Monsanto and HR 875, Take Two
By nonny mouse Thursday Mar 26, 2009 4:00pm
The other day, I wrote a post on the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009: HR 875 being introduced to Congress by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D –CT), in which I made the erroneous statement that her husband, Stanley Greenberg, worked for Monsanto. I also included in this post extracts from emails sent to me by Jill Richardson, an intelligent and passionate campaigner for organic farming. To her credit, when she read my post, she immediately sent me an urgent email, warning me that there was a great deal of misinformation buzzing around the Internet, which I had unwittingly included in my post. She herself pointed out that (1) the bill has nothing to do with Monsanto, (2) Rep. DeLauro’s husband is a pollster for a company that once had Monsanto as a customer a decade ago, but he in no way ‘works’ for Monsanto, (3) HR 875 as it currently stands is very unlikely to even pass, and (4) the group behind disseminating this trumped-up propaganda is NICFA, whose mission statement maintains their goal is to ‘promote and preserve unregulated direct farmer-to-consumer trade’ and ‘oppose any government funded or managed National Animal Identification System. This organization has been aided by the support of a woman named Linn Cohen-Cole, whose unsubstantiated and exaggerated claims in an obsessive crusade against Monsanto, Hillary Clinton, Obama and anyone else in an imagined government ‘plot’ to nationalize farming does seem to indicate a serious lack of credibility.
I have since been in contact with Rep. DeLauro’s office, and they have confirmed that Rep. DeLauro has been meeting with organic farmers to draw up a proposed list of amendments to HR 875 based on those discussions. While these amendments are not yet public knowledge, and would be an informal document to clarify the bill, she and her staff would be happy to get the word out that the Congresswoman is indeed working very hard on improving both the bill and her office’s relationship with organic and small farmers. And to Rep. DeLauro, I add my personal apologies for any inadvertent misinformation regarding herself or her husband presented in my post.
To set the record straight:
There is no language in HR 875 that would regulate, penalize, or shut down backyard gardens or ‘criminalize’ gardeners; the bill focuses on ensuring the safety of food in interstate commerce.
Farmer’s markets would not be regulated, fined, or shut down, and would, in fact, benefit from strict safety standards applied to imported food to ensure that unsafe imported food doesn’t compete with locally grown produce.
The bill would not prohibit or interfere with organic farming, or mandate the use of any chemicals or types of seeds. The National Organic Program (NOP) is under the jurisdiction of the USDA. HR 875 addresses food safety issues and falls under the jurisdiction of the FDA.
Monsanto and any other large agribusiness company had no part whatsoever in drafting this bill, and Rep. DeLauro’s husband and his company do no lobbying on this issue.
HR 875 has nothing to do with any national animal ID system, which would fall under the jurisdiction of the USDA, and not the FDA.
This isn’t a done deal – the bill hasn’t yet even been considered by any Congressional committee, nevermind seen any debate or proposed amendments. There is no ‘plot’ to ram this through Congress and into law.
Monsanto, as bizarre as this may sound, is an innocent party in this fiasco. On a positive note, this entire misapprehension may actually result in a more clearly defined proposed bill on food safety, highlight concerns of organic and small farmers in a more constructive environment, make genuine improvements in food safety for consumers and engender a more honest and open debate on GM food, safety, and global agriculture. It also shows that the internet, while an arena for a great deal of misinformation and outright fabrication, has an amazing self-correcting machinery for when things do go wrong. So while I’m truly regretful for any promulgation of misinformation I’ve aided in fostering, I’m more than happy with the unplanned consequences.
Further to this, I’ve also been having a lively email discussion with a representative of Monsanto, Mr. Bradley Mitchell, who read my original post, as well as the responses of our C&L readership with a great deal of interest. Mr. Mitchell describes himself as a ‘social liberal, fiscal conservative’, who gardens, cans food, and buys locally grown produce, firmly believing ‘in supporting the local economy, preserving open spaces, and most of the other things buying local produce supports.’
‘I can’t argue against poor regulation of corporations’, he wrote to me, however, ‘I would contend that regulator oversight varies with the industry. I’m pretty comfortable with safety testing for GM crops (or I wouldn’t work for Monsanto) but our agricultural policy is a mess worldwide. It’s unconscionable that a third of the world is starving and so many at the opposite end of the economic spectrum are overweight to the point of illness. GM is not a silver bullet for this, but I think it is a powerful tool in addressing these problems (which is why I work here).’
Not exactly how I imagined Satan’s minion, frankly. I asked Mr. Mitchell if he would be interested in presenting Monsanto’s position in this exclusive post for C&L, and he has kindly, and enthusiastically, accepted. While I understand that much of our readership has strong emotions regarding Monsanto, I would urge our readers to respond in any comments to Mr Mitchell in a courteous and respectful manner. So, without further ado, here it is:
Just when I was losing faith in the internet as a tool for dialogue and change, along comes Nonny Mouse and C&L with an invite to Monsanto to respond to all this silliness on HR 875. It’s a strange new world, but a welcome one.
As Nonny Mouse has pointed out, Monsanto has nothing to do with HR 875. We aren’t behind it and don’t even have a position on it. You can read about this in detail in our blog. In fact, contrary to rampant, poorly-informed opinion; Monsanto doesn’t consider local agriculture, or even organic agriculture, as a threat to our business. Readers will likely be surprised to learn that many of our customers work small farms. Some are even growing organically (not all our seeds are GM).
HR 875, for those who are understandably lost in the debate, is intended to improve US food safety laws. Given relatively recent incidents involving peanut butter, ground beef and spinach, there are a lot of Americans who think it’s high time. The true tragedy of all this rumor-mongering about HR 875 and its supposed attack on local and organic agriculture is that it has distracted people from the discussion that should be occurring – how can we improve food safety without putting undue burden on small farms and businesses that want to sell and process food locally?
In many ways, this whole HR 875 incident is a pretty good microcosm for the larger debate about the role of biotechnology in agriculture. True dialogue and discussion suffers because of rumor, misinformation and petty bickering. Constructive discourse around agricultural biotechnology pales when compared to the amount of argument. Something like a third of the population is without sufficient food at any given point in time. You would think this would be impetus enough to put aside differences of opinion and chart a course forward, but apparently it’s not.
Take for example my recent attempts to engage the readers at OpEdNews, the site where the rumors about Monsanto and HR 875 began. With complete transparency about my role as Director of Public Affairs at Monsanto, I began posting articles on the site, and commenting on the largely negative postings on Monsanto and biotechnology. I was hoping for some constructive discourse. The responses I got were, well… less than constructive. Let’s just say that I learned that if you get into a debate with Monsanto – just mention Agent Orange. Apparently it trumps any logic, data or reason brought to the table.
In fact, folks at OEN were made so insecure by my posting there that they are running a poll to determine whether I should be allowed to continue to post. As I am writing this, the vote is 56% against my being allowed to post, 36% for, and 8% undecided out of 291 voters.
During the last three weeks of dealing with OEN and their readers, I’ve been frequently reminded of the e.e. cummings poem:
The Cambridge ladies live in furnished souls
Are unbeautiful and have comfortable mindsWell ladies, the stakes are too high. It’s time to refurnish those souls, as well as hearts and minds. Are you up to it? I hope so, because the UN says that by 2050, we are going to need to double food production in order to feed the world, and we going to have to do it in the face of climate change and increasingly scarce resources such as water. Whether you are for biotech or against it, a lot depends on our ability to work together. Rumors and mudslinging won’t help. A lot depends on this – like our kids’ futures.
