Millions Against Monsanto: The Food Fight of Our Lives

33 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
Hey Sal, this buds for you...

Millions Against Monsanto: The Food Fight of Our Lives | Food | AlterNet

Finally, public opinion around the biotech industry's contamination of our food supply and destruction of our environment has reached the tipping point. We're fighting back.
  • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
    Nice to see some good news.
    Signature

    Project HERE.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6037836].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      If you're new to this fight, welcome aboard we need all the help we can get.
      Vermont is the current state that is closest to passing GMO labeling legislation. Things where going fine and it looked like the bill would pass, then Monsanto threatened to sue the state if it did and now it looks like the state may back down.
      Here's a list of the states that currently have labeling legislation (in limbo).
      Support Current Pending State Laws to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

      Here is part of the only replay I could get from my congressman to the question, "Do you support labeling GMO foods".
      Thank you very much for contacting me regarding genetically engineered (GE) or modified (GMO) products. It is good to hear from you.

      Currently, the United States Department of Agriculture regulates all biotechnology crops, foods, and practices before they can be field tested or sold in the marketplace through the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), authorized by the Plant Protection Act. Through this process, APHIS makes the decision on whether or not to deregulate certain products or crops if deemed safe and reliable. Currently, over 70 GE crops have undergone testing and been deregulated through this process (including genetically engineered alfalfa). Genetic engineering of food products allows for a more efficient process in terms of land use, limiting the need for additional operating costs (such as fertilization, lime, pesticides, or medicines for livestock and fisheries), creating larger quantities of product at lower costs, and targeting specific diseases and/or defects accustomed to certain crops, animals, or regions. With our growing population, increasing energy costs, and a static amount of arable or farmable land, GE products are important to the growing needs of our nation's population.
      He sits on the ag. committee and if you go to Monsantos website you can read pretty much the same thing as his reply.
      I emailed him back and told him what my experience and credentials are in agriculture and plant science, then preceded to explain to him (politely) that he was not telling the truth and showed him (with the USDA's own numbers) where he was wrong.
      I can't seem to get him to reply anymore:rolleyes:
      My other two reps on the federal level won't reply at all to my question about them supporting labeling.
      On the state level my reps are currently more concerned about summer recess and stopped communicating with me on this, so in the fall when they go back in session, I'll start with the emails and phone calls again.
      This is one hell of a tough fight, but we will eventually win and get labeling on GMO foods.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6038180].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    We don't need government to get rid of this crap. All we have to do is quit buying anything GMO - tell stores you won't buy it and ask them to carry only LABELED gmo foods if they think they have to carry any.

    I refuse to associate with anyone who uses Monsanto poisons on their lawns, I refuse to associate with anyone who will work for them. If we don't buy from them or work for them, they can't exist no matter what the gov lets them do -- and right now it's getting to the point that they are ruining our land so badly that it can't rebuild soil.....which happens to be a death threat to the whole planet. No soil, no life. With 7 billion people to feed, MONSANTO is nothing but a giant way to cull the population (and that of every other species on the planet).

    I know people need jobs so don't even start on it. Allowing Monsanto in America can be looked at as genocide. There's proof that the food maimes and kills, there's proof that it can permanently damage soil. It is high past time for the concern for our planet and our own damned bodies outweighed the worry about jobs. To me if you work for this company, you are a criminal, aiding and abetting the destruction of your planet and all of its people and other creatures for your own comfort - so go elsewhere for your friends. You are an enemy of the people.

