Monsanto can't explain how GMO wheat survived

reply to post by Devino

How much damage to local eco-systems is being caused by the increased use of herbicides?

And the reduced use of pesticides and artificial fertilizers?

reply to post by Grimpachi


It's funny how you want to come off as such a stickler for finding "proof" about The People's claims of Monsanto's wrongdoings, yet it took no time (in your original posting and afterwards) to buy into Monsanto's claims of their agenda (to help innovate food to make it more resistant to disease, etc). So what you are saying indirectly is that you trust a faceless establishment more than THE PEOPLE. If you are all about research and enlightenment, it's already shocking that you are so unaware of the harm in the rampant internal poisoning of our food supply via Monsanto... however, on your quest for answers, it would take no time for you to find a barrage of negative perspectives and research on the topic from oh, I don't know... vitually EVERYBODY. And as for the contrary perspective which defends Monsanto's ethics... well, best of luck. You'll be searching for a while.

I would guess that this was a case of ordinary corruption.

Somewhere along the chain of people with the responsibility for destroying this stuff, somebody instead did the paperwork etc as if it had been destroyed while instead selling it and pocketing the profit.

That's a pretty simple and common scam. You're supposed to destroy something. You confirm it's destroyed, but then you sell it instead and pocket the cash. Any time you see a store selling books with their covers ripped off, which used to be pretty common, it's a store selling books that were reported as being destroyed to a publisher and/or distributor.

I would guess it'd be some warehouse manager, and it seems likely that they didn't even understand how it was different from any other wheat and what a s***storm it would cause if anybody ever found out. 'How would anybody ever find out? It's wheat, it's all the same.'

Either that or they knew and figured nobody would ever bother to do the genetic testing required to identify it. And now that even THAT has happened, there is still the difficult and time consuming task of tracing it back to conclusively identify which of the possible places it could have come from it actually did come from.

So anyways, somebody bought some bargain priced wheat that 'fell off a truck' and maybe it changed hands more times and either way through the magic of exchanges it eventually ends up planted in a field in Oregon.

I think the most telling thing about this is that Monsanto probably can't explain it. I believe they truly found this strain less than effective, that is not really able to turn a profit, and they terminated it. Thought they had destroyed all the product, and by golly it shows up somewhere way out of the way in the wild. Back to the most telling part. What other surprises await us as results of reckless behavior in the pursuit of progress? I think this has a history and most of it not good. Remember the movies in the 1950"s where radiation runs amok with the insects? .

Let's hope they don't files suits for fees on the land the plant was found growing. That would seem to be blackmail.

Monsanto has some pretty good ideas somewhere in that expertise, but their reach into the commons knows no bounds.

reply to post by HeyAHuman


The thing I find amazing about people like yourself is that you expect others to believe as you do just on your say so. I asked this forum to provide the information that either swayed there opinion or show what they found was the best information on the subject and all that was linked was one thread on the possible dangers of ethanol fumes in cars from GM crops which BTW the thread was started by the same person who complained of the dangers of second hand smoke from e-cigs. One thread on its business practices and how some cattle died and the farmer tried to sue Monsanto which was dismissed one website with zero information on health risks and several links to the same study with the lab rats that were given pesticide in there water.

I stated clearly in my posts I am not a follower so your appeal to group think will not sway me. Yes I have standards when it comes to what I believe I like proof and if that offends you are on the wrong web site. Deny ignorance (remember). I have in no way made up my mind on this subject nor will I until a case has been made to do so but your word and others is nothing but hearsay and irrelevant in my decision.

To recap my posts for since you must have missed them. I am looking for information specifically showing if GM foods are safe to consume or not. I stated I am sure they act just like I think corporations act, in their best interest not yours. I am paraphrasing. Let me explain, I don’t care how they act what I care about is whether or not the food is safe.

So if there is this abundance of great information out there let me ask you this. Why doesn’t anyone post it? It is those like yourself who claim it’s there so you should know where it is at. Well until someone can back up what they say don’t blame me for not believing the party line here so have fun being part of the gang and if I manage to find the wealth of proof everyone claims is out there I may be back to join the cause but from an outside perspective you guys are starting to act like the chemtrail crew when you are asked to back your claims so on that alone I may stay away from the band.

Page 5 and no one has mentioned Percy Schmeiser yet?
Hero-farmer guy from Saskatchewan who took on the beast starting back in '96-- same issue.
He and his wife have since won the Alternative Nobel Prize for their work and battles.

