The Governments Revolving door with monsanto

[deprave]

The chart below illustrates some of the government connections with Monsanto, the very reason they get away with so much, keep in mind this is going on for decades and this is just a few examples. source:http://www.sallyhomemaker.com/journal/corrupt-the-governments-revolving-door-with-monsanto/

How can we expect fair scientific analysis of the data and a true concern for human health to supersede profits when Monsanto has so many monstrous feet in the door in the halls of our nation’s leadership?

Are we really to trust the USDA or the FDA when they tell us something is good for us and safe (like GMOs) or bad for us and unsafe (like fresh milk) when so many of Monsanto’s corporate dollars are at stake (not to mention all that lobbyist money that funds the political campaigns of our elected officials)? Especially now with money as free speech?

Monsanto Position	Individual	Federal Government Position
Head of Government Affairs for Genetech, (Now Monsanto)	David Beier	Chief Domestic Policy Advisor to Vice President Gore
Worked for Monsanto’s Legal Team	William Conlon	Department of Justice
Worked for Monsanto’s Legal Team	Sam Skinner	Department of Justice
Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer	Robert Fraley	Serves as advisor in pubic agencies, including the USDA, among others
Senior Vice President for Clinical Affairs at G.D. Searle & Co (Merged with Monsanto)	Michael A. Friedman	Acting Commissioner of the FDA
Director of International Government Affairs	Marcia Hale	Asst. to Pres. Clinton and Director of Governmental Affairs
Consultant to Searle’s (Merged with Monsanto) Public Relations Firm	Arthur Hull Hayes	Previously was FDA Commissioner
Director of ESH Quality & Compliance	John L. Henshaw	Senior Advisor to U.S. Secretary of Labor
Vice President of Product and Technology Cooperation	Rob Horsch	Advisor to the National Science Foundation and the Dept. of Energy
Board of Directors, also represented Monsanto as a lawyer	Michael Kantor	U.S. Secretary of Commerce
Monsanto Board Member	Gwendolyn S. King	Commissioner of SSA 1989-1992
CEO of Monsanto for 14 years	Richard J. Mahoney	Served as Director of U.S. Soviet, Japanese and Korean Trade Councils, a Member of the U.S. Government Trade Policy Committee
Oversaw the Approval of rBGH, was a top Monsanto scientist	Margaret Miller	In 1991, Margaret was appointed Deputy Director of the FDA
Sits on Monsanto’s Board of Directors, previously a Monsanto Animal Specialist	George Poste	In 2002, Poste was appointed head of Bioterrorism division of Homeland Security
Member of the Monsanto Board of Directors	William D. Ruckelshaus	In 1970, he was the first Chief Administrator for the EPA, later the acting director of the FBI, then Deputy U.S. Attorney General
Previous CEO of Searle (Merged with Monsanto), he successfully had aspartame legalized while in that position.	Donald Rumsfeld	Appointed to Secretary of Defense in 1975, then appointed to the same position again in 2000
Worked on Monsanto-funded rBGH in connection with her graduate work at Cornell University	Suzanne Sechen	FDA Reviewer on Scientific Data
Previously the President and COO of Monsanto, Chairman and CEO of Nutrasweet, and Chairman and CEO of Monsanto	Robert B. Shapiro	Previously served on President’s Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and on the White House Domestic Policy Review of Industrial Innovation
Former Vice President of CropLife America, which represented Monsanto	Islam Siddiqui	Chief Agricultural Negotiator for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
Former Attorney for Monsanto for seven years, previous head of the Monsanto Washington, D.C. office	Michael Taylor	Former FDA Deputy Commission for Policy. In 2010, appointed by the FDA as a senior advisor to the FDA Commissioner.
Previous Monsanto Researcher in charge of the Manhattan Project, creating the atomic bomb. Later became Monsanto’s Chairman of the Board.	Dr. Charles Thomas	Previously served as a consultant to the National Security Council and as a U.S. Representative to the United Nations’ Atomic Energy Commission
Former lawyer for Monsanto, a notorious chemical polluter.	Clarence Thomas	In 1991, was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court
Previously served on the Board of Directors of Calgene, a Monsanto Biotech subsidiary.	Anne Veneman	In 2001, was appointed head of the USDA
Former Staff Lawyer with Monsanto in Washington, D.C.	Jack Watson	Chief of Staff to Pres. Jimmy Carter
Hired by Monsanto to prosecute two farmers who fought against Monsanto’s seed policies in 2002	Seth Waxman	Former U.S. Solicitor General
Retired Senior Vice President for Public Policy at Monsanto	Dr. Virginia Weldon	Previously, was a member of the FDA’s Metabolism & Endocrine Advisory Committee
Former Chief Counsel at Monsanto	Rufus Yerxa	In 1993, was nominated as U.S. Deputy to the World Trade Organization
Monsanto Consultant	Toby Moffett	U.S. Congressman (Democrat)
Monsanto Legal Counsel	Dennis DeConcini	U.S. Senator (Democrat)
Director, International Government Affairs	Josh King	White House Communications (Clinton)
Monsanto Lobbyist	Carol Tucker-Foreman	White House-appointed Consumer Adv. (Clinton)
Vice President, Government & Public Affairs	Linda Fisher	Deputy Admin EPA (Clinton, Bush)
Manager, New Technologies	Lidia Watrud	USDA, EPA (Clinton, Bush, Obama)
Rose Law Firm, Monsanto Counsel	Hillary Clinton	U.S. Sen (D), Sec of State (Obama)
Director, Monsanto Danforth Center	Roger Beachy	Dir, USDA NIFA (Obama)

