Obama Gives Monsanto Get Out of Jail Free Card
- Thread starter GreatDane
- Start date
Flint said:
Maybe, maybe not. But the questioning of corporations by people and/or the government should not be surprising or quelled.
Flint said:
Me neither [EDIT] that is to say, I agree that most of the time corporations are not evil.[/EDIT] . But minor negligence at any point/level in a corporation and/or oversight, that is so vast and far reaching, such as the food industry, can have surprisingly large and unfortunate effects. For sure, that is not evil. But when some people die because of it, it sure doesn't feel good.
Those E-Coli in meat (and others over the years in lettuce, cantaloupes, peanut butter, etc) findings recently that required recall (in Canada at least, but not here in the US, just a "public health alert) of "the XL Foods recall includes some 890,000 pounds of beef manufacturing trim and a yet-to-be-determined amount of boxed beef that was sent to 12 U.S. processors and further distributed. For the most up-to-date list of retailers involved in the recall — including Safeway, Costco, Albertson’s, Fred Meyer, Kroger, and others — check eFoodAlert.", the slow expedition of information, the slow investigation of the issue, the repeated expansion of the recall coupled with the sheer volume of what could be bad...these are the things that bother me.
And the whole pink slime and ammonia beef thing doesn't not make me feel any better about corporate meat production.
So, what you are saying is that since there was this case dealing with e-coli that appears to be a corporation doing bad things with too much power that GMOs are bad?
Or, what?
From my understanding of the law, the fear is that the activists who do not care about any of the science are being threatening enough that potential partner and middle-men for GMO based products are holding off on doing business, regardless of how much sense it makes logically, purely out of fear of law-suits and harassment from the activists. They fear uneducated juries who might side with some poor child who has fatigue syndrome and who's mom claims they weren't like that at all until a few years after the child's school started using GMO corn for the taco shells in the lunch they served every Wednesday. And, despite no other child having and issue and science to support the claim, some nutritional expert will claim that it is entirely possible the GMO corn was to blame and the poor kid is so bad off, missing out on playing baseball with his friends, and unable to even enjoy a good game of GTA for more than 4 hours while his online gaming friends are still going strong - poor, poor boy - that they award the family millions of dollars.
Or, what?
From my understanding of the law, the fear is that the activists who do not care about any of the science are being threatening enough that potential partner and middle-men for GMO based products are holding off on doing business, regardless of how much sense it makes logically, purely out of fear of law-suits and harassment from the activists. They fear uneducated juries who might side with some poor child who has fatigue syndrome and who's mom claims they weren't like that at all until a few years after the child's school started using GMO corn for the taco shells in the lunch they served every Wednesday. And, despite no other child having and issue and science to support the claim, some nutritional expert will claim that it is entirely possible the GMO corn was to blame and the poor kid is so bad off, missing out on playing baseball with his friends, and unable to even enjoy a good game of GTA for more than 4 hours while his online gaming friends are still going strong - poor, poor boy - that they award the family millions of dollars.
Flint said:
No direct accusations. Just a general statement about some of the pitfalls of such large scale food processing in general, the slow response times to health issues and the fear of "evil" corporations. *aside* seems like the fear of activists is similar and opposite to the fear of "evil" corporations. Just because some crazy activists blow things out of proportion and point fingers where they have no reason to be pointed...does not mean every activist is crazy. Nor am I interested in crazy activists that have no supportable claims. But the logical and provable claims and how they are handled, those I am interested in.
Just because GMOs have been in use for decades and have been great for many many reasons, does not mean that we should stop asking questions. I'm fairly certain that the volume of use of GMOs by food corporations has exponentially increased over the last 30 years, simply to meet demand. The petri dish has gotten much larger and more (most?) of the food(s) are now GMOs. So, while old studies were great, it is definitely possible (and maybe necessary) that newer and better studies are also done. That Vanishing Bees docu may be alarmist, but still very thought provoking.
Anyway...
Do I wonder at the large increases in child food allergies over the last 20 years (according to recent reports 18% increase since the early 90s)?
