BirdOPrey5
Well-known member
How about harmful to everyone who has to pay higher prices for legislation with no basis in science or reality?
More regulation doesn't mean rich CEOs make less, it means WE the people pay more.
Monsanto
- Thread starter DRE
- Start date
More regulation doesn't mean rich CEOs make less, it means WE the people pay more.
EQnoble
Well-known member
Not if they do what they did the the tobacco industry...fine the companies for their role in keeping facts secret and make them pay for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement
BirdOPrey5
Well-known member
Companies don't pay fines- people pay fines. Costs get pushed to the consumer. Cigarettes cost 5 times what they used to here- you want the same for corn?
Cigarettes also are well proven to be bad for you, Monsanto crops are not.
There are no Tobacco executives worried about making their mortgage payment.
EQnoble
Well-known member
With all the money they have spent fighting the bills to make labeling required, they could have already instituted the labeling already. Also the companies DID pay the fines and a portion of that goes to the growers because of the losses they will take...and the price on ciggs went up because they decided to increase taxes to reduce demand for tobacco products under the guise of money and addiction being correlated (and it's not), that is the reason price went up...it doesn't cost any more money to make a cigarette than it did before.Companies don't pay fines- people pay fines. Costs get pushed to the consumer. Cigarettes cost 5 times what they used to here- you want the same for corn?
Cigarettes also are well proven to be bad for you, Monsanto crops are not.
There are no Tobacco executives worried about making their mortgage payment.
And here is where our opinions differ, the fact that they fight labeling requirements makes me not want to eat them (gmo) and because of that I feel it is unsafe...yet I am unable to make that choice because they think I don't have the right to know what I am eating
Jason
Well-known member
There's plenty of studies, some more controversial than others, regarding the benefits and potential harm (not just to humans) regarding GMOs. Ignoring that fact doesn't make your argument stronger.
The costs of segregation and testing would be paid partly by taxpayers and partly by the producers. That would keep the price premium between the two different products relatively low, since non-GM buyers wouldn't pay the full costs, as they would under voluntary labeling. Just about every major multinational, which are some of the largest producers of GMOs here in the states and spend _millions_ lobbying Congress against labeling, already label these products in the 50+ countries that require it.
Edit: typo -- millions.
Last edited:
Jason
Well-known member
Corn is a horrible example. It's the number one crop for subsidy payments, which is partly why GM corn is so prevalent here in the states -- that and the Energy Policy Act mandate.
BirdOPrey5
Well-known member
No one spends billions lobbying Congress, there was a graphic posted Earlier with Monsanto the top lobbyist at like $36 million or something.
Taxpayers pay enough. How about doing things to make us pay less, not just a little more.
Anyone is free to grow their own food and know where it came from without passing expense onto me.
Taxpayers pay enough. How about doing things to make us pay less, not just a little more.
Anyone is free to grow their own food and know where it came from without passing expense onto me.
Jason
Well-known member
I actually meant millions, but some quick math...
In general, about 30+ million is spent a year on lobbying, and even more in advertising. So, this has been going on a little over a decade. 30 * 10 = 300 million. That's nearly half a billion (and we're ignoring the fact that companies actually spent more, combined, in some of those years). Surely those costs are getting passed onto the consumer as well, if all overhead trickles down. It's not like many of these companies aren't already labeling their products in the 50+ countries (which is about 40% of the worlds population) that require it, either. More and more states are starting to require it (or introducing bills to that effect), in some form, as well.
No, they don't won't labeling because they fear consumers will be more adverse to GMO foods, even though some polls show that over 80% of those polled support it. Not because it's going to cost them a horrendous amount of money to do it.
In general, about 30+ million is spent a year on lobbying, and even more in advertising. So, this has been going on a little over a decade. 30 * 10 = 300 million. That's nearly half a billion (and we're ignoring the fact that companies actually spent more, combined, in some of those years). Surely those costs are getting passed onto the consumer as well, if all overhead trickles down. It's not like many of these companies aren't already labeling their products in the 50+ countries (which is about 40% of the worlds population) that require it, either. More and more states are starting to require it (or introducing bills to that effect), in some form, as well.
No, they don't won't labeling because they fear consumers will be more adverse to GMO foods, even though some polls show that over 80% of those polled support it. Not because it's going to cost them a horrendous amount of money to do it.
Last edited:
EQnoble
Well-known member
And what happens when the wind blows and a monsanto gene infests anyones crop?
Not so free now.
