The lawsuits are gonna rain down

""

Who's in the heck idea was it to lace our food stocks with poison anyway?

that will allow Monsanto to sue those governments that might use this information, if it harms their profits.

As the TPP is trying to force countries who now ban GMOs to take them as part of the agreement. Or as some of the shills here state, the "hysterical, ant-Science! Euro Zone."

GMOs are doused in poison. That is what the company recommends as part of its sales pitch. So farmers abandon traditional practices to buy expensive seed and expensive Round Up to use on the crops because they are promised up to 40% higher yield.

But that doesn't happen, because GMOs are not as drought resistant or as high yield as the company touts. So now the soil and plants are poisoned, everything in sight is poisoned including essential soil organisms and insects. The farmer finds that even for his low crop, he cannot reuse the seed because has been modified to be one-use only. So the farmer must buy the seed every year. It's a spiraling cycle to the bottom until the farmer is quickly bankrupt.

Is that what pro-GMO defenders are advocating? Because when you attack those trying to stop these evil companies who are poisoning the land, the farmers, and our food supply, that is what you are defending.

GMO is a much broader term than "RoundUp Ready".

For example, these guys: http://www.wired.com/2014/07/kraig-spider-silk-production/
They're silkworms that have been genetically engineered to spin spider silk instead of "regular" silk. They're GMOs. And it should be abundantly clear that RoundUp isn't involved.

I can't speak for all "pro-GMO defenders", but I'm advocating people understanding the extremely basic science involved, instead of conflating "GMO" and "RoundUp".

For example, your error here:

Some aren't. Some are. Because GMO is not the same thing as "RoundUp Ready".

Eaten any sweet corn in the last 5 years? It's most likely a GMO - they turned up two genes that causes the corn to make more sugar. But RoundUp will slaughter most strains of that corn.

Similarly, there are GMOs that are drought tolerant. Or that are higher yield. Or that are resistant to RoundUp. Or any combination of the three.

Also, this:

isn't actually true. Monsanto and a few other manufacturers tried to do this. The farmers refused to buy the seed. So the companies stopped making it.

Now, there is the problem in that a GMO that "breeds naturally" won't necessarily pass on the GMO genes to the offspring. So some farmers will go back and buy new seed every so often to ensure they've still got the genes they want.

For example, the corn mentioned above. Those genes tend to fade out as the generations move on. But it's not that the farmer is required to buy new seed, he's buying new seed in order to guarantee he gets that specific crop. Just like he had to do back when he was growing a particular hybrid.

If you don't hate GMOs, then you hate nature and honeybees and heath and wellness, and you're probably a paid shill for Monsanto.

All GMOs are equal and all are equally bad. I've seen the sentiment again and again and again on DU and elsewhere, and alas this is only a slight exaggeration.


Thanks for pointing out what should be obvious: "GMO" is a broad category covering a wide range of organisms.

For example, your post says this:

And also says all GMOs are "RoundUp ready" and produced by Monsanto.

Silkworms can't survive RoundUp exposure, and aren't made by Monsanto. Yet here you are claiming all GMOs are "RoundUp ready" and made by Monsanto.

Just like when a Republican says all welfare recipients are "Cadillac welfare queens". Your ideology is trumping basic logic, and basic facts.

But sometimes I question that practice.

Your attempt at sarcasm was a joy to behold.

/sarcasm

(Actually, it was a joy to behold and I got it instantly, the best sarcasm is subtle).

I, on the other hand, was not.

I'm surprised the broad brush that is made to defend GMOs, but I'll try one more time. The OP states that using the massive amounts of pesticides that are part of the system created for GMO crops is leading to disease in the farmers and workers. These corporations have created a dangerous loop that is bad for everyone in order to make profits. That's really the end of the story. Just like oil companies who will wreck everything in order to make the largest profit, the same applies here. They have tried every dirty trick in the book to get their products past regulators, past governments that don't want them, past consumers. That usually isn't necessary for wonder products.

GMOs might be fine in a lab setting, but in practice they are bad news. Just like how we should be developing alternative energy, we should also be developing farming practices that aren't scorched earth. We should be looking at the larger picture of how to feed the population and how to maintain the fertility of the soil to be able to feed future generations. It sounds hippy, but there are many pioneers who are trying to do just, it might not equal maximum profit, so the big corps don't care.

And the last thing is, if these products are so wonderful, they should be able to withstand open testing from every corner of the scientific community. The companies have not allowed this to happen and actively shut down independent testing. Again, usually if something is positive, it doesn't need a lot of spin or mafia tactics to be accepted. The complete lack of transparency and despicable practices of the companies producing these products should give one pause.

Ok, list the massive amounts of pesticides that are part of growing silkworms.

What I'm trying to get across is "Ban all GMOs!!!!!" is like saying "Ban all antibiotics!!!!" when one antibiotic causes allergic reactions.


One corporation has created a dangerous loop. Yes, they are a major player in agriculture. But they do not produce all GMOs.


And guess what they're doing? Genetically modifying crops to be drought-tolerant, for example.

Again, GMO is not the same as RoundUp ready.


A company has shut down independent testing.

Fact is, the world's population has reached a point where "classic" farming can't feed everyone reliably. Just not enough reliable yield per acre. We've been depleting topsoil, draining aquifers, and other bad practices for quite a while now in order to make up for that. Obviously that can't continue. And climate change makes the situation worse.

GMOs that are not made by people as evil as Monsanto are a large key to solving that problem. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater because Monsanto is evil is not a good idea.

are all in the business of selling chemicals -- Sick GMO plants nursed along with chemicals.

Glyphosate chelates nutrients and can ruin your soil outright. 30% of American farmland is expected to be out of production within 10 years so how does that fit into your "must use GMO to feed everyone" scenario?

Btw, your fact is not true -- the yield from GMO crops is no higher than conventional, and in some cases is lower. In many places it is lower and more expensive. The majority of food grown in the US is going into ethanol and animal feed so there is a lot of capacity that could be directed toward feeding human beings but isn't. That should be obvious to everyone -- we are feeding cars and cows with 80% of our cropland so we could feed more people is we really needed to. Cut the crap.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/24/usda-gmo-report-idUSL1N0LT16M20140224

Also glyphosate resistant amarantha, a by-product of glyphosate use, are now "choking" Iowa:



http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2014/06/22/superweeds-choke-farms/11231231/

I'm a farmer and marketing talking points aren't going to solve these problems.

Better living through chemistry.

?

How times have changed.

The "conventional" you cite is the version where we're depleting topsoil and aquifers.
What I'm talking about is going back to the very old days- rain for water and not leaching all the nutrients out of the topsoil.

That makes enough food....most of the time. But hit a drought and it no longer does so. So now people are working on adding drought-tolerance, so we don't have to react to drought by draining all of our drinking water.

And importantly, I'm not talking about Monsanto's products and RoundUp.


Sure, as long as we don't feed any animals.

And again, what I'm talking about is significantly lower yield per acre - that's why we moved on to the versions that are depleting our aquifers and topsoil.

We are unwilling to change our recipes and so we grow a few crops that cannot withstand things like drought or climate change. Instead of going with highly questionable products, why not develop crops of naturally drought-resistant foods and push those? What happened with crop rotation that put nutrients back into the soil? What happened to sound farming practices? The food we eat is based mostly on commerce, ease of shipping, etc. Our diet has subtracted many, many foods that humans used to consume, especially local ones that grew well in that climate. Not to mention an over-reliance on cheap cereals, corn and soy for packaged food--lots of empty calories for an overweight world.

Relying on GMOs is like putting a bandaid on a festering wound without healing it. And most of it is hype to line someone's pockets.

thousands of plots. One seed versus another, same conditions and practices. Simple one variable tests. Plus all the millions of data points that the USDA collects from real farms.

I'm confused your assertion:

That is what this thread began with. Are you saying that you only want to talk about products from Dow, Syngenta and Bayer? Monsanto's patent on Glyphosate (aka "round up) expired 14 years ago so it is made by many companies now. So it easy to not talk about Monsanto specifically but they are a big part of the data I am citing:



http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/24/usda-gmo-report-idUSL1N0LT16M20140224

Ethanol?

Even drought resistant crops need SOME water. There are unplanted fields in California this year which implies that those farmers, with great soil and great knowledge, couldn't find ONE crop to put in without water.

and finally, Herbicide depletes topsoil so how is your citation of topsoil depletion helping your case for GMO?

as your post reflects some of what I have been arguing. Most people who, like myself, protest GMOs do so for a few reasons:

A) Protecting the integrity of the food supply. Ingesting something is far different than the silk you are talking about which has an external application. Food is the largest exposure the body has daily by orders of magnitude. The approval of GMOs went through backdoor channels, with some evil genius manipulation and trojan horse appointments from big ag companies. Prove the food is safe with independent, long-term testing--not insolation from the chemicals that are used to grow it--and I'll STFU.

B) Protecting the soil and the environment. As you mentioned in your post, bad farming practices have led to depleted topsoil, drained aquifers, monoculture, etc. So instead of heaping worse practices on bad, we should be figuring how to manage our food needs in a sustainable way. The current plan for GMOs is all about making profits for a few companies. It is the same reason why fracking and tar sands are fucking horrible ideas when we should instead be putting our collective genius on our energy and food needs that don't poison the entire planet and everything living in it. Oh, and we might want to talk about population control while we're at it. But allowing companies who are only looking to make maximum profit with no responsibility for the harm they may cause to be the ones making the policy is not smart.

C) Transparency: The idea that people are freaking out needlessly because GMOs somewhere along the line got a bad wrap is questionable at best. Companies pushing GMO crops are some of the largest in the world, if they had so much positive information on their product, they could have shared it far and wide. They chose not to and fight tooth and nail for GMOs to be labeled. They are the definition of bad actors by the way they keep using secretive methods and the pressure of our own State Department to ram this product down everyone's throats. It is very understandable why people would be extremely hesitant if not downright hostile to the company and it's products.

Again, if this is the pinnacle of science, then show me the proof and I'll STFU.

And that ingestion is designed to annihilate what we eat.

The reason there wasn't further study about what this does to us is there's no known mechanism by which it could hurt us. In a GMO, we're altering the DNA, RNA and proteins. Our digestive tracts break all those down quite well, so there isn't a known mechanism by which the modified plant could cause harm.

The genes won't work in a human, and they're busted down to nucleotides anyway. Same with the proteins - they interact with specific structures in the plants that we don't have, and we break them down to amino acids anyway.

There was an extremely remote potential danger back in the early days, when they did the modification via viruses. Theoretically, the modified virus's DNA and a human virus's DNA could get mixed up and create a superbug. But they quickly figured out viruses weren't a good way to produce GMOs - too hard to control, too hard to produce. Now they put modified DNA on gold nanoparticles and shoot them at plant cells. The ones where the nanoparticles end up in the right place are grown into plants.

That mechanism can't infect people - they'd have to shoot the particles at you.

But there's lots of people who exploit the lousy job we do with science education and make it sound scary. Monsanto being bastards doesn't help.


That one seems to be taking care of itself. At least in the developed world. Birth rate in a few countries in Europe and Japan has actually fallen below replacement rate. The pattern is repeating in the US - our birth rate has also been dropping over the last few decades.


Intellectual property rights.

You can't copyright/trademark/otherwise protect "We stuck a gene from a frog into this plant". You didn't invent the gene, nor the plant. So Monsanto's lawyers drew up contracts for their farmers and other orwellian crap to keep their "recipe" a secret.

And no, they are not "some of the largest in the world". There's one company that you're talking about. Not "some".

You did a great job of arguing your point and providing an interesting point of view. I think since we don't agree on basic points, we won't get anywhere, but I do enjoy a civilized, well-argued discussion.

It's not like my simple flower gardens aren't wildly tightly bred, including species crosses where these are appropriate.

And yet somehow GMO is ten thousand times worse than crossing a jonquil with a daffodil. Sure. (/sarcasm to make that clear).

Like the farmers, if I wish to preserve the specific nature of the flowers, I need to return to the base species occasionally for another shot of the original genome. Otherwise things tend to drift back toward their normal natural somatic type. And usually that's not as nice as the very well-bred version (and sometimes it's nicer).

Viruses occasionally insert genes from wildly disparate species into each other. And yet nobody's looking askance at them for performing GM.

Hybrid varieties do break back to a parent variety, true. That's why commercial seed savers gathered nonhybrid,varieties.
Saved seed from an open pollinated variety will grow into the same variety most of the time, and seeds can be gleaned from fruits too damaged for market or flowers in the field. It's a time honored tradition.

So why does Monsanto sue? Because their plants aren't simple hybrids. Monsanto apparently believes that the seed will grow true to form often enough that this would cut into their business.

In the case of Monsanto brands, farmers buy new seed because they're avoiding lawsuits.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]I've been trying to explain this to some friends, but I haven't been getting through. All GMOs are not created equal. I'm still fighting for labeling, but also support categorizing them so people can look up each type and make up their own minds.

Round-Up and Round-Up Ready crops have to go, for sure; just too toxic for the environment and living creatures.

Total monopoly control over the food supply, on a GLOBAL scale.

Letting plants with those "suicide genes" loose is WMD proliferation that makes nukes and nerve gas look like children's toys.

5 - 8% better than non GMO ... he told me 40% is a ridiculous claim ...

Because you are locked into buying Round Up or the pesticide that works for that crop. GMOs are not good for small farmers at all.

Pretty sick, that the US government has been cooperating in pressuring countries to use Monsanto products.

But, although I am a cynical as anyone, experience shows that protest sometimes has some effect. From a note after the article,

Post script: After articles about the seed dispute appeared in the media, The New York Times reported that the United States has reversed its position and will stop pressuring El Salvador to buy Monsanto's seeds. Thus far, the aid money has not been released.

Farm workers are often denied water breaks in the field.

NPR did a big story on this a few months ago. The link between the herbicides and kidney failure was not cut and dry.

I can tell you that kidney pain has sent me to the ER more than once. I'm not shocked by this news. I can truly relate. Need those kidneys working and happy.

Killing a few foreign brown people won't topple them. They've got their ringer on the SCOTUS.

coming down on this? Like integrative medicine? Annoying beyond belief.

As I've written before, I work in watershed management and would love to see credible scientific evidence that glyphosate is a danger to human health. After reading the articles several times, I still do not understand how the following facts are connected:

1. Glyphosate binds with heavy metals in soils and persists there for years.

2. Glyphosate can enter the body through the air, skin or with food and/or drink.

3. If glyphosate bonded with a heavy metal it would prevent the liver from detecting and detoxifying it, and could then damage the kidneys.

Question: How does a metal bonded to glyphosate get into the body?

Glyphosate is sprayed into the air, and can get into the body that way, but has no opportunity to bind with a heavy metal in the process. Glyphosate that binds with a heavy metal in the soil has no easy way to get into the body.

Conclusion: If heavy metals are in such abundance in an environment that they could bind with glyphosate and get into the body in quantities high enough to damage the kidneys, the heavy metals alone are clearly a danger to human health with or without the presence of glyphosate.

We are talking about peasants living in communal villages in the middle of huge fields. They only source of water is from shadow wells, that are known to be easily contaminated by ground sources. Thus the Glyphosate (Round up) sinks into the ground, where it combines with Heavy metals (know to exist in the soils in the mountains of Central America), and then taken into people's body by drinking the well water, or the run off that is the other main source of water intake in Central America.

Thus you have slow absorption over a time period, even if you are NOT actually working with Round up, for it is in the water. Thus no one time contamination, in fact the people using Roundup may not be affected at all, for they source of water may be filtered (Which is common for the upper classes/land owners of Central America (This is assuming aerial spraying or other mass spraying of Round up).

Similar situation occurred with Agent Orange during Vietnam, the crew dispersing Agent Orange had access and wore complete chemical suits for protection, but the men on the ground AND the crew cleaning the planes did not. Thus you had a low rate is Agent Orange affects on the Air Crew that dispersed it (and this fact was used for year to deny Agent Orange was toxic), but much higher rates on those who were sprayed by Agent Orange AND who had to clean the planes up after each spraying.

Now Round up is a lot less toxic then Agent Orange, but I bring up Agent Orange only to point out the people using it, may NOT be the same people affected by it. In the case of Central America it may be the affects is on people who DRINK water with trace amounts of Roundup AFTER it has gone through the soil and absorb heavy metals. Thus it is the water the is causing the problem and the best solution is to end the use of Round up, so that it works through the system and then once through the system will no longer bind with the heavy metals in the soil and infect people drinking the water.

Not to lie now about the effects of GMO and Round Up. No way, no how.

Great post!

http://biostareq.com/news/arsenic-and-heavy-metals-risks-to-animal-feed

Thus, it is affecting the water without having to absorb any heavy metals from the soil.

More Mesoamerica Nephropathy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_nephropathy

Wikipedia reports "Mesoamerican volcanic soils, for instance, are rich in Arsenic and Cadmium." These are the two heavy metals that produce the most concern. Heat stress appears to be a big factor. Thus Round Up, already with some arsenic may be picking up more Arsenic and Cadmium when it hits the water table, and the men working in the fields drink more of the contaminated water do to the high heat and end up absorbing even more Arsenic and Cadmium.

Women in the same area do NOT have the same high rate of this disease, but women in those areas rarely work in the fields. Thus less exposure to Round Up, even in the water they drink (men would drink the water in the fields, women would drink water in the village where the water had time to lose its heavy metals./

It is also reported that men working in the High Lands do NOT get this disease, it is only in the Pacific Low lands. In the low lands the water had no place to flow and lose its contaminates, while in the high lands, the water flows down hill and thus can lose its contaminates before the men working in the fields drink the water.

It just looks like it is the product of contamination, the issue from what and how is it entered the body. It looks like Round Up is a catalyst for this disease more then its cause. i.e. Round Up increases the ability of the water to contain Arsenic and Cadmium but loses that Arsenic and Cadmium before its gets to Village wells or even in high land wells. Other factors work against the water retaining the Arsenic and Cadmium in the High Lands and the villages, but not on the low land farms.

It's always good to get it out there for people to know.

But I do assume this is a "canary in a coal mine effect." The workers who are exposed to the highest levels show problems the soonest. But long-term exposure and saturating the soil with the stuff will lead to illnesses showing up in the general population eventually. Not to mention the harm it does to the rest of the animals, plants, birds and fish who consume it.

Round Up is pulling Arsenic from the ground and thus increasing the Arsenic content of the water around the fields. One characteristic of water is water tends to drop out such contaminates as it flows down stream (Old saying, cow around the bend in the creek, the water is good, cow near where you are drinking, the water is bad). Water can clean itself relatively quickly, thus the Round Up affect MAY only be in the water around the fields Round Up is being used on, but the time it gets to the village's well the affect is gone do to the natural actions of water.

In the highlands, the men may have to haul in water to where they are working, thus cleaner water for it is further from the field (and there may be less Arsenic in the High lands).

Thus I do NOT think Round Up is acting as a Carney in a Coal Mine. The Carney would be affected by bad gas before the gas would affect the miners, thus given warning to the miners to vacate the mine. The Carney was an early warning device.

Round up is acting like a Catalyst, something that is needed to get a process started, but is not needed for the process itself. Thus round up is acting like a Early Fall Storm to remind people to stock up for winter, or a massive withdraw of water from a beech, that is a sign of an impending tsunami, or the movement of clouds over water, that is often a sign of a Hurricane somewhere off shore.

This disease is more a comment that we have to be careful of the water we drink, it may look good and had been good in the past, but when circumstances change, it may become bad for us.

If you resort to pseudo-science to make your case, Monsanto wins.

...glyphosate bonded to heavy metals enters the body when well water is drunk, the exposure of workers to airborne glyphosate in the field is irrelevant. Remember, the hypothesis is that it is glyphosate bonded to heavy metals that is causing the liver damage, not glyphosate alone. So why are agricultural workers more heavily affected than their families? This story just does not stand up to scrutiny. And those who claim that Monsanto must be lying about glyophosate mainly because they are responsible for Agent Orange failed Logic 101. People, if you want to get Monsanto, you've got to be consistent and logical, not wildly emotional.

No text (n/t)

Thanks for the thread, Judi Lynn.

Why are Monsanto defenders so strident? What motivates them? I willingly admit that I'm overly suspicious at times, but geez.

My guess is that they think that those who oppose GMOs are Luddites that just can't deal with hi-tech change. It's a sci-fi promise of the future that all scientific advances are positive when in fact they are neutral. Most people when given the facts we (are allowed to) know, oppose GMOs in actual practice. The world is not a controlled lab and unforeseen consequences can arise, such as resistant weeds, killing off essential organisms, and contaminating the water supply. TEST the hell out of something this world-altering before you let it loose on humans, animals and the environment.

Plus the fact that these are some of the most despicable corporations on the planet makes the whole thing extremely suspicious. I just don't get why any person would shout down all questioning of their actions.

must be too many facts busting out all over about these poisons ...

maybe hunkering down waiting for the lawsuits to fall down on their slimy heads ....