Monsanto could be the end of all of us

reply to post by Government Cheese


I think if your going to support your points, you might not get your resources from a pro-organic food website and an anti-globalization website.

Right and by the way one of the sights you used as a source has this headline:

"The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops"

Really valid evidence you have going on here.

I see Monsanto as a greedy company that is willing to do anything to get ahead.I question the need to have terminator seeds.Why and what the hell??
Why not keep nature as it is and just work a bit harder.
Third world countries could be fed easily.Have you ever seen how many golf courses we have??Grow real veggies and LOTS of them.
Monsanto is greasy and I question the ethical need to screw with nature to that degree.If everything were to go down tomorrw and Monsanto was in control...where the hell would we get our veggies and how the hell would we ever grow them?Where would we get seeds after 1 season??
Its ignorant to want that much control.
Just my opinion.

reply to post by gemmink


Sorry, given Monsantos influence in our current government, federal sources aren't credible whatsoever, hence one must look to international studies to determine the real truth.

Terminator seeds and GM foods are just the beginning..
if you include the following in your studies you might begin to see the bigger picture.

Why would they want to irradiate our food?
www.truehealth.org...

Why would they want to make high potency nutrients illegal?
www.healthfreedomusa.org...

It's true that the alternative medicine industry is taking a sizable bite out of big pharma's profits. There's a bigger picture still.
Could it have something to do with population control?
If our immune systems are made weak through lack of nutritional food and herbal medicines and nutrients we would be powerless to fight anything they might eventually unleash on us.

Implementation of Codex Alimentarius would result in severe repercussions for both human and environmental health. If implementation of Codex is not averted, here are a few of the damaging changes we will have to live with:

High potency nutrients? Illegal.
Valuable nutrients not on Codex list? Illegal.
New nutrients or herbs? Illegal.
Traditional medicines with nutritional value? Illegal.
Antibiotic and hormone-free milk, poultry, fish and meat? Not available from supermarket due to degraded organic standards.
Safe levels of pesticides, hormones, animal drugs and other toxins? Gone.
Labeling for GMOs? Illegal.
Non-irradiated food? Illegal.

it's for our own good dontchaknow

reply to post by Government Cheese


Credible would be academia or independent government studies.

reply to post by infolurker


Percy Schmeiser is a thief and a liar to boot. He lost 3 cases against Monsanto. The reason for the Canadian Supreme Court ruling in favor of Monsanto is because:

Mr. Schmeiser complained that the original plants came onto his land without his intervention. However, he did not at all explain why he sprayed Roundup to isolate the Roundup Ready plants he found on his land; why he then harvested the plants and segregated the seeds, saved them, and kept them for seed; why he planted them; and why, through his husbandry, he ended up with 1,030 acres of Roundup Ready canola which would have cost him $15,000.

....

…tests revealed that 95 to 98 percent of this 1,000 acres of canola crop was made up of Roundup Ready plants. …The trial judge found that “none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality” ultimately present in Schmeiser’s crop.

Consider Schmeiser’s legal history with this situation:

Schmeiser was first found to have violated Monsanto’s patent in 2001 when the federal court found he “knew or ought to have known” he had saved and planted Roundup Ready seed and infringed Monsanto’s Roundup Ready patented technology. You can read the original Canadian court decision at decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca...

He lost again upon appeal in 2002, when the three-member Canadian Federal Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed all 17 grounds of appeal submitted for Mr. Schmeiser. Read the entire decision at decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca...

He lost again, in 2004, in an appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court--exhausting all his legal options. See the court judgment document at scc.lexum.umontreal.ca...

During his frequent lecture tours, Schmeiser continues to say he didn’t plant Roundup Ready seeds. He’s even stated he won the case in the Canadian Supreme Court. What he doesn’t say is that three separate court decisions, including the Supreme Court decision, say exactly the opposite.

Source

Read the cases for yourself.

reply to post by Cool Hand Luke


The only link that you have provided here that works, is the link from Monsantos website itself.

"Monsanto Representatives" Continue to Spread False Information about Percy Schmeiser and the Trial

Is Monsanto's approach protecting licensed canola users or sheer intimidation of all farmers?

Since Monsanto launched their lawsuit against Percy Schmeiser, company representatives have repeated accused Percy Schmeiser of stealing or "brown bagging" their genetically altered seed and deliberately planting it in his fields. From the first time Schmeiser discovered volunteer canola growing in his fields, he has tried to rid his fields of the genetically engineered variety as he had developed his own seed from his 50 years of farming

Source

The fact that you put so much faith in Monsanto makes a layperson such as myself, completely disregard any information you post regarding them.

