The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-01-2013, 07:20 PM   #1
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 53,975

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default Obama Signs Monsanto Protection Act

Slick Barry sneaks another one past the people. Obama loves him some corporations. I'm guessing he ends up with a nice membership at Augusta National, among other cushy perks. Hell, his retirement package will probably be better than Cheney's.
http://www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-prot...vision-1156079
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 04-01-2013, 08:53 PM   #2
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,495
Default

they have been genetically modifying crops for centuries. Just because they can do it better now is no reason to fear a bigger apple.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2013, 09:07 PM   #3
baja
Pat Bowlen
 
baja's Avatar
 
The best owner ever

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 58,877

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chase Vaughn
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
they have been genetically modifying crops for centuries. Just because they can do it better now is no reason to fear a bigger apple.
Damn I have never seen a guy be wrong as often as you.


HISTORY OF GENETIC ENGINEERING
Before genetic engineering:

Prehistoric times to 1900
Gatherers find food from plants they find in nature, and farmers plant seeds saved from domesticated crops. Foods are manipulated through the use of yeast and fermentation. Some naturalists and farmers begin to recognize "hybrids," plants produced through natural breeding between related varieties of plants.

1900
European plant scientists begin using Gregor Mendel's genetic theory to manipulate and improve plant species. This is called "classic selection." A plant of one variety is crossed with a related plant to produce desired characteristics.

Modern genetic engineering

1953
James Watson and Francis Crick publish their discovery of the three-dimensional double helix structure of DNA. This discovery will eventually lead to the ability of scientists to identify and "splice" genes from one kind of organism into the DNA of another.

1973
Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen combine their research to create the first successful recombinant DNA organism.

1980
The U.S. Supreme Court in Diamond v. Chakrabarty rules that genetically altered life forms can be patented. The decision allows the Exxon Oil Company to patent an oil-eating microorganism.

1982
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves the first genetically engineered drug, Genentech's Humulin, a form of human insulin produced by bacteria. This is the first consumer product developed through modern bioengineering.

1986
The first field tests of genetically engineered plants (tobacco) are conducted in Belgium.

1987
The first field tests of genetically engineered crops (tobacco and tomato) are conducted in the United States.

1992
Calgene's Favr Savr tomato, engineered to remain firm for a longer period of time, is approved for commercial production by the US Department of Agriculture.

1992
The FDA declares that genetically engineered foods are "not inherently dangerous" and do not require special regulation.

1994
The European Union's first genetically engineered crop, tobacco, is approved in France.

2000
International Biosafety Protocol is approved by 130 countries at the Convention on Biological Diversity in Montréal, Canada. The protocol agrees upon labeling of genetically engineered crops, but still needs to be ratified by 50 nations before it goes into effect.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2013, 10:48 PM   #4
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,495
Default

Yep dna splicing just a more advanced way to speed up selection. Also scientists cant find anything wrong with the modified crops. In fact they are totally safe.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 04:10 AM   #5
chadta
Atomic Meatball Keeper
 
chadta's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Posts: 2,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Mc Rib
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Yep dna splicing just a more advanced way to speed up selection. Also scientists cant find anything wrong with the modified crops. In fact they are totally safe.
Arent these the same scientists you think are full of bull when it comes to global warming ? What makes them so believable now ?
chadta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 06:00 AM   #6
Drek
Ring of Famer
 
Drek's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,368
Default

You'll never satisfy the skeptics of genetically altered produce.

But then, many of those skeptics are the same people who don't understand how it works, or the fact that since the dawn of agrarian society we've been selectively cultivating plants to create genetic hybrids, weed out undesirable genetic traits, foster positive ones, etc..

All I see is a bill that says Monsanto can sell their products to any willing farmer. That doesn't mean the products will all be cleared for consumer sale, or that consumers will even want them. Just that the federal government isn't going to step in and dictate what Monsanto can sell to it's partners and what it's partners can grow on their private property.

Makes complete sense to me. Any consumer protections in foods needs to come between the market and the consumer, not the farmer and the market, or the seed provider and the farmer.

Lets say Monsanto develops a genetically modified soybean that is undeniably harmful to humans but creates the most efficient bio-fuel on the planet. Should the federal government be able to limit the sale and planting of what is effectively an entirely industrial crop? They don't do it with low grade flax seeds that are too inferior to make quality flaxseed oil (cold pressed) and are planted from day one with linseed oil for wood care (heat extracted, toxic to humans) as the final destination.

Until it's going into the mouth of a human, cow, chicken, etc. the government doesn't need to tell anyone what they can plant or what seeds they can sell.
Drek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 06:26 AM   #7
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 53,975

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Yeah, 'cause gosh, we can sure trust the USDA when it says that something is "safe."

Actually, what this bill does is protect corporations, specifically Monsanto, from prosecution if their products turn out to be harmful. It is a group of lobbyists buying an exemption from judicial review for a corporation.

“This provision is simply an industry ploy to continue to sell genetically engineered seeds even when a court of law has found they were approved by USDA illegally,” the petition stated. “It is unnecessary and an unprecedented attack on U.S. judicial review. Congress should not be meddling with the judicial review process based solely on the special interest of a handful of companies.”

