Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Activists storm field, crush GM maize (Italy)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
ensho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:00 AM
Original message
Activists storm field, crush GM maize (Italy)

http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/collection/rubriche/engl...


A group of 70 no global activists on Monday staged a lightening strike against a field of genetically modified (GM) maize, crushing all the plants and effectively preventing their harvest.

The GM crop at Vivaro, near the northeastern town of Pordenone, has been at the centre of a storm for the last two weeks, after the farmer who planted the maize, Giorgio Fidenato, announced it was ready to be harvested.

-snip-

An umbrella organization coordinating efforts against the crops, the Task Force for an Italy Free of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), which represents 27 conservation, farming and environmental associations, called for the "immediate destruction of fields where GM maize is grown".

It warned of a "devastating impact on the local environment, wild fauna and the crops of other farmers" if pollen from the maize was allowed to disperse.

-snip-

As the second-largest producer of organic crops in Europe and the fourth largest in the world, there is widespread fear of the potential damage resulting from accidental GM contamination.
-------------------------------

the organic farmers have a right to be angry

hugs for activists against GM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
1. Woo hoo!
:woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
33. Criminal actions are alright when you agree with them? Nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. They are to me.
It's called civil disobedience. It's how our country was founded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. It was a private farmer who planted it not the government
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 02:02 PM by Confusious
You're all for the destruction of others people's property? The people who smash shit up at the WTO meetings are heroes in your eyes?

The people who organize those protests always condem those destroying property. Are they wrong in your eyes?

Should we go smashing others stuff up when we disagree with them?

I don't like GM food, but I find your attitude disturbing. It doesn't win people who are on the sidelines to our side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. That Monsanto crap blows in the air and pollutes real crops. Unless
the Monsanto crap has a dome put over its field, I say, yeah. Civil disobedience all the way!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. Civil disobedience only applies to a government
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 02:03 PM by Confusious
It's nothing more then vandalism.

There is no such thing as civil disobedience when it applies to an individual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #43
65. I suggest you read up on Ghandi or
Martin Luther King.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 02:35 AM
Response to Reply #65
69. That would be non-violence right?
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 02:40 AM by Confusious
Don't really see that here. I see violence used to destroy a private individuals property.

I don't really remember the protesters smashing up coffee shops to protest segregation.

Maybe you need to re-read about them.

Using two leaders who advocated non-violence to justify violence. Can you go any lower?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 02:43 AM
Response to Reply #69
70. Here's the problem - the farmer that is planting this nasty stuff
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 02:44 AM by truedelphi
Is either unaware of the fact that what is planted inside the borders of "his property" can be spread via the wind to crops all over the area, or doesn't care.

Were the governments not corruptly selling out to the backroom bribes and campaign monies of Monsanto, the governments would stop the spread of the GM crops.

But the governments are bought out.

So people who realize the importance of allowing the conventional seed and crops to survive are basically forced to hurt this person's property in order to stop the spread of the FrankenFood seed.

I mean, if a car was parked in your neighborhood, with a bomb inside it, and the bombers had bought out your police department, wouldn't you want some individual to come along and smash open the car and defuse the bomb? Or would you be more concerned with the value of this person's car?

The people tearing out the crop are trying to protect all of us.

Even people who do not understand the many real dangers of the Frankenfood seeds and crops.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #70
85. Not that I like GM
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 01:44 PM by Confusious
But you keep trying to equate it to other stuff to justify it. governments have sold out (No proof BTW). It's civil disobedience. Gandhi and Dr. King (That one is sad and a twist, BTW). a bomb.

All extremely poor justifications. How long until that justification comes back and bites you in the ass?

You're justifying every violent action that happens, just because "you say so." I see double standards are alive and well. If you want to go down that path, here are a few more for you:

factory farms: Mostly private, go bust a few up because they pollute
BP gas stations: Mostly private, BP pollutes, go bust a few up
regular farms: Mostly private, go bust a few up because they dump nitrates into the ocean killing large swaths.
pharmacies: Mostly private, they sell drugs from the pharma companies.

Shit, why don't you trash your neighbors house every time he says something you don't like?

If the crop was ready to be harvested, the damage was already done. or don't you know anything about plants? The things that you say would happen had already happened.

There was no point to it then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #85
91. No proof of government sell out?
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 01:53 PM by truedelphi
No proof?

There are at least serious indications. Please consider them.

Have you ever seen any of DU'er's Octafish many posts about the heavy duty links between Goldman Sachs and the Bush/Obama appointees of the various top economic posts (i.e. Paulson, at Treasury, Bernanke at Treasury.)

Do a google search with "Democraticunderground" + "Ocatfish" as your terms and you will see what I mean.

Also the FDA chairman Mike Taylor, who is a Monsanto clone.

And Secretary of Ag Velsick, who is also a Monsanto man.

Meanwhile decent researchers leave the country and live in China so they can do their research unhindered by Monsanto forces.

