% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Monsanto Company Message Board

c_rader 32 posts  |  Last Activity: 59 minutes ago Member since: Mar 25, 1998
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to


    by tony89234 Jun 24, 2015 8:25 AM
    c_rader c_rader 59 minutes ago Flag

    Glad to hear it, but there are other concerns that some people have besides what makes you sick.

  • Reply to


    by tony89234 Jun 24, 2015 8:25 AM

    {That's my point. } WHAT's your point? I show you that there's manipulation on all sides but you only see the manipulation when you don't think it furthers your own end. You simply cannot conceive that some honest people might disagree with you. You honestly don't think it makes any difference whether people agree with you for a sensible reason or because they have been lied to. The end justifies the means. The great cause it everything.

    {No other industry can get away with that but for some reason AG can.}

    Are you blind to everything? You plug your computer into the wall and you get all kinds of electricity mixed together. There's no mandatory label that tells you if the electricity is produced by burning coal, fissioning nuclei, or catching the wind. There are people who think that difference is important and in fact they have the opportunity to buy electricity that is specifically from sustainable sources, but for the rest of people there is no label. How do they get away with that?

    You buy a car that's made from a great deal of steel. Some steel is made from recycled scrap metal. Other steel is made from newly mined iron ore. Some people care about the difference, but nobody tells you. How do they get away with that?

    last election cycle, one of the Republican primary candidates got almost all his campaign contributions from a single contributor who made his money in casino gambling. This wasn't on the ballot next to his name. How do they get away with that?

    How does everyone seem to get away with not telling you everything you want to know? And why can't I get told everything I want to know. And why do I have to be told only what YOU WANT ME TO KNOW?

  • Reply to


    by tony89234 Jun 24, 2015 8:25 AM

    why don't they just do that?

    Wiley, will it surprise you to learn that food companies put labels on food to attract customers? Yes, they are motivated by a chance to make more money. That's why if you walk the aisles of the supermarket you will see all sorts of products labeled "organic", despite it being perfectly legal to sell organic food without labeling it organic. They label it because it gets them a higher price. I think you probably buy it and pay the higher price.

    You should not be tricked into thinking that companies label their products voluntarily in order to give you information. A few months ago, it was the time of the Jewish holiday Passover and the stores were selling a lot of a food product called matzoh. It's made of flour and water - no other ingredients - the recipe is in Exodus. Neither flour nor water are GMO. Yet one of the companies put a huge GMO-free label on their box (bigger than anything else on the package, even bigger than the word Matzoh). Why? To trick you into thinking that perhaps the other matzoh makers were sneaking some GMO ingredients into the product. The company was exploiting your fear (valid fear or not doesn't matter, not trying to help you with information.

    Personally I don't think GMO labeling is a good idea and when I argue that it should be by ingredients I am not advocating labeling, just saying that if we have to have it, it should be based on information rather than just a tool for the propagandists.

    Good luck with your diet problems.

  • Reply to


    by tony89234 Jun 24, 2015 8:25 AM

    One more time, then I give up. Unless you want to avoid ALL GMO foods, the currently proposed labeling laws give you too little information. The laws that would give you MORE information will still meet your needs without depriving anyone else of the information they need to meet their needs.

    The burdens you describe seem very serious, but I am not asking you to eat something you think you shouldn't, even by accident.

    Whole wheat flour and sunflower seeds are not GMO in any product you might buy and I doubt that there's any GMO content in tea, so clearly your problems go well beyond GMOs.

  • Reply to


    by tony89234 Jun 24, 2015 8:25 AM
    c_rader c_rader Jun 29, 2015 1:33 PM Flag

    Wiley, it's hard to see how you can misunderstand this.

    Suppose you go to the store after a GMO labeling law is in effect. The law requires a product to say {contains GMO ingredients} if any ingredient is derived from a GMO. So you look at a loaf of bread and it says GMO. You decide to avoid it and buy another kind of bread.

    Suppose instead, the law requires the product label to identify any GMO ingredient. Now when you look at the ingredients list you find

    whole wheat flour, water, sunflower seeds, ..., honey, riboflavin from genetically modified yeast, corn meal, ... , soy lecithin, vinegar.