Monsanto is committed to this dialogue. For my part, and that of a lot of my colleagues, for a start we’re committing to participating in where we haven’t been active in the past, and where the opinions have run counter to our own. That is, if you’ll have us.
If you want to learn more about Monsanto and our perspective on some of the more common issues surrounding our company, visit www. Monsanto.com/fortherecord (Consider it one of many furniture shops).
For the Twitterati, if you want updates on my efforts to foster dialogue you can follow me on Twitter at MonMitch.
Login or Register to post comments.
the next big disaster waiting in the wings. Those who control the food control government. That would be the Monsanto corporation.
I remain, your humble servant, in Christ,
Screwtape the Epistemologist.
ADM is Amerikkka's largest corporate farmer, owned by the British, and proudly weaponizing our food supply. You just gotta love that genetically modified corn that makes up the majority of our food. It's in everything, or just about everything. It is highly unedible and must be processed with carcinogenic chemicals to turn it into high fructose corn syrup that you find in bread, crackers, sodas, syrup, and the list goes on. Check out the movie 'King Corn', a friend of mine had a copy from Netflix, and it tells a story about this 'weaponized food'. Got Diabetes, er ...um... Milk?
Where dumbass #1 tries to tell daumbass #2 not to use it and dumbass 2 asks "why?" and dumbass 1 is all "Uhh uhh..."
I'm here in my house yelling, "because it screws up your gd pancreas. Your body thinks it's still hungry after you eat it! IT MAKES YOU F-A-T!!!"
Funny. They never hear me.
but my dogs and cats hear me. I attended an art opening about 18 months ago where the exhibits were by Native American artists. Being partly N.A. myself, I was highly amused and angered at the same time by a particular installation and painting. The installation was a table set with place settings and food, and table cloth, and everything was white. At the head of the table was a painting of the family Patriarch. It was Popping Fresh himself with a Death Mask appearance, also known to Native people and now to Amerikkka as "The Kills Very Slow Boy".
and I frighten her during
this propagandathese adsEver since I stopped using any product that contains high fructose corn syrup my blood sugar has been essentially normal. I wonder how they're going to deal with the massive class action suit that type 2 diabetics are going to be filing against them one day. I can only assume they'll claim ignorance but the caveat in the ad would seem to suggest they know otherwise. How do you use this product in moderation when they make sure it is added to just about everything?
is a US conglomerate based in Decatur, Ill. Not British.
"Those who control the food control government. That would be the Monsanto corporation."
Except in Cuba. The embargo takes care of that.
Just when you thought it was safe to eat:
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Legislation/GM-i...
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
to spread lies.
...We aren’t behind it and don’t even have a position on it."
"Roundup breaks down in 48 hours of application. Yes. Monsanto spokesmodels always tell the truth. $50,000 fined in the US and $19,000 fined in the EU. For false and misleading advertising. About Roundup.
Truth is, scientific studies showed Monsanto to be deliberately misleading on at least this point. It's been shown to be present a year after use. And Monsanto appeals. I mean, $19K? That's 3 hours on a private jet.
Roundup Ready GMO corn. I can't wait to exacerbate my diabetes. I just get all tingly...feel like I'm walking on pins and needles....
"In fact, folks at OEN were made so insecure by my posting there..." Really? They told you "We are insecure" or is that an allegation on your part? I mean Monsanto is all up in arms over being 'misunderstood,' yet it's ok for you to sling unfounded commentary around?
Monsanto is aggressive in its attempts to silence those who wish to point out its shortcomings as a good global citizen, mainly by threatening lawsuits. In fact, given Monsanto's SOP up until now, I am *shocked* that there is a response from your employer. This action of yours could be construed as an effort by Monsanto to put a happy handsome face on an ugly corporate pimp of poison, greed and hell on earth. If I might offer a more positive view of OEN, perhaps they are offended Monsanto would think them stupid enough to fall for it.
The fact that you marginalise their want to control the dialog on their on property, leads me to believe that yours is a cynical mission.
I don't wish to call you a liar, or a bully, or a hater of nature, but the people you work for ARE. By their repeated assaults against the earth, cultures around the globe, and the misleading way your company lies about their products.
Its an allegation on my part. My best guess as to why they are trying to vote me off. This is a forum for opinion, right????
I'm not up in arms - just trying to make my point like everyone else and with a lot less hyperbole many others - including those who accuse me of working for "corporate pimp of poison". Good line though.
Well thank you. And there's no hyperbole in what I said. If anything, I was understating the situation.
Administration:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Monsanto-Pla...
This scares the living bejesus out of me....
WTF happened to my edited post!?!?!?
http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2...
Are you using that as a pejorative?
Do you think a bunch of people that need to educated by you are 'ladies?' Thanks. I'm sure we'll all keep that in mind during this
lesson from you'discussion'What?.....Do I have to tuck my dick between my legs to be a part of the 'discussion'?
Yes, Miss_Kitty, I think it is a perjorative, at least the way I read it. What a bunch chauvinist bullshit.
Thanks for talking down to me Monsanto, assholes.
as I read it, is an allusion to the e. e. cummings poem, not our posters.
Nope, I am not using it as a pejoritive. The statement is in keeping in line with the previous cummings quote. I figured most readers would understand this. If not, and I offended people - apologies.
For the record, some gentlemen as well should consider some new should consider some soul furniture.
thanks for the clarification. I'm bad at poetry and math.
Our maize obviously no good. Need soul furniture. What you recommend? A lazy boy recliner?
More food production means more people, and more people means more food production. It's easy to see why Monsanto would commit to the simple solution: It means that the corporate coffers are filled to overflowing and beyond.
But more people means more pollution, more sewage and a higher probability of pandemic disease; more people means that more land is needed to house the population, to build power plants, and to farm.
We're running out of resources to support ourselves, Bradley. Our human population, at the rate of growth as it is now, will see us at 9 billion by 2050, and it will double again before the year 2100, and all the while our resources will dwindle.
We might be able to address the problems of pollution, sewage, energy production and conservation of natural resources, but population growth gets in the way. And if we don't solve those problems, it is the fact that there will be too many humans that will end up killing off our species- and it will end up taking the rest of the planet down with it.
My soul, heart and mind have been refurnished. It's time for you to do refurnish yours- if your wallet will allow.
Will control the world....
Unless we take Jim Kunstler's advise and start creating small, sustainable communites where we can grow food locally and live off seasonal foods and use our water resources reasonably etc.
No more semi-trucking strawberries in from Cali in December and all.
Ya dig it?
His novel, "World Made By Hand" pretty much spells it all out.
Another book I loved, in the same vein, is "See You In A Hundred Years", which chronicles the lives of a couple with their 3 year old son. He's a writer for National Geographic and they decide to buy a farm in Virginia and live as if it's 1900 for a year. Their marriage is on the rocks when they have the electric turned off at their new farm and a year later....well, you'll just have to read the book to see how they make it through....
Check out Kunstlers schtick at Kunstler.com
Ever read Daniel Quinn? Ever been to ishmael.org?
Quinn is as important to the world's understanding of where we are and how we got here as Darwin.
On Sunday's thread, I made a comment to the effect that GMO technology is small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, just another step in the wrong direction. But The more I've thought about it, the more I'm beginning to think that it might be the worst thing that agriculture has brought about since it ordered hierarchies within societies. I think that once the Monsantos and ADMs of the world lock down control of the growth of food- rather than the placement of grown food under lock and key- it's all over. Power- not just political power, but the power to decide who does and doesn't get to plant food, in effect who will get to live and die- will have been firmly clutched in the hands of the few.