Yes
Do I think it may have something to do with the tremendous food processing/cycle/GMO changes that have been instituted over the last 20-30 years?
Yes
Do I think that the vast quantities of cheaply available unhealthy food is a problem that goes beyond the GMO debate?
Yes.
Are corporations to blame for that?
Somewhat
Are people to blame for that too?
Somewhat
In the last several years, I stopped purchasing ready made burgers (either frozen or shipped to the local store already ground) and ground beef. The fact that a single ground burger contains between 50 and 100 different cows stopped me. The fact that the "pink slime" is in so much of it stopped me. The fact that they wash the pink slime with ammonia to kill all bacteria stopped me. And I understand that our demand for beef at such a high volume makes many of these steps seemingly necessary...it still freaks me out and makes me wonder what corporations (and people) are thinking.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...t_top_art&utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
This is the kid of stuff that scares me about our food supply. Maybe not the GMO specifically always, but everything built around
it. "In 2007, as much as 185 million pounds of glyphosate was used by U.S. farmers, double the amount used six years ago".
This is the kid of stuff that scares me about our food supply. Maybe not the GMO specifically always, but everything built around
it. "In 2007, as much as 185 million pounds of glyphosate was used by U.S. farmers, double the amount used six years ago".
Thanks Monsanto, for everything.
http://gmo-awareness.com/2011/05/12/monsanto-dirty-dozen/
http://gmo-awareness.com/2011/05/12/monsanto-dirty-dozen/
The DirtMerchant said:
I don't know if the article is full of lies, or the gospel truth, probably somewhere in the middle, but I do want to point out one fact in there. When they talk about Agent Orange and said Think it can't happen here statement, 2,4D which was in Agent Orange, but it is one of the most common herbicides in the world. If you have ever killed the weeds in your lawn, more than likely you have used 2, 4D. Just because it was in Agent Orange, doesn't mean it's dangerous. That's like saying you shouldn't drink water because it was used in Agent Orange.
Huey said:
I think the point is that 2,4D is one of the most dangerous parts of Agent Orange. And now it is used EVERYWHERE.
It might be a scare tactic and it might true. But it doesn't make me feel good either way.
2, 4D is one of the safest herbicides out there, the article is misleading. Having crops that are resistant to growth regulators, which 2 4,D falls into, is a great thing for my industry. These pesticides have a very low incidence of weeds developing a resistance to them.
Huey said:
Learn new things every day.
Wish everything was completely safe.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2 ... -worl.aspx
I think this article is very well researched and open-minded. It gets to how I feel about the issue of GMO foods. There is no convincing evidence GMOs are more dangerous than any other food crop. But, the evidence GMO crops are massively superior, as we assume the scientists and farmers believe, is weak as well.
I do not fear GMO foods, but I also question their large scale benefits.
I think this article is very well researched and open-minded. It gets to how I feel about the issue of GMO foods. There is no convincing evidence GMOs are more dangerous than any other food crop. But, the evidence GMO crops are massively superior, as we assume the scientists and farmers believe, is weak as well.
I do not fear GMO foods, but I also question their large scale benefits.
That was good read Flint, thanks for posting the link. We have done side by sides when the first bt corns came out, and always found them to at least break even, meaning that the extra cost of the seed, was offset by higher yields. This was back when corn was $2 per bushel. Now today, with corn being around $5 to $6 per bushel, and yes the seed cost significantly more, but we are getting a pretty good return on our investment.
Probably the biggest thing that nobody talks about in these articles, is the fact that you have taken away major pests that could not be controlled, or at least controlled well before, and have taken those pests out of the picture. So now other farming practices can be intensified, ie higher fertilizer rates, because the corn now has little holding it back. That has been where the real yield increases have come from.
Probably the biggest thing that nobody talks about in these articles, is the fact that you have taken away major pests that could not be controlled, or at least controlled well before, and have taken those pests out of the picture. So now other farming practices can be intensified, ie higher fertilizer rates, because the corn now has little holding it back. That has been where the real yield increases have come from.
