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

Monsantos major institutional shareholders are Blackrock Inc and Vanguard (last time i checked)

(Same as a number of big name Wall St banks btw)

US presidents and politicians hold nice chunks of vanguard funds, reportedly in the tens of millions for some of them.

Example...


More vanguard...


So, we trust these guys to feed the poor? I sure dont.. i think its more a case of what chuck said...


Vanguard holders gots to get paid.

So because some companies make money off of GMO you advocate burning GMO crops?

Has anyone realized the reality that there are people willing to burn acres of food crops and thus a good reason for Monsanto to use private security services?

Not that anyone here has shown that they do, what i've seen so far are merely attempts to imply guilt by association.

But don't get me wrong here I'm not arguing for Monsanto being some heroic global saviour corporation, merely arguing for some objectivity, evidence based discussion of GMO it's pros and cons, there's a tendency to paint GMO's as some evil anti-nature invention and totally discount the positive impacts for third world farmers.

People also are reactionary and suspicious about chemical fertilizers and have been in the past, but the reality is that through the use of chemical fertilizers crop yields have been able to keep increasing with global consumption levels.

There are plenty of needed potentialities within GMO to avert the various problems we face due to our widespread use of agriculture, and I think many people throw the baby out with the bathwater when they advocate burning fields of GMO crops.

Ultimate Seeker ™ wrote:
I have certainly not indicated anywhere that I advocate criminal damage on anything regarding GMO crops

I fail to see how the points in the last few posts aren't objective either

I'm certainly not denying that the world has recently been eating more food than it produces. Things need to be done. I just don't think a profit based company should own the rights of food production.

I don't trust their motives as profit only serves the owners and for a basic of life this is wrong.

I don't trust their implementation as profit will always take the responsible out of responsible research and development.

You could say it's a subjective opinion the 2 points above but we both know we could spend all day posting numerous examples to back them up

I would prefer the research to be restricted to the relatively open source public domain world of academia but unfortunately the funding differential is too great

I dont really have an issue with certain chemical fertilisers, namely pure technical grade nutrients. i prefer to eat foods grown organically given the choice but that isnt always the case. Some chemical fertilisers are shocking though, they contain traces of stuff that just shouldnt be on food.. i suspect this industrial waste is added in there because the fertiliser companies are payed to take this on, or they are by products produced by the same companies.. so getting farmer joe to spread lead , mercury and so on over his land for you is a cheaper way to get rid of it... stick it in the fertiliser... it reminds me of a film where they shift large amounts of soil a little at a time and no one notices..it might have been the great escape, not sure...

with all that being said though it depends on the crops... permanent plantings such as fruit and nut trees for example differ to annual grains, these trees have to stay healthy for a long time, not just sprout, seed and die, and can benefit from organic or seaweed based fertilisers and yield can actually increase, though i conceed these nutrients cost more pound for pound...but i digress.

There are many things not being implemented that could be used to increase food production.. the powers that be, governments, often arent interested... australia is a good example of this, ive seen plenty. Seems to me they want a shift to third world production to some extent, and GMO's, and get first world farmers off the land and into cities...that seems to be the agenda of many governments and corporations. And if its not intentional, well its happening anyway in part due to corporate greed... when the corporations go too far, make obscene profits on end products yet pay too little to get them, farm succession stops happening, billions of litres of sustainable irrigation water stops being utilised, and the country side starts growing tumbleweeds and not much else...people just leave, and especially their kids.

Some of the best yielding and hardy wheat strains have been created from selective breeding.. while man has manipulated them to some extent this differs from genetic modification.. as username said trust is the issue here and lets face it the corporations are running the GMO show, can we trust them to have mans best interests at heart, or profit.

username wrote: Thank you I really appreciate reading some opinions with a certain level of balance and distinct lack of religious rhetoric or imagery, I feel slightly different regarding your deep sense of foreboding, i mean really we knew already that the majority of companies are owned by a small minority of AngloAmerican Pilgrims right?
It's not surprising for me to hear that some of the most powerful corporations from various sectors in the world are united.