Many food safety advocates maintain that there have not been enough studies into the potential health risks of GMO and GE seeds and crops, and the judicial power to stop companies from selling or planting them was one key recourse they were relying on to stop them from being sold if health risks come to light.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/farm...klash_partner/

Besides, can anybody really trust Monsanto, given their track record?

Last edited by Rohirrim; 04-02-2013 at 06:34 AM..
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 07:17 AM   #8
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 53,975

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Can anybody argue that breeding plants over time to enhance their most desirable qualities is the same thing as splicing pesticides into the genetic material of a plant? Does the farmer next door get to decide whether or not he wants these new frankenplants to breed with his? Do we even know what effect these plants will have on insect life? Bees? Soil organisms? Will that neighbor farmer be allowed to choose seeds other than Monsanto's? Or do we simply allow Monsanto to completely monopolize the world seed market and let them decide what crops are allowed to be grown all over the world?

Allowing Monsanto to buy its way out of court review is just one more symptom of the disease afflicting America.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 07:32 AM   #9
baja
Pat Bowlen
 
baja's Avatar
 
The best owner ever

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 58,877

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chase Vaughn
Default

GMO Dangers


Genetically modified foods…
Are they safe?

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) doesn’t think so. The Academy reported that “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. The AAEM asked physicians to advise patients to avoid GM foods.
Before the FDA decided to allow GMOs into food without labeling, FDA scientists had repeatedly warned that GM foods can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged long-term safety studies, but were ignored.




Since then, findings include:

Thousands of sheep, buffalo, and goats in India died after grazing on Bt cotton plants
Mice eating GM corn for the long term had fewer, and smaller, babies
More than half the babies of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks, and were smaller
Testicle cells of mice and rats on a GM soy change significantly
By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies
Rodents fed GM corn and soy showed immune system responses and signs of toxicity
Cooked GM soy contains as much as 7-times the amount of a known soy allergen
Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced
The stomach lining of rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive cell growth, a condition that may lead to cancer.
Studies showed organ lesions, altered liver and pancreas cells, changed enzyme levels, etc.
Unlike safety evaluations for drugs, there are no human clinical trials of GM foods. The only published human feeding experiment revealed that the genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function. This means that long after we stop eating GM foods, we may still have their GM proteins produced continuously inside us. This could mean:

If the antibiotic gene inserted into most GM crops were to transfer, it could create super diseases, resistant to antibiotics
If the gene that creates Bt-toxin in GM corn were to transfer, it might turn our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories.
Although no studies have evaluated if antibiotic or Bt-toxin genes transfer, that is one of the key problems. The safety assessments are too superficial to even identify most of the potential dangers from GMOs. See our Health Risks brochure and State of the Science report for more details and citations.

Recent health studies provide growing evidence of harm from GMOs:

GM Corn Damages Liver and Kidneys
Meat Raised on GM Feed is Different
Roundup Could Cause Birth Defects
Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility
Damaging Effects of Roundup
GM Crops Do Not Increase Yields
GMOs Inevitably Contaminate and Persist
Industry Studies are Flawed
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 07:33 AM   #10
baja
Pat Bowlen
 
baja's Avatar
 
The best owner ever

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 58,877

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chase Vaughn
Default

Banned in Germany, But You're Probably Still Eating It
January 31, 2012 | 432,049 views | + Add to Favorites | Disponible en Español
4,851
20
42

2.7k
Email

Print
By Dr. Mercola

Monsanto, the world leader in genetically modified (GM) crops and seeds, has been named the worst company of 2011 by Natural Society -- for "threatening both human health and the environment."

I couldn't agree more. I have long designated Monsanto the most dangerous corporation on the planet, and clearly this is a growing sentiment …

According to Forbes:

"Monsanto is so despised by environmentalists that Google's first suggested search term for the St. Louis company is 'Monsanto evil.'

Readers... voted Monsanto the world's most evil corporation in a January poll, giving the corporation a whopping 51 percent of the vote."

What's Wrong With Monsanto?

You may be wondering what Monsanto -- the world's largest seed company whose net income for the first quarter of fiscal year 2012 totaled $126 million (up from $9 million in 2011) --- has done to have earned such ire.

The list is long, easily enough for a novel, but to sum it up, biotech giant Monsanto has created some of the most dangerous products on the planet, including Agent Orange, dioxin, recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH)… and genetically modified seeds.

The latter is one of the most pressing concerns because GM crops are now a mainstay of American agriculture.

Ninety percent or more of all US-grown corn, soybeans, canola, and sugar beets are genetically modified versions, which means that virtually all processed food items contain at least one or more genetically modified ingredients.

GM foods are, from what I perceive, one of the most significant threats that we have against the very sustainability of the human race. Why? In a nutshell, these toxins are being linked to a growing repertoire of assaults against human health and the environment -- and they are already migrating into fetal blood, which means future generations are now at risk.