There are alot of links here to read up on.

I would also suggest that you read the book "Seeds Of Deception". It wouldn't hurt you, but it surely might open your eyes to all the corruption of Monsanto.

reply to post by Cool Hand Luke



Sure.... Read this... .Don't pick and choose PR guy.... the whole point of this post was to show the misuse of dangerous technology and and overzealous company.

MONSANTO ADMITS CROSS-POLLINATION AND THE GUY WON HIS CLEAN-UP LAWSUIT.

Monsanto has agreed to pay all the clean-up costs of the Roundup Ready canola that contaminated Schmeiser's fields. Also part of the agreement was that there was no gag-order on the settlement and that Monsanto could be sued again if further contamination occurred.

(OK .... so... Monsanto can control pollination? This isn't going to cross pollinate with the farmers crop next door and render his seeds sterile??)

""No evidence of this ever happening and will never happening thanks to the vigorous testing in laboratories. ""

(Never say never... and better safe than sorry)

Ray Mowling, a vice president for Monsanto Canada in Mississauga, concedes to the Washington Post that some cross-pollination does occur between Monsanto’s genetically modified plants and other plants. Referring to Monsanto’s lawsuit against Percy Schmeiser, a canola farmer accused of illegally growing Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Canola, Mowling “acknowledges the awkwardness of prosecuting farmers who may be inadvertently growing Monsanto seed through cross-pollination or via innocent trades with patent-violating neighbors,”

MONSANTO ADMITS CROSS-POLLINATION AND HERBICIDE AND INSECTICIDE RESISTANCE
The company's director of biotechnology communications admitted to the UK's Independent on Sunday that 'resistance' can develop. Monsanto has apparently stated its intent not to plant certain genetically modified crops where there are wild relatives. The UK government's wildlife advisor, English Nature, criticized the company for inconsistency in the light of its application for commercial cultivation of GM sugarbeet, that does have wild relatives there.
Source: Independent on Sunday, April 25 1999

www.newswire.ca...
www.organicconsumers.org...

Schmeiser pleased with victory over Monsanto In an out of court settlement finalized on March 19, 2008, Percy Schmeiser has settled his lawsuit with Monsanto. Monsanto has agreed to pay all the clean-up costs of the Roundup Ready canola that contaminated Schmeiser's fields. Also part of the agreement was that there was no gag-order on the settlement and that Monsanto could be sued again if further contamination occurred. Schmeiser believes this precedent setting agreement ensures that farmers will be entitled to reimbursement when their fields become contaminated with unwanted Roundup Ready canola or any other unwanted GMO plants.

Our biggest concern is Roundup Ready canola polluting our fields by being blown off neighbors fields and infesting our fields with voluntary plants. Is Monsanto going to compensate farmer in this situation?"

The answer is yes. Schmeiser has just won an important victory over Monsanto in his lawsuit against the company for contaminating his land. In an out of court settlement, Monsanto has agreed to pay all the clean-up costs of HT canola with no gag-order. Schmeiser believes this precedent will ensure farmers are entitled to reimbursement when their field become contaminated

www.i-sis.org.uk...

In my very humble opinion...
This is THE most important issue facing the human race right now.

www.sott.net...

It should never be ok - to not let the public in on what the public is eating.
This is criminal and it is making people sick.

Oh and ... Mr. Rumsfeld was once on the Monsanto board. Just saying.

reply to post by Cool Hand Luke

I'm still astonished at peoples paranoia to believe these baseless claims.

I will take it you are ignorant and not a Government plant and therefore can be educated.

Contaminated food, a spectre from before the 1906 Pure Food and Drug laws, now haunts Americans in the 21st Century. How can this be? Doesn't the FDA work to prevent filth and disease in food? It seems that the reports of tainted food never cease. Infant formula, peppers, fish, drugs, the list goes on and on. Is there a single cause for the flood of contaminated products?

I, along with others, have spent years untangling the threads leading to the root cause of this major threat to American consumers. The reason is well hidden and it's candy-coated so the public cannot pinpoint it. Unfortunately the time to act is running out, so please bear with me while I lead you through the maze to the correct answer. A simple statement will not suffice because without evidence it is unbelievable, yet one name stands out Dan Amstutz.

