Jump to content

Menu

Monsanto- how concerned are you?


DawnM
 Share

How concerned are you?  

91 members have voted

  1. 1. What are your thoughts? Which category is closest to what you think?

    • I eat NONE of those things listed EVER and don't allow my family to.
      3
    • I eat an occasional GMO product but try very hard not to.
      20
    • I eat some GMO and some non-GMO. I have a balance.
      8
    • I try to watch it, but sometimes can't.
      10
    • I don't really pay attention to GMO but try to eat really health (no chips or sweets)
      5
    • We sometimes have treats and I don't stress about it, overall we are healthy.
      19
    • We don't really worry about GMO products at all, but eat well.
      30
    • Other
      5


Recommended Posts

Her breaking news is over five years old. There's nothing new in that article from what I can tell.

 

ETA- also glyco being deemed a probable carcinogen is highly debatable. You can bury yourself in decades of research over it if you choose to look further. I'm no fan of Monsanto because of their business practices and other reasons, but alarmist blogs like this make me roll my eyes.

Edited by texasmom33
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her breaking news is over five years old. There's nothing new in that article from what I can tell.

 

ETA- also glyco being deemed a probable carcinogen is highly debatable. You can bury yourself in decades of research over it if you choose to look further. I'm no fan of Monsanto because of their business practices and other reasons, but alarmist blogs like this make me roll my eyes.

 

 

Thank you.  I just haven't dug into it that much, that is why I was asking.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't make myself crazy over these thoughts.  I think it's even highly debatable if there is such a thing as non GMO.  As soon as you start putting lots of GMO stuff out there that could effect other living things.  It's not that non GMO is isolated completely from GMO. 

 

Then look what gets pushed as healthy by the government.  Based on what?  Economics?  Doesn't seem to be health reasons. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you. I just haven't dug into it that much, that is why I was asking.

I would suggest watching Food, Inc. if you've never seen it. Joel Salatin is always an interesting read too (you'll see him on Food, Inc.) Do take what you see there or read from Joel Salatin or Westin Price Foundation with a grain of salt. They have every bit as much agenda as Monsanto. But I do feel that documentary gives you a good idea of the issues. You can continue your own research from there.

 

I struggle with this whole topic because I think it has created a lot of unfounded true, gut wrenching fear in loads of people. I have had more than one friend go off the rails and almost hit a diagnosable state over trying to control what their families eats from sheer terror over GMOs. I am homestead loving as the next gal, but a lot of this false information hits women especially hard as the primary caretaker and I think it's puts a false and unfair burden on women, adding another level of "you must do XYZ" or else you're a horrible person poisoning your family. The truth comes a lot closer to "they don't know" than the GMO siren sounders would ever admit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This foodbabe person is a pseudo science loving fear mongering publicity hound.  To put it nicely.  You would do well to never erad anything she says.  Here is just one article

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/12/04/364745790/food-babe-or-fear-babe-as-activist-s-profile-grows-so-do-her-critics

 

ok one more:

 

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/04/08/get-out-the-popcorn-science-babe-vs-the-food-babe/

 

Those who argue against seed saving with monsanto might want to remember that when you do business with monsanto you sign a contract in which you agree to not exploiting their product.

 

Occasionally monsanto has gone nuts and attacked farmers who have been victims of cross pollination.  That is uncool.

 

In general I find most people are not really qualified to have these discussions about food safety and GMO and organic and pesticides, and I try to avoid them.  My husband works in the industry as a scientist and has plenty of illuminating info, including the bold assertion that organic pesticides (allowed on organic foods) are NOT SAFER than others.  

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Foodbabe is a total hack. Not a legitimate source at all. I'm not clicking on it to give her any traffic.

 

I have read the research and have zero concern about GMO's. None.

 

"Eating healthy" and GMO's have very little to do with each other. We try to eat healthy, we also have some treats. Processed food isn't as good as homemade, but it's because of preservatives and so forth - which are safe, but aren't the best for you for sure - and high sodium and sugar numbers. And processed foods often leave out good elements - like not using the apple peels or so forth. But we do eat processed foods here. Most Americans do. It's a balance.

 

I have plenty of concerns about Monsanto and agribusiness practices in general. The controls the food thing is worrisome for one. They don't have a good record of environmental goodness, they're a nasty business for sure.