 

[deprave]

But on the flip side what are the good things about GMO's? Is this just a scare tactic, a crazy conspiracy theory?

Regardless why is there so much suspicious collusion/corruption? Does Monsanto have the right to patent life? Why should they profit? How is this effecting farmers?

very broad topic but here is some more information to warm up the conversation.

Congresses Big Gift to Monsanto: http://www.diigo.com/annotated/130fc62349bfc47f8104b5be6608c2cb

The World According to Monsanto Documentary:

[video=youtube;Rml_k005tsU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml_k005tsU&feature=related[/video]

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

Over-regulation: The cause of corruption

 

[UncleBuck]

But on the flip side what are the good things about GMO's?

cheaper food for hundreds of millions of americans.

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

cheaper food for hundreds of millions of americans.

Cheaper for a lot of very good reasons.

 

[ChesusRice]

Monsanto isn't evil

However there is a very large danger in monoculture agriculture
Whether that be plants or animals

 

[UncleBuck]

Cheaper for a lot of very good reasons.

and some very bad reasons, too.

 

[Wordz]

there is a hydro shop like 1/4 mile from monsanto headquarters.

 

[MonsterBuzz]

found this to be an interesting read:

I know the U.S. government just allowed a few new GE crops on the market — should I be worried?

February 2011

Dear Farm Aid,
I know the U.S. government just allowed a few new GE crops on the market — should I be worried?
Thanks for any info you can provide!
Jerry K.
Austin, TX
With a new mission to squash “burdensome” regulation and play nice with U.S. businesses, the Obama Administration has been in a frenzy green-lighting genetically engineered (GE) crops.
Just weeks into the new year, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced the full deregulation of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready alfalfa—a genetically engineered crop variety designed to withstand Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. The move gave the OK for commercial planting to take place this spring without restrictions. A week later, USDA announced the deregulation of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready sugar beets, followed by the deregulation of Syngenta’s Enogen corn, a variety genetically engineered for biofuel production. Meanwhile, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) is now considering the commercial release of genetically modified salmon.
With a new onslaught of GE products hitting the market it’s no wonder the public has some questions, as you do, Jerry. So, what’s the big deal about genetic engineering?
The short and not-so-sweet of it is this: GE crops present real risks, fewer choices for both farmers and eaters and offer unclear benefits except to the companies that develop and market them, and thus pocket major profits.
Risky Business for Farmers
One of the biggest problems GE crops have presented in the real world is the contamination of non-GE crops. The newest wave of deregulated GE crops presents a very real risk that such contamination will happen again.
Take alfalfa, which is pollinated by bees. Bees can generally cover a five-mile range as they buzz from plant to plant, collecting and spreading pollen. Since bees don’t tend to observe property lines or fences, GE alfalfa pollen could, for example, be spread to and pollinate a non-GE alfalfa plant, in turn contaminating a neighboring field with GE genes.
This cross-fertilization would be especially disastrous for organic farmers. If organic fields are contaminated, an organic farmer’s certification is at risk, since the use of GE crops is prohibited under the organic label. Losing organic certification would mean his or her goods can no longer be sold for the premium price that helps cover the higher costs of growing organically. Organic livestock farmers would face similar consequences if their cattle consumed contaminated alfalfa, and the organic industry as a whole could suffer from severe supply problems if organic alfalfa can’t be maintained with integrity. Canada’s organic canola industry suffered this fate, and is virtually extinct due to contamination from GE canola.[1]
