TOPIC: 40 tons of GMO crops torched...hahahahahha.....

Hello Girlfriend....lovely to see you here again.

Yes, lovely to see you Wildhorse. It's not often enough.

40 tons is a drop in the ocean - but at least it shows people are having a strong adverse reaction to the muck. Get it gone! The more, and more often, the better.

WildHorse wrote:
It's great news...lets hope every last bit of it is burned in the future.

I'm good....hoping you are too. x

Sorry about the DailyFail link, but just to show that Monsanto is getting pushed to the back foot:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2335231/GM-giant-gives-Frankenstein-Food-Europe.html



(Although Africa is still interested )

If you burn fields of crops essentially all that will happen is that more people will die of famine and food prices will increase.

Some parts of Africa need GMO crops thats why they use them, by all means develop a drought resistant food staple that's safer than GMO crops but don't just burn the only alternative to them starving.

Last month...

I'm kinda sceptical of these populist uprisings of middle class, well fed white westerners complaining about monsanto and waving signs saying Monsanto=depopulation. erm does anyone else get it?

Ultimate Seeker ™ wrote:
naturalrevolution.org/monsanto-now-owns-mercenaries-blackwater-newly-named-academi/

^I hear what your saying Mike but now that Monsanto owns Mercenaries Blackwater that validates protest.

.......... wrote: Why?

What do you think of this graph:

Yields are generally attributed to genetic modification ie selection, hybridization and the use of chemical fertilizers.

But with 85% of US corn being GMO one must admit that genetic modification techniques have at least helped increase yields and sustain productivity of the agriculture industry in the last decade or two.

Now in parts of Africa which frequently experience famine due to drought, they can genetically modify food staples to be grown in those drought resistant regions...it can be done far more reliably and efficiently through adding or removing genes, rather than through breeding programs and human selection programs etc..using GMO's some farmers also think they will be able to reduce their dependence on Chemical pesticides which aren't particularly environmentally friendly, you can't have it both ways and we can't just go back 200 years to the beginning again

What is your alternative other than complain about Monsanto and advocate burning crops?

Mike 16,000 kids on earth die each day due to hunger and Monsanto is buying blackwater...

As for that chart, I don't wan't to eat no damn corn...

"According to the most conservative United Nations statistics, over 16,000 children die every day due to hunger-related diseases before they reach five years of age."

Malnutrition and hunger-related diseases cause 60 percent of the deaths.
(The State of the World's Children, UNICEF,)
1.02 billion people do not have enough to eat - more than the populations of USA, Canada and the European Union.
(FAO news release, )
10.9 million children under five die in developing countries each year.
(The State of the World's Children, UNICEF, )

www.foodfightforhunger.com/why-are-we-doing-this/hunger-crisis.php

That's my point, if anything people should be getting behind any attempt to increase crop availability through GMO's.

Good stats btw
12.000.scripts.mit.edu/mission2014/demographics-of-hunger

Ultimate Seeker ™ wrote:
And my point is that 16,000 kids on earth die each day due to hunger and Monsanto is busy buying blackwater the worlds most sinister group.

If you think Monsanto is helping starving kids in Africa, well i guess you have the freedom to believe that...

Monsanto is doing more to help starving kids by investing money in GMO research than people like Wildhorse are by burning fields of crops.

That much should be clear to anybody.

Ultimate Seeker ™ wrote:
There is already enough food. It's a question of how it is distributed.

Monsanto couldn't give a fuck about starving children. They care about trying to patent nature.

Chuck Random wrote:
This ^^

Although I find myself agreeing with both sides of the coin.

Whilst there's enough food to go about (EU grain mountains!!) I see there may be need in the future (not so much population as not many people have 2.1 children anymore) but with changing climate and unforseen events to have a stab at working out how to get staples grown in inhospitable environments. Sort of don't keep your eggs in one basket. We might really appreciate one day being able to grow many things in a flooded field or having extra thick plant cell walls to combat more effective rice blast fungi.

However I don't trust that it will ever be done responsibly. Licenses are given out by croneys and backhanders. It isn't our interest they have in mind.

I suppose it's something we'll have to get through like all new technology. We haven't nuked ourselves to oblivion (yet). The thing is it will be done anyway, even if it's made illegal another country will do it. Do you embrace new concepts and attempt to control or ban and utlimately lose control? Hard question

GREED is the mother of all this Monsanto/GMO blabla bullshit.

As long as there is a trait called GREED, all this shit will be going on... I say fuck Monsanto with their killer cronies!! High crop yields are worth zero compared to the lives of those kids the Black-fucking-water thugs have destroyed. Support Monsanto = support genocide and death.

Monsanto as a some sort of savior of mankinds foodproblems, reminds me of some biblical description of the devil.

username wrote: Who's interests do you have in mind here, as a western consumer could you say that you make your decisions on consumption with the third world in mind?

The reality is that GMO's will enable agriculture in various places where it is currently impossible, thus it will sustain increasing global consumption, much of it from those same western consumers..

As to the point about distribution by Chuck, what exactly in your view is wrong with genetically modifying various strains of various crops to have some preferable characteristics?

Hexhammer wrote: you reason like a religious

Ultimate Seeker ™ wrote:
Everyones interests. We're all western consumers here bud including you whether you like it or not.

I oppose the technology being in the hands of companies that buy private armies. It should be clear to anyone that this probably won't end nicely in the future.

I've stated quite clearly in my post why I think it's a good idea but to make it more clear for you why I think it's bad

1) As Chuck quite rightly pointed out it's bad allowing a profit based entity owning (having the patent) on food supply.
2) As an adjunct to this in the future when do you really think the poor people of the world are going to be able to buy this patent protected food?
3) Just in case you think they might how many people get access to the most recently patented drug therapies? Believe me it isn't many, food won't be any different
4) In profit related matters, profit is what matters. making sure that the currently stable ecosphere is not contaminated will always come behind profit
5) You can't get rid of genetic modifications. Ecosystems are dynamic non-linear systems (like the weather) - it's extremely hard to predict the results.
5) Increasing global consumption, 'from western consumers' needs an average of 2.1 children to effectively replace existing population. I haven't seen many figures to suggest this is happening. In the western world at least. This shouldn't be used as justification. Accounting for future events is justifiable though

Trying to suggest that I haven't got starving people in mind is a cheap shot man, I agree with GMO. I said it in my post - I believe in technology to get us through the future. I have concerns about it's implementation.

Regarding distribution, the EU grain mountains (early 2000s, CAP surplus) were sold to the wrong people (not given to the starving and then to get it down the EU still subsidised farmers to put fields to ley. Now the grain mountain is gone. So EU has no back up (after we've had some terrible farming years) plus if they didn't pay so many farmers to ley then maybe the EU would have had some food to give.

Ultimate Seeker ™ wrote:
In principle this may well be safe and perhaps even beneficial.
What concerns me from the outset is stuff like patenting seed and trapping farmers in a cycle or corporate dependency and the profit motive's habit of inviting a devil may care attitude - there was a time when DDT was a wonder chemical that increased yield to everyone's benefit.
I also question whether we actually need it or if we're reacting to problems created by industrial farming methods that could be avoided simply by not treating farming like some big profit making factory.
I also share Username's wariness around when it's done it's done and there's no going back.

Though having not invested the time in perusing the various debates about the specific dangers (or absence of these) of current GMO crops, I leave the debate about this to others.