[werd]

I think that the health issues with GMO should take a backseat to the problem that mass use of GMO seeds decreases the natural diversity of our seed stocks. Not only does this create an economic monopoly but leaves crops more exposed to mass failures when inevitably, pests find a chink in armor of the GMO seeds. So instead having a wide variety of seeds and crops, some of which would have a natural defense to various pests, we would be putting all our eggs into one basket that couldn't be changed before famine or market imbalances ensue.

I agree with the premise of backup. The thing that people seem to forget is the plants we are using now are not anything that is natural to begin with. All the food is a GMO. Literally all of it. The difference, the new stuff is lab GMO for the purpose of spraying herbicide and non lab GMO is modified for other reasons.

The thing that bugs me, what you say is an accurate prediction of the future. Just by looking at past events that will happen again. The Irish Potato Famine is the exact sort of thing you are pointing out. An intentional starvation strategy by holding back food. Now it is easier because all our food has a GMO patent on it.

What's alarming is the exact same institutions are still there and in place that did it. What we are hoping is that they are all grown up and hold some type of 21 st century moral standing.  Not likely since they are off deploying war machines everywhere and using them. They haven't grown up at all.

I didn't want to go there with this because it sounds too outlandish and political but it really isn't. Now we have gone ahead and handed over huge food technology to a company that has done exactly what I was talking about. It is actually insane to continue.

[rajacat]

Are you sure that all our food is GMO? From my house, I look down and see a very nice certified organic farm that has been there for 20+ years. In fact, our community has a bunch of organic farms and we also have a seed bank that assures the continuity of our local crops.

[werd]

Yes all of it.

http://youtu.be/1ecT2CaL7NA

What Tyson is neglecting to mention the GMOs that are lab are done to use herbicide for big business. His stance is correct though. "We need to chill out on lab GMOs"

We also need to regulate their herbicide use.

And we need to get rid of Monsanto

[FullRangeMan]

I would not say correlation is meaningless in dramatic cases as these:
http://thestir.cafemom.com/healthy_living/149978/flu_vaccine_linked_to_800

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/health/130122/800-children-europe-develop-narcolepsy-after-swine-flu-vaccine-report

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-narcolepsy-vaccine-pandemrix-idUSBRE90L07H20130122

http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/01/hundreds-children-europe-are-diagnosed-narcolepsy-after-h1n1-vaccine

[werd]

I would not say correlation is meaningless in dramatic cases as these:
http://thestir.cafemom.com/healthy_living/149978/flu_vaccine_linked_to_800

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/health/130122/800-children-europe-develop-narcolepsy-after-swine-flu-vaccine-report

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-narcolepsy-vaccine-pandemrix-idUSBRE90L07H20130122

http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/01/hundreds-children-europe-are-diagnosed-narcolepsy-after-h1n1-vaccine

[weatherman1]

This discussion would never have risen to its current level of histrionics if the corporate lawyers and courts had not gotten involved.  Not counting decisions around the world by courts on whether living organisms and the genes of which they are constructed can be patented the BIG decision was the US Supreme court decision of 2013 which said that naturally occurring DNA threads found in Nature could NOT be patented.  That produced the corporate push to alter plant and animal DNA in ways that would never occur in a natural setting.  Thus Monsanto, Syngenta, Beyer, etc began changing things they sell so they could stack genes in some way to lock farmers into into only using there seed and their chemicals.  I agree that this mono-culture is not good for the soil, water, air, birds and bees but we are really talking about large corporate farms.  This type of agriculture is not economically suitable to the developing world but I believe the discussion is missing the important fact that animal husbandry and hybridization of plants goes on for the benefit of human nutrition, supply, ability to survive in hostile growing conditions, uses less water, tilling, faster growth, etc.  To throw all genetic changes into one pile and rail against one corporation does not throw light on the real discussion of 'HOW DO YOU FEED THE WORLD WITHOUT DESTROYING THE PLANET ON WHICH WE LIVE'.

[werd]

^^^^

Monsanto is a big problem with that industry from a coporate POV. It's a problem because they are an excellent platform to make people aware and against corporate farming. Monsanto is creating an environment of public interest and making people aware of what is going on. Railing against Monsanto is exactly what you do.

