Posts: 254
Threads: 14
Joined: Feb 2006
Here's a Wall Street Journal article from July 15 2009, regarding Monsanto, which says, in part: "Even though more than 85% of all of the corn, soybeans and cotton grown in the U.S. are already genetically modified to resist pests or tolerate weed killer, the St. Louis biotechnology company is starting from scratch with wheat, long a major crop in Plains states such as North Dakota, Montana and Kansas."
It goes on to say that although Monsanto was forced by the US wheat industry to drop its' earlier attempts at GMO wheat, it is coming back with a new plan.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124758781309939557.html
Posts: 1,273
Threads: 41
Joined: Oct 2007
Monsanto is thinking timing. The accidental contamination of about a third of the US rice supply with non-food grade approved GMO rice cost farmers billions in 2006. It's an interesting story and a worth a search and read.
Still, in the wheat supply the major patent bioengineered wheats like TAM 110 or 111 are not GMO in name only. They exhibit many of the same characteristics, including herbicide resistance. All they're lacking is the patented gene. Which makes farmers happy, as they then don't face problems with exports--but it's mostly an issue of semantics and arbitrary distinctions. To my mind, it's not the GMO science but the characteristics of patent HYV crops that leads to bad practice and the root of the problems we face.
http://sensiblesimplicity.lefora.com/
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
Back already?
Sources, please.
Posts: 1,273
Threads: 41
Joined: Oct 2007
You might be informed to know my previous post about being wrong was intended as sarcasm.
http://sensiblesimplicity.lefora.com/
Posts: 703
Threads: 37
Joined: Jun 2008
Leaving aside all the facts and figures that everyone is tossing back and forth, The fact that Monsanto will and has driven small farmers into bankruptcy by trying to force them to pay fee's for crops contaminated by Monsanto's Frankenseeds. Small farmers cannot afford to fight major corporations with no scruples (IE, Monsanto, Dow) when these bastards claim that they are using their products illegally. Better to keep them totally of the island and forgo any supposed economic benefits from letting that particular camels nose under the tent. They cannot be trusted in any regard. Their only motive is profit and the hell with the consequences for anyone who gets in their way.
dick wilson
"Nothing is idiot proof,because idiots are so ingenious!"
dick wilson
"Nothing is idiot proof,because idiots are so ingenious!"
Posts: 1,273
Threads: 41
Joined: Oct 2007
Perhaps not, Dick, the HR2749 bill limits liability in such cases to 1000000 bucks. Per individual or corporation.
Everyone of those assertions I made is valid and supportable. If some reserve to right to disregard any evidence offered or even acknowledge it--I don't really see how it's even possible to discuss anything with such one-sided rules.
Perhaps I'm wrong about that. Perhaps some could produce evidence suggesting that any of the aforementioned crops have greater diversity now that GMO usage is so wide spread. I'd be interested in such evidence, as long as that evidence is creditworthy.
It's also important to know that the term GMO can mean a couple of things. One is an agricultural distinction denoting a legal standing as applies often to trade rules. A given agricultural product is designated as GMO. And then GMO simply applies to a procedure--a genetically modified organism.
It's important to understand not all genetically modified organisms(in fact) are designated as GMO(labled as such). I may have been mistaken in assuming that was widely known. When one speaks of wheat, it is correct to say that the top producers(TAM 111, again for example) are genetically modified cultivatars--but they have not been designated as GMO crops. To my understanding a similar situation exists with export of local papayas, as there exist some exceptions.
I assume most people when they use the term GMO they mean the quality rather than the status of a crop. I have been wrong in that.
http://sensiblesimplicity.lefora.com/
Posts: 703
Threads: 37
Joined: Jun 2008
I'll bite JW, Whose Liability? Monsanto's for damage to the environment or neighboring farmers or the farmers having to pay a max to Monsanto for getting their crops contaminated. Knowing the way our government if bought and sold by lobbyist, I'm betting on the farmers having to pay Monsanto.
dick wilson
"Nothing is idiot proof,because idiots are so ingenious!"
dick wilson
"Nothing is idiot proof,because idiots are so ingenious!"
Posts: 1,273
Threads: 41
Joined: Oct 2007
Monsanto wrote the bill. I haven't checked on the current draft in a while, about a month. At the moment, it doesn't look that it will pass this session. HR 513 is right behind it if it doesn't.
http://sensiblesimplicity.lefora.com/
Posts: 703
Threads: 37
Joined: Jun 2008
Well of course Monsanto wrote the bill, how else would they continue to control the government. Kind of like Blackwater and the bu****es. Whats good for Monsanto is of course good for the country. Kind of makes you want to go hunting doesn't it.
dick wilson
"Nothing is idiot proof,because idiots are so ingenious!"
dick wilson
"Nothing is idiot proof,because idiots are so ingenious!"
Posts: 990
Threads: 22
Joined: Dec 2007
UH's Tropical Ag and the State tried this in the 70's, spent millions to replace sugar jobs with seed corn production. Failed miserably, same time frame as they blew a fortune on OTEC for electric in Kona, and created a morass in Puna with Geothermal development which they also failed spectacularly until a skilled "Greedy Corporation" took over and it's worked fine since.
Gordon J Tilley
Gordon J Tilley
