Activists storm field, crush GM maize (Italy)

[ensho]

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

[valerief]

1. Woo hoo!

[Confusious]

33. Criminal actions are alright when you agree with them? Nt

[asdjrocky]

36. They are to me.

It's called civil disobedience. It's how our country was founded.

[Confusious]

39. It was a private farmer who planted it not the government

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.

[valerief]

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!!!!!

[Confusious]

43. Civil disobedience only applies to a government

It's nothing more then vandalism.

There is no such thing as civil disobedience when it applies to an individual.

[truedelphi]

65. I suggest you read up on Ghandi or

Martin Luther King.

[Confusious]

69. That would be non-violence right?

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?

[truedelphi]

70. Here's the problem - the farmer that is planting this nasty stuff

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.

[Confusious]

85. Not that I like GM

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.

[truedelphi]

91. No proof of government sell out?

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?

[Confusious]

92. This is italy, not the United States or China.

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.)

[truedelphi]

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.)

[Confusious]

96. Yes I'm sure the mafia is shaking people down

and forcing them to plant GM crops.

[WinkyDink]

81. No such thing as "violence" against a plant. Or do you not mow a lawn?

[Confusious]

84. So smashing someone's window isn't violence?

Boy, really twisting hard aren't you. How do you get out of that double standard pretzel?

It was someone else's window.

[truedelphi]

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.)

[Confusious]

120. I don't care if you agree with it

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.

[truedelphi]

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.

[asdjrocky]

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...

[Confusious]

45. Another person who doesn't get it

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?'

[asdjrocky]

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.

[Confusious]

50. When a corporation makes things for the government

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.

[asdjrocky]

51. Is Monsanto a privet individual? nt

[Confusious]

53. They didn't plant the crop, a private farmer did.

I keep saying that, and you don't seem to be able to understand it.

[roody]

62. It was self defense.

[Confusious]

64. Right

I'm sure. The brownshirts were just protecting themselves from the jewish menace.

[eridani]

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?

[Confusious]

90. Well they were a little late then

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.

[eridani]

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.

[Confusious]

103. So I suppose you'll be starting your revolution soon then?

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?

[eridani]

104. You're kidding, rightt? Italy is FAR more corrupt than we are

Legal remedies aren't hopeless here--yet.

[Confusious]

105. Still no proof.

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?

[laughingliberal]

112. Odd, the article says, in the first sentence, the protesters prevented the harvest.

Yet, you claim the crop had already been harvested.

[petronius]

113. I believe his point was that the pollen would already have been dispersed

if the crop was at the point of harvesting. So, destroying the crop now does nothing at all to prevent the spread of pollen...

[Confusious]

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.

[canetoad]

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.

[Agony]

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?

[Confusious]

88. How did he plant the corn illegally?

The government had never finalized (passed) any regulations, but you knew that if you read the news article.

[laughingliberal]

114. Doesn't look legal to me:

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?

[Confusious]

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?

[laughingliberal]

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.

[Confusious]

122. "Never finalized" is the keyword

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.

[laughingliberal]

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.

[Confusious]

124. So that gives people the right to act like vigilates?

Laws outlaw behavior. They don't allow behavior.

[laughingliberal]

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.

[Confusious]

126. I didn't say you said that, I was asking a question

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.

[laughingliberal]

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.

[Confusious]

128. I'm the same

I can see why they did it, but the way they did it I don't support.

[Confusious]

129. Crap dupe

[WinkyDink]

80. Yes, when poisoning and impoverishing are deemed "legal". Are revolutions only for the 18thC?

[Confusious]

89. What world do you live in?

The farmer planted the crops. Monsanto didn't force him to do it.

[EmilyKent]

2. Luddite vandalism.

I hope the courts throw the book at them.

[thereismore]

5. I hope they don't. They are doing you a favor. nt

[EmilyKent]

7. They aren't doing me any favors by trashing science,

and they aren't doing the hungry of the world any favors either.

[katsy]

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
Monsanto¹s ³Mon 863² variety also revealed that European regulators accepted
the company¹s 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 wouldn¹t 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.

[EmilyKent]

15. Please don't post debunked items.

[katsy]

21. Debunked?

How about this?


de Vendômois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Séralini GE. A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5 06-726. 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.

[EmilyKent]

24. Yes, debunked.

GM is quite safe.

[katsy]

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 Vendômois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Séralini GE. A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5 06-726. Available from http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

[EmilyKent]

26. The science and safety has long since been established.

So I don't intend to debate debunked 'studies'.

