EnviroLink Forum

I was wrong



I'm confused.

EVERY farmer is there to make a profit due to hunger or they will not be in business, so they are now bad? It is possible to do both in the real world where real facts are used instead of beliefs and misrepresentations like your source presented."

They are using the Bt cotton more and more each year to MAKE A PROFIT because they do not eat the cotton. Cotton is the only GM crop allowed in India. The saving of seed is a violation of the agreement and is theft, plain and simple. [/quote[*]]

Yet saving seeds is a practise ancient old and an integral part of their culture.

Every farmer is there to make a profit due to hunger?

You say this while their own families starve?

And you then accuse anti-Monsanto groups of propoganda?

And you say this without a smidgeon of understanding of the propoanda of Monsanto?

Really?

Vendana Shiva is a source who misrepresents?

Is she like Mohatma Ghandi?

They were both such ignorant folks (sarcasm intended) ..... And she is currently representing the needs of her counrtry-folk while you seem to be defending the rights of a multi-national corporation.

Farmers are just trying to make a living and support their families, contribute to their communities, build schools for their children. They are not there to "make a profit due to hunger."

They are there because the soil and earth has always sustained them. Farmers are not now bad. No.

But they are now crying out for help. They are resisting the colonization of their farmland by corporations who would like to turn their villages into global supermarkets.

They are resisting the criminalization of the very simple at of saving seeds. And so am I.

What could be more simple?

Yet saving seeds is a practise ancient old and an integral part of their culture.

They can plant regular cotton and save the seed if they wish, but they also must accept lower yields.

Bt cotton offered them higher yeilds .... but they got lower yields ... which is why they killed themselves.

Oh yes, those Indian farmers are just so greedy. They not only want to feed their families, but the world too and Monsanto promised them they could... They are as idealistic in terms of feeding the world and money-hungry for themselves .... NOT.

Do you suspect it is non-farmers who are anti-GMO?

Okay .... the non-farmers. Like the folks on Wall Street who are bidding on food as a commodity? The speculators? And the farmers want it? Because the speculators of GMO's on Wall Street will help to feed Indian and African civilian families. For sure. Monsanto can be bid on.
Fabulous company ... they might even help out those poor, starving cotton farmers in India.

To show the blatant misrepresentation of the propaganda being put out on the subject.

Note the claim of 250,000 farmers killing themselves between 1995 and 2010? That sounds like the nasty GM crops were responsible does it not? You say it was something you would use to support your position, so I would expect that to be the case. The problem is that GM cotton was not approved until the spring of 2002 and only saw limited planting in the beginning. That means half of the period used to show the suicide rate was pre-GM acceptance and could not have been caused by the GM boogey man.

To show the blatant misrepresentation of the propaganda being put out on the subject.

Note the claim of 250,000 farmers killing themselves between 1995 and 2010? That sounds like the nasty GM crops were responsible does it not? You say it was something you would use to support your position, so I would expect that to be the case. The problem is that GM cotton was not approved until the spring of 2002 and only saw limited planting in the beginning. That means half of the period used to show the suicide rate was pre-GM acceptance and could not have been caused by the GM boogey man.

GM has created untold strife in India .... as in the US. By any number. Do we want to live in a society that sues itself?

Did you/Do you make your living doing that?

Vendana quoted suicides since 1997 .... due to agricultural giants using hybrids, trying to turn India into a kind of global super-market. She spoke out against globalization since then and Monsanto has been a major player since '02 and before.

Are you not aware of the propoganda that Monsanto spews? Of course you know that they are here to feed the world, right? They are genuinely concerned! They have told you so.

But Richmond, BC, has recently declared itself free of anymore GMO'S (It already has 3 operations), and will accept no more. Argentina can do nothing even if they could.

50 countries around the world have said no. It's altogether too dangerous .... causing more problems than it can possibly solve.

While we supposedly don't have enough food to feed the growing population of the world, Monsanto is happy to sell seed to the guy in the Okanagan, BC, because his apples turn brown after being turned to air. No good for a party. (check it) In comes Monsanto and we wonder what happens to the bees.

We need to feed the world .... but Monsanto is not the solution. They are like feeding the world a coke, but without the love and harmony. You ARE old enough to get the reference, right?

For a company, a corporation to actually OWN seeds .... of which farmers have always depended .... like air and water ... is against the farmer.

If you insist on supporting and advocating for the corporation (because they supposedly want to solve world hunger). then don't talk about the so-called propoganda of people like Vendana Shiva.

Monsanto are superb in their propoganda making machinery, selling it to kids in school, etc. And you have bought it hook, line, and sinker.

If they are truly concerned about ending world hunger, they may have begun in India. Shiva can speak for her country-folk, and she does.

To prevent their own hunger, yes.



If their own families are starving while they grow a cash crop such as cotton, yes.

Yes? And globalization has what to do with it? Why do they grow the cash crop that they can't eat rather than the eggplant they can? (Yes, we know).

The reason does not mean they are successful in the attempt, especially given the situation in India with support. Poor options for funding and the lack of crop insurance in a changing climate is a recipie for disaster for many.

If you know this, why doesn't Monsanto? Because they are in the business of feeding the world?



No, I pointed out their propaganda.



A large assumption regarding my level of understanding.

So you are aware of the propaganda of Monsanto?



Yes.



Yes, clearly she did.



Not in my opinion, but maybe in yours.

There are some obvious parallels.



Her country folk need better access to reasonable credit and a form of crop insurance, which has nothing to do with Monsanto, other than the modified versions of the crops give a better yield, which helps the farmers more than the non-modified crops would in the same conditions.

Her country needs a giant corporation to be understanding of the particular needs of the countryside where farmers have done there thing for several thousand years.



If they do not make a profit their families will starve, because eating cotton just will not help. Bt cotton is the only GM crop so any farmer being "abused" by Monsanto is only growing crops to make a profit.

See above.




Just your false perception of farmers in this situation.

Bullshit.



ALL they have to do is not plant the GM crops, plant the regular versions and accept the lowered yield for their cash crop. It is really that simple IF this were the case.

Not so simple. We have seen this. It's why I posted this information.



That would be theft, since the farmer and you feel it is "right" to either sign a contract and break your agreement or to illegally obtain stolen property to benefit yourself. The costs of the research and testing of the products must be recovered by those who develop the better crops if the improvements are to continue.

And as they force it on unsuspecting "customers".
They are fascist.



The truth.

I am interested in the truth.



So are usuary and theft, but that still does not make it right nor acceptable.

Saving seeds! Usuary and theft are on the part of the corporation called Monsanto!



No, they got the same yield in a drought as they would have with the regular crop without a drought. The yield id higher for Bt crops or they would not pay for it. Unless you think farmers are that stupid to continue to buy seeds that do not give them a yield they can get from seeds which are free.

They are forced to re-buy what they could have seeded themselves at no or little cost. Monsanto made it very costly for them.



Who eats cotton? I know of none who do anywhere. Monsanto only provided one GM seed to the Indian farmers and that is Bt cotton. They cannot feed the world with that cotton, but they can feed their families if they make sufficient profit from the crop, which is why they flock to the Bt cotton to get the higher yields and make that higher profit.

And if Monsanto's cotton fails, they cannot feed their families or anyone else. They traded their food crops in for cash crops ... to satisfy the global market of which Monsanto is a big player. They were hood-winked!



No, most of the organizations opposed are made up of non-farmers. Your quoted spokesperson is a non-farmer. Most of the farmers are growing the GM crops because they profit from it. If they were opposed they would not plant it and just plant the non-GM versions.

Spokesperson. Farmers are busy people, from dawn to dusk.



The folks on Wall Street and the speculators will probably come closer to feeding the families around the world than the farmer growing a cash crop such as cotton.

Every farmer is there to make a profit due to hunger?

To prevent their own hunger, yes.

You say this while their own families starve?

Yes? And globalization has what to do with it? Why do they grow the cash crop that they can't eat rather than the eggplant they can? (Yes, we know).

If you know this, why doesn't Monsanto? Because they are in the business of feeding the world?

A large assumption regarding my level of understanding.

So you are aware of the propaganda of Monsanto?

Yes, clearly she did.



Not in my opinion, but maybe in yours.

There are some obvious parallels.

Her country folk need better access to reasonable credit and a form of crop insurance, which has nothing to do with Monsanto, other than the modified versions of the crops give a better yield, which helps the farmers more than the non-modified crops would in the same conditions.

Her country needs a giant corporation to be understanding of the particular needs of the countryside where farmers have done there thing for several thousand years.

If they do not make a profit their families will starve, because eating cotton just will not help. Bt cotton is the only GM crop so any farmer being "abused" by Monsanto is only growing crops to make a profit.

See above.

Just your false perception of farmers in this situation.

Bullshit.

ALL they have to do is not plant the GM crops, plant the regular versions and accept the lowered yield for their cash crop. It is really that simple IF this were the case.

Not so simple. We have seen this. It's why I posted this information.

That would be theft, since the farmer and you feel it is "right" to either sign a contract and break your agreement or to illegally obtain stolen property to benefit yourself. The costs of the research and testing of the products must be recovered by those who develop the better crops if the improvements are to continue.

And as they force it on unsuspecting "customers".
They are fascist.

The truth.

I am interested in the truth.

Not that plain and simple when a people are coerced and are already trying to simply float.

So are usuary and theft, but that still does not make it right nor acceptable.

Saving seeds! Usuary and theft are on the part of the corporation called Monsanto!

Years before there was a crop to cause the stress? Not hardly.



The conventional seeds do not produce the yield the GM seeds do.






That added cost is made up by the increase yield. That is why the farmers buy the seeds in the first place to increase their yield. To do so they enter into a contract to not save the Bt seeds. If they do not want to continue they can plant conventional seeds as they did before.





There is no guarantee in farming. The conventional crops will not produce in the situation where the GM crop would fail too, which is why the government should establish a crop insurance program.



They have been growing cotton for thousands of years. You might want to do some fact checking.





And those farmers are planting the GM crops they supposedly oppose ...... makes sense to you how?



The folks on Wall Street and the speculators will probably come closer to feeding the families around the world than the farmer growing a cash crop such as cotton.

Oops. Bullshit again. Speculators are interested in profits. The guy on
Wall Street is less interested in feeding the world than he is in profits. I will not even discuss this with you. It's akin to your argument that we can just simply send people to the moon 'cuz we have too many here.

So write to them about their faulty math! But is it possible to deny .....

Sure it is possible to deny. If they are as accurate in this statement as they were concerning the math, there may be no real concern to speak of .... thus the question regarding credibility and the loss thereof due to blatent errors.

Fear of the unkown? Yes, F-E-A-R of thousands of years of natural evolution, full of natural biodiversity which is now threatened by a multinational corporation who now wants to OWN the rights to that biodiversity in order to make monocultures that can withstand their corporate owned and mega-profit producing herbicide ....

Is the essential point tainted?

Can we get to the point or must we consistently miss the most essential points in favour of haggling over exact numbers?

You seem to miss the most essential points in favour of accuracy.

Accuracy is good Wayne .....keep it up. But in doing so you are missing the main point ....

Pleease ..... see the point ... the most essential ....

Does Monsanto threaten biodiversity? It is a massive company with short term gain. They are NOT here to solve world hunger .... they are here to make some major profit due to world hunger. See the difference.

They tried to patent "Neem". How often do you eat that? What's the real fact on Neem consumption? Feeding the world? Should we feed the starving population of Africa a good dose of genetically modified and corporately owned Neem?

They also want to patent an apple so that it doesn't turn brown after a few minutes.
Propaganda? "Saving the world from hunger."

There is the reality of the need to feed an ever-growing population as well as the usual greed of a corporation. This one is out of control. It is not the answer. NO multi-national corporation can or even should be counted on simply based on the system which created it in the first place.