    I don't ask a lot out of life -- but to die with dignity rather than from illness caused by a corporation who could care less what it destroys for a buck is one of them. Our government is so slutted out they are shameful.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6039677].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      We don't need government to get rid of this crap. All we have to do is quit buying anything GMO - tell stores you won't buy it and ask them to carry only LABELED gmo foods if they think they have to carry any.
      The problem is in knowing what foods have GMO's in them without the labeling. There are some foods that have the GMO free label.
      Then you have some foods that aren't organic, but don't contain GMO's.
      To find them you would have to go through their ingredient list and know the source of the ingredients.
      Currently 70% of processed foods contain GMO's . So there's still 30% out there that isn't tainted by GMO's but isn't organic.
      Companies like Monsanto, Bayer, and a few others have destroyed our food and our ability to grow our food.
      A little side note.
      Milk is pasteurized to destroy harmful bacteria that are present because of the feeding practices used to increase production. Dairy cows that are 'range' fed produce milk that doesn't need to be pasteurized.
      Almost all the health benefits of milk are destroyed when it is pasteurized.
      To top it of if a person is lactose intolerant they can drink raw milk and eat products made from it.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6039909].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Nothing processed is worth putting in your mouth if you are after nutrition, Thom. Processed food isn't something people need to eat in the first place. With so much of the crap containing GMO's it seems like it would be hella smart for those producing any without it to label it so. The law isn't saying they CAN'T label food NO GMO's. Those that don't will make some good money in the future letting people know that.

    Pasteurizing kills OJ, too. I am fortunate enough to live in a state that raw milk is legal. Even our Grocery Outlet here has organic meats, veggies, etc. Central OR is very hot on "green" and it's working for them. For us. I love real food.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6039978].message }}
    • Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Pasteurizing kills OJ, too. I am fortunate enough to live in a state that raw milk is legal. Even our Grocery Outlet here has organic meats, veggies, etc. Central OR is very hot on "green" and it's working for them. For us. I love real food.
      Some of those and other Willamette Valley organic growers have been under attack by GMO providers with the apparent claim that the organic crops could "infect" their nearby GMO operations? How ironic.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6040100].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by MoneyMagnetMagnate View Post

        Some of those and other Willamette Valley organic growers have been under attack by GMO providers with the apparent claim that the organic crops could "infect" their nearby GMO operations? How ironic.
        Never heard of that.
        But I know many non-gmo farms have been sued by Monsanto for 'stealing' their genetic material when the wind blows their seed pollen on to non-gmo crops.

        Sal my point was (sorta) not everyone can afford to buy organic or can they grow their own. So labeling gmo foods would at least give them another option.
        By the way it is also legal in NY to buy raw milk
        You have to buy it at the farm though.
        There is one up in Balston Spa where you can buy raw milk and they also have cheeses made from their milk.
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6041796].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    3M -- Monsanto is responsible for around 25,000 suicides in India because of that kind of ****. That company makes Hitler look like a freaking sweet little boyscout. Our legislators that go along with them just because of the $$ should be on trial for murder as well - and that will become apparent very soon if we don't shut that monster down. It would be the most important and vital war ever waged for this planet and the life forms that inhabit it.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6040395].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Banned
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      3M -- Monsanto is responsible for around 25,000 suicides in India because of that kind of ****. That company makes Hitler look like a freaking sweet little boyscout. Our legislators that go along with them just because of the $$ should be on trial for murder as well - and that will become apparent very soon if we don't shut that monster down. It would be the most important and vital war ever waged for this planet and the life forms that inhabit it.
      Why are they responsible for 25k suicides?

      I'm asking because I don't know what you mean by that.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6045902].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Christopher Fox
        Originally Posted by yukon View Post

        Why are they responsible for 25k suicides?

        I'm asking because I don't know what you mean by that.
        That has to do with their products producing a bad crop one year and already poor farmers becoming desperate. I cannot say if it is true or not, but that is what is behind that claim.

        They do other sketchy crap too. Like if one farmer is using on of their gmo products and it cross pollinates another farmer's field, they use private investigator type folks to do genetic analysis to prove cross pollination and then sue the farmer who's field got cross pollinated for using their stuff.

        Monsato = bad, bad company that needs one huge beeotch slap. They want to control global food production. No thank you.
        Signature
        One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity, there ain't nothing can beat teamwork.

