June 6, 2013 at 3:30 pm #532561
I know, they are so sneaky,June 7, 2013 at 11:37 pm #532562
I came across something the other day in my web wanderings saying that GMO contamination of crops can be as high as 20% in some areas. GM crops are by law only required to have a 5m clearance between them and non GM crops here in Australia. My bees fly up to 5km to forage so how can the powers that be assure us its safe to let GM crops into the country?June 8, 2013 at 5:24 am #532563
To my mind it is ridiculous growing the damn stuff at all. The wind doesn’t know anything about 5m clearances, neither do the birds, bees and other insects. How stupid are the ‘powers that be’ for goodness sake!!!!!! :angry:
:sick:June 9, 2013 at 9:42 pm #532564
I find it shocking that they test these crops in fields, not a clean room, grains tested in wheat belts, it is simply insane! And what about those farmers loosing their organic certification because of GMO contamination. It boggles the mind.June 14, 2013 at 4:55 pm #532565
Here is what, to me, is another interesting slant on the genetically modified foods, see what you think!
The first link is the news article while the other two links are a long and a short version (not necessarily in that order) of the study.
🙂June 14, 2013 at 5:17 pm #532566
Here is a link I have transferred from a post by Mudhen on another thread, most interesting indeed, to me anyhoo.
This is a paragraph I have cherry picked from the article:
“New varieties of corn are continuously created. But today these are born in the test tubes of biotech labs. These modern cobs are no longer simply nourishment – thanks to the wonders of biotechnology and the magic of gene-manipulation they can now produce hormones and other substances that could be of value to the pharma industry. How the general population can be safeguarded from inadvertent consumption and subsequent, possibly dangerous effects on health and well being is a question nobody likes to ask. The germplasm bank for corn in Mexico has already been contaminated with genetically manipulated materials. And time and again there are cases reported of non-approved gene-manipulated corn that has reached the human food chain in the form of a harmless looking tortilla chip that caused severe ‘allergic’ reactions in the consumer. Corn is also at the center of another controversy – in search of renewable fuel sources researchers have turned to maize as a source of ethanol as a biofuel. This however is not considered a very good idea by the majority of poor farmers in Central America who would rather that corn, their staple nourishment, would continue to feed them instead of fuelling cars they can’t afford to buy.”
Yes I know it’s not Monsanto, but gm problems are coming at us from more directions than one and I think this is incredibly interesting.June 15, 2013 at 1:39 pm #532567
The Law of The Seed
Seed is the essence of life. It is also the first link in the food system. Control over seed is control over food.
Control over seed is today being shaped by new laws that are being written by the very corporations that are destroying the diversity of seed and the freedom of our food. The biggest player in the control over seed is Monsanto. Monsanto started to write laws related to seed in 1980s which resulted in the TRIPS agreement of WTO. This international law opened the flood gates to patent and own seed. It could be called the first Monsanto Protection Act drafted by Monsanto to protect its illegitimate and unethical patent monopolies on seed. Monsanto recently drafted the US Monsanto Protection Act to guarantee to itself legal immunity in the context of any court ruling.
In India, the Monsanto Protection act takes the form of the biotechnology regulatory act aimed at destroying existing laws that regulate GMOs and biotechnology. World-wide Monsanto protection acts are being written to guarantee that Monsanto has a monopoly on seed by destroying all alternatives through criminalizing diversity of seed and saving and sharing of seed.
An example is the newly proposed EC seed legislation imposing compulsory registration of all seeds, including those used by organic farmers and gardeners.
Similar legislation is being introduced across the world. The European court of Justice ruling in the Kokopelli case is an indication of how, even courts are being influenced by corporate monopolies and the paradigm of industrial agriculture. The recent US Supreme Court ruling in the case of Monsanto versus Bowman is a wake-up call for citizens to assess the consequences of patents on seed.
Whether it is patent laws or seed laws, these violate the real law of the Seed which is based on diversity, renewability, multiplication, exchange and resilience.
In 2012 Navdanya initiated the Global Citizens Alliances for Seed Freedom to defend the freedom of seed and the freedom of farmers and gardeners to freely save and exchange seed and to be free of GMOs and seed monopolies.
On 17th of May at Terra Futura in Florence, Navdanya presented The Law of the Seed based on scientific and legal principles that protect diversity and democracy.
The Law of The Seed puts at its centre Seed Freedom – the freedom of the seed, of farmers, gardeners and all citizens – in place of the illegitimate freedom of corporations to claim the genetic wealth of the planet as their invention and property, while criminalizing citizen freedoms.
Dr. Vandana Shiva
20th May 2013August 5, 2013 at 9:25 pm #532568
Claiming ownership of multiple natural/common fruits and vegetables: a sign of the (changing) times?
“Just when we all thought that corporate agriculture could not get any more predatory and deranged in its pursuit of power over the food supply, fresh news emerges about Monsanto’s attempts to play the role of God by claiming ownership of natural fruits and vegetables. According to Avaaz, Monsanto is using PAO’s application process to file for patents on things like natural cucumbers and tomatoes, and unless a cohort of proactive European nations takes action now to stop this effort, the multinational corporation could soon assume control over the conventional food supply.”
For more info and comments, see:August 6, 2013 at 12:42 am #532569
The have filed patents for specific lines of broccoli (for example) which have been selectively bred or modified for very specific traits. So they are not trying to blanket patent all broccoli. .
Many other companies are also patenting vegetable varieties all the time. Many vegetable patents appear to have been in place for years.
The European Patent Office has an excellent website for doing your own independent research.August 6, 2013 at 1:02 pm #532570
1. threedogs: “The[y] have filed patents for specific lines of broccoli (for example) . . .”
And tomatoes, rice, soybean, alfalfa, corn, wheat, melon, etc. (for more examples).
http://www.epo.org/footer/search?ud=1&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&client=EN&proxystylesheet=EN&q=monsanto&ulang=en&ip=22.214.171.124,126.96.36.199&access=p&sort=date:D:L:d1&entqr=3&entqrm=0&lr=lang_en&filter=0&start=0 And the controversy over the health and contamination/spread effects of these GMOs is ongoing.
2. Beyond the specificities and technical minutia of Monsanto’s patent claims for plants “selectively bred or modified for very specific traits” (threedogs), is the broader concern that “Companies like Monsanto have found loopholes in European law to have exclusive rights over conventional seeds” (see, http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/sites/default/files/news/new_wave_of_patents_2013.pdf)
3. Further beyond that is the contested issue of the acceptability/legality/morality of the capture (privatization) of ownership/control/benefits of seed and plant (and animal/human) material, in the form of patents (so-called ‘intellectual property rights’), by private corporations at the expense of broader common/community/societal interests (see:
So, independent research suggests that issues relating to Monsanto represent just the thin edge of the wedge.August 6, 2013 at 6:55 pm #532571
I am not saying it’s a good thing, I am trying to point out that if anyone wishes to argue against it then the argument needs to be very factual and specific. Hysteria and sweeping generalisations will not do much to rationally and logically argue against such patents.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.