VIVA CHAVEZ! VIVA COMIDA TRADICIONALE!

[nosmokes]

i wonder what this country would look like if we had some leadership that looked after the interest of the people before the corporate interest?


Venezuela to Prohibit Transgenic Crops

BIOX.CN 2006-7-8 12:38:29 来源：生命经纬
　

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Frias has announced that the cultivation of genetically modified crops will be prohibited on Venezuelan soil, possibly establishing the most sweeping restrictions on transgenic crops in the Western Hemisphere. Though full details of the administration’s policy on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are still forthcoming, the statement by President Chavez will lead most immediately to the cancellation of a contract that Venezuela had negotiated with the U.S.-based Monsanto Corporation.

Before a recent international gathering of supporters in Caracas, President Chavez admonished genetically engineered crops as contrary to interests and needs of the nation’s farmers and farmworkers. He then zeroed in on Monsanto’s plans to plant up to 500,000 acres of transgenic soybeans in Venezuela.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

1. Smart man!

People over profits

[redqueen]

2. *sigh*

Why is integrity so hard to find in western societies?

I think it's all the MONEY!

[Viva_La_Revolution]

3. Viva La Chavez!

People before Profits.

:bounce:

[sabbat hunter]

5. chavez

isnt really out for his people in my opinion. i think he is doing these measures as a show to increase dictatorial powers he is trying to gather. politicos in latin american from both the left and right have tended to move that way. it is the more centrist leaders that really are interested in democracy.

[tkmorris]

9. This makes no sense whatsoever

The GM or no GM battles have always been at their core a battle between corporate profits and the welfare of the people. Chavez has taken a firm pro-people stance here and you somehow claim this is undemocratic? That it is somehow designed to increase dictatorial power?

The thinking seems to be that any action that would be popular with the people is bad, since it increases his hold on power. Stated in those terms the argument is so patently absurd as to not be worth further discussion.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

10. what tkmorris said

can you give even one "dictatorial" law he has created?

[Webster Green]

11. "increase dictatorial powers"

What a load of crap.

Your starting position is that he is a dictator. He is not. He has been fairly elected several times.

Just because Pat Robertson and the criminal chimp administration say that Chavez is an evil dictator, doesn't mean it is true. Keep in mind that those assholes lie about everything.

[movonne]

12. I think you are listening to limpballs, that would be his take...I think

that the pendulum swings both ways...right now he has to get his country in order...and then maybe this could happen...some thought this would happen with Roosevelt and maybe it could have, but he did put this country on the right track..drastic measures have to be taken and doing for the poor has to be done..

[sabbat hunter]

17. well for starters

chavez supports e-voting ala diebold. and anyone who doesnt like them should simply not vote.

chavez has done some good things, dont get me wrong, like the oil this past winter for the northeast US.

he wants to make deals with north korea, probably one of the most repressive regimes in the world today.



btw i dont listen to rut lintballs. he makes my ears bleed.


". In January Putin signed legislation regulating nongovernmental organizations that will give 30,000 bureaucrats the option of revoking the registration of any troublesome group. Now Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe are pushing similar legislation"


i dont like the sound of "Revoking registration of troublesome groups" especially when linked with mugabe

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/09/AR2006070900536.html


i hate * with a passion. think robertson should go off somewhere and STFU before he hurts himself.

that doesnt mean i think Chavez is good for Venezuala.

[Vidar]

22. But Venezuala overwhelmingly does, which is what counts.

[movonne]

26. I am sorry if that I made that snarky remark about limpballs..I just

felt that right now that Chavez is the best thing for Venezuela and other countries around him who are trying to change things...some someday things can change..but for now he is in the right place at right time ..

[sabbat hunter]

46. what snarky comment?

limpballs sounds about right to me. i personally prefer rut lintball. somehow it flows nicely.

[Judi Lynn]

32. DU';er Peace Patriot has taken the time over and over to explain

the fact Venezuela uses a transparent source code in elections as opposed to our own. Here's a refresher:

Well, here's another contrast between us and democratic Venezuela: They have open source code in their electronic voting system, that is, the electronic voting system vendors are required to disclose the programming they use for tabulating votes, whereas, in the U.S., two companies with close ties to the Bush Cartel "count" all our votes with "trade secret," proprietary programming code--code so secret that not even our elected secretaries of state are permitted to review it.

How this happened was through a $4 billion appropriation by Bush's and Tom Delay's Congress to "reform" the election system, after the scandal of Florida 2000, which was used to entice the states to purchase "lemon" voting systems from Bush's buddies at Diebold and ES&S electronics companies (and a few others). These are extremely insecure, unreliable, shoddy and, above all, hackable electronic voting systems--with Bush's buddies insisting that the innards of their machines remain a "trade secret" and that their machines do not need a "paper trail" or any means of recounting or auditing the "results" that they produce, and furthermore requiring the states to sign on to permanent and highly expensive "servicing" contracts, whereby private company personnel, who are in the pay of major Bush and far rightwing funders, have continual easy access to the machines, and are the only ones who know how to keep the machines running.

Who would be so insane as to buy such voting systems? Republican election officials who don't believe in democracy, and Democratic election officials who are corrupt (i.e., are being lavishly lobbied*, are getting future job offers, etc.).

Our entire political system--and all of our political representatives--are now beholden to these election officials and to the choices that Diebold and ES&S make for our political system when they tweak their SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code inside their machines (easy as pie--one hacker, a couple of minutes).

This is why Venezuela has a president and a legislature that are representing the majority of Venezuelans--including the vast poor population which has never before been represented in government--while we have criminals, mass murderers, massive thieves and congenital liars ruling over US (and NOT representing us).

If we want to be rid of the extremely corrupt and diabolical "drug war" here (and as perpetrated by the U.S. against others), and if we want to be rid of Bush's war on Iraq, Iran and Syria, and of rule by the rich and murderous, and of DLC Democrats and War Democrats, we MUST try to repair our election system in the only venues where it is still possible--the state and local jurisdictions that still retain the power over election systems, and where ordinary people still have some influence. We need...

Paper ballots hand-counted at the precinct level (--Canada does it in one day, although speed should not even be a consideration, just accuracy and verifiability)

or, at the least...

Paper ballot (not "paper trail") backup of all electronic voting, a 10% automatic recount, very strict security, and NO SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code! (...jeez!).
(snip/)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1785195#1785310

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Absolutely no comparison whatsoever: most people realize it and can't be fooled.

[nosmokes]

16. that may be your opinion, *BUT*

there is no proof of that. every move the man has made the semi-nationalisation of the oil industry to clamping down on the mines that were poisoning the water and the land of the peasant farmers and canceling their contracts until they agreed to renogiate and mitigate environmental damages and pay damages to the farmers. maybe time will prove you right, i dunno. but right now, hugo chavez is the best leader in the western hemisphere for my money.

[Cha]

42. Oh PLEASE!

Give me a break.

[WinkyDink]

64. Bizarre definition of "dictatorship". And if it is, I prefer the Chavez

type TO OURS.

[LittleClarkie]

66. That would depend on their constitution and how much power

it grants him. After all, apparently our government system allowed Bush to limit stem cell research to existing lines. So maybe he already has the power.

I'd like to know either way.

[ThomCat]

4. Another good step from Chavez.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had a president like this?

[FyurFly]

6. n/t

n/t

[RethugAssKicker]

7. Fantastic move !.....

Genetically modified crops is a complicated issue...but most scientists agree that it is a bad thing to do.... and once a food (plant) has been modified...it is lost forever!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

8. Yes, especially since Monsanto has been notorious for

pushing crops that don't produce viable seeds so that farmers are forced to buy from them every year.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

113. An suing farmers for ACCIDENTALLY having the ones that DO in their fields

"Intellectual Property" is actually the WORST poison that comes with GMOs.

You'd have to pay royalties for performing any kind of food growing. It's like taxing people for collecting rain water -- oops, someone tried THAT too, in Bolivia.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. I'm not sure where you're getting your information.

Wither that scientists agree that it's bad, or that the plant is lost forever.

[Igel]

13. It's good for a president to have this kind of authority.

It seems all he needs to do is dictate what can and cannot be grown, and that's that. Really. We like strong, authoritative leaders. Totally.

Seriously ...

Someone tell me that he needed to at least get his legislature to chime in, or that the article overstates the matter.

[Idioteque]

18. It's ok , He's a lefty.

We like it when left wing presidents have unlimited power.

[Joe Chi Minh]

27. You betcha. Specially when they're under siege!

[LittleClarkie]

30. What does being under seige have to do with growing soybeans?

And I ask again, what is the issue with soybeans grown this way? What is the guy trying for? Higher yield? Something else?

[Joe Chi Minh]

105. Precisely nothing. The besieging of left-wing governments, most

notably in South America, by the US State department's emissaries and the CIA's finest, results in the need for left-wing presidents there to seek the widest powers.

It seems to me that Chavez allows an outrageous rump of far-right "beasts of the earth in his country" to continue to own almost all the television stations and doubtless most of the press.

[RethugAssKicker]

110. Genetically modified foods... is a big NO...NO

I do not have the links do some resarch yourself..

Link TV had a great special on this.... It has permanent negative affects!!

[Cha]

61. Damn Straight!

:)

[LittleClarkie]

25. Indeed. Did this go through any kind of legislation?

Or does he just have that power under their constitution?

What if Bush had that kind of power. He could just ban stem cell research.

[Spazito]

52. LOL, or even ignore his own laws and ignore the Geneva Conventions,

the US Code and congress. Hmmmm, gee, bush did exactly that so I guess he has MORE power than Chavez, imagine!

[rucky]

98. It's a contract between Venezuela and Monsanto

you don't need an act of Congress to award a contract, then why would you need one to cancel it?

[Igel]

111. So does that mean that Monsanto

is banned by congressional law, or presidential dictum?

It's a contract, but that doesn't seem to address my concern: Can Monsanto can't be in the country except under contract to the government, and who made up that rule?

At least in Europe we seem to have laws delegating authority to deal with GMOs. Different tradition in S. America, to be sure.

[rucky]

116. Re-read the first paragraph of the article.

it's pretty clear that he intends a nationwide ban - how he's going to get it is "in development". In the meantime, Montsanto is no longer doing business as a government contractor. Two separate things going on in a densely (and poorly) written lead.

I'd wait and see how this ban is implemented before jumping to conclusions.

[Fridays Child]

14. I just keep finding more and more reasons to admire that man.

And other people must feel the same way. I sell more "Viva Venezuela! Viva Chavez!" t-shirts than any other design in my store.

[Joanne98]

19. Monsanto ROT IN HELL!

[LittleClarkie]

23. Why?

Educate me, if you would. What's the malfunction with transgenetic soybeans?

[Joe Chi Minh]

28. Try Agent Orange for a kick-off. I see where your Wes Clark

sympathies come from now.

[LittleClarkie]

29. Excuse me. I didn't know about the Agent Orange connection

And I find your comment about Wes Clark and I to be out of line.

If I hadn't expressed ignorance that might have been one thing. But I don't understand getting slammed for asking a question? Wouldn't you prefer to educate people instead of alienating them, or no?

Do you have an issue with General Clark? Is it his military connection? You do realize that Chavez was in the military as well.

[Joe Chi Minh]

106. It's not his military connection. It's his record of voting for the

Republicans and just about everything else he and it seems to me, his supporters, represent.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm

Read it.

This is now the third time I have had to post this, to enlighten Clarkies, but none so blind...

Also, Clark's vigorous support of the School of the Americas, as reported in this article in Common Dreams:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0117-01.htm

Better still:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1118-12.htm

[LittleClarkie]

112. None so blind

and one who never noticed that the Clarkiest thing about me is my name.

I'm a Kerrycrat, actually.

[Joe Chi Minh]

114. Perhaps I confused you with another poster with Clark in her

username, but sensing that might be the case, your failure to repudiate my accusation straight away, in reply, suggested to me that I was right; now I am baffled at your diffidence. Also, you seem to have corporatist sympathies on this of all threads, which is a further puzzle.

[LittleClarkie]

115. Well, first I had to decifer it. Like I said, I didn't know about Agent

Orange and their connection to this company.

And I didn't know much about his company. Not sympathetic per se, but I wasn't going to jump on them for merely BEING a corporation when I didn't know much about them yet.

I'm not anti-corporate or pro-corporate. Kinda depends upon the corporation in question.

This one isn't sounding too spiffy I must say.

Just tryin' to learn.

I don't know enough about Gen Clark to dispute how you see to feel about him, except that I know his voting record when

Reagan
Bush
Clinton
Gore
Kerry

He was an independant who voted for national security, and under the Clinton admin discovered that the Dems were nothing he'd been told. I accept that he is a true Dem. But beyond that, I don't know enough about him to defend him against any other allegations. I was a nominal Clarkie in the primaries at best, and dubbed myself "a little Clarkie for Kerry" during the general election. Hence the moniker.

I'm neither pro nor anti Chavez either. Some of his supporters bug me more than he does. I'd have to research him more to have a real opinion of him. But I don't like it when people can't criticize someone without being jumped on. I don't even like it when it's Kerry. A civil criticism or question deserves a civil answer.

[Codeine]

78. Monsanto didn't douse VietNam with Agent Orange.

They made a legal, useful herbicide that was not recognized as dangerous at the time. Long-term studies and increased knowledge of the effects of dioxin exposure have shown that it is actually very damaging, but at the time the selection of "Rainbow Herbicides" (Agent Orange was just one of a whole family of chemical compounds) were used in agriculture all over the world.

The US military used it to spray down huge swaths of jungle and farmland, dowsing anyone in the way. Monsanto is no more at fault for that than Ford would be if I took a Taurus and ran you over with it. Blame the military, not Monsanto, Dow, and the other companies that manufactured Agent Orange for the world market.

[LittleClarkie]

84. I'm still not getting the comment against Clark

that seemed odd really. As if Clark's connection with Vietnam meant he was personally dousing people in a chemical he knew to be bad and laughing hysterically as he did so.

Little does the poster know that I'm really more of a Kerrycrat.

[Codeine]

85. Change you name to LittleHugo.

You'll be the hit of the party!

[LittleClarkie]

86. Hugo's my fav rave

Sigh. What a guy.

Yeah, I don't get the adoration either exactly. Even I can admit that ol' John Kerry has his faults.

[rman]

99. What you call "adoration" is in fact "support",

the reasons for which are ignored and/or spun by those who call "support" "adoration".

[Maru Kitteh]

94. Of course not.

They had tests done. You have always deserved more.

[Joe Chi Minh]

104. "In 1984, several chemical companies paid $180m (£93m) to

settle a lawsuit with US war veterans, who said that their health had been affected by exposure to the substance." - from BBC News dated 10 March 2005.

You could have saved those corporations a lot of money, if you'd told them at the time. The vets would have then had to try to sue the government.

[rman]

92. Monsanto:

"We Paid $3 Billion For These Stations. We'll Decide What the News Is."
June 1998

Steve Wilson and Jane Akre, a husband-and-wife investigative reporting team at WTVT, Fox's Tampa Bay affiliate, thought they had a dynamite story: Despite promises to consumers, supermarkets in Florida were selling milk produced with rBGH, a synthetic growth hormone developed by Monsanto that boosts milk production. The use of rBGH causes udder infections in cows, requiring increased use of antibiotics, but the monitoring of antibiotic residues in milk was inadequate, Akre and Wilson found.

Most ominously, the Fox reporters found that some scientists believe that rBGH-boosted milk contains heightened levels of IGF-1, a hormone associated with increased risk of cancer (Science, 1/23/98). Despite Monsanto's claim that rBGH is "the most studied molecule certainly in the history of domestic animal science," no thorough studies exist on whether milk produced with rBGH is carcinogenic.

These are vital facts for consumers in Florida--and around the country--to know. But the story never aired on WTVT, and Wilson and Akre are now out of a job and suing Fox--because of Fox's efforts to alter their story to make it acceptable to Monsanto.

On February 21, 1997, days before the first installment of the rBGH story was scheduled to air, Monsanto sent a letter to Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News. (Ailes was a campaign advisor to Ronald Reagan and George Bush, and the executive producer of Rush Limbaugh's TV show.) The letter questioned Akre and Wilson's "objectivity and capacity for reporting on this highly complex scientific subject," and charged that the reporters "have prejudged the safety of and the corporate behavior of Monsanto." The letter urged Ailes to involve himself directly in an effort to "get the facts straight" about rBGH, hinting none-too-subtly that the alternative would be a massive lawsuit: "There is a lot at stake in what is going on in Florida, not only for Monsanto, but also for Fox News and its owner."

That same day, Akre and Wilson were told that their story was being postponed, and an endless round of revisions, cuts and conferences with lawyers ensued. (The pressure only intensified after Monsanto sent Ailes a second letter warning of "dire consequences for Fox News.") Fox's attitude was made clear by in-house counsel Carolyn Forrest, who reportedly told Akre and Wilson, "I don't think this story is worth going to court and to trial spending a couple of hundred thousand dollars to fight Monsanto." Her position, the reporters say, was that "it doesn't matter if the facts are true"; what mattered was that no story air that could result in a Monsanto lawsuit that wouldn't be immediately dismissed.

In a memo, Akre and Wilson assured station management that they were willing to work with lawyers to produce a balanced and accurate story that would be legally unassailable, but insisted that they could not take part in airing a program that was false or misleading. In response, the reporters allege in their lawsuit against Fox, they were told by station manager David Boylan: "We paid $3 billion for these television stations. We will decide what the news is. The news is what we tell you it is."

After dozens of rewrites, the journalists and the station still couldn't agree on a version of the report that everyone was happy with. Fox didn't seem to want to kill the piece, but that appears to have been more about fear of bad PR than about a commitment to report the news: At one point the station offered to pay Wilson roughly $125,000, if he would just go away and never tell anyone how the story had been handled. He turned down the offer.

After Keystone Kops-like personnel maneuvers in which the couple were variously suspended without pay, suspended with pay and forbidden to work out of the studio, Fox eventually notified them by fax that they were both fired on November 30, 1997. The station never aired any version of the story they had produced.

All this has come to light because of Akre and Wilson's lawsuit against the Fox affiliate, charging breach of contract and violation of Florida's whistleblower protection act. How far the suit will get is unclear: Courts have been rightly reluctant to second-guess news judgments made by media owners. But regardless of its outcome, the filing of the suit has shed light on the cowardice and compromise often exhibited by news outlets in the face of corporate pressure.

Many of the central documents in the case are on a website posted by Akre and Wilson (www.foxbghsuit.com). Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly has an excellent summary of the scientific questions about rBGH posted at www.monitor.net/rachel/r593.html.

Please ask your local news outlets to cover the health effects of rBGH, and Monsanto's efforts to suppress such questions.


http://www.foxbghsuit.com/
http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/home.htm#FOX

[stepnw1f]

20. A Good Smart Leader

Righties hate him, because they are Bad Dumb people.

[LittleClarkie]

21. What exactly are genetically engineered crops

Seedless oranges?

Extra big apples?

What's different about transgenic soybeans?

[nosmokes]

33. try round-up ready crops, for starters, which allow farmers to apply tons

more poison to the soil which eventually leaches into the water and it's also in the air and it's creasting super weeds which are also round-up resistant, even though everyone was told it would never happen, but it has, and continues. and the corporations own the patent to a life form, which depending on the judge, can maake saving seed a crime, which could force poor farmers in the 3rd world to buy their seeds every year at whatever price chevron or gentech or syngenta or monsanto decided to sell them at. add to that the fact that absolutely no longterm testing has ever been done on these organisms before they were released into the world, so we really don't know what the ramifications of a lifelong diet of GMO foods is. and that's just a little bit, for starters.

[LittleClarkie]

34. Okay, that's what some corporations do. Is that what this one is doing?

Or are we assuming because they're talking genetics and they're a corporation, that this is what they're doing?

[nosmokes]

36. round-up is monsanto.

look, if you think consuming GMOs is a good thing then they're all over your supermarket, have at. your tax dollars subsidise the corpoations that profit from them, so you're paying for them twice. enjoy the hell outta them! really, i mean it. don't let the fact that 1500 sheep died in idia after eating GMO cotton deter you. now the exact cause of the death of those sheep is still being investigated, but the only common denominator was the Bt cotton.

me and my family, i'll stick with organics, TYVM.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. I still haven't seen a reliable source for this sheep kill thing.

Sounds like crop circles and UFOs to me.

[LittleClarkie]

45. What was the original source? The one you consider unreliable?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, excuse this city folk for asking, sheep eat cotton?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. I think it was a thread nosmokes started.

I could be wrong about the OP, but the only "news" source I saw was from an anti-GM site.

[LittleClarkie]

44. I'M ASKING QUESTIONs. DO YOU MIND IF I ASK QUESTIONS?

Geez, jump on a person what don't you.

[nosmokes]

63. i wasn't jumping on ya, honest. not intentionally anyhow.

one major problem with GMOs is taking genes from one species andinserting them into another. as for the cross pollination, there have already been cases, notably one in canada, where a farmer growing standard canola had his field contaminated with pollen from a neighboring farm's GMO canola owned by monsanto. monsanto sued the farmer who had done nothing but plant a crop of standard canola, and, amazingly enough, they won the suit in the canadian courts. as for the sheep in india, i have posted the three different article here that i've run across. all three cite the one source that does not blame the Bt cotton, but does point out that the only thing in common among the 1500 sheep is they all ate the Bt cotton, while down the road and across the road the sheep that ate non Bt cotton were fine. this was backed up by a provincial or local government government observer, but investigations as to the cause of death were still ongoing last i heard anything about it. the wahrrengi district of the indian sub-continent is not exactly times square, and getting news into or out of there isn't the easiest job in the world i imagine. but if hafta wait for something to come out on MSM before you consider it credible, then this country elected bush twice, and i don't believe that any more than i believe in crop circles.

[LittleClarkie]

65. Sorry if I assumed

Up thread someone made a snarky comment about my support for General Clark, assuming apparently that I already knew about the connection between this corporation and Agent Orange and thought it was all just spiffy. So I was probably reading something into your reply that wasn't there.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

68. That's not true.

Re: the farmer in Canada. The farmer claimed that he was the victim of cross-pollination, but Monsanto proved in court that he in fact had been hoarding seeds in order to avoid paying royalties.

I've been reading your threads on the Indian sheep kill. There were 3 threads, but they call cited the same source as a reference. I still haven't seen anything in a credible source or, more importantly, a peer reviewed scientific journal.

[nosmokes]

72. i never saw anything about him hoarding seeds, or it being proved.

d'ya have a link or anything?
on the Indian sheep kill. There were 3 threads, but they call cited the same source as a reference. I still haven't seen anything in a credible source or, more importantly, a peer reviewed scientific journal.

yes, that's what i said. read my post.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

73. ...

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v19/n5/full/nbt0501_396.html

[nosmokes]

77. thanks, but that really proves my point.

he was *hoarding* his own seeds from his crop that was contaminated by a neighbor's round-up ready crop. god it's been so long, i do remember that now. and it's still a fucked up ruling IMO. but thanks for posting it

as for the sheep thing here's a link to a guardian story that also links to GMwatch, which, while anti- GMO, is fairly thouroughly documented, and tracks the fact that some of the sheep were "autopsied" at government clinics. what i can't find, and would love to see, is any results from those necropsies.

enjoy!

http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,,1770903,00.html

edit to correct link

[Codeine]

80. No, that was his claim.

The article states pretty clearly that his crop was too perfect in quality to have been the result of cross-pollination. He was saving the GM seeds, to which he did not own or license the technology.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

82. You've misread.

He claimed that it was his own crop, a claim that was dismissed, when in fact it was somebody else's that he used purposefully to infringe.

Yeah, I saw your guardian story last time. It's only source is the same one you've been posting.

[nosmokes]

91. from the article re:the canola

*in a separate report released early this year by the Royal Society of Canada (Ottawa, Ontario) but which is not part of the trial record, experts note that throughout Western Canada "herbicide-resistant volunteer canola plants are beginning to develop into a major weed problem." This Expert Panel Report on the Future of Food Biotechnology also points to the "inherent difficulties in the containment of genetic material in the context of normal farming practices in which literally millions of small seeds are produced and harvested over large areas. . .."*

now i know monsanto won the suit, and i grant you that schmieser could well have been treying to pull a fast a fast one on monsanto. i also think it's just as likely that he wasn't, and from the get-go, one poor bastard sodcutter out on the canadian prairie never had a chance against monsanto and the big guns they brought to bear against him.

as for the sheep, ionly post what i run across. i've never said the Bt cotton caused their death, but it certainly can't be ruled out, and it does appear to be a prime suspect as of now. but that's a remote region of india, and news and information doesn't flow in and out of there speedily or regularly.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

40. That's not really how it works, is it.

Roundup ready crops allow farmers to apply herbicides to their crops and kill the weeds, and not kill the crops. As opposed to spraying the field with roundup first to kill the weeds, then planting the crops.

Roundup resistant crops don't really have anything to do with the round-up ready, since weeds would develop resistance anyway.

Saving a seed isn't a crime, saving Monsanto seeds without paying for it is a crime. You can't burn and sell CD's either. Big deal.

And this "lifelong" ramifications thing is a cop out. GM foods haven't been around a life time yet.

There's plenty of good reasons not to like Monsanto, you haven't listed them.

[LittleClarkie]

48. I'm not an organic person

So I guess I'm uneducated on the subject. But I'm not getting educated by asking questions in this thread. For some reason, instead, I'm getting yelled at. It's frustrating.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. Welcome to the GM foods debate.

Little or no science, and a whole lot of misinformation and screaming.

[LittleClarkie]

50. I guess I thought genetically modified foods were seedless oranges

and stuff like that. I know that there are genetically modified foods that are altered to taste crummy to insects, essentially enhancing a naturally occuring chemical.

I'll have to go and see if I can read up on the subject, since I'm not getting informed here.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. Yup.

But as we all know, seedless oranges kill puppies and orphans.

[LittleClarkie]

53. Yup.

I want my apples to be mealy and small. They're so much better than those big ones.

Let's see. I think orange tomatoes that are low acid were genetically created too. I suppose most of that was done through cross pollination though, which might be different from what we're talking about here, if they're working with the genes themselves.

[manic expression]

79. More like starlink corn

Basically, when you modify a food, you can put stuff into it that carries a ton of very bad effects on the consumer and on the environment. For instance, a company put genes from a Brazil nut into another food. How is this bad? If someone with nut allergies consumes it, they could very well have an allergic reaction and not even know why.

The biggest problem is that there is very little evidence either way, primarily because there is a complete absence of labelling. Therefore, if there are more bad effects we are not privy to, there is no way to find out.

Another facet to this is how it affects the environment. For instance, there have been strains of produce which have been created which are resistant to pests. How is this bad? Well, the pests will build up a resistance to it and then there is no way to stop them.

Those are a few examples.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

83. That's about the worst example I've heard of...

the brazil nut case. Notice the brazil nut product never made it past testing. Which sort of disproves the argument about how these things are never tested.

As for the resistance problem, wouldn't spraying the field be a far more environmentally damaging process and more likely to promote resistance than having the Bt actually in the corn?

[manic expression]

88. Worst example

as in worst case, or bad example? The product didn't make it past testing, but it still ended up in people's foods, which sort of disproves the argument that they can be managed responsibly. Secondly, the testing they do carry out is not sufficient at all.

No, spraying is not nearly as damaging. Spraying is done periodically, while having resistant corn is constant. It would be like a continuous wave of spray on a field. So having resistant corn is much, much more damaging than spraying.

[Dunedain]

96. Total hyperbole

"It would be like a continuous wave of spray on a field."

Honestly, have you ever even seen a farm before?

[sabbat hunter]

89. seedless oranges

are actually a natural genetic mutation. any naval orange tree around today is from a cutting of that original tree.

other seedless fruits have been altered genetically or have had a chemical sprayed on them to prevent seeds from being formed.

[Joe Chi Minh]

107. Nor is Blair's government. But they won't allow GM food to be

served in the restaurants in parliament. And frankly, I'd be surprised if the fare wasn't organic.

But as for the populace, the people they serve. Well, under Blair's aegis, they're going to come a distant second to the likes of Monsanto, aren't they?

[Vidar]

24. Looking out for his farmers & people, opposing foreign monopolists,

what a horrible man Chavez is!

[LittleClarkie]

31. Why did they negotiate a deal with Monsanto in the first place?

I don't get that.

[Vidar]

37. My guess is that the contract didn't take place on Chavez' watch,

but I'm not sure.

[LittleClarkie]

43. I dunno. Chavez has been on this watch for a while now

I'd have to double check, but I thought he's been prez since 2000.

[Judi Lynn]

35. Venezuela: Chavez Dumps Monsanto

Venezuela: Chavez Dumps Monsanto
By Jason Tockman
Green Left Weekly
May 5, 2004

~snip~
The international peasants’ organisation Via Campesina, representing more than 60 million farmers and farmworkers, had brought the issue to the attention of the Chavez administration when it learned of the contract with Monsanto. According to Rafael Alegria, secretary for international operations of Via Campesina, both Monsanto and Cargill are seeking authorisation to produce transgenic soy products in Venezuela.

“The agreement was against the principles of food sovereignty that guide the agricultural policy of Venezuela”, said Alegria when informed of the president’s decision. “This is a very important thing for the peasants and indigenous people of Latin America and the world.”

Alegria has good reason to be concerned. With a long history of social and environmental problems, Monsanto won early international fame with its production of the chemical Agent Orange — the Vietnam War defoliant linked to miscarriages, tremors, and memory loss that more than 1 million people were exposed to. More recently, the company has been criticised for side-effects that its transgenic crops and bovine growth hormone (rBGH) are believed to have on human health and the environment.

Closer to home in Venezuela, Monsanto manufactures the pesticide “glyphosate”, which is used by the neighbouring Colombian government as part of its Plan Colombia offensive against coca production and rebel groups. The Colombian government aerially sprays hundreds of thousands of acres, destroying legitimate farms and natural areas like the Putomayo rainforest, and posing a direct threat to human health, including that of indigenous communities.

“If we want to achieve food sovereignty, we cannot rely on transnationals like Monsanto”, said Maximilien Arvelaiz, an adviser to Chavez. “We need to strengthen local production, respecting our heritage and diversity.”
(snip/...)

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/tncs/2004/0505venezuela.htm

[Cha]

39. ..

:D Now I want to go down there even more! I'd like to hear Chavez disparagers knock that one.

[Cha]

38. "VIVA COMIDA TRADICIONALE!"

You said it, nosmokes! Viva Chavez!

[Anarcho-Socialist]

54. erm...

..aren't most organisms genetically-modified from generation to generation? :shrug:

[LittleClarkie]

55. I'm trying to get a clarification about exactly what we're talking about

If we're talking taking genes from one plant and inserting them into another, that might be one thing.

If we're talking about mating plants together to get things like seedless oranges and cucumbers, or really big apples, that might be something different.

I dunno. So far folks in this thread aren't being terribly informative.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

57. I have that confusion too

I hear lots of vage anti-GM talk but no specifics from verifiable mainstream sources or professional peer-review journals.

I have no idea to what the term "genetically-modified" applies in this sense.

[LittleClarkie]

58. Here's a Wikipedia article I just found

It should shed some light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenic_plants

[Anarcho-Socialist]

59. Thanks for the link

I actually think the concept is a good idea if it can solve food shortages. I know the article mentions possible ecological effects, but the most hysteric mutterings have mentioned supposed negative effects on humans' health, although I haven't heard any specific examples thus far (so I'll take those with a pinch of salt).

[Joe Chi Minh]

108. I don't know about Monsanto's GM ministrations, but such

items as pig's gene's, genes from fish, even human genes have been inserted into different species - even vegetables, I think. One was to make the organism glow in the dark!

But the most worrying aspect of the procedure generally is that it accelerates a process that nomally takes millions of years, and scientists don't know what happens at the molecular level.

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/quantumbiology.htm

[malaise]

56. Great news

Viva Chavez!

[Tsiyu]

60. A bit of reading on GMO's

This is an important stance by Chavez.

Monsanto operates under the Slash and Burn philosophy of outfits like Enron, Halliburton and Pfizer.

Make a crapload of money for a few slick individuals and don't even think for a second about the longterm consequences of your fail-safe, get-rich-quick schemes.

Men and women are rabidly trying to re-create the Titanic experience, taking the whole world for a voyage with this latest GMO scheme.



From the Guardian:


GM crops created superweed, say scientists

Paul Brown, environment correspondent
Monday July 25, 2005
The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1535428,00.html

Modified genes from crops in a GM crop trial have transferred into local wild plants, creating a form of herbicide-resistant "superweed", the Guardian can reveal.
The cross-fertilisation between GM oilseed rape, a brassica, and a distantly related plant, charlock, had been discounted as virtually impossible by scientists with the environment department. It was found during a follow up to the government's three-year trials of GM crops which ended two years ago.

The new form of charlock was growing among many others in a field which had been used to grow GM rape. When scientists treated it with lethal herbicide it showed no ill-effects.


Unlike the results of the original trials, which were the subject of large-scale press briefings from scientists, the discovery of hybrid plants that could cause a serious problem to farmers has not been announced.


snip ( guess you wondered why you never heard? :eyes: )






From New Scientist:

Crops 'widely contaminated' by genetically modified DNA


16:43 23 February 2004
NewScientist.com news service
Fred Pearce




GM Foods, New Scientist
US scientists are warning of a potentially "serious risk to human health" after the discovery that traditional varieties of major American food crops are widely contaminated by DNA sequences from GM crops.

Crops engineered to produce industrial chemicals and drugs - so-called "pharm" crops - could already be poisoning ostensibly GM-free crops grown for food, warns the study by the Washington-based Union for Concerned Scientists, released on Monday.

"If genes find their way from pharm crops to ordinary corn, they or their products could wind up in drug-laced corn flakes," says the report's co-author, UCS microbiologist Margaret Mellon.

In trials, crops have been genetically engineered to manufacture proteins for healing wounds and treating conditions such as cystic fibrosis, cirrhosis of the liver and anaemia; antibodies to fight cancer and vaccines against rabies, cholera and foot-and-mouth disease. Conventional drugs manufacture is subject to stringent controls to prevent them entering the food chain or contaminating the natural environment. But there are currently no such controls to prevent the spread of DNA sequences from pharm crops.

snip


From Africa:


Ethiopia: The Controversy Over Genetically Modified Crops




The Reporter (Addis Ababa)

ANALYSIS
July 1, 2006
Posted to the web July 3, 2006

Melaku Demissie


Apart from other problems related to GMOs, researchers say that GM crops will foster dependence on a corporate seed supply. Most GM seed manufacturing companies prohibit farmers from saving their on-farm produced seeds for the next season and from sharing them with their neighbors, relatives and friends. This is imposed through elaborate contracts, agreements, and conditions, which are imposed by the multinational GM seed companies.

There is a study that says that more than 80 percent of the small-scale farmers in Africa today save their on-farm produced seeds for the next season. Farmers sometimes do this because they do not have enough money to buy new seeds and sometimes because they value their own seeds. Also, seed sharing is a crucial norm in many African communities. The fear is that the introduction of GM seeds will jeopardize these traditional and vital practices.

One of the greatest fears in the business of the GMOs is a question of patent right. Mr. Zachary Makanya says that transnational corporations own nearly 100 percent of the agricultural biotechnology patents and the majority of these are controlled by a handful of pesticide corporations. These companies will use their patents to block research that does not suit their interests and to trap farmers into paying them royalities every year on seeds and into a never-ending dependence on their chemical inputs.

An Ethiopian environmentalist, Ayele Kebede, from Forum for Environment, in his paper presented last week at a workshop on 'Impact of GMOs on Environment and Seed Diversity,' says that the free exchange of seeds among farmers has been the basis of biodiversity and food security for millennia. "It gaves us the diversity of plants that provides us nutrition. But by 1990, biotechnology became more profitable than chemical weapons."

snip

http://allafrica.com/stories/200607030304.html


Edit: Somehow it posted before I was finished!

Anyhoo, there are many concerns with GMOs, and anyone who can DU and has questions can also Google.

[LittleClarkie]

62. Does he have the power to ban this, or does it legally have to go through

the legislature first.

I suppose it's akin to Bush banning stem cell research except for existing lines, but then I'm not sure what the legal path of that was either.

[Tsiyu]

67. Wow. That is slick

First, you claim ignorance on GMOs and say no one is explaining them.

I post some articles explaining the hazards of GMOs,, and you immediately switch to asking a political question.

Can Chavez, like **, not take a stance he expects his fellow politicians to support?

** makes statements about all the crap he's going to do, and generally congress goes along. Dictatorship? Partisan politics?

If Chavez takes a stand, based on the advise and consent of experts on his nation's agriculture, I would think that is highly legal.

So what have you got next? "Is he still beating his wife?" "What color underwear does Chavez wear?" "Does he ever speak English?"

I can't wait.

:eyes:

[LittleClarkie]

69. Thank you for your article. So, do you know what powers he has in

his constitution or not? Someone calling it dictitorial, and actually I posted the next question that was in my mind because some are calling him dictitorial, but since I'm ignorant of their constitution, I reckoned that perhaps he actually does have that power under their form of government, the way Bush seemed to under ours, though, as I say, I'm not sure how it worked in that case either.

If you don't know how Venuzuelan governance works, I can go elsewhere. Just thought I'd ask and possibly counter the "dictator" accusation.

But hey, if you'd rather accuse me of things instead, knock yourself out.

I'm not claiming ignorance. I AM FUCKING IGNORANT ON THIS SUBJECT. YA WANN HELP A GAL OUT OR WHAT?

I'M ASKING QUESTIONS, HOPING TO LEARN. WHY IS THAT A PROBLEM?

[Tsiyu]

70. Why are you yelling?

I just think you're pretty slick.

And you know, I always find research cures the worst ignorance.

Try Google.

It is your friend.

Peace

[LittleClarkie]

74. Slick implies I'm up to something I'm not. That's why I'm yelling.

So, what did you mean by slick, then? Are you trying to tell me you meant something positive by that comment? It sure didn't come across that way.

So, do you really think the Venezuelan Constitution is online somewhere?

I can tell you right now I'm not going to have the patience to read the fucker if it is. I was sorta hoping somebody just knew. Or would you rather not counter the "dictator" meme?

I'm not buying the "he's under siege" rationale. Or the "it's okay he's a lefty" rationale. I would buy the "he has the right to do what he does under the Venezuelan Constitution" rationale however.

[Codeine]

75. There's no room for middle ground with these folks, LC

You either have to grovel and tug your forelock every time Hugo Chavez is mentioned or you're accused of mounting some kind of attack on him. There's a very real Cult of Personality about the man around these parts, I'm afraid -- far too many folks think he can do no wrong. The Right is the same way about Reagan, I suppose.

All I can suggest is that you try to do your research away from the shrill harpies, make your own decision based on real information, and if you come to a different conclusion than they do -- fuck 'em. Life's too short to let yourself get wound up on a message board, even a great message board like DU. :)

[LittleClarkie]

81. Thanks. I'd like a nice objective source. I wonder if Wikipedia would be

a good place to start.

[diamidue]

103. Monsanto Potatoes are registered as Pesticides with EPA

Probably not the "scientific" info you are looking for, but one of my favorite Monsanto articles:

from the New York Times Sunday Magazine 1998:

http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/PlayingGodintheGarden.htm

"Were I to save even one of them to plant next year --something I've
routinely done with potatoes in the past -- I would be breaking Federal
law. The small print in the Grower Guide also brought the news that my
potato plants were themselves a pesticide, registered with the
Environmental Protection Agency".

yummm. Monsanto potatoes. So toxic they have to be labeled as pesticides.

[Rainscents]

71. WOW... I LOVE YOU, CHAVEZ!!!

Good for him!!!

[Codeine]

76. He's the ginchiest!

Christ, it's like a bunch of schoolgirls at a Beatles concert in '63 when ol' Hugo comes up. "I love you!" I don't love *any* politician, Left or Right. Senor Chavez didn't come to power on a wave of goodness and purity, he's a power-seeker like every other leader out there. A healthy skepticism about the motives of anyone in power is a good thing.

[gordianot]

87. Correct 100%

[1932]

93. real progressive heroes are hard to find these days, so you'll have to

excuse everyone's enthusiasm.

And skepticism is a fine thing, but it's just a start. Once you said you're a skeptic you need to go out and get some information and figure out the facts. Here's a post with a lot of facts about why Venezuela is on the right track. You can't just keep posting over and over again that your skeptic. Start making arguments. That your a skeptic isn't an argument remotely interesting to anyone. It's a personal statement.

[Judi Lynn]

95. Clearly the case. Anyone who has the wherewithal to start doing some

actual reading and rsearching on the subject is going to have some positions based on FACTS.

From what I've seen of the progressive people here, they seem to be the ones who have the focus and inclination to find out what they can about subjects. Simple minded, emotion-feeding idiots find the right-wing far more comfortable.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Marr]

102. I agree with you completely.

The sort of gushing people do for their perceived political allies around here sometimes just puts me off. If there *is* a small percentage of the left that supports authoritarianism, as John Dean mentioned in that interview yesterday, it's got to be the "gushers".

I support Chavez, personally. I think he's serving the greater good in Venezuela and helping alot of people who haven't been helped by the system in a very long time, if ever. But I don't trust anyone in a position of power.

[Dinger]

90. Yes! Thank You Mr. Chavez! K & R! (nt)

[eviltwin2525]

97. Mons(ters)anto is the abomination to end all abominations

Viva Chavez! Viva Trotsky! (OK, I just watched "Frida" and can't help myself!) Viva la evolution!

[diamidue]

101. old news

Chavez was saying this back in 2004:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/tncs/2004/0505venezuela.htm

By the way, I love this man. ;o)

[Dutch]

109. Viva Chavez! nt