Perhaps the most corrupting force between the major governments of the world and the major CorpoRATions is the revolving door - you give the politicians what they need during the campaign season, and then you get to "suggest" to them who they will appoint.

For instance, one of the best documented of these tidy little arrangements happens to be the NutraSweet (copyright) - Aspartime fix that was in during the Reagan era.

You can google "Reagan" + "Nutrasweet" and find pages and pages referencing what happened there. (I mean, I cannot tell you what happens between Mike Taylor, various Monsanto people and Obama or Rahm, at this precise point in time, as no one is talking YET! But going back in time, people can realize what happened then and what is probably happening now.)

Despite distinguished experts testifying as to the severe and various dangers of Aspartame, especially in the developing brains of children under the age of five, and the potential for real harm to fetuses in the womb, and their pleas that the government at least put Surgeon General warnings on diet products that contain these nasties, the bought-out FDA went ahead and told Congress that it would pose no risk to the population.

Do you really think that the same thing is not happening now?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #91
92. This is italy, not the United States or China.
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 02:05 PM by Confusious
logical fallacy. One does not equal the other.

Even if it were true, it is still not a justification. (You're just making a case for every vigilante out there.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #92
93. Yeah, it is Italy.
Home to the Mafia.

Pretty hard to figure out that Italy is not corrupt. (I mean, the Mafia is the common guy's response to the shakedown that the Sicilians were facing from the Italian overlords.

Oh and the Catholic Church, the major protector of the many pedophiles calling themselves priests, is also located there. (Though they set up a different government, The Vatican, to run their games.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #93
96. Yes I'm sure the mafia is shaking people down

and forcing them to plant GM crops.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #69
81. No such thing as "violence" against a plant. Or do you not mow a lawn?
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 07:59 AM by WinkyDink
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #81
84. So smashing someone's window isn't violence?
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 01:31 PM by Confusious
Boy, really twisting hard aren't you. How do you get out of that double standard pretzel?

It was someone else's window.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #84
110. Confusious, right now the real experts on property rights are the farmers
Who got flummoxed into signing contracts with Monsanto. And even farmers who don't sign contracts with Mosnnato but are in the vicinity are affected.

Please google "Schmeiser," a brave Canadian farmer who spent a small fortune to hold on to his farm.

The way it works is this: should any pollen blow into the fields of a farm that doesn't hold the contracted rights to have Frankenfood seed on their land, Monsanto will take that farmer to court even though the source of the seed was from someone else's adjoining pasture. The farmer can lose their entire farm to Monsanto. Or if they win in court then they have to pay tons of money to attorneys, so often they lose the farm to the lawyers.

It is really ironic that you cite your great concern for property rights when talking about Monsanto seed and crops...However those of in the know can not be disgusted with the protesters that did the world a good deed by destroying the crops that would have ended up contaminating acres even as far as 500 miles away from that particular field.

They are to be commended, in my book.

The pollen should be illegal. not the acts of protesters saving the Good Earth from further contamination. (Indie scientists now know that the contamination by glyphosate lasts as long as a decade, and causes the impairment of major organs to mammals who eat the crops.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #110
120. I don't care if you agree with it
Edited on Fri Aug-13-10 12:32 AM by Confusious
I don't care if I agree with it.

It's wrong.

You're defending mob violence.

Schmeiser, read it, he won.

If they didn't want pollen blowing into their fields, they're a little late. Do I need to explain the reproductive process of plants? Seems there are very few who know it around here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-14-10 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #120
132. You need to understand who the real criminal against
The concept of Private Property happens to be.

In one word: Monsanto.

And yes, the pollen blowing around should have been stopped by day one.

And people have been tearing apart the fields by day one. And getting arrested. And getting bad press. But it was the governments dropping the ball on this that allows for the fact that the genie was let out of the bottle. There are over two hundred million acres under cultivation currently, due to the government's being bought out.

By the way, I made the remark about how pollen (once it is out in the atmosphere) cannot be regulated, about nine years ago at a very important Board of Supervisors (Marin County, Calif.)
How you arrived at the notion that I do not understand how pollen replicates, I don't know.

I was talking about that ten years ago.

Anyone you should do yourself and everyone on DU a favor and watch "The World According to Monsanto."

A lot of people don't understand that once the pollen is out there there is no getting it back.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #39
44. We closed down the WTO with civil disobedience for an entrie day.
One of the proudest moments of my life. The problem isn't civil disobedience, the problem is civil obedience.

Read this-
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/CivilObedience_Z...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. Another person who doesn't get it
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 02:05 PM by Confusious
It wasn't the government who planted it. It was a private farmer.

Is smashing other people's windows you don't agree with 'civil disobedience?'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #45
49. It depends on whose windows.
Did you read the speech, or just gloss over it? When a privet railroad carries bombs made by a manufacturer for the government to use on innocent people, is laying down on those tracks to stop the train an act of civil disobedience or interfering with privet property?

