Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Monsanto Protection Act

Posted by cookie8 zone 5 ON (My Page) on
Wed, May 29, 13 at 10:10

With this, I have to say, I am confused by your/the President's choice in this matter. Why does his family eat organic, his wife runs around promoting healthy eating and then this gets approved? For the most part, I don't follow American politics but this one got to me.
The Monsanto Protection Act:
"The Monsanto Protection Act, essentially both written by and benefiting Monsanto Corporation, has been signed into law by United States President Barack Obama. The infamous Monsanto Corporation will benefit greatly and directly from the bill, as it essentially gives companies that deal with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically engineered (GE) seeds immunity to the federal courts, among other things.

The bill states that even if future research shows that GMOs or GE seeds cause significant health problems, cancer, etc, anything, that the federal courts no longer have any power to stop their spread, use, or sales."


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

I've been reading about the worldwide Monsanto protests... I keep hoping they'll do some good and stop this... but I have my doubts as Monsanto is a very powerful and influential corporation, and it doesn't seem to care one bit that it could be causing huge eventual problems for our planet and its many species.


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

From a column in today's Denver Post that goes into the history of Monsanto, and what all it does today :

snip " Monsanto needs the U.S. Department of Agriculture's permission to release new GMOs into the biosphere. When the USDA signs off without conducting adequate research, activists ask courts to intervene.

Monsanto recently short-circuited this process by lobbying Washington lawmakers to slip a provision into a bill that President Barack Obama signed into law. It requires the USDA to ignore court rulings and permit planting of genetically engineered crops - even if courts deem them potentially unsafe - as the agency conducts further reviews.
Now, scientists can argue about whether GMOs are dangerous or not. It is, in fact, quite difficult for the average person to understand the nuances of this complex debate. But it is not hard for the average person to see what Monsanto is doing in Washington.

Imagine Boeing getting a law passed that allowed airlines to keep flying the Dreamliner while conflicted bureaucrats studied why its batteries caught fire in midflight.

Websites, social media, and even the streets in cities around the world are now filled with rage against Monsanto.

You can go with how one protestor put it: "If Monsanto needs a bill to protect them from legal action, then they must know what they are doing is illegal!"

Or you can go with Monsanto: "Integrity is the foundation for all that we do. Integrity includes honesty, decency, consistency, and courage."

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

"Or you can go with Monsanto: "Integrity is the foundation for all that we do. Integrity includes honesty, decency, consistency, and courage."

What a load, eh? I use no-GMO-only seeds. I wonder if I should start stockpiling them.


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

They appear to be the main reason our honeybees are endangered too ...

" ... There are many reasons given to the decline in Bees, but one argument that matters most is the use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) and "Terminator Seeds" that are presently being endorsed by governments and forcefully utilized as our primary agricultural needs of survival. I will argue what is publicized and covered by the media is in actuality masking the real forces at work, namely the impact of genetically modified seeds on the reproduction of bee colonies across North America ..."

This shouldn't be all that shocking either. President Obama has been stacking government with Monsanto affiliated professionals since he first took office ... This is the latest in a long line of now predictable betrayals regarding GMO foods.

Here is a link that might be useful: Death of the Bees


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

I am curious to know of the government and it's role with employing those from very high powered companies - like Monsanto, Pfizer, Exxon to influence decisions to help further these companies without consequence.


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

There is no "Monsanto Protection Act"...it's just a rider another bill. That said, it does open up some protections.

Since I'm an industry insider...let me tell you how we got here...

Sugar beets.

When sugar beets went GMO the non-GMO seed market dried up overnight because 90%+ farmers went GMO because it's much cheaper to control weeds with a no-till, spray and plant, sugar beet cropping system. Cheap chemical (RoundUp, generally generic Chinese versions), less equipment through the fields (gasoline to wear/tear to the actual equipment $ saved), and labor savings brought on this sudden/huge switch for farmers.

When the courts put on hold the legality of GMO sugar beets three key issues came up...

1- Most farmers had already purchased their seeds and now it's legal grey area whether they can even plant them

2- Because of the huge market push by farmers to GMO seed, the amount of non-GMO seed was severely lacking

3- All that GMO seed already purchased was a lot of money (it would be a lot of money non-GMO or GMO) invested in their crop. Farming on a commercial scale is a huge money issue and many farmers go year-to-year with huge loans to finance the operation.

