MONSANTO

Twila
#31
NSA, what makes you sure that gm products can't/won't hurt people in the long run? My concern with regards to gm products is the effects these products will have regular products. IE gm salmon escapees destroying habitat that was not designed for them and doing irrepairable damage to regular fish stocks. I was under the impression that long term affects of gm products haven't been studied, because of the relative newness of it.

There are many products that are approved by the FDA and by the CFIA that we later learn has side-effects not even guessed at.
 
Twila
#32
NSA, what makes you sure that gm products can't/won't hurt people in the long run? My concern with regards to gm products is the effects these products will have regular products. IE gm salmon escapees destroying habitat that was not designed for them and doing irrepairable damage to regular fish stocks. I was under the impression that long term affects of gm products haven't been studied, because of the relative newness of it.

There are many products that are approved by the FDA and by the CFIA that we later learn has side-effects not even guessed at.
 
Twila
#33
NSA, what makes you sure that gm products can't/won't hurt people in the long run? My concern with regards to gm products is the effects these products will have regular products. IE gm salmon escapees destroying habitat that was not designed for them and doing irrepairable damage to regular fish stocks. I was under the impression that long term affects of gm products haven't been studied, because of the relative newness of it.

There are many products that are approved by the FDA and by the CFIA that we later learn has side-effects not even guessed at.
 
Reverend Blair
#34
GM products won't cause us, by eating them, to suffer genetic mutations. That is not to say that their long-term effects are known. There could be cumalative toxicity or something else that we won't notice for decades.

The really big danger is environmental though. I've had GM canola destroy a good portion of my garden. I know farmers who are using tank mixes to control weeds because so many have become resistant to Round-Up. The GM salmon farms are a disaster waiting to happen, especially considering the precarious nature of natural salmon stock.

We could suffer serious food shortages if gm crops and a lack of genetic diversity leads to crop failures.
 
Reverend Blair
#35
GM products won't cause us, by eating them, to suffer genetic mutations. That is not to say that their long-term effects are known. There could be cumalative toxicity or something else that we won't notice for decades.

The really big danger is environmental though. I've had GM canola destroy a good portion of my garden. I know farmers who are using tank mixes to control weeds because so many have become resistant to Round-Up. The GM salmon farms are a disaster waiting to happen, especially considering the precarious nature of natural salmon stock.

We could suffer serious food shortages if gm crops and a lack of genetic diversity leads to crop failures.
 
Reverend Blair
#36
GM products won't cause us, by eating them, to suffer genetic mutations. That is not to say that their long-term effects are known. There could be cumalative toxicity or something else that we won't notice for decades.

The really big danger is environmental though. I've had GM canola destroy a good portion of my garden. I know farmers who are using tank mixes to control weeds because so many have become resistant to Round-Up. The GM salmon farms are a disaster waiting to happen, especially considering the precarious nature of natural salmon stock.

We could suffer serious food shortages if gm crops and a lack of genetic diversity leads to crop failures.
 
NSA
#37
Quote:

NSA, what makes you sure that gm products can't/won't hurt people in the long run?

I'm NOT sure. Nobody is. But you have to assess risks, and decide whether you wait for proof of ZERO risk before you allow a new technology (in which case we'd allow very few if any new technologies) or whether you do tests to rule out majority of risks, and weigh the results against the utility of the product.

I guess that's something else I forgot to mention in my previous post. If I genetically modify a new strain of rice that will grow in all those tsunami-salted paddies in Banda Aceh, I believe that has a potential for good which outweighs a small risk that something will be wrong with the strain. If I develop a GM strain which I use as a marketing tool for my stupid but profitable glyphosate herbicide (aka Roundup-Ready technology), the risk/benefit ratio is much different.

As for your salmon example, I agree that releasing GM fish (or whatever) to the wild would be unwise, and that's something you have to consider when deciding to permit GM fish - can aquaculturist compliance with no-dumping regulations be enforced? Is the nature of the transgene such that minor "leaks" will be magnified by breeding with wild fish and positive selection (like if it made the fish shoot laser beams at their predators for example...) or is it a "neutral" or even disadvantageous gene which is unlikely to proliferate in natural populations from a small initial introduction?
 
