Demonstrators rally against Monsanto in global anti-GMO protest

[TimG]

What is so emotional about wanting to know what is exactly in the food you are eating?

Exactly. Which is why I suggest putting all strains of all plants used in the food. There is no need for arbitrary distinction between GMO and non-GMO strains. If you want to know what is in your food the exact information would be on the label.

You keep harping on Monsanto spending money opposing labeling but it should be obvious that any business would oppose labeling designed to spread misinformation about a product. Do you think that meat packers would remain on the sidelines if animal rights activists got a ballot measure to require 'contains murdered animals' labels on all meat products? Why don't you question all of the money spent by anti-GMO groups?

As for Monsanto's cafeteria it appears that a third party contractor was hijacked by anti-GMO campaigners (it was probably deliberately targeted as part of an anti-GMO propaganda campaign). This does not necessarily reflect the attitude of all Monsanto employees (or even a significant minority). Monsanto choose not to get involved with the decision made by the third party contractor which indicates that Monsanto chooses its fights carefully.

Edited May 29, 2013 by TimG

[carepov]

Two rational and emotion-void questions for you.

1 - Why does Monsanto not serve GMO foods in their cafeteria?

2 - Why would Monsanto spend 45 million to kill the GMO labeling bill in California?

Thanks for trying to answer my earlier questions.

1. You are speading lies, here is the truth:

http://monsantoblog.com/2012/02/10/whats-served-in-monsantos-cafeterias/

2. Agiain, your facts are wrong, Monsanto spent $8,112,867

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_37_(2012)

IMO, Monsanto wants to promote GMO foods so that they can make more money.

Why do you think that Mercola Health Resources spent $1,199,000 promoting the bill?

[Hudson Jones]

My father-in-law is around 60 and he used to complain about people complaining about what goes into their food. He was also allergic to strawberries. He would get a terrible rash and his throat and neck would inflate. Someone recommended that he would try organic strawberries. He did and there was no allergic reaction.

This experience made him finally admit that there is a difference between organic and non-organic food.

The resistance that some people put forth in acknowledging the difference between many chemically sprayed, gmo food and organic food is a sign of stubbornness and unwillingness to acknowledge research, studies and facts that are right in front of us.

Next resistance? Not admitting that processed food is bad for you.

"But but but.. i've been eating bacon and sausage all my life!"

[Bryan]

There is no need for arbitrary distinction between GMO and non-GMO strains.

Monsanto doesn't think it's an arbitrary distinction. They spend a lot of money suing people to prove that there is a substantive difference.

Do you think that meat packers would remain on the sidelines if animal rights activists got a ballot measure to require 'contains murdered animals' labels on all meat products?

You keep repeating this empty line. All meat is from a "murdered animal". Nobody is asking for such an inflamatory label, they just want a matter-of-fact easy to understand declaration. We are talking about being informed about what kind of product is in the food, not what blanket label you use for the whole category. A closer analogy might be if people were asking for grass-fed vs. grain-fed to be mandatory labelling.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Bryan

[Hudson Jones]

By the way, Tim?

How come you didn't respond to my post in regards to the difference between GMO and non-GMO corn? Is this part of the stubbornness to acknowledge the truth?

Source

[TimG]

Monsanto doesn't think it's an arbitrary distinction. They spend a lot of money suing people to prove that there is a substantive difference.

Monsanto distinguishes between plants that they hold patents on and plants that they don't. It has nothing to do with the GMO/non-GMO distinction.

[TimG]

How come you didn't respond to my post in regards to the difference between GMO and non-GMO corn?

The chart does not mean much since there is no such thing as "GMO corn" and "non-GMO corn". There are specific strains which are used for different purposes (i.e. ethanol production vs human consumption). The difference in 'available energy' tells me that your chart is not an apples to apples comparison since the two varieties compared are obviously for different purposes.

[Bryan]

Monsanto distinguishes between plants that they hold patents on and plants that they don't. It has nothing to do with the GMO/non-GMO distinction.

GMO is the only thing it has anything to do with. They modified it, that's why it's patented.

[Pliny]

The onus is on the regulatory bodies to ensure that testing is sufficient. I also don't see much difference in business practices of Apple, Google and Facebook and Monsanto. They are all companies seeking to maximize profit by crushing competition.

Their is fair competition and there is lobbying or using legislation to seek competitive advantage. Apple, in my view, is guilty of that along with Monsanto if you have followed some of their legal antics. Facebook seems to have just risen above the competition and protected it's market share against competitors who have tried to lobby or use legislation to bring it down. Google I don't know.

What I say about those corporations is not necessarily fact. It is just my perception from what I see in the media. What really goes on is probably only privy to those involved.

[TimG]

GMO is the only thing it has anything to do with. They modified it, that's why it's patented.

I gave you the link yesterday about how non-GMO varieties are patented as well. As I said: it is a question of patents - not GMO vs. non-GMO.

[TimG]

Their is fair competition and there is lobbying or using legislation to seek competitive advantage.

I am opposed to rent seeking corporations as well - I just don't single out Monsanto - it is a wide spread problem.

[Hudson Jones]

The chart does not mean much since there is no such thing as "GMO corn" and "non-GMO corn".

There is no such thing as genetically modified corn and non-genetically modified corn?

What the heck are you talking about?

[Pliny]

I am opposed to rent seeking corporations as well - I just don't single out Monsanto - it is a wide spread problem.

Monsanto has done a poor job of PR in any case.

A lot of people question whether it's prime objective is the welfare of humanity or monopolization of the food production

industry. It appears the latter is the case at the expense of the former.

[TimG]

There is no such thing as genetically modified corn and non-genetically modified corn?

What I am saying is a chart with a label GMO and non-GMO corn is meaningless because there are hundreds of varieties of GMO and non-GMO corn used for all kinds of different purposes. To be meaningful there would have to be several varieties of GMO and non-GMO corn compared along with the the intended use of each variety.

[GostHacked]

carepov, on 29 May 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

Thanks for trying to answer my earlier questions.

1. You are speading lies, here is the truth:

http://monsantoblog.com/2012/02/10/whats-served-in-monsantos-cafeterias/

Not outright lies, just purposeful obfuscation. Let's rephrase, why are they making the big distinction between organic and GMO foods in their cafeterias? What is prompting them to do this? Is it because people want to know what they are eating and can make their decision based on that? But since I posted a CBC article I thought it would be legit. But I guess not everything you hear on MSM is true either.

2. Agiain, your facts are wrong, Monsanto spent $8,112,867

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_37_(2012)

Monsanto and agribiz totaly spent 45 Mill.

If Monsanto has a good enough product then they would welcome the labeling with open arms. If Monsanto products were that good, they would have already pushed and encouraged and willingly promoted labeling of GMO products.

Saying it would confuse the consumer would be correct, in the short term, because now they would be aware of what is in the food and would be researching what is in the product.

IMO, Monsanto wants to promote GMO foods so that they can make more money.

That is always the case, and having the GMO label would hurt their business because some would make a switch.

Why do you think that Mercola Health Resources spent $1,199,000 promoting the bill?

Because they believe that people should be informed of what they are eating. I am not familiar with Mercola Health Resources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_37_%282012%29

Section 2 of Proposition 37, the "Statement of Purpose", reads "The purpose of this measure is to create and enforce the fundamental right of the people of California to be fully informed about whether the food they purchase and eat is genetically engineered and not misbranded as natural so that they can choose for themselves whether to purchase and eat such foods. It shall be liberally construed to fulfill this purpose".[4] [5]

The proposed law also includes several exceptions, such as products that are certified organic, made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material (but not genetically engineered themselves), processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients, administered for treatment of medical conditions, sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; and alcoholic beverages.[4][5]

Why is wanting to know what goes into your food met with such resistance?

Proponents on the other hand, claimed that some organic US food processors argued that the changes in labeling will have no effect on consumer costs because companies change their labeling all the time, as it is, and changing labels is a regular cost already built into the price consumers pay for products. “We, as with most manufacturers, are continually updating our packaging. It is a regular cost of doing business - a small one at that - and is already built into the price consumers pay for products,” said Arran Stephens, president and founder of Nature’s Path.[5][11]

In the end calling complete bull on the increased cost of foods because of labeling.

[bush_cheney2004]

A lot of people question whether it's prime objective is the welfare of humanity....

Why would Monsanto's prime objective ever be the "welfare of humanity" ? "Humanity" doesn't even have such an objective.

[Pliny]

What I am saying is a chart with a label GMO and non-GMO corn is meaningless because there are hundreds of varieties of GMO and non-GMO corn used for all kinds of different purposes. To be meaningful there would have to be several varieties of GMO and non-GMO corn compared along with the the intended use of each variety.

No doubt the chart is intended for a purpose beyond simply "informing". It's clearly a biased, political compilation.

[GostHacked]

TimG, on 29 May 2013 - 12:40 PM, said:

I gave you the link yesterday about how non-GMO varieties are patented as well. As I said: it is a question of patents - not GMO vs. non-GMO.

Not just a question of patents, the legality of the patent and the ability to sue anyone who does not use Monsanto seed in the way they are licensed to a farmer.

1 - You need a license to use Monsanto's products.

