• If you can't find a "Hot" category that fits, post it here!

"Monsanto May Seek to Revive 'Terminator' Technology "

Lando said:
Remember the BBC Horizon programme that used the pin-up pig farmer Jimmy Doherty to front Jimmy's GM Food Fight?

While supposedly investigating the science of GM foods, the TV programme had Jimmy - once a purveyor of all things natural, telling the audience how "simple" and "natural" genetic modification was. And by the end of the programme, Jimmy was enthusing that it would be "madness to turn away from this technology. The science is absolutely amazing. It offers hope."


The producer and director of this prime time soft-sell advertisement was Michael Lachmann. After viewer complaints, the BBC investigated whether the programme was biased. For ages, the BBC refused to answer one viewer's persistent query as to whether the programme's director was in any way related to Sir Peter Lachmann, a notoriously aggressive pro-GM scientist. Eventually, persistence paid off, however, when the BBC finally admitted during the appeal process that: "Sir Peter Lachmann is indeed the father of Michael."

http://www.bangmfood.org/mediawatch/25-mediawatch/40-sir-peters-gm-food-fight

 
 
and an interesting article Genetic Engineering and Corporate Agribusiness: GMOs and the Impacts of Glyphosate Herbicide
 
http://www.globalresearch.ca/genetic-engineering-and-corporate-agribusiness-gmos-and-the-impacts-of-glyphosate-herbicide/5337096
lol i fail to see the controversy? can you refute any of the claims made therein?

do you understand why the anti GMO crowd hates Lachman? because he destroyed the bullshit papers published about those bogus rat cancer claims.
 
Lachmann’s helped produce the Royal Society’s first report on GM crops in 1998. The report, Genetically Modified Plants for Food Use, outlined the benefits of GM plants in agriculture, medicine, food quality and safety, nutrition and health, especially in alleviating food shortage in third-world countries. This caused him to be regarded as a controversial figure by the anti-GM food lobby. In 1999, he tried to persuade the editor of The Lancet not to publish Árpád Pusztai’s research on the adverse effects of GM potatoes on rats on the grounds that it was not sound science. The Lancet’s editor, Richard Horton, received what he described as an aggressive phone call from Lachmann. Someone eavesdropped on this conversation and reported to two Guardian journalists that it was said that "publishing Pusztai’s paper would “have implications for his personal position” as editor. Lachmann categorically denied saying any such thing, but the news made the front-page of The Guardian in November 1999. Lachmann's own account of GMOs and the Pusztai affair can be found in Panic Nation (2005).[4]
from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lachmann

if your argument is that the documentary i posted is invalid because the director is related to a respected scientist, than i reject it completely. you will note that this same director has made many documentaries unrelated to this subject.
whereas the documentary director i posted about previously about is clearly subsumed with one viewpoint, and is possibly a fraud all together.

believe what you want, but dont just blast it all over the internet as if its a fact, when just the most superficial of objective research will show you it is not.
 
Personally, I think all Monsanto GMO seeds should have terminator technology. Then at least we are guaranteed to be able to control GMO crops. What frightens me is having GMO crops free to cross pollinate with other and eventually leading to contamination of whole species of plants without any possibility of control.
 
I get freakin uptight when all this BS surfaces over and over and over.  It's like the carbon footprint crap and all the other bogus rubbish out there.
 
Q: How do distract from what's really going on?  A: Create some sideline rubbish for people to debate and get caught up in!
 
Firstly, Terminator genes.  Been there done that got the T-shirt a coupla hundred years ago!  That's right.  Robert Sweet (an English botanist/taxonomist and plant breeder) did it yonks ago with Pelargonium! He found that any hybrid with P. fulgidum in it was sterile.  No offspring.  Terminated.  Terminator gene.  Its nothing new, its been going on for donkey's yonks.  And honestly, what does it matter.  If I took the time and resources to create something then I want to reap my rewards without someone else riding my back.
 
Secondly, Agri-business giants.  Play their game play by their rules.  That's it in a nutshell.  If you are going to buy their products its under their conditions.  So all those so-called farmers out there (just agri-businessman actually) who use Monsanto's junk must do so under Monsanto's conditions.  If a new cultivar offers the glint of gold and mega-yields and you buy it because you're wanting to make huge profits, well then be very aware, the Owner is not going to let you ride their back without getting their fair share.  So complaining now that weeds are Roundup resistant?  Well well well. You shouldn't have planted that Roundup-ready canola with the promise of huge bags of gold.  Your own fault.
 
The true cost of GMO's
There's so much talk-talk doing the rounds.  Cancer/helth issues.  Threatening native species. Polluting the economic plant gene pool.  Agri-business giants monopolising the world food market. Etcetera etcetera.  Newsflash - it's already there - it's been going on for decades!  Just think about the present state of agriculture (sans GMPO's though) and you will see all of the above is already happening/been happening!
 
So waht is the true cost of GMO's?  Bye bye ecosystems.  Bye bye natural areas.  So may GMO's are being punted as being able to grow anywhere, under any conditions (at least here in Africa).  So what?  In other words you no longer need a functional environment to cultivate things.  You can now rash it.  Becaue Big Daddy has some seeds for piece of trashed earth.  So why care about what them lily-livered tofu-eating types are sayin' - you can plough there - don't worry about erosion and sterile, dead soil - here's the seeds to grow there.
 
