 10 less. And much less herbicide means much less poison entering streams—"potential aquatic toxicity was 200 times less in the longer rotations" than in the regular corn-soy regime, the study authors note. So, despite what the seed giants and the conventional weed specialists insist, there are other ways to respond to the accelerating scourge of "superweeds" than throwing more—and ever-more toxic—chemicals at them.


  • #80
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Squeaky the Squirrel wrote: »
    Oh my God!!
    [MOD]You can't copy/paste a whole load of stuff from the web and expect people to know what you're getting at.

    Add your own contribution please.[/MOD]


  • #81
    Squeaky the Squirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭Squeaky the Squirrel


    75-year-old soybean farmer sees Monsanto lawsuit reach U.S. Supreme Court

    Oldtimer is bringing suit to find out who owns the rights to the seeds planted in the ground and especially seeds held back from non Terminator type crops for replanting the next year.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Squeaky the Squirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭Squeaky the Squirrel


    Seed Giants Sue U.S. Farmers Over Genetically Modified Seed Patents In Shocking Numbers: Report
    According to the report, Monsanto has alleged seed patent infringement in 144 lawsuits against 410 farmers and 56 small farm businesses in at least 27 U.S. states as of January of 2013. Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta together hold 53 percent of the global commercial seed market, which the report says has led to price increases for seeds -- between 1995 and 2011, the average cost of planting one acre of soybeans rose 325 percent and corn seed prices went up 259 percent.
    Now that's the poor Farmers that live miles from a Farmer that's using a modified crop and is unlucky enough that the wind blows it in on his Land. GM company then sends out inspectors that trespass in on the neighboring Farmers property hoping to find one plant.

    Nice Court system.

    Interesting their about the Seed price increases, costs more to buy GM, costs more to treat and the crops still don't yield as much as non GM.


    Concerned Farmers actually went to the DOA last year over the whole process and an Advisory Commitee was set up to figure out how to deal with/proceed...
    According to the AC21 group, the best maneuver for any Monsanto foe to take right now is to simply buy insurance, suggesting that the top guns will be given the go-ahead to continue with their contested habit of near endless litigation, a practice that has a tendency to leave the little guys bankrupt and out of business — only to be bought up by the billion-dollar Monsanto corporation after their bills can’t be paid.
    “Of particular concern in the report is the recommendation that organic and non-GE conventional farmers pay for crop insurance or self-insure themselves against unwanted GE contamination,” the group writes. “NOC strongly asserts that this proposal allows USDA and the agricultural biotechnology industry to abdicate responsibility for preventing GE contamination, while making the victim of GE pollution pay for damages resulting from transgenic contamination.
    ^Told to take out insurance against being contaminated by GM through no fault of their own.:eek:


    Look at all the Articiles on that site, not one positive story about GM.


  • #83
    Cardinal Richelieu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,407 ✭✭✭Cardinal Richelieu


    The OP was concerned with the destruction of Irish Farmers, I think they will find that the Supermarkets. Celtic Tiger, and consumer demands have already caused major destruction in the sector so I hope this won't be spun to point the blame at GM. Perhaps someone can provide the figures from Bord Bia/Teagasc but you will see a decline in the grower numbers for most of the fruit/veg crops grown in Ireland over the last 30 years. In fact large Growers with multi million Euro turnovers are starting to dominate profitable areas such as soft fruits and salad crops in Ireland.


  • #84
    Squeaky the Squirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭Squeaky the Squirrel




    A round up/history lesson of GMO. Cleared a few things up for me that I was wondering about.


  • #85
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Squeaky the Squirrel wrote: »
    Now that's the poor Farmers that live miles from a Farmer that's using a modified crop and is unlucky enough that the wind blows it in on his Land. GM company then sends out inspectors that trespass in on the neighboring Farmers property hoping to find one plant.

    Has that actually happened?


  • #86
    Squeaky the Squirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭Squeaky the Squirrel


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Has that actually happened?
    Oh yea. Loads of stories.


  • #87
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Squeaky the Squirrel wrote: »
    Oh yea. Loads of stories.

    Any actual evidence of it happening?


  • #88
    Squeaky the Squirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭Squeaky the Squirrel


    Obama signs Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 with buried provision (apparently to such a level that voting senators didn't even know it existed:confused::rolleyes:) that effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of GMO or GE crops and seeds, no matter what health consequences from the consumption of these products may come to light for at the very least, the next 6 months.