        - Seldom Seen Smith
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6046081].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          As far as Roundup, et al are concerned, they have been a huge boost to crop productivity. My family has a small farm and leases the land out to a local farmer. We grow crops, not animals. We grow corn, barley, and soy beans on a rotating basis.
          Bill I grew up on and around farms myself, though they where mostly dairy and hay farms.
          If roundup actually worked the way Monsanto said it did, it would be great.
          Fast acting weed killer that breaks down in the soil quickly.
          But the truth is it doesn't break down in the soil quickly (takes about 25 years). So the boost to crop productivity will last for a while, maybe even a long while, but it is destroying the soil. So after using roundup for a time you need to increase your fertilizer program and also increase your roundup applications as the weeds become tolerant to it.
          I'd say the recent increase in finding the active ingredient in roundup in pregnant women is alarming. Also I'd bet you dollar to donut that if you where tested you would find it in your system also.
          USGS Release: Widely Used Herbicide Commonly Found in Rain and Streams in the Mississippi River Basin (8/29/2011 8:19:35 AM)

          Remember at one time asbestos was thought to be the greatest thing since sliced bread for many industries and we know how that turned out.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6047613].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Bill Farnham
            Thom,

            The points you make are the reason I think the whole ball of wax will melt within the next two generations.

            Currently 60% of the usable land surface is dedicated to growing food. And every ounce of productivity is being squeezed out of it, and that productivity is declining.

            One acre of land can support 250 pounds of beef or 40,000 pounds of potatoes. Only two percent of the corn grown in the US is fed to humans directly. The rest goes for ethanol, HFCS, and animal food. The corn that grows on our land is used to feed cattle. If you tried to eat it you'd spit it out. It really tastes that bad.

            We as a spieces are are going 100 mile per hour down a dead end road. If you take a look at a population graph you can see things are unsustainable. If people understood the steep rise on the graph may mirror the decline on the backside of the graph when it happens they'd be a lot more careful about what they put into the soil.

            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6048060].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
              The corn that grows on our land is used to feed cattle. If you tried to eat it you'd spit it out. It really tastes that bad.
              As somebody who ate cow corn more then sweet corn as a kid, I find that really sad.
              Back then the main difference in cow and sweet was the sugars broke down quicker in cow corn, giving it a short window of tasting good.
              Because I spent everyday out in the woods, fields, and cow pastures, grabbing an ear of cow corn off the stalk and eating it on the spot was a common lunch for me. I'd follow that with some milk fresh squeezed from the udder
              When eating it cooked, you had to have your water already boiling. Then we would just walk over to the fence grab a couple ears and throw them in the pot.
              Signature

              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
              Getting old ain't for sissy's
              As you are I was, as I am you will be
              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6048414].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Christopher Fox
                Like others, I have farming on one side of the family, with members still farming in Iowa. I have to disagree with you slightly on one point Bill:

                Currently 60% of the usable land surface is dedicated to growing food. And every ounce of productivity is being squeezed out of it, and that productivity is declining.
                We are not quite squeezing every ounce out of usable land. The US government still pays some farmers to not grow some crops. This has nothing to do with soil mechanics, but is done to keep supply down and prices up.

                An artificial inflation of price, specifically due to not squeezing every ounce of productivity from the farmable lands in the US. This dates back to FDR's New Deal. A modern day slaughter of the shotes. Pig farmers are poor? No problem. Send the G men out to kill a whole bunch of pigs, supply will decrease and the price of pork bellies will rise.

                I also do not buy into the Malthusian Trap theory and am not concerned about overpopulation. Pretty much, without fail, every society benefits, on balance and over time, as their population increases. But for those who are concerned about increasing population, the key is education, wealth and technology. Look at Western Europe, the US, Japan, etc. Japan has a real problem with birth rates. So do parts of Europe. The population explosion comes from 2nd and 3rd world countries - if we lift them up to our level, the problem solves itself.
                Signature
                One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity, there ain't nothing can beat teamwork.

                - Seldom Seen Smith
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6049444].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Seoonlineshop
    Organic crops are not more nutritious than traditional or GMO crops. It is possible with GMO to increase nutritious quality of food produce.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6041920].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      I have a slightly different view on GMO. Had it been diligently studied and applied judiciously, I think there are valid applications for genetically modified foods IF THEY ARE PROVEN SAFE IN SOME FORMS.