 

I also have concerns about monocultures and over-reliance on single strains of crops because that has seriously never worked out well for any civilization ever. In general, I guess I'd say I have worries about the way we farm and process food. But those concerns are mostly about the sustainability of our methods and the fairness to all peoples, and less about the safety to our bodies of the end product we buy at the market.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are only two of the listed foods that I have eaten maybe once in the last year. However, this isn't because I avoid GMOs but rather because I choose not to eat a lot of processed foods in general. I think by choosing fresh foods and organics when possible, we avoid most GMOs without really trying.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Food babe? Seriously? A person who writes this 

 

 

 

The air you are breathing on an airplane is recycled from directly outside of your window. That means you are breathing everything that the airplanes gives off and is flying through. The air that is pumped in isn’t pure oxygen either, it’s mixed with nitrogen, sometimes almost at 50%. To pump a greater amount of oxygen in costs money in terms of fuel and the airlines know this! The nitrogen may affect the times and dosages of medications, make you feel bloated and cause your ankles and joints swell.

 

is revealing such an astonishing level of ignorance about basic science that I cannot take seriously anything she writes.

  • Like 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Food babe? Seriously? A person who writes this

 

 

is revealing such an astonishing level of ignorance about basic science that I cannot take seriously anything she writes.

It's impressively bad isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest watching Food, Inc. if you've never seen it. Joel Salatin is always an interesting read too (you'll see him on Food, Inc.) Do take what you see there or read from Joel Salatin or Westin Price Foundation with a grain of salt. They have every bit as much agenda as Monsanto. But I do feel that documentary gives you a good idea of the issues. You can continue your own research from there.

 

I struggle with this whole topic because I think it has created a lot of unfounded true, gut wrenching fear in loads of people. I have had more than one friend go off the rails and almost hit a diagnosable state over trying to control what their families eats from sheer terror over GMOs. I am homestead loving as the next gal, but a lot of this false information hits women especially hard as the primary caretaker and I think it's puts a false and unfair burden on women, adding another level of "you must do XYZ" or else you're a horrible person poisoning your family. The truth comes a lot closer to "they don't know" than the GMO siren sounders would ever admit.

 

 

I have actually seen that documentary, but it  has been a long time.

 

And wasn't it pretty anti-meat/pro-Vegan too?  That is what I remember taking away from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually - this sort of reminds me of the guy years ago saying UPC symbols were the mark of the beast. (he was serious).  he self-selected items that ONLY had 666 at the beginning when doing his spiel.

 

That is funny.

 

I dated a guy once who was a lay speaker in the church quite often.  He kept a notebook of all the license plate numbers he could find that had 666 in them.  He used it to point out that just because you see 666 doesn't mean it is the mark of the beast.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is funny.

 

I dated a guy once who was a lay speaker in the church quite often. He kept a notebook of all the license plate numbers he could find that had 666 in them. He used it to point out that just because you see 666 doesn't mean it is the mark of the beast.

Not to mention there is a textual variant there in the papyrus - it could be 616 instead. Biblical numerology is always shaky business but that's worse than most :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone else has pretty much said everything I have to say about the topic.  I'm not so much afraid to EAT gmos as I am to have them taking over the earth.

 

My daughters have been studying environmental issues for several years now, and they have a better grasp on the concepts of sustainable soil management and overall environmental impact than even I have the patience to learn.  With that knowledge, they recognize that our budget and location don't allow for 100% organic/sustainable foods at this time.  (We also take issue with organic certification.)

 

Food Babe and her ilk make us all look like idiots.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that worries me are the oats.  The amount of glyphosate there because they spray the crops with Round Up to get them to dry quicker...it's just wrong.  It doesn't wash off.  It's in there for good.

 

That, and Monsanto started out as a plastics company.  They were responsible for the House Of Tomorrow at Disneyland many years ago, where everything was plastic.  Everything. :lol: It makes it hard to trust them as a food production company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is revealing such an astonishing level of ignorance about basic science that I cannot take seriously anything she writes.

 

:lol:  Thanks for my morning "pick me up!"

 

I honestly might have to share that one at school in my "you really don't want to be dumb" category of why studying various topics is important, even if you don't see yourself majoring in that in your future.

 

Not to mention there is a textual variant there in the papyrus - it could be 616 instead. Biblical numerology is always shaky business but that's worse than most :lol:

 

Seriously?  You're giving me another number I have to watch out for and avoid???  :lol:  :coolgleamA:

 

------------------

 

And safety wise?  I still bet the vast majority of us are in far more danger from drivers who text (or similar) who share the roads with us - ourselves or others.

