View Full Version : Occupy Our Food
momoese
12-27-2011, 01:12 PM
"We are Farmers, We Grow Food for the People" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsNUqK6saMU)
Dalmatiansoap
12-27-2011, 02:26 PM
Its time for act ppl, grow your own food, as much as U can, U can benefit on so many ways. You will have the biggest value of that. And this all is about YOU.
:nanadrink:
I agree what monsanto and other 'big-ag' guys are doing is wrong. I don't see this as a parallel with the OWS guys, though.
Richard
12-27-2011, 03:32 PM
I agree what monsanto and other 'big-ag' guys are doing is wrong. I don't see this as a parallel with the OWS guys, though.
I can agree with boycotting Monsanto. I disagree with over-generalizing that every division and employee of Monsanto is wrong/bad. To further over-generalize that all "big-ag" is wrong is a worse error.
laserlight
12-27-2011, 04:07 PM
Patents for food is way wrong imo. it makes too many issues and food isnt a luxery. food should only be grown by farmers imo and it should mostly be organic except maybe cereal and candy and stuff like that.
My major issue is when a company creates crops that contain self-destructive genes that prevent them from producing viable seed. You must continually go back to them and purchase more seed for the next season; you can never use part of the harvest as next year's seed since they are all sterile. This creates a dependency on them that I am not comfortable with. Then, to to strenghten that dependency you must drive out the competition by harassing the small farmers in the courts for having crops nearby that 1. either will obtain a portion of the patented crop's genetics (due to wind or bees), or 2. will create pollen that will pollute or alter (again due to wind or bees) the patented crops, and according to monsanto cause 'damage' to their property by doing so. If the small farm was there first, I guess monsanto shouldn't have moved in. If monsanto wants to sue someone, sue the bees, the beekeeper, or God for making the bees and causing the wind to blow. (in other words, monsanto, go piss in the wind)
Richard
12-27-2011, 05:09 PM
Patents for food is way wrong imo. it makes too many issues and food isnt a luxery.
I have no problem with a plant breeder patenting a plant. The patent rights are short-lived and the breeder gets royalties for their work. Many of the fruit cultivars you enjoy were once patented plants.
... food should only be grown by farmers imo and it should mostly be organic except maybe cereal and candy and stuff like that.
The common belief of what is "organic" and the reality of "certified organic" food are two different things. Here is a primer: Are you gardening organically? (http://www.plantsthatproduce.com/column/PTP_2008_09_Organic.htm)
My major issue is when a company creates crops that contain self-destructive genes that prevent them from producing viable seed.
I agree this is a greedy practice and a good reason to boycott Monsanto.
Monsanto is also the leading developer of pesticide-resistant and herbicide-resistant plants. Several of these are not self-sterile plants. Monsanto cotton strains are a good example. The problem with these plants is that they encourage farming practices that in the long run have severe impact on the environment. However, high quality cotton draws a good price and cotton processors have come to expect "pristine" harvests. Thus, the cotton farmer must either use the Monsanto seed or not grow cotton. In the U.S., 100% of commercially farmed cotton uses Monsanto seed. Thus, to boycott Monsanto would require a public boycott of cotton.
If the small farm was there first, I guess monsanto shouldn't have moved in.
As I've stated before, I don't care for several of the practices of the Monsanto company. On the otherhand, there is a huge difference between the facts in the case you are referring to and the rumor it has turned into on the internet and in organic-lifestyle magazines.
harveyc
12-27-2011, 05:36 PM
I, like many farmers, have purchased seeds of crops licensed through Monsanto by choice. I don't know of any farmer personally how has regretted it or complained about any of it other than price, but that goes pretty much for anything (just like consumers complaining about the price of gasoline). I'm currently growing Roundup Ready alfalfa. For the past five years I grew both conventional alfalfa (not licensed by anybody having anything to do with Monsanto) as well as Roundup Ready alfalfa. I use herbicides to control weeds in my alfalfa and the Roundup Ready varieties are able to be controlled without using as toxic of herbicides (Paraquat, in particular), which I appreciate very much. Most of the people complaining about Monsanto have never farmed commercially and tried to make a living from growing food. I may grow my chestnuts using organic practices some day before long but just can't do it for alfalfa (or field corn or wheat, other crops I will sometimes grow).
laserlight
12-27-2011, 07:04 PM
I have no problem with a plant breeder patenting a plant. The patent rights are short-lived and the breeder gets royalties for their work. Many of the fruit cultivars you enjoy were once patented plants.