Didn't Stalin nationalize farming methods that enabled his administration to gain control over the food supply?
Early despots figured out that they could wield the power of their military forces internally to reward or punish segments of their population.
You look at what the few remaining hunter-gatherer societies have in common, and you'll notice that they don't control who in their society eats. They don't charge for food. They go hunt it, or pick it off the branch or floor of the jungle/bush, and bring it back to the area where the food is shared.
I feel I have to point out that keeping food under lock and key isn't a wetern or Europwean thing. It's an agricultural thing. Sedentary agriculture popped up in four places- Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Indus River valley and China- all at about the same time, and the cultures that evolved from all four have hierarchical power systems. And it's not like the US, or Europe or worldwide capitalism aren't trying to provide food to Sudan, or didn't try to provide food to Somalia when it's people were starving- it was the power structures in those countries that withheld food from their political enemies.
Thanks for the heads-up on Daniel Quinn. I'll check out Ishmael and his new book.
More food certainly is not the sole solution to the problem, I agree. But with the growing population, it is most definitively a need.
In some places, it is a very real need now. We can ship folks in these places food aid, but we need to give them the knowledge, as well as approriate technology to grow their own food.
I fully agree on conserving natural resources. I believe technology, including biotech, can help us to do that.
As a Monsanto person, I am think I will avoid addressing anything to do with population control for fear os starting an even more serious internet rumor/myth. I am curious about you thoughts on what we do with all the hungry people we have now.
Small sustainable communities, as mentioned below, would be nice but I think our population is far beyond that being a practical solution in most places.
I am constantly refurinishing, or at least attempting to do so. Part of my reason for posting here, and even for working for Monsanto.
Per Russell Hopfenberg's and David Pimentel's Human Population Numbers As A Function Of Food Supply (pdf) (Hopfenberg explains it clearly for lay people in this slide presentation- I suggest you watch it when you get time):
Brad, the problem is that damned near everything we think we know is a by-product of agriculture: pottery, metallurgy, governmental theory, religion, philosophy, mathematics, economics, most sciences. There are myths that have been employed by some of those fields that perpetuate agriculture: that we are greater than animals and other life, and the laws that govern animals and other life don't apply to us. We don't believe that the laws that dictate carrying capacities of the Earth apply to us as they did the wooly mammoth because our religions tell us that we are favored by our gods, thus we are exempt.
But we aren't exempt, and we're smart enough to make the observations and learn ways to bring our population back from the brink of eating itself out of existence. And that's the irony of the situation: the Monsanto's of the world think that they're smart enough to game nature, to out-fox the equations of carrying capacity and diminishing natural resources. So if Monsanto really cares about the problems of feeding the people of the world, it will take a hiatus. A very long hiatus.
"Monsanto, as bizarre as this may sound, is an innocent party in this fiasco."
But stands to gain the most when the ambiguous language in this shite piece of legislature is interpreted to favour them. See the term 'food production facility' in section 3 and throughout the work. FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY.—The term "food production facility" means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.
So that would include.....
*All organic farms
*All small farms
*All family farms
*Even small family gardens if you sell any produce to your neighbor at all.
And this bill, like so many of the banking friendly bills, which did not name AIG in them, nor Goldman Sachs, screwed us and benefited the big guy. I'm sure many in the finance industry would say "We had nothing to do with those bills."
and am awestruck! You keep nailing it, and we'll have to change your name to Miss_Hammer!!
As I stated pretty directly in my post (an on the Monsanto Web site and blog) there should be discussion to ensure small farms (etc.) should not have undue burden put on them by this legislation.
Not sure what else I can say.
Not because I think you are a liar, but because the company for which you work has a long and distinguished history of lying and fouling the planet.
They wouldn't tell you the truth. You might have principles and ethics. They wouldn't want to risk that.
Woo hoo!
It isn't just the States, and it isn't just big agribiz, or GM food. It's food. And money. And even religion...
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/tvnz_portable_story_sk...
A claim that lamb flaps are an ideal food for Pacific people is being labelled "irresponsible". The Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs is angry the Meat Association has claimed lamb flaps are ideal for Pacific people.
The ministry has issued an obesity report which shows many islanders cannot afford healthy food (...) The Ministry of Pacific Affairs is furious over Meat Association claims that lamb flaps are an ideal source of protein for Pacific Islanders who can't afford meat.
That product is 30% fat and the Meat Association is standing behind it. "It is a suitable source of protein in an economic way provided all the other bits go with it such as preparation and proper cooking and things like that but also it forms part of a balanced diet," says chief executive Tim Ritchie.
Dr Tukuitonga agrees cooking makes a difference but says "if you"ve got a dreadful product to start with no matter how you dress it up it's not going to be good for you". The problem is, meat flaps are cheap and the obesity report shows even if they want to, many islanders now cannot afford to eat healthily.
"It's income, it's having larger families and it's the world situation as well," report author Professor Elaine Rush says.
And religion also palys a part with many Pacific people feeling pressure to give money to the church, leaving less for food. "I really feel they need to develop and put back to the families that are giving instead of taking, taking, taking," Fuimaono says.
But the report shows some of the churches are helping with exercise programmes. Researchers say keeping community programmes is crucial to saving lives.
"I have become a victim of my own choice," says Fuimaono.
these Pacific Islanders existed where they were for many centuries doing just fine, and now they can't afford healthy food?
same deal.
Centuries ago, Pacific Islanders ate what they hunted and gathered, and grew their own crops and for meat ate pigs and fish, for the most part. They also didn't give away badly needed money to Christian churches. Now, they're in large part a minority group within their own country - and there's widespread poverty, lack of education and job opportunities.
Think Native American Indians, if you need something closer to home.
owe me a coke. w/ cane sugar, not corn syrup
And precious little other carbonated drinks. Although I admit a weakness for good ol' British Strongbow cider, which I miss greatly here in Kiwiland...
It's a Mexican law. No high fructose corn syrup.
What's wrong with them?
/snark...
corn syrup in their coke products.
Like nearly every hunter-gatherer culture that's encountered the monolith that is agriculture, they either assimilate or die.
Agriculture has put food under lock and key. We accept the self-perpetuating myth that this should be so.
... then why hide them? What tests prove they are safe? Who financed those studies, if any?
What's wrong with accurate labeling?
Also, what has Monsanto ever had to do with small family farms other than driving them out of business?
"Monsanto has developed a very aggressive record of working to silence critics, especially about BGH. It has sued and threatened to sue companies that label their products as BGH-free, on the grounds that there is no difference between BGH and non-BGH products and labeling suggests there is. In 1997, two investigative journalists for a Miami television station allege that they were fired after preparing a story on BGH. The journalists' report was originally scheduled to air in February 1997, but withdrawn after the Miami station received a threatening letter from Monsanto. The two reporters agreed to re-interview Monsanto, but refused to back off of their tough reporting. They say they were required to rewrite the story 73 times, but that it never aired and eventually got them fired."
... need more puss in their milk.
Rock on kitty cat!
We took legal action against companies who labeled their milk in a way that disparaged our product and misled consumers - in violation of FDA policy.
Consider the possibility that the reporters may have been fired for poor journalism.
If you produce milk with BGH, shouldn't it be labeled?
You know, for your puss conscious consumers.
You really are a jerk. No way does the sentence,"does not contain BGH" disparage or mislead customers. It empowers them to make wise decisions.