GE contamination hurts conventional farmers too. A prime example occurred in 2000, when genes from Aventis’ StarLink GE corn showed up unexpectedly in the nation’s food supply and U.S. export markets. While StarLink corn only represented 1% of planted corn acreage, it ultimately contaminated at least 25% of the harvest that year.[2] Traces of StarLink corn also showed up in taco shells, even though the variety wasn’t approved for human consumption. The fiasco led to a massive recall of over 300 food products. Export markets started rejecting American corn and corn prices plummeted.[3] Corn farmers ultimately filed a class-action lawsuit against Aventis, who forked over $112 million in settlement. Three years later, StarLink genetics were still detected in the U.S. corn supply, well after the crop was pulled from the market.[4] Millers and food manufacturers are concerned the same thing will happen with Syngenta’s Enogen corn intended for biofuel production, which could contaminate corn for human consumption and seriously threaten foods processed with corn–based ingredients.
USDA recognized such risks when it conducted an environmental impact statement (EIS) for GE alfalfa. This past December, Secretary Vilsack acknowledged “the potential of cross-fertilization to non-GE alfalfa from GE alfalfa — a significant concern for farmers who produce for non-GE markets at home and abroad.”[5] Despite such concern, USDA approved the planting of GE alfalfa for this spring without any indication of how it will prevent the type of costly contamination that threatens to occur.
Into the Wild: “Superweeds” and other environmental hazards
In addition to the very real risks of GE-contamination, there are numerous accounts of superweeds developing from the overuse of Roundup herbicide on Roundup Ready crops. Fifteen years after Roundup Ready corn and soy first debuted, there are now at least 10 species of Roundup-resistant weeds identified in more than 22 states, as well as superweeds sprouting up in Australia, China and Brazil.[6]
Superweeds undermine the environmental benefits that GE crops are claimed to offer by reducing soil tillage, pesticide applications and soil and water contamination.[7] Affected farmers must now resort to more toxic chemicals, increased labor or more intense tillage of their fields to address superweeds on their farms. The newly approved Roundup Ready alfalfa and sugar beets will only exacerbate that problem. And as companies like Bayer, Syngenta and Dow Chemical work on their own pesticide-resistant crops (including one designed to resist 2,4-D, a component of Agent Orange!),[8] even nastier superweeds may be on the horizon, with even nastier pesticides being used to control them in the ever-escalating arms race against weeds and pests.
GE crops pose additional environment risks, such as threats to biodiversity or unintentional harm to other insects and animals in the ecosystem, many of which are beneficial to crop production. But remember, there’s absolutely no recall on GE genetics. Once they’re out there, they’re out there for good. What’s more, once a crop is fully deregulated, USDA currently conducts no monitoring of any kind to see if a GE crop has harmed the environment.[9] To date, we are completely unequipped to deal with all of these consequences. (For more on how GE crops are regulated, see this Ask Farm Aid column from 2009).
Do I eat GE foods?
What does all this mean for eaters? Do we eat GE foods? The quick answer is: almost certainly.
Remember that the vast majority of our corn and soy come from GE seed, and that these crops are generally used as feed for cattle, hogs and poultry, or otherwise used in the many processed foods found in grocery store aisles. Alfalfa is the fourth largest crop grown in the U.S. and is most commonly used to feed dairy cows and beef cattle.
So, if you drink milk, eat beef, enjoy the occasional slice of bacon with your breakfast, order chicken in your Caesar salad or ever indulge in processed foods, cereals and desserts with ingredients like high fructose corn syrup and soy lecithin, GE crops are part of your food chain. Unfortunately, you can’t be sure when you eat them or in what form, because there is no requirement to label foods with GE ingredients. As discussed above, the release of GE alfalfa also puts several organic foods at risk for contamination—further eroding our choice as consumers to avoid GE foods if we wish.