The common belief of what is "organic" and the reality of "certified organic" food are two different things. Here is a primer: Are you gardening organically? (http://www.plantsthatproduce.com/column/PTP_2008_09_Organic.htm)
Oh. I didnt know they patented plants. i thought that was something new that was happening. Thanks for the link. =) I didnt know that patents are short-lived either. but yeah they do deserve something for breeding better food. i need to think about the organic issue more because mom said she couldnt keep her roses alive without fungicide.
I, like many farmers, have purchased seeds of crops licensed through Monsanto by choice. I don't know of any farmer personally how has regretted it or complained about any of it other than price,
Now i understand. the farmers in the video that are complaining are the OWS protesters that have farms. We dont have a farm so all i know is what i read and what i hear.
Richard
12-27-2011, 08:01 PM
i need to think about the organic issue more because mom said she couldnt keep her roses alive without fungicide.
A common misconception is that "certified organic" means no pesticide. This is false.
If your Mom wanted to use a fungicide that is approved for certified organic farms, she could choose potassium bicarbonate -- which is what Baking Powder and toothpaste were made of before manufacturers went on the cheap. It is available under several brands, here's the Monterey Gardens brand I use and sell locally to my customers:
http://www.gardeningthings.com/images/bicarb.jpg
harveyc
12-27-2011, 08:51 PM
Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional Agriculture | Science Sushi, Scientific American Blog Network (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/)
momoese
12-27-2011, 11:27 PM
Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional Agriculture | Science Sushi, Scientific American Blog Network (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/)
I think the comments are better than the article itself.
As the farmer stated, when Monsanto crops contaminate your conventional or organic non Monsanto crop, then sue you with the endless amounts of money and resources at their disposal you will most likely loose your small family farm trying to clear your name in court. It's just wrong.
Richard
12-27-2011, 11:43 PM
... As the farmer stated, when Monsanto crops contaminate your conventional or organic non Monsanto crop, then sue you with the endless amounts of money and resources at their disposal you will most likely loose your small family farm trying to clear your name in court. It's just wrong.
The facts in that case are very different from the rumors circulated on the internet and printed in organic lifestyle magazines. In no way does this mean I endorse all of Monsanto's practices.
sunfish
12-28-2011, 12:05 AM
Who is telling the truth that's the question
http://scc.lexum.org/en/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.pdf
momoese
12-28-2011, 12:15 AM
You know the contamination is a serious problem when farmers are preemptively suing Monsanto to protect themselves.
"On 30 March 2011 a group consisting of over 60 family farmers, seed businesses and organic agricultural organizations in Canada and the US, filed a lawsuit against Monsanto Company to challenge the chemical giant’s patents on genetically modified seed. The plaintiffs say they are being forced to sue pre-emptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should they ever become contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically modified seed.
The case, Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association, et al. v. Monsanto, was filed in federal district court in Manhattan"
www.pubpat.org/assets/.../seed/OSGATA-v-Monsanto-Complaint.pdf
sunfish
12-28-2011, 12:29 AM
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=270%20000%20organic%20farmers%20sue%20monsanto&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.growswitch.com%2Fblog%2F2011%2F07%2F270000-organic-farmers-sue-monsanto%2F&ei=dKj6Tp7gLKKniQL_kMykDg&usg=AFQjCNF0Pov8zzIvN-488219dWDSp2MJlA&cad=rja
Richard
12-28-2011, 12:58 AM
You know the contamination is a serious problem when farmers are preemptively suing Monsanto to protect themselves.