Monsanto is Destroying the Food System Via Their GMO Crops

Virtually all of the claims of benefit of GM crops – increased yields, more food production, controlled pests and weeds, reductions in chemical use in agriculture, drought-tolerant seeds – have not materialized.

The Global Citizens' Report on the State of GMOs states:

Contrary to the claim of feeding the world, genetic engineering has not increased the yield of a single crop.
Herbicide tolerant (Roundup Ready) crops were supposed to control weeds and Bt crops were intended to control pests. Instead of controlling weeds and pests, GE crops have led to the emergence of super weeds and super pests … Herbicide resistant crops such as Roundup Ready cotton can create the risk of herbicide resistant "superweeds" by transferring the herbicide resistance to weeds.
Despite claims that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will lower the levels of chemicals (pesticides and herbicides) used, quite the opposite has occurred, with 1.6 billion pounds of glyphosate (the active in ingredient in Roundup) being applied to American soil in 2007 alone. This is of great concern both because of the negative impacts of these chemicals on ecosystems and humans, and because there is the danger that increased chemical use will cause pests and weeds to develop resistance, requiring even more chemicals in order to manage them.
Monsanto has been claiming that through genetic engineering it can breed crops for drought tolerance and other climate-resilient traits. This is a false promise.
Among the false claims made by Monsanto and the Biotechnology industry is that GE foods are safe. However, there are enough independent studies to show that GE foods can cause severe health damage.
Thanks to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's non-selective, broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup, that is sprayed on massive acreages of GM Roundup Ready soybeans, cotton, and corn grown in the United States each and every year, super weeds are growing at an alarming rate. It's estimated that more than 130 types of weeds spanning 40 U.S. states are now herbicide-resistant, and the superweeds are showing no signs of stopping. In fact, the situation is getting progressively worse.

Extremely hardy Roundup-resistant weeds are already boosting costs and cutting crop yields for U.S. farmers. And with world food stores already strained, diminished crop production is a serious problem. In addition, the creation of these superweeds is leading farmers to douse their fields with ever increasing amounts of herbicides in a desperate attempt to stop their spread.

Along with the environmental devastation, research published in 2010 showed that glyphosate causes birth defects in frogs and chicken embryos at far lower levels than used in agricultural and garden applications. And numerous animal studies suggest reproductive problems are a common side effect of glyphosate exposure and the consumption of genetically engineered Roundup Ready crops.

Quite shockingly, the amount of glyphosate residue you can be exposed to through food is remarkably high, and is very close to the maximum residue limit (MRL) legally allowed According to GMO expert Jeffrey Smith, there is so much glyphosate in GM soybeans, when they were introduced, Europe had to increase their allowable residue levels by 200-fold! For more information, please listen to this informative interview with Dr. Don Huber, an expert in an area of science that relates to the toxicity of genetically engineered (GE) foods.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 07:36 AM   #11
baja
Pat Bowlen
 
baja's Avatar
 
The best owner ever

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 58,877

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chase Vaughn
Default

Monsanto Wrote Monsanto Protection Act
By Anthony Gucciardi, Natural Society
28 March 13


t should come as no surprise to many of you to find out that Monsanto actually authored the wording of its own Monsanto Protection Act hidden in the recently passed and signed Continuing Resolution spending bill. How could a major corporation write its own laws and regulations, you ask?

Quite frankly I think it's important to understand that the entire Senate passed the bill containing the Protection Act, but the politician who actually gave Monsanto the pen in order to write their very own legislation is no others than Roy Blunt - a Republican Senator from Missouri. As the latest IB Times article reveals, the Missouri politician worked with Monsanto to write the Monsanto Protection Act. This was confirmed by a New York news report I will get to shortly.

As you probably know I do not play the political clown game of left verses right, and instead highlight corruption and wrongdoing wherever it is found - regardless of party affiliation. In the case of Senator Blunt, he admits to colluding with Monsanto, a corporation that has literally been caught running 'slave-like' working conditions in which workers are unable to leave or eat (among many worse misdeeds).

This is one of the most blatant offenses against the citizens of the United States I've seen in a long time. A population that Blunt swore to serve. It's not for the United States public at all, and it's a serious matter that I don't think is properly understood. The passing of this bill into law means that Monsanto is now immune from federal courts regarding any suspension or action on their crops that have been deemed to be dangerous to the people (or the environment).

This means crops that were approved and later found to damage the environment or the public will be immune from United States government action. Theoretically, one million studies could find that Monsanto's latest creation was causing a massive cancer wave and under this law Monsanto could continue to peddle the crop to the public. The federal courts would (or will) be helpless to stop Monsanto, effectively giving Monsanto power over the entire branch of the United States government. Food Democracy Now, a major activist organization that organized signatures to fight the Monsanto Protection Act, described the rider:

"The Monsanto Protection Act would force the USDA to allow continued planting of any GMO crop under court review, essentially giving backdoor approval for any new genetically engineered crops that could be potentially harmful to human health or the environment."
Sounds like a great idea, right?
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 07:39 AM   #12
baja
Pat Bowlen
 
baja's Avatar
 
The best owner ever

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 58,877

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chase Vaughn
Default

Too big to prosecute: How Monsanto slipped the DOJ’s grasp
By Susie Cagle
Hey so remember a few months ago when we told you about how the Department of Justice quietly slipped its Monsanto investigation into the shredder? The global GMO giant was “pleased,” activists were pissed, and we were left wondering how that whole thing even happened.

