Monsanto Hysteria

[Timshel]

Monsanto has bought enough politicians to get what they want. And that is NOT in our best interest.

In many countries GMOs are banned. In this country we cannot even get a requirement to label them as such. That is a HUGE issue in my mind. There is research showing many of the GMO crops are flat out dangerous. Is it in your cereal? You don't even know.

You can find research to confirm any bias you have or want to have. What is needed is research published in a peer reviewed journal with repeatable results. Where is it?

 

[I'm Watermark]

I gave you the text of the relevant section of the act with links in my first post. You don't know what it means and you were talking about how it deregulates firms. Now you are simply parroting bullshit posted on a site that seeks to make money by selling people crap marketed with naturalistic fallacies.

It clearly says that that if the non regulated status of a crop is invalidated or vacated then a farmer can petition for a temporary delay until the non regulated status is reviewed. This does not allow for crops to come to market unchecked. They had already been tested and studied for safety in initial review granting them a non regulated status. The judge voided the non regulated status of the beets and they were to be destroyed according to law. This does not remove the power of judicial review or violate the separation of powers since the crops would have been destroyed according to legislation previously passed by congress. The courts are not stopped from voiding the non regulated status. All this does is change the law that would have required destruction of the crops and give the farmers a chance to seek due process through the SOA and a review of the non regulated status before crops they planted in compliance with the laws and regulations are destroyed.

You are pitching a bunch of woo and conspiratorial bullshit.

Brilliant. You just proved my point.

If the non regulated status is revoked, the DOA has to grant it again under the language of this section. Now, whiter they were tested beforehand or not has no bearing on this - as the invalidation of the non regulated status is done for a reason. Despite the fact that those crops that were previously deemed unsafe were destroyed, nothing stops more from being grown using the same practices. And, because federal courts are virtually stripped of their ability to prosecute these firms (they are, despite what your Austrian blog says), and the DOA has to let them continue conducting business, this behavior can continue.

 

[Timshel]

Brilliant. You just proved my point.

If the non regulated status is revoked, the DOA has to grant it again under the language of this section. Now, whiter they were tested beforehand or not has no bearing on this - as the invalidation of the non regulated status is done for a reason. Despite the fact that those crops that were previously deemed unsafe were destroyed, nothing stops more from being grown using the same practices. And, because federal courts are virtually stripped of their ability to prosecute these firms (they are, despite what your Austrian blog says), and the DOA has to let them continue conducting business, this behavior can continue.

I proved you wrong. Your supposed point keeps changing and you do appear to be learning something about the actual law. But still, that's NOT WHAT IT SAYS. The farmers can petition for a temporary non regulated status until the non regulated status is reviewed.

Whether they were tested before has a bearing on the hyperbolic propaganda and lies that you posted. Specifically....

Eliminate federal agency oversight to protect farmers, consumers and the environment from potential harms caused by unapproved biotech crops.

Allow Monsanto and biotech seed and chemical companies to profit by overriding the rule of law and plant their untested GMO crops despite no proof of their safety for the public and environment.

Would open up the floodgates for the planting of new untested genetically engineered crops, endangering farmers, consumers and the environment."

The invalidation of the non regulated status can be done based on a technicality. The DOA does not have to let them continue. It can finish its review and deny the non regulated status.

The courts are not prohibited in any way. The law makes no mention of any prohibition on the courts. It only changes the law about what is to happen in the case of the courts invalidating the non regulated status. Congress has legislative powers here.

I have no idea why you think the blog is Austrian or why that their opinions of the business cycle would be relevant to this. It appears with no facts on your side all you have is mudslinging. But I don't care what the blog says, we don't need them. The text of the law clearly says what I said it does and does not say any of the things you are claiming.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

You can find research to confirm any bias you have or want to have. What is needed is research published in a peer reviewed journal with repeatable results. Where is it?

When it comes to our food, they should have to prove it is safe, not the other way around.

And genetically modified organisms are something we should have a choice about. Why refuse to label them? My dog's food has to have a label telling me the ingredients. Why shouldn't GMOs belisted on a label?

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

You can find research to confirm any bias you have or want to have. What is needed is research published in a peer reviewed journal with repeatable results. Where is it?