"On 30 March 2011 a group consisting of over 60 family farmers, seed businesses and organic agricultural organizations in Canada and the US, filed a lawsuit against Monsanto Company to challenge the chemical giant’s patents on genetically modified seed. The plaintiffs say they are being forced to sue pre-emptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should they ever become contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically modified seed.
The case, Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association, et al. v. Monsanto, was filed in federal district court in Manhattan"
www.pubpat.org/assets/.../seed/OSGATA-v-Monsanto-Complaint.pdf
The lawyer in this particular suit did a great job of marketing fear.
Still, I am not a fan of many of Monsanto's choices. The worst is from herbicide resistant strains that are self-fertile. These (e.g. rapeseed) are naturalizing in many places and becoming invasive pests, crowding out native grasses (including native winter wheat) and destroying food sources for native life.
sunfish
12-28-2011, 01:04 AM
Top 10 Facts YOU Should Know About Monsanto (http://bestmeal.info/monsanto/facts.shtml#suicides)
harveyc
12-28-2011, 01:45 AM
I think the comments are better than the article itself.
As the farmer stated, when Monsanto crops contaminate your conventional or organic non Monsanto crop, then sue you with the endless amounts of money and resources at their disposal you will most likely loose your small family farm trying to clear your name in court. It's just wrong.
There are a lot more in the comments than the one you chose to comment about. How about the indiscriminate use of rotenone to control those nasty earwigs?
Farmers save seeds from only some of the crops where Monsanto is involved with canola being the most common one that I'm aware of. Canola is a GMO crop to begin with and I don't use canola oil in my home. Some of the parties sued by Monsanto most likely specifically selected areas of their farm for saving seed where it was known to have been contaminated (they only need 5% or less to produce the following year's crop). Still, there are surely some innocent farmers who have been sued by Monsanto and I disagree with them doing this. Although I don't think they should just roll over, losing their farm because they chose to fight is just plain stupid. They can easily buy seed that's not contaminated for a modest amount more than what they're saving by using their own seed.
momoese
12-28-2011, 11:29 AM
Still, there are surely some innocent farmers who have been sued by Monsanto and I disagree with them doing this. Although I don't think they should just roll over, losing their farm because they chose to fight is just plain stupid. They can easily buy seed that's not contaminated for a modest amount more than what they're saving by using their own seed.
Yes Canola oil is really bad, we don't use it either.
The reason farmers are loosing their land is the financial burden of trying to fight a giant.
Saving seed, especial heirloom seed is what they have done for generations. You're suggesting it's ok for them to be forced to buy seed to avoid litigation?
momoese
12-28-2011, 11:38 AM
I just remembered Monanto does read the websites and blogs looking for farmers who use their product talking trash about them. I understand Harvey. ;)
momoese
12-28-2011, 12:10 PM
Yes to Moratorium on GM Alfalfa! Take Action! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-3_wa_bgOI)
harveyc
12-28-2011, 12:55 PM
I just remembered Monanto does read the websites and blogs looking for farmers who use their product talking trash about them. I understand Harvey. ;)
I am sure they monitor for adverse information but to think any farmer would be worried about speaking negatively about Monsanto is crazy. In my experience, most farmers are more willing to fight than most folks and they're vocal. There's no way Monsanto is going to get them to not speak out about what they are unhappy about.
That moratorium on GMO alfalfa was lifted last year and that's what allowed me to replant my acreage. Like I wrote earlier, I went completely to GMO alfalfa this time around.
sunfish
12-28-2011, 02:15 PM
Organic Farmers Sue Monsanto - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PMuwry8MUc)
Crop Circles 2012 Ascend or Die? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hl-Rbyr5Rs)
momoese
12-28-2011, 02:26 PM
Yes Canola oil is really bad, we don't use it either.
The reason farmers are loosing their land is the financial burden of trying to fight a giant.
Saving seed, especial heirloom seed is what they have done for generations. You're suggesting it's ok for them to be forced to buy seed to avoid litigation?
No comment?
harveyc
12-28-2011, 02:53 PM
No comment?
