Monsanto

[Biker]

And if you bothered to look up Bacillus thuringiensis, you'd find it occurs naturally in the soil, leaf surfaces, aquatic environments, animal feces, insect rich environments, flour mills and grain storage facilities.

 

[erich37]

With world population at 9 billion by 2030 what else are you going to eat? This is better than starving to death. Those who criticise such innovation in biotechnology need to provide an alternate solution for feeding the population because you are not going to stop the world population from growing

you can currently feed 12 billion people without Monsanto.
Buy a DVD of the movie named "We feed the world" and you will understand.....

Below an excerpt of the movie with english subtitles:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[EQnoble]

And if you bothered to look up Bacillus thuringiensis, you'd find it occurs naturally in the soil, leaf surfaces, aquatic environments, animal feces, insect rich environments, flour mills and grain storage facilities.

How many plants does it occur (not the occasional plant in which it occurs on leaf surfaces) in naturally?

 

[Biker]

Here's where this thread has gone so terribly wrong. You take something out of context and then blow it up to mind blowing proportions.

For example. Every single one of you that's crying about the evils of a seed producing a naturally occurring toxin most likely consumes anti-freeze every single day.

Propylene Glycol is a main ingredient in anti-freeze, and is also used in ice cream, sodas, artificial sweeteners, shampoo, soap, cosmetics, etc. etc. etc.

How many of you keyed on anti-freeze and went OMG?? Hmm? How many of you then went and looked up Propylene Glycol and found that it's generally recognized as safe and is used in NON-TOXIC anti-freeze?

Cherry picking your sources to make a point is just as bad as spouting information that's blatantly false.

Are there valid concerns about genetically modified products? Yes. Is the hysteria surrounding genetically modified products valid? No. Is Monsanto heavy handed with some of its business practices? Definitely. However, you can't throw the baby out with the bath water. As with most Internet related hysteria, there's often a tiny kernel of truth somewhere in all that BS. The trick is finding that kernel of truth, and then researching from there.

 

[BirdOPrey5]

you can currently feed 12 billion people without Monsanto.
Buy a DVD of the movie named "We feed the world" and you will understand.....

Below an excerpt of the movie with english subtitles:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

If we could feed 12 Billion without Monsanto why can't we feed the 6.5 billions we have now with Monsanto's superior seeds?

The biggest assault on poor people getting access to food isn't Monsanto seed prices, it is the American government forcing a percentage of corn be used for poor quality Ethanol which they force us to mix into gasoline. Worst idea ever to divert resources from feeding humans into feeding cars.

 

[EQnoble]

How many plants does it occur in naturally?

I see that you cherry pick sections of words to make your point sound valid...thanks for the answer btw.

For example. Every single one of you that's crying about the evils of a seed producing a naturally occurring toxin most likely consumes anti-freeze every single day.

Propylene Glycol is a main ingredient in anti-freeze, and is also used in ice cream, sodas, artificial sweeteners, shampoo, soap, cosmetics, etc. etc. etc.

Perversion of logic and no relevance.

What do anti freeze, ice cream, sodas, artificial sweeteners shampoo soap and cosmetics have in common...they are not plants, have no genes and do not occur in nature.

They are man-made and plants are natural...they should stay that way and in no way is your point relevant to modifying nature genetically and then suing people because nature does it's thing and spreads those mutations which monsanto will claim they deserve royalties for based on the pollution and usage of the mechanism of reproduction that nature provides.

How many of you keyed on anti-freeze and went OMG?? Hmm? How many of you then went and looked up Propylene Glycol and found that it's generally recognized as safe and is used in NON-TOXIC anti-freeze?

Not me for the actual relevant reason I posted above, and at one point opium and cocain were 'miracle cures'...does that mean it's safe to use?

Cherry picking your sources to make a point is just as bad as spouting information that's blatantly false.

The same way you choose to avoid answering my previous post...or as you said...did you not bother to look it up...my guess is that you could find nothing and changed tactics.

Nothing I said was false, in fact I proved that what you said in argument of my point was false.

Are there valid concerns about genetically modified products? Yes. Is the hysteria surrounding genetically modified products valid? No. Is Monsanto heavy handed with some of its business practices? Definitely. However, you can't throw the baby out with the bath water. As with most Internet related hysteria, there's often a tiny kernel of truth somewhere in all that BS. The trick is finding that kernel of truth, and then researching from there.