It's simply not as black and white as you'd like to make it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. When a corporation makes things for the government
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 02:15 PM by Confusious
it is the government. No I didn't read it, you make no sense.

As some else said in the article "The agriculture minister likened it to raids carried out by fascists thugs"

Where do you want to stop? Beat up those that disagree with you? Do what I want or I'll smash up your property?( well, you're already advocating that. )

A private individual is different then a corporation or the government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Is Monsanto a privet individual? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. They didn't plant the crop, a private farmer did.
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 02:18 PM by Confusious

I keep saying that, and you don't seem to be able to understand it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #45
62. It was self defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. Right
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 12:13 AM by Confusious
I'm sure. The brownshirts were just protecting themselves from the jewish menace.

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 04:29 AM
Response to Reply #39
73. If the GM guy is using his property to destroy your property, it's self defense
If you are raising organic crops, does someone else have the right to destroy them with their loose GM pollen?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #73
90. Well they were a little late then
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 01:48 PM by Confusious
The crop was ready to be harvested. I see we have a lot of people who talk a good game about 'nature' but know little about it.

Besides that, there's this thing called 'The court system' where you get a lawyer and sue the bejeebuz out of someone. Do it right, and he won't be able to plant anything anymore.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #90
101. And if the court system is bought and paid for by GM and other corporations?
That's the whole trouble with rule of law. It works only if it is a true arbitrator. If you get it taken over entirely by corporations, who don't need to bother with following the same laws that apply to individuals, the whole system breaks down. I really don't like that--just pointing out reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #101
103. So I suppose you'll be starting your revolution soon then?
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 06:53 PM by Confusious
I'm just sayin'. What proof do you have that the entire court system is bought and paid for there? Am I to take your word for it? I say it is, so that's the way it is?

This is also Italy, not the united states. They usually don't allow corporations to give donations to politicians there.

Besides which, it would be a private individual vs a private individual, not a corporation. Why do you keep bringing in the corporation when it had nothing to do with this besides selling the GM seed to the farmer?

Would it be that you have no argument without it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #103
104. You're kidding, rightt? Italy is FAR more corrupt than we are
Legal remedies aren't hopeless here--yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #104
105. Still no proof.
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 07:52 PM by Confusious
As I said before, it would be an individual vs an individual lawsuit.

Where is your proof that the judgement would be corrupt?

And even if it was, your answer to it is violence? Destroy the private property of a person you don't agree with?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #90
112. Odd, the article says, in the first sentence, the protesters prevented the harvest.
Yet, you claim the crop had already been harvested.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petronius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #112
113. I believe his point was that the pollen would already have been dispersed
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 09:15 PM by petronius
if the crop was at the point of harvesting. So, destroying the crop now does nothing at all to prevent the spread of pollen...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #112
118. Time for some reading glasses
I said "ready to be Harvested"

Where did I say it was?

The other poster had it right. The pollen had already been dispersed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
canetoad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 02:49 AM
Response to Reply #36
71. Fail for unsound reasoning
You get back to me when you have fomented and led a real revolution. Until then you are blowing smoke out of your arse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Agony Donating Member (865 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 07:04 AM
Response to Reply #33
78. The farmer is the "criminal" here. So what are you talking about?
He planted the corn "illegally", but you knew that if you read the news article. Was that a kneejerk you has there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #78
88. How did he plant the corn illegally?
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 01:43 PM by Confusious
The government had never finalized (passed) any regulations, but you knew that if you read the news article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #88
114. Doesn't look legal to me:
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 11:30 PM by laughingliberal
Farmers are technically allowed to grow GM crops provided they first obtain permission under procedures to be drafted by the agriculture ministry. However, these procedures have never been finalized.

After months of foot dragging, a 2006 ministry circular eventually halted the drafting process entirely until regional governments agreed on local measures to prevent cross-contamination between GM and traditional crops.

But four years on, regional governments have still not agreed on definitive coexistence measures and, despite a January court ruling ordering the ministry to finalize the authorization procedures anyway, it has not yet done so.

Fidenato started lobbying local officials to allow him to plant GM crops in 2007 but received no reply.

"At this point, since they haven't said no, I take it I can go ahead," he said, shortly after announcing he had planted the GM maize earlier this year.


http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/collection/rubriche/engl...

Funny, if I ask to drive your car and you don't answer me, it's legal to take that as a yes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #114
119. You didn't read that very well
They had not been "finalized" ie "passed"

If they had, the cops could have pulled them up. That didn't happen.

Are you defending mob violence also?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #119
121. I read it just fine. It said farmers could plant GM crops "provided they first obtained permission
first obtain permission under procedures to be drafted by the agriculture ministry. However, these procedures have never been finalized."

I would take that to mean there is no mechanism in place under which to obtain permission. That indicates to me it is still not allowed.

Again, I would not take the lack of response to a request for permission to do something as permission. I would only assume I had the go ahead if I was told I had the go ahead.