"An editorial in the respected American scientific monthly magazine, Scientific American, August 2009 reveals the shocking and alarming reality behind the proliferation of GMO products throughout the food chain of the planet since 1994. There are no independent scientific studies published in any reputed scientific journal in the world for one simple reason. It is impossible to independently verify that GMO crops such as Monsanto Roundup Ready Soybeans or MON8110 GMO maize perform as the company claims, or that, as the company also claims, that they have no harmful side effects because the GMO companies forbid such tests!

That’s right. As a precondition to buy seeds, either to plant for crops or to use in research study, Monsanto and the gene giant companies must first sign an End User Agreement with the company. For the past decade, the period when the greatest proliferation of GMO seeds in agriculture has taken place, Monsanto, Pioneer (DuPont) and Syngenta require anyone buying their GMO seeds to sign an agreement that explicitly forbids that the seeds be used for any independent research. Scientists are prohibited from testing a seed to explore under what conditions it flourishes or even fails. They cannot compare any characteristics of the GMO seed with any other GMO or non-GMO seeds from another company. Most alarming, they are prohibited from examining whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended side-effects either in the environment or in animals or humans."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/gmo-sc...-of-genetically-modified-food-on-humans/14570

Think that might have anything to do with the shortage of peer reviewed research?

 

[I'm Watermark]

I proved you wrong. Your supposed point keeps changing and you do appear to be learning something about the actual law. But still, that's NOT WHAT IT SAYS. The farmers can petition for a temporary non regulated status until the non regulated status is reviewed.

Whether they were tested before has a bearing on the hyperbolic propaganda and lies that you posted. Specifically....

The invalidation of the non regulated status can be done based on a technicality. The DOA does not have to let them continue. It can finish its review and deny the non regulated status.

The courts are not prohibited in any way. The law makes no mention of any prohibition on the courts. It only changes the law about what is to happen in the case of the courts invalidating the non regulated status. Congress has legislative powers here.

I have no idea why you think the blog is Austrian or why that their opinions of the business cycle would be relevant to this. It appears with no facts on your side all you have is mudslinging. But I don't care what the blog says, we don't need them. The text of the law clearly says what I said it does and does not say any of the things you are claiming.

Go back and read the law. What is says, as you know very well by now, is that during that period after which the non regulated status is invalidated, the DOA cannot set restrictions on the outlined activities of productive agricultural firms. Congress and the courts may intervene and prosecute - it seems you're right about that, I'll concede -, but even so, the activities can continue until the processes of these bodies are to a point where they have a ruling. By that time, damage could be irreparable.

The accusations of firms don't matter at this point. The fact of the matter is that if the status is revoked, the DOA still has no power to regulate.

 

[Timshel]

"An editorial in the respected American scientific monthly magazine, Scientific American, August 2009 reveals the shocking and alarming reality behind the proliferation of GMO products throughout the food chain of the planet since 1994. There are no independent scientific studies published in any reputed scientific journal in the world for one simple reason. It is impossible to independently verify that GMO crops such as Monsanto Roundup Ready Soybeans or MON8110 GMO maize perform as the company claims, or that, as the company also claims, that they have no harmful side effects because the GMO companies forbid such tests!

That’s right. As a precondition to buy seeds, either to plant for crops or to use in research study, Monsanto and the gene giant companies must first sign an End User Agreement with the company. For the past decade, the period when the greatest proliferation of GMO seeds in agriculture has taken place, Monsanto, Pioneer (DuPont) and Syngenta require anyone buying their GMO seeds to sign an agreement that explicitly forbids that the seeds be used for any independent research. Scientists are prohibited from testing a seed to explore under what conditions it flourishes or even fails. They cannot compare any characteristics of the GMO seed with any other GMO or non-GMO seeds from another company. Most alarming, they are prohibited from examining whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended side-effects either in the environment or in animals or humans."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/gmo-sc...-of-genetically-modified-food-on-humans/14570

Think that might have anything to do with the shortage of peer reviewed research?

Here is the article they mention.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research

I fully agree their ability to prohibit studying it should be voided.