1. who controls the research?
2. this is not internet hysteria...this is reality and it is about corrupting nature in the name of profit...nothing else...this has nothing to do with "feeding the population"..it is greed pure and simple.
3. has that kernel also been genetically modified?

 

[smartpixels]

you can currently feed 12 billion people without Monsanto.
Buy a DVD of the movie named "We feed the world" and you will understand.....

Below an excerpt of the movie with english subtitles:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

In theory we can also travel at warp speed and have free energy its not possible in real life. I have posted earlier what is happening Africa. America with 300 million is already needing African resources to grow sugarcane for its industry and they are not alone they are competing with the Chinese. This is real stuff that is happening now and that documentary was done by the BBC WorldNews broadcasted yesterday and I think part 2 of that documentary will be telecasted again next week. In 2030 America would be home to 360 million. In the top ten populous countries, no country expect Russia is having a negative population growth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth

The problem is we are never though to use critical thinking. So the answer to every question is yes or no, right or wrong, ethical or unethical.. There is just no thinking beyond these preset clauses. The ebst programmers in the world can sit around in the boards of the biggest industries and we wouldn't have any issues because they think critically and thats what we need.

 

[DRE]

Our government is so messed up I don't want to think about this anymore. That's why I voted for Gary Johnson last election. I need to find out who to vote for next instead of a Democrat or Republican because most of them are useless and in the pocket of big corporations.

 

[BirdOPrey5]

Evolution, if you believe it, is all about random mutations. If you grow enough potato plants for enough time, maybe a million plants for a million years, you will eventually get one that happens to produce the pesticide naturally, as well as some that are resistant to other pesticides, some that are big, and some that are pink.

If we waited for these mutations to naturally happen and then we bred those over and over again, what is the difference between Monsanto making the mutation happen quicker and less random?

There's no inherent reason the seeds obtained naturally would be any better or worse for you than Monsanto seeds.

Modified seeds aren't the problem and attacking them only weakens your position. The only valid criticism of Monsanto is it is too good at getting politicians to support them. The danger of a Monsanto is that *IF* some dangerous came about they have the power to have it squashed and deflect blame where a smaller company would have to own up to their mistakes.

There's a difference between arguing the safety of modified crops and the safety of a company more powerful than the regulation.

 

[Lucas]

 

[DRE]

Oh wow. I met Donald Rumsfeld once. Didn't know he was involved with this. Wow @ Hilary Clinton too?

Don't know who the rest of those people are except for Uncle Clarence Tomhas lol.

 

[EQnoble]

Evolution, if you believe it, is all about random mutations. If you grow enough potato plants for enough time, maybe a million plants for a million years, you will eventually get one that happens to produce the pesticide naturally, as well as some that are resistant to other pesticides, some that are big, and some that are pink.

Keyword...naturally. After tons of generations the strong survive.

If we waited for these mutations to naturally happen and then we bred those over and over again, what is the difference between Monsanto making the mutation happen quicker and less random?

The random in the mutation is just that...random...and if only one offspring in the gamut produces that and it makes it into the next generation and continues to expand than it was meant to be.

Maybe an independent study where they seed (monsanto)crops and see what happens to the strain over lets say 100 generations of seeding and growing would be prudent...but yeah they don't want anyone seeding crops (wonder why)so that is not going to happen.

This is not about bigger better crops, this is about it being cheaper to produce seeds with pesticides in them and ship them than it is to produce the pesticide and ship it.

There's no inherent reason the seeds obtained naturally would be any better or worse for you than Monsanto seeds.

Your right...because monsanto genetics will end up in every single plant eventually....because nature spreads vigorously and their mutations which would have taken hundred or thousands even possibly hundred of thousands of years to become prominent and stabilize (had they actually been able to) are being pushed without the testing that would be required to go and play god.

Modified seeds aren't the problem and attacking them only weakens your position. The only valid criticism of Monsanto is it is too good at getting politicians to support them. The danger of a Monsanto is that *IF* some dangerous came about they have the power to have it squashed and deflect blame where a smaller company would have to own up to their mistakes.

Not really...since I believe modified seeds are the problem , support of politicians is...well...obvious...for instance...they had a vice president of public policy who is now the Deputy Commissioner for Foods for the FDA, look at my previous post on the other page and it is easy to see why they have political support... a lot of those people use to get paychecks directly from monsanto and I would not be surprised to find a bunch more...the political aspect of this is just the means to their end and a different issue all together...yet all related.