Your logic is seems flawed. The cops failed to act so that was permission after the fact? I don't think so.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #121
122. "Never finalized" is the keyword
Edited on Fri Aug-13-10 12:28 AM by Confusious
Never went into effect. No procedure. The procedure didn't exist. If it doesn't exist, then there no one to say "no" or "yes"

If they did exist, and was illegal, then the police would have had every right to rip up the crop. Why didn't that happen? Takes an entire summer for the corn to ripen. 3+ months.

Seems like everyone knew he was growing it.

If it was illegal, that justifies people just storming his field and destroying it? Or just in your world, because you agree with it.

What happens when you're no longer the person saying it's alright. What if it's a freeper saying "OK"

Another person for mob violence.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #122
123. I take it to mean they can't grow it if a procedure for obtaining the permission is not finalized
and permission is needed. Sounds as if it's a bureaucratic stalemate. Again, if I ask permission to do something and I don't get a 'yes,' I assume I don't have permission.

The failure of the cops to act is not proof, in and of itself, that this was legal. There are several other possible explanations for that. Incompetence, Ingnorance, Confusion due to lack of procedures, Farmer was a friend of the police chief, etc... Nothing in the article to indicate what the reason for the failure of the cops to intervene was. It could be as you said but that is not the only explanation for it.

Hell, I was hit by a hit and run driver years ago in a small town in Texas. I gave the cops a description of the driver, make of the truck, and the license number of the vehicle. There were multiple witnesses who gave the same information to them. It was a very small town and the cops knew exactly who the truck belonged to and the description I gave matched the owner of the truck exactly. They never arrested him. AFAIK, they never questioned him. I have no idea why but I'm pretty sure the lack of action on their part doesn't mean hit and run is legal in Texas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #123
124. So that gives people the right to act like vigilates?
Edited on Fri Aug-13-10 08:17 AM by Confusious
Laws outlaw behavior. They don't allow behavior.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #124
125. I don't recall where I said that.
I jumped in over the debate about whether the farmer was a law breaker, too, or not. I don't think we can say one way or another based on the information given.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #125
126. I didn't say you said that, I was asking a question
Edited on Fri Aug-13-10 11:57 AM by Confusious
That's what everyone else is arguing, and I wanted to know if you believe that to.

If it legal, if it's illegal, the point is: It doesn't give people the right to act like vigilantes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #126
127. Kind of on the fence about it.
I'm sure the protesters will face prosecution and I'd bet they were aware of that. Many of us were jailed for acts of civil disobedience during the civil rights battles and the anti-VN-war movement. Most recognized the possibility of arrest and prosecution and felt the cause was worth the personal sacrifice.

This type of action would not be my first choice but there comes a point where writing, faxing, and calling elected representatives just doesn't seem to have much effect.

In essence, I can't say I support what they did but I can't say I don't understand it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #127
128. I'm the same
I can see why they did it, but the way they did it I don't support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #127
129. Crap dupe
Edited on Fri Aug-13-10 12:26 PM by Confusious
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #33
80. Yes, when poisoning and impoverishing are deemed "legal". Are revolutions only for the 18thC?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #80
89. What world do you live in?

The farmer planted the crops. Monsanto didn't force him to do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EmilyKent Donating Member (753 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
2. Luddite vandalism.
I hope the courts throw the book at them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thereismore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. I hope they don't. They are doing you a favor. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EmilyKent Donating Member (753 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. They aren't doing me any favors by trashing science,
and they aren't doing the hungry of the world any favors either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #7
14. But they weren't trashing science.
Here's an example of trashing science:

"When a German court ordered Monsanto to make public a controversial 90-day
rat study on June 20, 2005, the data upheld claims by prominent scientists
who said that animals fed the genetically modified (GM) corn developed
extensive health effects in the blood, kidneys and liver and that humans
eating the corn might be at risk. The 1,139 page research paper on
Monsantos Mon 863 variety also revealed that European regulators accepted
the companys assurances that their corn is safe, in spite of the
unscientific and contradictory rationale that was used to dismiss
significant problems. In addition, the study is so full of flaws and
omissions, critics say it wouldnt qualify for publication in most journals
and yet it is the primary document used to evaluate the health impacts.

<snip>



In addition to the crop pests, Europe may have also imported the US
tradition of approving GM products based on faulty studies. Documents stolen
from the US FDA reveal that when Monsanto's researchers intended to
illustrate that their GM bovine growth hormone did not interfere with cows';
fertility, they allegedly added cows to the study that were pregnant prior
to injection. An FDA whistle-blower also charged that sick cows were removed
from industry studies altogether (see Seeds of Deception, chapter 3).



http://www.organicconsumers.org/Monsanto/spillbeans0605...


IMO, trashing science is what Monsanto is all about. They trash science for the sake of profits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EmilyKent Donating Member (753 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Please don't post debunked items.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Debunked?