At the moment Africa may be seeing benefits but every farmer in Africa using Monsanto GMO seeds have signed up to the EULA. They are not in control of their farming, Monsanto is. Every crop the harvest must be grown from a fresh batch of seeds. This is not sustainable farming, especially when the price chnages. The poor people will not benefit ultimately after becoming reliant on one source that controls the economics of them feeding themselves.

re ecosphere, I used the wrong term sorry, I meant biosphere, which is the total of all ecosystems. What I meant with how it's currently stable is that it isn't currently undergoing bifurcation

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifurcation_theory

The biosphere hasn't always been stable as evidence of previous local and mass extinctions shows us. It isn't undergoing major bifurcation at the moment so is in a steady predictable rate of change of equilibrium position. We've been able to predict the change for years. I should have been more explicit with stable. No-one at Monsanto has ever been concerned ecological bifurcation even though the science has existed for decades. Just ask your local honey bee population what they think. They are concerned about it now of course, holding honey bee health conferences (read damage limitation)

The people of africa also have access to Monsanto seeds (probably on the cheap too) because the third world is traditionally the testing ground for corporations where's there's no controls. This happens with big pharma too. Malaria drives with new drugs only started happening when malaria prevalence rose in southern europe. The oppurtunity for profit came about, not the need to help. They didn't give a damn before. Token efforts yes but not the big money drives we see now.

So they make these people reliant on their company, cheaply first of all, then we all know what happens next. Like any business. Once your product becomes popular you increase price. It never goes down, I'm yet to find an example otherwise. so the drive out competition in contries, selling expensive seed with proprietary chemicals _needed_ for growing. It is not sustainable in the long term. What is sustainable is more money being spent on farming methods development

Regarding GMO safety, they're using africa as a test bed too. Whilst I agree that on the face of it it's minimal risk these companies go about saying it's safe yet they can't produce any study they have performed. I can provide you with some literature if you like highlighting research done on their lack of research. They are not public domain but I can forward you the pdfs just not post them here. Of course no-one is allowed to study Monsanto crops objectively for risk of prosecution.

So whilst some may have starving people in mind no I don't believe all of them have.

GMO are not the only solution, they are just the most profitable ones to deal with increased consumption and population increase. Monsanto has effectively forced out any alternatives though

Ultimate Seeker wrote:
Keep it simple stupid, works every time, the more extreme the way of making a point, more easier it is to get even the simple ones to understand. The point is, I don't like Monsanto much.

And there's nothing religious in me or my opinions, thank you.

quite a good article from a few months ago :www.exposingthetruth.co/truth-about-gmos/
This I kind of agree with, they may not be the only solution but where are the alternatives?
Essentially in a capitalist system the market determines people's choices, if all the money, profit and economic growth is in GMOs then it is financially viable thus logical for focus to be in that area..

Now despite not being a capitalist, this is where we are and we must make do with what we have..When I think of large companies like Monsanto that do in theory hold a central role in global agriculture I also try and conceive of the potential for public ownership and operation of these companies, and the potential that could have for alleviating poverty completely, really imo all the alternatives hinge on progress and the development of material conditions, minus a revolutionary overthrow of the interests of capital within these organizations, the likelihood is imo it will take a couple of generations and a cultural shift away from individual competition towards cooperation, to make these huge companies and scientific advances benefit the people who need them most.

really imo we should all be applying for jobs in these companies trying to gain promotions, influencing decisions etc and radicalising the workforce to a greater or lesser extent, that would be a positive attempt at changing the problems you perceive in Monsanto and GMO applications.

ultimate, bit pressed for time at the mo but I could not be described as anti-science

I am against sensationalist 'frankenfood' jibes at GMO, however I do not believe from what I have seen that certain research has been performed.

They wouldn't get the response they do if they published the extensive studies they've performed would they? They also wouldn't get the response they do if they allowed independent analysis of their products without the threat of severe litigation unless its publication has been pre-approved. What are they scared of? They have the best patent lawyers in the world.......

As for getting a job in such companies. Getting a promotion isn't hard in them if you put the work in but it depends what sort of scientist you are; one that can ignore all the interesting developments you discover because you have to follow the corporate linear roadmap or one that can't ignore them and prefer to investigate the tangents when you get a chance. With the right sort of funding the latter is possible.

