March Against Monsanto Explodes Globally

Ok, you know chemistry, so what's the problem? You aren't injecting yourself with DNA (which has the consistency of snot, by the way), and would be destroyed by your body's defenses. The only way a foreign DNA strand can get to your cells is by an infection. Whatever the DNA is, you're eating it! It gets digested like all your food. Tell me, please, how a sequence which codes for a protein which would be inactive in your body can harm you. IT'S NOT MAGIC AND YOU KNOW IT!
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

After reading this whole thread, I'd like to applaud the ones who did their research. It's a lot of work for sure and after working on several assignments concerning the safety and implications of GMO's (as well as insecticides) during my time at university I realized there's always biased information coming from both sides of the argument. It's hard to be objective on the matter due to people's strong held beliefs and opinions but I feel it's critical to be open-minded in order to be objective and fair.

Now back to the topic:
I actually had the chance to go to the "March Against Monsanto" event in Toronto (called #MAMTO all over social networks) which actually gathered a large number of people. We marched right on the main roads for about half an hour until we reached a park where an organic farmer's market was organized as well as public demonstrations of bands, speakers and activists informing the public about the effects of GMO's. I'd say it was a successful event for small business who deal in organic goods but the overall purpose of the event to "stop Monsanto" was unsatisfactory. Sure, it raised awareness in some but most people that were there knew why they were there so it was more of a social gathering for good food and networking than a unified stance against the abolishment of the corporation. Nonetheless it's a clear symptom of society that something's wrong.

I'd say I'm part of the anti-GMO crowd not necessarily because I'm scared that GMO's will adversely mutate mine and my children's DNA but rather for the lack of social and ecological responsibility that these big corporations have. With great power comes... you know the rest. What I admire in these small businesses that I witnessed is their honest and scientific dedication to growing and manufacturing food that had a symbiotic relationship with cultures (human and non-human), respected natural ecology and strived for environmental justice, short and long term. If these small businesses can do it then I'm sure a large corporation like Monsanto can restructure it's whole approach and work with other businesses as well as communities. We'll need all the help we can get with food as we hit record population growth in the future so we'll need an ethical and responsible science working with businesses to serve the public good as a whole and not for selfish profits.

Ah but that would require a change in government... and thus ideology. I believe a political shift will have to be made in the coming future whether we like it or not in order for humanity as a whole to coexist in a globalized state or we can go back to a dog-eat-dog state of affairs as is tradition by capitalism.

a reply to: dimaryp

Wow that was one heck of a post and I applaud it and wish I had more than one star to give you......Really good stuff and right in line with how I feel and think.



Many countries in the west live under a corporate controlled oligarchy. What that means to me is I can not trust the people doing the testing or holding the standards.

a reply to: Parthin

The problem is to many members think Natural News is some kind of neutral party, when they are not, they have been shown to EDIT medical stories/reports to distort the meaning.

They also have a shop on line selling alternatives/natural products but in tiny text at the bottom of the page it states this.

These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, or cure any disease.

That site should be treated the same as Before It's News !!!!

a reply to: Parthin

I'm not talking about anyone suddenly mutating into zombies or some crap. I'm talking about the uncertainty of long term effects.
Alcohol= In chemistry, an alcohol is any organic compound in which the hydroxyl functional group (-O H) is bound to a saturated carbon atom.
Sodium Hydroxide= NaOH also known as lye

By your logic neither one of these things should cause damage if consumed because our body would break them down into oxygen, hydrogen, sodium and carbon. All completely harmless and occurring naturally in our bodies.

But long term alcohol use can lead to a plethora of health problems. I used to work in a hospital, trust me when I say liver failure is not the way you want to go. Consuming lye will kill you pretty immediately.

* And see my previous concern about fetuses developing in the womb. They are undergoing rapid cell reproduction and are thus more sensitive to external influences, particularly mutagens. At the very least if GMOs were labeled pregnant women could avoid them. I have 2 children, there is A LOT of stuff you have to avoid when you're pregnant...not just smoking and drinking.

a reply to: dimaryp

Thank you for that intelligent post. I agree 100%. Both sides can be biased, if you really want to have a decent grasp of the situation you have to read between the lines.

The fact is, nationwide...and even worldwide...the resources are there for every single human being to live a healthy and comfortable life. But TPTB are too busy building weapons and squabbling over silly sh*t. The wealthy hoard while the poor starve. It would take a MAJOR paradigm shift in ideology to put things right, and I hate to be Debbie Downer but I don't see that happening.