THE PROBLEM

The New York Times article “The Safety Gap” written by Gardiner Harris, 11/2/2008
"This year, 18.2 million shipments of food, devices, cosmetics and drugs are expected to enter more than 300 U.S. ports; the FDA. had 454 investigators in 2007 — one and a half per port — to scrutinize them.." “China’s leap to one of the biggest suppliers of pharmaceutical ingredients in the world over the last decade [note the date], Generic drug makers in the US were the first to seek cheaper drug ingredients...Over the past six years, the FDA has managed to inspect annually an average of 15 of the 714 Chinese drug plants. At its present pace, the FDA. needs more than 50 years to visit all Chinese plants. By contrast, the FDA. inspects domestic drug plants every 2.7 years ” www.americanvegetablegrower.com...

FDA's efforts to combat foodborne illness are hampered by staffing shortages, infrequent inspections and lax enforcement at fresh produce processing plants. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report said only 1% of produce imported into the U.S. is inspected, and the practice of mixing produce from several sources makes tracing contamination challenging...inspections at produce-processing facilities are rare, and when problems are discovered, FDA relies on the industry to correct them without oversight or follow-up. Between 2000 and 2007, FDA detected food safety problems at more than 40% of the 2,002 plants inspected, yet half of those plants were inspected only once. The plants with food safety problems received only warning letters from FDA, and even those ended in 2005 The Salmonella associated with the latest foodborne illness outbreak has been found, in irrigation water as well as in serrano peppers at a Mexican farm located in Nuevo Leon, Mexico. “The agency seized no fresh produce, sought no injunctions and prosecuted no firms” www.americanvegetablegrower.com...

Meatpacking Maverick: John Munsell's against-the-odds struggle for improved food safety Mother Jones Magazine, December 2003 Issue By Michael Scherer Dec 29, 2003, “Before the tainted beef arrived -- USDA-approved and vacuum-sealed – Munsell had no reason to doubt the integrity of the food-safety system. But that changed after the meat he ground for hamburger tested positive for E. coli 0157:H7. Instead of tracking the contaminated meat back to its source, the USDA launched an investigation of Munsell's own operation. Never mind that the local federal inspector had seen the beef go straight from the package into a clean grinder -- a USDA spokesman called that testimony "hearsay." By February 2002, three more tests of meat Munsell was grinding straight from the package came back positive. This time, as he would later testify in a government hearing, he had paperwork documenting that the beef came from a single source: ConAgra: Munsell fired off an angry email to the district USDA manager, warning of a potential public-health emergency, and adding that if no one tracked down the rest of the bad meat, "both of us should share a cell in Alcatraz." The agency moved immediately and aggressively -- not to recall meat from Greeley, but to shut down Munsell's grinding operation, a punishment that lasted four months. Despite Munsell's continued whistleblowing -- to Senator Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), national cattle associations, and his fellow meat processors -- the USDA failed to address the alleged contamination at ConAgra's Greely Plant. Then, in July 2002, Munsell's worst fears came true. E. coli-tainted burger from Greeley killed an Ohio woman and sickened at least 35 others. ConAgra then recalled 19 million pounds of beef, one of the largest recalls in history.”

Unfortunately these are just two of many “incidents” handle in such a way that transnational corporations are not “inconvenienced”. Stanley Painter, Chairman of the National Food Inspection Unions, stated in his testimony at the congressional hearing on the Hallmark Dower Cows:

CONTINUED

reply to post by crimvelvet


CONTINUED

“..when we see violations of FSIS regulations,.. we are instructed not to write non-compliance reports... Sometimes even if we write non-compliance reports, some of the larger companies use their political muscle to get those overturned....

Some of my members have been intimidated by agency management in the past when they came forward and tried to enforce agency regulations and policies. I will give you a personal example: [SRM removal regulations concern brain and spine removal to prevent BSE]

In December 2004, I began to receive reports that the new SRM regulations were not being uniformly enforced. I wrote a letter to the Assistant FSIS Administrator for Field Operations at the time conveying to him what I had heard...I was paid a visit at my home in Alabama by an FSIS official dispatched from the Atlanta regional office to convince me to drop the issue. I told him that I would not. Then, the agency summoned me to come here to Washington, DC where agency officials subjected me to several hours of interrogation including wanting me to identify which of my members were blowing the whistle on the SRM removal violations. I refused to do so....

I was then placed on disciplinary investigation status. The agency even contacted the USDA Office of Inspector General to explore criminal charges being filed against me... Both my union AFGE and the consumer group Public Citizen filed separate Freedom of Information Act requests in December 2004 for any non-compliance records in the FSIS data base.... It was not until August 2005 that over 1000 non-compliance reports – weighing some 16 pounds -- were turned over to both AFGE and Public Citizen that proved that what my members were telling me was correct – that some beef slaughter facilities were not complying with the SRM removal regulations... on the same day those records were released, I received written notification from the agency that they were dropping their disciplinary investigation – eight months after their “investigation” began.