However there have been studies, here and in other parts of the world, and there is little proof of danger. There is no reason to require labeling.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17522828

There is no reason to believe them dangerous. I disagree that they should have to prove the safety of the crop first. Foreign genetic material, whether introduced intentionally or unintentionally, has always been a part of crops and always will be. The difference with gm foods is that we know and control the foreign genetic material. The fact that it is done in a controlled lab may seem sci-fi spooky to you but it is actually safer since we have more control. That is not to say there are no risks. There are and they exist with or without GMOs.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Here is the article they mention.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research

I fully agree their ability to prohibit studying it should be voided.

However there have been studies, here and in other parts of the world, and there is little proof of danger. There is no reason to require labeling.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17522828

There is no reason to believe them dangerous. I disagree that they should have to prove the safety of the crop first. Foreign genetic material, whether introduced intentionally or unintentionally, has always been a part of crops and always will be. The difference with gm foods is that we know and control the foreign genetic material. The fact that it is done in a controlled lab may seem sci-fi spooky to you but it is actually safer since we have more control. That is not to say there are no risks. There are and they exist with or without GMOs.

Some of these genetic modifications can create toxins. When you create a genetically modified plant that produces its own insecticide to kill or repel insects, you will always run the risk of introducing that into our food.

I am not scared by "sci-fi spooky" lab work. I am simply not willing to risk my health by trusting the promises of the PR departments of huge corporations. And we really only have Monsanto's word for what is in the GMOs. Anyone who thinks that is a good idea has not been paying attention.

How many times have corporations sold foods or medicines to the public that they KNEW posed a significant risk?? How many times have they settled out of court with nondisclosure contracts to silence the victims?

 

[Timshel]

Go back and read the law. What is says, as you know very well by now, is that during that period after which the non regulated status is invalidated, the DOA cannot set restrictions on the outlined activities of productive agricultural firms. Congress and the courts may intervene and prosecute - it seems you're right about that, I'll concede -, but even so, the activities can continue until the processes of these bodies are to a point where they have a ruling. By that time, damage could be irreparable.

The accusations of firms don't matter at this point. The fact of the matter is that if the status is revoked, the DOA still has no power to regulate.

Nope. The DOA still has to review the voided non regulated status and can deny it. Further the petition can be limited.

grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects...

These are crops that have already been approved. They are most likely having their status voided due to some bureaucratic mistake. You are introducing this hyperbolic fears where we are supposed to imagine killer tomatoes on the loose or something, but that's not the reality. If it is a danger then the DOA can take action to limit the impact and there is no reason they can't quickly overturn the non regulated status.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Defending what Monsanto (and others) and accepting the foods (and what passes for nutrition science) has led to the epidemics of obesity, diabeties, heart disease, disorders of the immune systems, many cancers, and much more.

The idea that GMOs are safe is just the latest shafting from agribusiness.

 

[Rationalist]

Right, that's just the sort of hysteria I am talking about.

The two stories are contradictory in the logic used by anti science left wing nuts. In one you have them claiming that allowing a farmer have due process against regulators benefits Monsanto. In the other they claim that regulatory authorities deny due process to beekeepers to benefit Monsanto. Obviously, the answer is more regulations and to blame any unintended consequences on Monsanto. Even the fact that you are fat can now be conveniently blamed on Monsanto. It is complete bullshit based on little more than naturalistic fallacies. While regulatory capture and over zealous regulatory actions are both legitimate concerns all this hysteria confuses the issues with a bunch of conspiratorial nonsense.

Unfortunately, anti-GMO hysteria is not limited to the left alone. My cousin and his wife are as right-wing as they come, but they blame GMOs for every sort of ailment. They also don't vaccinate their kids, but I digress.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

I was doing a little reading and found a bigger potential threat from GMOs. GMOs present a great potential to eliminate genetic diversity in our crops. Once that happens, a single pathogen could wipe out an entire food crop.

Now, if that were to happen gradually, and grains were eliminated as a food source, we would be a much healthier and happier population. But I kinda doubt that is Monsanto's plan.

 

[Timshel]

Some of these genetic modifications can create toxins. When you create a genetically modified plant that produces its own insecticide to kill or repel insects, you will always run the risk of introducing that into our food.

