March against Monsanto & New Soil News

[RodISHI]

A plan; March Against Monsanto | It's Time To Take Our Planet Back

By Nick Meyer On October 11, 2015 ·
The Monsanto Company has thrived in large part due to their secrecy, and our ignorance (fueled by willful media ignorance, of course). But in 2015 more people than ever before are waking up, and standing up, to the Monsanto machine, resulting in what may have been the most difficult year in their long, sordid [...] more at link

Leaked Emails Expose Monsanto Conspiracy Using “Independent” Professors to Promote GMOs
On October 6, 2015 By Nick Meyer
United Nations and many other bodies have vehemently disagreed with that notion. While others have picked holes in Monsanto’s stated goals (along with questioning the safety [...]


New Iowa State research: Human activity affecting microbes in soil - News Service - Iowa State University
New Iowa State research: Human activity affecting microbes in soil Posted Sep 23, 2015 10:22 am AMES, Iowa – New research from an Iowa State University ecologist shows that agricultural inputs such as nitrogen and phosphorus alter soil microbial communities, which may have unintended environmental consequences. Adding nitrogen and phosphorus, commonly used as fertilizers, to the soil beneath grasslands shifts the natural communities of fungi, bacteria and microscopic organisms called archaea that live in the soil, said Kirsten Hofmockel, an associate professor in the ISU Department of Ecology, Evolution and Organismal Biology. - See more at: New Iowa State research: Human activity affecting microbes in soil - News Service - Iowa State University

 

[Delta4Embassy]

If that's the worst thing about them and GMOs I remain indifferent. Think we hsould know when eating GMO foods, but don't see any problem about them because no one's explained how geneticly-modified food items are unsafe.

Get more damage using deodorents and skin cremes than eating a GMO. It's still food and genes you're eating. Better genes resulting in more resiolent foods doesn't make the food unsafe from the get go.

 

[Pogo]

If that's the worst thing about them and GMOs I remain indifferent. Think we hsould know when eating GMO foods, but don't see any problem about them because no one's explained how geneticly-modified food items are unsafe.

Get more damage using deodorents and skin cremes than eating a GMO. It's still food and genes you're eating. Better genes resulting in more resiolent foods doesn't make the food unsafe from the get go.

When you invent entire new forms of nutrition or pseudo-nutrition (ingested substances), the onus is not on the critic to prove them "unsafe". Rather, it's on the inventor to prove it "safe".

Just as was done with trans fats -- you can toss in all the trans fats you want, as long as you can demonstrate it's safe to ingest them.

Just like Thalidomide -- it was sold outside the US and brought thousands of birth defects and deaths, because other countries didn't have a Frances Kelsey to demand that the drug company prove it to be safe.
And she was right.

Any other approach is absurd. If the onus were on the recipient, you could pollute the food chain with anything you wanted -- nicotine, arsenic, ethylene glycol, lead --- and your victims carrying the onus would be unable to prove it because they're already dead. Think about it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Imagine that. "Conspiring to use college professors to promote GMOs. "
What kind of turds would do that?

And FERTILIZER ?? It's demon poop..

Why oppose genetic engineering if you LOVE fertilizers? Let's get consistent here and oppose ALL of agricultural science and innovation..

 

[Pogo]

Imagine that. "Conspiring to use college professors to promote GMOs. "
What kind of turds would do that?

And FERTILIZER ?? It's demon poop..

Why oppose genetic engineering if you LOVE fertilizers? Let's get consistent here and oppose ALL of agricultural science and innovation..

Has nothing to do with "opposing innovation". Or science. Has to do with (a) justifying your innovation when you deign to play God; (b) monopolizing (and thereby infecting/destroying) the natural food supply; and (c) playing God.

 

[flacaltenn]

Imagine that. "Conspiring to use college professors to promote GMOs. "
What kind of turds would do that?

And FERTILIZER ?? It's demon poop..

Why oppose genetic engineering if you LOVE fertilizers? Let's get consistent here and oppose ALL of agricultural science and innovation..

Has nothing to do with "opposing innovation". Or science. Has to do with (a) justifying your innovation when you deign to play God; (b) monopolizing (and thereby infecting/destroying) the natural food supply; and (c) playing God.

You can DO all that with FERTILIZER? This whole movement uses Monsanto as the Temple of Mordor and confuses herbicides with genetic engineering. NOW i guess with fertilizer.

When you invent something --- you get protection from people ripping off your intellectual property. So musicians put encoded theft tags into their music releases that prevent copying it for free. Monsanto gets to make sure that it's product produces infertile seeds. No diff. You shouldn't have the expectation to be able to rip off musicians or bio-scientists.

 

[Pogo]

Imagine that. "Conspiring to use college professors to promote GMOs. "
What kind of turds would do that?

And FERTILIZER ?? It's demon poop..

Why oppose genetic engineering if you LOVE fertilizers? Let's get consistent here and oppose ALL of agricultural science and innovation..

Has nothing to do with "opposing innovation". Or science. Has to do with (a) justifying your innovation when you deign to play God; (b) monopolizing (and thereby infecting/destroying) the natural food supply; and (c) playing God.

You can DO all that with FERTILIZER? This whole movement uses Monsanto as the Temple of Mordor and confuses herbicides with genetic engineering. NOW i guess with fertilizer.

When you invent something --- you get protection from people ripping off your intellectual property. So musicians put encoded theft tags into their music releases that prevent copying it for free. Monsanto gets to make sure that it's product produces infertile seeds. No diff. You shouldn't have the expectation to be able to rip off musicians or bio-scientists.

Yeah except you leave out a crucial element:
Music, authorship... (intellectual property in general etc) is not biology. That's our food chain they're fucking with.

 

[HenryBHough]

So long as they make Roundup - my favorite landscaping tool - Monsanto can do no wrong.

 

[Likkmee]

No worries. Once Is Il M.O.U. CIA whatever sets up shop here the head honchos will be blown to bits.
No siree ! Allah hates Kosher food !

 

[RodISHI]

Genetically modifying seeds and using so many chemicals that grow into the foods and get in the water ways are unholy alliance as far as I am concerned and it is being force upon the people.

A poster on facebook got it right when he stated concerning these companies pushing this crap on the people, "meet my brother Daryl and my other brother Daryl and my cousin Daryl....."


Institute for Responsible Technology

 

[RodISHI]

The origin of that chart above comes from here--- Philip H. Howard | Seed Industry Structure

ZoomHub: tTDi

Great place to start tracking.

 

[Old Rocks]

Imagine that. "Conspiring to use college professors to promote GMOs. "
What kind of turds would do that?

And FERTILIZER ?? It's demon poop..

Why oppose genetic engineering if you LOVE fertilizers? Let's get consistent here and oppose ALL of agricultural science and innovation..

Overuse of fertilizer kills both the soil and life in the rivers and oceans. As far as GMOs are concerned, that is a necessary step because of our overpopulation problem. However, we must do all in our power to make sure we are not creating new problems with the use of the GMOs.

 

[flacaltenn]

Imagine that. "Conspiring to use college professors to promote GMOs. "
What kind of turds would do that?

And FERTILIZER ?? It's demon poop..

Why oppose genetic engineering if you LOVE fertilizers? Let's get consistent here and oppose ALL of agricultural science and innovation..

Has nothing to do with "opposing innovation". Or science. Has to do with (a) justifying your innovation when you deign to play God; (b) monopolizing (and thereby infecting/destroying) the natural food supply; and (c) playing God.

You can DO all that with FERTILIZER? This whole movement uses Monsanto as the Temple of Mordor and confuses herbicides with genetic engineering. NOW i guess with fertilizer.

When you invent something --- you get protection from people ripping off your intellectual property. So musicians put encoded theft tags into their music releases that prevent copying it for free. Monsanto gets to make sure that it's product produces infertile seeds. No diff. You shouldn't have the expectation to be able to rip off musicians or bio-scientists.

Yeah except you leave out a crucial element:
Music, authorship... (intellectual property in general etc) is not biology. That's our food chain they're fucking with.

Well "fucking" is strong word for what's been since Gregor Mendel started cross-breeding plants.
What's wrong with identifying specific traits that you want a crop to have and making it happen?

Enriched with more strategic nutrition. Resistant to drought. Resistant to bugs. These traits are generally not being invented out of thin air. They are taken from OTHER plants and animals. Making crops in marginal farmland can save A LOT of lives and human misery..

You need to be careful not to introduce processes by which the plants can produce bad stuff as a byproduct. But simply modifying a genome by itself has no bearing on the toxicity or healthiness of the food.

I kinda like making stuff like glow in the trees -- or pollution fighting plants. Could be solutions to some of our worst problems,. Take a look at OTHER examples of genetic engineering at the link below and maybe you'll feel differently about "fucking" with food..

12 bizarre examples of genetic engineering

OR --- maybe at least you'll see that this is the general state of bio-science today --- and a lot of yelling at Monsanto ain't really gonna stop it..

 

[flacaltenn]

Imagine that. "Conspiring to use college professors to promote GMOs. "
What kind of turds would do that?

And FERTILIZER ?? It's demon poop..

Why oppose genetic engineering if you LOVE fertilizers? Let's get consistent here and oppose ALL of agricultural science and innovation..

Overuse of fertilizer kills both the soil and life in the rivers and oceans. As far as GMOs are concerned, that is a necessary step because of our overpopulation problem. However, we must do all in our power to make sure we are not creating new problems with the use of the GMOs.

Hard to separate the constituents in fertilizers from general ag runoff and other ag waste. And it IS a problem. But killing the soil is more of an overuse problem. Years of crop rotation and laying fallow are sliding into memory. No doubt fueled by the boom in ethanol corn and larger scale farming.

 

[RodISHI]

The cats really don't need to glow in the dark

 

[Pogo]

Imagine that. "Conspiring to use college professors to promote GMOs. "
What kind of turds would do that?

And FERTILIZER ?? It's demon poop..

Why oppose genetic engineering if you LOVE fertilizers? Let's get consistent here and oppose ALL of agricultural science and innovation..

Has nothing to do with "opposing innovation". Or science. Has to do with (a) justifying your innovation when you deign to play God; (b) monopolizing (and thereby infecting/destroying) the natural food supply; and (c) playing God.

You can DO all that with FERTILIZER? This whole movement uses Monsanto as the Temple of Mordor and confuses herbicides with genetic engineering. NOW i guess with fertilizer.

When you invent something --- you get protection from people ripping off your intellectual property. So musicians put encoded theft tags into their music releases that prevent copying it for free. Monsanto gets to make sure that it's product produces infertile seeds. No diff. You shouldn't have the expectation to be able to rip off musicians or bio-scientists.

Yeah except you leave out a crucial element:
Music, authorship... (intellectual property in general etc) is not biology. That's our food chain they're fucking with.

Well "fucking" is strong word for what's been since Gregor Mendel started cross-breeding plants.
What's wrong with identifying specific traits that you want a crop to have and making it happen?

Nothing, if Nature allows it. When you start tinkering with genes, that's way over the line.

Enriched with more strategic nutrition. Resistant to drought. Resistant to bugs. These traits are generally not being invented out of thin air. They are taken from OTHER plants and animals. Making crops in marginal farmland can save A LOT of lives and human misery..

You need to be careful not to introduce processes by which the plants can produce bad stuff as a byproduct. But simply modifying a genome by itself has no bearing on the toxicity or healthiness of the food.

We return to the copyright point for an analogy about the consequences:

Let's say Bruce Springstein writes a song. He slaps a copyright on it, records it and puts it in the stores. Fine, good for him. You and I decide the song sucks and choose not to buy it. Fine again. We have that choice.

Now imagine that as soon as that Springstein record goes into the shop it starts infecting all the other records. You can't buy a Rosemary Clooney record or a Chicago Symphony record or a Ukrainian folk song record without Bruce Springstein gagging along.

Now imagine that those records are required to sustain life; we HAVE to listen to at least one them or we starve to death. Yet no matter which one we choose, there's Bruce Springstein gagging along with it. And nobody has demonstrated that listening to Bruce Springstein won't have ill effects.

There's your monopoly of the food chain.

Never ceases to amaze how many wags wail about Big Gummint running people's lives, then turn a blind eye to Big Corporatia doing exactly the same thing.

OR --- maybe at least you'll see that this is the general state of bio-science today --- and a lot of yelling at Monsanto ain't really gonna stop it..

So one throws up one's hands and gives up?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Imagine that. "Conspiring to use college professors to promote GMOs. "
What kind of turds would do that?

And FERTILIZER ?? It's demon poop..

Why oppose genetic engineering if you LOVE fertilizers? Let's get consistent here and oppose ALL of agricultural science and innovation..

Has nothing to do with "opposing innovation". Or science. Has to do with (a) justifying your innovation when you deign to play God; (b) monopolizing (and thereby infecting/destroying) the natural food supply; and (c) playing God.

You can DO all that with FERTILIZER? This whole movement uses Monsanto as the Temple of Mordor and confuses herbicides with genetic engineering. NOW i guess with fertilizer.

When you invent something --- you get protection from people ripping off your intellectual property. So musicians put encoded theft tags into their music releases that prevent copying it for free. Monsanto gets to make sure that it's product produces infertile seeds. No diff. You shouldn't have the expectation to be able to rip off musicians or bio-scientists.

Yeah except you leave out a crucial element:
Music, authorship... (intellectual property in general etc) is not biology. That's our food chain they're fucking with.

Well "fucking" is strong word for what's been since Gregor Mendel started cross-breeding plants.
What's wrong with identifying specific traits that you want a crop to have and making it happen?

Nothing, if Nature allows it. When you start tinkering with genes, that's way over the line.

Enriched with more strategic nutrition. Resistant to drought. Resistant to bugs. These traits are generally not being invented out of thin air. They are taken from OTHER plants and animals. Making crops in marginal farmland can save A LOT of lives and human misery..

You need to be careful not to introduce processes by which the plants can produce bad stuff as a byproduct. But simply modifying a genome by itself has no bearing on the toxicity or healthiness of the food.

We return to the copyright point for an analogy about the consequences:

Let's say Bruce Springstein writes a song. He slaps a copyright on it, records it and puts it in the stores. Fine, good for him. You and I decide the song sucks and choose not to buy it. Fine again. We have that choice.

Now imagine that as soon as that Springstein record goes into the shop it starts infecting all the other records. You can't buy a Rosemary Clooney record or a Chicago Symphony record or a Ukrainian folk song record without Bruce Springstein gagging along.

Now imagine that those records are required to sustain life; we HAVE to listen to at least one them or we starve to death. Yet no matter which one we choose, there's Bruce Springstein gagging along with it. And nobody has demonstrated that listening to Bruce Springstein won't have ill effects.

There's your monopoly of the food chain.

Never ceases to amaze how many wags wail about Big Gummint running people's lives, then turn a blind eye to Big Corporatia doing exactly the same thing.

OR --- maybe at least you'll see that this is the general state of bio-science today --- and a lot of yelling at Monsanto ain't really gonna stop it..

So one throws up one's hands and gives up?

Good analogy, Pogo!

 

[flacaltenn]

Imagine that. "Conspiring to use college professors to promote GMOs. "
What kind of turds would do that?

And FERTILIZER ?? It's demon poop..

Why oppose genetic engineering if you LOVE fertilizers? Let's get consistent here and oppose ALL of agricultural science and innovation..

Has nothing to do with "opposing innovation". Or science. Has to do with (a) justifying your innovation when you deign to play God; (b) monopolizing (and thereby infecting/destroying) the natural food supply; and (c) playing God.

You can DO all that with FERTILIZER? This whole movement uses Monsanto as the Temple of Mordor and confuses herbicides with genetic engineering. NOW i guess with fertilizer.

When you invent something --- you get protection from people ripping off your intellectual property. So musicians put encoded theft tags into their music releases that prevent copying it for free. Monsanto gets to make sure that it's product produces infertile seeds. No diff. You shouldn't have the expectation to be able to rip off musicians or bio-scientists.

Yeah except you leave out a crucial element:
Music, authorship... (intellectual property in general etc) is not biology. That's our food chain they're fucking with.

Well "fucking" is strong word for what's been since Gregor Mendel started cross-breeding plants.
What's wrong with identifying specific traits that you want a crop to have and making it happen?

Nothing, if Nature allows it. When you start tinkering with genes, that's way over the line.

Enriched with more strategic nutrition. Resistant to drought. Resistant to bugs. These traits are generally not being invented out of thin air. They are taken from OTHER plants and animals. Making crops in marginal farmland can save A LOT of lives and human misery..

You need to be careful not to introduce processes by which the plants can produce bad stuff as a byproduct. But simply modifying a genome by itself has no bearing on the toxicity or healthiness of the food.

We return to the copyright point for an analogy about the consequences:

Let's say Bruce Springstein writes a song. He slaps a copyright on it, records it and puts it in the stores. Fine, good for him. You and I decide the song sucks and choose not to buy it. Fine again. We have that choice.

Now imagine that as soon as that Springstein record goes into the shop it starts infecting all the other records. You can't buy a Rosemary Clooney record or a Chicago Symphony record or a Ukrainian folk song record without Bruce Springstein gagging along.

Now imagine that those records are required to sustain life; we HAVE to listen to at least one them or we starve to death. Yet no matter which one we choose, there's Bruce Springstein gagging along with it. And nobody has demonstrated that listening to Bruce Springstein won't have ill effects.

There's your monopoly of the food chain.

Never ceases to amaze how many wags wail about Big Gummint running people's lives, then turn a blind eye to Big Corporatia doing exactly the same thing.

OR --- maybe at least you'll see that this is the general state of bio-science today --- and a lot of yelling at Monsanto ain't really gonna stop it..

So one throws up one's hands and gives up?

In no particular order --- I don't give corporations a pass on running people's lives.. But corporations are actually quite fragile things. You have a bad day like VolksWagen just did and you maybe don't recover for years. They primarily screwed the govmint.. The OWNERS were not particularly screwed. You screw the owners and you get mortally wounded or dead. It's relatively easy to kill a truly rogue corporation.. You get a rogue govt that continually screws you, disappoints you, lies to you and there is no easy recourse.

As far as a monopoly on the food chain -- there really isn't one.

1) GMOs are only an issue in about 1/2 dozen food crops right now. That might expand -- or it might not. Because experience with GM crops has been a mixed bag. For example, the Round-Up Resistant varieties have observed the NATURAL development of "super-weeds" on their land resistant to Round-Up. Kinda an expected longer term effect. Similar deal with other GM traits that probably have a limited lifetime before nature finds a "work-around"..

2) Every farmer retains the right to plant straight hybrid crops and be free of any contract or obligation to Monsanto. It's only the 5 to 10% organic certified farmers that have an issue with cross pollination from neighboring GM fields. For the majority of "organic land" this is not an issue of contaminating future salvaged seeds, since most organic farmers are using hybrids anyway. And you don't generally practice seed-saving with hybrids on large farm scales. You buy new every year.
IF --- some face-eating disease or bad enviro side effect were to be OBSERVED from any particular GM crop ----- It could be stopped within the cycle of several years by eliminating seed-saving and employing crop rotation and other standard practices.

If you were just SPECULATING on a runaway contamination effect -- this is not likely to occur. It's an issue for organic farmers who go BEYOND the FDA guidelines on GM "contamination". The Federal guidelines for "organic" actually allows a small GM crop content..

 

[flacaltenn]

Genetically modifying seeds and using so many chemicals that grow into the foods and get in the water ways are unholy alliance as far as I am concerned and it is being force upon the people.

A poster on facebook got it right when he stated concerning these companies pushing this crap on the people, "meet my brother Daryl and my other brother Daryl and my cousin Daryl....."


Institute for Responsible Technology

View attachment 52523

So what's wrong with sharing science and patents?

 

[RodISHI]

Genetically modifying seeds and using so many chemicals that grow into the foods and get in the water ways are unholy alliance as far as I am concerned and it is being force upon the people.

A poster on facebook got it right when he stated concerning these companies pushing this crap on the people, "meet my brother Daryl and my other brother Daryl and my cousin Daryl....."


Institute for Responsible Technology

View attachment 52523

So what's wrong with sharing science and patents?

The bully effect. It is a co-monopoly without technically being a monopoly.