Also as you pointed out...they can hide things...and I am sure they do.

There's a difference between arguing the safety of modified crops and the safety of a company more powerful than the regulation.

Of course there is...and I am against both...hence my position.

In reality though...they probably control the regulation and knowing that they will always get FDA approval anyways, they can use regulation as a mechanism to block someone from also modifying things or at least limit the amount of competition they will have. Most politicians have always been in one persons pocket or another...that is the current state of our country and has been for a while, in fact I am pretty sure who ever backs you on the way in expects something until you are on the way out.

I believe these crops present a clear and present danger to the future of agriculture as well as believe there is going to be long term health risks associated with the manipulation of genetics and more specifically introducing them into the natural order of things.

Farmers should not have to grow indoors to keep monsato genes out of their crops...in fact the opposite...people who want to grow monsanto seed should have to grow indoors and all in/outs filtered and monitored and under constant monitoring. They should not be allowed to put something out in nature which can not be controlled.

 

[BirdOPrey5]

If you believe something was "meant to be" and you bring in this whole fate/god/religion thing then why was it not "meant to be" that we eventually get to make our own crops?

 

[EQnoble]

If you believe something was "meant to be" and you bring in this whole fate/god/religion thing then why was it not "meant to be" that we eventually get to make our own crops?

I am not religious in any way nor did I bring up religion.

I ask myself all the time if I am 'meant to be' here active on these forums...it has nothing to do with god or religion. I have a friend who I call a god in reference to programming...I don't think I should eat crackers and drink wine in his name though.

Meant to be is in reference to :

natural mutation + survives and passes on = meant to be
natural mutation + not passed on = not meant to be

My god comment was more to do with people involved in this type of activity having a god complex as in they act as an all powerful entity yet have no control or really any clue at what is going to happen as a result of their actions in the long run.

Playing god to me simply means:

Playing with abilities of great power not knowing the consequences of wielding those powers.


god:
1. one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
2. a person or thing of supreme value
3. a powerful ruler

 

[smartpixels]

Man began to change the environment ever since we learnt to make fire ( Large fires that wipe out wildlife)
We accelerated it when we started farming.( same crops would have never grown like that in nature)
We accelerated even further when we began to breed only the best animals and sow the best seeds( nature would have taken 1000 of years but we just forced the alpha animal to mate)
We also began to make hybrids ( longest beans, most beautiful rose, etc...)

All this well before Monsanto....

 

[EQnoble]

Man began to change the environment ever since we learnt to make fire ( Large fires that wipe out wildlife)
We accelerated it when we started farming.( same crops would have never grown like that in nature)
We accelerated even further when we began to breed only the best animals and sow the best seeds( nature would have taken 1000 of years but we just forced the alpha animal to mate)
We also began to make hybrids ( longest beans, most beautiful rose, etc...)

All this well before Monsanto....

Fire existed before humans and is the result of chemical reaction and the burning of a forest is more comparable to war than genetics and not really relevant.

Farming techniques are purely mechanical and don't change the genetics of the plant other than putting many plants in close proximity to each other which when first applied, allowed for basically a giant unintentional mendel cross which is still very natural and the only sped up a natural process without changing it.

Again selective breeding is an example of Mendel's theories applied, and fundamentally is still natural because you are only working with the genetics that already existed in a particular subject matter in nature and doing so in a way that is no different than would be done in nature other than controlling the genes allowed in the dating pool.

Hybrids are just another example of controlled breeding which uses naturally occurring alleles gametes and chromosomes that already existed in nature and are produced through mechanisms nature provides, many hybrid animals can not reproduce and that is a result of mismatched #s of chromosomes and this is one of natures safety cap on the proverbial genetic medicine bottle.


What monsanto does is gene splicing, requires complex man made machinery and that is NOT and never will be natural. When they started practicing what they do ...the started endangering what took earth millions of years to get right...and again all in the name of profit. I am not ok with them using genetic material from an incompatible species (speaking on mating) in another to accomplish a business end.

 

[turtile]

What happens when you ALREADY run a company which provides beans and someone's farm who uses modified seed contaminates yours? Some of these farms they have shut down have a lineage back to the first mass production farms in this country...otherwise know as people who helped secure a future for this country.

Genetic differences or not, they HAVE taken peoples' farms who were not using their seeds and who's farms were contaminated by monsanto garbage. Never mind that before monsanto, these farms did what farmers do...farm...monsanto came in and is monopolizing a form of life and modifying forms of life in a way that is pervasive and WILL spread.