 

Overall, we eat healthy - tons of veggies, fruits, some meat - but some treats now and then don't worry me a bit.  Neither do GMO foods (though like others I have issues with single variety taking over and seed police, etc).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just in case anyone is wondering why some of us are laughing about the "not getting pure oxygen" and "50% nitrogen" bit, here's the composition of the air you are breathing - from a reputable source.   ;)  (It's a nice chart on the link...)

 

http://www.physlink.com/reference/aircomposition.cfm

 

Air Composition at Sea-Level

(in percent by volume at the temperature of 15°C and the pressure of 101325 Pa)

 

Name   Symbol  Percent by Volume

Nitrogen  N2          78.084 %

Oxygen  O2           20.9476 %

Argon     Ar              0.934 %

Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.0314 %

Neon      Ne           0.001818 %

Methane CH4         0.0002 %

Helium    He           0.000524 %

Krypton   Kr           0.000114 %

Hydrogen H2         0.00005 %

Xenon      Xe         0.0000087 %

 

Edited by creekland
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just in case anyone is wondering why some of us are laughing about the "not getting pure oxygen" and "50% nitrogen" bit, here's the composition of the air you are breathing - from a reputable source. ;) (It's a nice chart on the link...)

 

http://www.physlink.com/reference/aircomposition.cfm

 

Air Composition at Sea-Level

(in percent by volume at the temperature of 15°C and the pressure of 101325 Pa)

 

Name Symbol Percent by Volume

Nitrogen N2 78.084 %

Oxygen O2 20.9476 %

Argon Ar 0.934 %

Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.0314 %

Neon Ne 0.001818 %

Methane CH4 0.0002 %

Helium He 0.000524 %

Krypton Kr 0.000114 %

Hydrogen H2 0.00005 %

Xenon Xe 0.0000087 %

I bolded the CO2 part because it is a bit out-of-date. Currently, CO2 sits at about 0.04% of our atmosphere.

 

If you want some real "fun", ask your students (or others you know) what percent of our atmosphere they think is CO2 and see what kind of numbers you get back. You'll find out how well-informed our population is about basic science facts. :(

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want some real "fun", ask your students (or others you know) what percent of our atmosphere they think is CO2 and see what kind of numbers you get back. You'll find out how well-informed our population is about basic science facts. :(

 

I do.  That's why I thought it might be best to post things here to fill in any gaps from previous education.

 

At school I don't mind when students don't know.  They're there to learn. Not all are blessed with science-type parents*. :coolgleamA:  This is a scenario I can use to show why they might want to be paying attention and retain the knowledge.  ;)

 

*  FWIW, most wish they had science-type parents after I've had them in class.  Many students LIKE knowing about their world and how it all works/applies, etc., esp when it's made fun/relevant and not just boring facts.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have actually seen that documentary, but it has been a long time.

 

And wasn't it pretty anti-meat/pro-Vegan too? That is what I remember taking away from it.

If memory serves it was more anti-CAFO/factory farming than anti-meat. Joel Salatin definitely is not anti-meat and I seem to remember him being a frequent speaker in it, but it's been a while so I may be fuzzy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am concerned about the organization having too much power in the Department of AG, having too much control of the bulk of seeds generated in this country because access to food should be a basic human right as well as the right to grow food without threat of patent violation, and their lawsuits against farmers for merely having wild pollinators like bees and butterflies carry seeds from one farm to another, as if the farmer or gardener can even control that. I am concerned about them being given the court sanctioned right to force pretty much any farmer/gardener anywhere to have their crops genetically tested for the presence of Monsanto genes.

 

GMO not so much.

 

It is the power that the company has, not so much the product, that I find to be a red flag.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those that care, Bayer has a purchase deal approved to buy Monsanto back early fall. I want to say that will make them the biggest agro-chem company in the world.

 

To me, that's the real concern with huge multi-national corporations like Monsanto.  Among many other ills, they swallow up everything else leaving very little choice for many people.

 

But we can vote with our pocketbooks...

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those that care, Bayer has a purchase deal approved to buy Monsanto back early fall. I want to say that will make them the biggest agro-chem company in the world.

 

Yup.  IIRC before this there were 4 big companies that controlled food worldwide, now there are, I guess, 3.

 

My dh has noticed some things in ads and such that made him think they are going to push the Bayer name and use Monsanto very little, or drop it.  Which makes sense, it's advertising poision at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as OP question - I don't check all my foods, especially things bought ready made.  I don't have the enerfy or inclination to see if my bottle of mustard has GMO products in it.

