EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:25 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:05 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2147
Location: Central Colorado
Obviously, Wayne.
May as well go back here and peruse;
http://dieoff.org/
:- \:D/ :-k :shock: =D>

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:48 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
animal-friendly wrote:
I was wrong

:eh:

I'm confused.


It seemed the percentage of farmers commiting suicide would not have been off based on the population, [/quote]

That was a joke. Gotcha. :razz:[/quote]

What is there to joke about? Where is the 'gotcha" that you somehow got? Got who or what? So transparant as to the pom-poms and cute skirts. Divest yourself of your cheer-leading outfit and truly engage in this discussion. I invite you.[/quote]

Sorry, there's nothing I can contribute that hasn't been already.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:13 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Image

Bt cotton was approved in 2002.

Bt Cotton was planted in about 5% of the area in 2005.

Compare the rates from 2002 to the end.

Compare the rates from 2005 to the end.

Where is the increase in suicides?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 6:08 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1272
Quote:
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."


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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
So, it seems that if it is truly farmers in the discussion, they are wanting their cake and to eat it too.


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.

Quote:
I suspect it is more non-farmers who do not want the GM crops who are more involved.


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:11 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
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."


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


To prevent their own hunger, yes.

Quote:
You say this while their own families starve?


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

Quote:
And you then accuse anti-Monsanto groups of propoganda?


No, I pointed out their propaganda.

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


A large assumption regarding my level of understanding.

Quote:
Really?


Yes.

Quote:
Vendana Shiva is a source who misrepresents?


Yes, clearly she did.

Quote:
Is she like Mohatma Ghandi?


Not in my opinion, but maybe in yours.

Quote:
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.


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.

Quote:
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."


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.


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


Just your false perception of farmers in this situation.

Quote:
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.


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.

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


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.

Quote:
What could be more simple?


The truth.

Quote:
Quote:
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. [*]


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


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

Quote:
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.


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.

Quote:
Quote:
So, it seems that if it is truly farmers in the discussion, they are wanting their cake and to eat it too.


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.


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.

Quote:
Quote:
I suspect it is more non-farmers who do not want the GM crops who are more involved.


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


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.

Quote:
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.


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.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:16 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1272
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
The same type of story, which sounds so horrible until the question is raised of how Bt cotton had such a huge negative impact 7 years before it was approved for use.

http://taketheflourback.org/resistance- ... the-world/

India

Bt cotton is the only GM crop approved in India. Bt cottonseeds are modified with the toxin Cry to control the bollworm pest. (3) Bollworm have developed resistance to Bt cotton, so a new version, ‘Bollgard II’, has been created, containing 2 additional toxic genes. As pests become more tolerant to insect-resistant GM crops, more toxins have to be developed, adding increasing amounts of toxins to the food supply.

Bt cotton has been linked to a wave of smallholder farmer suicides in India. Over the last 20 years, India’s agriculture has been opened up to the global market, increasing costs and trapping many farmers in debt. As agriculture in India has become more focused on producing cash crops, multinational corporations have increased their control. Big agribusinesses like Monsanto market expensive biotechnology as a solution to farmers struggling to compete in the global market.

Between 1995 and 2010, more than a quarter of a million farmers have committed suicide in India. Debt and poverty is driving many farmers to suicide, some of whom have swallowed the poisonous pesticides used to spray their Bt cotton crops. (4) The highest rates of suicide are in areas producing the most cotton. (5) Over 50,000 farmers took their own lives in Maharashtra between 1995 and 2010. Maharashtra was the richest state during that period. (6)



I may have posted this article. Why have you?