The way things are going remind me of the Tower of Babel. We're coming together out of greed and building a tower to heaven. We are delusional enough to think we have god-like status. Only...a tower to heaven is impossible. It will inevitably crumble and we will once again be scattered to the winds. THEN and only THEN will we have any hope of a peaceful existence with each other and with nature. IF we haven't made ourselves extinct in the process.

I didn't say, nothing you ate could harm you. Sad that a health care person could fail to understand physiology. How can you treat people when you think they might have a plant DNA infection? I notice you said, "used to".
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

a reply to: Parthin

Give it a rest with the insults, man. I NEVER said 'plant DNA infection'. If you'll notice, out of multiple posts I never said GMOs or even glyphosate were harmful. I've simply said that it is a POSSIBILITY and that NO ONE KNOWS. Not you, not I, not even the 'experts'. Hindsight is 20/20. In 100 years we may look back and say "GMOs and glyphosate for everyone, they are so harmless and make our lives so much better!" ...or we may say "Damn I have a plant DNA infection on my second head, but there's nothing I can do about it because I'm so riddled with autism and cancer. Gee, I shouldn't have eaten all those GMOs."

Now when are they going to protest against Syngenta, and the rest of them?

I hate to break it to people but 'Monsanto' isn't the only evil corporation that makes that food that 'makes people glow in the dark'.


'Monsanto is the poster child for evil corporations ? Only by demagoguery.

www.gmwatch.org...

According to this only two American companies are the top two.

Monsanto, and Dupont.

What is going to be done about them?

Or the hundreds just waiting to take their places.

I am just waiting for the US to be knocked off so we get to eat 'made in China gmo'.

Is that the future you all seek?

I pass.

originally posted by: Philippines

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
a reply to: Grimpachi

No they don't farm, they just keep creating chemicals and completely unnatural strains of plants in labs.

I'm talking about heirloom seeds and good old fashioned selective breeding. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough about that.

Good old fashioned selective breeding is to GMOs as black and white cable is to high def satellite programming.

Essentially the same thing, just one is more advanced.

Yes, technically everything is GMO with breeding - they get genetically modified by doing so.

However, the term for what monsanto and other companies are doing is called "transgenic"

of, relating to, or containing a gene or genes transferred from another species

That is the issue - the unknown long term consequences of mixed species at the DNA level... Not to mention the unknown long term full spectrum ecological impacts. Monocropping is not really as good for the ecology as Norman Borlaug may have thought with his "green revolution"

I get that people are concerned about long term ecological impacts, but where I have a problem is when people say that the GMOs are going to mess with our DNA causing us to have more incidents of cancer and autism. I would like to see any science that begins to back that up rather than internet based fear. I swear, sometimes the internet is no better then playing the "telephone game".

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
a reply to: Parthin

I'm not talking about anyone suddenly mutating into zombies or some crap. I'm talking about the uncertainty of long term effects.
Alcohol= In chemistry, an alcohol is any organic compound in which the hydroxyl functional group (-O H) is bound to a saturated carbon atom.
Sodium Hydroxide= NaOH also known as lye

By your logic neither one of these things should cause damage if consumed because our body would break them down into oxygen, hydrogen, sodium and carbon. All completely harmless and occurring naturally in our bodies.

But long term alcohol use can lead to a plethora of health problems. I used to work in a hospital, trust me when I say liver failure is not the way you want to go. Consuming lye will kill you pretty immediately.

* And see my previous concern about fetuses developing in the womb. They are undergoing rapid cell reproduction and are thus more sensitive to external influences, particularly mutagens. At the very least if GMOs were labeled pregnant women could avoid them. I have 2 children, there is A LOT of stuff you have to avoid when you're pregnant...not just smoking and drinking.

Interesting to note that Sodium Hydroxide is added to water treatment to raise the pH of the water. No one is dropping dead, or were you talking 100% solution? If so, do you know at what concentration it is used and how diluted it gets before application?