It is important to understand that the BSE testing conducted by the USDA is not for food safety purposes, but is part of our surveillance to determine the presence or prevalence of the disease in the U.S. cattle population. Food safety is assured by prohibiting the use of specified risk materials (SRMs)-those tissues where the BSE infective agent would be found-in the human food supply. worldfoodandhealthwatch.tribe.net...

Consumer illness will become the primary “disease prevention tool”
The public will become the major “testing ground” for disease as lab testing is minimized in favor of “Traceability” “Risk Assessment” and a management system from ISO/OIE called “Good Farming Practices”. Instead of catching food safety problems before they get to the consumer, the new focus is to track back the problem after it has sickened and killed consumers. Transnational corporations will try to transfer liability to the farmer so they do not lose their reputations or have to pay for lawsuits. There is even a conference scheduled in 2009 addressing how to pass the blame to farmers.

Conference to address food-borne illness litigation www.meatingplace.com...

“The conference will cover topics such as aligning damage assessments/expectations with the outcomes from recent resolved litigation; managing an outbreak effectively to minimize shareholder and reputational risk afterwards as quickly as possible; and how to measure and prove actual control of various players in the movement of contaminated food to accurately assess apportionment of liability.

WHY THE SUDDEN CHANGE IN FOOD SAFETY POLICY?
With tainted food in foreign imports, why is the USDA and FDA spending so much time and resources fixing a problem that does not exist while ignoring the flood of imports coming across our borders?

From International Organization OIE (Office International des Épizooties) we have:

“It is urgent that scientists come forward with alternative methods of disease control that will not only avoid wastage of valuable animal proteins but that will also promote the international trade of animals and animal products by removing technically unjustified trade barriers caused by animal diseases”, www.oie.int...

“Furthermore, it can help to eliminate unjustified trade barriers, since a sound traceability system provides trading partners with assurances on the safety of the products they import. Traceability techniques can provide additional guarantees as to the origin, type or organoleptic quality of food products.” www.oie.int...

Yet it is obvious that traceability does nothing to prevent disease, it only allows blame to be placed after the fact. So why is the idea being promoted and where did it come from?

CONTINUED

reply to post by crimvelvet

CONTINUED

In the USA
“..early 2002, when the National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA) organized a national identification task force to provide leadership for the preparation of the initial report, the National Identification Work Plan....The US Animal Identification Plan (USAIP) is needed to maintain the economic viability of American animal agriculture... This is essential to preserve the domestic and international marketability of our nation's animals and animal products.” www.usaip.info. (Sec of Ag Schafer has repeatedly stated the idea came in 2003, AFTER BSE was found.)

If we follow the idea back in time to 1995 (compare to the dates noted above) we find:
The World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) changed how disease and food safety is handled around the world. The USDA decided to change focus from disease eradication to disease “prevention” by changing from a zero tolerance import policy to a “scientifically-based and transparent risk assessment,” and opening US borders to trade in “low risk commodities”. This is why the USA has suddenly been flooded by tainted imports. They are obviously considered “low risk” www.animalagriculture.org...

According to the World Trade Organization:
"Measures to trace animals...to provide assurances on...safety ...have been incorporated into international standards... The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures...Aims to ensure THAT GOVERNMENTS DO NOT USE QUARANTINE AND FOOD SAFETY REQUIREMENTS as UNJUSTIFIED TRADE BARRIERS... It provides Member countries with a right to implement traceability [NAIS] as an SPS measure."

In simple terms The WTO “free trade agreement” allows cheap imports to cross borders without quarantine or other food safety testing. Only Traceability and the SPS measure ISO/OIE “Guide to Good Farming Practices” are allowed. The “new food safety policy” is about opening borders to trade.

Where did the agreement come from?
Keep in mind four privately owned grain traders control 90% of the grain, Cargill, Louis Dreyfus, Andre, and Bunge. Dan Amstutz, 25 years veteran grain trader and VP at Cargill drafted the original text of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture in 1995, the "Freedom to Farm" bill in1996 and then became president & CEO of the North American Export grain Association, NAEGA in 1998. In 2000 Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, Cenex Harvest States Co-op, DuPont and Louis Dreyfus formed Pradium Inc. to offer real-time, cash commodity exchanges for grains, oilseeds and agricultural by-products as well as global information services. Amstutz became Pradium's chairman. The Grain Traders say this “Throughout his very successful career Dan Amstutz represented and championed the ideas and goals of NAEGA membership “ Obviously, Amstutz did not represent the interests of farmers or consumers when he wrote those drafts. Singlehandedly he will soon wipeout family farms in the US. NAEGA: Dan Amstutz Tribute www.naega.org... www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/agricultural-policy/us-farmbill/Farm%20Bill%20April%202007.pdf
www.mindfully.org...