The litigation you cited is in regards to canola. There is no such thing as heirloom canola seed. I don't know of any case where someone was sued by Monsanto for saving their heirloom seed so there isn't much for me to respond to.
I already said I don't think it's right that Monsanto sues someone for keeping seed that was accidentally contaminated. I think they should have to prove that it was saved intentionally because it was contaminated and that the grower should be able to file suit against neighbors who were the source of contamination.
FWIW, our alfalfa is not allowed to go to bloom so there is not any contamination taking place.
I have my doubts of anybody going broke because of legal fees spent fighting Monsanto. I'd like to see the specific facts about a case rather than general claims.
I worked in agricultural lending for many years. I will be vague about the specifics of the case as our clients were required to sign non-disclosure agreements when settling with a chemical company (was not Monsanto). These growers claimed crop losses due to contamination of the fungicide they had purchased. While the losses were real, the were greatly exaggerated. The compensatory settlements received were much more than they had ever earned and proved to be a windfall for the growers. This is just an example to show that claims are not always really factual.
momoese
12-28-2011, 03:19 PM
I was talking about corn, soy, cotton etc. There is no organic Canola plant because it's GM rapeseed. Canola is just an acronym for Canadian Oil Low Acid. There is organic Rapeseed though.
harveyc
12-28-2011, 03:25 PM
Sure, I think people should be able to save any heirloom seeds they want to. I already said that.
Do you think it's bad that unions "own" government leaders or just when corporations do?
harveyc
12-28-2011, 03:30 PM
I'm biased because Monsanto has made my life easier and allowed me to farm while exposed to less toxic chemicals that I otherwise would be. It goes back a long ways. In the early 1970s one of my chores was to go out into the corn fields with a burlap sack and a shovel. My job was to dig up Johnson Grass rhizomes and collect them along with the seed heads and take them out of the field to be burnt. Often, some seed had already fallen and some rhyizomes were missed. It was a very hot dirty job. When Roundup came out it was hard to believe that there was something that finally would easily kill Johnson Grass. Going into the field with a backpack sprayer allowed me to kill a lot of Johnson Grass with Roundup very easily and much more effectively. Mitchel, I suggest you try the old method for a week and let me know how that works for you. I'd be glad to hook you up with a grower, okay? ;)
harveyc
12-28-2011, 03:32 PM
Great, organic canola oil
Organic Canola Oil (http://organic.lovetoknow.com/Organic_Canola_Oil)
Maybe they can sell the Brooklyn bridge as well.
BTW, we use mostly rice bran oil in our household.
momoese
12-28-2011, 06:09 PM
Great, organic canola oil
Organic Canola Oil (http://organic.lovetoknow.com/Organic_Canola_Oil)
Maybe they can sell the Brooklyn bridge as well.
BTW, we use mostly rice bran oil in our household.
Just a little misleading. We use almost olive oil mostly, unless I want flavor for fried seafood then I use peanut. For baking I have been using organic lard.
I don't really want unions or corps owning the government. Of the two Monsanto scares me the most with their seemingly unlimited power and thirst for world domination.
Btw I now call our president GMObama. You should love him for what he's done to help Monsanto. ;)
harveyc
12-28-2011, 06:44 PM
Mitchel, I think you've read too many blogs created by Monsanto haters. Monsanto does not want to dominate the world except in the imaginations of minds similar to those who feared Godzilla would rule Earth. Monsanto's executives want to generate increased profits by creating/offering products that customers willingly choose to buy. Their power is not unlimited or even close to it.
I think Obama's position on pesticides/GMO products in a little bit funny only because some of his fanboys (not implying you were one) made a big deal when Michelle planted her organic White House garden in front of the media spectacle. I still despise him for his socialist and pro-abortion positions.
Most people who use peanut oil do so because of its high smoke point, not the flavor. Rice bran oil has an even higher smoke point and is a healthier alternative, being high in monounsaturated fats.
Richard
12-28-2011, 07:12 PM
Saving seed, especial heirloom seed is what they have done for generations. You're suggesting it's ok for them to be forced to buy seed to avoid litigation?
