Monsanto Wins World Food Prize

Jimmy Garlic

Hersheys wrote: »

We actually have been gm'ing crops for years. Cross pollination of corn crops to produce more hardy corn, higher produce yield, more resistant to extremes and disease.

We also use genetics to modify our milk. Cross breeding cows to give the best milk is common practice.

Not the same thing at all, this is propaganda put out by the GM corps and repeated frequently. The hybridisation of naturally compatible plant varieties or animals within the same species cannot be compared to genetic modification. Hybridisation happens naturally in the wild, it doesn't have to be mans hand that encourages it. GM processes create things that would never come about naturally.

Einhard

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Not the same thing at all, this is propaganda put out by the GM corps and repeated frequently. The hybridisation of naturally compatible plant varieties or animals within the same species cannot be compared to genetic modification. Hybridisation happens naturally in the wild, it doesn't have to be mans hand that encourages it. GM processes create things that would never come about naturally.

I can see where you're coming from, but it could be pointed out that most of the medicines we consume could not come about naturally in the wild. Just because something isn't natural, doesn't mean that it is, by dint of that, a bad thing.

Can someone explain the patent thing that is causing all this hate towards something that could be positive?

Mike Funnelly

Deleted User wrote: »

Can someone explain the patent thing that is causing all this hate towards something that could be positive?

Essentially what happens is that you buy the seed, grow the seed, and sell all the seed to whoever buys it. If you keep some to grow the following year, you are technically infringing on their patent. You are not allowed to keep it and store it for the next growing season.

So each year they get their pound/ton of flesh, selling you new seed.

Son Of A Vidic

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

GM food is the way of the future. Like it or not our growing population needs a higher level of produce to sustain itself.

Monsanto couldn't have written that better themselves. Maybe go to your local HSE hospital site or hotel/restaurant and just watch the sheer volume of food that is wasted every day. Oh there is more that enough food on this planet right now, but just not everyone is getting it.

Wibbs

Mike Funnelly wrote: »

If you keep some to grow the following year, you are technically infringing on their patent. You are not allowed to keep it and store it for the next growing season.

The seed is usually infertile anyway.

So each year they get their pound/ton of flesh, selling you new seed.

For me monsanto are among the most truly destructive agencies on this planet. Modern farming ain't too sweet on the environment either. Less a problem here, but look at the single squillion acre fields raising monocultures in the UK and elsewhere. Remember the flic saving private Ryan. One of the reasons they shot part of it here was because we still have hedgerows and fields, most of the ones in Normandy are gone today.

clairefontaine

Wibbs wrote: »

The seed is usually infertile anyway.

For me monsanto are among the most truly destructive agencies on this planet. Modern farming ain't too sweet on the environment either. Less a problem here, but look at the single squillion acre fields raising monocultures in the UK and elsewhere. Remember the flic saving private Ryan. One of the reasons they shot part of it here was because we still have hedgerows and fields, most of the ones in Normandy are gone today.

I agree. I think they are evil. And trust me I'm no Birkenstock wearing Obama voter. Nowhere near it.

Montsanto are evil. And some former bigwig from Montsanto was appointed high up in the FDA.

CruelCoin

The Backwards Man wrote: »

And a higher level of food distribution. The world produces more than enough food to feed the current population as it is.

Not all food is transportable, or affordable.

You can make all the grain you want in the west, but even if you managed to ship it to Africa for free (you can't) the locals wouldn't be able to afford it at market rate anyway.

So in effect, anyone who is talking about "distribute it better" is really talking about charity, which does little to help or encourage local populations to develop to a sustainable point.

This is a harsh point but: If you feed that starving child, likely he will grow up to have 8 more starving children, all of whom will need feeding.
You're being kind short-term, but long-term you're being a dick.

Sergeant

I propose we set up state-run farms on the steppes of Northern Kazakhstan. This will help to provide the workers of the world with 3 square meals a day.

GalwayGuy2

Monsanto couldn't have written that better themselves. Maybe go to your local HSE hospital site or hotel/restaurant and just watch the sheer volume of food that is wasted every day. Oh there is more that enough food on this planet right now, but just not everyone is getting it

My biggest gripe with that is that it is impossible to prove. Also, would there be so much of food if there wasn't a market behind it? And what about the economics of food?

Slutmonkey57b

Hersheys wrote: »

We actually have been gm'ing crops for years. Cross pollination of corn crops to produce more hardy corn, higher produce yield, more resistant to extremes and disease.

We also use genetics to modify our milk. Cross breeding cows to give the best milk is common practice.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. And like many people who are bogglingly ignorant, you're absolutely confident you're right. Frightening. Genetic scientists are barely scratching the surface of understanding how existing individual genes work and interact with each other. Suggesting they're capable of manipulating said genes and understanding all the implications in advance is ridiculous.

For a primer on whether allowing profiteering corporations or arrogant central planners determine agricultural policy, I encourage you to visit America's dust bowl.

Iwasfrozen

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

It's depressing that people like you are so twisted by libertarian and right-wing propaganda that you think that turning the entire planet into a hyper-consumerist, resource gobbling, environment degrading dystopia is a desirable goal.

The fact of the matter is millions are starving in the world as we speak and GM food can provide enough food to solve these problems. Sure the west could give up their own but that's never going to happen and our goal as a species should be more then adequacy.

Hersheys

Hersheys wrote: »

We actually have been gm'ing crops for years. Cross pollination of corn crops to produce more hardy corn, higher produce yield, more resistant to extremes and disease.

We also use genetics to modify our milk. Cross breeding cows to give the best milk is common practice.

Hitler reversed Germanys economic downturn, got people working again, opened up factorys left and right and bolstered Germany's military power as well as revolutionizing Germanys Automobile industry.

Iwasfrozen

nmop_apisdn wrote: »

Can sustain at least 12 Billion without GM.

How? By shipping the food? That costs money for transit and preservation and the locals won't be able to afford it anyway. What you're talking about is charity.

No we haven't.

Yes we have. Breeding is genetic modification simply by natural means.

Never gonna happen. Nature or a few corporations will make sure of that.

9.6B by 2050 current estimate.

Never say never.

Hersheys

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. And like many people who are bogglingly ignorant, you're absolutely confident you're right. Frightening. Genetic scientists are barely scratching the surface of understanding how existing individual genes work and interact with each other. Suggesting they're capable of manipulating said genes and understanding all the implications in advance is ridiculous.

For a primer on whether allowing profiteering corporations or arrogant central planners determine agricultural policy, I encourage you to visit America's dust bowl.

Hmmm. Have no idea what I'm talking about. Right. I have spent the past 5 years working closely with bovine geneticists testing milk fractions to determine their composition, nutritional requirements and how they fit into the quota issue and milk quality issue that affects many, many farmers. I am aware that geneticists are barely scratching the surface of understanding gene function - if they knew everything science would stop. It's the nature of the work.

90% of all statistics are made up on the spot, but I would hazard a guess that about 80% of all "modified" corn products are as a result of natural selection, cross pollination occurring because different grains are planted close to each other. It's natural selection at work. Plants adapt to their surroundings and can withstand the harsh environments, drought, heat...

Am I agreeing with Monsanto? No. Preceeding my work on milk I did a degree in genetics. As part of that degree I had to do a term paper and presentation on Monsanto - positives, negatives... I found it hard to find any positives.

Disagree with Monsanto. Agree with the principle of GM.

Iwasfrozen

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

the obvious solution would be to not let it get that high. But that would require countires taking responsibility for their populations, no one bar China even bothers as yet.

Top down population control can't happen without serious infringement of rights. Individual people themselves have to choose not to have children and one of the things that would help them come to that conclusion (besides contraceptives) is greater farm productivity where they can grow the same level of produce with less cheap child labour.

But anyway I agree with osarusan my issue isn't with GM itself so much as the patenting of what is modified/engineered.

But then without patents how to encourage research into these fields?

ThreeBlindMice

Deleted User wrote: »

Can someone explain the patent thing that is causing all this hate towards something that could be positive?

Placing a patent on heirloom seeds of a vital food commodity is hate.

Slutmonkey57b

Hersheys wrote: »

Hmmm. Have no idea what I'm talking about. Right. I have spent the past 5 years working closely with bovine geneticists testing milk fractions to determine their composition, nutritional requirements and how they fit into the quota issue and milk quality issue that affects many, many farmers. I am aware that geneticists are barely scratching the surface of understanding gene function - if they knew everything science would stop. It's the nature of the work.

90% of all statistics are made up on the spot, but I would hazard a guess that about 80% of all "modified" corn products are as a result of natural selection, cross pollination occurring because different grains are planted close to each other. It's natural selection at work. Plants adapt to their surroundings and can withstand the harsh environments, drought, heat...

