FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Audio: GMO & The Man Who Beat Monsanto
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8775

PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2009 7:41 pm    Post subject: Audio: GMO & The Man Who Beat Monsanto Reply with quote



The Beautiful Truth - 27th May, 2009

The Man Who Beat Monsanto
Guest: Percy Schmeiser

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/

LISTEN:
Broadband Mp3 Audio
http://breakfornews.com/audio/BeautifulTruth090527a.mp3
Click to Play or Right-Click to 'Save As' and Download.

Dialup Mp3 Audio
http://breakfornews.com/audio/BeautifulTruth090527.mp3
Click to Play or Right-Click to 'Save As' and Download.

Quote:
REFERENCES:


Quote:
Schmeiser pleased with victory over Monsanto

In an out of court settlement finalized on March 19, 2008, Percy Schmeiser has settled his lawsuit with Monsanto. Monsanto has agreed to pay all the clean-up costs of the Roundup Ready canola that contaminated Schmeiser's fields. Also part of the agreement was that there was no gag-order on the settlement and that Monsanto could be sued again if further contamination occurred. Schmeiser believes this precedent setting agreement ensures that farmers will be entitled to reimbursement when their fields become contaminated with unwanted Roundup Ready canola or any other unwanted GMO plants.

Schmeiser V. Monsanto: The Conflict

Read the story of Percy Schmeiser's battle with Monsanto here:

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm

Percy Schmeiser
Corporate Power vs. The Small Farmer

Percy Schmeiser Speech Begins at 5:55


Quote:
Europe's Uprising Against GMOs and Patents on Life

The unstoppable groundswell of opposition to GMOs in Europe


Dr. Mae-Wan Ho - ISIS Report 25/05/09

The recent call for a moratorium on GMOs in Europe (see Europe Holds the Key to a GM-Free World, 5th Conference of GM-Free Regions, Food & Democracy, SiS 43) reflects an unstoppable groundswell of opposition to GMOs from both European citizens and governments.

An online poll on the question: “Should GMOs be banned in Europe?” conducted in April 2009 returned a 79 percent yes, 18 percent no and 3 percent don’t know. Days earlier, Germany outlawed the cultivation of Monsanto’s GM maize MON810, a surprising move that delighted campaigners. Germany became the sixth EU country to introduce a provisional ban on the GM maize, after France, Austria, Hungary, Luxembourg and Greece. A source close to the EC said the German ban might bring a revision of the European legislation on GM crops. Germany also voted with the majority in March when the European Commission (EC) attempted to force Austria and Hungary to reverse their bans, and its ruling was overturned by a big majority.

Ban by Germany the tipping point

Germany’s move was broadly welcomed by its news media [4]. German Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner said she had legitimate reasons to believe that MON 810, posed “a danger to the environment,” a position which she said the Environment Ministry also supported. Aigner is taking advantage of a clause in EU law which allows individual countries to impose such bans. The left-wing Frankfurter Rundschau wrote: “Genetically modified corn is a risk to our environment, is totally superfluous in farming, represents industrial agriculture, causes pointless costs to food production in Germany and can even ruin beekeepers.” The left-wing Berliner Zeitung wroes: “The new studies don't show any new risks - they simply prove that the old warning about the risks was justified. It's a scandal that the subsequent ban was even necessary because the farming of genetically modified plants had been permitted without a thorough examination of all the possible dangers.”

Germany, the most populous country in the European Union (EU) ranking fourth in land area, is also its most influential and economically powerful member nation. Monsanto applied for an emergency ruling to overturn the ban to allow for its 2009 planting, saying its ban is arbitrary and goes against EU regulations.

But the court in Braunschweig in north Germany rejected Monsanto’s application. Significantly, a statement from the court said Germany’s law on GMOs does not require that a ban on a new plant variety is justified by proven scientific research which showed without doubt the crop to be dangerous; it was sufficient when research showed there were indications that the crop could be dangerous.