It's all available online if you're interested though.

[katsy]

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 Vendômois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Séralini GE. A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5 06-726. Available from http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

If you don't want to debate the science, fine. Don't respond to me.

[EmilyKent]

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.

[katsy]

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 Vendômois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Séralini GE. A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5 06-726. 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.

[valerief]

46. [crickets]

[catgirl]

97. Organic is the way to go!

Screw farmers who grow GM crops.

[Joe Chi Minh]

99. You mean here?

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/pdf/Papers_on_GM_Hazards.pdf

[arikara]

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.

[EmilyKent]

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.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

20. Nice defense of Monsanto

who are you?

[valerief]

47. She may not understand bully tactics don't work at DU. nt

[petronius]

94. Of the two posts up the thread from yours, which did you think was bullying?

[arikara]

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.

[EmilyKent]

23. Shrug, lots of companies involved.

Why Americans think Monsanto is the only one is a mystery.

[JohnyCanuck]

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 MonsantoThere’s 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 – it’s strategic. It’s more powerful than bombs. It’s 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 company’s 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. Monsanto’s 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... /

[EmilyKent]

31. No, same as the rest.

It just seems to be the only name Americans know.

[arikara]

60. Doesn't matter

Monsanto is the flagship of GM. The biggest and the worst.

[katsy]

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.

[asdjrocky]

37. What are you, an industry shill?

You say the studies are debunked but offer no links.

Major fail.

[closeupready]

41. I think she is.

n/t

[Tsiyu]

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..."






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...

[druidity33]

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.

[closeupready]

40. Oh, gawd. Not you guys again.

They weren't 'trashing science'. They were destroying GM crops.

[SpiralHawk]

79. "Giggadittoes." - Proles for CorporoMutant, Chem-soaked Food Facsimile Crapola

[Confusious]

34. Criminal actions are alright when you agree with them? Nt

[truedelphi]

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?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

3. Can't say that I blame them.

[theoldman]

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.

[thereismore]

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.

[trotsky]

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?

[Johonny]

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.

[trotsky]

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.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eridani]

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.

[trotsky]

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.

[eridani]

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 International’s 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.

[boppers]

67. Terminator crops bad, non-terminator crops bad....

FWIW, Monsanto bought terminator tech, and then killed the project.

[arikara]

17. Seriously?

Bullshit.

[valerief]

54. Because millions of seconds = millions of years in GMWorld. nt

[roody]

63. I see that you are not a scientist.

[K Gardner]

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.

[femrap]

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.

[amborin]

10. need same in Mexico, where poor farmers are having to use Monsanto's GM seed

[Jester Messiah]

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.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arikara]

18. Time to put more on ignore I guess

there does seem to be a new crop of the pesky superweeds out.

[valerief]

52. Indeedily do! nt

[JohnyCanuck]

29. As the WWII fly boys used to say...

If you are drawing flak, it's because you are over the target.

[felix_numinous]

58. + 1000

I love that!

[xchrom]

13. good. nt

[EmilyKent]

32. Echo chamber in here.

[Freddie Stubbs]

56. They wouldn't dare do this in the US - - Our farmers usually have firearms handy

[roody]

61. Let's take a lesson from Europe!

[boppers]

68. And yet they still feed DHMO to their children.

Food = Bad, Chemical Poison = Good.

Way to go, Italy.

[Wilms]

75. k&r n/t

[annabanana]

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 . . . .

[Kalyke]

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.

[LTX]

86. So to allegedly avoid the danger of dispersing pollen,

the activists crushed a field of mature plants, dispersing the pollen. Brilliant.

[SoCalDem]

95. & planted new seeds with their stomping feet

[Recovered Repug]

100. Actually, since the crops had matured

the pollen was spread months ago. So they are even dumber then you think.

[laughingliberal]

130. Well, there is the other point of preventing the farmer from profiting from the GMO crop. n/m

[Lucian]

87. Good.

[Obamanaut]

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.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

106. Later that evening, activists burn research papers so it can never happen again.

[Canuckistanian]

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.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

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?

[Canuckistanian]

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.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

131. What I'm saying is...

these "activists" are fucking nazis, and they need to be stopped.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

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.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

134. They're fucking destroying science because they don't like it.

They're fucking monsters.

[laughingliberal]

111. K & R nt

[Omaha Steve]

115. K&R

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

[nemo137]

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.

[flvegan]

117. This thread is a fantastic...barometer of sorts.

The enjoyment is so very much mine. Thank you.