...so this "protection act" is really a response to this sugar beet incident.

The "sketchy" part to me is that it was tacked onto a spending bill...which it probably shouldn't have been...but that happens with a LOT of things (even though it probably shouldn't).

It is also a bit broadly written, though it's breakdown as a "free for all" by some people critiquing it is far off the mark. It doesn't give free reign of unregulated GMOs to flood the market...far from it.

Hope this helps some of you realize "what happened" here.


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

...btw, I don't work for Monsanto...I work for a competitor.

Also worth noting...Monsanto isn't even an industry leader in GMO corn/soy currently, but the activism information flow leaders are so horrible at what they do most people don't know this.

Dupont/Pioneer are the current kings of market share for both corn and soy, yet many activists don't even realize this corporation exists.

Up your activism game if you actually want to change things...demand more from your leaders and information sources.

Heck, it took almost a week for these sources to discover the latest Oregon/GMO-wheat problem that's been known in the industry for a week+ and in the "mainstream press" for almost a week. It's only today I've seen it show up in activist circle news sources...and some major ones still haven't noticed it's happened.

An activist with their fingers off the pulse isn't much of an activist.


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

...also, I don't work for Dupont/Pioneer...that's 2 out of 6 of the "majors" ruled out. I'm going to try to not narrow it down too much. I prefer to remain somewhat anonymous on this issue thanks to my proximity to the issue in the industry.

While I believe too much information/focus in the anti-GMO activism community is overblown or off-mark, I do want them to at least know what's going on, why it's going on, and how to "up their game" if they want to actually come to the table with corporations, government, and regulators to actually voice their concerns in a manner that makes them sound like they know what's going on.


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

Really, Dupont bigger in the soy market? How did Monsanto win the patent battle in this area then? Dupont will be providing Monsanto with 1.75 billion dollars in the next ten years to sign up to use Monsanto’s genetically engineered herbicide resistant soya bean traits. They abandoned the lawsuit going on between them to "work together".
No doubt Dupont is a big player but larger than Monsanto in the agricultural sector? I'm doubting that. Monsanto totally has the monopoly power.
I don't have to be an "activist" but I can empower myself to know what its going on in our food industry. As an individual, I, unfortunately can't make much change except in what and how I choose to feed my family.
Fine, The Continuing Budget Resolution bill protects this company and that is wrong. The farmers are beaten into submission by this corporation and that is wrong. It is all wrong.


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

NC, are you saying that this protection provision in the spending bill is specifically a maneuver to prevent farmers from suing the makers of GMO seed for their (the farmers) not being able to use the seed?


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

This protection provision is there to save Monsanto's butt in all areas and keep those dollars coming and get an edge for a bigger piece of the pie once this bill is up. I am very curious to see what happens next.


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

This "act" is a protection for seed put into the market, then put on hold by the courts. When farmers have the seed in hand because it's been approved...then a court says "wait a minute..." it would allow them to plant the already released seed while waiting for the courts to figure it out.

There is no protection for anyone wanting to steal GMO intellectual property. This was settled many years ago when Cargill tried to breed out seed stock from GMO seed to coax out properties and sell them back into the seed market back in the 90s. More recently, it was confirmed that a farmer cannot buy end-product grain from seed elevators in order to coax out their own GMO product from existing intellectual property.

You can't re-use GMO seed...it's on the license agreement you sign when you buy it...it's on the bag when you open it...it's intellectual property is protected from being hi-jacked by others. It's the same reason that because you buy a copy of Windows you don't get to install it on a many computers as you like.

This "act" doesn't bypass the regulatory process nor does it touch on the seed saving issue.


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

"Really, Dupont bigger in the soy market? How did Monsanto win the patent battle in this area then? Dupont will be providing Monsanto with 1.75 billion dollars in the next ten years to sign up to use Monsanto’s genetically engineered herbicide resistant soya bean traits"

...this is a patent issue. Monsanto holds many patents, but they've been doing a piss-poor job compared to their competitors the past many years bringing a quality corn and soy product to market.

Syngenta is catching up, too.

This can all change...market share is generally dictated by the best available product at the time and it's not linear. Monsanto could release a kick-ass soy in the next 1-2 years and change the game back in their favor...they've just not been very good at it lately.

"No doubt Dupont is a big player but larger than Monsanto in the agricultural sector? I'm doubting that. Monsanto totally has the monopoly power. "

I have no idea where you got this notion, but it's incorrect. They are far from a monopoly given there's 5 major competitors to their market. They do, however, own some very useful and desirable patents other companies license from them. Monsanto, too, licenses some patents from other companies. The industry is a lot more cooperative than some would believe.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Thu, May 30, 13 at 19:39


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

This is who Monsanto is going after. It really is worth a watch to see what hardworking individuals are up against. It is just the trailer of the documentary.

Here is a link that might be useful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLzELDt3d2I


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

Percy Schmeiser got in trouble because he SAVED and bred his GMO canola...not because it showed up on his land.

Once you steal intellectual property and try to turn it into a cash business for yourself, expect people to come knocking on your door.

This should surprise no one.

He shouldn't have saved then intentionally planted it. That's what got him in trouble.

He wanted the benefits of GMO canola without paying for the right to use it. If you're going to be a GMO farmer you have to play by the GMO rules.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Thu, May 30, 13 at 19:43


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

He was cross contaminated against his will. I would have done the same.


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

He SAVED and REPLANTED that GMO canola. He willfully chose to use GMO intellectual property.

He wasn't cleaning up GMO contamination. He was being a GMO farmer.


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

He didn't buy them. He didn't agree to anything. They cross contaminated his field.


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

He doesn't have to agree to anything.

He harvested GMO contaminated grain. He purposely separated this grain from his non-GMO grain. He purposely chose not to grow his non-GMO grain and grew his GMO grain. He did this for years, in effect, breeding and cultivating his own line of GMO canola.

When Monstanto came knocking it was for this exact reason.

Monsanto, and every company, pays out and does contamination settlement/remediation to non-GMO farmers.

They, however, do not tolerate the stealing of their intellectual property by those who choose to use their property in order to bypass the highly regulated market they want the benefits of, but do not want to pay for.

I dunno how to make this more clear. It was his criminal intent that not only got him in trouble, but got court-after-court to lay the hammer down on him.

He wanted to be a GMO farmer without paying for the intellectual property.


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

Yeah, I could only imagine the playing field on this one. Monsanto lawyers vs Saskatchewan farmer. If he truly was collecting his seeds for the past 50 years, I don't understand why he would go this route. I am serious about my gardens and put great pride in what I can carry over to the next year. I also used to work in the agricultural sector wherein our company provided grants for agricultural research where are board of directors were farmers and they had great pride in their end product. I couldn't see someone jeopardizing that.


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

He would not have gotten into this mess if he didn't intentionally separate the non-GMO seed from the GMO seed...THEN INTENTIONALLY PLANT THE GMO SEED.

THAT is what got him screwed.

There's 100s of thousands of farmers out there not having this issue because they don't want a patent holder showing up on their doorstep telling them to rip it out or pay a license and don't make the same mistake next year.


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

Okay, the second year was a mistake on his part and in the end he did lose the right to use his strain of canola because he could not prove that it didn't contain the round-up ready strain. I think that is very unfortunate. He had to turn over all his seed from those to years to Monsanto. Fifty years he harvested his own seed.


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

Btw, this doesn't make Percy Schmeiser evil...he chose to make a calculated fight and thanks to his extensive land holdings and real estate fortunes...he was in the right situation to take up this fight.

He picked a big battle that Cargill (imagine their lawyers, huh?) already fought years ago and also lost in the US.

This was different, though, because he was not reselling the seed to others. This was about the licensing of GMO intellectual property and it's transference for personal use.

He lost...and it didn't surprise many.

Intellectual property is a big deal, especially in North America.

He wasn't a saint, nor a martyr that was sacrificed. What he did was known/believed to be wrong...he just tested the waters and that, alone, made him a hero to some for even trying given many others would want to know for sure, but did not have the resources to attempt it.


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

No, he is a human and was probably angered that his property was infringed upon. I would be. Again, the playing field was not fair. He did not give up because he did what he thought was right.
Now, back to the original post. Please provide your opinion:
"The bill states that even if future research shows that GMOs or GE seeds cause significant health problems, cancer, etc, anything, that the federal courts no longer have any power to stop their spread, use, or sales."
THIS is very near and dear to me, personally.


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

He had means to remediate any issues about his "property" and has since this issue has come up. He's quite a regular filing cleanup demands to Monsanto (and others) for road/field margin contamination.

He screwed up when he collected seed, PURPOSELY SEPARATED the GMO from the non-GMO...then PURPOSELY PLANTED the GMO rather than the non-GMO.

That is why he got in trouble. That is the only reason he got in trouble.

HE did it to himself via his own free will and choice when he purposely decided that his own saved seed line wasn't good enough and he wanted to be a GMO seed grower.

"The bill states that even if future research shows that GMOs or GE seeds cause significant health problems, cancer, etc, anything, that the federal courts no longer have any power to stop their spread, use, or sales."

The "bill" (it's not an act, and it's not a bill) doesn't say this. It's only a few lines long...it's not that hard to digest it's scope.


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

Back to the provision at hand...and how it works....

1- USDA/regulators/etc approve the GMO seed/trait in question...there is NO WAY to short-cut or bypass this step.

2- Someone sues to block. This always happens and is expected. Most of the time plantings are still allowed to go on, but it's a grey area in law unless explicitly stated by the judge that they can go on.

3- This provision says if a judge happens to say "no planting" then this can be by-passed by petition by a farmer or producer (GMO seed maker) to the Secretary of Agriculture and his/her approval. The SoA may okay the planting at his/her discretion on a case-by-case basis while it is in litigation and only for an intern/defined set of time. The SoA may also deny the petition. It's not automatic approval. There is discretion involved. It is also not the final say on the crop's approval. It doesn't invalidate the court's final decision. It's there to address the "in between" part of the protested crop/trait's march through the court system.

This is how it works. It is not an across-the-board free-for-all.

It's also worth noting this provision expires in September 2013...it is not a long binding act/law/provision/etc, nor "how it's done" from here on out.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Thu, May 30, 13 at 21:21


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

A little suspicious it was even added in. I personally think it is a stepping stone for something else.
Not for a second will I ever believe this company is good. I feel for the organic farmers out there who are being contaminated and vilified. I feel for the people who are being told their products are safe. Isn't this the same company who made Agent Orange. They created it to adapt soybeans to a short growing season and hey, look what we have the destroyer of the living. THIS is what is going in our food. What, are they taking notes from the tobacco industry? What not to do?


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

Agent Orange has nothing to do with 2,4-D except it's a component of Agent Orange...that goes back to the "bad activism" thing I was complaining about earlier.

2,4-D is one of the (if not the) most widely used herbicides on the planet. The issue with Agent Orange wasn't 2,4-D...it was mainly dioxin impurities and the other major component of Agent Orange (which has been off the market/banned since the 1970s) aside from the 2,4-D.

Saying 2,4-D is Agent Orange is like saying since soda is nearly totally comprised of water, water should be banned because it's obviously fattening and bad for us. This is not an exaggeration of an example because those of us who know what 2,4-D is and have used it see it like this.

There are a lot of bad activist sources pushing bad info on people and it's a major reason they're getting no where fast and seem to think there's conspiracies against them.

When an activist tells a farmer, a regulatory person, an industry, etc something like "Agent Orange = 2,4-D" it's really hard to listen to anything they have to say because they've already put themselves at a disadvantage of trying to have a serious discussion.

Activists need to demand better information and leadership if they expect to have a serious discussion with those who are actually driving this technology.


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

Btw, 2,4-D resistant crops are not a Monsanto creation...it's Dow. This is another area where too many activists fail...they think the world is and revolves around Monsanto.

Monsanto would benefit greatly from this crop not coming to market.

Also, this is another tool in "Round Up Resistant" weed issue which would give farmers another tool as a rotation crop choice in order to severely lessen the occurrence of "super weeds" by giving a farmer a 1-2 punch on a rotation basis to kill weeds resistant to glyphosate.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Thu, May 30, 13 at 22:55


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

posted by nc-crn:
"Activists need to demand better information and leadership if they expect to have a serious discussion with those who are actually driving this technology."