The worst thing you want to do is detach from one company.  To try derail Corporate industries lock on the food supply would be harder by looking at many different companies. They are all different. Everything that is wrong with that industry is batched together in one company. That industry is screwing up by not defeating Monsanto themselves. They are trying but Monsanto is like a corporate experiment that escaped from a lab and they can't get it back in. It's running amock screwing that whole industries public image.

Railing against Monsanto is not based upon conspiracy theory ideas.  They are providing real empirical evidence of the problems with that industry. You can't just ignore that, it needs to be redirected and turned into action against them and that industry. To protect and make sure the food supply is there.

[weatherman1]

When Beyer takes over Monsanto does the concern go away because on paper Monsanto doesn't exist as a corporate entity?  Getting rid of one agricultural seed and associated growing technics company does not solve the problem of being able to create new patent-able plants from finding there way into the food supply.  What about all the food plant seeds which have been modified by man to produce new strains of edibles which under the definition, by most of this group discussion, would be banned because they too are GMO's.  I think the discussion needs to be  narrowed to the effect of farming use of GMO stacked plant seeds and the corporate ownership of patents.  These are seeds which will sprout anywhere if planted but have had gene's altered to survive when sprayed with company chemical's that would kill other similar species without the genetic alteration.  These are industrial solutions and are sold to farmers because they think they will make more PROFIT using these seeds.  The problem is the courts, the governments that pay farmers through insurance subsidies, and farmers themselves who have bought into this process, all of whom agree that this is the way farming should be.  All the corporations are doing is what business is designed to do: MAKE MONEY AND LOCK IN THE CONSUMER.

[OzarkTom]

“Cancer Causing” Glyphosate Fails to Reach Re-Approval for Third Time in Europe

http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/cancer-causing-glyphosate-fails-to-reach-approval-for-third-time-in-europe/

[werd]

When Beyer takes over Monsanto does the concern go away because on paper Monsanto doesn't exist as a corporate entity?  Getting rid of one agricultural seed and associated growing technics company does not solve the problem of being able to create new patent-able plants from finding there way into the food supply.  What about all the food plant seeds which have been modified by man to produce new strains of edibles which under the definition, by most of this group discussion, would be banned because they too are GMO's.  I think the discussion needs to be  narrowed to the effect of farming use of GMO stacked plant seeds and the corporate ownership of patents.  These are seeds which will sprout anywhere if planted but have had gene's altered to survive when sprayed with company chemical's that would kill other similar species without the genetic alteration.  These are industrial solutions and are sold to farmers because they think they will make more PROFIT using these seeds.  The problem is the courts, the governments that pay farmers through insurance subsidies, and farmers themselves who have bought into this process, all of whom agree that this is the way farming should be.  All the corporations are doing is what business is designed to do: MAKE MONEY AND LOCK IN THE CONSUMER.

That has been my complaint all along.

 if Beyer does buy Monsanto you watch and see how the attitude in Europe changes over Glysophate. Monsantos problem in Europe is pure political and brought on by lobbyiest. Likely other seed companies or Government paranoia that does not want an American company with a history linked to the American military dominant in Europe.

What is everyone going to do when Glysophate starts seeing usage due to Unbans in Europe? I expect that.

[WGH]

I wouldn't worry about Beyer, what you should really worry about is China National Chemical Corp., or ChemChina. You got to feed 1.4 billion people somehow.

"Glenn Brunkow is a fifth-generation corn and soybean farmer. He and his dad run a small farm about 30 miles from Topeka, Kan.

For more than a decade they've been using seeds and chemicals from Syngenta. The Swiss company is a leader in pesticides and genetically modified seeds.

Recently, Brunkow got a call from his seed dealer to tell him a Chinese state-owned company called China National Chemical Corp., or ChemChina, has made a $43 billion bid to buy Syngenta."

Listen or read more here: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/06/07/481138239/u-s-lawmakers-scrutinize-chinas-bid-to-buy-agrichemical-giant-syngenta

Syngenta is a Swiss company and one quarter of it's sales are in the US.

[OzarkTom]

This probably don't mean anything.