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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:24 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
http://www.indiantextilejournal.com/art ... sp?id=2737

The Table 5 shows the progress of cotton production and yield of cotton in the country over the last 10 years. It is clear that cotton production over the last 10 years has increased more than 89%, from 156 bales in 1999-00 to 295 bales in 2009 - 10. The cotton yield (kg per hectare) has been increased from 304 in 1999 - 00 to 526 in 2008 - 09, ie more than 79%. In 2008 - 09, the yield of cotton is highest in Tamil Nadu (708 kg per hectare) followed by Andhra Pradesh (670 kg per hectare).


http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... ia/436859/

Cotton yield in Gujarat was recorded at 772 kg per hectare in 2007-08. The state grows cotton on 2.6 million hectares, of which 0.8 million hectares is cultivated under traditional cottonseeds, while the remaining is covered under BT cottonseeds. However, industry body maintains a different view about the reducing cotton yield in the country. The National Seeds Association of India (NSAI) holds weather conditions responsible for a drop in the cotton yield rather than the use of illegal cottonseeds. "Drop in the yield is primarily because of the uncertain weather conditions in past couple of years and not because of the use of illegal seeds," said Harish Reddy, secretary, NSAI.

Adding further he said, "A large area of cotton cultivation falls under the rain-fed regions like Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, which holds about 60 per cent of the total cotton acreage in the country. Climatic extremities in this region would lead to a fall in the yield. Hence, the drop in the yield is mainly because of the uncertain weather conditions than the use of the illegal seeds."

Over the years, BT cotton has yielded heavy returns for the cotton growing farmers in India. Lured by the attractive prices of cotton, more and more farmers turned to Bt cotton cultivation, which helped cotton acreage to rise from 9.41 million hectares to over 11 million hectares in 2010-11. According to government statistics, of the total cotton acreage, nearly 88 per cent is under Bt cotton cultivation, which has risen by 10 per cent over last year.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:41 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
The same type of story, which sounds so horrible until the question is raised of how Bt cotton had such a huge negative impact 7 years before it was approved for use.

http://taketheflourback.org/resistance- ... the-world/

India

Bt cotton is the only GM crop approved in India. Bt cottonseeds are modified with the toxin Cry to control the bollworm pest. (3) Bollworm have developed resistance to Bt cotton, so a new version, ‘Bollgard II’, has been created, containing 2 additional toxic genes. As pests become more tolerant to insect-resistant GM crops, more toxins have to be developed, adding increasing amounts of toxins to the food supply.

Bt cotton has been linked to a wave of smallholder farmer suicides in India. Over the last 20 years, India’s agriculture has been opened up to the global market, increasing costs and trapping many farmers in debt. As agriculture in India has become more focused on producing cash crops, multinational corporations have increased their control. Big agribusinesses like Monsanto market expensive biotechnology as a solution to farmers struggling to compete in the global market.

Between 1995 and 2010, more than a quarter of a million farmers have committed suicide in India. Debt and poverty is driving many farmers to suicide, some of whom have swallowed the poisonous pesticides used to spray their Bt cotton crops. (4) The highest rates of suicide are in areas producing the most cotton. (5) Over 50,000 farmers took their own lives in Maharashtra between 1995 and 2010. Maharashtra was the richest state during that period. (6)



I may have posted this article. Why have you?



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.



animal-friendly wrote:
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?


No, but the reality is there are people who cannot live up to their word and the courts are the better option than physical violence.



Quote:
Did you/Do you make your living doing that?


No, I try to help keep people on the correct side of the law.

Quote:
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.


What hybrids specifically would that be? Not GMOs and not the Bt cotton, so what exactly are the hybrids which supposedly caused the suicided prior to 2003?

Quote:
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.


I have given specifics on the misrepresentations, if you cannot do the same I must discount your claims.

Quote:
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.


That is their choice, but I suspect the decision in Richmond BC was based more on the will of non-farmers than farmers since that is a political move.

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


That again is a political movement fueled by the same propaganda you gave us here only the majority of the people are too ignorant to know it is not truthful.

Quote:
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.


Why not give us the link instead of telling us to look it up? That way if we do not find what you wanted it cannot be called our fault.

Quote:
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?


And how do you propose to increase the produciton yields to feed those folks? Expect the scientists to do it? That is where the GMOs were developed.

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


The farmer just has to NOT buy them and settle for the lower yield and profit, but that is against the farmer too.

Quote:
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.


Why should I ingore such misrepresentations of the truth? Because it is inconvenient for your position? I do not think so, sorry.

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


I suppose or I would believe that Monsanto caused all of those farmer suicides years before they introduced the product which supposedly was the cause. Perhaps there is another who have swallowed hook, line, sinker, pole, and half the arm holding the pole .... :mrgreen:

Quote:
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.


She can, I just wish she was getting a lot closer to the truth when she did.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:56 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1272
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
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."


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


To prevent their own hunger, yes.

Quote:
You say this while their own families starve?


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?

Quote:
And you then accuse anti-Monsanto groups of propaganda?


No, I pointed out their propaganda.

Quote:
And you say this without a smidgeon of understanding of the propaganda of Monsanto?


A large assumption regarding my level of understanding.

So you are aware of the propaganda of Monsanto?

Quote:
Really?


Yes.

Quote:
Vendana Shiva is a source who misrepresents?


Yes, clearly she did.

Quote:
Is she like Mohatma Ghandi?


Not in my opinion, but maybe in yours.

There are some obvious parallels.

Quote:
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.


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.

Quote:
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."


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.


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


Just your false perception of farmers in this situation.

Bullshit.

Quote:
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.


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.

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


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.

Quote:
What could be more simple?


The truth.

I am interested in the truth.

Quote:
Quote:
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. [*]


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

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


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!

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

They are ending their lives because of the undue stress Monsanto has caused them. Their yields are lower because.

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


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.

Quote:
Quote:
So, it seems that if it is truly farmers in the discussion, they are wanting their cake and to eat it too.


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.


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!

Quote:
Quote:
I suspect it is more non-farmers who do not want the GM crops who are more involved.


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


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.

Quote:
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.


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:29 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
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."


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


Wayne Stollings wrote:
To prevent their own hunger, yes.


Quote:
You say this while their own families starve?


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

animal-friendly wrote:
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).


You know they do it solely for profit because they can get enough money from the cotton to buy food from other farmers and have some left over to buy other products?

Quote:
Quote:
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?



They do know. They are not the government of India whose position would be to establish such supports.

Quote:
Quote:
And you say this without a smidgeon of understanding of the propaganda of Monsanto?


A large assumption regarding my level of understanding.


Quote:
So you are aware of the propaganda of Monsanto?


I am aware of what some profess to be propaganda. The actual proof is much less compelling.

Quote:
Quote:
Vendana Shiva is a source who misrepresents?


Yes, clearly she did.

Quote:
Is she like Mohatma Ghandi?


Not in my opinion, but maybe in yours.

Quote:
There are some obvious parallels.


Ghandi misrepresented the truth too?

Quote:
Quote:
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.


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.


Quote:
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.


Needs such as free technology? Not hardly. Maybe the other large corporations can give them cell phones for free so they can communicate. That is the same situation is it not?

Quote:
Quote:
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."


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.


Quote:
See above.


What? That the farmers NEED more profits and they should be able to take them however possible?


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


Just your false perception of farmers in this situation.


Quote:
Bullshit.


That is another more crude term for your position.

Quote:
Quote:
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.


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.


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


How is it not that simple? If they do not plant the GM seed they can save their seeds from year to year. They just have to give up that extra profit from the higher yield. Wait, is that why it is not so simple? They cannot ignore the added profit and want to make more?

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


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.


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


Force it on them by giving them higher yields ... the fiends.


Quote:
Quote:
What could be more simple?


The truth.


Quote:
I am interested in the truth.


If you were you would not have been supporting those who have been shown to misrepresent it. You have a belief you wish to support and that is about the extent of the truth in this case.

Quote:
Quote:
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. [*]


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


Yes, more profit though higher yield is such a force to resist.

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


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


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


And that is why I questioned the goal of seeking the truth in favor of you suoorting a predetermined belief. I suppose you have some evidence of these claims?

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

They are ending their lives because of the undue stress Monsanto has caused them.


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

Quote:
Their yields are lower because.


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


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


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.


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


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.

Quote:
Quote:
So, it seems that if it is truly farmers in the discussion, they are wanting their cake and to eat it too.


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.


Quote:
Quote:
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.


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.

Quote:
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!


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

Quote:
Quote:
I suspect it is more non-farmers who do not want the GM crops who are more involved.


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


Quote:
Quote:
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.


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

Quote:
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.


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.


Quote:
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.


Yes, your claims were full of it. That is why the farmer growing a cash crop for profit is somehow better for feeding the world than someone buying that cash crop? Makes sense to you how?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 5:55 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1272
Quote:
So write to them about their faulty math! But is it possible to deny .....


"Add to this corporate consolidation the spread of biotech crops and you see why biodiversity is becoming so threatened. Biotech crops, like other industrial crops, are monocultures, with single varieties planted over millions of acres and sprayed with chemicals. Despite promises about wonder crops that would end Vitamin A deficiency or withstand drought, nearly all commercially available genetically modified foods are just one of two types, designed either to withstand a specific pesticide or to include a built-in pesticide."

Save your seeds folks, before they become owned.

Quote:
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.


animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
http://digg.com/newsbar/Worldnews/peru_ ... y_monsanto

What is their reason? Biodiversity.


Quote:
Fear of the unknown to them seems more likely from the article,


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 ....


Pssst ... GMOs are not limited to those related to herbicides but that is the "one trick pony" that is to cause us to run from them all ... except those which have been used for decades and we no longer fear them.

Nope.

Quote:
Quote:
but how does that make the previous claim untainted by the misrepresentation even if it is not the cause.


It's great that you like to be exact about math.[/quote]

Or their claims, niether of which were accurate.

Quote:
Is the essential point tainted?


Yes, it is. We know it is not accurately presented.

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


What point? What is real or what they have said? How do we know which is which when they cannot give an accurate point?

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


You mena the fact the "most essential points" may not be truthfully presented? That would be an essential point to me.

Monsanto will truthfully represent them to you?

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


You mean believe because you want us to instead of based on accurate information?

Quote:
Pleease ..... see the point ... the most essential ....


Monsanto bad ... GM bad ... except where the "bad" may have been due to misrepresentations, but they do not count.

GM .... they hae there reasons. Profit mostly.

Quote:
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.


You mean they are not causing food production to increase? Is that more of the inaccurate math? 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.[/quote]

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:11 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
The bulk of the post was not clear as to whether there were any addtional comments.

animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
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.


Quote:
You mean they are not causing food production to increase? Is that more of the inaccurate math? 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 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?


So you are admitting your claim that Monsanto is here to make some major profit from world hunger when they have products not related to food too? How about addressing the point of increased crop production instead of jumping to a distraction? Could it be there is no counter to that point so you are left with only distractions?

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


How about discussing the crop yields for GM and non-GM crops in the same region? We can limit it to food crops if you wish, but we can actually see a reply to the cold hard facts.

Quote:
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.


A very broad generalization that only requires one example to be refuted, if it really had any bearing on the discussion.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:23 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v28/n ... 0-319.html

The benefits of genetically modified (GM) crops continue to be disputed, despite rapid and widespread adoption since their commercial introduction in the United States and Canada in 1995. Last year, 14 million farmers in 25 countries grew GM crops commercially, over 90% of them small farmers in developing countries1. Farmer surveys are a valuable measure of the impact of GM crops. These surveys estimate the technology's performance as it is incorporated into farmer practices, given constraints on time, access to information, differing levels of risk aversion and other factors. This analysis summarizes results from 49 peer-reviewed publications reporting on farmer surveys that compare yields and other indicators of economic performance for adopters and non-adopters of currently commercialized GM crops. The surveys cover GM insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant crops, which account for >99% of global GM crop area1. Results from 12 countries indicate, with few exceptions, that GM crops have benefitted farmers. The benefits, especially in terms of increased yields, are greatest for the mostly small farmers in developing countries, who have benefitted from the spillover of technologies originally targeted at farmers in industrialized countries.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group