Heirloom seed (by law) is simply off-patent and reproduces true from seed. Some of the best Alfalfa cultivars you can grow in California are from Stover Seed, and they are heirloom varieties.
My father was an Alfalfa farmer before switching careers in the 50's. The practice at the time was to buy seed every 5 years and in-between grow an acre or two just for seed -- typically in the middle of the rest of the harvest.
For small farms, it is presently cheaper to buy the premium Stover seed than the cost of harvesting and processing seed on their own.
Stover and others over the past 75 years have be hybridizing alfalfa varieties for numerous regions in North America. I seriously doubt the economics of someone buying seed to avoid litigation. It is either a foolish choice, or an over-dramatized article that an "organic" produce manufacturer or trade group paid for to appear right next to their ads in an organic-lifestyle publication.
"Organic" is big business too -- albeit in stealth mode.
momoese
12-28-2011, 07:58 PM
Harvey I've read so much, and watched so much about Monasanto that my head spins. They are the most (I know you hate it when I say this) Evil corporation the world has known. The court cases are there, the emails, the this and that. It's not wishing or conjecture. They may have made your life easier as a non organic farmer, but they have ruined many more lives.
Edit to say this is of course just my opinion. Others may choose Mcdonalds, Chevron, some of the pharms, Microsoft, Dow, etc.
momoese
12-28-2011, 08:45 PM
Heirloom seed (by law) is simply off-patent and reproduces true from seed.
It can and is often cross pollinated with GMO pollen which ruins it.
Richard
12-28-2011, 09:04 PM
It can and is often cross pollinated with GMO pollen which ruins it.
The point is, that it is usually cheaper to buy new seed (non-GMO) each year than harvest seed from your plot. So the "pollution" cry is overblown. It is primarily coming from individuals who want to process their own seed despite the economics of the situation -- and clearly their seed is inferior to available inexpensive non-GMO hybrids. These same people are suffering economically from other poor decisions and placing the blame elsewhere. They suffer from a false understanding of agriculture. You'll find this kind of behavior in every sector of society.
Of course, I don't mean to let Monsanto off the hook. I'm definitely not a fan of this company and despise many of their practices.
momoese
12-28-2011, 09:13 PM
The point is, that it is usually cheaper to buy new seed (non-GMO) each year than harvest seed from your plot. So the "pollution" cry is overblown. It is primarily coming from individuals who want to process their own seed despite the economics of the situation -- and clearly their seed is inferior to available inexpensive non-GMO hybrids. These same people are suffering economically from other poor decisions and placing the blame elsewhere. They suffer from a false understanding of agriculture. You'll find this kind of behavior in every sector of society.
Of course, I don't mean to let Monsanto off the hook. I'm definitely not a fan of this company and despise many of their practices.
It sounds like this is what your speaking about, but the plants in question were tested and found contaminated.
Phantoms in the machine: GM corn spreads to Mexico (http://www.theage.com.au/world/phantoms-in-the-machine-gm-corn-spreads-to-mexico-20100702-zu3r.html)
Richard
12-28-2011, 09:26 PM
It sounds like this is what your speaking about, but the plants in question were tested and found contaminated.
Phantoms in the machine: GM corn spreads to Mexico (http://www.theage.com.au/world/phantoms-in-the-machine-gm-corn-spreads-to-mexico-20100702-zu3r.html)
Yes, the plants were contaminated as they have been elsewhere.
The issue is that in most cases the economic loss is a fallacy because either (1) the farmer was going to buy and plant new seed anyway, or (2) the farmer could buy new high quality non-GMO seed inexpensively but instead expends a greater amount of cost and labor harvesting their own seed.
ALSO, I believe you know that the fertilization of corn, grain, or whatever by pollen from a Monsanto strain or any other strain does not change the nature of the harvested food? It only changes the genetics of plants grown from seed of that crop.