Today, Lina Khan at Salon breaks down the what-the-**** of it all. The investigation was first fertilized at the state level in 2007, when officials in Iowa, Texas, and other states began looking into Monsanto’s restrictive, anti-competitive contract agreements with seed companies and farmers. Monsanto’s trademarked genes are in more than 90 percent of American soy and 80 percent of corn.

Monsanto started in chemicals, only moving into genetically modified seed traits in the 1980s, and then buying up seed companies of its own in the ’90s. “Over the next decade Monsanto spent more than $12 billion to buy at least 30 such businesses,” Khan writes.

Alarmed by the fact that they were losing access to many key seed gene pools and seed breeders, biotech competitors — including DuPont, Dow and Syngenta — scrambled to keep up, grabbing suites of seed companies to secure their own arsenals.

Once mimicked by its rivals, Monsanto’s strategy redrew the industry. Competition and variety have dwindled as a result. Since the mid-1990s, the number of independent seed companies has shrunk from some 300 firms to fewer than 100. Many businesses not bought out directly were pushed out by bankruptcy.

The antitrust lawsuit against Monsanto proved difficult for the DOJ for a number of reasons, not least of which was Monsanto’s Hulk-like influence over Washington politics: The company spent nearly $6 million on lobbying last year.


When contacted, a spokeswoman for the DOJ acknowledged only that the antitrust division had shut its investigation into “possible anticompetitive activity” in the seed industry, due to “marketplace developments that occurred during the pendency of the investigation.” The spokeswoman would not detail these developments. “We believe it would not be appropriate to comment further,” she said. The state attorneys general who initiated the probe five years ago also closed their inquiry and have chosen not to comment. …

Those close to the investigation also note that it became easier for officials to justify inaction because Monsanto cleaned up its act as soon as authorities came knocking. Seed companies say Monsanto began loosening its licensing agreements in 2008, less than a year after the state attorneys general opened their inquiry. Months after the Justice Department followed suit in 2009, Monsanto announced it would allow farmers to continue using its leading soybeans, Roundup Ready 1, even after its patent expired in 2014. This gesture — at least in theory — opens the market to generic competition. …

[University of Wisconsin Law School professor Peter] Carstensen, a former DOJ attorney, believes antitrust officials may have been reluctant to wage a close fight given Monsanto’s political connections. “There was a good case to be made, but at the end of the day nobody was prepared to bite the bullet and move forward,” he said. …

“It’s a great frustration,” Carstensen says. “If the Obama administration really cared about technological innovation, they would have come in and tried to free technology from being captured by a single company.” Instead, he says, they have “protected Monsanto’s interest.”

But Monsanto learned its lesson, right, and cleaned up its act? Monsanto’s not Hulking out anymore, it’s just a calm big-agriculture Bruce Banner now, right? Yeah, not so much. The company’s lobbyists are now pushing the “Monsanto Protection Act” into a Senate spending bill. “Even if a court orders Monsanto to stop planting seeds until an environmental review is carried out, this bill overrules that,” reports SustainableBusiness.com. Gee, thanks for setting some precedent, DOJ!
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 07:43 AM   #13
baja
Pat Bowlen
 
baja's Avatar
 
The best owner ever

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 58,877

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chase Vaughn
Default

Too big to prosecute: How Monsanto slipped the DOJ’s grasp
By Susie Cagle
Hey so remember a few months ago when we told you about how the Department of Justice quietly slipped its Monsanto investigation into the shredder? The global GMO giant was “pleased,” activists were pissed, and we were left wondering how that whole thing even happened.

Today, Lina Khan at Salon breaks down the what-the-**** of it all. The investigation was first fertilized at the state level in 2007, when officials in Iowa, Texas, and other states began looking into Monsanto’s restrictive, anti-competitive contract agreements with seed companies and farmers. Monsanto’s trademarked genes are in more than 90 percent of American soy and 80 percent of corn.

Monsanto started in chemicals, only moving into genetically modified seed traits in the 1980s, and then buying up seed companies of its own in the ’90s. “Over the next decade Monsanto spent more than $12 billion to buy at least 30 such businesses,” Khan writes.

Alarmed by the fact that they were losing access to many key seed gene pools and seed breeders, biotech competitors — including DuPont, Dow and Syngenta — scrambled to keep up, grabbing suites of seed companies to secure their own arsenals.

Once mimicked by its rivals, Monsanto’s strategy redrew the industry. Competition and variety have dwindled as a result. Since the mid-1990s, the number of independent seed companies has shrunk from some 300 firms to fewer than 100. Many businesses not bought out directly were pushed out by bankruptcy.