Also it's easier to change it on the inside, you're correct but everyone has limits. Sometimes you have to choose what you're going to invest your life in to and changing the corporate line isn't as easy as you might think. It's as easy saying you should do that as it is to criticise Monsanto

Hey UN.
Sorry but criticizing monsanto is very easy, 99% of the things you read on CT boards about them are the result of rampant paranoia and suspcion, you yourself display evidence of this:
I think you need to qualify that, what's wrong with these Biotechnology Research: Third-Party Studies

There are several Web sites that provide visitors with access to a comprehensive database of credible, scientific biotechnology research or studies on genetically modified (GM) crops. These published papers and reviews cover numerous topics including agronomics, coexistence, developing countries, the environment, safety and health, and socio-economic impacts.

Sorry for late reply ultimate

The above is from www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/public-research-agreements.aspx

Now point 2 to 5 are relatively reasonable, you could say they are protecting their intellectual property. However, it's the patent protected traits that truely independent research would calm everyone down.'

Point 1 is the most telling as it's this research that would help create models in the public domain that would give more truth to the macroscopic ecological effects.

Now lets say i wanted to do research on Monsanto GMO, I could apply for a ARL and be bound to test a restricted hypothesis. If i wanted to do something more telling i could risk the financial well being of a farmer and use their GMO but violate the farmers EULA.

The thing is Monsanto competitors are already reverse engineering their product. It happens in pharma, you just need to change it enough to circumvent patents. The points that the ARL doesn't cover are not there to protect intellectual property.

If you want to do independent study on Monsanto products it is vetted by Monsanto. this is not independent research.

From the above link

Reasonable notice to companies means they want to positively vet it. researchers who are worried about where their next grant is coming from might be interested in such research. The independent ones won't be.

Hi UN thanks for that really informative post, it's a good read no worries about the timing

I think you've highlighted the origins of the conspiracy theories, you've listed a few real issues that give rise to the suspicion and speculation against Monsanto we see on the CT boards, organic food and naturalist blogs.

I think this article offers an additionwww.theaggie.org/2013/01/16/in-defense-of-monsanto/

As a political realist, I'd say it's not too much of a leap to suspect there are conservative elements of the West who would prefer, mass poverty and famines weren't being alleviated by the application of Science to drought and famine effected areas, they would prefer the old balance of colonial/imperialist West and impoverished, subjugated East, and in this social/political reality I think lies the reason behind Monsanto's questionable testing practices.

Look at AGW and the Climate sceptics and the way reactionary western interests support the science of the minority, obstructing progress in tackling the issue of emissions and AGW, the way Monsanto, as you describe, vets all "independent research" could be due in part to their awareness of the existence of various powerful conservative tendencies who (without Monsanto retaining oversight) could potentially hamper the use of GMO's to combat some of the world's worst poverty afflicted regions.

You do make a very good case for heightened scrutiny of Monsanto, and I don't believe your motivations are reactionary or negative but more based on an understanding of good open scientific practice, all I'm doing is wondering whether there may be reasons other than those offered by the CT for the secrecy, dare i say perhaps even logical reasons.
Surely the history and story of Agriculture tells us there is inevitable "give and take" in this regard, if by macroscopic ecological effects you mean perceptible environment effects of agriculture, then you must accept current and former agricultural techniques have had negative ecological impact?
an example might be Nicotinoid pesticides recently banned to protect bees.

I'm more suspicious towards the negative effects of agriculture in general, and actually, to me Monsanto seems be based on progressive, humanitarian aims more so than any other large scale agricultural producer.

I'm in no way denying that current and past farming techniques have had a negative impact. I'm also not against GMO in principle. However, contamination of the ecosystem with genetics is irreversible. MRSA anyone?

I am against the way Monsanto attempt to protect their position when they have been shown to have a negative impact such as natural selection of super immune weeds which can have devastating impact on food webs. Also, the nicotioid ban; if my memory serves me correct the nicotinoid is produced by Bayer in partnership with Monsanto who produce coated seeds to be used in conjunction.

Up until governments took action against the practive they were denying the effect on bees, now it's all damage limitation, holding 'concerned' seminars. In the background though they are buying biotech startups that specialise in insect virology (I will try and find the link). All to protect the product and their name. I would have a lot more respect for the company and their partners if when the problem (a very big problem) got highlighted they actively tried to solve it, not just give it lip service whilst in the background buy the research companies that have the expertise to confirm the effect (and suggest other causes )

I don't deny that they are doing good in some ways but if the world is going to get apocalyptic (I'm not an AGW denier, I believe the world is a bit more resilient than we are led to think though - always remember it's the right type of research that gets the grant money!) I would like to see the technology in the public domain. That's never going to happen. However, until they turn over a new leaf at how they approach concern by allowing true independent research then I don't see how I can trust them.