Mono-culture, also known as farms. I like eating.
a reply to: saadad

The fear of GMOs seems like the general fear of contamination. We know very well certain substances are unhealthy. And we're all exposed to them. But all too often, this feeling extends to fear of the unknown. You know, we have gotten worked-up and changed policies without evidence so many times. There was never any effect shown by Three Mile Island. There was never any effect shown by the trace amounts of lead from gasoline. In the Erin Brockovitch case, there was never anything but tragic anecdotes, no proof. We react to perceived dangers more than real dangers. Falling is very dangerous, but it doesn't make the Action News. I wouldn't take a Roundup spray bottle and stick it up my nose, and I wash my vegetables. But there is nothing scary about GMO crops as long as the usual tests are done.

As long as the Obama administration appoints Monsanto chiefs to leadership roles in EPA and elsewhere, these marches are pure theater. The problem is the same people that are against Monsanto are the same people that love Obama--And Obama appointed corrupt and dangerous people like Monsanto leaders to run these programs....As long as they're marching against Monsanto and not Obama, everybody's happy--unfortunately, every time Obama supporters adore their famously incompetent and arrogant leader, Monsanto gets more power.

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Philippines

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
a reply to: Grimpachi

No they don't farm, they just keep creating chemicals and completely unnatural strains of plants in labs.

I'm talking about heirloom seeds and good old fashioned selective breeding. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough about that.

Good old fashioned selective breeding is to GMOs as black and white cable is to high def satellite programming.

Essentially the same thing, just one is more advanced.

Yes, technically everything is GMO with breeding - they get genetically modified by doing so.

However, the term for what monsanto and other companies are doing is called "transgenic"

of, relating to, or containing a gene or genes transferred from another species

That is the issue - the unknown long term consequences of mixed species at the DNA level... Not to mention the unknown long term full spectrum ecological impacts. Monocropping is not really as good for the ecology as Norman Borlaug may have thought with his "green revolution"

I get that people are concerned about long term ecological impacts, but where I have a problem is when people say that the GMOs are going to mess with our DNA causing us to have more incidents of cancer and autism. I would like to see any science that begins to back that up rather than internet based fear. I swear, sometimes the internet is no better then playing the "telephone game".

Fair enough, but imo we still really don't know the long term impacts on the ecology or humans. For example, there are many weeds that have developed a resistance to glyphosate. That was not intended by the scientists, but as usual, nature adapted.

There is also the issue of horizontal gene transfer and its relatively unknown long term effects on the surrounding environment. Monsanto is known to utilize the bt toxin in their products, which probably helps facilitate the horizontal gene transfer.

Horizontal Gene Transfer – The Hidden Hazards of Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering involves designing artificial constructs to cross species barriers and to invade genomes. In other words, it enhances horizontal gene transfer – the direct transfer of genetic material to unrelated species. The artificial constructs or transgenic DNA typically contain genetic material from bacteria, viruses and other genetic parasites that cause diseases as well as antibiotic resistance genes that make infectious diseases untreatable. Horizontal transfer of transgenic DNA has the potential, among other things, to create new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases and spread drug and antibiotic resistance genes among pathogens. There is an urgent need to establish effective regulatory oversight to prevent the escape and release of these dangerous constructs into the environment, and to consider whether some of the most dangerous experiments should be allowed to continue at all.

a reply to: Metallicus

Good and Bad news eh..

originally posted by: jude11

originally posted by: DiddyMcCoy
a reply to: jude11

If 7.000.000.000 monkeys is raping this planet, and they found a way to shorten the lifespan of humanity, how is it not saving?

It's not 7B people raping the planet but rather a very few that are doing it for all of us. We are all guilty in our own way but corporations are by far the true disease on our planet.

When was the last time you spilled a billion gallons of oil into the ocean? How many millions of hectares of trees have you clear cut personally? And on and on...

But somehow I think you know what I'm talking about don't you?

Jude11

While I hear your point, what is killing the planet is the average impact per human. There are actually formulas for this. It's basically population X standard of living (income, consumption, production, etc) X how much energy and or environmental impact is required to produce that.

The average human, especially in developed countries, utilizes far too much energy and other things, hence impacting the environment in an unsustainable way.

The corporations are just a manifestation of this, although they are often complicit in thwarting efforts to reign in their impact and they put profit over the environment and people.

Before someone jumps on me, all of what I said is supported by economics and relevant science.

originally posted by: DiddyMcCoy
a reply to: Metallicus

Just me who thinks Monsanto is trying to save this planet?

I once watched, on TV, one of Monsanto's scientists say that she has no qualms in feeding her family GMO food and that it just may save the world.