MONSANTO AND USDA

Monsanto sells its genetically engineered, pesticide-resistant seeds worldwide. By contract, farmers are not allowed to reuse these seeds, as they would with traditional seeds; rather they must buy new seeds each year.

Top World Company in: Genetically engineered agricultural seeds, herbicide

Global Reach: Operations in 53 countries

Products Include: Genetically engineered cotton, soybean and corn seeds, herbicides, bovine growth hormone, swine genetics

Political Campaign Contributions2 (1990-2006): more than $1.2 million

U.S. Government Connections Include:
• Linda Fisher, Monsanto Vice President and Corporate Officer 1995-2000, was Deputy Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2001-200348

• Michael Taylor, former lawyer from the law firm King & Spalding that has represented Monsanto and Vice President for Public Policy at Monsanto was an FDA staff lawyer 1976-1981, Deputy Commissioner for Public Policy at FDA 1991-1994, and USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service Administrator 1994-1996. While at the FDA, Taylor wrote the guidelines on milk labeling and rBGH, which was the basis of Monsanto’s lawsuit against Oakhurst dairy.

• Monsanto is represented on the U.S. Trade Representative’s Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee and the USTR Agricultural Technical Advisory Committee for Trade’s Subcommittee on Grains, Feed and Oilseeds

www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/agricultural-policy/us-farmbill/Farm%20Bill%20April%202007.pdf

CARGILL AND THE USDA

Cargill is the second largest private corporation in the United States

Political Campaign Contributions (1990-2006): more than $1.5 million39 U.S. Government Connections:

• Dan Amstutz, president of Cargill Investor Services 1972-1978, was the USDA Undersecretary for International Affairs and Commodity Programs 1983-1987 and Chief Agriculture Trade Negotiator for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1987-1989 in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. In 2003, he was appointed to lead U.S. agricultural reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

• Warren Staley, Cargill CEO, was appointed to Bush’s Export Council in 2003.

• Daniel Pearson, Cargill VP for Public Affairs, appointed to the International Trade Commission in 2002.

• Ernest Micek, the president of Cargill 1994-1998, was appointed to President Clinton’s Export Council in 1998.

Cargill is represented on the U.S. Trade Representative’s Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee and the USTR Agricultural Technical Advisory Committee for Trade’s Subcommittees on Animal and Animal Products; Grains , Feeds and Oilseeds; Processed Foods; and Sweeteners and Sweetener Products.

www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/agricultural-policy/us-farmbill/Farm%20Bill%20April%202007.pdf

NOWTELL ME WHY I WOULD TRUST THE USDA OR FDA

reply to post by crimvelvet


I would applaude you on your research, but I don't know how, so I could only give you stars.

Here is a brief biography of one of Monsantos BOD, or Board of Directors:

Arthur H. Harper, 52, is managing partner of GenNx360 Capital Partners, a private equity firm focused on business to business companies.....Mr. Harper was elected to the Monsanto board in October 2006 and is a member of the Public Policy and Corporate Responsibility Committee and the Science and Technology Committee. He also serves on the board of Gannett Co., Inc .
Monsanto BOD's

Mr. Harper has been elected to a term that expires in 2010.

Gannett Co. Inc. is "a leading international news and information company".

It is also the largest newspaper publisher in the US, including USA Today.

Gannett

Interesting stuff!

edited to add Monsantos BOD's link
edited for my own mistake

[edit on 25-12-2008 by Unknown Truth]

[edit on 25-12-2008 by Unknown Truth]

And now, Monsanto adds sugarcane to their portfolio..

Monsanto Company to Invest in Technologies for Sugarcane With Acquisitions of CanaVialis and Alellyx
Nov 3, 2008 - BiobasedNews.com

source

CanaVialis is a private sugarcane breeding company. The company is developing and commercialising proprietary germplasm, or a plant's genetic raw material

source

Yes, I realise I post alot of quotes and quips, but I am terrible at explaining what I read. It's easier for me to quote.

Just B . O. Y. C. O. T !!! While it is still possible !!!