The antitrust lawsuit against Monsanto proved difficult for the DOJ for a number of reasons, not least of which was Monsanto’s Hulk-like influence over Washington politics: The company spent nearly $6 million on lobbying last year.


When contacted, a spokeswoman for the DOJ acknowledged only that the antitrust division had shut its investigation into “possible anticompetitive activity” in the seed industry, due to “marketplace developments that occurred during the pendency of the investigation.” The spokeswoman would not detail these developments. “We believe it would not be appropriate to comment further,” she said. The state attorneys general who initiated the probe five years ago also closed their inquiry and have chosen not to comment. …

Those close to the investigation also note that it became easier for officials to justify inaction because Monsanto cleaned up its act as soon as authorities came knocking. Seed companies say Monsanto began loosening its licensing agreements in 2008, less than a year after the state attorneys general opened their inquiry. Months after the Justice Department followed suit in 2009, Monsanto announced it would allow farmers to continue using its leading soybeans, Roundup Ready 1, even after its patent expired in 2014. This gesture — at least in theory — opens the market to generic competition. …

[University of Wisconsin Law School professor Peter] Carstensen, a former DOJ attorney, believes antitrust officials may have been reluctant to wage a close fight given Monsanto’s political connections. “There was a good case to be made, but at the end of the day nobody was prepared to bite the bullet and move forward,” he said. …

“It’s a great frustration,” Carstensen says. “If the Obama administration really cared about technological innovation, they would have come in and tried to free technology from being captured by a single company.” Instead, he says, they have “protected Monsanto’s interest.”

But Monsanto learned its lesson, right, and cleaned up its act? Monsanto’s not Hulking out anymore, it’s just a calm big-agriculture Bruce Banner now, right? Yeah, not so much. The company’s lobbyists are now pushing the “Monsanto Protection Act” into a Senate spending bill. “Even if a court orders Monsanto to stop planting seeds until an environmental review is carried out, this bill overrules that,” reports SustainableBusiness.com. Gee, thanks for setting some precedent, DOJ!
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 07:45 AM   #14
baja
Pat Bowlen
 
baja's Avatar
 
The best owner ever

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 58,877

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chase Vaughn
Default

The evil of Monsanto and GMOs explained: Bad technology, endless greed and the destruction of humanity
Sunday, September 23, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)

11K
129

(NaturalNews) By now, nearly all informed people recognize that Monsanto is widely regarded as the most evil corporation on our planet. But what, exactly, makes Monsanto so evil? Why is Monsanto worse than a pharmaceutical company, a pesticide company or even a weapons manufacturer?

The answer to this question is found in probing the virtue of the corporation in question. As virtuous people, we expect corporations to act with a sense of fundamental human decency. We expect them to behave within the boundaries of respecting human life, honest business practices and reliable science. We (naively) wish that corporations would act like decent human beings.

But they don't. In their quest for profit at any cost, they violate the basic tenets of virtue. They betray humanity. They destroy life. They malign Mother Nature herself, and in doing so, they threaten the very future of sustainable life on our planet.

Here, I unravel the fundamental "violations of virtue" that Monsanto practices on a daily basis. It is these things, I think you'll agree, that make Monsanto a despicable corporate entity and a threat to all humankind.

Corporate greed over service to humanity

Monsanto's actions are designed to maximize its corporate profits, not to serve the people. Its entire seed-and-herbicide business model is designed to trap farmers in a system of economic dependence... to turn farmers into indentured servants who can never return to traditional farming after their soil has been destroyed with Roundup.

Death over life

Monsanto's products cause death. They compromise and violate life. Monsanto's GM corn grown a toxic chemical right inside each and every corn kernel. This corn is what is subsequently eaten by humans.

Rats fed this corn grew horrifying cancer tumors as shown here:



In a recent scientific study, a shocking 70 percent of female rats died prematurely when fed GMOs. Fifty percent of males died early. Almost all of them died from cancer tumors.

Read more about the link between GMOs and cancer tumors at:
http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_GM...rs_organ_damag...

Secrecy over transparency

Monsanto is spending millions of dollars to try to defeat Proposition 37 in California -- a bill which would simply require GMOs to be indicated on food labels.

But Monsanto and other companies such as those that own Larabar, Silk and Kashi do not want consumers to know the truth about GMOs in the foods they buy. (See the GMO boycott infographic here.) They're also spending huge sums of money to try to defeat Proposition 37 so that the food companies can keep GMOs a dirty little secret about the poison in your food.

Plainly stated, these companies do not want you to know what you're eating. And why? Because you're eating poison!

Domination of technology rather than sharing of wisdom

Monsanto does not create technology and then share wisdom with farmers; instead the company patents its GE seeds and thereby claims monopolistic ownership over them. This patent is used to punish farmers!

When Monsanto's GMO seeds blow into the fields of farmers who are trying to avoid growing GMOs, Monsanto uses its patent "rights" to sue the farmers and claim they "stole" Monsanto property!

This is an example of the kind of pure evil Monsanto engages in on a regular basis. From the top company executives to the bottom of the corporate ladder, people who work for Monsanto are engaged in promoting a sickening, unprecedented evil that's spreading across our planet like a black slimy cancer tumor.

