General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsF**king Monsanto
from Salon.com:
Last November, the U.S. Department of Justice quietly closed a three-year antitrust investigation into Monsanto, the biotech giant whose genetic traits are embedded in over 90 percent of Americas soybean crop and more than 80 percent of corn. Despite a splash of press coverage when the investigation was initially announced, its termination went mostly unreported. The DOJ released no written public statement. Only a brief press release from Monsanto conveyed the news.
The lack of attention belies the significance of the decision, both for food consumers around the world and for U.S. businesses. Experts who have examined Monsantos conduct say the Justice Departments decision not to act all but officially establishes the firms sovereignty over the U.S. seed industry. Many of them also say the decision ratifies aggressive practices Monsanto used to entrench its dominance and deter competition. This includes highly restrictive contractual agreements that excluded rivals, alongside a multibillion-dollar spree to buy up seed companies.
When the administration first launched its investigation, many antitrust and agriculture experts believed it was still possible to imagine an industry characterized by greater competition in the marketplace and greater diversity in seeds. That future may now be foreclosed.
The investigation into Monsantos business practices began at the state level in 2007, when attorneys general in Iowa, Texas and a handful of other states initiated an inquiry into the companys confidential licensing agreements. These are the contracts that must be signed by any seed company wishing to insert Monsantos genes into its own strains of soybean and corn plants. ............(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.salon.com/2013/03/15/how_did_monsanto_outfox_the_obama_administration/
KansDem
(28,498 posts)Like Wall Street and the banks, Monsanto must be "too big" for the SJD to prosecute...
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)in the coming few years that we, as humans, will ever be confronted with. And it's so hard to get people's attention on this issue. It's disheartening sometimes.
K & R
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)where people should be aware and concerned. K&R
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)siligut
(12,272 posts)Maybe the biggest hindrance to awareness is that the health issues associated with GMOs are nebulous and can be attributed to other causes, which is what the US medical community is happy to do.
Next to the lack of overwhelming evidence of definitive harm or the reason that the evidence is not fleshed out, is because Monsanto has money and power, huge power within our government.
Most people are unaware of the health problems even while suffering from them and for those that know there may be some, they are minimized, ignored and silenced and for the knowing, maybe they figure that the health problems associated with GMO foods will just cull the herd. They are the elitist scum.
loudsue
(14,087 posts)Monsanto is the closest thing to the archetypal "devil" that has ever existed. They are pure evil in their intent and direction. But in a capitalist economy, greed is god.
Berlum
(7,044 posts)Sucks six ways from Sunday.
CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)The Industrial Ruling Class expect their toadies in Washington to favour private interest over the public good, at every opportunity.
.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 15, 2013, 09:23 PM - Edit history (1)
what was left to investigate?
lunasun
(21,646 posts)DhhD
(4,695 posts)the cells of the foot: A multinucleated Fungus having both the nuclei of business and religion inside its slimy long reaching cells and tissues.
Smilo
(1,944 posts)on mankind.
Did you know -
Monsanto has successfully applied enough pressure on Whole Foods Market to stop opposing the mass commercialization of genetically engineered crops, such as the RoundUp Ready Alfalfa. The reason why the so-called health-food messiah would cave in? Turns out its more profitable to sell food labeled natural instead of certified organic, and if its natural it can contain un-natural ingredients and sell them at certified organic prices. Go fig.
http://www.wewititla.com/2012/02/01/10-things-you-should-know-hate-about-monsanto/
Judi Lynn
(160,501 posts)Published on Friday, March 15, 2013 by Common Dreams
Monsanto: Patenting Death
by Randall Amster
Monsanto has yet another case pending in the court system, this time before the U.S. Supreme Court on the exclusivity of its genetically modified seed patents. Narrowly at issue is whether Monsanto retains patent rights on soybeans that have been replanted after showing up in generic stocks rather than being sold specifically as seeds, or whether those patent rights are exhausted after the initial planting. But more broadly the case also raises implications regarding control of the food supply (Photo: JBrazito via Flickr)and the patenting of life questions that current patent laws are ill-equipped to meaningfully address.
On the specific legal issues, Monsanto is likely to win the case (they almost always do). The extant facts make this a relatively poor platform to serve as a test case of Monsanto's right to exert such expansive powers. The farmer in this situation had previously purchased Monsanto soybeans for planting (back in 1999), and in this instance bought previously harvested soybeans with the intention of planting them even spraying Monsanto's Roundup herbicide on them in the hopes that at least some of the generic stock would be of the so-called "Roundup Ready" variety.
Despite this unfortunate posture, the case does provide another opportunity for critical inquiry regarding the unprecedented and perverse level of control Monsanto is asserting over the food supply. It is estimated that 90 percent of the soybeans in the U.S. are genetically modified and thus subject to potential patents. A random handful of soybeans procured anywhere is likely to contain at least some Monsanto-altered beans. Such a near-monopoly effectively gives Monsanto the right to control access to a staple food item that is found in a wide range of consumer products.
Other variations on this theme include pollen from Monsanto corn (similarly dominant in the U.S. market) pollinating a farmer's crop, or seeds from Monsanto-engineered grains being distributed by animals, winds, or waterways and commingling with non-GMO plantings. In each case, Monsanto could have a cause of action against an unwitting farmer by claiming patent infringement.
More:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/03/15-7
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Check it out.
Tell Hershey's to Kiss Monsanto Goodbye!
Last fall, while Californians were working to support their basic right to label genetically engineered foods through Prop 37, the Hershey Company, the nations largest chocolate-maker, contributed $519,000 to defeat them and your Right to Know whats in your food. Rather than stand with Californians, Hershey's joined with Monsanto, the world's largest biotech seed company, who dumped in $8.1 million to stifle democracy and transparency.