    Senator that proposed Bill has received €64,000+ in Campaign funding from Monsanto.

    http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-bill-blunt-agriculture-006/
    http://www.ibtimes.com/furor-growing-against-obama-over-monsanto-protection-act-1156459


  • #89
    shedweller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,029 ✭✭✭shedweller


    How is it that the likes of monsanto can do this? Everything else has to be tested before it is released for sale.:confused:


  • #90
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act H. R. 933—35 is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary’s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.

    This is the text of bill HR933 that you are referencing (section 734, bottom of page 34 here).

    Now, while it is very verbose and a little hard to follow, nowhere does that actually say that federal courts cannot ban the sale or growth of crops no matter what the health consequences. What it says is that if a crop, that is already legal, is put under re-review by a court, that it does not have to be destroyed while waiting for the re-review to be finished (again, because it has already been approved). I don't see the problem with that, in general. For instance, if the courts wanted to re-review the safety of a certain make of car, I wouldn't expect all the factories to shut down and all the cars in dealers lots be destroyed before safety concerns are confirmed.

    Any chance you have the evidence I asked for in my last post? I'm just looking for some links to such lawsuits actually happening.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Squeaky the Squirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭Squeaky the Squirrel


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    This is the text of bill HR933 that you are referencing (section 734, bottom of page 34 here).

    Now, while it is very verbose and a little hard to follow, nowhere does that actually say that federal courts cannot ban the sale or growth of crops no matter what the health consequences. What it says is that if a crop, that is already legal, is put under re-review by a court, that it does not have to be destroyed while waiting for the re-review to be finished (again, because it has already been approved). I don't see the problem with that, in general.
    A look at some of the other good News sites (ones with comment sections, can't beat 'em) dissecting that lawyer speak break it down the same way as links above.

    Your interpretation (which just looks like a summary of Monsantos Press Release) is wrong.

    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    For instance, if the courts wanted to re-review the safety of a certain make of car, I wouldn't expect all the factories to shut down and all the cars in dealers lots be destroyed before safety concerns are confirmed.
    Big difference between a Car and a "harmful" crop that could find it's way into every Jar, Tin and soup packet type foodstuff you buy. Unlabelled the way things are going.


  • #92
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Squeaky the Squirrel wrote: »
    A look at some of the other good News sites (ones with comment sections, can't beat 'em) dissecting that lawyer speak break it down the same way as links above.

    Your interpretation (which just looks like a summary of Monsantos Press Release) is wrong.

    Give links then. Because I don't think I'm wrong, and I won't think I am wrong simply based on your assertion, sans any evidence.
    Squeaky the Squirrel wrote: »
    Big difference between a Car and a "harmful" crop that could find it's way into every Jar, Tin and soup packet type foodstuff you buy. Unlabelled the way things are going.

    If a crop is found to be harmful, then it will be removed from the food line. The legislation does not protect dangerous crops from destruction, what it does is protect any crop from procedural challenge (ie someone asserts that regulated status was improperly bestowed) until it is determined if that was the case. The last sentence of section 735:
    Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.
    ensures that proven harmful crops can still be dealt with.

    Any chance you have the evidence I asked for in my last post? I'm just looking for some links to such lawsuits actually happening.


  • #93
    Squeaky the Squirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭Squeaky the Squirrel


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Give links then. Because I don't think I'm wrong, and I won't think I am wrong simply based on your assertion, sans any evidence.
    Already have, don't see the point in adding anymore.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    If a crop is found to be harmful, then it will be removed from the food line.
    lol, If Independent Scientists can actually manage to get samples to prove their harmful in the first place that is.

    And then a "sponsored" "scientist" will be along shortly after to disprove it again and on the show goes.

    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Any chance you have the evidence I asked for in my last post? I'm just looking for some links to such lawsuits actually happening.
    Just looking at previous post, is Organic Farmers taking out Insurance against litigation from cross contamination not proof enough?


  • #94
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Any chance you have the evidence I asked for in my last post? I'm just looking for some links to such lawsuits actually happening.

    Actually that has happened. A Canadian farmer, Percy Schmeiser, discovered that some of his plants were contaminated with Monsanto Roundup Ready canola seed, which was likely to have happened through windborn seeds. He was sued by Monsanto and the result was 6 years of litigation.

    You just have to look at Monsanto's history of ligitation to see what their business model is: patent like hell and then sue like hell. They file cases against so many people, they've even done it by mistake.

    I must admit I'm not rabidly anti-GM, although of course the precautionary principle must apply. It's more the tactics and agenda of these companies that I find very disturbing.


  • #95
    shedweller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,029 ✭✭✭shedweller


    I wonder how far would i get if i sued monsanto for contaminating my crops?!


  • #96
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    shedweller wrote: »
    I wonder how far would i get if i sued monsanto for contaminating my crops?!