Opposition strengthened by the eastern bloc

As countries from the former eastern bloc joined the European Union (EU), the US had expected them to help counter the opposition to GMOs, but far from it. The newer members have added strength to the GM opposition, often in direct defiance of Brussels.

In April the European Commission sent a letter to Bulgaria warning over its failure to implement the European Directive for GMO in its legislation, as reported in the Klasa Daily. This was the sixth official warning to Bulgaria for not following regulations. Experts commented that the current Bulgarian legislation is much more restrictive compared to European regulation. Bulgaria supported Hungary’s decision to keep the ban.

No patents on animals and plants

Meanwhile, more than a thousand farmers demonstrated against patents on animals and plants at the European Patent Office in Munich 15 April 2009 [8]. Over 5 000 people and some 50 organisations have filed a joint opposition to a patent on breeding pigs originally registered by the US corporation Monsanto. Protestors want all patents on life to be prohibited by law.

Rudolf Buehler from the Schwaebisch Hall farmers’ Association led a herd of its traditional breeding pigs to the patent office. He said: “Corporations like Monsanto want control over agriculture and food, from piglets to cutlets.”

The demonstration was also supported by the German dairy farmers alliance, the BDM, and the AbL farmers' cooperative. “There are new patent applications that range from cows to milk and yoghurt,” said Romuald Schaber at the BDM. “The German government must set limits to big companies' greed for living creatures.”

The demonstrators in Munich have already scored an initial success. The Hesse state government and the Greens in the German Bundestag last month called for a change in European patent laws prohibiting such patents being granted in future.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/EuropesUprisingAgainstGMOs.php


Quote:
Last week in the USA, the powerful American Civil Liberties Union and
other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Patent Office and other
defendants, alleging that patents on human genes are unconstitutional.
As the ACLU puts it:

Human genes are not inventions, and awarding patents on them
does not promote the progress of science. Instead, gene patents
slow scientific advancement, because there is no way to invent
around a gene the gene is the basis for all subsequent research.
Furthermore, gene patents implicate the First Amendment. By
granting monopolies on the very thought that there is a relationship
between specific genetic mutations and diseases, the government
has restricted scientific freedom of inquiry.


See Also:
http://www.blogher.com/will-breast-cancer-gene-lawsuit-end-gene-patenting
http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/05/13/aclu-mob-attacks-breast-cancer-test-patent/
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/05/14/aclu-files-frivolous-lawsuit-challenging-patents/id=3417/


Why Gene Patents Are Unlawful

— By Selene Kaye, Advocacy Coordinator,
ACLU Women’s Rights Project and Sandra Park,
Staff Attorney, ACLU Women’s Rights Project

Last week the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. government’s practice of granting patents on human genes - specifically, the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which are associated with breast and ovarian cancer. In the last 20 or so years the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has issued patents on thousands of human genes — the segments of DNA that we all have in our cells — giving private corporations, individuals, and universities the exclusive rights to those genetic sequences and their usage.

The patents on the BRCA genes are particularly broad and offensive. The PTO has granted Myriad Genetics, a private biotechnology company based in Utah, patents on both the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic sequences, on any mutations along those genes, on any methods for locating mutations on the genes, without further specification on the type of methods, and on correlations between genetic mutations and susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer.

The lawsuit charges, as critics of gene patents have argued for years, that gene patents stifle biomedical research and interfere with patients’ access to genetic testing. The lawsuit argues that the patents on the BRCA genes are unconstitutional and invalid given the long-standing legal precedent that “products of nature” and “laws of nature” are not patentable. The suit also makes the novel argument that the practice of patenting genes, their correlations with disease, and the thought of comparing two genes violates the First Amendment and interferes with scientific freedom.

To be clear, the patent claims being challenged do in fact include claims on the genes themselves. For example, the text of Patent 5,747,282, Claim 1 reads:

What is claimed is:

1. An isolated DNA coding for a BRCA1 polypeptide, said polypeptide having the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:2.
Translation: Claim 1 covers the BRCA1 genetic sequence, specifically the wild-type, or what is considered typical, sequence. Because the PTO grants patents on the genes themselves, it essentially gives patent holders a monopoly over the patented genes and all of the information contained within them. Anyone who uses a patented gene without permission of the patent holder is committing patent infringement and can be sued by the patent holder. Thus patent holders have the right to prevent other researchers from testing, studying or even looking at the genes. If the PTO simply granted patents on particular methods of examining and testing genes, then other scientists and laboratories could develop alternative methods, and research and testing could advance at a much faster pace. This lawsuit is not challenging any patent claims over specific genetic tests.


This suit is the first to challenge the patentability of human genes in the United States. The PTO has justified these patents by holding that “DNA compounds having naturally occurring sequences are eligible for patenting when isolated from their natural state and purified.” Yet, “isolated and purified” simply means that the gene has been excised from the natural chromosome; it otherwise has not been engineered or transformed.

Patent law has long held that products of nature and laws of nature are not patentable subject matter. Proponents of gene patents often cite Diamond v. Chakrabarty, a divided five to four U.S. Supreme Court decision issued in 1980. In that case, the court upheld patenting of a genetically modified bacterium that was genetically engineered to ingest oil for use in oil spill cleanups. However, Chakrabarty actually reaffirmed the principle advanced in this case: “The laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas have been held not patentable. Thus, a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter.” While the identification of human genes and their associations with disease are important contributions to scientific progress, genes and their correlations nonetheless remain products and laws of nature.

More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court has signaled its disapproval of patents on medical correlations. In the 2006 LabCorp v. Metabolite, some of the current justices said that, had the case been heard by the court rather than dismissed as improvidently granted, they would have ruled that such correlation claims are invalid for being unpatentable.

Gene patents also raise constitutional questions. The Patent Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to award patents “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Human genes are not inventions, and awarding patents on them does not promote the progress of science. Instead, gene patents slow scientific advancement, because there is no way to invent around a gene — the gene is the basis for all subsequent research. Furthermore, gene patents implicate the First Amendment. By granting monopolies on the very thought that there is a relationship between specific genetic mutations and diseases, the government has restricted scientific freedom of inquiry.

The patents on the BRCA genes have serious implications because mutations along these genes are responsible for most cases of hereditary breast and ovarian cancers. Genetic tests can detect these mutations and tell women if they are at increased risk of cancer, which in turn informs their decisions about screening, prevention and treatment options. In addition, this case could have far-reaching effects beyond the BRCA genes because it challenges the fundamental notion of gene patenting. Twenty percent of human genes have been patented, including genes associated with Alzheimer’s disease, muscular dystrophy, colon cancer, and asthma.

To read the complaint, plaintiff statements,
and much more about the case, visit:
http://www.aclu.org/brca

http://blog.aclu.org/2009/05/22/why-gene-patents-are-unlawful/


Quote:
Message to Obama: Bust-up the Agribusiness Trusts

Paula Crossfield
Managing Editor of civileats.com
Posted: May 21, 2009 12:07 PM

Beyond the thirty-year experiment in free-market ideology having been judged a failure in financial markets, one thing is clear: as Kerry Trueman reminded us in a recent post, unfettered capitalism has also been bad for our health, and indeed the safety of our food.

Last week, The New York Times reported that this administration has said it will take a harder line on anti-trust legislation, in diverse sectors of the economy including agriculture. Perhaps its premature to tell what this will look like, but enforcing the laws that we already have on the books would be a great start to building a better food system.

This is because the largest sectors of the agribusiness world (grain, meatpacking, biotechnology, etc) are monopolizing food from seed to supermarket shelf and thereby deciding what we can (and can't) buy and eat across this country, and by extension, the world.

These are the companies that are trying to efficiently process tens of thousands of cows per day -- cows that have been lined up in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and fed grain (more efficient than using land to feed them their natural diet of grass), pumped with hormones and other antibiotics to keep them from dying, which means a glut on the market of cheap (anti-biotic-filled) beef. And these are the companies that are creating the seeds -- those seeds that the farmer can't even save for fear of litigation -- to grow the crops that require the use of their pesticides, and which produce a proliferation of fast food.

Yes, efficiency is the bottom line in our current agricultural system. Not safety, not health, or least of all taste; no, for a corporation that is beholden first to it's shareholders, its all about the quickest way to get to the bottom line. Besides exacerbating obesity, heart disease and diabetes cases, this kind of thinking can only be limited in its long term ability to maintain itself, because it refuses to take a holistic approach to creating goods for the common good. In other words, we know it can't be sustained, and therefore it is not sustainable.

But these mega-companies aren't fully to blame, because this is what our economic system has been set up to do for thirty years or more: build a conflagration of trusts.

Will Obama pull a Teddy Roosevelt and begin a new era of trust-busting? Here's hoping he will, and that he begins with Big Ag.

Last week on The Leonard Lopate Show, when he was asked how taking a harder line on anti-trust law could effect the food industry, Michael Pollan responded:

"It's very significant, actually, because you have more concentration in the food industry than in just about any other industry. Most anti-trust experts say that if 4 [or fewer] companies control 40% or more of a marketplace, it's not competitive. And in food we have that in meatpacking, [where] there are 4 companies that control 85% of the beef, [and in] seed production, fertilizer production... there is this tight little hourglass in the food industry, [which means] lots of farmers, very few buyers, which forces farmers to take prices, they have no control over prices at all. So if indeed we were to push an anti-trust agenda in the food industry, it would be the best thing for farmers and the best thing for consumers."

In other words, there are only a handful of people pulling the strings of our food system. And something as fundamental as food should not be so minimally represented, for food safety and health reasons, but because it also violates our human rights.

To this I ask, is this food system not an oligopoly, a market form most at risk for collusion? All the more reason to investigate the mega-firms that form through the process of mergers.

That "hourglass" concept Pollan mentioned comes from William Heffernan and Mary Hendrickson's report Consolidation in the Food and Agriculture System (1999) [PDF], which revealed the "food chain clusters" forming through constant mergers within the food system, and also gave the first comprehensive data on concentration ratios of each firm in the food sector. (An updated version from 2007 is here [PDF].)

One of the biggest fall-outs of this phenomenon has been the price paid in rural America. From Heffernan and Hendrickson's report:

"In the past when family businesses were the predominant system in rural communities, researchers talked of multiplier effects of three or four. Newly generated dollars in the agricultural sector would circulate in the community, changing hands from one entrepreneurial family to another three or four times before leaving the rural community. This greatly enhanced the economic viability of the community.

Large non-local corporations... see labor as just another input cost to be purchased as cheaply as possible. The "profits" then are allocated to return on management and capital and are usually taken from the rural community. They go to the company's headquarters and are then sent to all corners of the globe to be reinvested in the food system. One can ask the question, why were agriculturally based rural communities, with an ample natural resource base, more economically viable than mining based rural communities which also had an ample natural resource base? The answer lies primarily with the economic structure of the major economic base. Increasingly, our agriculturally based communities, like regions with major poultry operations, are looking like mining communities."


Having an hourglass of production power also means the creation of giant facilities to produce our food as fast as possible. E coli bacteria present in a giant shared sink with thousands of servings of spinach has the potential to do more harm than a similar, isolated incident on a small farm would. In creating factory-like facilities to process and package our food, we are exponentially increasing the risks of food contamination. This is the single best argument for decentralizing the food system.

But yes, there is still yet another reason to bust up these trusts: agribusiness has had excessive influence on our government. Represented by a billion dollar lobby in Washington, agribusinesses have maintained a revolving door bringing lobbyists, lawyers and board members into powerful public positions. One of the other problems that arises when mega-companies begin to influence government in this way is that they then become "too big to fail," when we should be asking ourselves (to quote Mike Lux) if they were "too big to exist" in the first place.

However it happened, the facts are clear: Cargill, ADM, Monsanto, Tyson and Smithfield are probably breaking the law, and that law needs to be enforced. It may be that the government for too long has been complicit in creating predatory pricing via billions of dollars in subsidies handed out to the factory farmers of mostly genetically modified corn and soy, but I would like our new administration to take a good look at possible price fixing; aggressive marketing, especially to children; intimidation practices, including Monsanto's intimidation of farmers who have been found to have GMO contamination in their fields, also their intimidation of seed cleaners, and of previous governments; barriers to entry, for example, the assumption of massive amounts of debt on the part of the farmer to build CAFO facilities and thus getting trapped in a contractual agreement with Smithfield, Tyson, etc; and tying, for instance, Round-Up Ready seeds require the use of Round-Up pesticides, meaning that both markets are cornered by Monsanto.

It's time to admit that hyper-efficiency is not working. It may seem counter-intuitive, but being a little less efficient creates room for checks and balances. We need redundancy, and some fostered competition. It is the only way to assure the health of our nation and the safety of our food supply.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paula-crossfield/message-to-obama-bust-up_b_206340.html

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.


Last edited by Fintan on Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:34 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
evelyn



Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Posts: 291

PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2009 8:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lordy lordy the skeptic in me. No comment.
_________________
There is a side of every competitor that wants to leave his opponent lifeless and demoralized on the side of the road. And then there is that other, darker side.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8775

PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2009 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You a skeptic? Gosh, whou'da thunk! Wink

But if you feel that Monsanto are a much maligned and
highly ethical corporation; or that Genetic Engineering
is a safe and completely beneficial technology, then
don't be shy: go ahead and say so!

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
evelyn



Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Posts: 291

PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2009 11:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nah, Monsanto is no more ethical than any other big business. Am I supposed to stop after saying that?

GM seeds? Only time will tell if they're "safe". But, I believe there's more to everything than meets the eye, or the headlines, including this controversy.

Remember, I grew up on a farm and live in the Heartland and we try hard to buy only free range and organic for home and restaurant, so ... I hear and see different sides of the Roundup Ready issue. I know nearly all the farmers around here like the seed, use the seed, some even steal the seed, hide the seed ... the farmers around here are not afraid of the seed - what they don't like is not being able to SAVE the seed, something farmers have done for eons.

I remember as a kid hearing adults talk about the hybrid seed (inbreeding) to increase yield. Some felt the same way about hybrids as they do GM seeds today. Now hybridization is the norm. Pioneer Hi-Bred is the monsanto of hybrids.

Fifty other companies, big and small, are developing GM seeds - so most likely GM is here to stay. I think the patent laws regarding seed/food will have to change to be more equitable to farmers.

Not to malign Mr. Percy but from what I've read his small claims court case with Monsanto was settled to both sides satisfaction, with $660 paid by Monsanto to Mr. Schmeiser and discharges any future claims against Monsanto. Maybe this isn't true?

Also, as Mr. Schmeiser says his suit cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars I would like to know how much he received in funds from the many many websites, organizations, and groups soliciting funds for his case and cause.

Contaminating a non-GM field with GM seeds can happen, but around the perimeter - you won't grow 1000 acres of GM crop unless you do it with GM seed. Some of the farmers here have had such contamination, harvested the plant seed, grew more of it, saved it, etc. and never signed any agreements with Monsanto. They want the seed but not the contract. Not that I spend sleepless nights if Monsanto gets ripped off but the law is the law. Farmers should be squeezing the cajones of their lawmakers for a better deal, not hiding a truck load of GM seed in their barn (a local farmer) thinking they won't get caught.

As to whether the GM crop is safe for consumption - it's probably safer than the heinous god awful meat mass produced for decades.

_________________
There is a side of every competitor that wants to leave his opponent lifeless and demoralized on the side of the road. And then there is that other, darker side.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8775

PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2009 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Not to malign Mr. Percy but from what I've read his small claims court case with Monsanto was settled to both sides satisfaction, with $660 paid by Monsanto to Mr. Schmeiser and discharges any future claims against Monsanto. Maybe this isn't true?


Not true. Percy can sue Monsanto for further contamination under the settlement terms and the paltry $600 dollars cleanup cost was resisted by the company on precedent grounds.

Quote:
......Schmeiser had the plants removed professionally and forwarded the removal cost invoice to Monsanto.

In earlier attempts to achieve an out of court settlement, Monsanto had not consented to paying the removal cost amounting to $660, so Schmeiser subsequently had sued the company. Monsanto would have paid for the contamination damage, but only under the condition that Schmeiser signed a “gag agreement”, ..... When the judge asked why Monsanto had not simply paid the very small sum of $ 660, Monsanto’s lawyer Richard W. Danyliuk responded that there was a lot more involved than just $ 660.

One hour before the court hearing was scheduled on March 19, 2008 Monsanto accepted all demands of Percy Schmeiser as well as their responsibility for the contamination of Schmeiser’s fields. Monsanto.... also accepts that Schmeiser reports and informs the public about the background and that he can express his opinion and position about this case in public. The acceptance of responsibility by Monsanto as the owner of the patented Transgene for the contamination of neighbouring fields opens the path for all farmers in the world to demand compensation by Monsanto.
http://www.currentconcerns.ch/index.php?id=589


Quote:
nearly all the farmers around here like the seed, use the seed

And some people like driving thru town at 85mph, but that
doesn't mean that their choices are good for the rest of us.

Quote:
Some felt the same way about hybrids as they do GM seeds today

They are hardly equivalent. Hybridization does not lead to destructive effects on human health. GM plants do, because they bypass Nature's tried and trusted systems. GM corn, soy, potatoes are all implicated:

Quote:
The research registered pathological deviation by guinea-pigs that ate GMO.

As author of the test, Russian biotechnologist Maria Konovalova, who was personally conducting the survey, said the GM-soy used during the tests on rats caused serious mutilations of their internal organs (liver, kidneys, testicles) and in histological and cellular construction. Besides, it influences the number of babies in a litter, differentiated death rate of the descendants, results in increased aggressiveness and loss of maternal instinct.

Maria Konovalova provided photos of the mice under tests:

A mouse from the control set fed on a common
vivarium [controlled environment] ration



A mouse from the sample group that ate
isolate of GM soy within five months



http://www.saynotogmos.org/ud2007/uapr07.php

Quote:
The preliminary results of Dr Pusztai's work had begun to show unexpected and worrying changes in the size and weight of the rats' bodily organs. The team found liver and heart sizes were decreasing worse still, the brain was getting smaller. There were also indications of a weakening of the immune system.
Link
Dr Pusztai's website: http://www.freenetpages.co.uk/hp/a.pusztai/

Quote:
During testing, the GM peas were fed to mice for four weeks and were found to have triggered allergic reactions in the mice: The lung tissue became inflamed and the mice also became sensitive to other substances, reacting to albumen, whereas those fed non-GM peas did not.... Closer revealed that although the protein in the GM peas had an identical amino acid sequence to the protein in beans, there were differences in the sugars attached to it. The scientists concluded that a protein, which is non-toxic in its native plant, cannot be assumed to remain non-toxic when transferred and expressed in a GM plant.
http://www.farm.org.uk/farm/gm-crops.asp

Quote:
Two recent government studies
from Austria and Italy
http://www.seedsofdeception.com


Quote:
I would like to know how much he received in funds from the many many websites, organizations, and groups soliciting funds for his case and cause.

Anything to back up this imputation,
or is it just useful mud to throw?

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.


Last edited by Fintan on Sat May 30, 2009 12:51 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
virtuoso



Joined: 03 Mar 2009
Posts: 100

PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2009 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Correct me if I am wrong but aren't gm contaminates already in most of the foods we purchase? To bring about the reason for me asking this question, I remember on ITV some years ago, they had the first "serious debate" on GM foods and when an audience member asked one of the panel how long GM had been in the food supply, they were not able to respond to it and give any kind of definitive answer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2009 2:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Big bucks corporations like Monsanto also have their shills on the 'net, spewing anti-propaganda. Here's a clip from the comments section where "The World According to Monsanto" can be downloaded, replying to someone making the claim that Monsanto was greedy and didn't have a problem killing anyone for profit:
Quote:
That's stupid. You idiot. If you knew anything about genetics you would know how harmless adding a single gene to a plant really is. Monsanto is a greedy organization, but they're not trying to kill their market. Biotechnology is like any other technology.

As long as it's not used stupidly or maliciously, it's a really useful thing. GMO's are highly restricted in Europe because of a lot of ignorance and political issues with no scientific basis. It makes sense that this movie would be be made and popularized there.

Please stop spreading your senseless fear of what you don't understand and maybe do some real research beyond watching political movies and reading conspiracy theory websites.


Apparently his perception of stupidity and malice far exceeds anyone else's. Or he's being compensated for such an opinion. You crazy, whacky Europeans, you! Laughing

And speaking of genetic engineering, a friend of mine works in a legal patent office, and they are processing a patent request for animal DNA splicing. Here's what they're up to:



These dogs - particularly the ones in the C column - take you for a walk, whenever they feel like it.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2009 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
...the GM-soy used during the tests on rats caused serious mutilations of their internal organs (liver, kidneys, testicles) and in histological and cellular construction. Besides, it influences the number of babies in a litter, differentiated death rate of the descendants, results in increased aggressiveness and loss of maternal instinct.

Okay, I believe we have now established motive. Cool

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
evelyn



Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Posts: 291

PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2009 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Quote:
......Schmeiser had the plants removed professionally and forwarded the removal cost invoice to Monsanto.

In earlier attempts to achieve an out of court settlement, Monsanto had not consented to paying the removal cost amounting to $660, so Schmeiser subsequently had sued the company. Monsanto would have paid for the contamination damage, but only under the condition that Schmeiser signed a “gag agreement”, ..... When the judge asked why Monsanto had not simply paid the very small sum of $ 660, Monsanto’s lawyer Richard W. Danyliuk responded that there was a lot more involved than just $ 660.

One hour before the court hearing was scheduled on March 19, 2008 Monsanto accepted all demands of Percy Schmeiser as well as their responsibility for the contamination of Schmeiser’s fields. Monsanto.... also accepts that Schmeiser reports and informs the public about the background and that he can express his opinion and position about this case in public. The acceptance of responsibility by Monsanto as the owner of the patented Transgene for the contamination of neighbouring fields opens the path for all farmers in the world to demand compensation by Monsanto.
http://www.currentconcerns.ch/index.php?id=589


I've also read the opposite of all that - that Monsanto sued, then Schmeiser countersued, that Schmeiser approached Monsanto before the March hearing and agreed to the previous settlement - not sure who or what to believe, is the for/against really that black/white? I would like to believe that David beat Goliath and chalk one up for the little guys ... there's hope for all.

Of course hybrid is not the same as GM - but decades ago many folks thought it was a threat. My grandmother refused to use or have a microwave b/c food/radiation might cause organ damage.

As for the rat study I just saw that on Rense. How reliable is the institute and researcher who did that? Irina, Russia, could there be another agenda involved in all this?

We have GM food, we've been eating GM food for 15 years, like it or not. And the whole issue seems to boil down to the political "left" and "right" bickering about an issue which has already been decided, one way or the other. Not just Monsanto with their propaganda dogs but the flip side barks too.

Where is the reliable objective data/reports from those who have nothing to gain?

Unlike some, I don't really have enough trustworthy information to stand for or against genetic modification.

I will say though that a population strong enough to tolerate fast-food crotchburgers can eat anything.

_________________
There is a side of every competitor that wants to leave his opponent lifeless and demoralized on the side of the road. And then there is that other, darker side.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2009 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

evelyn wrote:

I will say though that a population strong enough to tolerate fast-food crotchburgers can eat anything.


Agreed. Laughing

However, that doesn't mean they're not dying from the GMO and the crotchburgers. It certainly would be easier to outlaw GMO than take away America's burgers, at this stage.

I had no idea how many small irritations, allergies and maladies would be totally eliminated from my existence due to Dr. Symes' No Glue diet. But now I'm a living example of (a) the improvements that can come from cleaning up your food intake, and (b) how much you can sometimes not even notice what's wrong with you, or just take all the ailments as symptoms of "getting old." I know better now, and no one is going to convince me otherwise. I was my own lab rat. Cool

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8775

PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2009 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
evelyn:
I've also read..... that Schmeiser approached Monsanto before the March hearing and agreed to the previous settlement - not sure who or what to believe....

I read that too. But only on Monsanto's website.

Quote:
evelyn:
As for the rat study I just saw that on Rense. How reliable is the institute and researcher who did that?

So if Rense puts up an article about Einstein, then he's unreliable? The Russian research was by a senior researcher at the Russian National Academy of Sciences. I also quoted official reports by the Italian and the Austrian governments. And then there's Dr Pusztai's research. He worked at UK's leading food safety research lab, the Rowett institute --until he was fired for whistleblowing. All that's reliable enough for me.

Quote:
Rumpl4skn:
I had no idea how many small irritations, allergies and maladies would be totally eliminated from my existence due to Dr. Symes' No Glue diet. But now I'm a living example of (a) the improvements that can come from cleaning up your food intake......

And that's where one of the big problems with GMO may lie. The 'celiac syndrome' associated with wheat, dairy, soy revolves around the question of glycoproteins in the stomach lining and their interaction with glycoproteins in the food.

Now read the snippet I posted above:

Quote:
.....although the protein in the GM peas had an identical amino acid sequence to the protein in beans, there were differences in the sugars attached to it.
http://www.farm.org.uk/farm/gm-crops.asp

That reference to "sugars" is a reference to those pesky glycoprotein issues. Opening the possiblilty of GMO foods unleashing a huge increase in 'celiac syndrome' OUTSIDE of the foods most closely associated with the syndrome.

Quote:
virtuoso:
Correct me if I am wrong but aren't gm contaminates already in most of the foods we purchase?

Yes, and is this related to the rise in various health disorders? Contamination, bad as it is, is not as bad as 100% GMO.

Here's a terrific overview of MonSatanto's activities:

Quote:

The World According to Monsanto

View Full size:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7812548160862207272


And then there's this question:

Quote:
Are GM Crops Killing Bees?

By Gunther Latsch - DerSpiegel

A mysterious decimation of bee populations has German beekeepers worried, while a similar phenomenon in the United States is gradually assuming catastrophic proportions.

The consequences for agriculture and the economy could be enormous....
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,473166,00.html

Also:
http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/news/565.docu.html
http://www.biotech-info.net/JR_testimony.html
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/30028/story.htm
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_4682.cfm
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/07/02/synthetic_honey_and_gmo_bees.htm

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.


Last edited by Fintan on Wed May 27, 2009 7:09 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
evelyn



Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Posts: 291

PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2009 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rumple
We're all our own lab rats. We have a lot of pasta and cannoli in our life so you probably wouldn't want to break homemade garlic bread with us. Smile

Do TPTB have a food supply separate from ours? Maybe they intend to clone themselves and keep replacing body parts.

I'm happy you found your food balance.

_________________
There is a side of every competitor that wants to leave his opponent lifeless and demoralized on the side of the road. And then there is that other, darker side.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.