How about this?


de Vendmois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Sralini GE. A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5 :706-726. Available from http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm


5. Conclusions

Patho-physiological profiles are unique for each GM crop/food, underlining the necessity for a case-by-case evaluation of their safety, as is largely admitted and agreed by regulators. It is not possible to make comments concerning any general, similar subchronic toxic effect for all GM foods. However, in the three GM maize varieties that formed the basis of this investigation, new side effects linked to the consumption of these cereals were revealed, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others <4>. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity. This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize, although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded <42>. All three GM maize varieties contain a distinctly different pesticide residue associated with their particular GM event (glyphosate and AMPA in NK 603, modified Cry1Ab in MON 810, modified Cry3Bb1 in MON 863). These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown. Furthermore, any side effect linked to the GM event will be unique in each case as the site of transgene insertion and the spectrum of genome wide mutations will differ between the three modified maize types. In conclusion, our data presented here strongly recommend that additional long-term (up to 2 years) animal feeding studies be performed in at least three species, preferably also multi-generational, to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods. Our analysis highlights that the kidneys and liver as particularly important on which to focus such research as there was a clear negative impact on the function of these organs in rats consuming GM maize varieties for just 90 days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EmilyKent Donating Member (753 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. Yes, debunked.
GM is quite safe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. There's a problem here.
Where has any of this been debunked?

By whom?

Where's the independent analysis to the contrary?

You can't just say it's been debunked without facts.

Where has this been debunked:

de Vendmois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Sralini GE. A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5 :706-726. Available from http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EmilyKent Donating Member (753 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. The science and safety has long since been established.
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 12:34 PM by EmilyKent
So I don't intend to debate debunked 'studies'.

It's all available online if you're interested though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. That's the problem.
Some studies say yes it's safe, some not so much.

What bothers me are the studies that say not enough independent studies have been conducted.

I will not give monsanto the benefit of the doubt in this case because of the profit factor. Profit is a big motive for expediency without proper testing.

This last study has not been debunked at all, no matter how loud you scream and cry: de Vendmois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Sralini GE. A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5 :706-726. Available from http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

If you don't want to debate the science, fine. Don't respond to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EmilyKent Donating Member (753 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Studies have been done for years.
The safety of GM foods is well established. Debunking of vested 'organic interest studies' is freely available online.

Profit is involved in everything you wear, eat and live in. GM is no different than anything else in that regard.

In any case, you are already eating GM food, and have done so all your life.

It's the first thing humans did to establish the Agricultural Age.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #30
35. This study has not been debunked.
Saying it doesn't make it so. Monsanto may buy the best pr available, but their own studies are garbage. Pure trash science. Meaningless to me because of the profit motive. Every gmo must be independently analyzed and that is not being done. I have every right to avoid as best possible, anything not organic.

This study has not been debunked. Show me where this study has been been debunked:

de Vendmois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Sralini GE. A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5 :706-726. Available from http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

You can't. You can't say milk with rbst is just fine either. Without an independent of profit conducted study, which you can't produce, common sense has to kick in. Eat organic whenever possible.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #35
46. [crickets]
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #35
97. Organic is the way to go!

Screw farmers who grow GM crops.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #26
99. You mean here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arikara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #7
16. GM is not "science" its greed
And the "hungry of the world" is nothing but a false reason to justify it. Monsanto could care less about feeding the poor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EmilyKent Donating Member (753 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. I don't intend to debate the science with you,
as that is well established.

Every food you've eaten since birth has been genetically modified.

I don't know why Americans are fixated on Monsanto though, there are dozens of companies involved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Nice defense of Monsanto
who are you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #20
47. She may not understand bully tactics don't work at DU. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petronius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #47
94. Of the two posts up the thread from yours, which did you think was bullying?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arikara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. Poor misunderstood Monsanto.
their biggest problem is that they can't convince rational people that inserting a fish gene into a tomato plant is the same as natural evolution and breeding for specific traits. They have however very deep pockets and are able to buy off politicians, junk scientists and hire many lobbyists and shills.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EmilyKent Donating Member (753 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Shrug, lots of companies involved.
Why Americans think Monsanto is the only one is a mystery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. Not the only one, but certainly one of the very worst.

Distinguishing MONSANTO's totalitarian "use of science" from its claims to science

In the anti Gm agitation in India they constantly come across a refrain from American scientisits, the companies and their own Agri university scientists (many of whom are funded by these agri business corporations to develop and sell Gm crops) ...that Americans have been eating Gm foods for more than a decade and there is no adverse effect.....

The question is: Are there any studies in US about the effects of GM foods? There is concern there is no data or research as GM food has not been labelled and so Americans have lost 10 yrs of health data in the process.....

As the opposition to genetically engineered food is strengthening in the civil society, this refrain comes up very often and people are wondering how to counter it.

What is clear is that issue should be turned around. No one should be arguing defensively that there isn't enough data to say anything.

