Slashdot Mirror

Roundup-Ready crops were designed to survive being sprayed with glyphosate and farmers were tied to buying seed from Monsanto. Farmers used to save seed from one crop to plant the next growing season. Use the Google. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://www.organicconsumers.o...

[Citation needed]

Citations are everywhere. They are not even difficult to find. They lied about PCBs, They lied about Agent Orange... you name something Monsanto said was safe which wasn't safe and you can find a citation showing that they knew that it was hazardous.

I see a market for seaweed-based Mexican food.

We eat seaweed and it's products already Carrageenan comes to mind, with ice cream, Beer!, Toothpaste and that's just Carrageenan. Sushi also uses it. In Wales they use some seaweed called Laver - sounds awful, but they like it, so it can't be too bad.

Cows will probably love it. I see supply problems though. Right now a lot of them get chicken shit - I kid you not - and if you had the choice between poultry waste or seaweed, I think I know what most of us would pick. https://www.organicconsumers.o...

It's only a thin line if you want to be a facetious ass and make it one. Genetically modified crops are just that, They're crops that have had their DNA altered with DNA from other species. Cross pollinating a grapefruit with a tangerine to make a tangelo is not GM. Adding the DNA from a jellyfish to a potato pant, just to make it glow when thirsty, is.

WTO and similar arbitaration boards existed for many moons now. They deal with protectionist tariffs

No, they don't.

One method is to implant spider genes into silkworms, which then act as spider-silk factories.

There are people out there, who are sincerely concerned about whether vitamin-C they are offered was "genetically modified"... How are you going to sell such GMO silk to them?

Because the argument that GMOs are these evil terrible things that you should totally give us your money to fight is going to be a harder sell once you've got news stories talking about how they are saving the lives of children whose only crime was being born in the wrong part of the world. Golden Rice is a big deal to many in the anti-GMO movement, which just goes to show you how little the 'not anti-biotech just anti-Monsanto' line goes.

And one other thing I forgot to add:

Had they focused their modifications only on creating high yield and high nutrition crops

There is no single gene for yield. Yield is a factor of weather, soil fertility, moisture, biotic conditions like disease, pest and weed pressure, ect. You take away pest pressure, and you don't think yield won't go up? well, it kind of doesn't, not in developed countries anyway, where we were spraying pesticides to control pests. But in developed countries, things are very different. So, you really can't say they don't improve yield, or sustainability. Even the much maligned herbicide tolerant ones do.

Of course, higher nutrient crops don't fair any better than Monsanto's crops, perhaps they are hated even more, if the protesting is anything to go by. Which makes sense I guess...the claim that GMOs are all bad and there's no nuance whatsoever and therefore you should don't money to professional anti-GMO activists might look a bit silly when it is out saving even more lives. God forbid Greenpeace, Navdanya, OCA, and all those other greedy sociopaths put humanity before profit. Their actions have lead to more deaths than the anti-vaxxers.

To agree with your point to some extent, I think Elysium (the movie set partially in a space habitat) would have been a much better film if Jodi Foster as a villain had made the point that the solar system would be "full" in 1000 years of unchecked growth, and so as a matter of policy, the "unworthy" breeders on Earth had to be kept down and away from Elysium. I'm not saying I'd agree, but it would have provided a justification of her actions on a larger scale -- a justification very similar to that made by many wealthy people today or in years gone by.

"Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation"
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.u...

"Scientists have created the ultimate GM crop: contraceptive corn. ... The company, which says it will not grow the maize near other crops, says it plans to launch clinical trials of the corn in a few months."
http://www.theguardian.com/sci...

Seven years later: "New Study Links Genetically Engineered Corn to Infertility"
http://www.organicconsumers.or...

Or maybe I've just watched too much "Star Gate: SG1"? :-)
http://stargate.wikia.com/wiki...
"The Aschen's intentions were eventually uncovered when members of SG-1 unearthed the remains of what used to be a thriving urban civilization on the Volian world, learning that the Aschen's Anti-aging vaccine had the effect of sterilizing the entire population, after which they were wiped out."

Robots, Terrafoam, and contraceptives in the water is probably more reliable though, as Marshall Brain envisioned in "Manna":
http://marshallbrain.com/manna...
"I replied, "We could change it now. Robots are doing all the work. Human beings -- all human beings -- could now be on perpetual vacation. That's what bugs me. If society had been designed for it somehow, we could all be on vacation instead of on welfare. Everyone on the planet could be living in luxury. Instead, they are planning to kill us off. Did you hear that women were trying to drink the water out of the river? Some people think they're putting contraceptives in the water.""

That reflects and aspect of my sig: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those thinking in terms of scarcity."

It may well be the case that there are always current limits. Perhaps everyone can't have their own private Caribbean island (yet, but maybe someday via SeaSteading or HoloDecks). There may always be some level of competition, including as young men and women struggle to show off for potential mates. But as a society we can shape how those competitive urges are directed to some extent, like James P. Hogan talked about in "Voyage from Yesteryear".

Still, there is a huge difference between people going hungry and being forced to take jobs they do not want versus people who can eat what they want and choose to spend their time how they want (subject to what other people are willing to do together with them). There may be many levels of abundance, but it seems that such a change in people being able to choose how to spend most of their waking hours without a direct need to earn money, such as via basic income, may be the biggest one.

And there may be dark sides to it too, like the potential for addiction, alienation, and isolation that can come with a wealth of material objects and personal space. Related items:
http://europepmc.org/articles/...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
https://www.drfuhrman.com/libr...

Genetically engineered foods are overseen by the FDA, but there is no approval process.

They are also overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the EPA where there is an approval process.

I like the selective emphasis.

FDA encourages informal consultation between producers and FDA scientists to ensure that safety concerns are resolved. However, producers remain legally responsible for satisfying section 402(a)(1) of the act, and they will continue to be held accountable by FDA through application of the agency's enforcement powers.

how about this alternate emphasis

FDA encourages informal consultation between producers and FDA scientists to ensure that safety concerns are resolved. However, producers remain legally responsible for satisfying section 402(a)(1) of the act, and they will continue to be held accountable by FDA through application of the agency's enforcement powers.

Again you missed the paragraph before that one.

Section 402(a)(1) of the act will continue to be FDA's primary legal tool for regulating the safety of whole foods, including foods derived from plants genetically modified by the new techniques. Section 402(a)(1) of the act will be applied to any substance that occurs unexpectedly in the food at a level that may be injurious to health. This includes a naturally occurring toxicant whose level is unintentionally increased by the genetic modification, as well as an unexpected toxicant that first appears in the food as a result of pleiotropic effects. Such substances are regarded by FDA as added substances whose presence adulterates the food if present at a level that "may render" the food injurious to health.

FDA does not expect that there will be any serious question about the GRAS status of transferred genetic material.

Obviously GMO organisms are safe because we have no expectations they won't be safe.

Way to take a statement out of context. They are talking about whether or not to class transferred genetic material as an additive (section 409 of the Act) that needs separate approval. There are other sections of the act that GMOs fall under. The consumption of the genetic material itself is not an issue; What the genetic material produces is and that is covered by other regulations from agencies including the EPA and the USDA.

Picking and choosing what to post is a weak way to argue.

This is even all beside the point of the question I posed which is "Does a county have the regulatory authority to pass a bylaw that bans GMO's?"

In the case of Roundup, a lot of studies have been done testing the danger to human health, and it seems to be no more dangerous than manure.

Well, there have been a lot of studies run by Monsanto that seem to show that. But then there are other studies that show links to Parkinson's and Autism, cancer, degradation of soil nutrients, as well as lethal effects in amphibians, and perhaps most alarming, a recent study found roundup in the urine of 44% of European Union citizens. Not only that, but it seems that it is actually many of the adjucts used in Roundup applications that are being shown to have the most toxicity, an issue most of the studies completely ignore by studying only the glyphosate, instead of the entirety of the compounds being used in such abundance.

It also ups the ante in the arms race of evolution, which isn't universally seen as a good thing.

It certainty is a bad thing, which is why millions of people protested conventional breeding when late blight overcame the conventionally bred resistances in tomato and when hessian flies overcame conventionally bred resistance in wheat. Oh wait, that never happened because it would be absolutely idiotic, yet somehow, when genetic engineering is involved, the same basic facts of population genetics are suddenly terrible and proof that the technique itself is bad. Perhaps it is because the vast vast majority of the opposition to genetic engineering is coming from those with no background in agricultural or plant science and thus due to their complete lack of context it seems reasonable to them.

Calling objection "hysteria" doesn't make it so. Some protesters are quite enlightened and think long term.

And most of the protesters are the agricultural equivalents to the anti-vaccine movement. And when you are doing little in the way of scientifically justifying your concerns, instead preferring to use bunk science, fearmongering, and outright vandalism on non-corporate projects and farmer's fields, you shouldn't be surprised when you get characterized poorly. Hell, there is no small opposition to even things like Golden Rice (biofortified with -carotene) and the Arctic apple (which does not oxidize when cut). I'm sure there is a perfectly good reason as to why that is, if not unscientific hysteria, because this stuff isn't looking good.

Just about everything carries risk (again for context, even conventional breeding conventional breeding carries risk), just about everything has some negatives that come with the positives, there are actual issues, and not every genetically engineered organisms will necessarily turn out to be a good thing. But to paint the anti-GMO movement as a whole as anything even remotely reasonable would be like saying young earth creationists simply have a dispute with the minor details of a few phylogenies.

The original post specified pesticides, and correctly, GMO is often about "planting seeds that are super resistant to special proprietary pesticides".
Instead of belitteling your post and your envy of abuse of environment, health, risk and irresponsibility, I urge you to start here:

Death Sentence for Monsanto--Roundup Resistant Weeds

Higher Grocery Bills? Blame Insecticides

Roundup(reg) highly lethal to amphibians, finds University of Pittsburgh researcher

"Relyea found that Roundup(reg) caused a 70 percent decline in amphibian biodiversity and an 86 percent decline in the total mass of tadpoles. Leopard frog tadpoles and gray tree frog tadpoles were completely eliminated and wood frog tadpoles and toad tadpoles were nearly eliminated. One species of frog, spring peepers, was unaffected."

GMOs and pesticides are basically a losing battle against nature itself. And for what? More toxins in the body and in the earth? For eradicating bees and amphibians? For unknown side-effects and massive global beta-testing of GMO food?

Why, when the alternative is so much better. Contrary to myths there is not lack of food on this planet. In fact, we throw away MASSIVE amounts of food EVERY DAY. It's no less than insanity to keep on lowering our standards for profit, or when people actually know better, it's just downright evil.

11 Facts About Organic Food

This is as misleading as the studies that "disproved" that organic food is more nutritious. Nobody was making the claim they disproved.

There are absolutely many people making the claim that organic foods are more nutritious. Like here, here and here.

And yes, there are people making the claim that MSNBC is not biased or much less biased than Fox News.

But GMO crops didn't just "grow alone" by themselves. The infringing farmers took concerted action, over several years, to isolate and propagate the seeds, and then benefited from the patented gene by spraying their fields with glyphosate.

Sorry, but bullshit.

There have been numerous instances of natural pollination contaminating other people's crops and Monstanto suing them.

This isn't a case of someone ripping off their seed and using their chemicals -- this is a case of farmers who aren't using their seeds or chemicals (in some case organic farmers who have never used it).

Because the problem becomes that wind, bees, and every other natural way plants get pollinated can cross pollinate into other fields, and Monstanto ends up suing.

Monsanto are greedy asshats, and their product is contaminating other people's farms, and then they sue because your crop has their gene in it when you did nothing at all.

So unless Monsanto can find a way to keep their stuff from contaminating other stuff (which they won't because it's a cash cow), this will continue to end up where it isn't supposed to be through no fault of the people who own the crops.

Monsanto owns the patent on a gene, and genes can spread through natural methods quite readily.

Someone can plant Monsanto seed miles away and have it pollinate your crops, and then you get sued. This is not a case of someone actively using Monsanto's crap, it's people who in many cases are avoiding it.

Monsanto sucks balls.

Ah, no. You simply don't understand. Monsanto is simply attempting, like others, to control the world's food supply, using a number of techniques, etc. Try this, for starters, you no nothing, GMO shrill:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/promise042403.cfm

or this:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/montreal060222.cfm

Etc., etc., etc. I have ZERO confidence in idiot, narcissitic 'scientists' playing god with DNA, as opposed to the very fine tuned, natural processes that have been developing over millions of years through evolution, etc., etc.

And I am a scientist. And I study genetics. We are, to put it politely, in the Stone Age of genetics and don't have a clue. We have discovered fire, but think we know how to make a fusion reactor. Don't get me started.

Ah, no. You simply don't understand. Monsanto is simply attempting, like others, to control the world's food supply, using a number of techniques, etc. Try this, for starters, you no nothing, GMO shrill:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/promise042403.cfm

or this:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/montreal060222.cfm

Etc., etc., etc. I have ZERO confidence in idiot, narcissitic 'scientists' playing god with DNA, as opposed to the very fine tuned, natural processes that have been developing over millions of years through evolution, etc., etc.

And I am a scientist. And I study genetics. We are, to put it politely, in the Stone Age of genetics and don't have a clue. We have discovered fire, but think we know how to make a fusion reactor. Don't get me started.

Correction, Google has plenty, you turned up nothing, you need to look a little deeper. I had no problem Googling these by the way. Here are a couple facilities: Genspace and The DNA Learning Center. There have been articles about them in Wired, Discover Magazine and I'm not certain but I think right here on Slashdot. There is a strong movement to Open Source genetic technologies all over the country and make small very basic public laboratories available for student starting from Middle School. These kids are the future biohackers and they will be just as skilled with their tech as we computer nerds are with ours, only they'll be playing with the stuff life is made out of. Both very cool and terribly disconcerting. By the way, there are also a growing number of people experimenting at home with biotech. The hardest part is getting the basic reagents and buying the glassware without ending up on a DEA or Homeland Security Government Watchlist.

I can't believe you couldn't find information on the researchers in Australia. It was the source of huge controversy. The original researchers wanted to report about what they did in the hope of preventing other researchers from making the same mistake. Security experts however were deeply concerned that this would be the blue print for a bioweapon of unprecedented lethality. You can start reading here. The modification made to the mouse pox virus was easily translatable to human small pox, and subsequent research suggested it would be possible to engineer cold and flu virii with this mutation making them "Virtually Unstoppable Plagues". A bug with a 100% lethality is actually no threat as long as it has a short incubation period, because such a monster would burn through the local population so fast, it would leave no infection vectors only after a couple weeks. Still in that time, it could kill hundreds of thousands of people, more in dense populations like Tokyo or Manhattan. On the other hand, a virus with a long incubation period like, HIV, would be scary indeed, because each infected person could spread it to thousands of others before they even knew they were sick. Please don't call bullshit unless you're willing to do more than the most cursory of Slashdot searches. Besides throwing up FUD you only hurt your own credibility.

As for bunker living, I'd rather be with my friends if the end approached. The twits who think they can wait out a nuclear winter or radioactive contamination, or even massive social collapse in a hole in the ground have no idea whatsoever of what they're in for and those who perished early will almost certainly be the ones who got off easy. So I don't worry about things over which I have no control. I work on the things I can change and I stay informed just to know which way the wind it blowing. Avoid bad news if you can, and if you can't deal with it courageously. Sticking your head in the sand by the way, or watching FOX news (which is tantamount to sticking your head in a septic tank) is its own punishment.

The point of organic isn't about the nutrition, it's about the other things.

It isn't hard to find claims that it is more nutritious (although to be fair I can see how there may be some merit to some of those claims under certain conditions, given all the variables that go into producing crops), and if those other things are shown false, yet more other things will be brought in to justify organic. It sounds like the a classic moving goalpost to simply say that organic is all about other things.

The global honeybee population demise is linked to a single pesticide not to mention the links to human disease

What's more, when you buy Organic, you are (in most cases) supporting a local farmer in your area rather than Del Monte or Dole or some other mega-corp grower. Indirectly, buying Organic means you are also not supporting the pesticide companies such as Monsanto who are out to destroy family farming.

Buy organic. TFA is a shill.

You make the same distinction I do - Nutrition is a part of how 'Healthy' a food is, but not all of it.

Still, there's problems organic foods, in that farmers are still free to use fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. They just have to be 'organic'* ones, and some of those are nastier than the artificial chemical ones. Also, there's the question of food safety, as organic certification is separate from safety certification. Fecal matter, E-Coli, Salmonella, etc are all natural and organic, after all. I've read reports that *SOME* organic products have higher levels of contamination than their non-organic counterparts. Given how widespread the field is and how stuff constantly changes, I have no advice beyond 'pay attention to your food source, no matter whether it's organic or not'. For example, I don't worry about organic vegetarian** eggs, but I do worry whether the farm vaccinates the hens against Salmonella.

*Scare-quoted primarily because the distinction on what's organic and not varies by location and certifying authority(if any).
**WTH? I want eggs from omnivores - chickens that get sufficient insect protein produce better eggs! ;)

"On the minus side, arsenic-crazed bacteria are a rather cool theory to have dashed against the rocks of callous empiricism. "

And they'd feel OK in the US tapwater.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/arsenic.cfm

In the not too distant future the earth will reach its carrying capacity with regard to non-GMO food production

This assumes that GMO crop yields are (or will be) higher than those of non-GMO crops. So far, the evidence seems to suggest that the opposite is the case.

Hi Lee - you state "Previous studies showed that organic farming doesn't give bigger nutritional value" Can you provide some links? My own tests showed our potatoes were more nutritious than store-bought potatoes (we had those tested, too). I've also provided literature that stated corn had higher protein before GMO. I'd be interested to see a counter-claim.

Some quick Googling seemed to indicate mainstream media wasn't ready to state one way or the other:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/organic_nutrition.cfm
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/organic-food/NU00255/NSECTIONGROUP=2
http://www.ota.com/organic/benefits/nutrition.html

interesting report here, would be interesting to see more details:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080807082954.htm

Considerable background info here:
A Comparison of North American and European Safeguards
http://www.organicconsumers.org/madcow/GregerBSE.cfm

Not necessarily. Organic food has gotten the notice of big business. With so many Monsanto lobbyists working in the federal gov't & Obama administration, expect to see attempts to weaken organic standards. http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_24575.cfm

http://www.organicconsumers.org/Monsanto/farmerssued.cfm

http://planetgreen.discovery.com/food-health/monsanto-sues-pennsylvania-farmer-for-saving-seeds.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/02/us/saving-seeds-subjects-farmers-to-suits-over-patent.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

I can find you literally HUNDREDS of articles about farmers getting sued by GM seed makers. Only a raving lunatic would say "they dont sue farmers"

You could check out a list of studies on this page:
http://www.ota.com/organic/benefits/nutrition.html
"Growing crops in healthy soils results in food products that offer healthy nutrients. There is mounting evidence that organically grown fruits, vegetables and grains may offer more of some nutrients, including vitamin C, iron, magnesium and phosphorus, and less exposure to nitrates and pesticide residues than their counterparts grown using synthetic pesticides and fertilizers."

It kind of stands to reason that richer soil means healthier crops:
http://www.remineralize.org/

Actually, getting a bit of insect damage can also improve a plant's nutritional qualities sometimes (certain plant defense compounds may be used by the human body for various purposes including fighting cancer).

While "organic" is a bit arbitrary ("certified organic" means following certain guidelines though), organic generally means no GMO, which can be beneficial.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/corn-study.cfm
"Consumers have another reason to avoid genetically modified foods (GMO). Yesterday, European news outlets reported harmful health impacts on lab rats that were fed Monsanto's root worm resistant corn (Mon 863)."

But in general, you're better off eating any kind of vegetables than none, so don't let them not being "organic" stop you.

And people can rightly point to aspects of "organic" farming that are problematical too. It becomes a weighing thing of different tradeoffs.

Other factors can also effect nutrient quality of organic or non-organic produce, like shipping or choice of variety.

The point is that what we eat, especially vegetables, fruits, and beans, can have a tremendous effect on our health.
http://www.drfuhrman.com/
"You can reverse disease, reduce high blood pressure, lose unwanted weight, lower your cholesterol levels, prevent heart disease and cancer, and improve your health - all without relying on drugs and fad diets. The importance of good nutrition is emphasized in Dr. Fuhrman's dietary program, Eat To Live."

But our agricultural subsidies in the USA don't reflect that, and instead promote factory farmed animal products and processed grains.

I have to admit I didn't check those results well. I looked at the first one, saw the headline and went with it. Sloppy on my part and defeats the whole reason I love debating.

I'm not sure exactly where I picked up the idea. Well, probably Food Inc. I remember thinking at the time that whether any of their facts were right or not that the presentation was biased. Without ever verifying it it must of slipped into my head unchallenged. This debate has made me research things more (why I love debating :) ).

Anyway, it would appear that most concerns are not well documented. I read one yesterday (that I can't find now, but doesn't really matter) that denounced IMF loans for GM cotton to Ethiopia when they face starvation.

The article also tied the loan to a condition that the cotton had to be exported unprocessed which has a much lower value. As I've taken the time to look more in depth today I could see that while many of the statements in the article were true they were not necessarily linked. It is true they could export textiles at a higher value than raw cotton. But it is also true that cotton producers can export raw cotton for more than what they would get selling it to their domestic textile Industry. Also, I know a loan for cotton does not necessarily negate or have anything to do with a loan for food.

Without knowing more about the specifics of the loans, the negotiations and who requested what it's hard to verify any of the claims I put forth. So, unless I happen to find something more substantive, I will concede. ;)

1. http://www.organicconsumers.org/Monsanto/farmerssued.cfm
2. http://nelsonfarm.net/

Farmers saving soybean seeds in violation of contract. NOT accidental contamination.

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser

Schmeiser sprayed his Canola with Roundup to select for resistance, saved the seed from the resistant crop and then planted the seed. His Canola was found to be 98% roundup resistant.

Nothing accidental there either.

You have provided no citations of farmers being sued by Monsanto for having accidentally contaminated crops. As I said, that is an urban myth.

Very true. Monsanto and friends have bought off the political side and continue to lobby heavily so that clear labels on GM food are not required - preventing consumers from making an informed choice in the free market. Now as part of this broader campaign of voter/consumer deception, they just need to convince all the consumers that are not paying attention that their products are all A-Ok for consumption - so they trot out people like this Jonathan Jones so called "professor" to use his credentials to sway public opinion.

They have to do this campaign to deceive, since consumers tend to avoid GM Food in droves - just look at how fast McDonald's had to drop GM potatoes from their fries. They may be able to buy politicians and hide their GM labels, but consumers are still a force to be reckoned with, and thanks to the internet - more informed than ever.

Why Monsanto is Evil... http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm

Actually, I'm not sure of current numbers but I found a report from 2004 that says that we import more food here in the USA then we export. And since a lot of corn is now going to ethanol production, I'm assuming we export even less now.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/exports111204.cfm

Just because we have a lot of farmland doesn't mean we are making any money from that farmland. Think about that $2 jug of apple juice you just bought at walmart -- you think the apples that made that juice were grown here??? Those apples were grown in China. I am not kidding.

I have no idea.

So, Obama's appointments in 2009 allowed Monsanto to hide this information from 2001 to the present?

Where's the link about the time machine?

I have no idea.

Raising animals for meat *does* produce more natural resources than a car.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_9184.cfm

You know there's 49 states other than California, right? Not all of them are quite so sunny year-round, or as windy, or have rivers flowing from mountain to ocean, or vast govt-owned deserts. For example, I'm from Michigan. Its cloudy, alot, especially in the winter. There are solar panels around, but not enough to power 10% of the state. And feel free to visit in the winter, I'll give you the broom and you can sweep the snow off the panels. Our rivers aren't exactly roaring, but there is hydro around.

I also lived in Alaska for a few years. Solar would work for, oh 4-5 months. Its pretty dark there in the winter. Forget hydro, its too cold and most of the state freezes. The Aleutians are pretty windy, but you'd have to build the entire transmission infrastructure to get it to the mainland. Easier said than done in some of the most hostile territory on earth. Besides, you hippies from the Lower 48 would complain about some environmental fad in one of the many regions of AK and try to block development.

It might be grid prices eventually, but I would bet rates will go up to market price after all the subsidies end in 2017, link or link or link. Besides, don't you Californian's have enough taxes on everything already? And the 7th largest economy is broke? Thanks but I prefer the +/- of the midwest, we don't need to import your bad habits.

The FDA is an affront to medical freedom in the US. Like all regulatory agencies, it has formed a cartel with the businesses it was implemented to regulate. We are left with mainstream medical knowledge subject to lobbyists. The FDA pushes flawed studies as irrefutable science, dangerous drugs, and a diet not suited to humans.

Private, voluntary certification companies like Underwriters Laboratories have an incentive to be honest, because they will go out of business if discredited. Likewise, pharmaceutical companies need the certification of an outside party to gain and keep the trust of consumers. The FDA should not be that party. Unlike the UL, it is a government bureaucracy that does not need to maintain a good reputation to stay in power.

[sarcasm]I'm sure there are plenty of inspectors to enforce that law as well.[/sarcasm]

Mad cow disease, just so you understand it, is prion based. It does not just randomly happen. It is impossible for the brain to just make up prions. It must first come in contact with them by consumption or injection. Considering the fact that no one goes around injecting the bovine population with syringes filled with prions we must conclude a cow get's them by ingestion. That would mean that a "mad cow" infected animal got that why be eating the brain or spinal tissue of another MAMMAL.

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1629

http://www.organicconsumers.org/madcow/silence51104.cfm

http://www.goveg.com/ABD_madcow.asp

Unlike what Monsanto said, and you fell for

[Citation needed]

• Superweeds fear from GM crops
• Destructive creation: GM superweeds
• Rise of GM superweeds
• RE: Government Study Finds GM 'Superweeds'
• "Cross-Pollination Leads to Triple Herbicide Resistance"

Crops cross pollinate, GE or otherwise. And those who complain about GE crops need to Keep It Real - we've been genetically engineering for thousands of years through cross breeding.

We have not been inserting fish genes into tomatoes, or any other foreign genes into any other plant or animal life for thousands of years. Horizontal gene transfer happens rarely in nature. Simply selective breeding as is done in agriculture and farming does not introduce genes that do not occur naturally in plants or animals into those plant and animals. All it does is amplify traits that already there. I garden and if I come across a trait say in tomatoes I grow, I currently have four different tomatoes growing in the garden, I can save the seeds from the tomatoes I like and plant them the next year. If next year I do the same and keep doing that year after year I'll eventually create my own cultivar. That's a lot different than introducing foreign genes.

Yes, I know Monsanto are dicks, and I heard about that farmer. What I don't see, however, is how this is Gore's fault

It's not Gore's fault but he supports increasing genetic engineering.

The most a quick Googling brings up is that Clinton's secretary of agriculture was opposed to it while Gore was VP - pretty weak sauce.

Perhaps you searched for the wrong things. From wiki's article on Al Gore:
"Gore was one of the Atari Democrats who were given this name due to their 'passion for technological issues, from biomedical research and genetic engineering to the environmental impact of the "greenhouse effect.'"

• Famed geneticist creating life form that turns CO2 to fuel
• Al Gore's Mealy-Mouth Position on Genetically Engineeered Food

Falcon

I didn't cite it, because I even though I waste time reading /., I don't keep newspaper clippings in my back pocket. Although, I guess requesting bigger proof than my own conjecture is prudent.

I only scanned these before posting them. I googled for "milk fox news court".
I may have first heard about it in the movie "the corporation" (more than 1/2 way through) but I can't be sure.

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/
http://www.everything2.com/title/FOX%2520News
http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbgh/fox-news.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto
http://www.netfeed.com/~jhill/RupertMurdoch.htm

Rural Maine town? Aha. Sucks to be you. Agricultural runoff => similar feminising effects. No joke.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_13464.cfm

>There is nothing wrong with using toxic substances...

Yep, it's even in the tapwater you drink, use to cook and wash and brush your teeth.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/arsenic.cfm

So, the court upholds the constitutional guarantee of free speech. But... only if the speech is against people.

This is not a joke: In 13 states, you do not have the right of free speech if you talk about food.

Read about food libel laws. Say anything you like about people, but don't libel food!

Don't read this, if you live in these states: Citizens of Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, you may not read the next paragraph:

Large amounts of caffeine have an effect on the human central nervous system that many people consider to be unhealthy. In my opinion, it is better to avoid caffeine. That means avoiding soft drinks with caffeine, and avoiding coffee unless it is de-caffeinated.

Citizens of those states, resume reading. If you care for yourself, you will care for your government. Read the many, many books about government corruption in the United States. Take some action against abusiveness.

More stories about your loss of the right to free speech:

Talk Show Host Gets First Taste of Food Disparagement Laws

Food disparagement laws: A threat to us all.

Food Fights

Food Fight - food disparagement laws fought by Center for Science in the Public Interest's FoodSpeak Coalition project

However, what bothers me most about Monsanto, is that they are killing the concept of genetically engineered crops (which is sure to become a necessity as the Earth's population grows), by doing exactly the kind of genetic engineering that is risky, dangerous, and epitomizes the idea of taking the easy way out.

For instance, the present population of Latin America is around 300 million, and already many of them are under-nourished. But if the population continued to increase at the present rate, it would take less than 500 years to reach the point where the people, packed in a standing position, formed a solid carpet over the whole area of the continent. This is so, even if we assume them to be very skinny - a not very unrealistic assumption. In 1,000 years from now they would be standing on each other's shoulders more than a million deep. By 2,000 years, the mountain of people, travelling outwards at the speed of light, would have reached the edge of the known universe.

IGF-I had been associated with the growth of numerous tumors, including colon (Tricoli et al., 1986), smooth muscle (Hoppener et al., 1988), breast (Rosen et al., 1991), and others (Pavelic et al., 1986).

GF-1 is a protein hormone found in the milk of all mammals. In addition, bovine IGF-1 and human IGF-1 are identical (i.e. they have the exact same amino acid sequence).

Though I don't think there is conclusive evidence yet, there are some studies that suggest organic food does have more nutrients:
http://www.grinningplanet.com/2005/12-27/health-benefits-of-organic-food-article.htm
http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/polyphenolics031203.cfm

The fact is, we don't fully understand nutrition yet (either for plants or humans). Reductionist explanations have repeatedly turned out to be wrong -- first we figured out fats, carbohydrates, and protein, and thought we had it solved. Then it turned out there were these things called vitamins, and they were important too -- but clearly that was the whole picture. Now we're finding out about things like antioxidants that are also important to health. It seems reasonable at this point to assume that there is still more going on that we haven't figured out yet.

The chemical composition of healthy soil is incredibly complex, and to assert that it's just a matter of nitrogen and carbon is absurd. We don't understand that whole picture yet, and it's certainly plausible (though not yet proven) that organic foods have certain health benefits.

Personally, what I think is dangerous is the idea that we can keep dumping poison (pesticides and chemical fertilizer) into the environment in massive quantities without consequences. Fertilizer and pesticides can increase yields, and in the long run we may need to employ them judiciously to feed a growing world population. But right now, yields aren't the problem. The first world has more food than it can eat, while people in the third world are starving mostly for political and economic reasons.

Maybe it's the fact that Pig and Human DNA have been succesfully combined. Or maybe it's the fact that the so-called "missing link" was in fact a pig tooth.

The poster's may not have been verbatim charges against Monsanto, but read here, here, here, here, here and here. And if that's not enough, add this and this.

Let's not forget Terminator Seeds, Agent Orange and Bovine Growth Hormone. Sure, it could all be hyperbolic, paranoid, general left-wing nutiness, but I think there's a kernel of truth in there somewhere.

Speaking of walking udders, isn't it natural that another genetic engineering firm managed to make silk from a mutant animal's udder, instead of milk? That would so definitely happen in the wild (yeah, right).

See here.

Let's get your facts straight, 1.) It IS UNNATURAL. 2.) It IS HARMFUL. 3.) genetic pollution HAPPENS OFTEN.

Genetically Modified High Frutcose Corn Syrup is harmful to people's health and GM crops don't grow by themselves.

Organic farms are increasingly finding that via cross-pollination their pure food has been contaminated with GM DNA thus ruining their businesses.

It is illegal to grow GM maize in Mexico..

"Genetic pollution" and collateral damage from GE field crops already have begun to wreak environmental havoc. Wind, rain, birds, bees, and insect pollinators have begun carrying genetically-altered pollen into adjoining fields, polluting the DNA of crops of organic and non-GE farmers. An organic farm in Texas has been contaminated with genetic drift from GE crops on a nearby farm and EU regulators are considering setting an "allowable limit" for genetic contamination of non-GE foods, because they don't believe genetic pollution can be controlled. Because they are alive, gene-altered crops are inherently more unpredictable than chemical pollutants--they can reproduce, migrate, and mutate. Once released, it is virtually impossible to recall genetically engineered organisms back to the laboratory or the field.

Large-scale genetic contamination of imported cottonseed in Greece

http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/gepollution.cfm
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/pollution.cfm
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsant o_and_Genetic_Pollution
http://www.globalchefs.com/column/archive/col011po l.htm
http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/environmentalscienc e/casestudies/case15.mhtml

And on and on and on and on and on and fucking on...

(the following snipet was stolen at random from: http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Dangers-of-High-Fruc tose-Corn-Syrup&id=28535 )

High Fructose Corn Syrup

High fructose corn syrup is made by treating corn (which is usually genetically modified corn) with a variety of enzymes, some of which are also genetically modified, to first extract the sugar glucose and then convert some of it into fructose, since fructose tastes sweeter than glucose. The end result is a mixture of 55% fructose and 45% glucose, that is called "high fructose corn syrup." Improvements in production occurred in the 1980's making it cheaper than most other sweeteners. I remember in the 1980's when the price of Pepsi dropped from about $3 for a sixpack to about $1.50. In 1966 refined sugar such as sucrose was the was the leading sweetener / additive. In 2001 corn sweeteners accounted for 55% of the sweetener market. Consumption of high fructose corn syrup went from zero in 1966 to 62.6 pounds per person in 2001. A 12 ounce soda can contain as much as 13 teaspoons of sugar in the form of high fructose corn syrup.

Once again, the dangerous combination: fructose and glucose.

When high fructose corn syrup breaks down in the intestine, we once again find near equal amounts of glucose and fructose entering the bloodstream. As covered in recent newsletters, the fructose short-circuits the glycolytic pathway for glucose. This leads to all the problems associated with sucrose. In addition, HFCS seems to be generating a few of its own problems, epidemic obesity being one of them. Fructose does not stimulate insulin production and also fails to increase "leptin" production, a hormone produced by the body's fat cells. Both of these act to turn off the appetite and control body weight. Als