So for example, we can have an organic, non-GMO grain plantation which is cross pollinated with some pollen from a non-organic GMO source. That "contaminated" crop is still considered organic and non-GMO. However, if you were to let some of those grains mature, harvest the seed, and plant them, then the crop it produces is definitely a GMO product. Ironically, if it were grown certified organic, it would be considered a certified organic GMO crop.
harveyc
12-28-2011, 09:31 PM
Mitchel, I think you're reading too much from the same sort of blogs where like minds like to rally behind their common beliefs. I know a few folks that work for Monsanto. They are just ordinary folks. I know one who is a CRFG member and loves growing unusual plants just like you and me. I've been in contact with farmers from several states and have never come into contact with anybody who has felt they were harmed by Monsanto. Are there some out there? Sure! But they are not nearly as frequent as you likely believe.
Fasten your head and think straight, my friend.
I still think you should give the shovel and burlap sack approach a try. I'm pretty sure it will just make you tired without causing any head spinning.
momoese
12-28-2011, 09:35 PM
Yes, the plants were contaminated as they have been elsewhere.
The issue is that in most cases the economic loss is a fallacy because either (1) the farmer was going to buy and plant new seed anyway, or (2) the farmer could buy new high quality non-GMO seed inexpensively but instead expends a greater amount of cost and labor harvesting their own seed.
ALSO, I believe you know that the fertilization of corn, grain, or whatever by pollen from a Monsanto strain or any other strain does not change the nature of the harvested food? It only changes the genetics of plants grown from seed of that crop.
So for example, we can have an organic, non-GMO grain plantation which is cross pollinated with some pollen from a non-organic GMO source. That "contaminated" crop is still considered organic and non-GMO. However, if you were to let some of those grains mature, harvest the seed, and plant them, then the crop it produces is definitely a GMO product. Ironically, if it were grown certified organic, it would be considered a certified organic GMO crop.
Well, whether it costs more or not to harvest their own seed is irrelevant, it should always be there choice if they so wish.
Yes I understand that pollination does not affect the current crop, unless we are talking about Monsanto thugs invading your property and testing it. It does however affect the next crop, and every crop there after.
Richard
12-28-2011, 10:03 PM
Well, whether it costs more or not to harvest their own seed is irreverent, it should always be there choice if they so wish.
I agree that it should always be their choice. In the case of some grains it has never been a choice because the darn native grasses also cross into it.
When the farmers in the scenario we're discussing have gone to court seeking damages for having to buy new seed instead of harvesting their own, they have lost not because of the "big lawyers" but simply because they could not demonstrate any monetary loss. Seriously, the lawyers who represent the farmers should know this in advance and are just as greedy as their opponent.
There was one case in Alberta where the community was able to convince the courts that they have always grown the native grasses (winter wheat is native there) and thus Monsanto could not argue about "inevitable" cross-pollination.
Monsanto's downfall will likely be that they are too smug. A company that started in New England selling to homeowners has been continually improving and now is popular with many small farms: Johnny's Selected Seeds (http://www.johnnyseeds.com). They are my primary source.
momoese
12-28-2011, 10:07 PM
I agree that it should always be their choice. In the case of some grains it has never been a choice because the darn native grasses also cross into it.
When the farmers in the scenario we're discussing have gone to court seeking damages for having to buy new seed instead of harvesting their own, they have lost not because of the "big lawyers" but simply because they could not demonstrate any monetary loss. Seriously, the lawyers who represent the farmers should know this in advance and are just as greedy as their opponent.
There was one case in Alberta where the community was able to convince the courts that they have always grown the native grasses (winter wheat is native there) and thus Monsanto could not argue about "inevitable" cross-pollination.
Monsanto's downfall will likely be that they are too smug. A company that started in New England selling to homeowners has been continually improving and now is popular with many small farms: Johnny's Selected Seeds (http://www.johnnyseeds.com). They are my primary source.
Hey I fixed that spell check error that you quoted. :ha:
harveyc
12-28-2011, 11:04 PM
Hey I fixed that spell check error that you quoted. :ha:
Partially. Try again. ;)
momoese
12-28-2011, 11:07 PM
Partially. Try again. ;)
Ok I'll let it ride, too much work! :ha:
*their*
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.