Instead, what should be focused on - coming in from every direction - is the immense amount of data on Monsanto itself and its anti-relationship with science. The data reveals Monsanto's disregard for, corruption of, purchase of, blocking of, crippling of, hiding of, denial of, attacks on ... science itself. Rather than asking how can anyone trust Monsnto's products, people can say plainly and factually that Monsanto itself cannot be trusted. All data indicates they are dangerous and lie about evidence they already possess, and about just how dangerous.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Distinguishing-MONSANT...



The World According to Monsanto (Title of a documentary aired on French TV)

The World According to MonsantoTheres nothing they are leaving untouched: the mustard, the okra, the bringe oil, the rice, the cauliflower. Once they have established the norm: that seed can be owned as their property, royalties can be collected. We will depend on them for every seed we grow of every crop we grow. If they control seed, they control food, they know it its strategic. Its more powerful than bombs. Its more powerful than guns. This is the best way to control the populations of the world. The story starts in the White House, where Monsanto often got its way by exerting disproportionate influence over policymakers via the revolving door. One example is Michael Taylor, who worked for Monsanto as an attorney before being appointed as deputy commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1991. While at the FDA, the authority that deals with all US food approvals, Taylor made crucial decisions that led to the approval of GE foods and crops. Then he returned to Monsanto, becoming the companys vice president for public policy.

Thanks to these intimate links between Monsanto and government agencies, the US adopted GE foods and crops without proper testing, without consumer labeling and in spite of serious questions hanging over their safety. Not coincidentally, Monsanto supplies 90 percent of the GE seeds used by the US market. Monsantos long arm stretched so far that, in the early nineties, the US Food and Drugs Agency even ignored warnings of their own scientists, who were cautioning that GE crops could cause negative health effects. Other tactics the company uses to stifle concerns about their products include misleading advertising, bribery and concealing scientific evidence.

Watch the documentary here (in English):
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-m... /

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EmilyKent Donating Member (753 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. No, same as the rest.
It just seems to be the only name Americans know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arikara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #31
60. Doesn't matter
Monsanto is the flagship of GM. The biggest and the worst.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #23
38. Yes but monsanto is negligent in conducting studies.
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/01/study-links-gm-co... /

While some groups like Change.org see the study as a rallying cry against Monsanto and GM crops, a few experts have questioned the clarity of the study's results. Dr. Marion Nestle, a leading nutritionist, wrote on her blog, "I found the paper extremely difficult to read, in part because it is written in exceptionally dense and opaque language, and in part because it presents the data in especially complicated tables and figures."

Monsanto, too, has directly responded to the study, stating in a press release that the research is "based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning and do not call into question the safety findings for these products."

Authors of the study responded to Monsanto's statement on the blog Food Freedom. "Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMOs (genetically modified organisms), or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful analysis of Monsanto crude statistical data."

Correction: The study was published in the Journal of Biological Sciences. It was originally reported to have been published in the Journal of Microbiology.


So one nutritionist is too phreaking stupid to understand the science involved with the study, and monsanto disagrees because they have to generate profits, and you call this debunking? Sorry. Nothing has been debunked and monsanto is no Mother Theresa.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #19
37. What are you, an industry shill?
You say the studies are debunked but offer no links.

Major fail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. I think she is.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tsiyu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 03:59 AM
Response to Reply #19
72. I don't know where you've debated before


but we have certainly debated your kind here before.



Same rhetoric.

Same cock-sure pedantry.

Same "I don't intend to debate....whatever it is I'm here debating..."

:boring:




If you can't back up your claims, no one here is going to pay you any mind.

In fact, you may be ridiculed.

But money does soothe the wounds, I hear...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
druidity33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #19
82. that's just bullshit...
"Every food you've eaten since birth has been genetically modified. "

If you're talking about selective breeding of plants, then you need to learn a little bit more about science. When you take one cucumber that stores well and cross it with another (through isolation and direct pollen application) that grows prodigiously, you expand the genetic diversity of a plant, true, but that's not the same as injecting a corn gene with one from a lobster, or using plants to produce pharmaceuticals... that's just not been Independently studied despite your claims otherwise. Monsanto controls ALL of the studies because they decide whether to allow their seeds to be used and under what circumstances.


Your right, there are other companies involved, but Monsanto is the most egregious of the lot, and they have a tendency to really piss off farmers, whom i have a soft spot for... so i think they're fair game. I personally know farmers who have been bullied by Monsanto reps.

:shrug:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
40. Oh, gawd. Not you guys again.
They weren't 'trashing science'. They were destroying GM crops. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 07:20 AM
Response to Reply #7
79. "Giggadittoes." - Proles for CorporoMutant, Chem-soaked Food Facsimile Crapola
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 07:21 AM by SpiralHawk
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
34. Criminal actions are alright when you agree with them? Nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 02:30 AM
Response to Reply #2
66. Luddite vandalism?
You are comparing actions of people in Italy in the twenty first century to actions of textile workers of the nineteenth century?