      Unfortunately, under Monsanto, it was approached as a mega-profit enterprise rather than on a platform that would have tested and distributed GMOs in a way that enhanced current growing conditions where more foods are needed to support a population.

      I don't think GMO food is inherently "bad" or dangerous - but the profit motive was the driving force for Monsanto - not science or public opinion.

      Genetic modification could be a valid way to protect produce from known diseases and blights that commonly destroy crops in some areas. Done in a way that is transparent and proven for safety - GMOS could offer a real benefit for countries struggling to meet their produce needs. That potential has been destroyed by Monsanto greed.

      kay
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6042053].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        I have a slightly different view on GMO. Had it been diligently studied and applied judiciously, I think there are valid applications for genetically modified foods IF THEY ARE PROVEN SAFE IN SOME FORMS.

        Unfortunately, under Monsanto, it was approached as a mega-profit enterprise rather than on a platform that would have tested and distributed GMOs in a way that enhanced current growing conditions where more foods are needed to support a population.

        I don't think GMO food is inherently "bad" or dangerous - but the profit motive was the driving force for Monsanto - not science or public opinion.

        Genetic modification could be a valid way to protect produce from known diseases and blights that commonly destroy crops in some areas. Done in a way that is transparent and proven for safety - GMOS could offer a real benefit for countries struggling to meet their produce needs. That potential has been destroyed by Monsanto greed.

        kay
        I don't know Kay, after 20 years that's exactly what they have been proven to be.
        It's always about profit, that's the way things work.
        The problem with trying to genetically modify produce or anything else to protect it from a disease, is it just creates disease strains that are resistant and more dangerous.
        That's what happened with all the round up ready crops. They where resistant to round up so the farmers could spray their fields with round up when their crops where growing, thus having better weed control. The results? A new generation of weeds have sprung up in all the farming states. Attack of the Superweed - Businessweek
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6045537].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Bill Farnham
          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          It's always about profit, that's the way things work.

          The problem with trying to genetically modify produce or anything else to protect it from a disease, is it just creates disease strains that are resistant and more dangerous.
          I watched a documentary the other night that was about a Doctor who made huge strides in the cancer research field back in the 1930s. He found out there appears to be a single organism that mutates into the various forms that cause the different cancers we see.

          He could take that organism and change its' diet to effect the various mutations. These mutations look completely different under a microscope, yet he could take any of the variations and put them back on the parent diet and they would revert to the original strain over a short time.

          It's probably no surpise to anyone here that the establishment hated him and saw him only as a destroyer of profits.

          As far as Roundup, et al are concerned, they have been a huge boost to crop productivity. My family has a small farm and leases the land out to a local farmer. We grow crops, not animals. We grow corn, barley, and soy beans on a rotating basis.

          I can't even imagine how difficult it would be to produce the kind of crop yeilds like we have become accustomed to these days without some form of weed control. Our whole food supply chain is geared to the ability of the farmer to harvest a single crop without the interference of a weed contaminated crop.

          Watching those huge machines work our land and seeing the singularity of vegitation come out the auger end of the combine sans any vestage of unwanted plants is truly a site to behold. This is only possible because of weed control substances. Like them or loathe them the reason you can go to the grocery store and afford the food you do is because of those devil products.

          I'm not standing up for Monsanto or any other company, btw. We have such an arsnic problem with the land from years of that pesticide being used when those feilds were apple orchards for almost 100 years it's disgusting. And the fertilizer that's added to the ground also contains arsnic from the chicken parts that are sometimes used. I'm using the term 'parts' liberally here.

          Basically what we have is an artificial foundation that we as a global society depend on for food. Personally, I can't imagine it working for more than a few generations longer. We now use 40% of our croplands nationwide to prop up the ridiculous notion that 110 pound humans need 5,000 pound vehicles to drive to McDonalds in. Thank goodness that ethanol subsidy expired. It's been an unmitigated disaster since the idiots that put it in play conned a nation into believing it would be a good thing.