Whoa, whoa dude, slow your roll.

This isn't the first time that you've told us what activists should or shouldn't do ... but all we are afyk are posters on a message board.

Kind of presumptuous to act like we've already failed at this issue precisely because we are discussing and trying to learn --and yes, maybe being activists in RL or maybe just trying to figure out what avenues of activism are available, or maybe just sitting on our rears with a cold beer, figuring this is more interesting than cable news.

Point is, you don't really know. So chill a little on the instructive part ... many of us are interested in your knowledge, but, for me at least, this part of your posting is off putting.


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

Didn't/don't they work together????
Again, I'm not an activist. Monsanto created it's place just like McDonald's. Put yourself out there as the "biggest" and there you are, target in place. Of course, they are all the same.
Just saying, chemicals are chemicals. They will always be there and farming practices won't be changing. My concern is I want to know where my food is coming from and what is in it. I don't like having companies being protected at my expense.
Again, I think this is a stepping stone for something else.
And what happens after application (pesticides/fertilizers/fungicides/insecticides). It just dissipates and magically disappears safely and happily? Doesn't it make it's way to our water system. Doesn't it saturate our soils? Saturation is what gets you. A douse here and there, fine, but regular application, over and over. It builds. Don't tell me it doesn't.
OT, why did Dupont and Monsanto fight so hard in California to keep GMO labels off the shelf? What are these companies hiding. (yes, I realized Kelloggs, coke, pepsi, bayer and several more also contributed). What are they so nervous about? What?


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

I'm not attacking you guys, I'm attacking the movement on whole.

It is severely lacking in leadership and passing information to activists.

This is a very passionate issue to many, but too many are armed with some bad, sketchy, or ill-understood information.

You'd almost swear "the other side" was doing it because of how bad it is right now.

There's very few that can tell you how GMO crops actually happen, what the "big 6" corporations are, or what's going on in the world of GMO right now. These are huge issues with an activist base that is in dire need of a leadership role.

It's hard to push this across in raw text, but I'm not coming at this from a "you personally" position...it's a huge issue/flaw with the anti-GMO activist community at large which needs addressing and fixing. The game of the activist needs to be greatly improved in order to take on these issues.

We need activists to call out b/s when they're fed it...such as Agent Orange = 2,4-D...or latching onto dismissed studies that are akin to the vaccine/autism denier crew.

This is way too important of an issue to too many people to not investigate further and demand quality information from those who rally them.

I believe in GMO labeling...my industry does not.

I believe in GMO education...my industry rarely gets involved because too many activists self-destruct their own goals by not knowing how to have an intelligent conversation about it with those who make, choose, or regulate GMO. It's as if they're all conspiracy plants from GMO corporations in order to cheapen their argument...only they're not plants...the movement is doing it to itself.

I'm happy with just sticking to the facts...such as explaining how this "act" came to be...such as what's really going on with it in practice. I've done it, but I've also made 3-4x more posts covering activism misconceptions planted by those who are supposed to be guiding activists.

I blame the leadership (mostly self-appointed with more good intentions than good leadership/information) than I do those who are soaking up this information.

I want the truly passionate to delve deeper and seek/demand leaders who have their finger on the pulse of the industry.


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

"Didn't/don't they work together???? "

No, Dow produced 2,4-D resistant crops on their own. Monsanto has no patents in this game. It would not be in their best interest to see 2,4-D resistant crops come to market.

If you'd like to learn about 2,4-D a good start would be Wikipedia...then you can read MSDS sheets about it...then you can read university/field research about it. It's been widely used since the 1940s.

"OT, why did Dupont and Monsanto fight so hard in California to keep GMO labels off the shelf?"

Because it could lead to consumers making choices other than GMO and therefore less GMO crops being planted.

It may seem like an "ah-ha!" but it's business reality.

I work in this industry, but I don't think everything they do is awesome. I support GMO labeling, my industry doesn't.


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

"Because it could lead to consumers making choices other than GMO and therefore less GMO crops being planted. "
Come on. It's a two way street, they know the consumer won't pay more for non-GM foods - they too want to save money. I have to eat non-GM and it is expensive.
The industry is afraid that people are catching on a little too much.