They are an aggressive company. I'll say it again, they aren't worried about protecting their intellectual property (their IP is sort of already known), they're worried about control. They do help starving people though, of course that's good. Whilst it may seem a schizophrenic attitude it is possible to not like their methods whilst being happy that people aren't dying.

It's interesting what you say about people wanting the ruling west and subservient east. I'm sure some Monsanto share holders have that view and probably were complicit in enforcing the view when they were in politics

Just wanted to add; maybe it's time that before these things get approved that independent research has to be done, on the impact on non-target species.

Unfortunately though, big companies lobby and have connections so it would never happen

If it did though then people would have one less cause to complain

There are many other ways to increase food production that i can see right infront of me, without going to GMO.

In my little area alone, 6000 megalitres of sustainable irrigation water were not used last year, thats six thousand million litres. it can grow a lot of food, and used to.

But the big corporations pay growers very little, not enough for many of them to survive or be viable in australia for example, and the food producers move on, and when they cant they sure as heck tell their kids to run far away as possible from it and go do something else, succession doesnt happen. the land and water sits idle. the big chain supermarkets, two of whom control 80 percent of the market in australia, want to pay the lowest price possible and make huge margins.

Indeed they make huge profits, in part due to importing food from the 3rd world, and shareholders are happy. one of the two, woolworths, has the same major institutional shareholders as Monsanto, namely blackrock inc and vanguard. Woolworths, the same company that knocked over a church they bought next to a family friends petrol station, yes right next door, and built their own woolworths petrol station, and kept the price lower than him (selling at a loss) until he had no choice but to shut up shop. anyway he sold the property and burger king bought it, and built a burger king store complete with drive thru, which also sent the local chippie across the road bust. but i digress...

Point is where there are resources to be used they arent, because of corporations, some of whom have shareholders that are the same as monsanto.

We also have people talking about food miles and so on in modern times, and again, corporations will fly food out of India and China, to various destinations because they can, rather than use local produce. It's other corporations growing this food in those countries, using 3rd world labour. Mcdonalds will import potatoes from the other side of the globe instead of buying them from 100 or 200 miles away.

More examples - the vast amounts of water up north in australia, lake argyle, ord river, plus the burkedin to burke proposal etc etc... lots more food could be getting produced, but it wont be.

The following are realistic proposals that can substantially increase food production, but i feel will never be implemented, because they go against the agenda of turning australias food bowl, namely the murray-darling basin, into national parks, something that politician Peter Garret once blurted out as indeed being the agenda.


Bradfield water scheme dream lives on



Full story: Bradfield water scheme

Water transfer plan: Click here to read Mr Bowring's detailed proposal

Make the Water Flow - Adam Willson's proposal

The vision
Australia needs immediate action to take advantage of the huge opportunity this country has in agriculture. Ongoing droughts are strangling the south and extended floods are immobilising the north. There is an urgent need to pipe excessive volumes of water from Northern Australia to the head of the Murray Darling River. It is the first stage of water proofing Australia and must coincide with a national law on water use efficiency. What we require is a national water infrastructure building project with bipartisan support.

The critical facts
Its important not to cloud emotion with the facts;
• The Murray Darling Basin is the 21st largest catchment in the world, 15th longest river in the world

• Murray Darling accounts for one seventh of the continent, 28% of mammal species, 48% of birds, 19% of reptiles with 30,000 wetlands

• In 2005, gross value of Agriculture was $35.6 billion, irrigated agriculture was $9 billion (25% of total value from 0.5% of agricultural land)

• Murray Darling accounts for 40% of nations gross agricultural value, 85% of
irrigation takes place in Murray Darling basin

• Up to 30% of irrigation water is lost in delivery to farm gate, 20% lost in
distribution around the farm

• 60% of irrigation in Australia uses flood irrigation

• up to 15% of water lost due to over watering - no water scheduling

• northern Australia receives most of Australia’s rainfall

• since 1885, average flow is 24,000GL per annum but not recently

• When the water flows 13,000 GL is diverted, 11,500 for Agriculture

• currently the Burdekin Dam spillway has been overflowing since mid December 2008. Up to 100GL/hour flows through the spillway - ABC News Feb 6, 2009. At this rate, reaching 13,000GL would take 5.4 days.