And who was head of the FDA at the time? Hummmmm?
And how much are you getting paid to spread your screed here?
Fuck off, for the sake of my grandchildren's health. ALL children's health.
Actually, "does not contain BGH" is wholly, and completely inaccurate.
All cow milk - raw, organic, from treated and untreated cows - contains BGH/BST. Cows naturally put this in their milk.
The difference is that treated cows are adminsister rBST - BST produced through biotechnology ("r" is for recombinant). It is injected in cows to increase milk production.
There is not a lab in the world that can tell the difference.
I am fine with labeling it voluntarily - just be accurate.
By the way, you do know that when you swear and make such outrageously incorrect statements that you help bolster my credibility and point don't you? Its not really in my best interest to tell you this, but I am really interested in discussion here rather than argument.
If we were seeing "does not contain rBGH" on milk when we were looking for it, we might remember to put the "r" before the "BGH" when writing it.
Virginia and Vermont, to name two. And a lot of suits were lodged against people claiming it was merely rBST-free, the accepted labeling of today.
I remember this well. Monsanto considered ANY disowning of rBST to be a slander on their new cow weakening drug. Findings indicated a nearly 25% increase in the risk of clinical mastitis, a 40% reduction in fertility and 55% increased risk of developing clinical signs of lameness.
A European Union scientific commission was asked to report on the incidence of mastitis and other disorders in dairy cows and on other aspects of the welfare of dairy cows. The commission's statement, stated that the use of rBST substantially increased health problems with cows, including foot problems, mastitis and injection site reactions, impinged on the welfare of the animals and caused reproductive disorders. The report concluded that, on the basis of the health and welfare of the animals, rBST should not be used.
Health Canada prohibited the sale of rBST in 1999; the recommendations of external committees were that, despite not finding a significant health risk to humans, the drug presents a threat to animal health, and, for this reason, cannot be sold in Canada.
rBST causes cows to produce ANOTHER hormone IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor, which is not good for the human population. Of course, as usual, Monsanto states is perfectly safe for human consumption.
I consider source.
Lets put aside for a moment the question of whether rBGH is safe for human consumption. Do you care at all about animal suffering? I suppose not.
I don't know if you've seen cows with udders so big they looked like they would burst, udders with teats practically touching the ground even when the cow is standing. I have. It is cruel.
I wonder if you have a wife who nursed any babies. If so, she probably felt uncomfortable when her breasts were engorged with milk. How would it be if we gave your wife hormones to increase milk production so that her breasts were so huge they seemed like they would explode? I don't think she would like that, and neither would you.
Well, some of us care about cows. I maintain a small farm sanctuary, keeping a cow along with a few sheep and goats, with these animals protected for life. As an aspiring Vaisnava (Hare Krishna), cow protection is an important part of my religion. It's bad enough that cows are slaughtered, but at least we could not treat them like machines while they're alive, with no concern for their comfort or suffering.
I don't want rBGH in my family's milk regardless of whether it's safe for us. I don't want it because it is a form of animal cruelty. I guess the concern for animal welfare didn't occur to you or your company. Or maybe you thought of it but laughed among yourselves and dismissed it. I wouldn't be surprised.
I saw that documentary with my son and it made us sick.
I check every label when I buy any dairy for the "NO BGH HORMONES" label.
As I just linked up above, they just did some studies and even those foods we believe to be organic and "NON-GMO" linked are showing signs of the GMO contamination.
I'm afraid Monsanto has built a Pandora's box of environmental grief with the ugly objective of controlling the world's food supply through patenting of their GMO seeds etc.
Monsanto should be permanently shut down.
Instead, we have the Obama Administration HIRING THEM!!!
Again...our tax dollars at work.
We have provided them with seed and herbicide for a years. They are our customers
What percentage of your gross sales are to family farms?
"In fact, contrary to rampant, poorly-informed opinion; Monsanto doesn’t consider local agriculture, or even organic agriculture, as a threat to our business."
Unless it's Iraq, right? Let's talk about Order 81, foisted upon Iraqi farmers by the Bremer administration. Order 81 forces Iraq’s farmers to use GM seeds terminator seeds (sterile), and then declares natural seeds an infringement on Monsanto technology. Did Bremer come up with that himself? Was Monsanto specifically named in Order 81? No. And I'll add, Cargill and the World Wide Wheat Company are in on this, too, but not mentioned in Order 81. But you all are making out like bandits behind it. If you all are ready concerned about it, how about a Humanitarian move on the part of the company? How about supplying the farmers with Non-GMO fertile seeds, so they don't have to come begging to you every season for the basic necessity of farming -- seeds?
That is inserted as part of the genetic modification of seeds to make the world junkie dependent on seed sources from the weaponized food industry. This should sometime become a post all its own.
No clue where Bremer came up with this, but Monsanto wasn't involved.
I've actually read Order 81. All it does is set up patenting provisions for seeds. It does not force them to use sterile seed technology (which Monsanto has never commercialized and vowed never to do in food crops)and does not declare natural seeds an infringement. What it does do is set up provisions to protect intellectual property protection for seed.
Intellectual property protection IS important for the agricultural development of a country. Folks will never develop better seeds unless they can get some return on their time and money. Developing countries need better seeds suited to their climates etc. Most developed countries have intellectual property protection for seed.
Personally, I think Order 81 is a lot further down on Iraq's priority list than #81. It would be difficult to enforce and they seem to have a lot more pressing needs. I'd rather see some money going towards extension services (and keeping them safe).
I pray for the day however where Iraq is at a point where they can implement and benefit from intellectual property protection for seed.
I said Monsanto profited from the language in the order. Like they will do from HR 875/S 425. It poorly written, and this is why people are up in arms.
Folks will never develop better seeds unless they can get some return on their time and money.
And yet, people have been doing exactly this for thousands of years. Funny that.
Well you see Mr. Mitchel is bound by the premise that only Monsanto and their ilk are able to make seeds better. They also go on the premise that everything they do is good. That they never screw up. When you come from that place you will never be able to see the big picture.
I am bound by a premise that the large scale coordination and cooperation that is inherint in a large company such as monsanto improves the likelihood of improving better seeds.
However, no one company can meet all the seed breeding needs in the world. Small breeders, including those who do it as a hobby for the public good, provide an invaluble service.
Everyone screws up. Big, small - whatever.
I think most of us would agree that Monsanto can go to hell and take its "improved" seeds with it.
if Monsanto doesn't consider small-scale, local agriculture a threat, then why do they keep buying up seed processors and strong-arming farmers who dare to save their seeds and take them to be cleaned for the next season? note that I'm not talking about Monsanto seed, but the farmers' own seed. I'll believe Monsanto isn't the devil once they stop acting like the Devil... and Mr. Spokesperson seems to want it both ways. he buys local and supports organic farming on a personal level, but works for a company that is the exact opposite of that? sounds like some old greenwashing BS, if you ask me.
GMO is not the answer to food security issues -- getting back to local, organic farming IS.
I sincerely doubt that Monsanto was not involved in the drafting of this legislation. Their recent record makes that claim VERY unlikely.
we don't strong arm farmers. Check out www.monsanto.com/fortherecord on what we do do and for what reasons.
I agree. GMO is not the answer to food security issues. It can help a lot though.
I disagree. Local organic farming is not the answer either.
There is room and need for lots of different approaches to agriculture in the world and combinations thereof.
.
Pinkerton to do that.
And the fear among the little people is that Monsanto wants to control it all, their way.
with their rice production. I think the author is Vandana Shiva who I read about this.
Investigators are former farmers and policemen. I've met them.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?enti...
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Percy-Schmeiser-G... BRUNO, Saskatchewan - On a cold January morning in central Canada, "Percy Schmeiser looks over his frozen fields. "Here's where all the trouble began," he says, pointing to here private investigators last year arrived uninvited and snipped samples of his crops for DNA tests."
Let's not forget Percy Schmeiser. Pinkerton's trespassed and stole on Monsanto's behalf, then Monsanto sued the christ out of the guy
http://www.combat-monsanto.co.uk/spip.php?art...
Saving the best for last:
http://www.democracynow.org/2000/1/18/democra...
Pinkertons pretty much tells me you don't know Monsanto the way you think you do.
...like a good way to get shot and buried as fertilizer in the cornfeild.
You are on a roll!
For stating the obvious:
"Getting back to local, organic farming IS (the answer to food security issues)".
of Organic and Conventional Farming Systems ~ DAVID PIMENTEL, PAUL HEPPERLY, JAMES HANSON, DAVID DOUDS, AND RITA SEIDEL
http://www.ce.cmu.edu/~gdrg/readings/2007/02/...
"Various organic technologies have been utilized for about 6000 years to make agriculture sustainable while conserving soil, water, energy, and
biological resources. Among the benefits of organic technologies are higher soil organic matter and nitrogen, lower fossil energy inputs, yields similar
to those of conventional systems, and conservation of soil moisture and water resources (especially advantageous under drought conditions). Conventional
agriculture can be made more sustainable and ecologically sound by adopting some traditional organic farming technologies."
I agree with miss kitty and also call BULLSHIT on the notion GMOs are our savior for survival of our species. I also agree that Organic and "clean food" growing principles will nurture more people as they provide substantially more nutrients than conventionally produced foods. You simply need to eat less, fewer calories, smaller portions of organic, to receive the same nutrition as much larger sized portions of conventional. The import being less food intake, more nutrition, more people fed with less food.
... with feeding the poor. It's all about patenting food and control.
"Pay us on every bite or you'll starve."
The population is already much too large to be supported by this planet. Even if Mansanto actually did care about feeding the world's poor, it wouldn't be a good idea for a better planet. We need to feed people education so that they'll stop creating more people and the population can adjust to sustainable levels.
People are starving now. What do you suggest we do for them?
I agree, education is the base of just about every problem we have.
this problem is many faceted, as is the subject.
To start, getting the western world to pull its greedy snout out of the trough would free up massive resources throughout the world. Especially in this country of fatasses, whose caloric intake is well above sustenance level. We have people in this country starving to death and eating themselves to death.
Use more sustainable farming methods. This would include the use of IPM instead of gallons of Roundup and whatever insectcide people use. Insecticides are neurotoxins and not only kill 'bad' insects, but beneficials as well, and affect humans' nervous systems.
Concentrate on building healthy soils and environments for growing crops, using natural fertilisers and soil builders, and IPM.
Grow regional crops in the region. Don't import and force growth of plants that need resources not available in the immediate area. Think water, and the coming problems with that resource. Grow drought tolerant plants in droughty areas.
Quit shipping Chilean Blueberries to the NW. There are people starving in Brasil, which is much closer. This of course is just an example.
That's just off the top of my head
I agree fully on IPM and sustainability, building soils, and the multifaceted component of the problem.
Pesticides are a component of IPM as is GM.
GM can reduce the use of neurotoxic insecticides such as organophosphates. Ask any cotton grower.
I would argue that technology is a necessary component of sustainable agriculture.
Crossing Kingdom barriers, no. Absolutely not. Healthy plants shun insects on their own. It's ill plants, poorly tended, poorly cultured weak, diseased, that attract insects, by giving off pheromones that signal weakness.
Nature in its infinite wisdom has given us every creature (except the GM ones) They are all a part of the web of life. The whole GM thing is a dangerous aberration and an intrusion on the web.
Maybe if the whole freakin' world took a major evolutionary leap in consciousness we could stop wasting trillions of dollars on weapons and instead focus on what matters to the sustainability of the planet....population control, education (with an emphasis on the empowerment of women), quality, standardized health care for everyone, water sustainabilty, the control of global warming, a global design for sustainable, renewable, non-polluting energy resources etc. etc. etc.
The United States particularly is the poster child for wasting resources on militarization.
We must finally grow up and realize we cannot control the world through our military prowess.
We MUST take a new tack and try to sit down at the table of ALL the world's nations and design a plan to MANAGE this planet. Not DESTROY it in order to CONTROL it.
Just sayin'.
You are what you eat. Think about it. Then eat organic or home grown. Bake from scratch. Never eat anything with high fructose corn syrup in it.
No GMO. No irradiation. Fight for labeling.
Oh, and if you are soy intollerant, beware. Some times it is not even mentioned on the label, yet it is used as a filler in lots of "food".
In the US anyway, if soy is in the product, it must be labeled as such.
Sugar is sugar. Whether from cane, corn or beets.
Most of us should eat less of it.
High fructose corn syrup, which has replaced sugar in just about everything is used differently by the body.
It should be treated as a toxin.
And you are wrong about soy. Nor do we even know the origin of the soy. It could be China for all we know.
I agree we don't know the origin of the soy, but products are supposed to be labeled.
My physician and analytical chemist buddies disagree with you on HFCS.
You will live longer.
Study: brain switches off rationality when given 'expert advice'
.
High Fructose Corn Syrup contains mercury.
I'm very health-conscious with my kids and their exposure to HFCS is very minimal. However, that isn't the case with many of their friends.
How much of childhood illnesses can be attributed to unwitting mercury poisoning?
they are wrong
The tobacco company scientists said cigarettes were good for you. The Monsanto scientists said Roundup doesn't harm anything.
Genetic modification seeks to break species barriers. You take a fish gene and use a virus to load it into a strand of tomato DNA. great lashings of antibiotics are used to make this happen too. You 'design' corn (using a virus to splice Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt into corn) so the pollen is poison to members of the order Lepidoptera. Pollen drifts from the corn, either by wind or insect activity onto milkweed, and now you kill Monarch Butterflies. You make plants that are Roundup ready so you can soak farmers who will bathe their crops in the shit. Apparently, selling 85-90 million pounds of this unnecessary crap to farmers per annum just is not enough.
And how safe is Roundup? Don't know. Didn't help that Monsanto lied for years about its toxicity and biodegradability. Studies do show it is toxic to fetuses, and the EU finds it to be "dangerous for the environment" and "toxic for aquatic organisms." Glyphosate-containing products (ie, Roundup) have caused genetic damage in human blood cells, fruit flies, and onion cells ( http://fundacionterrazul.org/Archivo/Glyphosa... ). Residues of the commonly-used herbicide glyphosate have been found in a variety of fruits and vegetables. Residues can be detected long after glyphosate treatments have been made. Lettuce, carrots, and barley planted a year after glyphosate treatment contained residues at harvest. (ibid. Part 2).
The fact that no one knows what these chimeric-style plants your company makes will do to nature. GM modification crosses not only species barriers, but KINGDOM barriers, barriers between plants animals and protists.
The monarch stuff was dismissed long ago.
If farmers didn't get value out of these products, they wouldn't buy them. Farmers are not stupid.
And yes, they do have choice and there are non-GM options out there.
There is not a single regulatory agency I am aware of that considers glyphosate to pose serious risk to human health. Strong scientific consensus backs this.
deleted. Debate and dissention is fine - gratuitous insults are not. - site monitor
Ignorance always finds a way of revealing itself. Usually takes longer though, I'm surprised.