That is a bit of the stretch.

But in both cases, the activists were concerned about the "commons" being stripped away from the average person.

In the case of the GM Maize hackers, they understand that the GM grain, being required to have Glyphosate sprayed on it, will lessen the fertility of the soil.

The end implication is that the GM maize is not able to develop and grow with the nutrition that conventional crops have, and as a result, it succumbs to fusarium.

Europeans have many more independent scientists, like those of the University of Caen, whose research is showing that the end effects on mammals forced to eat this crap may well be deterioration of major organ systems.

But who really needs their kidneys to function properly, anyway?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
3. Can't say that I blame them.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theoldman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
4. This shows that the US is not the only country with idiots.
There is no difference between GM food and the result of evolution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thereismore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. WTF? GM foods obviously did not arise from evolution, and yes there is a big difference.
GM foods would never arise by evolution. Did you forget about natural selection? None of that was part of the GM crop "evolution". Goddammit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #8
48. Non-GM varieties of corn, soybeans, tomatoes, apples, grapes, bananas....
aw fuck, just about EVERYTHING you eat didn't arise from evolution either. They were bred - i.e., GENETICALLY MODIFIED - to take on the characteristics they have today. If scientists, through selective breeding, had crafted a corn plant resistant to Roundup (which is what they have today with GMO), would it then be "safe"? What exactly would the difference be between that plant and the one we have today, other than the first one probably taking 20-30 years to make?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johonny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #48
55. The answer I believe
is they take genes that are not in the selective gene pool of the plant and insert them in the plant. If you read Darwins book I think you'll find he considers breeding part of the evolutionary process. Evolution cares not if the selective force is "natural" or man-made. Selective breeding generally has to work with the natural gene population of a species. Waiting for new mutation in a population that are favorable to you takes a long time. For most of these new genes to arise naturally in these plants would require a huge amount of mutation of the genome and thus are very unlikely to occur. So in that sense there is a huge difference in selective breeding and current GMO methodology. But unless genetic markers are used there is little ability to tell the difference from a man introduced gene and any other gene. They are generally made of the same stuff.

The general fear is that the genes transferred between species will have unintended consequences. Such as an antifreeze gene might make your crop more frost resistant, but might prove toxic as it concentrates up the food chain. There is a general distrust that these situation have been adequately thought out and researched. The same problem of course could occur from selective breeding more frost resistant crops.

The other general dislike of these crops is that they are often made to be non-reproductive. Thus making the farmer unable to make his own feed stock and producing a heavy dependence on the manufacturer for seed.

and lastly it is a mistake to believe people aren't also unhappy with selectively breed crops. Many feel modern agricultural crops have been selectively breed at the expense of nutritional content and taste. Leaving many to be unsatisfied with modern produce in general. You see a lot of those type of posts on the DU as well.

So to sum up. Safety isn't places only on GMO or "natural" but on how it effects the ultimate environment. There is a general fear that modern crops were produced to satisfy maximum production and maximize profits, but not to maximize health or minimize environmental impact. That clearly leaves a lot of DU posters uneasy.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. There will very soon be 7 billion people on this planet.
Roundup-ready corn is but one small GMO project. How about adding Vitamin A to rice - it's called golden rice and has the potential to enhance the nutritional value of the diets of billions. But it's just as GMO as Monsanto corn. No, the objections are not based on what you say - it's good old ordinary FUD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #57
59. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 05:21 AM
Response to Reply #57
74. A stupid idea, since Vitamin A capsules in sufficient doses to prevent blindness-
--are a few cents each. Besides which, it isn't Vitamin A that is genetically added anyway, but beta carotene, one of the most common molecules on the face of the earth. It is impossible to eat enough modified rice to satisfy Vitamin A requirements, particularly since kids with diets inadequate in fat and protein absorb it very poorly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #74
76. Exactly how is it stupid to get the vitamin in something they grow anyway,
instead of having a separate distribution system (and costs associated) and then make sure everyone is taking a separate pill?

Thanks for confirming the opposition is nothing but FUD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #76
102. GM rice is totally useless if it isn't physically possible to eat enough of it
--to overcome vitamin A deficiency. You think that Monsanto is in the business of giving their technology away? Rice monoculture destroys local eating cultures based on growing a variety of crops, which have traditionally had enough leafy greens to get all the beta carotene required. Monsanto is just looking to impose another potato famine on growers of its products.