Extremes in rainfall
Over the last few years there has been a political battle over saving the Murray-Darling Basin. On one hand are the environmentalists (who want more water for water ecology and wildlife) and on the other hand are the water users (led by agriculture, towns and cities).

Its a race against time with the goalposts constantly changing. CSIRO has identified Southern Australia is getting dryer and Northern Australia is getting wetter and over the next fifty years this will get worse. Major cutbacks in water allocations from southern QLD to South Australia have reduced Australia’s ability to produce food and employ people. Adding to these pressures, Adelaide is now under Level 5 water restrictions, effecting
everyday people with cracked foundations and hundreds of dying public gardens around the city. Victoria has complicated the solution by capping water trading. Victoria hopes to divert some of this water to other areas as a result of implementing water use efficiencies.

This is likely to go to the High Court and may cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

A global opportunity if we get this right
What we need is a truly national development plan that focuses our efforts on our most precious resource, water. With 40% of our national agricultural production coming from the Murray Darling, its not possible or warranted to move all our agricultural industries and towns north. Across the world countries are scrambling to secure dwindling water resources. In California, water resources have reduced by half and China is concerned about rapidly declining water tables across large areas of the country. With the world’s
population tipped to increase from 6.7 billion to 8 billion by 2020, the world must feed another 100 million people per year. Australia has a huge opportunity and responsibility to utilise excessive water and do what we do best, produce quality food for a growing world population.

National Law on Water Use Efficiency
The project outlined is a huge. The investment will build a national asset that all Australian’s will benefit from for generations to come. It’s a tangible asset that protects the environment, drives investment and rural development. It will initially entail building a steel pipe from Northern QLD to the headwaters of the Murray Darling to eliminate evaporation. It is simplified by the fact this infrastructure can all be done in one state. It must coincide with a national law on water use efficiency. Flood irrigation must be seriously questioned, with priority given to irrigation systems that don’t require open channels (like pivots, under tree sprinklers and drip irrigation). Using the latest pivot
technology from the US and drip and sprinkler irrigation from Israel is our future; wastage must be outlawed.

In addition, open dams must be covered to reduce evaporation that can get as high as 3m per year (up to 3000L/m2/yr). Some high water consuming crops like rice and soybeans may not be allowed to be grown where they traditionally used to be grown.

Farmers must also be directed towards building soil humus, stable broken down organic matter. Soil humus can hold up to 20 times its weight in water and stops valuable nutrients from leaching. It is critical in reducing erosion, protecting water quality, improving fertiliser efficiency and buffering crops against extremes in climate.

Cultural practices like green manure crops and using quality compost must become part of the norm. Recycling of nutrients and resources must be a standard best management practice. There is a massive volume of compostable material in and around the major cities. This must be utilised to improve water use efficiencies by building soil humus. We have the soils,
climate, the water, political stability and financial ability to build a bigger future. This is the Snowy River project of the 21st century.

Its technically feasible
Diverting water by pipeline is not a recent idea. The Goldfields Water Supply Scheme is a very long pipeline that connects Mundaring Weir near Perth to Mount Charlotte Reservoir in Kalgoorlie, 530 kms away. The pipeline was commissioned in 1896 and was completed in 1903. At the time it was thought to be unachievable but now it is seen as visionary.

The South East QLD Water Grid was started in 2006 in response to extreme drought and ever declining dam levels. It is a $2.5 billion project that connects the existing dams, salinity plants and treatment plants. These pipelines measure more than 200 kilometers in length providing security to this growing region. It shows that when a water crisis hits we can find swift technical solutions to providing water to power stations, cities, the
environment and agriculture.

On the 23rd February 2007, Australia’s billionaire Richard Pratt offered to pay the $6 billion to divert water from north Queensland to the the Warrego River (headwaters of the Murray Darling Basin). With the right team this project is now feasible.

