Monsanto Wins World Food Prize

tin79

ThreeBlindMice wrote: »

And of course a major pesticides corporation AKA Roundup of which Monsanto has a vested interest in.

GMO = Pestilence manufacture + Seed production
= high resistant to nuisance pests = Higher crop Yield.
= Death to bee population.

Monsanto purchases major honeybee research company.

= Development of bee that will only pollinate certain Monsanto crops.
Bees are highly sensitive sent detection and are very easily to train.
strains can be developed.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/gmo-and-the-devastation-of-bee-colonies-blamed-for-bee-collapse-monsanto-buys-leading-bee-research-firm/30445

What the f*ck are you on about?

CruelCoin

ThreeBlindMice wrote: »

And of course a major pesticides corporation AKA Roundup of which Monsanto has a vested interest in.

GMO = Pestilence manufacture + Seed production
= high resistant to nuisance pests = Higher crop Yield.
= Death to bee population.

Monsanto purchases major honeybee research company.

= Development of bee that will only pollinate certain Monsanto crops.
Bees are highly sensitive sent detection and are very easily to train.
strains can be developed.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/gmo-and-the-devastation-of-bee-colonies-blamed-for-bee-collapse-monsanto-buys-leading-bee-research-firm/30445

1: Roundup is not a company.
2: Manufacturing pestilence? They're breeding the spanish flu now?
3: Bees cannot be trained. They exist in a constant struggle for food and the urge to grow their hives. They will not pass-up food because of "training".
4 wut?

5live

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Modified crops such as dwarf wheat are being linked to all sorts of health problems, notably obesity and gluten intolerance. This is the first I've heard of a foodstuff being linked as a cure for blindness, so a link would be helpful.

Switching the world to an American diet of processed or modified foods is not the same as feeding it, in fact probably the opposite.

Edit: And what is responsible for the decline of the honey bee? Industrialised agriculture and "modern scientific methods" of pest control. Your solution is... *more* industrialisation?

Cant link atm but look up golden rice on Wikipedia

steddyeddy

NuckingFacker wrote: »

of course they do. But in naturally occuring volumes. You cant eat 200 apples, you'd puke. I can plop 200 apples worth of fructose into a single serving of whatever you fancy - sure a few spoonfuls of "natural, healthy sweetener" will do the job nicely for me. That's the problem with scientists, they're so in love with science they tend to ignore consequences. Consequences are for doctors, and parents.

Actually its scientists who are working out how too cure diseases aswell. Doctors wouldnt really get far without geneticists or biochemists.

Slutmonkey57b

Hersheys wrote: »

The GM industry created GM foods and the GM industry, from my experience, are the only ones who really have an interest in seeing it succeed. Not all science is GM, not all GM is science. They can co-exist independantly of each other.

This is what I'm talking about where a scientist's logical mind doesn't apply to the world around them. Yes "all science" is not GM, and the food industry employs different sciences and pieces of research. However, the food industry has a single goal: profit. Nothing else. Not scientific integrity, not honesty and not public benefit. The fructose example is excellent. The science of "what is fructose corn syrup" may be sound. The scientists may have come to a conclusion in peer reviewed journals that all the factors had been covered and understood. They may have addressed the use of sugared additives and said "well it's the same thing in a different form, and nobody's going to use it at massive amounts". However, the way the food industry *uses* corn syrup was inevitable, and obvious, and is extremely dangerous for the long term health of humans. It is the industry that funds this research, it is the industry that stands to benefit, and it is the industry which will corrupt, manipulate, lie and bully in order to ensure that profit. The scientists are just tools to an end, and in the view of the average sociopathic corporate boss, they're not even very astute tools because they don't recognise what's going on in the bigger picture.

This is what I mean by scientific naivety. Getting a product, GM or not, reviewed by scientific peers is meaningless if the way the research is going to be used "in the wild" is something the scientists dismissed as "well obviously someone wouldn't be allowed to do that because it's bad".

steddyeddy

Processed food is very different too GM foods. Why are we even mentioning it. Most people agree that processed foods are unhealthy but I don't think GM foods are inherently unhealthy.