.
I suppose you could easily link to the "strong scientific consensus" -- especially since it's a "consensus."
Give me 'til the morning though. I'm at home.
.
I mean you knew this was happening, since you wrote for it. Not a boy scout, eh?
Don't get the boy scout comment or the home stuff. I do have a life and interest beyond debating you folks about glyphosate though!
On glyphosate
Anywhere, here is a link to a lot of technical info on glyphosate. Yeah, I know, many are Mon docs but they contain references to outside research.
You can also Google Glyphosate and any number of regulatory bodies -EPA, FDA, IARC, ATSDR and see what the regulatory consensus is.
Interestingly, try Googling "glyphosate" and "invasive plants" and get an idea of the scope of environmental groups who use glyphosate.
"Be prepared."
"The Boy Scouts of America maintain that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing his obligation to God." √
[Boy Scouts of America, statement on membership form]
Be prepared.
♥ For your time and effort, fiver. :-)
:)
that sues farmers who try to sell crops pollinated by neighboring fields invasive, patented GM species?
Monsanto.
See the link I posted near the top of this thread.
If I fertilized someone without their consent, a different outcome in court would be in store for me.
Haha
Can anyone name the farmer who claimed that his crops were accidentally pollinated but who really intentionally infringed on patents. Percy Schmeiser. Canadian lower, appeals and Supreme Court docs at
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2001/2001fct...
http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/en/2002/2002fc...
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2004/2004scc...
Like HB 857, unsubstantiated rumor that takes away from real an necessary discussion.
In an out of court settlement finalized on March 19, 2008, Percy Schmeiser has settled his lawsuit with Monsanto. Monsanto has agreed to pay all the clean-up costs of the Roundup Ready canola that contaminated Schmeiser's fields. Also part of the agreement was that there was no gag-order on the settlement and that Monsanto could be sued again if further contamination occurred. Schmeiser believes this precedent setting agreement ensures that farmers will be entitled to reimbursement when their fields become contaminated with unwanted Roundup Ready canola or any other unwanted GMO plants.
Hmm. Talk about leaving stuff out...
Here I am, waking up and thinking about how to integrate all the linked info into context. First, noticing it was dated, I was going to look for something more current, and *presto*, up rolls Miss Kitty.
it's not surprising. as for strong scientific evidence, would those be Monsanto scientists or Monsanto funded scientist that came to the conclusion you site but unlike me, do not source?
Linda J. Fisher . . .former Assistant Administrator of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency's Office of
Pollution Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, . . .then
became Vice President of Government and Public Affairs for
Monsanto Corporation and now (2001) is Deputy Director
of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Michael A. Friedman, M.D. . . former acting commissioner of
the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Department of Health and Human Services . . .now senior
vice-president for clinical affairs at G. D. Searle & Co., a
pharmaceutical division of Monsanto Corporation.
Marcia Hale . . . former assistant to the President of the
United States and director for intergovernmental affairs, . .
.now Director of International Government Affairs for Monsanto
Corporation.
Michael (Mickey) Kantor. . . former Secretary of the United
States Department of Commerce and former Trade
Representative of the United States, . . .now member of the
board of directors of Monsanto Corporation.
Josh King . . . former director of production for White House
events, . . . now director of global communication in the
Washington, D.C. office of Monsanto Corporation.
Margaret Miller . . . former chemical laboratory supervisor for
Monsanto, . . .now Deputy Director of Human Food Safety and
Consultative Services, New Animal Drug Evaluation Office,
Center for Veterinary Medicine in the United States Food and
Drug Administration (FDA).*
William D. Ruckelshaus . . . former chief administrator of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), . .
.now (and for the past 12 years) a member of the board of
directors of Monsanto Corporation.
Michael Taylor . . . former legal advisor to the United States
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Bureau of Medical
Devices and Bureau of Foods, later executive assistant to the
Commissioner of the FDA, . . . still later a partner at the law
firm of King & Spaulding where he supervised a nine-lawyer
group whose clients included Monsanto Agricultural Company, .
. . still later Deputy Commissioner for Policy at the United
States Food and Drug Administration, . . . and later with the
law firm of King & Spaulding. . . . now head of the
Washington, D.C. office of Monsanto Corporation.*
Lidia Watrud . . . former microbial biotechnology researcher at
Monsanto Corporation in St. Louis, Missouri, . . .now with the
United States Environmental Protection Agency Environmental
Effects Laboratory, Western Ecology Division.
Jack Watson. . .former chief of staff to the President of the
United States, Jimmy Carter, . . .now a staff lawyer with
Monsanto Corporation in Washington, D.C.
*Margaret Miller, Michael Taylor, and Suzanne Sechen (an FDA
"primary reviewer for all rbST and other dairy drug production applications"
) were the subjects of a U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) investigation in
1994 for their role in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's approval of
Posilac, Monsanto Corporation's formulation of recombinant bovine growth
hormone (rbST or rBGH). The GAO Office found "no conflicting financial
interests with respect to the drug's approval" and only "one minor deviation from
now superseded FDA regulations". (Quotations are from the 1994 GAO
report).
Quelle sursprise. It's a two way street.,
That is what they are, suspect because of their "revolving door" connections.
Charles Burson - former Monsanto Legal Counsel who went on to become Al Gore's chief of staff - ooh, wait, don't list that - Al Gore does good things for the environment.
I come from gov't. People move too and from gov't and the public and privat sector frequently. I also had colleagues who went to Whole Foods, Appalachian Mountain Club, Beyon Pesticides..
USDA determined no risk to monarchs http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/btcorn/
From the same site:
People do move back and forth from government to the corporations they are supposed to regulate. It's one of the reasons we simply cannot trust their independence - especially with corporate funding of research in which they have an interest.
Also, why the USDA? The monarch issue would seem to be more up the EPA's alley. I mean, we don't grow or eat monarchs (I hear they taste horrible). Is the USDA more amenable to agribusiness control?
you know conflict of interest springs to mind.
Also any other member of Lepidoptera that is unfortunate enough to cross your corn, even beneficials, have a magic King's X, they won't be poisoned? There are a couple more families, genus, species in the order than Monarchs, whether or not the USDA study is independent or not.
Pull the other one; it's got bells on it.
mixed in. Nice deflection, but you're busted. I give a list, and you try to take it off topic with a whaddabout the Gore guy?
Not at all like you leaving out the part wherein Percy Schmeiser apparently won -- when RR canola was found on his land, and he asked for it to be removed. He refused to sign papers that Monsanto demanded he sign in order to QUALIFY for the cleanup. Funny, how Monsanto doesn't want anyone to use their crap w/o paying for it, yet will make people who want to be rid of the shit jump through flaming hoops.
The fact that Schmeiser found more GM crops on his land kind of puts the first case in a different light. For me anyway. But c'mon. you've already called him a thief for the first incident...
Speaking of GM Corn:
Thank you France! Monsanto Loses Appeal of French Ban on Modified Corn
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2008/Monsanto-Fre...
By...?
And it's not just Monarchs, if you want to claim some unnamed someone at your company called bullshit on it. Any member of the order Lepidoptra trying to feed off Monsanto's bastardised corn, even just pollen, because that's what a lot of them eat -- only pollen, they die.
There is not a single regulatory agency I am aware of that considers glyphosate to pose serious risk to human health.
the EU finds it to be "dangerous for the environment" and "toxic for aquatic organisms."