I am not scared by "sci-fi spooky" lab work. I am simply not willing to risk my health by trusting the promises of the PR departments of huge corporations. And we really only have Monsanto's word for what is in the GMOs. Anyone who thinks that is a good idea has not been paying attention.

How many times have corporations sold foods or medicines to the public that they KNEW posed a significant risk?? How many times have they settled out of court with nondisclosure contracts to silence the victims?

Divided by the number of times they have sold food or medicine the frequency with which they have sold ones posing a significant risk is very low.

We are going to keep progressing and coming up with new innovations. Not all of them will work and we should certainly find ways to mitigate the harms.

The response to the so called Monsanto Protection Act is propaganda. It is not even intended to protect Monsanto but farmers. That there are other problems with Monsanto I have acknowledged. We should focus on real issues not crap that makes all criticism of Monsanto seem as though they are coming from Alex Jones' types.

 

[I'm Watermark]

Nope. The DOA still has to review the voided non regulated status and can deny it. Further the petition can be limited.

grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects...

These are crops that have already been approved. They are most likely having their status voided due to some bureaucratic mistake. You are introducing this hyperbolic fears where we are supposed to imagine killer tomatoes on the loose or something, but that's not the reality. If it is a danger then the DOA can take action to limit the impact and there is no reason they can't quickly overturn the non regulated status.

"Nope. The DOA still has to review the voided non regulated status and can deny it. Further the petition can be limited."

Not according to the language of the act. We both know what's written, and your quote from it only confirms these assertions.

-----

For some reason, you have a lot of faith in these firms, as what's implicit in your argument is this:

- The crops are safe.
- The firms will effectively regulate themselves.

Well the first isn't always true, otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate. Nor would anyone. And the second is wrong solely based on the rules of capitalism. The function of a capitalist firm is to generate profit. That statement is true whiter the firm is public, or private; it's very foundation of capitalist theory; the firm's job is to remain competitive, and to maximize return on investment for the capitalist, something it can't do in a highly competitive market unless it's always seeking higher profits; not only is it a longstanding principal in capitalist theories and the capitalist mindset, but it's been proven just based on the historical activities of firms. So it stands to reason that if given the opportunity to effectively self regulate, they wouldn't.

 

[Timshel]

Defending what Monsanto (and others) and accepting the foods (and what passes for nutrition science) has led to the epidemics of obesity, diabeties, heart disease, disorders of the immune systems, many cancers, and much more.

The idea that GMOs are safe is just the latest shafting from agribusiness.

Okay then.

 

[Timshel]

Unfortunately, anti-GMO hysteria is not limited to the left alone. My cousin and his wife are as right-wing as they come, but they blame GMOs for every sort of ailment. They also don't vaccinate their kids, but I digress.

Yes, that is true. Plenty of right wingers buy into it.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Divided by the number of times they have sold food or medicine the frequency with which they have sold ones posing a significant risk is very low.

We are going to keep progressing and coming up with new innovations. Not all of them will work and we should certainly find ways to mitigate the harms.

The response to the so called Monsanto Protection Act is propaganda. It is not even intended to protect Monsanto but farmers. That there are other problems with Monsanto I have acknowledged. We should focus on real issues not crap that makes all criticism of Monsanto seem as though they are coming from Alex Jones' types.

Their success rate is not the issue. My point is that the companies fight tooth & nail to keep word from getting out that they willingly and knowingly sold items with serious potential for harm. How many times they gopt it right says nothing about their trustworthiness. That they will hide the dangers and lie about it speaks volumes. And currently, we are not seeing the right research done on GMOs to know what we are eating.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Yes, that is true. Plenty of right wingers buy into it.

More right and left wingers should be screaming about what we are being fed and what we are being told about our food. The producers and sellers of our foods are allowed to lie like hell and we are supposed to just eat what they sell us and believe what we are told. The health of opur population is effected by our diets more than any other factor. There SHOULD be more control.

Ever see ads for Kobi beef in this country? Hmm, it doesn't exist. Ever try and find out how much of your olive oil is actually olive oil and not some other generic oil? Nope, can't do it. Ever wonder what decades of eating dyed meats and cheeses do to you? Yeah, good luck finding the research there. Ever wonder what the specifics are for what they pump into chicken? Trade secrets in the recipes for that, so you can't find out the chemicals, volumes of salt ect ect ect

 

[Timshel]

"Nope. The DOA still has to review the voided non regulated status and can deny it. Further the petition can be limited."