Hersheys

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

This is what I'm talking about where a scientist's logical mind doesn't apply to the world around them. Yes "all science" is not GM, and the food industry employs different sciences and pieces of research. However, the food industry has a single goal: profit. Nothing else. Not scientific integrity, not honesty and not public benefit. The fructose example is excellent. The science of "what is fructose corn syrup" may be sound. The scientists may have come to a conclusion in peer reviewed journals that all the factors had been covered and understood. They may have addressed the use of sugared additives and said "well it's the same thing in a different form, and nobody's going to use it at massive amounts". However, the way the food industry *uses* corn syrup was inevitable, and obvious, and is extremely dangerous for the long term health of humans. It is the industry that funds this research, it is the industry that stands to benefit, and it is the industry which will corrupt, manipulate, lie and bully in order to ensure that profit. The scientists are just tools to an end, and in the view of the average sociopathic corporate boss, they're not even very astute tools because they don't recognise what's going on in the bigger picture.

This is what I mean by scientific naivety. Getting a product, GM or not, reviewed by scientific peers is meaningless if the way the research is going to be used "in the wild" is something the scientists dismissed as "well obviously someone wouldn't be allowed to do that because it's bad".

Apologies, the strings on my puppet arms are tangled... :rolleyes:

What an ignorant attitude. Please do not tar all scientists with the one brush.

5live

blatantrereg wrote: »

No. Monsanto are largely responsible for the decline in honey bees.

Monsanto crops are modified so that they can survive being sprayed with copious amounts of poison.

The highlighted passage refers to roundup-ready crops which can survive being sprayed with roundup while competing weed species cannot and die.

Your original passage is, i presume, referring to Bt corn which has a gene for insecticide added to kill corn borer weevil, iirc. The alternative to Bt corn is a spray with a systemic insecticide(travels through the plant killing any succeptible insects) which has both environmental impacts on non-target species and environmental toxicity on soils and groundwater supplies. Your choice is which one to choose. Personally i would lean towards the Bt corn.

On the decline of honeybees, i struggle to see the link between monsanto and their decline as Bt corn is wind pollinated so bees in general wouldnt be trying to pollinate them

Jonny7

5live wrote: »

Cant link atm but look up golden rice on Wikipedia

Has increased vitamin A, which helps decrease blindness in kids - very good for developing countries, but nothing has been done to produce it yet.

Paramite Pie

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.

I don't think your aware of the changes Monsanto made to their crops. Let's use wheat as an example. After you buy wheat seeds and plant them, those crops will also generate more seeds (2nd generation seeds) which can be replanted cheaply or even sold.

Therefore wheat farmers get years worth of growth from a single batch of seeds. But Monsanto modified the wheat crop so the seeds will germinate only once (terminator seeds created for copyright protection). After that you have to buy more of their seeds which are far more expensive than regular ones as they can only be created in a lab.

So Monsanto donated seeds to poor developing nations (like India), flooding those nations with the new crop, which led to farmers abandoning the natural crop (so many local suppliers shut down/scaled back in those nations), only to find that their crop would only germinate once. So they needed to buy more seeds next season.

The amount of money they made from their crops was insufficient for many small-time farmers to buy expensive GM seeds again (since food prices in India are low and seeds generated in the US are expensive by India's standards) and there were insuffienct supplies of the original wheat crop for them to obtain. So the smaller farms (especially subsistance farmers) suffered tremendously and were effectively priced out of the market. The farmers who continue to grow the monsanto crops have to raise their prices so food is less affordable, epsecially with the poverty rates over there.

Corperate greed/copyright protection for crops actually increased starvation amoung the poorest, although I do not think this was the intentional goal, they did modify the crop to reduce it's longterm yield. It's decepetive. Also crop failure becomes more expensive as there are more losses to cover when this happens. Again a financial burden for farmers.

So in the long run the yield from gm crops could be lower as you can't replant.GM crops can only solve world hunger if this copyright/patent crap is removed. Although Monsanto has cut back on terminator seeds after they were outlawed in Asia, their seeds now produce 2nd generations seeds but those seeds give an inferior yield to the 1st generation.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What's not right? We've been genetically modifying our food for thousands of years.