          Taking that cropland and using it year after year for a single crop is harmful to the topsoil. You can't just snap your fingers and fix that problem.

          I know I wandered a bit off the Monsanto topic, so let me be clear on this...I think that corporation is the evilest entity on the planet. Whatever good they do pales in the light of the damage they do. I wish other alternatives could be found. And rapidly.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6046009].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author hommedespoir
      Originally Posted by Seoonlineshop View Post

      Organic crops are not more nutritious than traditional or GMO crops. It is possible with GMO to increase nutritious quality of food produce.
      Sorry to bring such bad news, seoonlineshop.... but your statement proves you don't know anything about nutrition

      In fact, your ONLY excuse for typing such a grossly-, totally-misleading, statement is that your marketing brain has for years been washed by the subliminal minute by the $erially-paid-for propaganda from BigMedia. Learn how, learn fast and learn now...

      GMO is literally LITERALLY killing US, all of us....some less slowly than others. Start at Mike Evan's NaturalNews.com (no aff)...begin reading the first article of your organic education.... it might save your seo-online business. The life it saves could be your own.

      For daily high-value FR*E links to endless factual articles on this and related topics Joan Mootry | Facebook publishes all the most relevant daily links on her FB timeline.

      Read the articles that amaze you the most. There's nothing for sale there... you'll only find no-charge, very-vital information in the "LIFE" niche, updated every hour, not posted on auto... just hand-picked by a very-perceptive world citizen camped in WA state, waiting actively for Barry's last Executive Order that SWATs US all into FEMA's concentrated care

      This affects ALL of US (including us bloody foreigners)...the WWW needs to know about this evility, whatever WSO we're workin' on :-)

      I KNOW this will seem like hype: it is NOT....I haven't even begun on the dire implications to all our businesses of the threatened NON-choice of POTUS, unless we all demand a third candidate come November

      MikeR
      Signature

      Sig File censored by mad mod

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6710760].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    We are over global carrying capacity, and yes Christopher - it will all straighten itself out -- just as it does with every other species when the abundance of it's sustenance elements allows. Then the species becomes so populated it strips it's own means of sustenance and dies off. If you think humans are exceptions to this rule, you've been drinking some dangerous kool-aid.

    Most of the corn (90%) grown in the US is because it's GMO - not because it's field corn. Considering that the MONSANTO chemicals kill all the bacteria that generate new soil, we need to be concerned even if the population will "take care of itself".
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6049717].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Considering that the MONSANTO chemicals kill all the bacteria that generate new soil, we need to be concerned even if the population will "take care of itself".
      Funny Sal, I was just out working in the garden and thinking about where I was going to get the water for it this year.
      This year I'm inoculating the soil with 4 species of Glomus A Symbiotic Sugar Transporter in the Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungus Glomus sp,
      and some Hypsizygus ulmarius.
      I'm afraid the chemicals in my faucet water will kill the Fungi
      So I'll collect as much rain water as I can and get the rest either at the bottom of my road or the spring on Spring Ave.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6050125].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
    I even see widespread anger towards Monsanto just on my Twitter account. I was wondering why I was being so mild on Twitter as if I'd lose business where I was getting none anyway, so I posted things like what I really think about Monsanto. Next thing I know, several of my anti-Monsanto messages were being re-tweeted, which rarely happens for me.
    Signature

    Project HERE.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6050707].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by thunderbird View Post

      I even see widespread anger towards Monsanto just on my Twitter account. I was wondering why I was being so mild on Twitter as if I'd lose business where I was getting none anyway, so I posted things like what I really think about Monsanto. Next thing I know, several of my anti-Monsanto messages were being re-tweeted, which rarely happens for me.
      Check out FB sometime.
      I follow at least a half dozen or more anti-monsanto groups there.
      Some of the talk about the Monsanto Walmart marriage is unreal
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6050732].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author VigorLady
    I recently watched a movie called, "Fresh the Movie" and it was amazing to see the crap that these gargantuan food operators are putting into our food.

    Did you know that cow feed at many of these operations are made from DEAD COWS?

    Cows are herbivores - not cannibal cows!

    Anyway, the whole movie was basically stating how jacked up the USA food system is and how the tides for small farms are changing and people are much more educated about the kinds of things they're putting in their bodies.

    Time to be self sufficient!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6050761].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
      Originally Posted by VigorLady View Post


      Time to be self sufficient!
      Time to leave.

      Joe Mobley
      Signature

      .

      Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6051159].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Cows aren't supposed to be stuffed with grain even if it's organic grain. They are supposed to be grazers.

    The whole world hates Monsanto - the only way they stay in power is the politicians and FDA are making beaucoup bucks to keep them there. That and the American public was kept to stupid about the issue for them to have to worry about much opposition. Well they are getting opposition now.

    Their current decision on fighting opposition is to attempt to sue NJ for the labeling law they are trying to activate. Come on - really? We need a judge will ball enough to throw that one right out of court. Wonder if there are any left?

    People have to do this themselves. Farmers have to refuse their seeds at all costs - and we have to refuse any food that could even be suspected of having their frankenfood in it.

    If I had big bucks, I'd start writing to companies and asking them if their food has GMO in it and if they said yes - I'd tell them sorry, I am done eating it.....well, don't need bucks for that one, and I do that....but......
    If they said "no" I'd have the food analyzed by an independent laboratory and sue the snot out of the company if I catch them lying to me.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6051205].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Cows aren't supposed to be stuffed with grain even if it's organic grain. They are supposed to be grazers.

      The whole world hates Monsanto - the only way they stay in power is the politicians and FDA are making beaucoup bucks to keep them there. That and the American public was kept to stupid about the issue for them to have to worry about much opposition. Well they are getting opposition now.

      Their current decision on fighting opposition is to attempt to sue NJ for the labeling law they are trying to activate. Come on - really? We need a judge will ball enough to throw that one right out of court. Wonder if there are any left?

      People have to do this themselves. Farmers have to refuse their seeds at all costs - and we have to refuse any food that could even be suspected of having their frankenfood in it.

      If I had big bucks, I'd start writing to companies and asking them if their food has GMO in it and if they said yes - I'd tell them sorry, I am done eating it.....well, don't need bucks for that one, and I do that....but......
      If they said "no" I'd have the food analyzed by an independent laboratory and sue the snot out of the company if I catch them lying to me.
      That's why milk has to be pasteurized. It's also why milk from cows that are allowed to feed naturally doesn't need to be pasteurized.
      That's Vermont they are threatening to sue
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6054008].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        Most of my growing up years were living with my Grandparents on an 800 acre farm. One crop was steers - and yes, they ate some grain along with the pasture diet. Only where you have vast acres of plains can you raised feed cattle on grass alone and feeding a grain as a part of the diet has been done for a long time.

        But - it wasn't Monsanto corn either.

        Greed replaced reason and science.

        To me it's not logical to make the claim of huge steps forward in human genetic engineering and then claim the same engineering is an absolute negative when it comes to crops.

        The problem is with humans the focus of science is on manipulating genes to prevent diseases or inherited problems. The profit motive of human genetics comes only after the science is proven.

        With food, we've allowed a focus on increasing output without worry of side effects or unintended consequences....and allowed Monsanto to use manipulated scientific results to excuse the profit motive.

        I do see potential in weed control - and in increasing resistance of crops to certain insects and diseases such as blights and mold. That alone would increase production but that's not how it is being approached unfortunately.
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6055064].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          Most of my growing up years were living with my Grandparents on an 800 acre farm. One crop was steers - and yes, they ate some grain along with the pasture diet. Only where you have vast acres of plains can you raised feed cattle on grass alone and feeding a grain as a part of the diet has been done for a long time.

          But - it wasn't Monsanto corn either.

          Greed replaced reason and science.