NSA
#38
Quote:

NSA, what makes you sure that gm products can't/won't hurt people in the long run?

I'm NOT sure. Nobody is. But you have to assess risks, and decide whether you wait for proof of ZERO risk before you allow a new technology (in which case we'd allow very few if any new technologies) or whether you do tests to rule out majority of risks, and weigh the results against the utility of the product.

I guess that's something else I forgot to mention in my previous post. If I genetically modify a new strain of rice that will grow in all those tsunami-salted paddies in Banda Aceh, I believe that has a potential for good which outweighs a small risk that something will be wrong with the strain. If I develop a GM strain which I use as a marketing tool for my stupid but profitable glyphosate herbicide (aka Roundup-Ready technology), the risk/benefit ratio is much different.

As for your salmon example, I agree that releasing GM fish (or whatever) to the wild would be unwise, and that's something you have to consider when deciding to permit GM fish - can aquaculturist compliance with no-dumping regulations be enforced? Is the nature of the transgene such that minor "leaks" will be magnified by breeding with wild fish and positive selection (like if it made the fish shoot laser beams at their predators for example...) or is it a "neutral" or even disadvantageous gene which is unlikely to proliferate in natural populations from a small initial introduction?
 
NSA
#39
Quote:

NSA, what makes you sure that gm products can't/won't hurt people in the long run?

I'm NOT sure. Nobody is. But you have to assess risks, and decide whether you wait for proof of ZERO risk before you allow a new technology (in which case we'd allow very few if any new technologies) or whether you do tests to rule out majority of risks, and weigh the results against the utility of the product.

I guess that's something else I forgot to mention in my previous post. If I genetically modify a new strain of rice that will grow in all those tsunami-salted paddies in Banda Aceh, I believe that has a potential for good which outweighs a small risk that something will be wrong with the strain. If I develop a GM strain which I use as a marketing tool for my stupid but profitable glyphosate herbicide (aka Roundup-Ready technology), the risk/benefit ratio is much different.

As for your salmon example, I agree that releasing GM fish (or whatever) to the wild would be unwise, and that's something you have to consider when deciding to permit GM fish - can aquaculturist compliance with no-dumping regulations be enforced? Is the nature of the transgene such that minor "leaks" will be magnified by breeding with wild fish and positive selection (like if it made the fish shoot laser beams at their predators for example...) or is it a "neutral" or even disadvantageous gene which is unlikely to proliferate in natural populations from a small initial introduction?
 
Twila
#40
Thanks NSA. I see what you mean now. I kind of like the idea of laser beams shooting out of the eyes, though. lol Would make fishing more of a sport....
 
Twila
#41
Thanks NSA. I see what you mean now. I kind of like the idea of laser beams shooting out of the eyes, though. lol Would make fishing more of a sport....
 
Twila
#42
Thanks NSA. I see what you mean now. I kind of like the idea of laser beams shooting out of the eyes, though. lol Would make fishing more of a sport....
 
Reverend Blair
#43
I'm not sure how Peapod will feel about fish that shoot back.

The thing that strikes me most about GM is that the things we know have so many negatives (environmental impact, economics, viability of the food supply, the social issues in developing countries, genetic diversity) that the added risk of possible long-term health effects are just another reason not to.
 
Reverend Blair
#44
I'm not sure how Peapod will feel about fish that shoot back.

The thing that strikes me most about GM is that the things we know have so many negatives (environmental impact, economics, viability of the food supply, the social issues in developing countries, genetic diversity) that the added risk of possible long-term health effects are just another reason not to.
 
Reverend Blair
#45
I'm not sure how Peapod will feel about fish that shoot back.

The thing that strikes me most about GM is that the things we know have so many negatives (environmental impact, economics, viability of the food supply, the social issues in developing countries, genetic diversity) that the added risk of possible long-term health effects are just another reason not to.
 
peapod
#46
PODS VERUS SUPERWEEDS

UPDATE: Join Greenpeace and Jose Bové in action against arrival of GE Soy in France.

In the science-fiction classic, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, alien plants with destructive clone-manufacturing world-domination plans threatened the future of humanity. Bad news: the pods have arrived, disguised as soybeans.