BirdOPrey5
Well-known member
Frankly, consumers are sometimes stupid. That's the problem... Look at all these parents scared to death to get their kids proper vaccinations... And all the poor kids who have or will get sick or die because of it. Because people through out numbers and statistics they didn't understand. "Oh no the 1 in a million chance a vaccine may cause autism is worse than the 1 in 100 kids who used to die from measles..." Crazy how a 50 years of medical advancement was almost wiped out by a bunch of "consumers."
That is a legitimate concern but has nothing to do with labeling laws. You just hate Monsanto so you are automatically in favor of anything they are against even if there is no rational reason to take such a position.
EQnoble
Well-known member
Frankly I think a bunch of people just take whatever they are told and assume no one is lying to them ever and believe if it is written it is true without stopping to think who wrote it.
I don't care about the statistics...these people control the food I eat...and wont tell me whats in it...no numbers...simple fact. Next you are going to tell me that splenda is good for you and that even though it costs more than sugar it is the way of the future.
What GOOD things are there that monsanto is against? Manipulating the projection of an opinion that your are incorrectly superimposing upon me is a low life tactic and that is completely irrational.
I don't hate Monsanto...I hate they way they do business. The fact that it is food and I am forced to eat their garmbage is the reason my opinion is open...if it was a clothing company I wouldn't say crap.
If they can get laws made in states of major operations to prevent people from talking...if they can shut down peoples farms because the wind blows...if they have to hide what products contain their abominations, am I supposed to believe that they will be honest about any potential negative findings they come across?
No ... and that would be an example of a stupid consumer if I did.
And for the record since you want to tell me how I feel about something...I suppose I should reciprocate at some point and give you an opinion when I ask you for one. And look at the thread title...it is not 'labeling laws'...this thread title is monsanto so while you state the obvious that the two things are not directly related...both are related to this thread.
Your obvious manipulation tactics are really disgusting...you should call monsanto, maybe they have a job for you.
turtile
Well-known member
Isn't this more of a problem with the political system rather than GMOs?
Look at the money behind the anti GMO movement. Guess who? Businesses who produce organic foods in order to help push their way into the market.
BirdOPrey5
Well-known member
Do you believe that Monsanto executives and their families and loved ones have a stock-pile of non-Monsanto produced foods that they eat in secret? Because if not then you must believe Monsanto is knowingly poisoning themselves and their own families?
Or perhaps Monsanto has a secret cure for cancer they don't care about getting sick?
I am curious your belief in this.
dangonay
Active member
We use Monsanto seed and chemicals on our farm. Why? Because the total combined cost of buying their seed plus the quantity of Roundup used vs our crop yields ends up making us more money.
I see so many myths floating around that just aren't true. Like the fact that once you start using Monsanto you're stuck with them for life. Sorry, no. I can switch back anytime I want to and there's no way Monsanto can tell me what to do. The reason I don't switch is because economically it's a step back to. But I could if I want. And if a neighbor had some seed blow into my field I don't have to worry about Monsanto. If I have receipts to prove I bought regular seed that compare to the amount of land I planted, then I'm OK.
People think farmers are the salt-of-the-earth. They are honest, hard working, and don't cheat. This is true for many, but it's way off for others. For example, a serious problem for retailers of farm chemicals and fertilizers is theft. Some farm chemicals are very expensive, and crooks doing a quick smash & grab can easily get away with $10K-$20K in a small truck or van in minutes. They then sell this to farmers at 50% off and the farmers gladly pay them in cash. I can't stress how common this is and how many times retailers are broken into. So when I see the number of cases of farmers being sued by Monsanto I first ask myself "Is that all?" I'm surprised it's not higher given how many already have no qualms about buying stolen chemicals.
I've read a lot of articles and reports on Monsanto and I find them about as believable as the PETA people telling me I'm going to die of numerous cancers because I eat meat. What I've been asking the naysayers to provide (and I haven't seen yet) is very simple. I want them to take samples of GMO corn (or canola) and break them down in a lab into their most basic chemical compounds. Then provide a list of the GMO vs non-GMO version so they can show us what's different about them. Then they have to show why these differences (perhaps the presence of lack of a specific compound) is harmful. Simply saying the DNA is different is not good enough. It's asinine to think your stomach (which is a chemical reactor designed to break down food) is capable of determining the DNA of the food you ate and somehow the different genes in the GMO food affect your health.
I see so many myths floating around that just aren't true. Like the fact that once you start using Monsanto you're stuck with them for life. Sorry, no. I can switch back anytime I want to and there's no way Monsanto can tell me what to do. The reason I don't switch is because economically it's a step back to. But I could if I want. And if a neighbor had some seed blow into my field I don't have to worry about Monsanto. If I have receipts to prove I bought regular seed that compare to the amount of land I planted, then I'm OK.