You don't find the EU to be some kind of a regulatory body? Or that something referred to by them as "dangerous for the environment" and "toxic for aquatic organisms" to be risky to human health? Is that how you play it? "Oh well screw that other shit. If it only harms the environment, then that's ok. We've done MUCH worse."
I have a feeling that Brad Mitchel had no idea what he was wondering into. Those of us here know we have the best and the smartest posters around. We may not all be experts about everything but there is bound to be at least one of us who can go up against anybody who tries to bamboozle us. That is why we come here. Thank you Miss Kitty for spending time to become familiar with all this stuff and sharing it here.
finalee payd of!!!111!
Trying to play God.
Plain and simple.
They're fucking things up. Big time.
Gotta go to bed.
Nighty-night all.....(I'm East coastin' it)....
Another problem I have with ADM, Monsanto, Cargill, Bunge and Dupont is that they become a corporate cabal like the oil and entertainment companies.
Claims of stiff competition seems only for appearances sake.
It's a huge pie and there's plenty to go around.
Five to six megacorps is a way of skirting antitrust laws and an invitation to price fixing.
They also have become 'too big to fail' and can hold governments hostage to their prime agenda, max profits.
Being successful is all well and good but what amounts ethics in todays business culture makes me want oversight.
What would be cancer in an organism is lauded as #1 in the business community. Time for a checkup?
they all remind me of the bankers we're seeing today, 10 years ago.
Tailor made seeds for tailor made herbicides for tailor made food stocks.
They own and control the entire chain.
When they buy up Charmin and Cottonelle the circle will be complete.
This is the heart of this matter. When "species" are crossed, terrible characteristics are released into the world (not an overstatement) that may never be recalled or undone, characteristics that spread throughout a population of plants, wiping out their natural characteristics, and often killing other life forms that depend on the original plants' natural characteristics for survival.
I do NOT NOT NOT want to eat corn or soy that are "enhanced" with an insecticide that I ingest. I do not want any "genetic engineering" done on edible plants beyond hybridizing and crossing plants of the same species. None at all.
I do not want to live in a world where GM plants can pollinize and fertilize un-genetically-modified plants, as has happened in Mexico and other places, wiping out local strains of corn/maize. I do not want huge "seed conglomerates" deciding what seeds will be made available to produce crops that human beings must eat.
All the seed corporations involved in genetically-modifying plants can go sit in the corner, as far as I'm concerned.
Neither will lies and bullshit or made up science promulgated by employees of Monsanto, et al.
From the issue the printer pulped over fear that Monsanto would sue the magazine...
Nothing Monsanto does prevents people from saving and improving locally adapted seeds. We patent the ones we invent for sure, but that has been going on for years and is unique neither to Mon or biotech. Google "raspberry" and "patent" and see what you get. There are no GM patents.
Mon made PCBs and agent orange in the middle of the 20th century before we, or society as a whole, had the level of environmental awareness (and) knowledge, that we have today. You are trying to hold our actions from 40 years ago (and more) against today's standards and it paints a disingenous picture.
Here's an analogy. I have two year old daughter. We have a very expensive car seat. There are myriad of federal, state and local laws around the design fo this seat as well as requirements that I put her in it at below certain ages/weights, etc. The local police have a program where I they will actually come and help me put it in. When I was her age (which is unfortunately close to the middle of the last century) I sat on my mom's lap in the front seat with no safety belt. If I did that, my daughter would be in foster care and I would be trying to get hold of Britney Spears' lawyer
Was my mom a criminal. No. Would I be if I did the same thing today. yes.
This is not to say that Mon doesn't have any responsibility for this - different discussion though best left to courts and lawyers.
Pesticide risk is a function of two things - toxicity and exposure. Both are lower with glyphosate than with chemical alternatives.
I admire your sincerity and effort. If I may, I'll even go so far as to presume, you understand the core ideologies of your dissenters positions?
Before I leave this thread, I'd like to thank you for your time and nonjudgmental prose. Thank you as well, nonny mouse, your integrity is appreciated.
Honestly, TC, that made my eyes tear up. These two posts were not an easy ride for me, and it says a LOT about the integrity of C&L to even allow me to sometimes involve myself in a bit of Devil's advocacy. Big kudos to the C&L team as well, all of them. And thank you, too, to Mr. Mitchell - this isn't easy territory for anyone to wade into.
I not only understand their core ideologies, I share many of them. I differ in two areas I believe:
1. I think technology, including biotech, is and can be very beneficial.
2. I think there is room and need for more than one type of agriculture in the world and that they can coexist.
I have already contacted my congressman to voice my strong disapproval and ask that if it comes up for a vote that he not vote for it.
I read the entire bill and it was just too vague. The only place it gets really clear is when it talks about how much the agency director would get paid and how much the agency can reimburse any 'experts' they may ask to help them formulate the new rules. Then, there is this:
***********
section 202(d) Repeal- Effective at the end of the 6-month period following the date of the enactment of this Act, section 415 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 350d) is repealed.
Section 3(14) FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term ‘food production facility’ means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.
206(c) Regulations- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture and representatives of State departments of agriculture, shall promulgate regulations to establish science-based minimum standards for the safe production of food by food production facilities. Such regulations shall--
(1) consider all relevant hazards, including those occurring naturally, and those that may be unintentionally or intentionally introduced;
(2) require each food production facility to have a written food safety plan that describes the likely hazards and preventive controls implemented to address those hazards;
(3) include, with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, and storage operations, minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water;
(4) include, with respect to animals raised for food, minimum standards related to the animal’s health, feed, and environment which bear on the safety of food for human consumption;
(5) provide a reasonable period of time for compliance, taking into account the needs of small businesses for additional time to comply;
(6) provide for coordination of education and enforcement activities by State and local officials, as designated by the Governors of the respective States; and
(7) include a description of the variance process under subsection (d) and the types of permissible variances which the Administrator may grant under such process.
*******
This definitely affects small family farms.
... but as I wrote at the beginning of this post, Rep. DeLauro has been meeting with organic farmers to discuss proposed amendments to HR 875. It's rather unlikely that the bill, in its present form, is going to make it far enough for a vote. If nothing else, all this confusion and controversy has actually HELPED ensure that any bill will account for and protect the interest of organic and small farmers.
You did not mention that Section3(14), which you listed, is actually part of a list of EXCLUSIONS, as defined by the full context within the bill. This is the basis of much of the mis-information being spread around. The bill regulates what it defines as "food establishments".
From the exclusions section:
"For the purposes of registration, the term 'food establishment' does not include a 'food production facility', as defined in paragraph 14, restaurant, other retail food establishment, nonprofit food establishment in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer, or fishing vessel ...[not] engaged in processing"
Paragraph 14 defines further exclusions, namely, "any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation".
All these are the EXCLUSIONS, which are not subject to registration under this bill!
You seem like a nice fellow, and are well-informed about some of the issues (though not as well-informed as Miss Kitty, obviously), And who doesn't like e.e. cummings (aside from his precious punctuation)? Plus, even though I know it's your job, I still appreciate your engaging in this discussion. But you are evading the issues that Monsanto is rightly criticized for, and I fear that if your desire for a sustainable food supply is sincere, you are undermining your own goals by supporting the kind of massive agribusiness that Monsanto creates. You simply cannot have your locally grown, organic, sustainable, economically just cake, and eat your invasive corporate GM corn syrup cake stolen from indigenous traditional agriculture, too.
Nonny Mouse – you rock. Way to show some integrity and willingness to think. Tell C&L that all their contributors should be so awesome.