Monsanto has threatened to sue farmers for 'seed piracy', mixing their inferior 2nd generation seeds with other seeds to get the results they desire. Like you said, humans have been doing that for thousands of years, and Monsanto doesn't like it when others do it, hence their push for copyright protection and 'terminator seeds'.

Educate yourself.;)

steddyeddy

Paramite Pie wrote: »

I don't think your aware of the changes Monsanto made to their crops. Let's use wheat as an example. After you buy wheat seeds and plant them, those crops will also generate more seeds (2nd generation seeds) which can be replanted cheaply or even sold.

Therefore wheat farmers get years worth of growth from a single batch of seeds. But Monsanto modified the wheat crop so the seeds will germinate only once (terminator seeds created for copyright protection). After that you have to buy more of their seeds which are far more expensive than regular ones as they can only be created in a lab.

So Monsanto donated seeds to poor developing nations (like India), flooding those nations with the new crop, which led to farmers abandoning the natural crop (so many local suppliers shut down/scaled back in those nations), only to find that their crop would only germinate once. So they needed to buy more seeds next season.

The amount of money they made from their crops was insufficient for many small-time farmers to buy expensive GM seeds again (since food prices in India are low and seeds generated in the US are expensive by India's standards) and there were insuffienct supplies of the original wheat crop for them to obtain. So the smaller farms (especially subsistance farmers) suffered tremendously and were effectively priced out of the market. The farmers who continue to grow the monsanto crops have to raise their prices so food is less affordable, epsecially with the poverty rates over there.

Corperate greed/copyright protection for crops actually increased starvation amoung the poorest, although I do not think this was the intentional goal, they did modify the crop to reduce it's longterm yield. It's decepetive. Also crop failure becomes more expensive as there are more losses to cover when this happens. Again a financial burden for farmers.

So in the long run the yield from gm crops could be lower as you can't replant.GM crops can only solve world hunger if this copyright/patent crap is removed. Although Monsanto has cut back on terminator seeds after they were outlawed in Asia, their seeds now produce 2nd generations seeds but those seeds give an inferior yield to the 1st generation.

Monsanto has threatened to sue farmers for 'seed piracy', mixing their 2nd generation seeds with other seeds to get the results they desire. Like you said, humans have been doing that for thousands of years, and Monsanto doesn't like it when others do it, hence their push for 'terminator seeds'.

Educate yourself.;)

It's ironic the anti gm brigade using the phrase "educate yourself" to be honest.

Iwasfrozen

Paramite Pie wrote: »

I don't think your aware of the changes Monsanto made to their crops. Let's use wheat as an example. After you buy wheat seeds and plant them, those crops will also generate more seeds (2nd generation seeds) which can be replanted cheaply or even sold.

Therefore wheat farmers get years worth of growth from a single batch of seeds. But Monsanto modified the wheat crop so the seeds will germinate only once (terminator seeds created for copyright protection). After that you have to buy more of their seeds which are far more expensive than regular ones as they can only be created in a lab.

So Monsanto donated seeds to poor developing nations (like India), flooding those nations with the new crop, which led to farmers abandoning the natural crop (so many local suppliers shut down/scaled back in those nations), only to find that their crop would only germinate once. So they needed to buy more seeds next season.

The amount of money they made from their crops was insufficient for many small-time farmers to buy expensive GM seeds again (since food prices in India are low and seeds generated in the US are expensive by India's standards) and there were insuffienct supplies of the original wheat crop for them to obtain. So the smaller farms (especially subsistance farmers) suffered tremendously and were effectively priced out of the market. The farmers who continue to grow the monsanto crops have to raise their prices so food is less affordable, epsecially with the poverty rates over there.

Corperate greed/copyright protection for crops actually increased starvation amoung the poorest, although I do not think this was the intentional goal, they did modify the crop to reduce it's longterm yield. It's decepetive. Also crop failure becomes more expensive as there are more losses to cover when this happens. Again a financial burden for farmers.

So in the long run the yield from gm crops could be lower as you can't replant.GM crops can only solve world hunger if this copyright/patent crap is removed. Although Monsanto has cut back on terminator seeds after they were outlawed in Asia, their seeds now produce 2nd generations seeds but those seeds give an inferior yield to the 1st generation.



Monsanto has threatened to sue farmers for 'seed piracy', mixing their inferior 2nd generation seeds with other seeds to get the results they desire. Like you said, humans have been doing that for thousands of years, and Monsanto doesn't like it when others do it, hence their push for copyright protection and 'terminator seeds'.

Educate yourself.;)

Read the whole thread, and particularly this post and come back with a less condescending attitude.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85171881&postcount=79

CruelCoin

5live wrote: »

On the decline of honeybees, i struggle to see the link between monsanto and their decline as Bt corn is wind pollinated so bees in general wouldnt be trying to pollinate them

Bees will still try to pollinate.

Its a very rough and crude rule of thumb, but in general, bees utilise pollen as protein and nectar as carbohydrates.

The bees will try to collect as much pollen as they can, regardless.

Jonny7

Paramite Pie wrote: »

I don't think your aware of the changes Monsanto made to their crops. Let's use wheat as an example. After you buy wheat seeds and plant them, those crops will also generate more seeds (2nd generation seeds) which can be replanted cheaply or even sold.

Therefore wheat farmers get years worth of growth from a single batch of seeds. But Monsanto modified the wheat crop so the seeds will germinate only once (terminator seeds created for copyright protection). After that you have to buy more of their seeds which are far more expensive than regular ones as they can only be created in a lab.

So Monsanto donated seeds to poor developing nations (like India), flooding those nations with the new crop, which led to farmers abandoning the natural crop (so many local suppliers shut down/scaled back in those nations), only to find that their crop would only germinate once. So they needed to buy more seeds next season.

The amount of money they made from their crops was insufficient for many small-time farmers to buy expensive GM seeds again (since food prices in India are low and seeds generated in the US are expensive by India's standards) and there were insuffienct supplies of the original wheat crop for them to obtain. So the smaller farms (especially subsistance farmers) suffered tremendously and were effectively priced out of the market. The farmers who continue to grow the monsanto crops have to raise their prices so food is less affordable, epsecially with the poverty rates over there.

Corperate greed/copyright protection for crops actually increased starvation amoung the poorest, although I do not think this was the intentional goal, they did modify the crop to reduce it's longterm yield. It's decepetive. Also crop failure becomes more expensive as there are more losses to cover when this happens. Again a financial burden for farmers.

So in the long run the yield from gm crops could be lower as you can't replant.GM crops can only solve world hunger if this copyright/patent crap is removed. Although Monsanto has cut back on terminator seeds after they were outlawed in Asia, their seeds now produce 2nd generations seeds but those seeds give an inferior yield to the 1st generation.



Monsanto has threatened to sue farmers for 'seed piracy', mixing their inferior 2nd generation seeds with other seeds to get the results they desire. Like you said, humans have been doing that for thousands of years, and Monsanto doesn't like it when others do it, hence their push for copyright protection and 'terminator seeds'.

Educate yourself.;)

I'm not into this whole GM panto but even I know this has been debunked.

Monsanto is a big corp which makes a profit, but no need to embellish it with bull****

5live

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

Jonny7 wrote: »

Has increased vitamin A, which helps decrease blindness in kids - very good for developing countries, but nothing has been done to produce it yet.

Finally got it.

Lots done but not available yet. Interesting that Monsanto quickly granted the licence to produce the crop.

steddyeddy

The fact that it's not available yet is testament to the amount of trials GM foods will be put through. The most recent test involved determining whether the Beta carotene in the rice is as effectice as the beta carotene from other sources. The good news is it is!

Paramite Pie

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's ironic the anti gm brigade using the phrase "educate yourself" to be honest.

I'm not anti GM, I'm anti certain corperate practices that make it illegal to harvest seeds from GM crops that farmers already paid for.

