Thank you for the article. You are right on!

The push for GM Food is Criminal, and dangerous yet the health and agricultural departments of Canada and the United States are pushing this on the world.

At the very least it should be labelled.

Rolland Miller

Vancouver, B.C.

by Rolland Miller (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 227 comments [78 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 4:28:49 PM

  (0+)

This has got to be one of the scariest problems we have to deal with. It scares me even more than global warming, at least as far as the short-term goes. And by short-term, I mean the next few centuries, because the earth will recover from the bastardized crops if given enough time, whereas it may not survive the climactic catastrophe of a drastic temperature increase.

If we can't even make these people put labels on the food we eat when everyone but the tiny fraction of a percent of us who are making money from this mess want labels, we may as well resign ourselves to either total revolution or perpetual slavery until extinction.

by JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 5:00:29 PM

  (0+)

This has got to be one of the scariest problems we have to deal with. It scares me even more than global warming, at least as far as the short-term goes.

Why does it scare you? 

And by short-term, I mean the next few centuries, because the earth will recover from the bastardized crops if given enough time, whereas it may not survive the climactic catastrophe of a drastic temperature increase.

At one stage in the earths history the atmosphere contained mostly carbon dioxide. It was plants and anaerobic bacteria that changed the atmosphere to contain so much oxygen that we oxygen breathers could breath it.  

If we can't even make these people put labels on the food we eat when everyone but the tiny fraction of a percent of us who are making money from this mess want labels, we may as well resign ourselves to either total revolution or perpetual slavery until extinction.

The problem with labels is what do you put on them? Regulators are supposed to put health warnings on products when they know there are dangers they aren't supposed to warn people about stuff that some people may have a irrational fear of. And some fears are irrational.

For instance how would you feel about having to have a guarantee on your milk cartoons that no wild unicorns were harmed in the provision of the milk.

Some of the things people want protecting from are almost that level of absurd and you can't put everything on one little label. That isn't fair to the manufacturer and it isn't actual information then its just distracting noise.

The principle that health regulators are supposed to be for is protection from real risk not imaginary one's.

We have to manage risk in civil societies we can get complete guarantees because no one has them.  

If you demand that everything that you want on a label be on a label at someone elses cost then you are demanding that someone else accept the burden of your prejudices. You can always not buy their product or inform yourself. But they can't possibly anticipate everything any consumer might fear. Its a balancing game. And someone has to pay for crazy regulations too.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 17, 2008 at 3:30:41 AM

  (0+)

I suggest you're both.

Go ahead and trust industry and government if you want. 

But most of us that are aware know that what you're spewing is either the height of naivety or sinister-ism of a level only achieved by the most demented of minds.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 17, 2008 at 8:11:44 AM

  (0+)

.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 17, 2008 at 8:24:44 AM

  (0+)

"However the energy it takes to unlock the energy in cellulosic ethanol is far greater than the energy it produces, making it a net energy loser"

all independant research i've seen has said the opposite.  switchgrass is a native perinneal plant (no need for seeds, they use plugs), and our latest research shows it makes 3 times the amount of biofuel per acre than corn.  it's enough to cover all costs of production, where corn was not that great.  alfalfa is also being looked at, and it's a nitrogen fixer, so it needs no fertilizer (switchgrass will need some to start, then very little once it's started.  switchgrass is also great for where i live, in maryland, where we'd rather grow something to stabalize our banks along the bay, rather than growing corn, which gets doused with fertilizers that then wash into our bay and mess up the water and marine life with excess nitrogen.)

ok, i'm no friend of GM crops, and certainly no friend of monsanto's, but we need to be careful in understanding that we're actually in a battle between two or even three powerful lobbying groups, who are allllll trying to spin the facts on biofuels.  isn't it incredible?

first, you bring up GM crops, and the companies that make them, they're a player.  keep us on corn, start selling GM corn that's made for biofuels, big money...with all the drawbacks you'v mentioned.  the discussion of switchgrass must be driving them nuts, cuz we needn't go with seeds or gm'd crops,  the research isn't being done on that, and it's promising.

but there's also the big corn producers, conagra, etc, who were just loving the ethanol buisness.  they're freaked out by the move towards alternative sources of biofuel, cuz it cuts out their buisness.  they have their eye on the shenanigans that monsanto will play with them.

but the third player is the GMA, the grocery manufactuers association.  they will have you believe that corn ethanol production is causing the world food crisis, high prices of food here at home, etc etc.  it's not true, but the real truth is they want corn prices to be kept low, cuz they're dependant on them being low for the manufacturing of their food products, so the profit stays high (corn syrup, etc. to remain cheap).

what's kinda neat to watch, as the script gets out there, is watching all these big lobbying groups practically fighting each other out there in trying to steal the public's opinion, with misinformation.

it's facinating (and a bit scary) to watch all these big agribusinesses and lobbying groups fight each other.  in actuality, the bush adminstration and the gop is kinda torn up right now, totally caught in the middle, in who to continue to pander too.  depending on who's talking, and who's been giving them the most money, republicans are all over the place.  corn's great...no wait it sucks...biofuels are great, energy independance woo-ho...no, no, it's horrible, it's causing high food prices!  hehe!

lastly, i still support biofuels (each part of the country will have to decide what particular crop they can use that best suits them), because in rural areas, electric-powered transport isn't as feasible.  since rural america is already growing a lot of stuff, it's cool, they'd be growing their own fuel.  it also stores dry, until it's ready for production, which is better and safer than our incredibly dangerous stores of gasoline and oil lying around the country everywhere...

nobody talks about it, but agriculuture is actually the united states' biggest export, and it makes a ton of money.  it would make even more money, if we could ship it out of here (outgoing vessels are completely stocked).  that's the crazy thing--we have plenty of food, we're just shipping it all overseas, cuz foreign markets will pay 5 times the amount of money for one chicken foot than americans at home will pay for premium breast meat.  we need to continue to support agriculture in general, in particular small farmers and locally grown crops for local markets--it's an old policy, but it's time we brought it back again.

by kenshin (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 8:16:34 PM

  (0+)

The following is a quote from the Axis of Logic Web Site

William Clinton And Monsanto:  a Team for Mutual Profit

here's the link:  http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/CriticalAnalysis.shtml

Monsanto is responsible for the production and sale of not just genetically engineered foods, but lethal products such as Agent Orange, PCBs, pesticides and herbicides, such as the world's most sold and most dangerous herbicide, Round-Up.

The general secrecy in matters of GMOs has been made possible through the close links between Monsanto and the governments, which began with Bill Clinton's policy of appointing Monsanto employees to run the FDA. Of course they declared their own products legal and harmless through multiple twisted policies. The United States Department of Agriculture has also turned a deaf ear on public demands for information and labeling of products.

 "Once again, people don't matter, only the big corporations and their profits matter. The Corporatocracy that runs the planet is doing their very best to destroy the land that our forefathers cultivated with sweat and age-old organic methods. "

Even they say that Monsanto is unstoppable... that would be a very sad reality indeed.  There is power in knowledge.

Thanks for the post.

by bucketslogg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 259 comments [99 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 9:59:05 PM

  (0+)

Editorial: Green Plants, Fossil Fuels, and Now Biofuels
November 2006, Bioscience 56(11): 875.

David Pimentel
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University
Ethanol from cellulosic biomass is worse: With current technology, 50 percent more energy is required to produce a gallon than the product can deliver. Investigators differ over the energy value of the by-products of making corn ethanol, but the credits range only from 10 percent to 60 percent. In any event, biomass ethanol is a bad choice from an energy standpoint.

by Robert Singer (31 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 138 comments [4 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 10:29:41 PM

  (0+)

The viability of ethanol as a fuel (or its unviability) is separate to
the risks (if any, and there probably would be some with some though I can't think of any offhand) of GMOS.

Robert Singer writes: 

Instead of holding GMO manufacturers liable, the courts are upholding the patent rights of seed companies and making the farmers pay!

But liability for damage is a separate legal issue (torts or contract law) to patent rights (intellectual property). This sentence is just absurd. Its not an either or proposition.

If a GMO (or any other product of technology) causes actual damage to a third party then I would agree that that third party has a just case for compensation. But there has to be actual damage (that can be put in terms of financial loss) not just imaginery damage. 

I have an open mind on this GMO stuff. I have studied biotechnology at university but I have no vested financial interests in any biotechnology companies. 

Pharming need not be frightening, although some cases of it could be potentially, just as some cases, some applications of any technology can be.

Off the top of my head though I can't think of a GMO that is harmful, I can think of naturally mutating and gene exchanging microorganisms that are - like the antibiotic resistant strains of microorganism found in hospitals.  

To be frightened of pharming (as a category) in all cases seems to me to be going way to far with fear.

What is the reason for the fear?  Is the perceived danger real (can you give me an example) or it just the fear of the unknown?

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 17, 2008 at 3:11:55 AM

  (0+)

the farmer in Canada who was successfully sued by Monsanto when they tested and found GMO contamination of his fields. The absurdity of the situation was not lost on anyone who followed it: he didn't want to grow GMO crops, they contaminated his field, but now here comes Monsanto demanding royalties as if Schmeiser were profiting from it! I hate to say it, but you strike me as both terribly ill informed and incompetent at polite discourse.

by Oh (7 articles, 5 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 321 comments [41 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 1:17:02 AM

  (0+)

Did Monsanto succeed in getting the royalty? I can't recall but I seriously doubt it, and if they did, then the case could have been appealed because the judge would have to be utterly incompetent. 

Just because someone claims something doesn't mean the claim will be respected - and that is true in a court of law as well. And yes, sometimes courts get things wrong. But there are appeals processes from all but the highest courts.   

I have no affection for Monsanto. If they behave badly then they will get the public scorn they deserve. 

If you are concerned about anyone having a global monopoly on food using GM technology though, you need not be.  GM technology is not that complicated. What one group of humans can do with GM technology another group of humans can discover using gene sequencing and reverse engineer. 

Just imagine that monsanto was the devils own company. It would have to be incorporated in the devils own country. The rest of the world would cease to respect both the companies intellectual property and the country in which it was incorporated and just reverse engineer.

Knowledge about genetics and about genetic engineering is available to a lot of people if they wish to avail themselves of it.  Just because there are a lot of ignorant luddites doesn't mean that everyone is an ignorant luddite. And there are enough people who don't want to be ignorant in all groups of people that it would be virtually impossible for one group to use genetic engineering to control the food supply. 

Remember the Chineese and the Japanese breaking US software copyright by mass producing movies and copying software etc? Well nowadays many Chineese and Japanese could teach Americans how the technology works.

Science and technology have no national or corporate loyalties. Once people understand something they are enpowered by their understanding.   

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Saturday, Sep 20, 2008 at 9:21:10 PM

  (0+)

There is much more to this issue than meets the eye. GMO crops are destined to contaminate the world's food supply, and Monsanto and other providers of GMOs are rapidy taking control of the world's food supply. Some of these comments appear to be from Monsanto employees or people who simply fail to research anything before leaving comments may sound logical, but are patently false.

by William Cormier (152 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 418 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 17, 2008 at 5:47:21 AM

  (0+)

Some of these comments appear to be from Monsanto employees or people who simply fail to research anything before leaving comments may sound logical, but are patently false.

A) Seem to be from Monsanto employees?

B) Are patently false?

Or, are you going to just ad hominem? 

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 17, 2008 at 6:35:09 AM

  (0+)

It's called Eugenics, and between Monsanto and CODEX Alimentarius a good portion of this planet's population will be dead in the next few years if we don't stop them.

Will we?

Probably not. These organizations, along with the total number of corrupt governments and the collective ignorance of the world's population with little access to become informed before it's too late, if it already isn't, pretty much spells our doom.

Don't ask me why the powers-that-be are doing this. Insanity would be the short answer and trying to reason insanity will make one insane. I just know its being done.

The chemicals and altered genetic genes we've already put into the Eco-system is enough to rid the world of life, not just humane species but of animal and plant life also. We have no idea how these altered genes and chemicals will manifest. For all we know we've created Dr. Monroe's Island where if life does somehow survive mankind it will forever be altered into a deformed version of God's creation where crippled and insane are the norm and beauty no longer registers as a value or even a perception in Mother Natures eyes.

Some could argue we've already reached that point.

I don't think we have, but we're damn close.

I would like to think I'm wrong, but I enact with the public and from what I can gleam of people's awareness of our situation maybe 1 out of a 1,000 would know what Eugenics is about and that we've been practicing this insanity on a global scale for decades. And I'm probably off by that number by a factor of 5.

Certainly makes one wonder why we were placed on this planet and survived millions of years of evolution just to reach a point where our own ability to transform Gods creations into some twisted version of reality that will render our doom is all about?

It's one of the first questions I'd ask God, if I ever get a chance to meet him.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 17, 2008 at 7:57:56 AM

  (0+)

This is a radio interview about GMOs (Bob is me, Robert Singer).

You may be interested, I will make it an OPED article later.

Gary: Bob thanks for coming again to my show, last week we learned that biofuels whether they are made of food or non food will not decrease global warming or reduce our dependence on foreign oil, so what does the Governor flying back and forth to Sacramento have to do with this?

Bob:   Gary it is too bad we don’t have more time because I bet some of your listeners already know the answer and we could have them call in.  The short answer is the Al Gore Movie Inconvenient Truth got everyone thinking about Green House Gases and climate change and because those airplane trips he makes are unnecessary Governor Swartznegger realized he would be criticized for putting all that extra co2 in the atmosphere.   So he pays someone in another country to either plant trees that are suppose to suck up co2 out of the atmosphere and/or get them to change their use of fossil fuel to an agrofuel like biodiesel.  That process is called buying carbon offsets.

Gary: My guess this is someone if a poor country, does he have to do this, and is it mandatory?

Bob: the Carbon credit economy is in the third world, and no it is not mandatory yet, but I think that is coming.

Gary: can you tell us exactly how this works?

Bob: Every time the governor flies to or from Sacramento there is a way to calculate how many of tons of co2 he puts in the atmosphere. The company he purchases Carbon Credits contracts with a farmer in another country to plant trees that take co2 out of the atmosphere and get the truck drivers in that country to switch from fossil fuel diesel to biodiesel.  The trees they plant are the Africa Palm oil because they are the best and cheapest source of biodiesel.  Biodiesel offers many environmental benefits over diesel from petroleum, including reductions in air pollutants

Gary: Ok so in the end he doesn’t add to the global warming problem – of course he didn’t take it away either, imagine how much he would save if he moved and bought carbon credits.

Bob: well not quite the irony here is Carbon Credits, just like corn and switchgrass ethanol they don’t slow climate change they actually make it worse.
Planting trees for carbon credits is known as a plantation forest that numerous negative affects for the people living in the area economically and environmentally including deforestation and deforestation puts far more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire world's fleet of cars, trucks, planes, trains and ships combined.  I am going to let that sink in for a minute – we are not getting less global warming by carbon credits, a Plantation forest accelerates climate change more than the entire world's fleet of cars, trucks, planes, trains and ships combined and here is why.
Plantation forests are nothing like natural or native forests. More akin to a field of maize, plantation forests are hostile environments to nearly every animal, bird and even insects. Such forests have been shown to have a negative impact on the water cycle because non-native, fast-growing trees use high volumes of water. Pesticides are also commonly used to suppress competing growth from other plants and to prevent disease outbreaks, also impacting water quality.  Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and many other countries have been cleared to grow oil palms and the Oil palm has become the world's number one fruit crop, well ahead of bananas.  Carbon credits encourage poor people in third world countries to cut down their natural forests that are taking co2 out of the atmosphere and replace them with these predator trees that do nothing except allow the Governor to not feel guilty for not moving to Sacramento.

Gary: I get it everything we have been talking about, corn, switchgrass ethanol and now planting oil palm trees is going to increase global warming and you said last week this is a strategy to get us to accept Genetic Modified Organisms.  But you said last week they are already in the processed foods we eat and I hear the farmers like them because they yield more crops and simplify the system of farming and reduce labor costs. So, why would the US government, the biotech and the agrofuel industry and one of the companies we love to hate: Monsanto go to so much trouble to expand GMOs with a failed biofuel policy? 
 
Bob: Gary that is the question anyone listening to this show should be asking.  First even though GMOs have contaminated food crops across the globe they haven’t achieved the saturation the industry and Monsanto would have you believe. GMOs are not a done deal because consumer rejection in Europe is stronger than ever, and farmer's movements in the developing world especially in Brazil are vehemently opposed.  So fuel crops are an ideal way to expand GMOs exponentially throughout the world and as we discussed once the GMO genie is out of the bag cases of contamination of the food crop cousins will expand exponentially as well.

Gary: So we will be eating more GMO food produced cheaply is that bad?

Bob: Well if you don’t mind having your food controlled by Monsanto it isn’t a problem. The danger of an agronomically flat, GMO world is that it leaves our food systems vulnerable to climate change events and pest and disease outbreaks.  We are in this position because the Monsantos of the world have bought up all the seed companies and they only want to sell their high tech GMO seeds.

Gary: so how are we and the farmer insecure, why don’t the why don’t the farmers just save his seeds rather then buy new seeds each year, how would Monsanto know?

Bob: Monsanto uses some pretty strong fear and intimidation practices to ensure tight control over their seed. Hiring private investigators, intimidation, threats, drawing out lawsuits to bankrupt farmer co-ops etc. But I bet I know what you are thinking, once GMOs are everywhere in the world how can Monsanto afford to hire enough GMNO police.

Gary: right -

Bob:  they don’t have to they have a better plan but before I answer here is a famous quote from a public figure we don’t trust, Henry Kissinger, he said in 1970: "Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people."  So if Monsanto’s goal is control the world population by controlling the food supply, you don’t want a bunch of angry farmers taking your seeds and planting them year after year in some kind of revolution.  You talk about a revolution on your show and how to get it started, would you say people in the world would rise up and start a revolution of the could not get any food?
Gary: Right on, man watch out when the people get hungry

Bob: Monsanto has the solution, it is the one seed one crop GMO, they have developed a GMO that grows a crop just once and the seeds from the plant cannot be used again.  Of course they can’t use it yet but no farmer would be dumb enough to fall for that trick. 
But it would not be hard to implement that strategy.  The GMOs the farmers buy today and the ones that will be used to grow energy could have a self-destruct gene in the seed.  Once they are planted or infect all the crops globally they simply spray an herbicide that tells the seed to self-destruct.  Because this sounds like science fiction and I ran it by Annie Shattuck at the foodfirst institute in Oakland an expert in bioteches and she agrees they have the technology to unlock the seeds DNA and keep it from producing, here is what she says:
“We don't know for certain if this is true. Because genetically homogeneous systems are so vulnerable (think Irish Potato Famine) it almost doesn't matter. If a new disease arrives, climatic changes, a bad year, etc. the whole crop is gone. They don't need a self-destruct gene. In natural systems, diversity = resilience.  By eliminating agricultural biodiversity, we become more dependent on the corporate/industrial model of agriculture, increasingly controlled by a global monopoly. Now we find ourselves in the midst of a food crisis and the biotech firms are using the opportunity to declare that only their technologies can save us, even though the market concentration brought on by biotech and green revolution got us into this vulnerable position in the first place”

Gary: wow, what I think you just said is the Oligarchy gets Monsanto to develop a GMO that has characteristics that are superior to existing hybrids and sell them around the world to farmers willing to buy them. But because of widespread skepticism among western nations  there is a reluctance to let you use them globally. So you lay low until the corn ethanol policy which could never succeed in the first place runs its course and the president of the United States says last Tuesday the answer to all our problems is either to let him drill in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve or grow switch grass.
Since fuel crops are not destined for your stomach but your gas tank why should anyone mind.  And now the genie is out of the bottle and GMOs with or without their self-destruct gene are everywhere.  Kissinger, the Neo-conservatives and Neo-liberals all support trade agreements that force open the markets of small developing countries to make them compete with highly subsidized agriculture in the global north. This makes countries more dependent on food aid and export markets.  So all they need to launch the new world order and one world government is control the world food supply. GMOs are the key to controlling the world’s food supply.

by Robert Singer (31 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 138 comments [4 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:00:20 AM

  (0+)

to put this out as an article. The topic of GMOs along with Codex and other agricultural issues is really crucial and timely. (I think they put 2010 as a deadline for passing the Codex Alimentarius.) I advocate a lot for recognition of biological effects of wireless telecommunications because too few others are doing that and because a little knowledge goes a long way to helping people substantially, but consider GMOs more dangerous and certainly a higher priority issue because once they are released, they cannot be recalled. Future generations will be forced to deal with the consequences.

by Oh (7 articles, 5 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 321 comments [41 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 1:39:09 AM

  (0+)