You seem reasonable. What issue would you like me to address? I'm working.
Bet I know more than kitty!
A few decades of experimentation has demonstrated that large, monocultural agribusinesses that rely on the infusion of imported, petro-dependent inputs is not sustainable. The productivity of a given plot of land may increase under this system, but only at the cost of harm to the environment and depletion of resources that cannot be sustained. It leads to massively increased carbon output, dependence on far-flung sources of food that are vulnerable to economic and logistic interruptions, and introduction of invasive and otherwise environmentally incompatible varieties. GM foods are only the most recent example of potentially destructive alien varieties whose effects on complex local biospheres cannot possibly be anticipated (see rabbits in Australia or English ivy in the North Cascades, where I live).
Agriculture can only be sustained when it is locally controlled, when local farmers develop their own varieties adapted to local environments, dependent only on local inputs (such as manure and sunlight), to meet local needs for both food security and cultural values.
It is in the interest of a corporation such as Monsanto to expand its control of the agricultural market, an interest inherently at odds with the goals of sustainable local agriculture. Monsanto's attempts to patent and control the use of seed varieties originally developed by local farmers and their opposition to allowing the public access to complete information about the sources of their food are just a couple of examples of their hostility to local empowerment for farmers and consumers.
Your job is to defend Monsanto. You may also wish to help to mitigate the negative effects of Monsanto's activities, for your own personal reasons as a conscientious citizen as well as to improve Monsanto's public image and their chances of maximizing their profit in the inevitable shift to more local food production. But it's not your job to facilitate that shift. Quite the opposite.
Thank you Miss Kitty, you are both a breath of fresh air. Pesticides have consequences. As you know too well, most if not all of the research done on pesticides are conducted by the company that produced them, with no real oversight or peer reviewed follow up studies. The proof of harm is placed on the consumer to determine, this is backwards and the reason I firmly believe in the precautionary principle. They need to prove safety first beyond doubt - with studies that can be replicated - that their product will not harm us.
Aside from what happened to Percy in Canada, I doubt the nice gentleman from Monsanto will want to discuss papaya in Hawaii. Money is now pouring into Hawaii to GM taro, once taro is contaminated life for generations of farmers will be changed forever - and with it the history of the islands.
I left my cushy professional career and became an organic farmer because of ethylene dibromide. This nasty pesticide once deemed to be safe contaminated the ground water and still existed decades after it had been banned and caused a cancer cluster that hit my then 4 year old. You have never experienced true heartache until you have seen the ravages that cancer and its treatment can inflict on a child. I don't say this as a way to invoke emotion into the discussion, fellow humans will almost always agree on the horror of cancer. I say this because pesticides have consequences, and they are not worth it. There are other ways to produce more food than through chemicals and they work better, and they are cheaper. And they are all organic.
Read the truth about Percy at: http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_today/for_th...
Don't bother reading the article. I wrote it. Just go to the links to the Canadian Court documents - lower, appeals and Supreme court - they tell the real story.
Nope, I won't discuss papaya in Hawaii. Monsanto has nothing to do with it. I will tell you that I have spoken to folks in Hawaii (non-Mon)who tell me GM papaya save the industry there.
GM has reduced a lot of pesticide use. Ask cotton farmers in India.
not published, funded nor researched by Monsanto. In short, a third party publication by, say, an institute of higher learning published for peer review with peer comments? Your proof seem to be opinions.
The fact that Mr. Schmieser ended up with any "round up ready" corn in his fields at all is the point that needs repeating......
If you can't control it's crossing to his property........
Right. Monsanto denies it dumped at Sauget. "Anyone could have done that." Gee, really, Monsanto land, Monsanto chemicals and ANYONE could have dumped them there? By the tonnage? Really?
And BTW, there's a gag order on part 2 of the Schmeiser/Monsanto settlement. Hmm. Ya think old Percy was angling for a gag order?
I think you have a hard time grasping a fact here that must make it frustrating for you...Monsanto has no credibility, and it's your only source. And it's your only source for sourcing. You couldn't even hop on Google last night and give answers, you had to wait until you were at work.
Monsanto does all sorts of harmful stuff to our earth, our cultures, our people and when it gets caught, it's all "Oh no it wasn't us" And your 'science' is conducted by people on the payroll, whose job it is to please Monsanto.
That's YOUR job too. and as long as that's your job, you won't have credibility with critically thinking people.
You might want to mention 'lack of cred' to the PR boys and see how they want to address that. This "I know! Let's reach out via the internets!" idea of theirs isn't going to really fly, until Monsanto's actions match its words.
I understand why you don't want to discuss papaya in Hawaii, and Monsanto does have something to do with it. And with contaminating the school on Kauai that another poster mentioned. From one unbiased source:
http://www.examiner.com/x-777-Nutrition-Exami...
As she says at the bottom of the article, there has not been enough research, bottom line.
You speak to people, I speak to people. This is what I hear from farmers I have spoken to: http://www.grain.org/research/contamination.c...
EU and Japan won't buy gm papaya for a reason.
And cotton in India? Really?
http://www.navdanya.org/report1.pdf
I recall the 2008 inexcusable pesticide drift into grade school class rooms by the GMO Scum on the Island of Kauai. Subjecting young children to high doses of lethal XXX deserves accountability that never seems to happen. Remember George C Scott character's solution in the movie Rage.
Mr. Mitchel,
On the face of it, I don't have any problem with GM crops, but I do have concerns about peripheral issues related to GM technology and Monsanto's role. In some cases, it is difficult to seperate fact from urban myth.
I was recently tasked with conducting a review of emerging toxicology issues relating to the use of Roundup® (glyphosate), because of a body of information that is developing from long-term, chronic exposure to the substance. Their are a number of disease states that there is growing evidence linking those states to chronic sub-acute exposure to glyphosate and the wetting/dispersing agents that are required in the use of the herbicide. The purpose of the tasking was to reassess whether it is prudent to continue to allow our employees to use the product and to reassess the level and type of personal protective equipmentthat should be required. the idea was to protect employees and to prempt future legal liabilities.
As regards GM crops and the use of glyphosate, those crops which are genetically modified to be "Roundup® ready" seems - on the surface - to be a good idea. However, many studies are showing that the glyphosate often does not break down into benign by-products, and that in GM modified plants that are resistant to glyohsate, that the substance distributes itself through out the plant, including it's seeds, fruit or edible portions, and that it persists. In soils studies have shown it persisting as long as 985 days after application. If these numerous papers and research results are in fact true, it begs the question: What benefit is gained by GM foods that are specifically engneered to be resistant to herbicides, if the herbicides then become a component or contaminant in the food that can or do produce long-term adverse health effects resulting from chronic exposure?
Another concern with GM crops is that it can become a study in unintended consequences. The genie gets out of the bottle and can't be stuffed back into it. Specifically,What happens when a GM crop like corn cross polinates with another farmer's non-GM cropand when the other farmer traditionally reserves a part of his crop as seed for the following year? If the genetic modification is passed onto the seed, where does that leave the other farmer, especially if that farmer is producing organic crops? Such a scenario can destroy the organic farmer's business, because he can no longer sell to markets that forbid GM foods. More, how does Monsanto assure that the GM line remains out of the wild-type line? Does Monsanto claim intellectual property rights against the farmer who now, without wanting it, has a store of genetically altered seed?
And, while on that subject, what is Monsanto's position about seed banks?
Thanks.
BTW, thanks, Nonny..good job.
Login or Register to post comments.