All of us concerned about genetically engineered (GE) crops have been losing sleep for a while over the relentless take-over of traditional fields in many parts of the world. Now, a new report reveals how thoroughly Argentina has been taken over, and outlines previously unimagined dangers for our future when an entire country's agricultural system is invaded by a clone-replicating force like Monsanto.

Within the last 10 years, Argentina's agricultural production system has become dominated by one crop: the genetically engineered Roundup Ready soybean developed by US agrochemical company Monsanto. The large scale environmental, social, and economic impact is unprecedented.

Agronomist Charles Benbrook warns that the planting of 14 million hectares (34 million acres) of a single, genetically homogenous crop has created a highly vulnerable agricultural production system.

Argentine soy production uses GE seeds that are resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, marketed under the trade name "Roundup." Roundup Ready soy relies on repeated herbicide applications to control weeds. As every high school student knows, Nature abhors an herbicide, and finds ways to evolve around it. Already, strains of Roundup-resistant weeds have appeared in Argentina, requiring ever-heavier doses of the poison, killing off microbes and degrading soil quality. Heavy herbicide applications and widespread planting of Roundup Ready soybeans has also led to increases in pest and disease severity. And when fungi and other threats to the crop encounter none of the natural diversity barriers to their spread, the possibility of monoculture crop collapse increases significantly.

Take us to your feeders

But unlike the devastating Irish potato famine of the nineteenth century, the soy Argentina grows isn't actually feeding people. The vast majority (above 80 percent) of soybeans are bound for animal feedlots, providing protein for cattle, hogs and poultry. The European Union (EU) is the largest importer of Argentinean soybean meal. Worse, farmland which once produced subsistence crops and legume forages now produce only soybean monocultures. From 1996 to 2002 (the period of major soybean production expansion) the number of Argentineans lacking access to basic nutrition grew from 3.7 million to 8.7 million. Production of meat, dairy products, and eggs has dropped significantly, to be replaced by soybeans destined for export markets.

Sound like an alien force is taking over? The invasion doesn't stop there.

Can't see the forest for the beans

After Roundup Ready technology was introduced in 1996, the pace of land conversion has increased dramatically. The soybean frontier has expanded deeper and deeper into the ecosystems of Argentina, with 5.6 million hectares of non-agricultural land converted for soybean production since 1996. That compares to 2.4 million hectares converted before 1996. The rate at which forests in Northern Argentina are being turned into soy plantations is 3-6 times higher than the world average. The massive destruction of the forests, in particular of the Yungas and Chaco forests, has sparked violence and protests by agrarian families desperate to preserve their land. These forests also support diverse animal populations, including jaguars, pumas, monkeys, and more than 50% of all bird species of Argentina.

Monopoly + monoculture = Mon$anto

You'd expect that such a rapid expansion of soy production in Argentina must mean big, big profits for the Argentine nation, right? Think again. Not only is Roundup Ready soy a monoculture, it's controlled by a monopoly. Monsanto Corporation, the American owners of the patent on both Roundup and Roundup Ready soy, sets the price for both the herbicide and the crop. Glyphosate prices are going up in Argentina, and Monsanto has announced that it intends to collect retroactive royalty payments, and aggressively enforce patent laws on Roundup Ready technology. Adios to the profit margin for the farmer, howdy big bucks for Monsanto.

To a nation suffering from international debt, rising unemployment, and widespread poverty, Roundup Ready soybean production has offered little compensation, and Argentina's economic vulnerability is worsened by the volatile world soybean market.

A recent report by a team of US scientists found that Argentina soybeans contain 5-10 percent less protein, with lower levels of important amino-acids, than soybeans from competing countries. Poor quality soybeans also means less revenue. Buyers of Argentina soybeans will likely seek price concessions. And in Europe, widespread consumer rejection of GE soy means little market for human food production.

First, we take Buenos Aires, then we take Beijing

Like any good alien invasion, this one is bent on global domination. China is a major importer of Argentinean soybeans. Because China is the centre of biodiversity for soy, any contamination of the wild soybean species there could alter natural soybean evolution irrevocably. And accidental release during import, transport or processing poses a major risk to related wild soybean species.