    That's the perversity of the whole thing. They contaminate your crops, they sue you and, if they win, earn the legal right to contaminate crops.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Squeaky the Squirrel wrote: »
    Already have, don't see the point in adding anymore.

    No, you gave links which said that section 735 would give monsato crops immunity, without even quoting the text they said would do that. Either explain, with reference to specific parts of the text, how section 735 gives immunity to the crops or link to someone else explaining it with references.
    Squeaky the Squirrel wrote: »
    lol, If Independent Scientists can actually manage to get samples to prove their harmful in the first place that is.

    And then a "sponsored" "scientist" will be along shortly after to disprove it again and on the show goes.

    Cant independent scientists just buy a sample?
    Squeaky the Squirrel wrote: »
    Just looking at previous post, is Organic Farmers taking out Insurance against litigation from cross contamination not proof enough?

    No. People getting insurance against something they don't understand isn't evidence of anything.


  • #98
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Macha wrote: »
    Actually that has happened. A Canadian farmer, Percy Schmeiser, discovered that some of his plants were contaminated with Monsanto Roundup Ready canola seed, which was likely to have happened through windborn seeds. He was sued by Monsanto and the result was 6 years of litigation.

    He wasn't sued because his crops were contaminated, he was sued because he knowingly replanted the seeds he obtained as a result of contamination, from Wikipedia:
    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.

    I'm not saying I agree with Monsato suing him, but it is not the same situation being described here.
    Macha wrote: »
    You just have to look at Monsanto's history of ligitation to see what their business model is: patent like hell and then sue like hell. They file cases against so many people, they've even done it by mistake.

    I must admit I'm not rabidly anti-GM, although of course the precautionary principle must apply. It's more the tactics and agenda of these companies that I find very disturbing.

    I would be the same as you, in relation to GM and the owner companies. I have no problem believing that a GM company would patent and sue like hell to protect their products from criticism or outside control, no more than I would have a problem that a pharmaceutical company or technological company would do that, its not like there aren't plenty of examples. I just want actual, specific evidence for it.

    The problem with conspiracy theorists blasting out frivolous accusations left, right and centre is that it just builds up a "boy who cries wolf" situation. With every accusation quickly found to be a lie, or a massive exaggeration, it becomes too easy to just ignore them all, which just increases our chances of missing actual dangerous practices companies might be undertaking.


  • #99
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    He wasn't sued because his crops were contaminated, he was sued because he knowingly replanted the seeds he obtained as a result of contamination, from Wikipedia:


    I'm not saying I agree with Monsato suing him, but it is not the same situation being described here.
    That is one interpretation of the facts. If your seeds are contaminated, what exactly are you supposed to plant? The man had worked years on his own breed of seed and that work was wiped out by Monsanto's contamination. Why wasn't he the one suing them?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I would be the same as you, in relation to GM and the owner companies. I have no problem believing that a GM company would patent and sue like hell to protect their products from criticism or outside control, no more than I would have a problem that a pharmaceutical company or technological company would do that, its not like there aren't plenty of examples. I just want actual, specific evidence for it.
    I think if you can't take the above as evidence, you're not going to find much evidence at all. These stories are spun every which way - if you have the money, you have access to the best legal resources to fight these cases and make sure your side of the story is the one that wins out.

    The suing of farmers by the large seed companies has become so prevalent, the US Centre for Food Safety just released a report about it:

    http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/reports/1770/seed-giants-vs-us-farmers

    Monsanto alone has filed patent infringement suits against 410 farmers and 56 small businesses, winning $23million and frightening thousands of farmers into submission. There is currently a Supreme Court case happening that could have big implications:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-796
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The problem with conspiracy theorists blasting out frivolous accusations left, right and centre is that it just builds up a "boy who cries wolf" situation. With every accusation quickly found to be a lie, or a massive exaggeration, it becomes too easy to just ignore them all, which just increases our chances of missing actual dangerous practices companies might be undertaking.
    Let's tone down the language. Play the ball, not the man please.


  • #100
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Macha wrote: »
    That is one interpretation of the facts. If your seeds are contaminated, what exactly are you supposed to plant? The man had worked years on his own breed of seed and that work was wiped out by Monsanto's contamination. Why wasn't he the one suing them?

    His crop wasn't wiped out, read the wiki again: He testified that he then harvested that crop, saved it separately from his other harvest, and intentionally planted it in 1998.
    Again, I'm not saying I agree with Monsanto suing him, but if you want to know why he didn't sue them himself in the first place, you will need to ask himself yourself, because I don't know.
    Macha wrote: »
    I think if you can't take the above as evidence, you're not going to find much evidence at all.