That's no coincidence, either, considering that eating GMOs causes massive cancer tumors.

Artificial manipulation of nature rather than honoring of nature

Instead of working with the beauty, the genius and the abundance that has already been engineered into nature, Monsanto seeks to violate nature, overriding healthy plant genes with poison genes that generate insecticides right inside the crops.

Instead of honoring the natural ability of seeds to reproduce generation after generation, Monsanto develops "terminator seed" technology that causes seeds to self-terminate after one generation. This, by itself, is a heinous crime against nature, humankind and planet Earth. It is a crime worse than the Nazi holocaust, for terminator seeds threaten ALL human life on our planet... billions of lives are threatened by the behavior of Monsanto.

Environmental destruction over environmental stewardship

Roundup herbicide devastates soils, rendering them contaminated and unable to produce healthy crops using traditional (or organic) farming methods. Once a farm plot is destroyed with Roundup, that farmer is forever enslaved to a chemical-based farming protocol. It's unhealthy, it's a disaster to the environment, and the actual crop yields are LOWER than with organic farming, over a period of five years or more.

By encouraging farmers to spray literally millions of acres of farmland with Roundup, Monsanto is engaged in a conspiracy to destroy our agricultural heritage and turn us all into "food slaves" that must pay tribute to Monsatan.

Scientific deception over scientific truth

The so-called "science" coming out of Monsanto is some of the most inane, malicious and brutally deceptive junk science ever fabricated by corporate science sellouts. Instead of testing GMOs for long durations on animals, Monsanto-funded scientists test GMOs for a mere 90 days and then adamantly declare the food to be "safe" for a lifetime of consumption by humans.

It's no wonder they didn't run long-term tests: The real acceleration in cancer tumors only emerged after the 90-day milestone in rats.

Even if Monsanto-funded scientists found GMOs to be safe in a "lifetime" feeding study, you couldn't trust those results anyway: Any scientist, politician or media group with financial ties to Monsanto must now be assumed to be compromised and lacking any credibility whatsoever. Monsanto has bought off countless scientists, experts, media writers and politicians. But paying them off doesn't alter reality. Poison in the corn is still poison in the corn, even if you pay a group of sellout scientists to foolishly declare otherwise.

The CHANGE we really need: Corporations with virtue

Something is terribly, terribly wrong with corporate behavior in America, and Monsanto is just one of thousands of corporations which demonstrate highly irresponsible, extreme, destructive behavior.

The very design of corporations is missing something: HUMANITY. Sure, corporations are great at generating profits, streamlining logistics, manufacturing, marketing and so on. But where's the humanity in all that?

It's nowhere to be found. Corporations don't care WHO they harm, WHAT they destroy, HOW they behavior or even HOW FAR they have to go to make another buck.

Here at NaturalNews.com, we've documented corporations engaging in the most despicable, anti-human behavior imaginable, including using little children as vaccine guinea pigs, secretly testing diseases on prisoners, routinely falsifying evidence, bribing physicians, lying to regulators, engaging in efforts to deny consumers access to more affordable products, inventing fictitious diseases ("disease mongering") to market toxic drugs, and even hiring P.R. firms to spread lies and disinformation online through social networks and websites.

And that's just the pharmaceutical industry. Think about the evils perpetrated by the agricultural giants, weapons manufacturers and globalist banks. There is no end to their destruction.

A corporation is like a cancer tumor. It wants to tap into more and more resources, growing larger and larger until it kills everything. That's the innate drive of nearly every large corporation you've ever heard of: Get big, destroy the competition and DOMINATE! Even if it means killing our future.

When corporations become so powerful that they practically run the government -- as they do now -- the correct descriptive term for that arrangement is Fascism.

How do you stop Fascism? With a revolution, of course. And a peaceful one would be far preferable.

The revolution we need is a revolution against the corporation

As we see our present-day society being utterly destroyed by corporations -- banking, agriculture, pharmaceutical, etc. -- we must get serious about what needs to happen to change the structure of corporations so that they serve humanity rather than destroying humanity.

Here are some suggestions worth considering:

#1) Strip away corporate personhood protections.

#2) Deny all patents on seeds, genes and medicines. Such things should belong to everyone, not to a monopolistic few. This would also take the profit out of medicine, meaning drug companies would no longer have a financial incentive to fabricate and promote fictitious diseases.

#3) Ban all corporate lobbying and campaign contributions. No corporation should have access to lawmakers, period. Lawmakers should serve the people who elected them and no one else.

#4) Disband all corporations that currently function as a danger to humanity. This would include, of course, Monsanto, Merck and many others. Who decides this? Whoever wins the revolution, of course. (Isn't that always the case?)

#5) Nationalize the Federal Reserve and make it "America's bank" so that Fed money is owned by the People and benefits the People instead of globalist banks.

#6) Halt the "revolving door" where government regulators take high-paying jobs at the very corporations they've been regulating. Once a person works in an influential position for a government regulator, they should be forever restricted from working for the industry they once regulated.

#7) End "Free Speech rights" for corporations. Corporations are not people. They have no God-given rights. By ending this fabricated "right," we could institute strict advertising limits that would prevent corporations from advertising harmful products to children and adults.

Stop supporting evil

The ultimate solution, of course, is a consumer solution: Stop purchasing products from evil corporations! This means you need to stop buying non-organic corn products such as breakfast cereals, corn tortillas, and corn snack chips.

Stop buying lawn pesticide chemicals. Stop buying medications. Stop buying toxic perfumes, cosmetics and personal care products. Stop buying soda pop and aspartame!

YOU help shift the world in a more positive direction by shifting your own personal purchasing habits. And that's something you can control right now, today, starting with the very next dollar you spend at the store.

BUY ORGANIC, non-GMO products wherever possible. You'll be changing the world one purchase at a time. That's a genuine, practical way to diminish the power of evil corporations starting right now.


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037289_Mo...#ixzz2PJk6H1e8
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 08:16 AM   #15
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 53,975

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

There is one thing that we know as scientific fact: Diversity is good. In other words, the more varieties of plants available to us, the safer our food supply. If one strain of wheat is destroyed by some disease, other strains may be immune. Not to mention, the entire natural regime of disease and insects is nature's way of ensuring that the strongest varieties flourish, while the weak die off. Monsanto, and corporations like them, move us in exactly the opposite direction, to fewer and fewer varieties all of which they control. It's a recipe for disaster.

The entire concept of the corporation needs to be overhauled. And we need to redesign government so that it can't be bought. Agriculture needs to work with nature, not against it. Relying on the profit motive as a basis for society is a total failure. You don't keep re-engineering the world genetically in order to deal with over-population. You address the over-population. Crazy ****ing apes.

Last edited by Rohirrim; 04-02-2013 at 08:19 AM..
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 12:51 PM   #16
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chadta View Post
Arent these the same scientists you think are full of bull when it comes to global warming ? What makes them so believable now ?
I've said many times i believe the stats that show Earth is warmer. My argument has always been that none of the efforts to charge us more money for electricity, pay more for electric cars, pay more for gas, waste money on solar power companies that go under etc will cool the Earth.

Earth probably is warming. It probably is added to by humans on the Earth. My argument has always been who cares adapt to deal with it because you can't control the weather.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 12:51 PM   #17
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,495
Default

My point has always been lets beat China first, then worry about cooling the Earth. Trying to do it through co2 will ruin us.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 12:55 PM   #18
IHaveALight
the sun is gone
 
IHaveALight's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,272
Default

Experts in the biotechnology field say that genetically modified (GM) wheat currently in development could potentially silence human genes if ingested, resulting in premature death and risk of passing the defect on to future generations.

The wheat, developed by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), is engineered to turn off undesirable genes permanently.

However, the wheat genes intended to be silenced are a match for the human GBE gene sequence, according to Professor Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury’s Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety, who published a report on the experimental wheat in Digital Journal.

Through ingestion, these molecules can enter human beings and potentially silence our genes,” says Heinemann.

GBE dictates glycogen storage in humans. Children who are born with this enzyme not working tend to die by the age of about five. Adults with malfunctioning GBE genes can experience cognitive impairment, pyramidal quadriplegia, peripheral neuropathy, and neurogenic bladder.

The real danger behind this genetically modified variety of wheat is that scientists used double stranded RNA, or dsRNA, to achieve their desired results. Heinemann describes the dsRNAs present in modified wheat as “remarkably stable in the environment.”

The dsRNA is able to withstand processing and cooking, and can also survive the human digestive system and enter into the blood stream. It then circulates through the body, where it amplifies into more and different dsRNAs and alters gene expression.

These altered genes can be passed on to later generations, assuming the consumer doesn’t die of cancer or liver damage before procreating.

Using dsRNA to silence genes is not without precedent. Monsanto, the world’s largest manufacturer of bioengineered seeds, has published research in the past about how to commercially exploit the fact that dsRNA survives digestion in insects.

The company genetically engineered plants to produce a dsRNA, which insects ingest when they eat the plant; the dsRNA survives digestion in the insect and then silences genes in the insect to stunt its growth and kill it.

While not yet commercialized, the GM wheat is currently undergoing field tests in Australia. If approved, it will likely be grown alongside conventional wheat and sold unlabeled to consumers.

http://www.examiner.com/article/gene...e-human-genome
IHaveALight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 03:19 PM   #19
IHaveALight
the sun is gone
 
IHaveALight's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,272
Default

Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland has released a public statement apologizing to the public for the passing of the Monsanto Protection Act, stating that the legislation was buried deep within a government spending bill that was required to ‘prevent a government shutdown’.

by Anthony Gucciardi
Natural Society
April 2, 2013

Mikulski is the Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman, one who was ultimately responsible for passing the bill that contained the notorious Monsanto Protection Act — a legislative ‘rider’ that grants biotech juggernaut Monsanto immunity from federal courts when it comes to their GMO crops. Although ‘written’ by Senator Roy Blunt, who actually gave Monsanto the ability to write their own Monsanto Protection Act and has received over $60,000 from Monsanto, Mikulski has taken serious flak for the passing of the rider.