Take action

We demand:

Not one single hectare of forest or other natural ecosystems should be converted to soy plantations in Argentina. We call on the Argentine government to take immediate action to protect Argentina's forests and on international institutions and banks to stop financing unsustainable agriculture and forest conversion in the region.
The use of genetically engineered soy in Argentina should be phased out with a view to implementing a ban on all genetically modified organism (GMO) releases. The Argentine government must respect consumer opposition to GMOs by providing its citizens the right to reject GMOs through mandatory food and feed labelling and withdraw from the US-led WTO case against the (now historical) de facto ban on GMO approvals by the European Union.
The European Union - a key market for Argentine GE soy (used for animal feed) - should ban Roundup Ready soy . Greenpeace calls on EU Member States not to re-approve Roundup Ready soy when Monsanto's approval for use of Roundup Ready soy expires in 2006. Moreover, the EU must provide its citizens the right to reject GMOs in food production by introducing mandatory GE labelling for eggs, meat and dairy products if GE animal feed has been used.
In China - another major market for Argentine GE soy - the risk of genetic contamination of the worlds' centre of soy biodiversity through GE soy imports must be acknowledged. Strong measures to avoid such contamination must be taken by the importers of GE soy and the Chinese government, by banning GE soy imports into China.

Don't close your eyes! Become a cyberactivist today and fight against the takeover of planet Earth.
 
peapod
#47
PODS VERUS SUPERWEEDS

UPDATE: Join Greenpeace and Jose Bové in action against arrival of GE Soy in France.

In the science-fiction classic, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, alien plants with destructive clone-manufacturing world-domination plans threatened the future of humanity. Bad news: the pods have arrived, disguised as soybeans.


All of us concerned about genetically engineered (GE) crops have been losing sleep for a while over the relentless take-over of traditional fields in many parts of the world. Now, a new report reveals how thoroughly Argentina has been taken over, and outlines previously unimagined dangers for our future when an entire country's agricultural system is invaded by a clone-replicating force like Monsanto.

Within the last 10 years, Argentina's agricultural production system has become dominated by one crop: the genetically engineered Roundup Ready soybean developed by US agrochemical company Monsanto. The large scale environmental, social, and economic impact is unprecedented.

Agronomist Charles Benbrook warns that the planting of 14 million hectares (34 million acres) of a single, genetically homogenous crop has created a highly vulnerable agricultural production system.

Argentine soy production uses GE seeds that are resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, marketed under the trade name "Roundup." Roundup Ready soy relies on repeated herbicide applications to control weeds. As every high school student knows, Nature abhors an herbicide, and finds ways to evolve around it. Already, strains of Roundup-resistant weeds have appeared in Argentina, requiring ever-heavier doses of the poison, killing off microbes and degrading soil quality. Heavy herbicide applications and widespread planting of Roundup Ready soybeans has also led to increases in pest and disease severity. And when fungi and other threats to the crop encounter none of the natural diversity barriers to their spread, the possibility of monoculture crop collapse increases significantly.

Take us to your feeders

But unlike the devastating Irish potato famine of the nineteenth century, the soy Argentina grows isn't actually feeding people. The vast majority (above 80 percent) of soybeans are bound for animal feedlots, providing protein for cattle, hogs and poultry. The European Union (EU) is the largest importer of Argentinean soybean meal. Worse, farmland which once produced subsistence crops and legume forages now produce only soybean monocultures. From 1996 to 2002 (the period of major soybean production expansion) the number of Argentineans lacking access to basic nutrition grew from 3.7 million to 8.7 million. Production of meat, dairy products, and eggs has dropped significantly, to be replaced by soybeans destined for export markets.

Sound like an alien force is taking over? The invasion doesn't stop there.

Can't see the forest for the beans

After Roundup Ready technology was introduced in 1996, the pace of land conversion has increased dramatically. The soybean frontier has expanded deeper and deeper into the ecosystems of Argentina, with 5.6 million hectares of non-agricultural land converted for soybean production since 1996. That compares to 2.4 million hectares converted before 1996. The rate at which forests in Northern Argentina are being turned into soy plantations is 3-6 times higher than the world average. The massive destruction of the forests, in particular of the Yungas and Chaco forests, has sparked violence and protests by agrarian families desperate to preserve their land. These forests also support diverse animal populations, including jaguars, pumas, monkeys, and more than 50% of all bird species of Argentina.