 

I do avoid buying GMO produce, and I won't buy GMO animals which may be available soon.  GMO salmon has been approved here and I think that could be an ecological disaster even worse than the domesticated salmon are.

 

I don't especially think that they are a health risk, though I do think a lot of scientists in that area have enough hubris to fuel an epic tragedy.  That worries me.  It bothers me a lot that they have continually said that GMOs won't spread in the environment in particular ways, and then they do.  Mainly because I think it shows they aren't thinking realistically.

 

But mainly, I consider GMOs an ecological problem.  They are part of a model of farming that is almost fundamentally opposed to thinking ecologically.  And the good they have done has really not come to fruition.

 

Which comes to the other issue, which is the idea of ideas as property.  I don't really believe in intellectual property at the best of times, so patents on living things and genes aren't something I am big on, to say the least. 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup.  IIRC before this there were 4 big companies that controlled food worldwide, now there are, I guess, 3.

 

My dh has noticed some things in ads and such that made him think they are going to push the Bayer name and use Monsanto very little, or drop it.  Which makes sense, it's advertising poision at this point.

 

I kept hearing rumblings about Dow being bought too over the summer but I'm not sure what came of that or if there's still potential. I think something previous was nixed by the regulators. Maybe it was Syngenta looking to buy them? Anyway, yes. The pool is shrinking which is never good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh - I also hate the woo blogs about this stuff, they make any opposition to GMOs seem crazy.  I have a bone to pick with the industrial organic people too.  I've seen a lot of the "rationalist" blogs recently saying that organic agriculture is a scam, and they are essentially working from the understanding of industrial agriculture.  I hate it that these people have no clue what organic agriculture actually is, why it is important, and that they think that being rational and scientific means being completely incapable of lateral or creative or poetic thinking, but instead means being at the mercy of anyone who claims some scientific credibility.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read the article, and I don't specifically avoid GMO on a day to day basis. But, we eat fairly healthy, avoiding most packaged products for regular eating. We do grab pre-packaged foods or fast food occasionally. I personally eat grain free except for a few times per year when I feel the need to punish myself with pain and digestive issues.

 

My beef with Monsanto is for reasons mentioned above re: business practices, gaining too much control and hurting farmers, and the impact on the environment. The actual food part is the least of my worries.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not at all concerned about GMOs because...Science.

 

I'm also not concerned about Monsanto. It's not the monster it's made out to be. Also, many (most?) farmers are not interested in saving seeds. Those who are don't have to buy patented seeds. 

 

What I am concerned about is misinformation.

 

http://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2016/02/no-farmers-dont-want-save-seeds.html

 

Want to help family farmers? Don't support organic and non-GMO

 

http://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2015/08/4-easy-ways-you-can-help-support-family-farms.html

 

http://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2013/08/dont-trust-quacks-lesson-on-glyphosates.html

 

http://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2013/07/anti-gmo-follow-money.html

 

http://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2013/05/defense-of-gmos-is-personal.html

 

http://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2012/09/debunking-organic-myth-part-1.html

 

 

Pretty sure I'll get some flaming because there are those who aren't interested in either science or what actual farmers have to say. Also, I'm not up to arguing over this. I understand the science and the big business that the organic movement is.  

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/#2e304536124d

 

https://www.good.is/articles/march-against-myth

 

https://www.facebook.com/Ksenapathy

Edited by Lady Florida.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who are don't have to buy patented seeds.

Grasses like corn are wind-pollinated. Is is fair for a Monsanto to sue a small farmer because the genes from their crops pollinate his field with their patented genes? I don't think so. The point is that Monsanto is FORCING those farmers to pay for their genetic stock whether they want to or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grasses like corn are wind-pollinated. Is is fair for a Monsanto to sue a small farmer because the genes from their crops pollinate his field with their patented genes? I don't think so. The point is that Monsanto is FORCING those farmers to pay for their genetic stock whether they want to or not.

 

Again, misinformation. Read Myth # 2 at this link (NPR)

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It isn't a myth.  Monsanto does indeed sue if the percentage of modified seed is high enough.

 

Monsanto, the world's largest producer of genetically modified seeds, is known to be an especially aggressive GMO patent-infringement litigant and has filed at least 140 cases and settled 700 more against farmers for planting the company’s GMO seeds since 1997—and they haven't lost a single case.

 

In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court handed Monsanto a major victory when it dismissed the 2011 case Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al. v. Monsanto that meant to stop the company from suing farmers who inadvertently found themselves accused of patent infringement when their land gets contaminated by Monsanto seeds.