The true cost is no longer ensuring that we protect and respect our natural world - the ecosystems that we need to survive.  And that is what they want.  Because they have a seed to solve your problem.
 
I don't think GMOs are inherently unhealthy for us to consume. I also don't think organic is much healthier than non-organic. The pesticides they use in organics might be healthier to ingest than non-organic, but that also isn't my issue. My primary concern is soil health, and the amount we are taking out of the soil vs putting back in. I don't know what the answer is to maintaining the integrity of the soil while still producing enough food, but we need to figure that out.

There needs to be a major revolution in the way we farm that includes covering the soil, rotating crops, polyculture planting, and avoiding chemical fertilizers and herbicides that destroy the soil food web. The way we do it now is not sustainable. Monoculture planting and leaving the land bare for months at a time just doesn't make sense.

The problem is that people on both sides lump everyone on the other side into a massive unfair category. People on the organic/anti-GMO side think they pro-GMO/non-organic people are out to poison the children and destroy the earth. People on the pro-GMO side consider anyone who is anti-GMO/anti-agrobusiness to be woo woo hippies who don't vaccinated their children and use acupuncture to cure their cancer. It doesn't help, and only serves to divide people and justify opinions.

There is a finite amount of workable land in the world, and there are ways to improve poor land and to hold on to fertile land longer. Unfortunately, we get stuck in these ridiculous debates where both sides come away thinking the other side is worthless, instead of realizing where they are coming from.

The real thing we should be paying attention to is the amount of organic matter we put into the soil vs the amount we take out. Nature covers soil with grass, trees, shrubs, etc and the debris that falls off of those goes back into the soil to feed it. If the soil is bare, it dries up and blows away. I don't pretend to know how we can fix this and still feed the world, but it is something we need to pay attention to.

GMOs promote the use of herbicides, and non-organic promotes the use of soil damaging chemical fertilizers. That is where my problem with them lies, and why I purchase organic produce, even if the organic methods aren't perfect. I don't really see them as the major issue, but more of a side-effect of the real problems with industrialized agriculture. I also don't know what the answer is to fixing those problems, but that's what we need to focus our energy on.

A simple fact: I live in Southern California, where we import much of our water. I mulch my garden heavily. I never water it, other than the automatic sprinkler that goes off once a week, even with our temperatures in the 90+ range most days and the Southern California sun beating down on it. The people in the gardens around me leave their soil bare, so they have to come out and water every day or every two days. If you stick your finger in my soil, under my mulch, it is cold and wet. If you stick your finger in the soil in the plot 4 feet away, hot and dry as a bone. It's clear that mulching makes sense and would help with water usage along with soil erosion. I know you can't mulch every field in the same way that I mulch my 400 sq foot garden plot, but we could be doing something.

If you are concerned about your children, make soil your battle instead of GMOs, because that's what could really end us in the long run. Feel free to tell me I'm trying to poison the children or call me a woo woo hippie.
 
wildseed57 said:
Monsanto has caused a lot of harm with their "safe GMO seeds" and have sued various farmers for patent infringements because pollen from their GMO plants crossed with other farmers crops, some organic farmers have had to destroy their organic crops because of cross pollination with Round Up Ready and BT crops that were planted near by. Monsanto has been doing various GMO work with Tomatoes, Peppers,Sweet Corn and other food crops, India has suffered the most from GMO crops as they were lied to about many heath problems caused by GMO food crops along with Monsanto's cotton which failed in production causing many farmers to kill themselves because they lost every thing and owed the Banks so much money because of crop failure.
Several Farmers in Canada have been sued because of cross pollination of the other farmers crops.
I think that it is Time we Tell Monsanto "No Thank You" to their "safe GMO food crops and Animal Round Up Ready and BT crops".
Just my Two Cents.
What should really be done is to treat germ modification as they do computer viruses. If you are in the agri business as Monsanto is and you either diliberately or accidently cause a modified germ to infect crops and or germs not owned by you. you are guilty of transmitting a genetic virus. This crime would be punishable to the exent of damages X 10 and prison sentences would be in line with cyber crimes of the same magnitute.
 
Naga Chomper said:
 
Seems more than a little speculative.  The line of reasoning seems to be (1) Monsanto hired a Blackwater spinoff company for extensive "intelligence"/investigative work; (2) Blackwater was sold shortly thereafter to a consortium run by a couple of private equity firms; (3) one of the private equity firms has a majority interest in a scents-and-similar-stuff company whose stuff is sold at Whole Foods; (4) Microsoft is evil; and THEREFORE the real purchaser of Blackwater must have been Monsanto.
 
I don't really follow the reasoning there.  Even if you accept all the evidence adduced in the article at face value, the conclusion just doesn't seem to follow from the premises.  That's not to say "yay Monsanto"---I think they're appalling---but I'm not convinced that they did this particular thing.
 
Away back in the mid-1980s, a sort of pulp-comic-graphic-arts magazine called _Epic Illustrated_ ran a terrific story called "Corporate Wars", about a literal shooting war between two food-manufacturing companies.  That was the first thing the article reminded me of, but I bet I'm the only person who remembers it.  Sic transit and all that.
 
-NT
 
Back
Top