If youre uncertain why Hersheys chose to climb into bed with Monsanto to defeat GMO labeling, consider the fact that Hersheys Kisses are chock full of GMOs! Unfortunately, Hershey's is caught in a huge pile of chocolate hypocrisy since Hersheys sells GMO free chocolate in Europe, but keeps peddling GMOs in America.
This Valentines day, join Food Democracy Now! and say Goodbye to Hersheys chocolate until they agree to sell GMO free chocolates in America.
Tell Hershey to Kiss Monsanto Goodbye!
Click here to download our Hershey's Valentine's Day graphic to remind you who supports GMOs and Monsanto and who's against your right to know!
(Right click and select 'save file as' to save the file and download the graphic)
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Hershey's Milk Chocolate and Kisses to go non-GM
By Oliver Nieburg+, 23-Feb-2015
Hershey intends to remove genetically-modified ingredients from Hersheys Milk Chocolate and Kisses by the end of the year.
COPYRIGHT PROTECTED TEXT
via Robyn O'Brien @foodawakenings · Feb 23
jwirr
(39,215 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)i'm reading people who are saying that because they're seedless and easy to peel they must be GM.
But seedless, easy to peel citrus has been around forever.
The Afrikaans name naartjie is also used in English. It derives originally from the Tamil word nartei meaning citrus. The word has been used in South Africa since 1790...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citrus_unshiu
A clementine is a variety of mandarin orange (Citrus reticulata), so named in 1902.[1] The exterior is a deep orange colour with a smooth, glossy appearance. Clementines can be separated into seven to fourteen segments. They tend to be very easy to peel, like a tangerine, but are almost always seedless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine
So far as I know, the only thing that's changed is that we're getting them year round in the US where we only used to get them around christmas when I was young.
probably because of all the mass importing of out of season fruit and veg from other countries these days.
personally i doubt they're genetically modified.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)NRaleighLiberal
(60,013 posts)So hybrids aren't inherently bad - unless one of the crossing parents is genetically engineered. All of the wonderful heirloom tomatoes we know and crave these days - the rainbow of colors, hundreds - no, thousands - of varieties - are due to either natural crossing (thanks, bees), the occasional mutation that is identified, or intended crossing followed by selections. Where it gets nasty with companies like Monsanto, even aside from the GMO aspect, is the aspect of "ownership" of non-hybrid varieties for commercial gain.
I have an issue with hybrids for other reasons - the cost, the inability to save seeds, etc. I've been growing mostly heirloom/non-hybrid for years now, and the flavors are wonderful, the diversity incredible, and yields just fine....even hybrids that have so-called "resistance" will get diseased (since it is most appropriately called "tolerance" - you get a few extra weeks, typically, but diseases, if present, will get them in the end).
I have a collection of about 3000 types of tomato seeds - none of them hybrids - and Monsanto will never get their hands on them!
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)F**king Justice Department and F**king Politicians.
Monsanto is just doing what corporations do.
We the People are supposed to be protected by our government,
but Monsanto has BOUGHT our Executive Branch.
Tom Vilsack was appointed to run the US Department of Agriculture.
Google: "Tom Vilsack & Monsanto"
Michael Taylor was appointed to run the FDA.
Google: "Michael Taylor & FDA"
Eric Holder was appointed to run the Justice Department.
You don't have to Google anything to already know what a worthless piece of garbage Eric Holder is.
The REASON why Monsanto gets away with these outrages is that
We-the-People are not allowed to vote for people that would STOP them.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)One of another great failure of the Obama administration. That and Wall Street. You are right, the people were never given a real choice.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Vote for the Dinner Party
Is this the year that the food movement finally enters politics?
By MICHAEL POLLAN
Published October 10, 2012
<>
One person in Washington who would surely take note of the California vote is President Obama. During the 2008 campaign, he voiced support for many of the goals of the food movement, including the labeling of G.M. food. (Well let folks know whether their food has been genetically modified, he declared in an Iowa speech in 2007, because Americans should know what theyre buying.) As president he has failed to keep that promise, but he has taken some positive steps: his U.S.D.A. has done much to nurture the local-food economy, for example. Perhaps most important, Michelle Obama began a national conversation about food and health soft politics, yes, but these often help prepare the soil for the other kind. Yet on the hard issues, the ones that challenge agribusiness-as-usual, President Obama has so far declined to spend his political capital and on more than one occasion has taken Monsantos side. He has treated the food movement as a sentiment rather than a power, and who can blame him?
Until now. Over the last four years Ive had occasion to speak to several people who have personally lobbied the president on various food issues, including G.M. labeling, and from what I can gather, Obamas attitude toward the food movement has always been: What movement? I dont see it. Show me. On Nov. 6, the voters of California will have the opportunity to do just that.
Michael Pollan is the author of Cooked: A Natural History of Transformation, which will be published in April by Penguin Press.
countryjake
(8,554 posts)snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)aspartame for broader consumption. I don't know how we can ever know the health damage that endeavor has done to unknowing consumers.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)I hate their business practices. I really do. They bully farmers and chase their genes across the countryside and threaten lawsuits and win. Truly horrible.
But, this anti-trust outrage at DU is totally bizarre. I would say that some huge majority at DU really despises Monsanto's frankenfoods -- they don't trust GMOs. So, why do you care that they have all the patents on those genes? Your concern should be with the vast majority of farmers who buy those seeds and plant them because they really, really want them.
Why the misplaced outrage?
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)Orwell's' 1984 is fast upon us.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-15/orwellian-america