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/percy-schmeiser.aspx

Quote

Schmeiser saved seed that contained Monsanto’s patented technology without a license. As indicated by the trial court in Canada, the seed was not blown in on the wind nor carried in by birds, and it didn’t spontaneously appear. Schmeiser knowingly planted this seed in his field without permission or license. By doing so, he used Monsanto’s patented technology without permission. In fact, the courts determined this in three separate decisions.

Farmers can no longer be sustainable as they were. Farmers can no longer save seed for next year without legal implications. Takes control away from the farmer and puts it in Monsanto's hands.

No matter if Schmeiser did it in purpose or not, he proves a point on how much control Monsanto has over the agricultural industry. His initial claim was that it was blown over from a nearby farm field. Even if that was the case we see how hard Monsanto pursued suing Schmeiser. The case made it's way to the Canadian Supreme Court.

Monsanto will sue anyone who does not follow their rules/license guidelines for use of their product. If it was not different than natural plants, then they would not be able to sue farmers.

The patent is all about control, total control.

[Pliny]

Why would Monsanto's prime objective ever be the "welfare of humanity" ? "Humanity" doesn't even have such an objective.

It makes for better acceptance of Monsanto. Perception is everything.

It exists solely because it appears to have that objective and it would promote that concept before it ever promoted the idea it was attempting to monopolize the food industry.

[carepov]

Why is wanting to know what goes into your food met with such resistance?

Let me re-cap:

1. Costs:

-Enforcing laws and regulations cost money

-Adding complexity to manufacturing costs money. For example, if a product is produced with different suppliers of wheat interchangeably some GMO and some not then what?

-In California, proponents claimed costs were negligible, opponents AND an independent study claimed costs would be a few hundred dollars per year.

-You call "bull" on the opponents; I call "bull" on the proponents. More importantly, a majority of Californian voters defeated the bill.

2. Mandatory labels should be required for all ingredients that affect the health of the consumer, eg: fats, sugars, allergens. Forcing GMO labelling would imply that GMOs are bad for you or less nutritious. All other labelling should be optional, (as long as it is not misleading): "light", "Kosher", "fair trade", "Angus", "trans-fat free", "organic", "GMO-free", etc... I do not want GMOs to be singled out and grouped in with ingredients that are bad for heath. GMO technology is a big benefit to the environment (higher yields, less pesticide use), farmers (why else would they choose to purchase GMO seeds), and consumers (lower prices, better quality). More importantly, there are even more benefits possible - specifically Golden Rice that has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives per year.

[TimG]

Farmers can no longer be sustainable as they were. Farmers can no longer save seed for next year without legal implications. Takes control away from the farmer and puts it in Monsanto's hands.

Farmers are not forced to buy Monsanto seed. Edited May 29, 2013 by TimG

[Archanfel]

What's the big deal? According to wikipedia "Human directed genetic modification has been occurring since we first domesticated organisms in 12 000 BC." There's no such thing as natural domesticated plants. The so called organic plants are probaby the results of thousands of years of cross breeding.

[GostHacked]

Farmers are not forced to buy Monsanto seed.

Well the selection of non-monsanto is pretty slim. That's when you take into account most seed companies are using the same tech as Monsanto, and in most cases affiliated/owned by Monsanto.

Dekalb, Pioneer, Canterra, Nexera, And many other companies are using the same GMO technology. So you may not be forced to buy Monsanto, but your choice of non-gmo is not as great as people think.

Anything Round Up Ready, is GMO.

Anything Smart Stax is GMO.

Remember when growth hormones were used in dairy cattle in Canada? Remember it was banned because it caused many problems? Cows are still getting a growth hormone, just not it is genetically modified right into the feed itself.

[GostHacked]

What's the big deal? According to wikipedia "Human directed genetic modification has been occurring since we first domesticated organisms in 12 000 BC." There's no such thing as natural domesticated plants. The so called organic plants are probaby the results of thousands of years of cross breeding.

Which is completely different than manipulation on the gene/DNA level.

[GostHacked]

http://www.interpares.ca/en/publications/pdf/stolen_seeds.pdf

Interesting article from 2004.

Schmeiser was found guilty of a) knowingly having Monsanto genes on

his land, and not advising Monsanto to come and fetch it.

Allegations of obtaining the seed fraudulently were dropped at the

hearing, due to lack of evidence. It didn’t matter whether or not

Schmeiser was responsible for the RR plants being in his fields. Nor did

it matter that Schmeiser did not benefit in any way from the RR seed.

Schmeiser was, found guilty, and fined $15/acre x 1030 acres ($37/ha

x 421 ha), plus the value of his crop ($105,000), plus $25,000 for puni-

tive and exemplary damages. He also lost the improved genetics result-

ing from his lifelong practice of saving his own seed to produce his own

tailor-made variety of canola, as the crop was confiscated.