Should we ban Monsanto products?

1. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

   Hey TRUMP! Here is a good example: "Putin has moved to protect the health and welfare of his people by banning cancer-causing, Monsanto based GMO’s."
   from: http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2017/ … s-america/

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Seems the first step would be to prove that Monsanto GMO foods cause cancer.  This isn't Russia, after all - laws take precedence over hysterics

      replyreport
      1. 70

         ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Agent Orange ..... Roundup.  Remember DDT? ... I remember when the USSR had lower rads per quarter year for nuke plant workers.   So your point is somewhat blunted.
         
         Besides not just food but cotton. Get with the program..

         replyreport
         1. 89

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            The OP referenced GMO's.  Not any of a thousand other chemicals.
            
            "Putin has moved to protect the health and welfare of his people by banning cancer-causing, Monsanto based GMO’s."

            replyreport
   2. 55

      The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Without a doubt, YES!!!
      
      Man can never improve on how things were made to function forever [including Monsanto destined to come into existence to prove it although they do it for monetary gain and not for understanding it] therefore since we can see man can not improve on earth's existence it is time to stop it. According to the U.S. Constitution, this nation is supposed to defend its continental territory [not the territories they are occupying and calling them U.S. territories] along with We The People and when we hinders plants from reproducing we are infringing on the environment unnecessarily.
      
      The earth is designed to eliminate every possible disorder found here by the various life-types obtaining our needs [not wants we call needs] from the environment without altering them based on man's sense perception's judgments of what THE SENSES SUGGESTS WE LIKE AND DISLIKE. Everything man do, from cooking our food and covering ourselves to altering the natural environment, is the cause to our many health problems [as it is supposed to do since civilization is "hell's fire" because of our burning desire to change the environment for wealth which https://hubpages.com/religion-philosoph … No-Value]. So, if we want to eliminate our suffering then we need to stop forcing the environment to adjust to our whims which hurts us and the environment alike.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         A return to the Garden of Eden.
         
         As Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young sang:
         
         "We are stardust, we are golden,
         We are billion year old carbon,
         And we got to get ourselves back to the garden."
         
         "Well, then can I walk beside you?
         I have come to lose the smog,
         And I feel like I'm a cog in something turning.
         And maybe it's the time of year,
         Yes and maybe it's the time of man.
         And I don't know who I am,
         But life is for learning."
         
         "We are stardust, we are golden,
         We caught in the devil's bargain,
         And we got to get ourselves back to the garden."
         
         http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/crosbyst … stock.html

         replyreport
         1. 55

            The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I remember that , KHL, and the time is at hand, less than 12 years away according to a prophetic interpretation of "the parable of the fig tree".
            
            The parable represents how Yashua, on his way into Jerusalem, cursed a fig tree that morning and that evening on his way out it had withered and died; on his way up the mountain he said to the weeping girls "weep not for me but your children and children's children" and in about 40 years Israel was destroyed and Jerusalem burned and in 1948 they retook that territory for the budding of the dead fig tree.
            
            The parable say "a generation will not pass until all is fulfilled" and Psalms 90:10 gives us an 80 year lifespan that, when added to 1948 equals 2028. That's why I'm preparing to make that return by living as close to nature as man's law will allow. I would push it and walk nude because it would be me prating my religion, allowed by the first amendment's practice of religion clause, but I don't feel now it the time.

            replyreport
2. 89

   Will Apseposted 7 years ago

   I remember when Monsanto emerged as a company. They promised genetically engineered crops that would be drought resistant and deliver bigger yields in difficult, marginal environments.
   
   But all they have managed are crops that are more resistant to herbicides. This means greater pressure on the environment as more toxic chemicals are used. It also means that more oil is being turned into food (herbicides come from the petrochemical industry). This is hardly a great outcome.
   
   Worse, is the attempt to stifle farmers who do not want to use their products with dubious justification for gross legal bullying.
   
   They represent the worse facets of corporate ambition. The drive to monopolise important areas of the economy, the indifference to sustainability and a stifling of individual endeavor make them a menace.
   
   The stuff about GM crops causing cancer appears to be nonsense, however, given the lack of evidence.

   replyreport
3. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

   There is a lack of proof because the human population is difficult to follow.  But, hasn't the rate of cancer increased in recent times with the increased use of pesticides and genetically modified foods?  Are Monsanto pesticides banned in Europe? Are Genetically Modified Foods banned in Europe? Is the rate of cancer lower in Europe than the US?
   
   Other meandering thoughts ~~~ ~  ~   ~ .… . Is the rate of cancer in Japan higher than the US or Europe? Could it be due to the radiation leak from the power plant?… It is amazingly hard to prove what is causing cancer and autism and other diseases. We like to think the body is a perfect machine that should never malfunction. HA!

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      So which is causing cancer?  GMO's or pesticides?  Does Europe banning an American product mean it causes cancer?  IF the rate of cancer is lower in Europe is it because of the environment, food consumed, obesity in America, lack of exercise in America, the fast food industry or something else?
      
      You're absolutely right - It is very difficult to assign a cause (just an aging population, perhaps?) and to put it to GMO's because some people are afraid of them isn't reasonable.  Consider that very nearly everything we eat has been genetically modified over the last 1,000 years...

      replyreport
   2. 55

      The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Not only cancer but a lots of others, that's why AMA and FDA are not willing to evict it from this nation, the drug companies are earning millions because of GMOs.

      replyreport
4. 76

   psycheskinnerposted 7 years ago

   I am not a fan of Monsanto but everything they do is legal, and I happily eat my Round-Up ready corns and soy beans.  If people disagree with some specific thing Monsanto is doing they need to talk to the politicians about making that a thing companies are not allowed to do.  Otherwise: free market.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      "A recent database search of "Alar" and "scare" turned up more than 160 references from January 1995 through mid-July. Nearly half of those references were in pieces on agricultural-disparagement legislation, which is designed to protect the reputation of fruits and vegetables from erroneous claims about their safety. The laws, which were triggered by the Alar controversy, make it illegal to disseminate unproven claims that perishable farm products are unsafe.
      
      Another dozen references to the Alar scare appear in book reviews and op-eds about Our Stolen Future – a recent book that contends that synthetic chemicals may be harming human endocrine and reproductive systems."
      FROM: http://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/docs/al … negin.html
      
      Oh well. Let the market be free.
      

      replyreport
   2. 89

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      While I highly disagree with some of the shenanigans Monsanto is reported to do (suing because their seed blew into an adjacent field, for instance), to ban Monsanto's products because of a fear of GMO's is not reasonable and no politician should entertain the idea without firm proof of harm.  There is not only a free market, there is free choice, the choice individuals make to use their products, and politicians should not interfere with that.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         "The so-called Alar (on apples) scare occurred more than seven years ago, ... The February 1989 broadcast, largely based on the NRDC report "Intolerable Risk: Pesticides in Our Children's Food," told an audience of some 40 million that Alar was a dangerous carcinogen."
         ...
         "The maker of Alar, Uniroyal Chemical Co., was ultimately forced to take it off the market, even though, the story goes, it posed no real health risk."
         ...
         "Alar is a potent carcinogen, and its risks far outweigh its benefits. After extensive review, the Environmental Protection Agency decided in late 1989 to ban it because "long-term exposure to Alar poses unacceptable risks to public health."
         Lifted FROM: http://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/docs/al … negin.html
         
         ADDED: " ...agricultural-disparagement legislation... is designed to protect the reputation of fruits and vegetables from erroneous claims about their safety. The laws, which were triggered  ! by the Alar controversy, make it illegal to disseminate unproven claims that perishable farm products are unsafe."
         
         Strangely,  it looks like the Alar ban also paved the way for better protection for the makers of pesticides!

         replyreport
   3. 55

      The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      psyche skinner,
      
      Congress is Big Bank, Corporation and Wall Street bought!!!  How could they stop printing our money and allow the Rothschild's Federal Reserve Bank to bring it for the nation and We The People pay interest on it for borrowing it from them???
      
      Look at https://hubpages.com/politics/The-U-S-C … ons-Spirit and tell me if that is an incorrect interpretation of the meaning of the Constitution. If you agree with it then you should see your statement will do no good until they are impeached for Bribery and another one is elected constitutionally.

      replyreport
5. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

   "PR Watch's Stauber, meanwhile, says the national news media are not paying enough attention to another legacy of the Alar controversy: the agricultural-disparagement laws, sometimes called 'veggie hate-crime' bills.
   
   'The laws now in at least twelve states making it illegal to disparage fruits, vegetables, and meat are part of the national campaign to intimidate anyone who raises legitimate concerns about food safety," he says. Stauber believes the laws will eventually be found unconstitutional. But until they are challenged in court, reporting on mad cow disease, E. coil bacteria, or pesticides "could bring on a multimillion-dollar lawsuit.'"
   http://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/docs/al … negin.html

   replyreport
6. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

   Powerful synthetic chemical companies include:
   American Cyanamid, Archer Daniels Midland, Chevron, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Exxon, General Mills, Johnson & Johnson, Monsanto, Pfizer, Union Carbide, and Uniroyal – the company that manufactured Alar.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You forgot to include Firestone, Goodyear (synthetic rubber tires), Elmers Products (the maker of Elmers glue), Loctite (superglue) and every manufacturer of concrete.
      
      Point is that we live today surrounded by and dependent on "synthetic chemicals".

      replyreport
7. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

   Yes. How would I, (a lifelong swimming enthusiast,) like it if swimming pools were banned because of the toxic effect of chlorine, a known carcinogen!
   
   In fact, I now conscientiously limit my exposure time in pools.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Better limit your salt, too - it is half chlorine!
      
      Cities put chlorine in your drinking water (along with fluorine) - better drink only spring water...that you collected yourself.  We are most definitely a chemical dependent society, from the materials used to build your home to the clothes you wear to the food you eat.

      replyreport
8. 91

   DuckHatchposted 7 years ago

   "Should we ban Monsanto products?"
   
   Uhm.... yes please

   replyreport