At any rate, the pills are cheap, effective, and are available for use immediately. Helen Keller Foundation can save a child's site for a dollar a year. Can that same kid get a year's supply of golden rice for a dollar a year?

http://www.hki.org/reducing-malnutrition /

Helen Keller Internationals Vitamin A Supplementation program has helped reverse the devastation caused by vitamin A deficiency. Last year alone, HKI helped deliver over 76 million capsules to save the sight and lives of children in Africa and Asia by providing them twice-yearly treatments of vitamin A at a cost of just $1.00 per child per year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 02:32 AM
Response to Reply #55
67. Terminator crops bad, non-terminator crops bad....
FWIW, Monsanto bought terminator tech, and then killed the project.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arikara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #4
17. Seriously?
Bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #4
54. Because millions of seconds = millions of years in GMWorld. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #4
63. I see that you are not a scientist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K Gardner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
6. Americans in general haven't caught on yet to what is happening with Monsanto and
GM foods. Most are too absorbed with Tea Party nonsense. Plus, our media doesn't cover it.. at all. Good article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
9. I wonder how much
$$$$ this Giorgio farmer received for planting the GM seeds?

I hope all arrested are now out of jail. Bless them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
10. need same in Mexico, where poor farmers are having to use Monsanto's GM seed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jester Messiah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
11. Poor plants. Their "crime" was being born.
Life is life. Can't wait to see what these jerks (or their descendants) do if/when people start modifying their own genes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
12. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
arikara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #12
18. Time to put more on ignore I guess
there does seem to be a new crop of the pesky superweeds out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #18
52. Indeedily do! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #12
29. As the WWII fly boys used to say...
If you are drawing flak, it's because you are over the target.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
felix_numinous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #29
58. + 1000
I love that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
13. good. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EmilyKent Donating Member (753 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
32. Echo chamber in here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
56. They wouldn't dare do this in the US - - Our farmers usually have firearms handy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:12 PM
Response to Original message
61. Let's take a lesson from Europe!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 02:34 AM
Response to Original message
68. And yet they still feed DHMO to their children.
Food = Bad, Chemical Poison = Good.

Way to go, Italy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 05:45 AM
Response to Original message
75. k&r n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:49 AM
Response to Original message
77. Now *there's* some of that far-left activism you hear so much about..
I really think even some of the best intentioned "leftists" here in soft america have no idea . . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kalyke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
83. Why can't the American people pull themselves away from TV
long enough to stand up for themselves like Europeans do?

They have TV in Europe, so it's not that.
We LOVE to be in huge crowds, cheering on our favorite sports team, so it's not as though we're agoraphboic.

But, here we sit, in front of our computers or watching TV while the corporate-owned elite poison us with our own food and then either make a profit from selling us the "cure" (Big Pharma) or kill us when we can't afford it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LTX Donating Member (400 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
86. So to allegedly avoid the danger of dispersing pollen,
the activists crushed a field of mature plants, dispersing the pollen. Brilliant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #86
95. & planted new seeds with their stomping feet
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 03:46 PM by SoCalDem
:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recovered Repug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #86
100. Actually, since the crops had matured
the pollen was spread months ago. So they are even dumber then you think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #86
130. Well, there is the other point of preventing the farmer from profiting from the GMO crop. n/m
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
87. Good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamanaut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
98. Are the vandals, er, activists, going to reimburse the farmer for his
time, effort, and destroyed crop?

Criminal activity remains just that, regardless of the motivation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
106. Later that evening, activists burn research papers so it can never happen again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #106
107. I'm sure there are many research papers on Eugenics
But no one DARES to implement them again.

Yes, we know how to make mistakes. It's always a constant struggle to AVOID doing them. AGAIN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #107
108. No there aren't.
Eugenics isn't a real scientist.

"Yes, we know how to make mistakes. It's always a constant struggle to AVOID doing them. AGAIN."

Yet why do I get the feeling you're in support of this fascist shit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #108
109. I think we have a misundertanding here
I thought you were saying that GM couldn't be stopped because of this minor incident. And that because studies exist that encourage GM farming, it'll be tried again.

And I meant to reply that just because studies exist, it doesn't make them right.

That's all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #109
131. What I'm saying is...
these "activists" are fucking nazis, and they need to be stopped.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BakedAtAMileHigh Donating Member (900 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-14-10 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #131
133. what a stunningly ignorant comparison
Even if you disagree with the actions of these protesters (trespass, theft/property destruction, etc), to call them "nazis" is jaw-droppingly idiotic. Your comparison lacks any real connection to ideals, tactics and politics; are you even familiar with the term "eugenics" and how the National Socialists used it as the focus of their belief system?

You would do yourself and everyone around you a favor if you did a bit more reading and a bit less of shouting "Nazi!" before you even know what the nazis fucking stood for.

Really just an amazingly clueless response, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-14-10 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #133
134. They're fucking destroying science because they don't like it.
They're fucking monsters.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 08:34 PM
Response to Original message
111. K & R nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Omaha Steve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:38 PM
Response to Original message
115. K&R

Mexico is the origination point of corn. GM has invaded and native species are all but extinct!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nemo137 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 11:12 PM
Response to Original message
116. Between the Luddites on one hand and the creationists on the other, I'm worried.
We're going to willfully dumb ourselves to death.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
117. This thread is a fantastic...barometer of sorts.
The enjoyment is so very much mine. Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 31st 2014, 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC