What Fruits and Vegetables SHOULD Look Like: Researchers Show How Dramatically We’ve Changed Them R

[Wyatt earp]

We paid researchers to come up with a theory on how things should of looked?

The government is out of control.

?

Guess you didn't read the link, take for example the before the picture of the watermelon, that is a old painting .

 

[Wyatt earp]

Monsanto doesn't want to help feed the world. They want to control the world food supply, big difference.

Paranoid conspiracy raving doesn't get more sensible with repetition.

Monsanto is one of many suppliers of seed, and is a rather small player in the global agricorp market.

Therefore, if Monsanto jacks up the prices of their seeds, farmers will simply buy seed from another agricorp.

Hence, it is not possible for Monsanto to "control the world's food supply".

Hence, that's an idiot conspiracy theory.

Monsanto is one of many suppliers of seed, and is a rather small player in the global agricorp market.

Wrong again.

Monsanto is the #1 seed company in the world.

Monsanto, World's Largest Seed Company, Sets off Feeding Frenzy

Mamooth has a love affair with monsanto because that's what the AGW cult told him.

Yes I read the connection mamooth

 

[jon_berzerk]

and beer went from this

to this

 

[elektra]

We paid researchers to come up with a theory on how things should of looked?

The government is out of control.

?

Guess you didn't read the link, take for example the before the picture of the watermelon, that is a old painting .

I saw the link, researching paintings to determine what food used to look like is not something we should make me pay for.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

As I agree Monsanto is "a big entity", I wonder why you said that.

I think a great big DUH fits in here perfectly. Along with heavy sarcasm here.... Oh wait, I take that back, I am conspiring a theory against poor little old you and that's why I said that. Here, read it & weep jackass I quoted your very own words for proof as to why I said that.

and isn't even the biggest.

Monsanto only dominates in one area, the US market of RRS (roundup ready soybeans). In the corn and wheat market, Monsanto is a small player.

is a rather small player in the global agricorp market.

Sound familiar? It should since you keep saying in nearly every post you've made here just how 'small & insignificant' you think Monsanto is. And why is that? Because you are too blind to see anything right before your very eyes. You won't even take the time to read any of the links provided to you. You just go on your merry way & refuse to see the facts. Not theory, but facts.

BTW, some of this very same thing has been argued on another thread 'My top 10 issues I'd like to see the candidates address' or something to that effect. I won't provide the link, you look it up.

 

[mamooth]

Yep, I made a mistake there. Unlike you, I have no trouble admitting to making mistakes. That's why I don't look ridiculous.

In contrast, you made a hilariously stupid mistake by claiming Monsanto was trying to control the world's food supply, and now you won't admit it. Instead, you flail about and scream "Read the links!", which come from conspiracy blogs and don't back up your crazy claims.

You can still redeem yourself. Just explain to everyone, in your own words, how Monsanto is controlling the food supply of the entire world. At least Wildcard made an attempt.

 

[mamooth]

If you think it's that simple you're an idiot.

Yet I'm not the one yammering that Monsanto is taking over the world.

Monsanto imposes contracts

Monsanto "imposes" contracts? Fascinating.

and wields patents that forbid farmers from saving seeds year-to-year, a practice that has been part of agriculture for centuries.

And can still be done, if you're not using Monsanto seed.

They demand farmers buy new, expensive seeds each year. And if a farmer stops using Monsanto's patented seeds, they are at risk of breaching their contract.

Well yes, if a contract was signed, that could be the case.

However, want to know the easy way around that?

Don't sign a contract with Monsanto.

Your conspiracy theory hinges on Monsanto somehow being able to "impose" contracts on every farmer in the world. Can you explain the mechanics behind that? Is there perhaps an army of Monsanto thugs making every farmer in the world sign at gunpoint?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Humans are amazing animals that change our planet and food to advance ourselfs. This is why I have no problem with gmo's as we've been doing it for thousands of years anyways.

Silly Matthew, dont you know that Humans have no effect on the earth? Or so I hear when Global Warming is discussed

 

[ClosedCaption]

I have no problem with GMOs. But I think they MUST be labeled...
Of course, we couldn't survive off natural food with 7 billion people on the planet..

Says... guessing

 

[jon_berzerk]

I have no problem with GMOs. But I think they MUST be labeled...
Of course, we couldn't survive off natural food with 7 billion people on the planet..

without it it would take much much more land to accomplish the same thing

which of course leads to more air and ground pollution

less wildlife habitat

and a lot more use of fossil fuels to maintain

but leftards like to have it both ways

some in fact believe that vegetables just appear in the supermarket

as well as electricity just is in the outlet

--LOL

 

[JustAnotherNut]

The Monsanto conspiracy theories are just stupid

They're not plotting to control the world's food supply. Monsanto only dominates in one area, the US market of RRS (roundup ready soybeans). In the corn and wheat market

Guess who first brought up the whole idea of 'conspiracy theories' about Monsanto taking over the world food supply??? and NO, their domination isn't JUST with soybeans, but corn, wheat, sugar beets, alfalfa, canola, cotton and even NON-GMO vegetable seeds as stated here, copy/pasted from Wikipedia

As of 2012, the agricultural seed lineup included Roundup Ready alfalfa; Roundup Ready canola; cotton with Bt, Roundup Ready, or both traits; sorghum hybrids; soybeans with various oil profiles, most with the Roundup Ready trait; Roundup Ready sugarbeet; and a wide range of wheat products, many of which incorporate the nontransgenic "clearfield" imazamox-tolerant[107] trait from BASF.[108]

In 2012 Monsanto was the world's largest supplier of non-GMO vegetable seeds by value, selling $800m of seed. 95% of the research and development for vegetable seed is in conventional breeding and the company is concentrating on improving the taste of several vegetables.[62] According to their website they sell "4,000 distinct seed varieties representing more than 20 species".[116] Broccoli, with the brand name Beneforté, with increased amounts of glucoraphanin, developed by Seminis a subsidiary from Monsanto was introduced in 2010.[117]

they are gaining a controlling interest in global food supply

This was my ONLY contribution to the global food supply issue. Not they are taking it over, but are 'gaining a controlling interest' there is a big difference.

Interesting, how there aren't any conspiracy theories about Syngenta, Bayer CropScience, Dow Agrisciences, BASF, DuPont, or the many other GMO seed producers

Let's see, Bayer, Dow and BASF aren't into seeds. Their interests are in the chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, instecticides, not seeds. DuPont Pioneer is into hybrids and varietal seeds and Syngenta is the other seed producer. That kinda narrows the playing field doesn't it? This leaves DuPont Pioneer and Syngenta as Monsanto's only real competition. Oh and don't forget Monsanto has tried twice now to buy out & take over Syngenta as recent as August 2015. Again using Wikipedia for source.

In 2014, Monsanto sought to acquire Syngenta for a reported $40 billion, but Syngenta rejected the offer.[3][17] Since April 2015 Monsanto and Syngenta had been working with their investment banks Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs respectively on a deal. The U.S. Treasury tried to stop the deal for tax inversion.[18] Syngenta's Board of Directors rejected an even better offer by Monsanto during August 2015, and Monsanto withdrew from the negotiations on 26 August.[19]

Yep, I made a mistake there. Unlike you, I have no trouble admitting to making mistakes. That's why I don't look ridiculous.

In contrast, you made a hilariously stupid mistake by claiming Monsanto was trying to control the world's food supply, and now you won't admit it. Instead, you flail about and scream "Read the links!", which come from conspiracy blogs and don't back up your crazy claims.

You can still redeem yourself. Just explain to everyone, in your own words, how Monsanto is controlling the food supply of the entire world. At least Wildcard made an attempt.

I think most of this has already been covered in the beginning. I wasn't the one that brought it up, nor have I made any such claims thereof. Atleast I had provided links to back up anything I had said. I had tried to provide as reliable of information as available, some of which may very well be questionable, but I did the best I could with what I had to work with. In doing any online research on Monsanto, any information available for use as a resource, actual fact based and unbiased info is near impossible to find.
If any of that makes me 'look ridiculous' or making a 'hilariously stupid mistake' of making 'crazy claims', as you put it.....then so be it. My 'flail about and scream' to read the links, was for you to see for yourself they weren't from 'conspiracy blogs'. And again, I have never once said 'Monsanto was controlling the food supply of the entire world.'

I suggest the next time you decide to take on an argument or debate on a subject, to do your own homework and pay attention to what you say before making any type of claim or comment against anyone else. It also helps for people to take you seriously if you keep the adjectives of scorn to a minimum.

And BTW, I see you've 'edited' your original post. I am glad to see you thought better of attacking my personal integrity and don't ever make that mistake again or I'd have to demand an apology. Just sayin

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Not they are taking it over, but are 'gaining a controlling interest' there is a big difference.

Ya know, I had to go back & rethink this one. Because if Monsanto is the largest seed company in the world and seed = food, then yes I guess I would say they are controlling the world food supply.

 

[Wyld Kard]

If you think it's that simple you're an idiot.

Yet I'm not the one yammering that Monsanto is taking over the world.

Monsanto imposes contracts

Monsanto "imposes" contracts? Fascinating.

and wields patents that forbid farmers from saving seeds year-to-year, a practice that has been part of agriculture for centuries.

And can still be done, if you're not using Monsanto seed.

They demand farmers buy new, expensive seeds each year. And if a farmer stops using Monsanto's patented seeds, they are at risk of breaching their contract.

Well yes, if a contract was signed, that could be the case.

However, want to know the easy way around that?

Don't sign a contract with Monsanto.

Your conspiracy theory hinges on Monsanto somehow being able to "impose" contracts on every farmer in the world. Can you explain the mechanics behind that? Is there perhaps an army of Monsanto thugs making every farmer in the world sign at gunpoint?

Monsanto somehow being able to "impose" contracts on every farmer in the world. Can you explain the mechanics behind that?

Big Ag Forces Farmers to Buy GE Seeds, Report Says

It's not my fault that you're just too damn ignorant to understand WTF is really going on.

 

[mamooth]

You keep evading the question. I'm not asking for more conspiracy links.

Specifically, how does Monsanto force someone to buy their seeds?

Can you name a single marketplace anywhere where Monsanto has a complete monopoly on seeds?

 

[JustAnotherNut]

ok, now you've just fallen into the bizarre and I can only laugh. I can see there is no point in a proper response, which of course would be to REPEAT myself once again. You go back & read thru this whole thread to figure it out for yourself. You can read can't you?

Believe it or not, I've been kinda nice toward you because I like Siamese cats. But beyond that, all I can say is WTF? Are you for real?

 

[Muhammed]

You keep evading the question. I'm not asking for more conspiracy links.

Specifically, how does Monsanto force someone to buy their seeds?

Can you name a single marketplace anywhere where Monsanto has a complete monopoly on seeds?

They sue the fuck out of farmers who save seeds..

 

[mamooth]

But beyond that, all I can say is WTF? Are you for real?

Endlessly declaring victory and evading the point does not impress.

Let's once more return to that point that you're evading so skillfully. Can you name a single area anywhere where farmers are forced to buy seeds from Monsanto?

No? You can't? Then your conspiracy theory is has major flaws.

Why is Monsanto big? It sells a product that farmers want to buy. You don't see the farmers screaming about the evil Monsanto, except for the ones who tried to use Monsanto seed illegally and got caught. You see farmers, who have a choice of products to buy, willingly buying Monsanto's product, because it makes them more money.

Does Monsanto sue people? Yes. If you use their seed illegally, you get sued. That covers people who signed a contract and saved seed, or people who never signed a contract and tried to secretly use Monsanto seed. Given that Monsanto has won all such suits they've filed, it's clear they're not filing such suits frivelously, and that they're on solid legal ground. Again, if you don't want Monsanto to sue you, all you have to do is not use their seed illegally. And if you don't want to buy from Monsanto, you just have to buy from someone else.

Now, if someone would like to intelligently talk about whether anti-trust laws should be invoked, that's a good topic. But as anti-trust laws as a whole in the USA have been gutted and are almost never invoked in any industry, the topic is really whether anti-trust laws as a whole should be strengthened.

And there's also an issue of whether selling a product that's too good needs to be regulated. That is, farmers get bigger crop yields with Monsanto seeds. That increases yields on the whole and drives prices down. If a farmer doesn't also use the Monsanto seeds to get bigger yields, that farmer goes out of business. So should Monsanto be penalized for making a product that's just too damn good?

 

[Wyld Kard]

You keep evading the question. I'm not asking for more conspiracy links.

Specifically, how does Monsanto force someone to buy their seeds?

Can you name a single marketplace anywhere where Monsanto has a complete monopoly on seeds?

You keep evading the question. I'm not asking for more conspiracy links.

Specifically, how does Monsanto force someone to buy their seeds?

Can you name a single marketplace anywhere where Monsanto has a complete monopoly on seeds?

Specifically, how does Monsanto force someone to buy their seeds?

It's about government and control. Monsanto has placed it's "former" employees in key positions in government agencies and departments. It also hires people from these same government agencies and depts.

There is a revolving door between Monsanto and the government that allows it to make laws and block checks and balances on its actives. In other words, whatever Monsanto wants, Monsanto gets.

As I mentioned before, the plan is control the global food supply and through that, the people. Their ownership of the land and, by lawsuit, the independent farmers, means they control what, and how much, is produced.

Can you name a single marketplace anywhere where Monsanto has a complete monopoly on seeds?

Just because Monsanto is the biggest seed company in the world, it does not mean that they have a complete monopoly on seeds in a single marketplace.

 

[jillian]

Kind of amazing, in a some what morbid way.


Menu

What Fruits and Vegetables SHOULD Look Like: Researchers Show How Dramatically We’ve Changed Them

The fruit and veg that graces our plates today would have been unrecognizable to our ancestors, researchers have revealed.

A new series of pictures shows what everything from the watermelon to the banana originally looked like.

Farmers have been developing new ways to improve their crops since the birth of agriculture some 12,000 years ago, and technologies from selective breeding to genetically modifying plants has been used.

According to Bruce Chasey, executive associate director of the Biotechnology Center at the University of Illinois, we altered these plants so much that they developed into crops that would never survive in the wild without human care.

During the 1980s genetic manipulation of foods started to take off when researchers discovered it was possible to transfer specific pieces of DNA from one organism to another.

But it wasn’t until 1994 were these modified foods available to consumers.

Calgene, a biotech research firm in California, unveiled the first genetically engineered crop to the market that year, the Flavr Savr tomato, reported The New York Times.

Our ancient ancestors ‘built’ crops into what they wanted – bigger, tastier and juicer, reported Medical Daily.

‘While GMOs may involve splicing genes from other organisms (such as bacteria) to give plants desired traits – like resistance to pest, selective breeding is a slower process whereby farmers select and grow crops,’ said Tanya Lewisin Business Insider.

Researchers were able to contain the gene that produces a protein that makes tomatoes squishy.

This tomato caused an enormous media stir. ‘The tomato stays riper, longer than the nonengineered variety, and they say it’s tastier,’ Tom Brokaw told his nightly news viewers.

Company officials said every tomato they could get to market was sold.

Here are some other fruits and vegetables that have gotten a complete makeover thanks to years of human cultivation:

Watermelon

Bananna

Read more: What Fruits and Vegetables SHOULD Look Like: Researchers Show How Dramatically We've Changed Them

and absent hybridization, there would be no broccoli.

the question is, is it a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Kind of amazing, in a some what morbid way.


Menu

What Fruits and Vegetables SHOULD Look Like: Researchers Show How Dramatically We’ve Changed Them

The fruit and veg that graces our plates today would have been unrecognizable to our ancestors, researchers have revealed.

A new series of pictures shows what everything from the watermelon to the banana originally looked like.

Farmers have been developing new ways to improve their crops since the birth of agriculture some 12,000 years ago, and technologies from selective breeding to genetically modifying plants has been used.

According to Bruce Chasey, executive associate director of the Biotechnology Center at the University of Illinois, we altered these plants so much that they developed into crops that would never survive in the wild without human care.

During the 1980s genetic manipulation of foods started to take off when researchers discovered it was possible to transfer specific pieces of DNA from one organism to another.

But it wasn’t until 1994 were these modified foods available to consumers.

Calgene, a biotech research firm in California, unveiled the first genetically engineered crop to the market that year, the Flavr Savr tomato, reported The New York Times.

Our ancient ancestors ‘built’ crops into what they wanted – bigger, tastier and juicer, reported Medical Daily.

‘While GMOs may involve splicing genes from other organisms (such as bacteria) to give plants desired traits – like resistance to pest, selective breeding is a slower process whereby farmers select and grow crops,’ said Tanya Lewisin Business Insider.

Researchers were able to contain the gene that produces a protein that makes tomatoes squishy.

This tomato caused an enormous media stir. ‘The tomato stays riper, longer than the nonengineered variety, and they say it’s tastier,’ Tom Brokaw told his nightly news viewers.

Company officials said every tomato they could get to market was sold.

Here are some other fruits and vegetables that have gotten a complete makeover thanks to years of human cultivation:

Watermelon

Bananna

Read more: What Fruits and Vegetables SHOULD Look Like: Researchers Show How Dramatically We've Changed Them

and absent hybridization, there would be no broccoli.

the question is, is it a good thing or a bad thing?

How did you know broccoli was my favorite?

Seriously Jill is it your quest to piss me off in every topic ?