Am I agreeing with Monsanto? No. Preceeding my work on milk I did a degree in genetics. As part of that degree I had to do a term paper and presentation on Monsanto - positives, negatives... I found it hard to find any positives.

Disagree with Monsanto. Agree with the principle of GM.

Is it your contention that scientific manipulation of genes is the *same process* as natural selection, or natural cross pollination? Because if it is, your defense falls down.

Hersheys

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Is it your contention that scientific manipulation of genes is the *same process* as natural selection, or natural cross pollination? Because if it is, your defense falls down.

No, I'm just saying that plants do undergo their own genetic modification. I am not saying that the likes of the crop from Monsanto are the same as the natural selection crops that exist. See the part where I said "disagree with Monsanto, agree with GM"

Seaneh

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

They don't have to use Monsanto products though...

I plant my field with normal corn that I've been planting my whole life, seeds I've saved, a crop that my family have been planting for countless generations.

My neighbour decides to switch to monsanto corn. He sells his old seeds and plants his monsanto.

Later in the year we both harvest our crop, and as usual I save my seeds for next years crop, he is not allowed to do this but his increased yeild will probably offset this if he's lucky, and the time he's saved in the fields will mean he probably has another income as well.

Next year I plant my saved seeds.

Someone from monsanto comes and takes a sample of my crop.

He finds the Monsanto crop from my neighbor's farm has cross pollinated with my own and my crop now has the monsanto genetics.

Monsanto can now seize my crop AND prosecute me for copyright theft.



They are a disgusting company.

A Primal Nut

It should be the other way around. If their seeds cross-pollinate on on other farmers crops, Monsanto (and their customers) should be the ones who have to pay compensation.

Seaneh

A Primal Nut wrote: »

It should be the other way around. If their seeds cross-pollinate on on other farmers crops, Monsanto (and their customers) should be the ones who have to pay compensation.

I agree entirely.

My problem with GM foods isn't safety to the public, it's to do with the ridiculous notion of patenting life and what that means in practice.

If unversities/research centres/whoever developed GM crops with high yeild/low failure/whatever and made them available for people to plant (and save seed etc) that's great, hopefully that happens.

Companies like Monsanto are out to create monopolies and force out family farmers.

Iwasfrozen

Seaneh wrote: »

I agree entirely.

My problem with GM foods isn't safety to the public, it's to do with the ridiculous notion of patenting life and what that means in practice.

If unversities/research centres/whoever developed GM crops with high yeild/low failure/whatever and made them available for people to plant (and save seed etc) that's great, hopefully that happens.

Companies like Monsanto are out to create monopolies and force out family farmers.

But the problem is, how do we encourage research without these hugely profitable patents?

Seaneh

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But the problem is, how do we encourage research without these hugely profitable patents?

The idea that patents encourage research is a massive fallacy.

Open source research is the most productive system on the planet.


Read what Stuart Macdonald has to say about it here.

steddyeddy

GM has prevented blindess and other diseases related to nutritional deficits for years. GM crops will also combat crops problems relayed too human causes such as them decline of the honey bee. Web needs GM crops and if Monsanto enhanced global crops production thats not a bad thing.

Saying that I would be against the total privatisation of crops production despite its benifits.

Iwasfrozen

Seaneh wrote: »

The idea that patents encourage research is a massive fallacy.

Open source research is the most productive system on the planet.


Read what Stuart Macdonald has to say about it here.

I don't have time to read all of that, why is it a fallacy?

FouxDaFaFa

The first time I heard about Monsanto was from watching a documentary, Food Inc.

To say they came across poorly is an understatement. They were crushing small farmers with million dollar lawsuits, knowing that even though the farmers had legitimate cases, they would be bankrupted before it made it to court. There's no humanity to them.

Coupled with the recent "ag-gag" bills, it's all very disturbing.

steddyeddy

By the way guys the Supreme court ruled against the patenting of human genes. Based one that decision it could soon be illegal to patent all genes.

Edit: Genes associated with breast cancer.

Seaneh

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't have time to read all of that, why is it a fallacy?

If you couldn't arse to actually research a topic before making an informed decision I couldn't be arsed trying to argue it with you.

Iwasfrozen

Seaneh wrote: »

If you couldn't arse to actually research a topic before making an informed decision I couldn't be arsed trying to argue it with you.

I've researched it on my own time but this is a discussion forum. Make your case don't post a link.