Another thought to add to my earlier post after reading more posts..."genetic modification", in and of itself isn't "bad", it is both the way it is used (example - to allow horribly toxic roundup to be used on food crops) and the fact that they're not very good at it. I could imagine the science advancing enough in 10-20 years that they could properly manipulate the genes to accomplish worthwile outcomes without brutal side effects. Altering plant genes so that they can metabolize the toxins in poor soils, stripped of proper nutrients from decades of depending on chemical fertilizers, without passing the chemicals on in food, or developing specific pest resistance (such as a scent primary "predators" are repelled by), to eliminate the use of pesticides, without becoming toxic to humans, or the ecosystem, including those very pests they are designed to keep away, which, in most cases are critical to maintaining certain balances, but also, in most cases, have populations and concentrations which have themselves boomed out of proportion, due to the nature of our mass-agriculture. If we can play the technological / interference/intervention game without getting burned (directly, or subtly and indirectly over time), as badly as we are now, it woukd be more preferable to total ecological collapse, and more feasible, simply based on the way our society works, than switching everything over to organic/natural farming - that would be ideal, but "ideal" isn't likely.

So we can scream til we're blue in the face to just do things the smart way, for the short and long term, but the shift required in so many things would be so drastic as to not be feasible in implementation unless by force. What really does need to happen is a moritorium and cleanup of all GMOs, until the technology advances suffi iently to be worth using. If we continue as we are, my fear is that the odds favor an ecological disaster and mass worldwide famine.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Can someone explain what is so bad about Monsanto or GMOs? I have searched the internet and seen some claims but I haven’t seen the evidence to back them up. Modifying foods to grow disease and drought resistant doesn’t sound like a bad thing to me or being able to grow crops in otherwise unsuitable soil sounds good to me.

If they are like poison as some sites say where is the evidence to back it up. This is pretty new topic to me. I have seen several posts throughout ATS in the past berating Monsanto but until today I have never bothered to look into it without any success at finding substance.

If someone would be kind enough to post some links to what convinced you on the evils of this new subject matter I would appreciate it.

First of all, where is the evidence that it's safe? There is none! The only evidence that it's safe come from Monsanto themselves via their statements, "We have tested this product and found no problems whatsoever." For such a huge undertaking as putting the genes of one species into another, their claims of "safe" don't convince me yet.

Second of all, I'm actually quite tired of hearing that there's no evidence that they're unsafe. There is. What you're looking for perhaps is a conclusive statement from the FDA or from Monsanto themselves, and it's pretty obvious that no matter what the circumstances, none is forthcoming.

There are lots of studies, published in medical journals - yet they all have their detractors and criticisms. SO WHAT? That doesn't mean the studies aren't valid. ANY study can have detractors and criticisms. There are PLENTY of detractors criticizing any findings from Monsanto or the FDA that their products are wonderfully safe.

Then there are the "unproven" experiences of many farmers who have simply stated that their cattle went sterile after being fed GMO corn, and became virile again when they stopped feeding it. More than one or two farmers have noticed this. While not scientifically verifiable, I really don't know why that shouldn't raise a red flag to any logical thinking person.

Certain types of GMOs produce their own pesticides that work by exploding the stomachs of insects - and we're expected to eat this?

And then there's a certain amount of whistle blower scientists who worked for Monsanto and opposed GMOs and were fired. And then there's the thuggish clout Monsanto forced upon keeping Fox news from publishing dangerous findings in their milk hormone.

And of course there's the fact that Monsanto made DDT and called it safe then - did everyone believe them back then? Yep!

I don't trust them. And I see no reason why I should. Plain and simple.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Thanks everyone for the information however I need to do more research before I can come to any conclusion on this subject. The best link IMO that was provided was the study on the rats but as I am sure all of you already know that test was extremely small I expected a much larger control group and follow up tests to see if the results were repeatable I wasn’t very impressed with the control group which they put roundup in their drinking water that was kind of a no brainer to me. I mean that is pretty much what I would expect if not worse.

Anyway I am going to try and find the studies mentioned here that were done outside of the US on this. I probably wasn’t clear enough when I posted but I am primarily interested on studies that affect us as the consumer as in health wise. I have no doubt Monsanto is a corporation with one goal in mind which is profit and they will cut corners or lower standards to reach that goal. I expect that from all corporations. The information I want to obtain is if there are health risks from eating GM foods just what are they. I am hoping that there are studies out there that have shown this.

Again thanks for the info it was interesting and if anyone knows the link to the info I spoke of I would appreciate if they posted it here. Like so many have pointed out there is a lot of information on the web concerning GM foods but as I am sure most of you know there is also a lot of garbage out there as well and unfortunately it can be tiresome wading through it all to find anything factual.

Put it this way, Roundup in the rats drinking water .Roundup in our food! ALL GMOs "come" with Roundup, part of the contract for the farmers. So now, because plants are resistant to roundup, they get soaked with it. That small fact in itself is truly disgusting to me.

reply to post by thebtheb

Don't like Roundup?
Which herbicide would you prefer instead? Cause if it's not Roundup it's going to be something else. Unless you go organic that is. Not a bad idea.

GMO products have been banned in Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, Madeira, New Zealand, Peru, South Australia, Russia, France, and Switzerland, among other places. I wonder why?