    I accept the above as evidence of Monsanto being incredibly loose with litigation, I have no problem with that. I, however, wanted specific examples of Monsanto doing what Squeaky the Squirrel claimed (suing farmers simply because their crops where naturally contaminated with Monsanto seeds).
    Macha wrote: »
    The suing of farmers by the large seed companies has become so prevalent, the US Centre for Food Safety just released a report about it

    I'm not disputing anything in that report, but just to point out that its not the US Centre for Food Safety, its the Centre for Food Safety. Its not a US governmental organisation (maybe you didn't mean this, but it looks implied by how its written), its a non-profit that promotes organic food and sustainable agriculture. You should expect, not be surprised by, reports on the actions of GM companies coming from it.
    Macha wrote: »
    There is currently a Supreme Court case happening that could have big implications:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-796

    That is an important case, but not the same thing that Squeaky the Squirrel described before: the guy in the link is being sued for replanting 2nd gen seeds (of first gen seeds originally sold as commodities not for planting), not because his crop was contaminated. Again I don't agree with the court case.
    Macha wrote: »
    Let's tone down the language. Play the ball, not the man please.

    :confused: What language?


  • #101
    Squeaky the Squirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭Squeaky the Squirrel


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    No, you gave links which said that section 735 would give monsato crops immunity, without even quoting the text they said would do that. Either explain, with reference to specific parts of the text, how section 735 gives immunity to the crops or link to someone else explaining it with references.
    https://www.google.ie/search?q=monsanto+protection+act&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=monsanto+protection+act&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&ei=FvxdUYnFGrSGiQKFloCACg&start=0&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44770516,d.dmg&fp=affe9f0ee5632ff&biw=1120&bih=517

    Monsanto Protection Act put GM companies above the federal courts



    ^^Squeakys ears nearly glazed over never mind his eyes.:pac:


    Another mess in the making...

    USDA approves Monsanto alfalfa despite presence of infertility-causing pathogens
    The U.S. Department of Agriculture has recently deregulated Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa, but two weeks before the department's chief, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, made his decision, a senior soil expert alerted USDA to a newly discovered, microscopic pathogen that had been found in high concentrations in Roundup Ready corn and soy the researchers believe could be causing infertility in livestock, as well as diseases in crops that have the potential to threaten the nation's entire domestic food supply.

    The warning was issued by Dr. Don Huber, a plant pathologist and former Purdue University professor, who wrote in a letter to the Department of Agriculture that the pathogen he discovered is new to scientists, and that it appears to impact the health of plants, animals and most likely humans to a significant degree.

    "Based on this experience, I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk status. In layman's terms, it should be treated as an emergency," Huber warned.

    The retired professor has called for an immediate moratorium on any approvals of Roundup Ready crops. Despite his warning; however, the USDA fully deregulated Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa
    Lab tests indicate that the pathogen is also present in a "wide variety" of livestock that is suffering from infertility and spontaneous abortions. Huber warned that the pathogen may be responsible for reports of increased fertility rates in dairy cows and spontaneous abortions in cattle that reach as high a 45 percent.
    http://ec.europa.eu/food/dyna/gm_register/index_en.cfm

    Look at all this rotten crap in Europe now (Hit search)
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Cant independent scientists just buy a sample?
    WTF!? Keep up, independent studies are/were prohibitied/restricted. Alot of what is released is data gathered from multiple sources after the damage is done (pesticides in the rain, though someone else said on thread they'd no problem eating pesticices as they weren't told it was bad, lol:rolleyes:, linked to lymphoma nearly 3 decades ago-->nothing since:rolleyes:, just aswell Shampoo Bottles tell ya not to drink it, coke better hurry up with their warning), some is from Monsantos own Lawyer speak Billion page reports
    All tests are provided to the US Government on GMO safety or performance by the companies themselves such as Monsanto.
    which people have went through and found flaws in even that data.

    I'm off to release a nice breakfast Cereal (squeakys nuts) thats really just cow shite and chocolate. You seem to think it's OK for untested crap to be on sale before its proven to be safe.

    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    No. People getting insurance against something they don't understand isn't evidence of anything.
    WTF again?! They're getting sued for having GM on their land that they didn't put their. I'd say they understand it alright.


    GMO belongs in a Glasshouse in an underground bunker in the Atacama Desert as far as squeaky is concerned, it's doing way to much harm and it's touted benefits seem to be only getting further away.

    Their'd be no need for it at all if powers that be did their job and started introducing measures to curb population growths. Patrick Moore was definitely on to something.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement