Rather sad, isn't it? The fear mongers have won again; anything new and different is so scary we must bury it forever in ignorance.
As I read the article one thing stands out: the "may", "might", "could" modifiers. This continues in the links they provide to prove their stance; they haven't a clue as to what will actually happen. They demand 2 year studies, but have had 10 years to show adverse affects and have come up with nothing but "maybe" this and "possibly" that. There may indeed be good reasons to ban this maize, but they haven't offered any outside of "it's scary" and "we love nature".
It's always fascinating to watch as GMO work is condemned while breeding programs abound. No real difference between the two, but one has been done for thousands of years (with untold adverse affects) and the new one is too scary to think about. Plus, it's not understood and Granny in her garden can't do it.
I would STRONGLY suggest you review YOUR sources. The bees are dying in MASS numbers and that is a FACT. Look to other countries for true studies, get a little more informed and you will find, if you are not too closed minded, the truth!
Yes, I've read several accounts that bees are dying off in large numbers and that if we don't find a cause it could be a disaster.
Not one article I've seen has said that GMO foods OR Monsanto are the cause.
Every single article I've seen has stated that although we are trying hard to find a cause there have been virtually no clues. It doesn't seem to be chemical, it doesn't seem to be biological (as in disease) and they can't yet find a genetic cause. Given that, why do you bring it up? Have you seen proof they are dying from either GMO or other Monsanto shenanigans?
Either one should be pretty to prove; there are lots of dead bees to dissect and examine for presence of such chemicals. And lots of areas where those chemicals aren't around; the comparison of dead bees between such areas should be easy to collect.
There ARE actually clues. The problem with beekeeping losses, which for some apiarists were in the range of about 30% last year, is that there is no reporting measure in place. We were lucky and lost only three hives - out of 45.
I don't know what part GMO plays in colony collapse disorder when the GMO used is an herbicide - I would think the effect would be negligible. The Bt-toxin is more worrisome.
More worrisome yet are broadcast pesticides. Pesticides are generally safe for bees unless they are applied during a crop's bloom season. Aerial spraying broadcasts the fine mist up to a quarter of a mile, so even if the crop isn't in bloom, something nearby usually is. Neonicotinoids, used to treat crops, have been found in the remains of dead bee colonies. Most beekeepers don't have access to lab testing, but there is a direct correlation between the uptake use of neonicotinoids and CCD.
A hive will also die from lack of food over winter or fungus or another type of insect infestation. But the losses we're seeing now - are very high overall. Although this winter wasn't bad for me - I've lost over half my hives before.
You have to understand that beekeepers, like anyone else in any business, get a little irate when they take big operating losses.
As a beekeeper - I have clues as to what killed a hive. Varroa mites will wipe out a hive quickly, but they leave evidence behind. I can spot fungus, I can see if the hive swarmed, and I can spot predator insects. If the GMO bt-toxin is present in the plant's pollen - there's virtually no way a honeybee can avoid it. I say "if" because I don't know if it is. But, if it is - the bees are bringing it back to the hives.
The year I had the biggest hive loss - was the year a neighboring farmer planted an entire section in GMO canola. Coincidence? Maybe.
At any rate - we're going to have to take a look at pesticide use in general and take more precautions or we're going to find scant crops, especially in the fruit industry.
Pretty much what I've seen elsewhere. Some possibilities, plus some known hazards, but no definitive cause for the countrywide die off.
The topic, however, was introduced into a "Lets all bash Monsanto and GMO"; presumably the poster wants us to think the bees are dying because of one or the other. Without any evidence of that, it's a wee bit misleading.
Wee bit misleading - perhaps - but that shouldn't make it less concerning to all of us. I think that if Monsanto was more open and honest (labeling) or not as dead set on controlling generations of our food supply, they might get a better reception. But, they've tried to shove their product onto the market - instead of letting a true free market control the supply and demand.
Maybe it's bad leadership or maybe they really have something to hide. At any rate - they've sealed their own fate. The public no longer trusts them - at least a good portion of the public does not trust them. And that's growing.
Just because there are some who've jumped on a bandwagon doesn't mean there isn't real cause for concern.
Monsanto forcing (somehow) food grown from their seed to be labeled as GMO will save bees? I don't think so but that's what this mini-thread is about.
As far as labeling for the general market, they just might be a little more receptive if there weren't thousands of marchers shouting lies and insinuations in an attempt to scare people away from those foods. You think, maybe?
There are many, many causes for concern regarding Monsanto and GMO foods.
Here is just one . . .
19 Sep 2012. France orders probe after rat study links GM corn, cancer http://www.france24.com/en/20120919-fra … orn-cancer
Your link doesn't work, but another page on the same site gives the following:
"A controversial French study linking GM corn to cases of cancer was dismissed by an investigative panel on Monday. Experts, asked by the government to examine the study, found there was no link between the corn and tumours found in rats. "
"But critics faulted the experimental methods and data and accused him of manipulating the media to gain scary headlines."
"The European Food Safety Agency (EFSA), which reviews use and authorisation of GM organisms, had already rejected the Seralini report as "inadequate," and watchdogs in Germany and Australia and New Zealand have said it offered no firm evidence of risk."
http://www.france24.com/en/20121022-fra … orn-cancer
Sad, isn't it, that some people are far more interested in scaring the public than in providing factual statements?
Try this link, and take a good look at the photographs . . .
Yep. Looks very much like the Saralini "study" that has been thoroughly debunked by France, EFSA, Germany, Australia and New Zealand. As stated in the link I provided you.
Given that you looked at the link, read and understood it, why are you asking me to look at photos from a defective study provided by someone (Salini) with a huge ax to grind in GMO foods? More scare tactics?
More to the point, why, if the study was so defective, have France , Germany and other countries banned GMO corn? Do you think they might know something ?
And at the same time the FDA approves Aspartame, fluoride in drinking water, and GMO foods are not only approved, but not even labelled as such!!
Are these "GMO is wholesome and good for you" studies funded by Monsanto by any chance?
You do know also that Monsanto and the FDA have a revolving door policy, which may explain why the USA is awash with GMO whilst other countries are moving towards banning their Frankenfoods altogether.
Food for thought.
Don't know. Are they scared? Are the politicians reacting to a scared populace? Did someone pay the politicians to produce that result? Do you know? Asking me such questions does nothing to show that GMO is bad, you know...
Don't know if every "good" study is funded by Monsanto - do you? Do you even care or just write them all off as a tool of Monsanto and therefore not fit to read? More junk like Sallini's report, just form another source?
No I do not know that Monsanto and the FDA have a revolving door policy, whatever you mean by that. Should you wish to define the term, please provide explicit evidence it is true (not some claim by a wild haired conspiracy theorist).
Do you find that labeling perfectly good food (from all evidence you've provided) as "Frankenfoods" is helpful? Or just more scare tactics?
Watch this . . .it answers all of your questions and mine too!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … cQ7YsP4E#!
I looked, but didn't get very far. I watched for 90 seconds and turned it off, but within those 90 seconds I caught the following:
Monsanto is feared and reviled by the public; the insinuation is that every soul in the world hates them.
It has a "revolving door" (whatever that is) with Washington
We will not stand for poison
Monsanto is corrupt.
We will not stand for cronyism
We will derail Monsanto's "agenda". As it's agenda is to make money we will not allow such a dreadful thing.
Monsanto is the world's most hated corporation
Monsanto is litigious against small farmers, presumably because it hates them and not because some steal from Monsanto.
Monsanto pollutes our food supply
Monsanto has an abominable reputation
It's "sordid" past included development of Agent Orange, at government request. Irrelevant to GMO discussion, but good for raising fists in anger.
It is responsible for suicide by Indian farmers.
It wants a monopoly over the world's food supplies; we know this because it looks for new customers.
It has patents and presumably wants those patents recognized worldwide.
This man is NOT interested in presenting factual data for you to examine and make up your mind as to how nefarious Monsanto or GMO is; he is interested solely in scaring you into thinking it is run by devils and wishes you harm. He will appeal only to your emotions and will never give both sides of the story. He will make unsubstantiated innuendoes and suppositions to "convince" you Monsanto is evil, he will spin what little facts he has as hard as possible to show only one side.
Just look at the connotative (but sense and fact free) terms used: hated, reviled, poison, corrupt, cronyism, pollutes, abominable, sordid, monopoly. This kind of discourse is NOT designed to present anything of real value; it can only be designed to appeal to your emotional side. To scare you and turn your emotions against something without having any real reasons.
If I want to be scared, I'll go skydiving - there is no reason to watch another horror flick on the screen. If I want to really understand GMO foods OR Monsanto I'll research it, not listen to this Yahoo do his best to scare me into submission.
Which is why I asked if you had looked at both sides, had listened or read studies on GMO, had examined Monsanto's own records along with that of others growing the maize or other products. If all you can find is emotional arguments and scare tactics it will take a lot of research to come up with truth, and you certainly won't get much from the likes of your link.
So far you've presented me with a study that has been thoroughly discredited by multiple nations (and then you presented it again as if showing it twice will make it a viable and useful study) and a video of a horror movie. Why don't you look at the comparisons between GMO and simple breeding programs that do the same thing but take longer? Why don't you look at farmers results and how much more effective GMO is (if it is). Why don't you look at how much food needs to be grown and see if it's possible without GMO or if people will starve without it? Why don't you look at how much Maize is lost to insects or plant competition with and without GMO intervention? Why don't you discuss real negative results of GMO maize instead of just "maybe" and "might"?
Or do none of these matter; the goal is to remove GMO (and the hated and reviled Monsanto) regardless of need or usefulness? You see, I'm not particularly interested in debate here, in defending Monsanto, as I don't really know the pros and cons. I just know you aren't giving a balanced picture - that 100% of the "information" you're providing is useless in terms of coming to a reasoned conclusion.
Pity you didn't take the time to watch the whole video . . . it may have saved you a lot of virtual ink . . try again!
Or you could say what facts it actually presents.
Why? Every single time I see someone starting out that way it turns out to be more worthless verbiage; words without real meaning and without any factual backing.
Can you back the claim that Monsanto is "polluting" our food supply? With something more than wholesome food? The term "pollution" is generally used to denote something intentionally harmful to life, either human or otherwise; where is it?
Can you back the claim that Monsanto has a "revolving door"?
Can you back the claim that Monsanto is responsible for Indian farmer suicides?
Can you explain the relevance of Agent Orange to GMO food?
No? But those are the claims - why can't you?
Watch the video . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … P4E#at=130
Hmm. Sorry, but I do believe that any farmer willingly signing an agreement should follow that agreement, not steal from Monsanto or anyone else they contract with. Now, if Monsanto gathered that signature at gunpoint it would be different, but they don't.
But what claim are you backing up? The revolving door one? Is the claim that no corporation (or just Monsanto?) can ever hire an ex-government employee? I do have to say, though, that I now understand the "revolving" door; once a government employee a handful of them then leave and go to work for private enterprise. I guess if you want to define "revolving" as going from public to private service once I guess it's true. Monsanto hires people that have gone through that "revolving" door. Of course, thousands of other companies do the same thing...probably a good thing or all public employees would be stuck forever in public service.
I loved that same yahoo with his lies, too - especially the one that the "Monsanto Protection Act" protects Monsanto from being sued for health problems from their products.
Obamas Governent and its ties to Monsanto . . . your revolvong door question
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blo … _blog.html
Tell Obama to Cease FDA Ties to Monsanto - apparently over 420'000 people have signed this petition (probably many of them farmers)
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/tell-o … by=2105328
Indian Farmers committing suicide because of GMO .. It was Prince Charles who said it, not me . .
When Prince Charles claimed thousands of Indian farmers were killing themselves after using GM crops, he was branded a scaremonger. In fact, as this chilling dispatch reveals, it's even WORSE than he feared.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … crops.html
From Agent Orange to Pesticides and Genetically Engineered Crops. Why Not to Trust Monsanto
http://www.globalresearch.ca/from-agent … to/5336444
and here's just a few more examples of the "health benefits" of GMO for you to reflect upon . .
Comparison of GMO and non-GMO corn - the real statistics will astound you!
http://www.naturalnews.com/040210_GM_co … osate.html
Cancer, Parkinson’s and Infertility: Popular Monsanto Product Linked to Major Health Problems, Study Says
http://www.globalresearch.ca/cancer-par … ys/5333192
Study Links Monsanto’s Roundup to Autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s
http://www.nationofchange.org/study-lin … 1367764115
OK - one at a time, beginning at the first one.
A great article, pointing that no ex-corporate employee should ever work for the government. Even mentions that a petition was signed against a specific one, although no wrong doing was ever found.
A great petition, although I wouldn't sign it. That most of it is dedicated to verbiage (without backup) designed to attract a signer rather than provide a solution or action tells me that it is not something I want to be a part of.
Another great article, suitable for scare tactics. 3 minerals are down, but the rest aren't mentioned - are they up? Lots of nifty connotative terms, like "void" (which is then shown to be a lie as positive numbers are given), "alarming" and"unspeakable". Such things make me nervous; it almost always says the speaker has no truth and is depending on spin to make his point. For instance - GMO corn has more glycophosphate than drinking water, with lots of exclamation pointing. Does that mean that it is metabolized as easily OR that we can expect to eat as much corn as we drink water? In particular, I'd find that latter question to be a resounding "NO",
Fantastic hard evidence. "May lead to disease". "Needs to be investigated". "More study is needed" (why is always more study?). As always, no study, no data, no results, no methodology and no peer reviews. Where are all of those? Beginning to wonder as well - unable to prove damage from GMO so we'll move on to something else - anything to keep pounding Monsanto? It does look that way, you know...
Much the same as #4. "Just as Monsanto attempted to discredit scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini’s study" - Don't know if Monsanto did or not, but half of Europe did and that sends up a giant red flag to this whole article. Attempts to discredit Monsanto studies merely because of source are stupid in the extreme; every study they mention is biased just as badly. It's a part of doing studies.
Lastly, because bias is so prevalent in the science world, it's why I (and no one really looking for truth) is satisfied to read some magazine article saying someone else did a study and found potential danger. I want the study, the data, the results, the methods and controls used and, because I'm not a biologist, peer reviews both pro and con. And so should you, but you don't, do you? Just anything at all that says any person or product coming from Monsanto Corp is evil.
They're not scared, Wilderness. They're smart. I've quit growing all GMO crops. Try doing a little research. They're not as healthy, and health wins out in this society that prefers nutritious food.
This isn't about fear. This is about common sense and protecting our food sources.
I don't know...the OP has given a half dozen resources for research, but not a single one had anything but fearmongering and outright lies. Is there any honest data out there at all?
So far this thread is about just that; hate for a giant corporation and spreading fear that people are being poisoned. The tirade that Monsanto is evil, and GMO is all poison and not a shred of evidence to support either.
You want common sense? Farmers will not pay extra and sign near slave grade contracts to grow a crop that isn't healthy and won't produce more salable product than non GMO seeds. Common sense thus says that GMO produces more crop (and considerably more, judging from the contracts Monsanto offers) than plain seeds without a million years of breeding force fed into their DNA.
Rats got tumours, links to Autism, Parkinsons, Alzheimers, but of course Monsanto says its safe . . .
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/blogs/ … -its-safe/
I'm very sorry, Sanny, but I have exactly zero interest in the Sarralini study. You've presented it three times now, each time conveniently forgetting that half of Europe has looked at it and found it to be completely bogus. Even the countries that you tout as wonderful because they're against GMO say that Sarralini's results are faulty because of improper work.
You're really going to have find something besides that one study to show anything but a built in bias against GMO, and one that has you accepting every thing negative you read about it.
You've got to look at these with a questioning attitude, wondering what agenda this "scientist" is pushing and how their results need to be considered in light of that agenda. You do pretty well at writing off Monsanto's studies (haven't provided a one) but you're really failing when you look at the other side. Anything negative about Monsanto is accepted as gospel, and that just doesn't work in the real world.
Here's another report on the dangers of GMO foods for you to discredit at your leisure . . .
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic … Foods.aspx
Good link, especially if you're already scared. An overreaching threat to humanity is changing our food (as we have done for tens of thousands of years) because kids don't know where meat comes from.
"GMO foods can be:
Notice that "can"? I will absolutely state the same about any food on the planet; that it might be harmful.
The AAEM states that studies (like the one on rats, above?) show serious health risks, but don't give any research papers to look at. Well done.
Yeah, we don't know everything there is to know, so don't use GMO foods. Or, presumably, any food (like bananas) that are bred to certain characteristics 'cause it might be dangerous. Of course, we'll all starve in short order because without the improvements in our food supply we can't feed everyone.
May I ask - have you read the literature from Monsanto? From any organization promoting the use of GMO foods? Have you digested the studies and understand them? Do you look at information with a critical eye or just accept any and all indication that such foods are "bad" somehow? When I gave you the link above, did you read it and wonder how so many countries can declare the study you love (and that "proves" GMO to be very bad) to be nothing but garbage?
Because if you only look at information from the fear mongers you will never, ever know the truth, whether there are definite risks with GMO foods or whether there or not. Or whether those risks are within acceptable limits.
Are you aware of what is commonly called the "Monsanto Protection ACt" ? It gives Monsanto immunity from prosection for any health damage caused by their products.
I dont recall any Banana producers asking for immunity from prosection.
Except it actual;ly doesn't do that, if you read it that is plain to see.
Yes I am, but I'd have to say you aren't because it does no such thing. Here is section 735 of HR 933; commonly called the "Monsanto Protection Act" by it's critics.
"Sec. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary's evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary's authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act." From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_Assurance_Provision
This bill allows use of non-regulated foods such as GMO until such time as the Secretary of Agriculture can make a determination. Nowhere does it give Monsanto immunity from anything and certainly not from health damage caused by their products.
See what happens when you swallow the scare tactics whole, without ever investigating? Somebody comes along and, with 2 minutes of actual research, proves your statements totally false. Just as happened with the Saralini study you promoted as "proof" of Monsanto's evil-doing.
At least 250'000 poeple ACTIVELY disagree with you - plus me!
http://www.ibtimes.com/furor-growing-ag … ct-1156459
http://www.nationofchange.org/monsanto- … 1369061405
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/how_the … _into_law/
In fact it is so innocuous, that it may be repealed very soon!
Do you read your own links?
"This provision is simply an industry ploy to continue to sell genetically engineered seeds even when a court of law has found they were approved by USDA illegally" Absolutely false, as the law says it's legal. Nor is there anything anywhere in the first link claiming that Monsanto is immune to being sued.
Nothing in the second link about Monsanto being immune to being sued for health damages, either.
The third link says they are; do you question that statement after reading the bill (copy provided by wikipedia, earlier) or seeing that the other three links do not make the claim and in fact claim otherwise?
The fourth link has no reference to Monsanto being immune from making anyone sick, either.
So...do you now back off from the claim that 735 "gives Monsanto immunity from prosection for any health damage caused by their products." (from your post)? Or will you give more links that provide additional evidence the claim is false? You've tried twice to make that claim and both times 2 minutes proves it false. Will you try again or give it up?
Here's some common sense for you . . .
25 May 2013 World wide march against Monsanto . .. an estimated 2’000’000 people at 370 events in 49 countries, all ACTIVELY say NO! to Monsanto
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … oEek#at=55
Monsanto now banned or partly banned in these countries . . .
Smart move IMHO. Introduction of non-native plant or animal species is always something to be approached with extreme trepidation; one has only to look at the pythons in Florida or imported vegetation in Hawaii to see what can happen. In my area some imported lake vegetation is causing enormous problems as it spreads and chokes out native growth, including the native fish.
Of course, implying that it is a company rather than specific products is a little over the top...
Seralini critics answered
Scientists support Seralini study
http://gmoseralini.org/scientists-from- … ini-study/
http://aspta.org.br/wp-content/uploads/ … ay2013.pdf
Seems like there is support for the Seralini study from the the scientists who dare to speak out . . and the rats did get tumors from eating GMO food after all . . .
I have read that study and think his deliberate induction of malnutrition in the rats was too confounding to draw an conclusions--and flat out cruel treatment of animals. Inbred rats are prone to cancer and malnutrition will increase that risk while also causing ill health and suffering.
by Wesman Todd Shaw 9 years ago
I'm continually disgusted with persons who attempt to "prove" through their own self righteous pity parties and censorship, or hand picked "facts" that GMO foods are "safe."Make no mistake, The Gates Foundation feeding Africans Monsanto products....is really not so...
by Rodrigo Sebidos 4 years ago
Is it true that GMO foods are harmful to HEALTH?
by Wesman Todd Shaw 9 years ago
I think that all of us who are aware of the dangers and intentions behind GMO "foods" well know that the health of the persons eating such "food" is never much the issue. We also know that the FDA will pass and legitimize things that it well knows are not safe for human...
by Dr Abby Campbell 7 years ago
What do you think about the United States allowing foods to be genetically modified?A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. In the United States, nearly 100% of corn and wheat are GMOs. The alterations of...
by A Thousand Words 4 years ago
To people who claim to "know" the implications of GMO foods(I'm mainly speaking to the ones who think people are crazy for being against them), I have some legitimate reasons why we should at least be skeptical of them. 1. If you understand how nature works, you can't have one...
by sannyasinman 7 years ago
what are people (especially farmers) protesting about? Watch this . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … P4E#at=130
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|