Comments on: Seeds of Truth

By: Steve jiminZ

Steve jiminZ — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:55:29 +0000

Fight, there is no patent in nature

By: RB

RB — Fri, 15 May 2009 19:48:58 +0000

I can def vouch for Monsanto sending out private teams to intimidate small farmers, I know one personally and they tried several times to scare him and his fellow farmers. They are bullies and are destroying the most honest profession in this country, or what’s left of it.

By: anthony innes

anthony innes — Thu, 14 May 2009 23:22:02 +0000

Colin Tudge (penguin books) in ” So Shall We Reap” lays out the the issues and facts for anyone interested in the food crisis and GM issues.Written in 2003 he is batting 100% so far and could be quoted in any legal challenge to Corporate food policy.Its scholarly and well researched.
The comments in Haloscan on this article at ICH (information clearing house) are worth reading for those interested.
The wider distribution of Ms Samples work is to be encouraged

By: Theophilus

Theophilus — Thu, 14 May 2009 20:59:22 +0000

Hi Sheila,

I think you are reading into Michael Kenny’s comment something that didn’t come across to me at all when I read it. He was simply pointing out of point concerning the manner in which legal proceedings are arranged in cases such as these. I don’t think he was arguing that this invalidated any of the other points you made in your article, and I would imagine that careless reader who would construe it as doing so is not someone with whom you would be able to have a productive, rational discussion in the first place.

As for the article, I thought it was very good. There has certainly been a great deal of damage done by the manner in which industrialised nations exercise control over global agricultural markets. Indeed, this control has been building for as long as there has been globalisation, and is codified in international trade agreements.

If I have one gripe it is the tone you take with regard to genetic engineering of food crops as a point of principle. There are certainly serious risks in genetic engineering of crops. It is certainly something that has to be intensively regulated. It is not, however, some kind of terrible unqualified evil. This talk of “disrupting and modifying life’s natural genetic order” is misleading, and smacks of poor understanding of the science in question, not least because this is what farmers have been doing to their crops since there has been agriculture. Genetic modification expands upon the possibilities of strain modification that farmers and scientists have been testing out for millennia. It is the manner in which large agro-business is utilising GM technology that it problematic, not the fact that the technology exists in the first place.

I am absolutely not arguing that the science is at an advanced enough stage that widespread dissemination of GM crops would be a good thing. It is not. As the ‘golden rice’ affair shows, even the most promising scientific developments are often beset by very serious problems. The likelihood is, however, that there will come a point where we might confidently and responsibly begin mass cultivation of GM crops in many deprived parts of the world. These are likely to either be far more hardy than non-GM crops, or possess much higher nutritional value than non-GM crops. In some cases, it might even be both.

At every stage, we must question the ends towards the technology is being used, but just because it can be used in a highly damaging manner does not mean that it could not be put to hugely positive use as well. Tarring all genetic modification with the same brush comes with the real danger of creating a generation of people who are averse to technology that does have the potential to generate real improvements in people’s lives. And that might end up being as much an injustice as the one currently being perpetrated by Montsano et al.

By: Sheila Samples

Sheila Samples — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:35:46 +0000

Thanks, Lloyd. If, after reading more than 2,000 words on the horrors of genetically modified crops, the “Doomsday” seed vault in Norway, the refusal to properly label products — after reading Mr. Lendman’s searing review — Mr. Kenny could declare that the entire article was “marred” because I maintained that Germany was “edgy” about taking the giant Monsanto to court, if Mr. Kenny is not on the Monsanto payroll, he should be.

The MO of such operatives is to distract the reader from the main point(s) of the article. Better yet, to whip up an argument about irrelevant issues that will drive the reader even further from the truth.

I refuse to argue with such people.

By: Lloyd

Lloyd — Thu, 14 May 2009 13:54:11 +0000

Well, MK, I’ve been less-than-painstaking with the truth, if I’m sure the error is essentially meaningless, and anyone who takes the time to point it out will only contribute to the main discussion.

Nice piece, Sheila! I’m thinking about starting a website called “The Political Economy of Secrecy.” (See my comment on Tom Burghardt’s piece today.) No nitpickers allowed, who can’t see the fields for the cornstalks, as it were.

Wanna join me?

By: Sheila Samples

Sheila Samples — Wed, 13 May 2009 21:35:29 +0000

A few days before Germany banned MON 810, Business Week reported that “Experts in Aigner’s ministry warn that it will be hard to prove that MON 810 damages the environment, which could let Monsanto win a court case opposing the ban and expose the government to €6-€7 million ($7.9-$9.2 million) in damages.” (http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/apr2009/gb20090410_453503.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily)

Then, on 6 May, Nine MSN in Australia (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=810075) reported that
Monsanto had lost the case, and said that “Monsanto called Aigner’s policy a “capricious ban” with no scientific basis and said it was reviewing whether to appeal the decision to a higher court.”

If this was reported in the MSM, I must have missed it…

By: Michael Kenny

Michael Kenny — Wed, 13 May 2009 20:06:34 +0000

Unfortunately, the article is marred by a wholly unnecessary fabrication. The claim that “the German government is justifiably edgy, as it must prove conclusively to the German court that MON 810 damages the environment” is wholly false and, no doubt for that very reason, appears nowhere in the Spiegel article. As a matter of law, and US law is no different on this point, it is the party bringing the action to prove its case, not for the defendant to disprove it. Monsanto is seeking annulment of an administrative act. It must prove that the measure is wholly unreasonable and that is very hard to do. Equally, “urgency” is irrelevant. Proceedings of this kind take considerable time.

By: rg the lg

rg the lg — Wed, 13 May 2009 15:55:25 +0000

And the beat goes on … American capitalism at its best.

I agree with Kissinger on the issue of population … but NOT for the reasons he articulates. There are, simply, too many of us.

The US-govt-Monsanto connection? Is anyone really surprised? The role of the American govt since the ratifying of the constitution has been, is now, and will continue to be to protect the oligarchs/elites/wealth and to transfer as much wealth as possible from everybody else upward. So, the idea that we would create a ‘terminator’ only makes sense.

Aren’t YOU so proud that YOUR lifestyle is based on a series of deliberate lies and false premises.

I am … so proud I am sickened by the whole thing!

RG the LG