I'm not part of any brigade. GM crops have certainly caused alot of problems. I have no problem with 'frog dna' in tomatoes cos I've already eaten frogs anyway (and they're safe). I'm not Greenpeace. I know how science works and I trust it's safe.

GM crops are harmless themselves. I know that. I'm talking about the people who might not be aware of all this patent stuff. That's the education I'm talking about. Nothing ironic about that.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Read the whole thread, and particularly this post and come back with a less condescending attitude.

I fail to see how my post was condescending? Perhaps you can elaborate please? Apologies regardless but I stand by what I posted.

Jonny7 wrote: »

I'm not into this whole GM panto but even I know this has been debunked.

Monsanto is a big corp which makes a profit, but no need to embellish it with bull****

First of all, I originally said I do not believe Monsanto intended to cause all the problems that occurred, but I think their practices have turned out to be unethical.

Has it been debunked? I will read any links you can post. I'm not opposed to mega corps (or crops), but they save been sucessfully sued in so many countries. They are doing something wrong I can assure you. GM crops will be alot more affordable (and bettert quality) if there's more competition and right now Monsanto has a monopoly on that.

The patent stuff is true as far as I know. Since none of us live in India we can't truly see what impact it has or hasn't had in terms of affordability.

Iwasfrozen

Paramite Pie wrote: »

I fail to see how my post was condescending? Perhaps you can elaborate please?:)

Even that post was condescending. You're doing it in note to yourself.

steddyeddy

Paramite Pie wrote: »

I'm not anti GM, I'm anti certain corperate practices that make it illegal to harvest seeds from GM crops that farmers already paid for.

I'm not part of any brigade. GM crops have certainly caused alot of problems. I have no problem with 'frog dna' in tomatoes cos I've already eaten frogs anyway (and they're safe). I'm not Greenpeace. I know how science works and I trust it's safe.

GM crops are harmless themselves. I know that. I'm talking about the people who might not be aware of all this patent stuff. That's the education I'm talking about. Nothing ironic about that.



I fail to see how my post was condescending? Perhaps you can elaborate please?:)



Has it been debunked? I will read any links you can post. I'm not opposed to mega corps (or crops), but they save been sucessfully sued in so many countries. They are doing something wrong I can assure you. GM crops will be alot more affordable (and bettert quality) if there's more competition and right now Monsanto has a monopoly on that.

The patent stuff is true as far as I know. Since none of us live in India we can't truly see what impact it has or hasn't had in terms of affordability.

Ending a post with eudcate yourself and some condescending happy face is condescending.

Paramite Pie

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ending a post with eudcate yourself and some condescending happy face is condescending.

Again apologies but I thought it would be worse without the happy face. My bad....:o

I thought this was the only condecending smiley ':rolleyes:'.... at least I didn't use that!

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Even that post was condescending. You're doing it in note to yourself.

I just use smileys alot. I used the happy one to show that I didn't want have some silly interet arguement and that I meant no harm. I guess we all interpret things differently. You can't gauge one's tone of voice through text so I tried smilies.

blatantrereg

5live wrote: »

The highlighted passage refers to roundup-ready crops which can survive being sprayed with roundup while competing weed species cannot and die.

Right.

Your original passage is, i presume, referring to Bt corn which has a gene for insecticide added to kill corn borer weevil, iirc. The alternative to Bt corn is a spray with a systemic insecticide(travels through the plant killing any succeptible insects) which has both environmental impacts on non-target species and environmental toxicity on soils and groundwater supplies. Your choice is which one to choose. Personally i would lean towards the Bt corn.

Not really. It's mainly a reference to pesticides which appear to be a factor in the bees dying. The leading theory at the moment on the cause of the CCD is this. The EU is issuing a 2 year ban on certain types of pesticide to try to address this:

http://rt.com/news/bee-eu-pesticides-ban-750/

More Monsanto products are of the most damaging kind than other companies (60%).

Bt exposure does not have a direct immediate effect on bee mortality. It may have a minor direct and immediate effect on their foraging.

However most of the concerns are about delayed or combined effects. There are a couple of studies from the University of Jena which appear to support those ideas, but they have not been formally published, peer-reviewed etc.

On the decline of honeybees, i struggle to see the link between monsanto and their decline as Bt corn is wind pollinated so bees in general wouldnt be trying to pollinate them

Bees do collect corn pollen to feed their young, even though corn is generally described as wind pollinated.

ThreeBlindMice

"GM food off the menu in Parliament's restaurants despite ministers telling the public to drop their opposition"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2345937/GM-food-menu-Parliaments-restaurant-despite-ministers-telling-public-drop-opposition.html

le sigh

steddyeddy wrote: »

Most people agree that processed foods are unhealthy but I don't think GM foods are inherently unhealthy.

Piggies eat a lot of GM.

New study of sick pigs.

The results, as reported by Reuters:

Researchers said there were no differences seen between pigs fed the GM and non-GM diets for feed intake, weight gain, mortality, and routine blood biochemistry measurements.
But those pigs that ate the GM diet had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation — 32 percent of GM-fed pigs compared to 12 percent of non-GM-fed pigs. The inflammation was worse in GM-fed males compared to non-GM fed males by a factor of 4.0, and GM-fed females compared to non-GM-fed females by a factor of 2.2. As well, GM-fed pigs had uteri that were 25 percent heavier than non-GM fed pigs, the study said.

Nonetheless, even critics of the study agree that it was conducted in a rigorous way, and the findings are intriguing and worth pursuing. The researchers did, after all, find high rates of severe inflammation. As the study’s main author, Judy Carman, observed in a response to critics, all commercial pigs raised in typical hog barn conditions experience gut inflammation to a degree. The point is that the severity was much worse for GMO-fed pigs.

But instead of calling for independent, rigorous science to explore the questions the study raised, critics dismiss it as “junk science

The takeaway for scientists who might be interested in studying the effects of eating GMO crops is that it’s not worth the trouble.

Throw a few quid at a some scientists nowadays and you can get them to say whatever you want.





Studies show that GM foods can be toxic or allergenic

steddyeddy wrote: »

The fact that it's not available yet is testament to the amount of trials GM foods will be put through.

Ah come on! After 90 days of their own trial, Monsanto can release whatever they want. FDA doesn't even check (but then why would they) the trial papers as independent checking on some have shown problems with viral chain lengths (gibberish) and other stuff.

You have to sign a contract on purchase agreeing you won't study/test it.

Golden Rice delay due to no Bio Safety regulations in the Countries where they wanted to grow it, seemingly it took them a pathetic 5 years to resolve, patent messes, currently 70 Patents related to it.

blatantrereg wrote: »

Right.

Not really. It's mainly a reference to pesticides which appear to be a factor in the bees dying. The leading theory at the moment on the cause of the CCD is this.

Dead Bees: 25,000 Found In Car Park Amid Probe

Early investigations suggest the trees were recently sprayed with an insecticide known to be toxic to bees.


One official said experts will be looking at a pesticide called Safari that apparently was applied in the area last Saturday to control aphids such as greenflies.


Safari is part of a family of pesticides called neonicotinoids that are considered acutely toxic to pollinators.

The herbicide sprayed on most of the world’s genetically engineered crops—and gets soaked into the food portion—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.”

le sigh

ThreeBlindMice wrote: »

"GM food off the menu in Parliament's restaurants despite ministers telling the public to drop their opposition"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2345937/GM-food-menu-Parliaments-restaurant-despite-ministers-telling-public-drop-opposition.html

Same in the US, Obama, Romney, Senators, none of them will touch it.

ThreeBlindMice

le sigh wrote: »

Same in the US, Obama, Romney, Senators, none of them will touch it.

Reminds of us of George Orwells Animal Farm.

Voodoo_rasher

Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma cancer. Says WHO's cancer research institute in Lyon.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/roundup-weed-killer-can-probably-cause-cancer-warns-who-10124812.html

But the article from Swedish tv text below says gives more detail.

http://www.svt.se/svttext/web/pages/107.html

le sigh

le sigh wrote: »

Same in the US, Obama, Romney, Senators, none of them will touch it.

Source?

WhatNowForUs?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Source?

You've given him enough time anyway to find the source.