People think farmers are the salt-of-the-earth. They are honest, hard working, and don't cheat. This is true for many, but it's way off for others. For example, a serious problem for retailers of farm chemicals and fertilizers is theft. Some farm chemicals are very expensive, and crooks doing a quick smash & grab can easily get away with $10K-$20K in a small truck or van in minutes. They then sell this to farmers at 50% off and the farmers gladly pay them in cash. I can't stress how common this is and how many times retailers are broken into. So when I see the number of cases of farmers being sued by Monsanto I first ask myself "Is that all?" I'm surprised it's not higher given how many already have no qualms about buying stolen chemicals.
I've read a lot of articles and reports on Monsanto and I find them about as believable as the PETA people telling me I'm going to die of numerous cancers because I eat meat. What I've been asking the naysayers to provide (and I haven't seen yet) is very simple. I want them to take samples of GMO corn (or canola) and break them down in a lab into their most basic chemical compounds. Then provide a list of the GMO vs non-GMO version so they can show us what's different about them. Then they have to show why these differences (perhaps the presence of lack of a specific compound) is harmful. Simply saying the DNA is different is not good enough. It's asinine to think your stomach (which is a chemical reactor designed to break down food) is capable of determining the DNA of the food you ate and somehow the different genes in the GMO food affect your health.
OSS 117
Well-known member
I don't like their policies toward farmers and I'm fine with GMO. Maybe because I have a love for horticulture. A hobby I picked up in my youth to deal with stress so as I wouldn't strangle people who piss me off. Ultimately, I can't pass negative comment toward Monsanato aside from the aforementioned or praise them as I'm heavily invested into the company. I invested in them when their stock was as cheap as dirt many moons ago.
SneakyDave
Well-known member
I hope none of you Monsanto bashers order pizza delivered. That's the stuff to look out for.
erich37
Well-known member
Have a look into Permaculture, this will produce healthy organic food and will also give you lots of $$$ profit. Of course this needs more brains and more work than just putting "Roundup" onto your plants.
http://www.holzeragroecology.com
Last edited:
dangonay
Active member
Really? A video from filmmaker Bertram Verhaag? He's not biased in any way whatsoever. /S/S/S
Our family doesn't actually farm our land anymore. Like many farmers, we now lease our land to a neighbor and they do all the work. It's simply not feasible to run a smaller farm (I'm talking about crops like wheat or canola) as you can't make enough to cover costs of equipment. Some farms are bought out by corporate farmers while other farmers kept their land and leased it to someone else and take a percentage of the profits. This is what we do with our 2,000 hectares. We no longer live on the farm as there's no need to anymore. Our neighbor now manages the land for us.
Your tone suggests you are making assumptions about farmers and the skills they have. The two sons of our neighbor (our family and their family have lived there since the 1930's) now run the operation. Both have university degrees in agriculture where they studied things like soil science, crop science, animal biology and other things related to farming. It would be very foolish to assume that farmers using Monsanto are "stupid" or are "taking the easy way out", which is a common theme promoted by the anti-GMO crowd. It's just the opposite - they are making intelligent decisions based on numerous factors.
It's actually the anti-GMO crowd who are the "dumb" ones and have no understanding of agriculture. For example, years ago I had one idiot (protestor/activist at a rally back home) tell me I should be growing vegetables on my land instead of grains (which were sold to livestock producers as feed). He claimed it was stupid and inefficient to use all that land area for growing grain and then feeding animals which we would then eat when we could just grow vegetables and eat them ourselves directly.
Except he missed one extremely important point. If I could grow vegetables on my land I'd do it tomorrow. I'd love to make 10X the $$$ I do now by growing a crop as valuable as vegetables. The problem is that land that's suitable for cereal crops is not good enough for vegetable crops. The soil isn't good enough and there isn't enough rain. The reason we aren't using those millions of hectares of land in Canada and the US to grow more lucrative crops (fruits & vegetables) is because the land is not able to support them.
Now the theory this guy was trying to present to me sounded good. It does make more sense to grow crops that can feed more people and provide them with more nutrients/vitamins. The problem was he didn't even have the most basic understanding of agriculture to realize it's not possible. And yet he was in charge of this "rally" and was telling this message to anyone who would hear. And since his audience didn't know squat about agriculture either they bought everything he was saying.
Back to the video. What he has looks more like a hobby farm to me. He grows his own food, sells excess to make money and has a comfortable living. Well, if every farmer in the world did that we'd have a food shortage. I never saw once a breakdown showing the number of hectares of land he has, how much food he produces per year, and what his operating costs and profits are. Sure it all sounds good, but without any actual "facts" that video is useless to use as a comparison to other farming methods.
erich37
Well-known member
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Question