And it is not the same...Xenforo is not a living thing capable of reproduction. Now your comparison might make sense if xenforo could replicate and lets say take over wordpress and inject it's codebase into it with your wordpress install not able to resist the hostile takeover of its future genepool at that point Xenforo would own wordpress under your logic.

Lets make another comparison (It is a closer comparison than yours)...since you think it is ok to patent genetics...say I come up with a genetic modification for humans...and your child is born containing those anomalies , you are cool with me owning your child right? I mean I would let you keep it of course but I need X amount of dollars a year or I will subpoena all of your records of earnings investments and holdings and then have you brought in for questioning because now you are a criminal and if you don't submit you will be charged with fraud...I don't care what you sacrificed for that child...ohh yeah and since I have friends in washington I will also make it illegal for people in your state to openly talk against this policy effectively cutting you off at the knee.

You are cool with that right?

I agreed with you on the contamination post! Why are you arguing over it?

Do you believe that plant breeders have no right to make a living?

Breeders spend years and tons of money to produce new plants. I know of a few small operations that can't make it because they can't afford crack down on violators.

 

[turtile]

Keyword...naturally. After tons of generations the strong survive.


The random in the mutation is just that...random...and if only one offspring in the gamut produces that and it makes it into the next generation and continues to expand than it was meant to be.

Are plants meant to planted by the billions in large fields with no other plants to feed people?
No!

Nothing is natural about agriculture. In the wild, much more genetic diversity occurs within populations with only a small fraction of plants.

I believe these crops present a clear and present danger to the future of agriculture as well as believe there is going to be long term health risks associated with the manipulation of genetics and more specifically introducing them into the natural order of things.
.

GMO is the future of agriculture. It's the only way we can feed the growing population.

Humans have been modifying genes for thousands of years. Corn was originally the size of your pinkie before standard breeding was done to the plants.

We just have the technology to find the gene and insert it into the plant. Roundup resistance occurs naturally and those "natural genes" can be put in any living thing. Guess what, there is no difference if they were developed naturally or placed into the plant in a lab. Find one reviewed article in the scientific world that proves that GMO is dangerous.

All large corporations have control over the political system. It's not just Monsanto. How do you think the financial industry can never be punished and only profits further.

Trying to spread fear of GMO over Monsanto is just wrong.

 

[EQnoble]

Name a scientist with access to the expensive equipment needed that is willing to risk everything to criticize monsanto and then I will believe that the articles are not biased and a slight on truth. Just because someone points out the good things, doesn't mean they are not hiding the bad things, in fact that is a common thing people in business do.

I don't knock breeding and creating new strains...when it is derived from actual breeding, I don't believe that if they can patent genetics that the strain should be able to be bred outdoors because all it takes is a gust of wind, and where that wind blows the patent holder gains claim and an unsuspecting farmer can't do crap about it.

The difference between financial and monsanto is that the financial sector is controlling money...which people created...monsanto is trying to take one thing that already existed, and insert it into another thing that already existed and patent and control it. In the end, I am not forced to eat anything the financial sector manipulates.

I am not spreading fear...I am calling it how I see it...if that spreads fear...I am not the one who is doing wrong or causing that fear and not the one who can or needs to change things. To me all this talk about not being enough food is spreading fear...call it what you will...I call it marketing through intimidation.

__

Let me ask you this...if there is nothing wrong with GMO foods why do they fight tooth and nail to keep from having to label it as such?

If there is nothing wrong with it and I believe there is, why is there no transparency in what is what so I can make that decision on what to eat and not have to complain about it?

 

[BirdOPrey5]

Meant to be is in reference to :

natural mutation + survives and passes on = meant to be
natural mutation + not passed on = not meant to be

Well then nothing you eat was meant to be by your definition. Once we started medaling in agriculture we no longer favored the strongest or best adapted. We artificially water crops favoring those who may need more water than others better suited that may require less water. We favor that which tastes better over that that doesn't, even if it attracts more bugs because we have pesticides.

Humans are the opposing force of evolution. Same with dogs... the genes of pure bread dogs are terrible because we stopped favoring the strong, we favor the cute or the quiet or the smart dogs... The strong dog are a liability.

Hell if humans evolved a 3rd arm we'd probably cut them off as babies because it isn't normal.

The point is- meant to be is a dream. That ship sailed long ago.