Not according to the language of the act. We both know what's written, and your quote from it only confirms these assertions.

-----

For some reason, you have a lot of faith in these firms, as what's implicit in your argument is this:

- The crops are safe.
- The firms will effectively regulate themselves.

Well the first isn't always true, otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate. Nor would anyone. And the second is wrong solely based on the rules of capitalism. The function of a capitalist firm is to generate profit. That statement is true whiter the firm is public, or private; it's very foundation of capitalist theory; the firm's job is to remain competitive, and to maximize return on investment for the capitalist, something it can't do in a highly competitive market unless it's always seeking higher profits; not only is it a longstanding principal in capitalist theories and the capitalist mindset, but it's been proven just based on the historical activities of firms. So it stands to reason that if given the opportunity to effectively self regulate, they wouldn't.

According to the language of the act they can temporarily deregulate it in part and set interim conditions including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental impacts. We have both quoted it several times, I highlighted it and now have repeated it for you verbatim.

Of course, they can deny the non regulated status as they could have previously. That power is actually strengthened by this act as it basically codifies their previous power grab.

No there is no faith in the firms implied by my argument. The "crops are safe" is the null hypothesis. Until you can show they are not there is no reason to believe otherwise. Everything you eat is genetically modified and would be with or without the newer techniques or even the old ones. Evolutionary processes ensure genetic modification and the DOA can't stop it.

I have not argued here against regulation of the firms and this act does not stop regulation or even limit it. As noted earlier, it actually strengthens the DOA's claim of power. They had no statutory power to regulate biotech crops but did so by considering them "pests" under the Plant Protection Act. This act implies congressional approval of that power grab and so, if anything, it increases or strengthens the claim of regulatory powers.

Sorry to interrupt your irrelevant communist rant and/or fear mongering about gm with talk of the real world. But at least you have learned a few things about the actual act.

 

[Sierra]

Monsanto’s Dirty Dozen: The 12 Most Awful Products Made By Monsanto

#1 – Saccharin

#2 – PCBs

#3 – Polystyrene

#4 – Atom bomb and nuclear weapons

#5 – DDT

#6 – Dioxin

#7 – Agent Orange

#8 – Petroleum-Based Fertilizer

#9 – RoundUp

#10 – Aspartame (NutraSweet / Equal)

#11 – Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH)

This genetically modified hormone was developed by Monsanto to be injected into dairy cows to produce more milk. Cows subjected to rBGH suffer excruciating pain due to swollen udders and mastitis[36], and the pus[37] from the resulting infection enters the milk supply[38] requiring the use of additional antibiotics. rBGH milk has been linked to breast cancer[39], colon cancer[40], and prostate cancer[41] in humans.

#12 – Genetically Modified Crops / GMOs

In the early 1990s, Monsanto began gene-splicing corn, cotton, soy, and canola with DNA from a foreign source to achieve one of two traits: an internally-generated pesticide, or an internal resistance to Monsanto’s weedkiller RoundUp. Despite decades of promises that genetically engineered crops would feed the world with more nutrients, drought resistance, or yield, the majority of Monsanto’s profits[42] are from seeds that are engineered to tolerate Monsanto’s RoundUp—an ever-rising, dual income stream as weeds continue to evolve resistance to RoundUp[43].

Most sobering however, is that the world is once again buying into Monsanto’s “safe” claims.

Just like the early days of PCBs, DDT, Agent Orange, Monsanto has successfully fooled the general public and regulatory agencies into believing that RoundUp, and the genetically modified crops that help sell RoundUp, are “safe.”

Except Monsanto has learned a thing or two in the past 100+ years of defending its dirty products: these days, when a new study proving the negative health or environmental impacts of GMOs emerges, Monsanto attacks the study and its scientist(s) by flooding the media with counter claims from “independent” organizations, scientists, industry associations, blogs, sponsored social media, and articles by “private” public relations firms—frequently founded, funded and maintained by Monsanto.