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

Keep in mind this is a 100s of billion dollar business encompassing millions of acres of land, 6 major corporations, and a small handful of tiny ones.

Even if 2-5% of people decided they won't buy anything with GMO label on it that can lead to many 1000s of acres that will no longer will get those seed sales. The more non-GMO demand...the more of a niche market is created...such as the current "organic" market. The more of a niche market, the more attractive it is for some GMO farmers to switch to a non-GMO crop to capitalize on a growing non-GMO market segment and the higher prices for their product. The No-Labeling-GMO campaigners would like this market to not exist...much less gain a noticeable segment enough to sway farmer's concerns.

Most people truly don't care about GMO vs non-GMO, but if you put it in their face (via a label, or a study where they have to pick one or the other even if the other is a bit more expensive) the GMO experiences a market loss...even if it's a small one.

Also...most GMO crops go into feeding animals or making cooking oil, anyway...and most GMO consumers don't really care about this as much as they care about a tortilla chip currently. More "work" needs to be done there on the consumer connection.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Fri, May 31, 13 at 0:07


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

Besides, aren't most crops used for ethanol rather than to feed people? They will always have a huge market.
It was a dirty move and I think they are a dirty company (all of them) - the labeling deal and the protection deal.


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

About 20-35% of our corn goes to ethanol production depending on the year and the market (including international) demands.

Because of the droughts the past 3 years, growing corn has been like printing money, though it's expected to fall this year.

That said, since the ethanol boom (world wide) started in 2006/2007 corn prices have shot through the roof.

Historically, corn used to run a rather stable $2-$3.25 a bushel...since 2007 it's been $4-$7.25 a bushel regularly (aside from 2009 where it dipped to $3.50 a bushel thanks to a huge surplus).

It's expected to fetch $4.50-$5 this year.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Fri, May 31, 13 at 0:31


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

I recently heard on radio (just the past day or two) that some Monsanto( I think) rogue GMO wheat showed up.

Here's a snip from an article I found on the web.

The discovery instantly roiled export markets, with Japan canceling a major shipment of wheat, a quick reminder of what is at stake - an $8 billion U.S. wheat export business.

Many fear the wheat most likely has been mixed in with conventional wheat for some time, but there are no valid commercial tests to verify whether wheat contains the biotech Roundup Ready gene.

"A lot of people are on high alert now," said Mike Flowers, a cereal specialist at Oregon State University. "We can't really say if it is or isn't in other fields. We don't know."

A month has passed since U.S. authorities first were alerted to the suspect plants in Oregon, yet it remains unclear how the strain developed. Monsanto officials said it is likely the presence of the Roundup Ready genetic trait in wheat supplies is "very limited." The company is conducting "a rigorous investigation" to find out how much, if any, wheat has been contaminated by their biotech variety. U.S. regulators are also investigating.

Bob Zemetra, one of the Oregon State University wheat researchers who first tested the mystery wheat when an unnamed farmer mailed a plant sample, said there is no easy way to explain the sudden appearance of the strain years after field tests ended."

Here is a link that might be useful: Bad wheat link


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

Interesting angle on the Percy case, I did not hear about that.


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

I would have to agree with Cookie, from the perspective of consumer, someone with health issues that needs organic and nutritive foods, and it's easy to put oneself in the place of many small farmers.

This is an affront to the people... and these monopolies should be ashamed of themselves. Say no to GMO.


 o
RE: Monsanto Protection Act

It seems Europe is smarter than we are.

Obama blew it.

This, originally reported in the LA Times:

Monsanto withdraws bids to grow GMO crops in Europe

Monsanto Company said Thursday it will largely drop its bid to grow some of its genetically modified crops in Europe.

The world’s largest seed-maker has nine pending applications with the European Commission, the executive body for the European Union. A spokesman said the company plans to withdraw eight of those applications.

The requests “have been going nowhere fast for several years,” said Brandon Mitchener, a spokesman for the St. Louis-based company’s European entity. “There’s no end in sight … due to political obstructionism.”

Many European countries, including France, Germany and Italy, have bans in place against genetically-modified organisms. Public sentiment has been divided and intense over safety and environmental concerns related to cultivated crops that have been genetically engineered.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here