    From that you can tell that the corn and the soy are NOT GMO and that the only GMO ingredient is the vitamin riboflavin.

    Now I am trying to understand why you think the first law, which tells you less, is better than the second law.

    I understand why the first law may be just as good for you, but only because YOU want to avoid anything GMO without exception. Even so, the second law meets your need.

    But surely you can understand that there might be some people who think riboflavin is a good thing even if it's from a GMO. Why do they have to be scared away from a product they want, just because you think all GMOs are bad?

  • Reply to


    by tony89234 Jun 24, 2015 8:25 AM
    c_rader c_rader Jun 29, 2015 9:41 AM Flag

    [If GMO 's are used, I don't want them. It's really that simple.]

    So Wiley, your position is that every single GMO is bad and everyone should avoid every single one of them and people who think differently should just shut up and let you have the mindless GMO label.

    Anyone who tries to think for themselves is just a trouble maker.

  • Reply to


    by tony89234 Jun 24, 2015 8:25 AM
    c_rader c_rader Jun 29, 2015 7:57 AM Flag

    Wiley, I'm glad that you've found a way to stay healthy.

    When I said you were asking the question incorrectly, I wasn't saying what you should eat. Your personal experience may not work for everyone and, in fact, may be worse for some people.

    But I'd like to comment on your last statement - "they are trying to sneak it in wit out labeling it and that makes me not trust them."

    By "they" I assume you mean food companies. I think some distrust is appropriate, but not only in the direction you have mentioned. For example, I recently saw a box of matzoh with an enormous GMO-free label, bigger than anything else on the box. But no matzoh has any GMO content. Matzohs are made of water and wheat flour, and there's no GMO wheat flour in commercial use (and of course no GMO water). This company was trying to fool consumers into thinking that their product was different from other matzohs in GMO content. This should not earn your trust.

    If you carefully read any of the proposed laws that would make GMO labeling mandatory, you will find that none of them gives you the identification of the ingredient which makes the product GMO. So if you want to avoid some particular GMO ingredient but not all GMO ingredients, these laws don't help you and may, even, harm you. For example you might be scared away from a product with an added vitamin, thinking it might be a herbicide-tolerant crop. Why are the laws written this way? Think about it.

  • Reply to


    by tony89234 Jun 24, 2015 8:25 AM
    c_rader c_rader Jun 28, 2015 11:36 AM Flag

    Wiley, you are asking the question incorrectly. We should be asking what specific things about GMO foods make them especially worrisome in comparison to other foods.

    A great deal of the anti-GMO propaganda is blindly ignoring reality.

    Don't like herbicides? There are GMO crops that don't use herbicides and there are non-GMO crops that do use herbicides. It's just not a GMO/non-GMO distinction.

    Don't like monocultures? Monocultures were the prevalent form of agriculture before there were GMO crops and nothing has changed.

    Worried about lack of testing? But GMO crops are more tested than non-GMO crops. You really have to put more attention to the safety of gamma ray induced mutations, or chromosome doubling, etc.

    Patenting life? It was prevalent before patenting GMOs. Not a distinction between GMO and non-GMO.

    Allergies? There are numerous non-GMO foods that give some people allergies. The protocol for creating GMOs includes steps to prevent creating new allergy sources. Protocols not used for other breeding methods or growing methods. Calling this a GMO issue is backwards thinking.

    I'd be interested if you would name some specific issues that you think are likely to make GMO foods more worrisome than non-GMO foods.

  • c_rader c_rader Jun 22, 2015 9:50 AM Flag

    richard, I don't interpret chipotle's switch from one type of oil to another as based on Chipotle's ignorance. I base it on their exploitation of the extensive anti-GMO campaign. I also don't consider Monsanto's campaign against GMO labeling to be based on Monsanto's ignorance. I think they have made a calculation as to what effect such labeling laws would have on their profits.

    The ignorance which startles me is when the various people who draft these GMO labeling laws want to gather together a set of crops and call them "GMO", implying that they are all equivalent, and then refuse to identify them separately on an ingredients label. The only justification for that is that the laws are meant to facilitate a propaganda campaign.

  • Reply to


    by zionazikillermmm Jun 17, 2015 4:38 AM
    c_rader c_rader Jun 17, 2015 1:30 PM Flag

    Wp, where can I confirm your claim that Israel has used this against Gaza? It seems really unlikely and there is, of course, a flood of misinformation out there.

  • c_rader c_rader Jun 15, 2015 12:23 PM Flag

    This is probably a good thing. Whenever homeowners use any pesticides (including herbicides) they often don't know what they are doing. They have no training. They have often no experience about how much is needed, so they may use too much. They may not know how to wash out spray equipment, or how to dispose of the leftover spray fluid.

  • c_rader c_rader Jun 14, 2015 4:33 PM Flag

    I am certainly not offering the thickness of a seed catalog as proof of anything. I am saying that the anti-GMO comments often claim that GMO crops threaten biodiversity and that this goes against common sense and I've explained why.

    It is not realistic to think that very many people will make the effort to count how many crop varieties become available or stopped being available at what time. On the other hand, it is trivially easy for anyone to convince himself that GMO crops of a given species are not all identical. Can you therefore understand that when somebody claims that is so he is either a fool or a propagandist?

    raincoat, these claims that GMO technology has reduced biodiversity are mostly presented without any evidence whatsoever! When evidence IS presented it is always of the form "X % of the varieties available Y years ago are no longer available now (without taking any account of what new varieties have been introduced in the interim).

  • c_rader c_rader Jun 14, 2015 4:20 PM Flag

    frieda, you are just so completely wrong that I wonder how it can be. Every farmer who has ever bought a GMO seed has known it. There's complete labeling of GMO seeds, motivated by the fact that farmers will pay extra for them.

    The mixing in the bag was for the Bt crops, to create a guaranteed refuge to discourage the insect pests from evolving a resistance to Bt (as had happened when diamond back moths became resistant to Bt when it was overused in non-GMO applications. There were no Bt soybeans in the 90s, so no seed for the "refuge in the bag" before then.

    You are asking me if I believe that something that never happened was an accident. That's bizarre.

  • c_rader c_rader Jun 13, 2015 8:40 AM Flag

    The last reply was about why one would expect GMOs to increase biodiversity. But the real proof comes by looking at the seed catalogs. The number of available kinds of seeds increases year by year and a seed catalog today is approximately twice as thick as one form twenty years ago. The most persistent anti-GMO crowd will tell us that X% of the varieties of, say, corn from fifty years ago are no longer available, without mentioning that far more new varieties have become available. At this point the propaganda has passed over the line from "spin" to lying. If you choose to still believe the propaganda, then nothing will change your mind.

  • c_rader c_rader Jun 13, 2015 8:35 AM Flag

    You want to know what evidence I have that GMO technology improves biodiversity. Let's start by explaining what we mean by biodiversity. We can be talking about the number of different species on some environment, but that is not what people normally mean when talking about GMOs reducing biodiversity. (But of course, this is what people mean when they bemoan monocultures - and monocultures are unrelated to GMOs.)

    They normally mean the number of varietal differences within a crop species, which is the number of different kinds of gene within the total gene pool of the species. The GMO technology allows breeders to ADD A NEW GENE to the species gene pool. Incredibly the anti-GMO propaganda mill calls this reducing biodiversity.

    The anti-GMO community includes some people (not all) who understand that this is absurd and they have a more complex narrative. They think that the single GMO variety is so dominant among farmers that they will stop growing the older varieties and we will be left with only one variety, which would indeed be a reduction of biodiversity, except that this is not what happens.

    Once a researcher has gotten a gene of interest across the species boundary, the resulting plant is cross bred with dozens of existing varieties. Before the existence of the GMO there was a need for many varieties, for different growing regions, early or late planting, taste preferences, processing properties, etc. The GMO trait doesn't in any way reduce the interest in different varieties, it just means that each variety can now become two varieties, one with the GMO trait and one without.

    There's a special irony when the propaganda claim about reducing biodiversity comes up against the Bt crops - because by law these must be grown in a mix of two varieties, one GMO and the other not. The two seed varieties are usually mixed together in the bag of seeds sold to farmers.

  • c_rader c_rader Jun 11, 2015 4:02 PM Flag

    tony, it always intrigues me when someone posts nonsense and then says "Do some research before you post ..." when corrected. Everyone interested in the GMO issue, whether pro or con, is familiar with the experience of Percy Schmeiser. I'm going to tell you what it says on his own web site.

    First, nobody is sure how a few canola plants of Monsanto's patented roundup ready variety got onto his land. Schmeiser speculated that they could have been blown by the wind from a passing truck. But it doesn't matter. Schmeiser had his worker spray a corner of one field with roundup, killing most of the canola plants there, and he saved the seeds from the surviving canola plants for his future plantings. (He has to have known that the surviving plants would be the Roundup Ready variety.)

    Second, after Schmeiser lost his lawsuit brought by Monsanto for patent violation, he appealed to the Canadian Supreme Court, but his appeal did NOT claim that he has obtained the plants accidentally. He based his appeal on the belief that the Monsanto patent was invalid.

    That's research you can do from Schmeiser's own explanation of the situation.

    But you can go somewhat further, which I recommend. Look up the case OSGATA vs Monsanto. OSGATA is a coalition of organic seed companies, etc., who sued Monsanto because they demanded an ironclad guarantee that their customers would not be sued by Monsanto for accidental possession of GMOs, whether by cross-pollination or in some other blameless way. Their suit was dismissed because they could not provide the court with a single example of when such a suit had happened. Then they appealed to a higher court and the judge upheld the dismissal and said that any such suits would have been illegal. To me that's a pretty good proof that Monsanto does not sue farmers who get some GMO crops because of accidental cross-pollination, as you have implied.

  • c_rader c_rader Jun 10, 2015 2:58 PM Flag

    raincoat, The will of customers is not at issue. You may, if you choose, believe that consumers in Europe have accurately analyzed the GMO issue and decided to fear GMO crops. I believe that those customers have been fed a load of propaganda and have believed it. I don't think you and I can resolve that because you clearly also believe what I think is propaganda.

    But I'll make a half-hearted try. You already concede that "drenched with glyphosate" is propaganda and that sprayed with glyphosate would be more accurate.

    But the propaganda also includes

    the false belief in suicide seeds,

    the false belief in GMO-caused Indian farmer suicides,

    the description of the Bt as a human toxin when it's really a nutrient.

    There are hundreds of web photos of fruits being injected with a syringe.

    There are hundreds of posters showing a half-fish-half-tomato.

    There are endless claims that Monsanto sues farmers whose crops are accidentally cross-pollinated.

    The propagandists try to blame GMO crops for colony collapse disorder of bees, with zero evidence.

    They say that wild animals will not eat GMO crops, which anyone can tell is nonsense.

    They blame GMO agriculture for monocultures, for patenting of plants, for making farmers buy new seeds each year, etc., even though these have been the common practice long before there were GMOs.

    They incredibly talk about a loss of biodiversity, when there's a clear gain. It goes on and on and there's no way to call these false things anything else besides propaganda.

  • c_rader c_rader Jun 9, 2015 8:10 PM Flag

    raincoat, what are you saying? Are you claiming that these countries have labeling requirements because the GMO crops can be drenched instead of sprayed? Are you saying that these countries demand labeling because of Monsanto's treatment of American farmers who live near its customers? I am totally befuddled about how any country's labeling requirements prove anything at all.

  • c_rader c_rader Jun 9, 2015 2:34 PM Flag

    OK tony, it's often surprisingly hard to get people to moderate their remarks.

    Sometimes the zealots go so far with so little knowledge that it gets absurd. Did you catch it when the Chipotle restaurant chain recently decided to drop GMO foods from its menu? They of course had to stop using soybean oil, because just about all soybean oil comes from herbicide resistant soybeans. So they switched to sunflower oil which comes from - you guessed it - herbicide resistant sunflowers.

  • c_rader c_rader Jun 9, 2015 12:50 PM Flag

    tony, your opinion about Monsanto's business is your own opinion and you have a right to it. I would suggest, though, that you show evidence of having formed that opinion based on only information that comes from anti-GMO propaganda.

    Why do I say that? It's this sentence: " ... that can live through a good ol drenching of Roundup."

    You only find the application of Roundup called "drenching" in the propaganda. Nobody else would ever use the term drench to refer to an application of about a quart per acre.

106.96+4.17(+4.06%)2:05 PMEDT