The opportunity is now
Australia’s Finance Minister, Lindsay Tanner, has announced that he has secured $200 billion for further nation building projects. Money that many countries presently would love to have. We have now spent $50 billion dollars so far. There is hope that it will revive the nation. Hope that it will kick start domestic demand so that we can weather the coming financial “Tsunami”. If I can use an analogy it is like sand that quickly falls through the fingers. What we need is to convert this sand into concrete and build a foundation that will
last generations. Either we spread the money thinly, cross our fingers and hope or we set a vision for the future. Drought and floods are part of our history and historically our weakest point has been dealing with their extremes. It has caused a lot of heartache and cost both Federal and State governments a fortune in amelioration strategies.

Solutions to move us forward
There are a number of positive steps that can be taken to ensure Australia’s sustainable competitive advantage is taken into the future. These are the things that a Government should be doing and are the things they should be measured against.

1. A working group must be set up which includes business and the federal
government (it will include specialists, engineers and companies like Bluescope). This group will outline a clear timeline and budget. It may include fund raising options like the old “Aussie Bonds” where the public lend money to the federal government for investment projects.

2. Water has to be initially piped from the Burdekin Dam to the headwaters of the Murray Darling Basin. This will eliminate evaporation and could be funded by the Federal Government, public and private investment.

3. A twenty five year water security strategy for Australia must be drawn up. Here all options for utilising excessive water from the north must be investigated. If you want to guarantee our current way of life into the future, we will need to invest in water infrastructure now.

4. A water use efficiency law must be brought into effect banning wastage of water. Here no water will be allocated to any business, city, town or agricultural enterprise unless they adhere to these strict rules of water conservation.

5. Water scheduling (monitoring water before, during and after irrigation) must be compulsory and overwatering must be dealt with severely. Here tight benchmarking according to each soil type will set new national standards

6. All water use must be governed by one National Authority. Gone are the days where water management is dependent on what state you reside or do business in.

7. Organic wastes and manures must be properly utilised to build soil humus. Waste separation must be enforced and the material used to produce both quality compost and mulches. All agricultural activities must preserve with the view to increase present levels of soil humus.

8. Overgrazing of dryland areas within catchment must be stopped. Historically, large areas of the Murray Darling Basin have been overgrazed leading to wind, sheet and gully erosion and the resultant phosphate contamination of our waterways. In particular, rangelands must be destocked and pulse/time/cell grazing techniques adopted as the industry standard. The national water policy must also encompass a grazing management strategy across all agricultural areas.

Water can be our strength
We now have an opportunity to build a secure future. For any nation, in order to be strong you have to work on your weak points. Water is our weak point and wars in the northern hemisphere will be fought over it in the near future. Now is the time for bipartisan support to develop industries that have a real future. We grow great food, have the expertise and the fastest growing population is at our doorstep. We can both protect the environment
and build a prosperous country by bringing together the right team. “Its common sense that isn’t so common”.

For further information contact;
Adam Willson
Director Soil Systems Pty Ltd
07 3716 0688
0423 679 110
Bachelor of Science in Agriculture, Sydney University, 1985

Adam Willson's proposal in pdf: Make the Water Flow

This subject is slightly out of my subject area, but to add my two pennies. The Problem for me with GMOs even if we forget about the way they would be introduced by corporations such as Monsanto, is the thinking behind them. You see to me I think when talking about biology the debate is ignoring aspects of evolution. Our agricultural system is incredibly vulnerable there are I have been told only twelve plant species that provide the staple foods on which we all rely. Even if we produced a super crop that provided cheep food and planted that across the world it would be incredibly vulnerable to a new infection. This is happening with Bananas now, which because the main crop species are genetically so similar once a disease, fungus, etc can infect one plant it can rapidly spread around the world and wipe out all plants.
What we need first and foremost in my opinion is bio security, and that can only come from diversity.
To achieve this I would think that we would have to stop the movement of living agricultural plants or seeds from one area to another and in each growing region we should encourage the plants of that region to be genetically as diverse as possible, and different from other regions. In this way should a plant fail in one area the effects would limited.
If we go on the way we are doing with industrial interconnected markets with genetically ever more closely related plants, there will inevitably be a catastrophic agricultural failure.

Novum, after you posted that stuff about Australia I had a look at how much water Africa is sitting on. It's a ridiculous amount.

iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/2/024009/article

It's hard to get to but it's there