U.S. Lawmakers Scrutinize China's Bid To Buy Agrichemical Giant Syngenta

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/06/07/481138239/u-s-lawmakers-scrutinize-chinas-bid-to-buy-agrichemical-giant-syngenta

[weatherman1]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/grain-traders-rejecting-new-soybeans-developed-by-monsanto-1462217040 http://www.nationofchange.org/10-companies-controlling-world-s-seed-supply-1                                         http://www.foodrenegade.com/hybrid-seeds-vs-gmos/382363748     
For those of us on this site lack of food is not a problem.  For most of the world nutrition is a daily struggle, clean water is a struggle, shelter is a problem.  I am old enough to remember when farmers didn't buy seed grain from one company and then use exclusively a product to use on that crop.  I remember spraying DDT, Sevin, Aldrin, Dieldrin, and spreading manure and plowing it under in the fall and winter to nourish the next springs crops.  We still preserved our food and bought products from stores that we needed.  We washed our food, cooked it, ate it and didn't spend a lot of time being concerned about its source.  The myth here is that things were somehow better back then and farmers saved seeds to plant next year.  If you saved the seeds and planted them next year they may or may not have given you a usable crop.  The myth is that organic farmers can produce enough crop to feed the world.  Organic farmers own very little acreage and you can still find pesticide residue on the crops because it rains, the wind blows, and the irrigation water comes from a source which contains trace chemicals. Life is a risk and never completely certain.  After a lifetime of exposure I have yet to see the effect but then I have always tried to use common sense, humor, and enjoyed everyday.

[rajacat]

Why can't organic farmers, using the latest and ongoing techniques, feed the world? Saying this is impossible is just giving a rationalization for continued use of pesticides and the encouragement of massive corporate controlled monocrops. Of course, it's impossible to find completely untainted food but that shouldn't give justification to the further monopolistic control of seeds and lax regulation of pesticides. The perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good.

The next area the mega corporations are trying to control is water. Potable water is a scarce resource and probably will become even more valuable when it becomes more scarce due to fracking and, of course, more chemical pollution which is a cost not paid for by the polluters.

[werd]

Because it's robotic farming that requires less labour and lots of chemicals. All they have to do is establish a NOAEL set down by the FDA, keep under it, and they are good to go. Also thwart any consistent inspecting of food to meet guidelines. It is all been done. 

What will work is by making labels mandatory so the food has to show where it came from. Huge farming lots of herbicide are usually GMOs. If you want to support farms that are smaller than buy food from smaller farms that claim organic. 

[werd]

This is what big business wants. They want as little government or regulation as possible unless it protects their interests as a corporation. Then they like lots of regulation. With an attitude - screw the public they are kind of annoying and most of them are dumb, useless, whatever's and we got a wall for that. Then they keep the public in the dark by lobbying the Government in defunding the Universities and education. So the public looks to Corporations to fund their research (since they are the only ones with the cash). Corps then gladly start partnering with education because now they can dictate what gets researched. Stuff that was publically funded showing results of any nefarious activity is now no longer pursued. They only show us the good stuff.  That is basically all industry including farming. That is where we are at. That is not capitalism. That is full tilt fascism. Whatever, I can play in the fascist pond (what is left) of family farming. I am going to have to but they can start labelling the food.

My neighborhood just told me a guy just came in from Alberta and bought 200k acres of farmland. That is obscene.

[OzarkTom]

The best way to hit back is to grow as much of your own food, and buy from your local farmer's markets. If the locals make the money, more farmers will come out. I have three grandsons under 15 that wants to be a farmer.

[JerryM]

The best way to hit back is to grow as much of your own food, and buy from your local farmer's markets. If the locals make the money, more farmers will come out. I have three grandsons under 15 that wants to be a farmer.

That's unfortunate. The future of world farming lies with women.

Again, there is much more to the picture than GMOs.

[OzarkTom]

By 2025 Half of All Newborns Will Have Autism

GMO and autism

http://www.realfarmacy.com/2025-half-newborns-will-autistic/

[werd]

By 2025 Half of All Newborns Will Have Autism

GMO and autism

http://www.realfarmacy.com/2025-half-newborns-will-autistic/

I doubt that is even remotely true. This is the problem with these click bate sites. They gather info for the purpose of aligning two different topics with out acknowledging the possibility it's false by presenting  alternative outcomes.  Really if they were interested in finding out about GMOs and Autism they would see variations in the European community. Or nations in Asia where GMOs using Roundup is less. Instead the narrative about GMOs becomes the only possibility. That is known as "Special Pleading". It is basically making arguments that hold no evidence but the person is asking the reader to grant acceptance of their assertion because it fits their narrative. That is not science but click- bait blogging for the purpose of getting traffic on their website. Even if the assertions (by a huge coincidence) are correct.