Little research has been conducted to examine whether GE foods present risks to human health—such as allergens or toxins—but it seems prudent that this be investigated rigorously before GE foods hit the market. Many countries, including countries of the European Union, Japan, Australia and Brazil, have banned the cultivation of GE crops or require labeling of GE foods as precautions.
Feeding the World? The Silver Bullet That Misses the Target
Defenders of GE crops argue they are desperately needed to feed the world’s ever-growing population and address world hunger. Some have accused critics of GE technology as being shortsighted Luddites at best, and irresponsible at worst.
But to date, GE crops have done little to address hunger worldwide—yield results have been mixed globally, and are nominal for America’s family farmers. A recent study of historical yield data in the U.S. found that herbicide-resistant genetics in GE corn and soy didn’t increase yield any more than conventional methods.[10] Perhaps more importantly, the GE varieties hitting the market aren’t focused on yield in the first place. Developing a crop for herbicide resistance or biofuel production is quite different than selecting for plant traits that encourage plant growth, drought resistance or other traits that would actually help address food security worldwide. Moreover, companies haven’t invested their dollars in the staple crops of food insecure populations worldwide, such as millet, quinoa or cassava. We will need much more than Roundup Ready alfalfa to solve world hunger.
The Seedier Side of GE: Who Benefits
So if farmers, eaters, the environment and the world’s undernourished won’t appreciably benefit from the government’s recent GE green-lighting parade, who will?
Most GE crops hitting the market are developed by multinational companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Dupont and Dow Chemical to increase their sales and push their related pesticides. For example, Roundup Ready crops are all engineered to withstand Monsanto’s toxic herbicide Roundup. With Roundup Ready alfalfa and sugar beets on the market, Monsanto can expect increased profits from its new seeds, as well as increased sales of Roundup herbicide to douse all those new seeds.
GE crops are also patented, which grants several privileges to corporate seed giants. For example, companies have repeatedly restricted independent research on the risks and benefits of GE products, which is perfectly legal under patent law, but severely limits objective examination of the efficacy and safety of GE crops.[11] If that weren’t bad enough, patents have given companies the power to pursue lawsuits against farmers for illegally “possessing” patented GE plants without a license. Monsanto has famously sued thousands of individual farmers for patent infringement when their fields were contaminated with GE genes.[12]
With the power to own and patent genetics, seed companies can demand even more control over the market as a whole. The seed industry has suffered enormous concentration of power in the past few decades, with at least 200 independent seed companies exiting the market in the last fifteen years and four companies now controlling over 50% of the market. This consolidation means farmers have far fewer options for seed varieties. Meanwhile, farmers have seen the sharpest rise in seed prices during the period in which GE crops rose in prominence.[13]
In this sense, the deregulation of new GE varieties comes as a slap in the face to the farmers and eaters who put their trust in the USDA and Department of Justice as they examined antitrust abuses in our food system this past year, including specific investigations into Monsanto and the seed industry. The newest wave of GE products will only further corporate control over our food supply, putting the interests of corporations far before the needs of farmers and eaters.
The bottom line?
Surely, this is a lot to take in. Genetic engineering is a complicated topic, with a broad set of consequences for our society. There are many questions left unanswered about how GE will impact farmers and eaters, and even less clarity about how these impacts will be managed.
Until our regulatory system and the biotech companies themselves properly address the risks inherent in GE crops, farmers and eaters have a right to reject them. Releasing GE crops into the fields without mitigating their risks is gambling with our health, our environment and livelihoods of family farmers.

original link: http://www.farmaid.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=qlI5IhNVJsE&b=2723877&ct=9141787&notoc=1&msource=adwords&gclid=CNzH79fajrECFUYCQAodgXD5FA

Sorry for the wall of text.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Look at how many democrats who love the environment support Monsanto.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

cheaper food for hundreds of millions of americans.

Patenting genes which pollinate several generation fields and making their crops stolen goods.

Terminator seeds which when sprouted, pollinate other farmer's crops making those seeds infertile.

Bacteria resistant modified genes which can't mutate and can't contribute to genetic diversity which has been happening with plants for millions of years.

The simple fact is we don't know for sure what our modifications will really do. Terminator seeds were not allowed to get sold. But what happens when an "accident" happens and they become wild. You now must trust the same entity which caused the problem. Liberals like you complain if we become too capitalist, corporations will rule us. But he who controls the food supply rules the world. It doesn't matter if you have your pink and fluffy communist world, you have to eat or starve and die.

 

[deprave]

found this to be an interesting read:

I know the U.S. government just allowed a few new GE crops on the market — should I be worried?

February 2011

Dear Farm Aid,
I know the U.S. government just allowed a few new GE crops on the market — should I be worried?
Thanks for any info you can provide!
Jerry K.
Austin, TX
With a new mission to squash “burdensome” regulation and play nice with U.S. businesses, the Obama Administration has been in a frenzy green-lighting genetically engineered (GE) crops.
Just weeks into the new year, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced the full deregulation of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready alfalfa—a genetically engineered crop variety designed to withstand Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. The move gave the OK for commercial planting to take place this spring without restrictions. A week later, USDA announced the deregulation of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready sugar beets, followed by the deregulation of Syngenta’s Enogen corn, a variety genetically engineered for biofuel production. Meanwhile, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) is now considering the commercial release of genetically modified salmon.
With a new onslaught of GE products hitting the market it’s no wonder the public has some questions, as you do, Jerry. So, what’s the big deal about genetic engineering?
The short and not-so-sweet of it is this: GE crops present real risks, fewer choices for both farmers and eaters and offer unclear benefits except to the companies that develop and market them, and thus pocket major profits.
Risky Business for Farmers
One of the biggest problems GE crops have presented in the real world is the contamination of non-GE crops. The newest wave of deregulated GE crops presents a very real risk that such contamination will happen again.
Take alfalfa, which is pollinated by bees. Bees can generally cover a five-mile range as they buzz from plant to plant, collecting and spreading pollen. Since bees don’t tend to observe property lines or fences, GE alfalfa pollen could, for example, be spread to and pollinate a non-GE alfalfa plant, in turn contaminating a neighboring field with GE genes.
This cross-fertilization would be especially disastrous for organic farmers. If organic fields are contaminated, an organic farmer’s certification is at risk, since the use of GE crops is prohibited under the organic label. Losing organic certification would mean his or her goods can no longer be sold for the premium price that helps cover the higher costs of growing organically. Organic livestock farmers would face similar consequences if their cattle consumed contaminated alfalfa, and the organic industry as a whole could suffer from severe supply problems if organic alfalfa can’t be maintained with integrity. Canada’s organic canola industry suffered this fate, and is virtually extinct due to contamination from GE canola.[1]
GE contamination hurts conventional farmers too. A prime example occurred in 2000, when genes from Aventis’ StarLink GE corn showed up unexpectedly in the nation’s food supply and U.S. export markets. While StarLink corn only represented 1% of planted corn acreage, it ultimately contaminated at least 25% of the harvest that year.[2] Traces of StarLink corn also showed up in taco shells, even though the variety wasn’t approved for human consumption. The fiasco led to a massive recall of over 300 food products. Export markets started rejecting American corn and corn prices plummeted.[3] Corn farmers ultimately filed a class-action lawsuit against Aventis, who forked over $112 million in settlement. Three years later, StarLink genetics were still detected in the U.S. corn supply, well after the crop was pulled from the market.[4] Millers and food manufacturers are concerned the same thing will happen with Syngenta’s Enogen corn intended for biofuel production, which could contaminate corn for human consumption and seriously threaten foods processed with corn–based ingredients.
USDA recognized such risks when it conducted an environmental impact statement (EIS) for GE alfalfa. This past December, Secretary Vilsack acknowledged “the potential of cross-fertilization to non-GE alfalfa from GE alfalfa — a significant concern for farmers who produce for non-GE markets at home and abroad.”[5] Despite such concern, USDA approved the planting of GE alfalfa for this spring without any indication of how it will prevent the type of costly contamination that threatens to occur.
Into the Wild: “Superweeds” and other environmental hazards
In addition to the very real risks of GE-contamination, there are numerous accounts of superweeds developing from the overuse of Roundup herbicide on Roundup Ready crops. Fifteen years after Roundup Ready corn and soy first debuted, there are now at least 10 species of Roundup-resistant weeds identified in more than 22 states, as well as superweeds sprouting up in Australia, China and Brazil.[6]
Superweeds undermine the environmental benefits that GE crops are claimed to offer by reducing soil tillage, pesticide applications and soil and water contamination.[7] Affected farmers must now resort to more toxic chemicals, increased labor or more intense tillage of their fields to address superweeds on their farms. The newly approved Roundup Ready alfalfa and sugar beets will only exacerbate that problem. And as companies like Bayer, Syngenta and Dow Chemical work on their own pesticide-resistant crops (including one designed to resist 2,4-D, a component of Agent Orange!),[8] even nastier superweeds may be on the horizon, with even nastier pesticides being used to control them in the ever-escalating arms race against weeds and pests.
GE crops pose additional environment risks, such as threats to biodiversity or unintentional harm to other insects and animals in the ecosystem, many of which are beneficial to crop production. But remember, there’s absolutely no recall on GE genetics. Once they’re out there, they’re out there for good. What’s more, once a crop is fully deregulated, USDA currently conducts no monitoring of any kind to see if a GE crop has harmed the environment.[9] To date, we are completely unequipped to deal with all of these consequences. (For more on how GE crops are regulated, see this Ask Farm Aid column from 2009).
Do I eat GE foods?
What does all this mean for eaters? Do we eat GE foods? The quick answer is: almost certainly.
Remember that the vast majority of our corn and soy come from GE seed, and that these crops are generally used as feed for cattle, hogs and poultry, or otherwise used in the many processed foods found in grocery store aisles. Alfalfa is the fourth largest crop grown in the U.S. and is most commonly used to feed dairy cows and beef cattle.
So, if you drink milk, eat beef, enjoy the occasional slice of bacon with your breakfast, order chicken in your Caesar salad or ever indulge in processed foods, cereals and desserts with ingredients like high fructose corn syrup and soy lecithin, GE crops are part of your food chain. Unfortunately, you can’t be sure when you eat them or in what form, because there is no requirement to label foods with GE ingredients. As discussed above, the release of GE alfalfa also puts several organic foods at risk for contamination—further eroding our choice as consumers to avoid GE foods if we wish.
Little research has been conducted to examine whether GE foods present risks to human health—such as allergens or toxins—but it seems prudent that this be investigated rigorously before GE foods hit the market. Many countries, including countries of the European Union, Japan, Australia and Brazil, have banned the cultivation of GE crops or require labeling of GE foods as precautions.
Feeding the World? The Silver Bullet That Misses the Target
Defenders of GE crops argue they are desperately needed to feed the world’s ever-growing population and address world hunger. Some have accused critics of GE technology as being shortsighted Luddites at best, and irresponsible at worst.
But to date, GE crops have done little to address hunger worldwide—yield results have been mixed globally, and are nominal for America’s family farmers. A recent study of historical yield data in the U.S. found that herbicide-resistant genetics in GE corn and soy didn’t increase yield any more than conventional methods.[10] Perhaps more importantly, the GE varieties hitting the market aren’t focused on yield in the first place. Developing a crop for herbicide resistance or biofuel production is quite different than selecting for plant traits that encourage plant growth, drought resistance or other traits that would actually help address food security worldwide. Moreover, companies haven’t invested their dollars in the staple crops of food insecure populations worldwide, such as millet, quinoa or cassava. We will need much more than Roundup Ready alfalfa to solve world hunger.
The Seedier Side of GE: Who Benefits
So if farmers, eaters, the environment and the world’s undernourished won’t appreciably benefit from the government’s recent GE green-lighting parade, who will?
Most GE crops hitting the market are developed by multinational companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Dupont and Dow Chemical to increase their sales and push their related pesticides. For example, Roundup Ready crops are all engineered to withstand Monsanto’s toxic herbicide Roundup. With Roundup Ready alfalfa and sugar beets on the market, Monsanto can expect increased profits from its new seeds, as well as increased sales of Roundup herbicide to douse all those new seeds.
GE crops are also patented, which grants several privileges to corporate seed giants. For example, companies have repeatedly restricted independent research on the risks and benefits of GE products, which is perfectly legal under patent law, but severely limits objective examination of the efficacy and safety of GE crops.[11] If that weren’t bad enough, patents have given companies the power to pursue lawsuits against farmers for illegally “possessing” patented GE plants without a license. Monsanto has famously sued thousands of individual farmers for patent infringement when their fields were contaminated with GE genes.[12]
With the power to own and patent genetics, seed companies can demand even more control over the market as a whole. The seed industry has suffered enormous concentration of power in the past few decades, with at least 200 independent seed companies exiting the market in the last fifteen years and four companies now controlling over 50% of the market. This consolidation means farmers have far fewer options for seed varieties. Meanwhile, farmers have seen the sharpest rise in seed prices during the period in which GE crops rose in prominence.[13]
In this sense, the deregulation of new GE varieties comes as a slap in the face to the farmers and eaters who put their trust in the USDA and Department of Justice as they examined antitrust abuses in our food system this past year, including specific investigations into Monsanto and the seed industry. The newest wave of GE products will only further corporate control over our food supply, putting the interests of corporations far before the needs of farmers and eaters.
The bottom line?
Surely, this is a lot to take in. Genetic engineering is a complicated topic, with a broad set of consequences for our society. There are many questions left unanswered about how GE will impact farmers and eaters, and even less clarity about how these impacts will be managed.
Until our regulatory system and the biotech companies themselves properly address the risks inherent in GE crops, farmers and eaters have a right to reject them. Releasing GE crops into the fields without mitigating their risks is gambling with our health, our environment and livelihoods of family farmers.

original link: http://www.farmaid.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=qlI5IhNVJsE&b=2723877&ct=9141787&notoc=1&msource=adwords&gclid=CNzH79fajrECFUYCQAodgXD5FA

Sorry for the wall of text.

This is nothing new, monsanto always gets in the back door with the FDA, GMO's for example were ruled 'substantially equivalent'. A special case for monsanto. They continue to get away without labeling their products accurately as well.

 

[deprave]

Patenting genes which pollinate several generation fields and making their crops stolen goods.

Terminator seeds which when sprouted, pollinate other farmer's crops making those seeds infertile.

Bacteria resistant modified genes which can't mutate and can't contribute to genetic diversity which has been happening with plants for millions of years.

The simple fact is we don't know for sure what our modifications will really do. Terminator seeds were not allowed to get sold. But what happens when an "accident" happens and they become wild. You now must trust the same entity which caused the problem. Liberals like you complain if we become too capitalist, corporations will rule us. But he who controls the food supply rules the world. It doesn't matter if you have your pink and fluffy communist world, you have to eat or starve and die.

hey common now stop trying to make this all partisan, there is people from every part of the political spectrum who have spoken out against Monsanto, In fact every link I sourced in my OP is a liberal site. This is the second post you made like this in a row. This is a topic we can all agree on.

 

[Daxus]

There's a lot of things wrong with GM food, just look here: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/01/15/dr-don-huber-interview-part-2.aspx. It should also be noted that GM crops can contaminate regular and organic crops, which means a number of bad things:

1. Monsanto can sue the cross-pollinated farm for illegally possessing their technology as patent infringement (http://www.percyschmeiser.com/)

2. In the case of an organic crop, if contaminated with GM material, it can no longer be considered organic and has lost it's value.

Also there has been a lawsuit brought against them in effort to invalidate their patents and protect farmers from being sued if they are contaminated. It was dismissed in court and is being appealed. http://www.pubpat.org/family-farmers-charge-ahead-in-battle-againt-monsanto.htm

 

[NoDrama]

Pretty much every farmer in my state uses nothing but Monsanto seed. They sued all the farmers who didn't use it into submission due to cross pollination. Some of my good friends went bankrupt in under a year and had to sell their farms, a Monsanto subdivision bought all the farms.

 

[Wordz]

Look at how many democrats who love the environment support Monsanto.

lmao this dirty cunt thinks that democrats all support monsanto. this bitch is up at 4:00 am spewing this shit. maybe it's the lack of sleep that makes sylvan a dumb bitch

 

[Daxus]

Pretty much every farmer in my state uses nothing but Monsanto seed. They sued all the farmers who didn't use it into submission due to cross pollination. Some of my good friends went bankrupt in under a year and had to sell their farms, a Monsanto subdivision bought all the farms.

That's their whole plan. They want to control the food supply.

And while I agree Wordz, there's no need to flame, harsh man. Don't put negative vibes out there . Even I was a dumb bitch once. Who knows maybe I still am.

 

[canndo]

Over-regulation: The cause of corruption

so if there were no regulation, sort of like what happened to California with it's electricity dereg - then there would be no corruption? How about an explaination of how this works.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

hey common now stop trying to make this all partisan, there is people from every part of the political spectrum who have spoken out against Monsanto, In fact every link I sourced in my OP is a liberal site. This is the second post you made like this in a row. This is a topic we can all agree on.

I just think it's funny Bucky is "green" and MMGW is like a nuclear bomb, but GMOs are pink fuzzy communist bunnies spreading the seeds of life to the whole world! Seriously, wtf?

 

[canndo]

I just think it's funny Bucky is "green" and MMGW is like a nuclear bomb, but GMOs are pink fuzzy communist bunnies spreading the seeds of life to the whole world! Seriously, wtf?

I don't know a lot of knowlegeable libs who agree with the widespread use of GMOs.