Considering that the US FDA would approve dog excrement for this US populace to consume if they've been paid off enough, I'll take the actions of these countries as a warning sign, and I won't trust what the shills of the establishment have to say as they vigorously defend this poison.

All it takes is a few minutes to read about the revolving door between the FDA and former Monsanto employees to realize why this garbage is even legal here in the States.

reply to post by supremecommander

I wonder why?

Politics? Not science.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by supremecommander

 

I wonder why?

Politics? Not science.

Politics would also explain why there is a revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto

reply to post by Phage


Maybe they are smart enough to preempt Monsatan, and Bayer.

Why let it in the country if the seed will be claimed by a patent,
and spawn hundreds of lawsuits over who owns the seed.

More like it...much more.

Originally posted by dogstar23
Another thought to add to my earlier post after reading more posts..."genetic modification", in and of itself isn't "bad", it is both the way it is used (example - to allow horribly toxic roundup to be used on food crops) and the fact that they're not very good at it. I could imagine the science advancing enough in 10-20 years that they could properly manipulate the genes to accomplish worthwile outcomes without brutal side effects. Altering plant genes so that they can metabolize the toxins in poor soils, stripped of proper nutrients from decades of depending on chemical fertilizers, without passing the chemicals on in food, or developing specific pest resistance (such as a scent primary "predators" are repelled by), to eliminate the use of pesticides, without becoming toxic to humans, or the ecosystem, including those very pests they are designed to keep away, which, in most cases are critical to maintaining certain balances, but also, in most cases, have populations and concentrations which have themselves boomed out of proportion, due to the nature of our mass-agriculture. If we can play the technological / interference/intervention game without getting burned (directly, or subtly and indirectly over time), as badly as we are now, it woukd be more preferable to total ecological collapse, and more feasible, simply based on the way our society works, than switching everything over to organic/natural farming - that would be ideal, but "ideal" isn't likely.

So we can scream til we're blue in the face to just do things the smart way, for the short and long term, but the shift required in so many things would be so drastic as to not be feasible in implementation unless by force. What really does need to happen is a moritorium and cleanup of all GMOs, until the technology advances suffi iently to be worth using. If we continue as we are, my fear is that the odds favor an ecological disaster and mass worldwide famine.

This is a VERY astute post. They simply don't fully know what they're doing yet. They have had no time to judge the outcome on a variety of levels. They want to make money first and foremost so they're not interested in anything but getting their products out and circulating as soon as possible. And true scientific advancement can't happen when the reason behind it is dollar signs.

I understand some people's view that screaming horror at genetic manipulation is childish and provincial. But again, just take a look at our entire world - "science" has practically destroyed it. The cure all antibiotics have created depleted immune systems and super bugs. Cars, fossil fuels are a nightmare. Most of our scientific advancement in the last 100 years has made our lives more convenient but totally messed the planet up, and now they want to start doing it on our food barely waiting until they understand the full ramifications, which I will point out is what most of our scientific advancements have always done.

Take a look at the gene mapping. Oh, they think they've got it all figured out, and now they've mapped it and what's the VERY next step? OWNING genes, patenting them and making money and getting rich. The sheer arrogance of scientists to think they fully understand genes is to me, hilarious and sad.

reply to post by burntheships

Why let it in the country if the seed will be claimed by a patent, and spawn hundreds of lawsuits over who owns the seed.

It's pretty clear who owns a given patent, that's sort of the point of patents. You know that GMOs are not the only patented seeds, right? Just about all hybrid seed are patented. Pretty much all that are used in large scale agriculture.
www.ers.usda.gov...

reply to post by Phage


Hybrid are not the same as GMO, not even close.

Those who try and use seed from a hybrid plant may or may not have success.
However, if they do, they are not going to be hunted down and sued the pants
off like with Monsatan.

reply to post by burntheships

How familiar are you with the cases you seem to be referring to? Do you know that as part of a condition of buying patented (GMO and otherwise) farmers are agreeing that they will not save seeds. It's their choice. It just so happens that the patented seeds are desirable, for some reason. You think maybe that they result in higher profits for the farmer? Are you aware that, generally speaking, seeds saved from hybrids (and GMOs) dont't reallyl do very well?


But are you saying that there have been no lawsuits over reuse of hybrid seeds? Are you sure about that?
downtoearthseeds.com...

You obviously didn't read the material I provided previously. This one is a lot easier.

reply to post by Phage


As I said, hybrid seeds are not the same as GMO.

And, folks may or may not have success.

That link you gave has both GMO and hybrid,
with a vague reference to a hybrid suit.

Nothing like what Monsatan does.

reply to post by burntheships

Monsatan. Cute. Original?

What does Monsanto due? Sue farmers who, in purchasing seed, agree to not reseed? Sue farmers who violate a contract? Terrible. How many times have they done so?