          To me it's not logical to make the claim of huge steps forward in human genetic engineering and then claim the same engineering is an absolute negative when it comes to crops.

          The problem is with humans the focus of science is on manipulating genes to prevent diseases or inherited problems. The profit motive of human genetics comes only after the science is proven.

          With food, we've allowed a focus on increasing output without worry of side effects or unintended consequences....and allowed Monsanto to use manipulated scientific results to excuse the profit motive.

          I do see potential in weed control - and in increasing resistance of crops to certain insects and diseases such as blights and mold. That alone would increase production but that's not how it is being approached unfortunately.
          You're right, you couldn't produce raw milk at the level needed to meet the current milk demand. But there are farmers everywhere who are capable of producing a safe raw milk, who aren't allowed to.
          Here in NY it's legal to buy raw milk at a farm as long as it has been tested first. In fact here's a list of states where you can buy raw milk.
          Where Can I Find Real Milk Products?
          The problem with the way they are using G.E. in plants and animals is with the replacement of genes. These are then transported in to humans causing all sorts of problems. But the bigger problem (as you know) is Monsanto and their control over our government.
          Look at the rGBH in milk. We are the only country in the world that allows it. Why? because if we didn't Monsanto would lose billions in profits
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6055285].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Unfortunately - you can't use poisons to make better foods. That's why it's called "POISON". I don't think it's one damned bit of a mistake on their part. Monsanto has been around since around 1901 and EVERYTHING they have produced has been deadly. It almost seems like population control is their actual goal:

    Saccharine, Agent Organge, Bovine Growth Hormone, Polycholrinated biphenyl (PCB's), Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloethane (DDT), Roundup - and now Roundup Ready GMO seeds (poison soy, cotton, corn, sugar, and canola).

    All yours complements of MONSANTO.

    Look at the rGBH in milk. We are the only country in the world that allows it. Why? because if we didn't Monsanto would lose billions in profits
    This is what I am finding frightening. We've seen genocide in other countries - but what about the genocide going on here? Our population is nothing more than cattle used to amass wealth for the top dogs. If we are sick and dying because of what they do, it is of no concern to them. Other countries have cut off these deadly products - but Americans have been left for the slaughter - those with tens of millions of dollars and more don't need to care - they can afford to live wherever and eat whatever they want. They can totally destroy this country and its people and not have to set foot into the slime once.

    BTW - MONSANTO sold the rGBH to another company........watch it resurface under a new name.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6055649].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Who ever whats to do just a little to help in this fight against Monsanto, there is a petition at whitehouse.gov asking the pres. to speak out in favor of labeling gmo foods (which he said he supported before he was elected, but has remained silent since taking office)
      https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/#!/petition/support-mandatory-labeling-genetically-engineered-foods-gmos/nkWHZ2Vm
      By the way at this time the petition has garnered over 21,000 signatures in just 4 days.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6058358].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
    Good symbolic news from Canada (token at best, being unenforceable):
    Richmond bans genetically modified plants
    Signature

    Project HERE.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6710781].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    It's a start, at least, TB. There's a few American communities that are starting to ban them, too - and fighting for organic and raw milk. In the US a community can over-ride a lot of federal bull crap. We also have fights going on to label GMO's. There are many organizations that are on facebook or just on the net in general if you google the issue.

    The "increased crop yield" has already been disproved. The environmental damage is confirmed. In the US they just want to use stronger poison on the superweeds produced by the first round of the crap. Makes sense right? Poison creates poison resistant weeds that are destroying the environment - so get more disastrously poisonous crap sprayed on them.

    They know that the stuff kills bees. They know it kills the bacteria that makes soil (no soil = no life).

    It's being a battle from hell just to get labeling demanded. Our little royal clique doesn't even feel we have the right to know what we are eating. Monsanto and Dupont are now going head to head in a court battle. We'll soon know which of those monster corps that will have the privilege of destroying the largest amount of our environment and killing the most lifeforms, including humans.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6710931].message }}

Trending Topics