 

Ronnie Cummins, international director of the Organic Consumers Association, said of Marsh's case: "This is a perfect example of how the biotech industry and genetic engineering undermine not only human health, and the health of the environment, but also the very basis of democracy itself, and the long-held rights of farmers to protect their land from toxic trespassing."

 

(Monsanto backed the defendant here who was sued by Marsh because he lost his organic certification when the neighbor's GMO seeds blew onto his property.)

 

http://www.ecowatch.com/organic-farmer-dealt-final-blow-in-landmark-lawsuit-over-monsantos-gmo-1882173163.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Nonsense.  From the link you provided (under "Myth #2"):

 

The idea, however, is inspired by a real-world event. Back in 1999, Monsanto sued a Canadian canola farmer, Percy Schmeiser, for growing the company's Roundup-tolerant canola without paying any royalty or "technology fee." Schmeiser had never bought seeds from Monsanto, so those canola plants clearly came from somewhere else. But where?  

Canola pollen can move for miles, carried by insects or the wind. Schmeiser testified that this must have been the cause, or GMO canola might have blown into his field from a passing truck. Monsanto said that this was implausible, because their tests showed that about 95 percent of Schmeiser's canola contained Monsanto's Roundup resistance gene, and it's impossible to get such high levels through stray pollen or scattered seeds. However, there's lots of confusion about these tests. Other samples, tested by other people, showed lower concentrations of Roundup resistance — but still over 50 percent of the crop.

Schmeiser had an explanation. As an experiment, he'd actually sprayed Roundup on about three acres of the field that was closest to a neighbor's Roundup Ready canola. Many plants survived the spraying, showing that they contained Monsanto's resistance gene — and when Schmeiser's hired hand harvested the field, months later, he kept seed from that part of the field and used it for planting the next year.

This convinced the judge that Schmeiser intentionally planted Roundup Ready canola. Schmeiser appealed. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that Schmeiser had violated Monsanto's patent, but had obtained no benefit by doing so, so he didn't owe Monsanto any money. (For more details on all this, you can read the judge's decision. Schmeiser's site contains other documents.)

Now read what I wrote again:

 

Grasses like corn are wind-pollinated. Is is fair for a Monsanto to sue a small farmer because the genes from their crops pollinate his field with their patented genes? I don't think so. The point is that Monsanto is FORCING those farmers to pay for their genetic stock whether they want to or not.

 

Simply put, Monsanto is doing EXACTLY what I stated that they are doing.  And this farmer is not the only one it is affecting.  This practice has got to stop!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh. I said I didn't want to get into this, but...

 

The farmers who had windblown seeds were already using Monsanto seeds to some extent. They weren't/aren't happily saving heirloom seeds that were then "contaminated" by Monsanto seeds. 

 

And with that, I'm out. I posted numerous links. However, facts can't change minds that don't want to be changed (BTW, I was on board the pro-organic and anti-Monsanto train at one time, until I allowed science and facts to show me how to get off). 

Edited by Lady Florida.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The farmers who had windblown seeds were already using Monsanto seeds to some extent.

 

Again, from the link you provided:

 

Schmeiser had never bought seeds from Monsanto, so those canola plants clearly came from somewhere else.
The point is that Monsanto is bullying farmers who bought no seeds from them but rather ONLY used seeds from their fields.  But because their fields were "polluted" by genes from neighboring fields, they are being sued.  Tell me, what did these farmers do to deserve this treatment.

 

The answer is that they only tried to continue doing the one livelihood they knew and loved.  It's a real shame what these large corporations with their teams of lawyers can get away with.

 

(BTW, I was on board the pro-organic and anti-Monsanto train at one time, until I allowed science and facts to show me how to get off). 

 

This statement is nothing more than a veiled Appeal to Authority, which is a logical fallacy.  It provides no evidence one way or the other in this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of Monsanto as a company (I know employees they have screwed) but I am not afraid of GMOs.

 

Also, as a single income household in a HCOL area, I try to buy local as much as possible but in the end need to be able to purchase the quantity of food my family needs to eat so I am far less concerned about organic produce than I used to be.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I', I try to buy local as much as possible

 

I try to buy local whenever possible, but I'm not concerned about that local food being organic. Organic does not mean chemical-free or pesticide-free, and very often the "natural" pesticides and fertilizers used by big organic producers are more harmful to humans, animals, and/or the environment than non-natural versions.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...