I am of the mind that GMOs aren't poisonous to all life, but that the pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals used in growing them have some negative effects. High yield, pest reduction, health issues (long and short term) and profit need to be balanced a bit more evenly.
The DirtMerchant said:
I've heard that argument many times and it sounds very logical. But I have a question: What evidence is there that the balance is not in place? Or, is it at all possible that the balance you mention is actually very much on the side of care and excessive safety in the first place?
I hear over and over that Monsanto is not being careful and are just plain greedy, but how do we know that?
In my research I have seen that Monsanto and their peers have spent billions of dollars researching this technology and even paying fortunes for independent labs to study them. I absolutely refuse the idea that an independent lab is not independent simply because a corporation is funding their testing. If we applied that rule to all safety testing, then there would be no advancement in any field ever because no lab can do the testing unless funded and the only people who want to fund new tests on new technologies are the companies making those technologies. They have tested, and tested, and tested, and tested. So have governments who have approved the use of GMOs prior to public outcry force a reverse of those decisions. Does the general public know something that thousands of scientists, researchers, and public health experts who live in this world every day do not know? I find that hard to believe.
But, I am more than willing to doubt my assumption that GMOs and their cultivation is generally as safe or safer than any other form of crop advancements.
What most people don't understand, is that Monsanto did create these gmo's, they only cultivated them. The bt used in controlling corn borer, is a naturally occurring organism, that they inserted into the gene of a corn plant. It has always been found in nature. Same thing with Roundup Ready crops, there was organism, algae I believe but I'm 100 percent sure on that point, that was resistant to roundup, and they, actually Dupont, developed a way to get that gene into a soybean plant.
I'm not saying that Monsanto did not spend billions on research. Nor am I saying that Monsanto (or any other company) is ignoring safety completely. What I am saying is that health issues are cropping up more and more, plant, organism, bees, drinking water, environmental issues are showing up more and more. And considering their control over the entire ecosystem, it is very easy to point to those corporations. So, while they may have been totally careful and not completely greedy, they now need more research. Because if it isn't healthy and it is bad for the environment or people or food or anything, that is not being careful. If they or anyone rely on old studies, that is not good enough. With the food supply, how long do they test each chemical/GMO modification before it comes to market? Once the test is passed, that's it? Cropping up over time (years/decades), no affects? I think the testing must continue. And if something is found by someone else, they should chase it down at their expense. While it may be a scare tactic, what if it isn't? And, while you may trust Monsanto or Bayer or any other corporation...mistrust is our only defense against betrayal. And it may not be a very large percentage of corporations that have betrayed "the public trust", the when they do, it becomes memorable. So corporate mistrust is nothing new. Would you really be surprised if they were totally guilty?
My dislike and/or mistrust of the food industry sadly keeps growing and growing. BVO in sports drinks. Nitrites in meats (bacon, cold cuts, processed meats) to keep the color and have it looking appetizing. Ammonia to kill bacteria in meat. Pink slime. Poisoned ground/water either unintentionally or intentionally. Sewage seeping into the water everywhere. While I am all for personal responsibility and not eating those foods that are "bad" for you...how much do I have to look out for? Should it be this hard to eat healthy? Personal responsibility can take you some of the way, but corporate responsibility is part of the equation too. Not just Monsanto, but all parts of the "food chain".
My dislike and/or mistrust of the food industry sadly keeps growing and growing. BVO in sports drinks. Nitrites in meats (bacon, cold cuts, processed meats) to keep the color and have it looking appetizing. Ammonia to kill bacteria in meat. Pink slime. Poisoned ground/water either unintentionally or intentionally. Sewage seeping into the water everywhere. While I am all for personal responsibility and not eating those foods that are "bad" for you...how much do I have to look out for? Should it be this hard to eat healthy? Personal responsibility can take you some of the way, but corporate responsibility is part of the equation too. Not just Monsanto, but all parts of the "food chain".