A rider that Monsanto thought they could slip through the Senate without much of a fight, only to find that the alternative news has made it a mainstream media topic by force (despite GMO lovers saying that it never even happened).

Massive Activism Leads to Apologies

In a release from Senator Mikulski’s office, Mikulski states that she actually sides with frustrated activists who are against the Monsanto Protection Act and had no other choice but to pass the spending bill to prevent ‘government shutdown’. And she’s not the only one. Senator Tester reportedly told Politico that the rider serves no one but major biotech corporations, and many others have begun to speak out following the outcry.

The Mikulski office press release written by a staffer and summarizing the stance of Mikulski, reads:


“She didn’t put the language in the bill and doesn’t support it either. As Chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Mikulski’s first responsibility was to prevent a government shutdown. That meant she had to compromise on many of her own priorities to get a bill through the Senate that the House would pass. She will continue to fight for a regular and timely Appropriations process and other valuable priorities, including food safety.”



Now the question is whether or not she is being sincere or simply performing PR damage control following the fact that the public is finding out about the severity if the issue. Instead of arguing the reality behind the politics of the bill and whether or not it would lead to ‘government shutdown’ as she says, let’s look at her fruits regarding the GMO issue. First of all, my question is why did she not say anything before the issue got super hot in the media? Why did she not warn her citizens and the US at large about what was happening before she was a target?

Admittedly, and as her release states, she has supported the labeling of genetically modified fish — something that the FDA should do anyway without political pressure (but they won’t) through legislation. But what about the fight against Monsanto’s immunity? The reality is that multiple Senators are now being forced to answer for their actions thanks to serious outrage from the public and readers like you that genuinely just want to eat real food and prevent destructive corporations like Monsanto from receiving immunity against the law.

Even if some of the Senators are just covering their rear ends, the fact is that we do have a voice and we are forcing those responsible for passing corrupt legislation accountable.

http://intellihub.com/2013/04/02/top...rotection-act/
IHaveALight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 03:30 PM   #20
Meck77
.
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,599
Default

Obama is a criminal. At least I can sleep at night having voted for Ron Paul. ****ing idiots.

Time to double the efforts at my farms now.
Meck77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2013, 09:56 AM   #21
alkemical
Guerrilla Ontologist
 
alkemical's Avatar
 
rorrim|mirror

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Future
Posts: 43,056

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Prima Materia
Default

alkemical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2013, 10:50 AM   #22
alkemical
Guerrilla Ontologist
 
alkemical's Avatar
 
rorrim|mirror

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Future
Posts: 43,056

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Prima Materia
Default

http://bit.ly/12kdkz4

Daily Show: You Stuck What Where Now? - The Monsanto Protection Act
alkemical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2013, 02:03 PM   #23
defilade
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Love GMO's! Between the Fluroide in the water, Aspartame in the soda and gum..Cereral etc.. etc .. We are walking around like Zombies. Ever wonder why a McDonalds Burger can sit for a week or two and no change in it! I'm sure all those Chemicals in the body are great for ya!
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 02:39 AM   #24
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,495
Default

I have better things to do then worry about crap like this. Bunch of paranoid women on this board. It's just a more advanced quicker way of breeding for positive traits in plants. Little gene splice there, little dna sequencing here. Hell most of you love science messing around with stem cells and dna type research why are you against it in food?

If we all start dying then I may change my mind.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 09:03 AM   #25
alkemical
Guerrilla Ontologist
 
alkemical's Avatar
 
rorrim|mirror

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Future
Posts: 43,056

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Prima Materia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
I have better things to do then worry about crap like this. Bunch of paranoid women on this board. It's just a more advanced quicker way of breeding for positive traits in plants. Little gene splice there, little dna sequencing here. Hell most of you love science messing around with stem cells and dna type research why are you against it in food?

If we all start dying then I may change my mind.
You do realize that Roundup is now shown that it kills flora bacteria in your gut. This is important, and might be worth investigating. Most of your immunity lies on good gut bacteria to overwhelm and outcompete pathogens. I'd say it's a good case to start there.

Here would be another place to look also:

http://independentsciencenews.org/co...ial-gmo-crops/

"Is There a Direct Human Toxicity Issue?
When Gene VI is intentionally expressed in transgenic plants, it causes them to become chlorotic (yellow), to have growth deformities, and to have reduced fertility in a dose-dependent manner (Ziljstra et al 1996). Plants expressing Gene VI also show gene expression abnormalities. These results indicate that, not unexpectedly given its known functions, the protein produced by Gene VI is functioning as a toxin and is harmful to plants (Takahashi et al 1989). Since the known targets of Gene VI activity (ribosomes and gene silencing) are also found in human cells, a reasonable concern is that the protein produced by Gene VI might be a human toxin. This is a question that can only be answered by future experiments."
alkemical is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:04 AM.


Denver Broncos