Monopoly + monoculture = Mon$anto

You'd expect that such a rapid expansion of soy production in Argentina must mean big, big profits for the Argentine nation, right? Think again. Not only is Roundup Ready soy a monoculture, it's controlled by a monopoly. Monsanto Corporation, the American owners of the patent on both Roundup and Roundup Ready soy, sets the price for both the herbicide and the crop. Glyphosate prices are going up in Argentina, and Monsanto has announced that it intends to collect retroactive royalty payments, and aggressively enforce patent laws on Roundup Ready technology. Adios to the profit margin for the farmer, howdy big bucks for Monsanto.

To a nation suffering from international debt, rising unemployment, and widespread poverty, Roundup Ready soybean production has offered little compensation, and Argentina's economic vulnerability is worsened by the volatile world soybean market.

A recent report by a team of US scientists found that Argentina soybeans contain 5-10 percent less protein, with lower levels of important amino-acids, than soybeans from competing countries. Poor quality soybeans also means less revenue. Buyers of Argentina soybeans will likely seek price concessions. And in Europe, widespread consumer rejection of GE soy means little market for human food production.

First, we take Buenos Aires, then we take Beijing

Like any good alien invasion, this one is bent on global domination. China is a major importer of Argentinean soybeans. Because China is the centre of biodiversity for soy, any contamination of the wild soybean species there could alter natural soybean evolution irrevocably. And accidental release during import, transport or processing poses a major risk to related wild soybean species.

Take action

We demand:

Not one single hectare of forest or other natural ecosystems should be converted to soy plantations in Argentina. We call on the Argentine government to take immediate action to protect Argentina's forests and on international institutions and banks to stop financing unsustainable agriculture and forest conversion in the region.
The use of genetically engineered soy in Argentina should be phased out with a view to implementing a ban on all genetically modified organism (GMO) releases. The Argentine government must respect consumer opposition to GMOs by providing its citizens the right to reject GMOs through mandatory food and feed labelling and withdraw from the US-led WTO case against the (now historical) de facto ban on GMO approvals by the European Union.
The European Union - a key market for Argentine GE soy (used for animal feed) - should ban Roundup Ready soy . Greenpeace calls on EU Member States not to re-approve Roundup Ready soy when Monsanto's approval for use of Roundup Ready soy expires in 2006. Moreover, the EU must provide its citizens the right to reject GMOs in food production by introducing mandatory GE labelling for eggs, meat and dairy products if GE animal feed has been used.
In China - another major market for Argentine GE soy - the risk of genetic contamination of the worlds' centre of soy biodiversity through GE soy imports must be acknowledged. Strong measures to avoid such contamination must be taken by the importers of GE soy and the Chinese government, by banning GE soy imports into China.

Don't close your eyes! Become a cyberactivist today and fight against the takeover of planet Earth.
 
peapod
#48
PODS VERUS SUPERWEEDS

UPDATE: Join Greenpeace and Jose Bové in action against arrival of GE Soy in France.

In the science-fiction classic, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, alien plants with destructive clone-manufacturing world-domination plans threatened the future of humanity. Bad news: the pods have arrived, disguised as soybeans.


All of us concerned about genetically engineered (GE) crops have been losing sleep for a while over the relentless take-over of traditional fields in many parts of the world. Now, a new report reveals how thoroughly Argentina has been taken over, and outlines previously unimagined dangers for our future when an entire country's agricultural system is invaded by a clone-replicating force like Monsanto.

Within the last 10 years, Argentina's agricultural production system has become dominated by one crop: the genetically engineered Roundup Ready soybean developed by US agrochemical company Monsanto. The large scale environmental, social, and economic impact is unprecedented.

Agronomist Charles Benbrook warns that the planting of 14 million hectares (34 million acres) of a single, genetically homogenous crop has created a highly vulnerable agricultural production system.

Argentine soy production uses GE seeds that are resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, marketed under the trade name "Roundup." Roundup Ready soy relies on repeated herbicide applications to control weeds. As every high school student knows, Nature abhors an herbicide, and finds ways to evolve around it. Already, strains of Roundup-resistant weeds have appeared in Argentina, requiring ever-heavier doses of the poison, killing off microbes and degrading soil quality. Heavy herbicide applications and widespread planting of Roundup Ready soybeans has also led to increases in pest and disease severity. And when fungi and other threats to the crop encounter none of the natural diversity barriers to their spread, the possibility of monoculture crop collapse increases significantly.

Take us to your feeders

But unlike the devastating Irish potato famine of the nineteenth century, the soy Argentina grows isn't actually feeding people. The vast majority (above 80 percent) of soybeans are bound for animal feedlots, providing protein for cattle, hogs and poultry. The European Union (EU) is the largest importer of Argentinean soybean meal. Worse, farmland which once produced subsistence crops and legume forages now produce only soybean monocultures. From 1996 to 2002 (the period of major soybean production expansion) the number of Argentineans lacking access to basic nutrition grew from 3.7 million to 8.7 million. Production of meat, dairy products, and eggs has dropped significantly, to be replaced by soybeans destined for export markets.

Sound like an alien force is taking over? The invasion doesn't stop there.

Can't see the forest for the beans

After Roundup Ready technology was introduced in 1996, the pace of land conversion has increased dramatically. The soybean frontier has expanded deeper and deeper into the ecosystems of Argentina, with 5.6 million hectares of non-agricultural land converted for soybean production since 1996. That compares to 2.4 million hectares converted before 1996. The rate at which forests in Northern Argentina are being turned into soy plantations is 3-6 times higher than the world average. The massive destruction of the forests, in particular of the Yungas and Chaco forests, has sparked violence and protests by agrarian families desperate to preserve their land. These forests also support diverse animal populations, including jaguars, pumas, monkeys, and more than 50% of all bird species of Argentina.

Monopoly + monoculture = Mon$anto

You'd expect that such a rapid expansion of soy production in Argentina must mean big, big profits for the Argentine nation, right? Think again. Not only is Roundup Ready soy a monoculture, it's controlled by a monopoly. Monsanto Corporation, the American owners of the patent on both Roundup and Roundup Ready soy, sets the price for both the herbicide and the crop. Glyphosate prices are going up in Argentina, and Monsanto has announced that it intends to collect retroactive royalty payments, and aggressively enforce patent laws on Roundup Ready technology. Adios to the profit margin for the farmer, howdy big bucks for Monsanto.

To a nation suffering from international debt, rising unemployment, and widespread poverty, Roundup Ready soybean production has offered little compensation, and Argentina's economic vulnerability is worsened by the volatile world soybean market.

A recent report by a team of US scientists found that Argentina soybeans contain 5-10 percent less protein, with lower levels of important amino-acids, than soybeans from competing countries. Poor quality soybeans also means less revenue. Buyers of Argentina soybeans will likely seek price concessions. And in Europe, widespread consumer rejection of GE soy means little market for human food production.

First, we take Buenos Aires, then we take Beijing

Like any good alien invasion, this one is bent on global domination. China is a major importer of Argentinean soybeans. Because China is the centre of biodiversity for soy, any contamination of the wild soybean species there could alter natural soybean evolution irrevocably. And accidental release during import, transport or processing poses a major risk to related wild soybean species.

Take action

We demand:

Not one single hectare of forest or other natural ecosystems should be converted to soy plantations in Argentina. We call on the Argentine government to take immediate action to protect Argentina's forests and on international institutions and banks to stop financing unsustainable agriculture and forest conversion in the region.
The use of genetically engineered soy in Argentina should be phased out with a view to implementing a ban on all genetically modified organism (GMO) releases. The Argentine government must respect consumer opposition to GMOs by providing its citizens the right to reject GMOs through mandatory food and feed labelling and withdraw from the US-led WTO case against the (now historical) de facto ban on GMO approvals by the European Union.
The European Union - a key market for Argentine GE soy (used for animal feed) - should ban Roundup Ready soy . Greenpeace calls on EU Member States not to re-approve Roundup Ready soy when Monsanto's approval for use of Roundup Ready soy expires in 2006. Moreover, the EU must provide its citizens the right to reject GMOs in food production by introducing mandatory GE labelling for eggs, meat and dairy products if GE animal feed has been used.
In China - another major market for Argentine GE soy - the risk of genetic contamination of the worlds' centre of soy biodiversity through GE soy imports must be acknowledged. Strong measures to avoid such contamination must be taken by the importers of GE soy and the Chinese government, by banning GE soy imports into China.

Don't close your eyes! Become a cyberactivist today and fight against the takeover of planet Earth.
 
Reverend Blair
#49
Better yet, talk to farmers and politicians. Learn the issues, learn all about Percy Schmeiser. Look up David Orchard...an organic farmer and conservative politician.
 
Reverend Blair
#50
Better yet, talk to farmers and politicians. Learn the issues, learn all about Percy Schmeiser. Look up David Orchard...an organic farmer and conservative politician.
 
Reverend Blair
#51
Better yet, talk to farmers and politicians. Learn the issues, learn all about Percy Schmeiser. Look up David Orchard...an organic farmer and conservative politician.
 
peapod
#52
Percy Schmeiser

I heard him speak at UVIC a few months ago
 
peapod
#53
Percy Schmeiser

I heard him speak at UVIC a few months ago
 
peapod
#54
Percy Schmeiser

I heard him speak at UVIC a few months ago
 
Reverend Blair
#55
He's actually a lot more famous outside of Canada than in, apparently. Shows the power that Monsanto has here.
 
Reverend Blair
#56
He's actually a lot more famous outside of Canada than in, apparently. Shows the power that Monsanto has here.
 
Reverend Blair
#57
He's actually a lot more famous outside of Canada than in, apparently. Shows the power that Monsanto has here.
 
NSA
#58
Monsanto Corporation, the American owners of the patent on both Roundup and Roundup Ready soy, sets the price for both the herbicide and the crop. Glyphosate prices are going up in Argentina, and Monsanto has announced that it intends to collect retroactive royalty payments, and aggressively enforce patent laws on Roundup Ready technology. Adios to the profit margin for the farmer, howdy big bucks for Monsanto.

Won't Monsanto simply price themselves out of the market at that rate? If it becomes barely profitable to grow their stupid soybeans, won't farmers simply switch to something else which WILL make money? I know it's not that simple and I certainly hold no blind faith in the "free market" but it seems like a fine line for Monsanto to walk. Farmers, especially in a struggling economy like Argentina, can't afford to stop making money.

I have an article from New Scientist on this very subject in my desk at the lab, I'll have to re-read it tomorrow.
 
NSA
#59
Monsanto Corporation, the American owners of the patent on both Roundup and Roundup Ready soy, sets the price for both the herbicide and the crop. Glyphosate prices are going up in Argentina, and Monsanto has announced that it intends to collect retroactive royalty payments, and aggressively enforce patent laws on Roundup Ready technology. Adios to the profit margin for the farmer, howdy big bucks for Monsanto.

Won't Monsanto simply price themselves out of the market at that rate? If it becomes barely profitable to grow their stupid soybeans, won't farmers simply switch to something else which WILL make money? I know it's not that simple and I certainly hold no blind faith in the "free market" but it seems like a fine line for Monsanto to walk. Farmers, especially in a struggling economy like Argentina, can't afford to stop making money.

I have an article from New Scientist on this very subject in my desk at the lab, I'll have to re-read it tomorrow.
 
NSA
#60
Monsanto Corporation, the American owners of the patent on both Roundup and Roundup Ready soy, sets the price for both the herbicide and the crop. Glyphosate prices are going up in Argentina, and Monsanto has announced that it intends to collect retroactive royalty payments, and aggressively enforce patent laws on Roundup Ready technology. Adios to the profit margin for the farmer, howdy big bucks for Monsanto.

Won't Monsanto simply price themselves out of the market at that rate? If it becomes barely profitable to grow their stupid soybeans, won't farmers simply switch to something else which WILL make money? I know it's not that simple and I certainly hold no blind faith in the "free market" but it seems like a fine line for Monsanto to walk. Farmers, especially in a struggling economy like Argentina, can't afford to stop making money.

I have an article from New Scientist on this very subject in my desk at the lab, I'll have to re-read it tomorrow.
 

Similar Threads

12
Monsanto Expose Disappears From Internet
by darkbeaver | Jul 16th, 2009
1
2
Action Alert! Monsanto at it again! (still)
by Just the Facts | Feb 12th, 2005
no new posts