Sat, Feb 28, 2015, 11:10 AM EST - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

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

Monsanto Company Message Board

evaheisel 4 posts  |  Last Activity: Feb 5, 2015 8:57 AM Member since: Dec 12, 2007
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Google it

    Greenpeace not so much fights for the environment as against development
    Post’s editorial page the day before, by Danish academic superstar Bjorn Lomborg. Headlined “Trashing rice, killing children,” it pointed to the consequences of environmental activists’ often violent opposition to genetically-modified “Golden Rice,” which is fortified with vitamin A. During the decade in which the anti-GM campaigners have held up the adoption of Golden Rice, eight million children have died from vitamin A deficiency.

    What stood out was Professor Lomborg’s assertion that trashing Golden Rice fields in poor countries was “aided by well-meaning but misguided organizations such as Greenpeace.”

    Well meaning?

    Of course, Professor Lomborg learned to become a diplomat after the vicious attacks on him in the wake of his book The Skeptical Environmentalist. And he makes a devastating case in his article, so offering an olive branch to the guilty might merely be considered clever rhetoric. Still, his article surely demands analysis of what drives environmental radicalism, and how we make “moral” judgments.

    Radicals tend much more often to be “against” than “for.” Radical environmentalists often appear less concerned with that infinitely elastic term “the environment” — or ordinary people — than with a jihad against capitalism and its despised avatars in the corporate sector.

    Greenpeace has become not so much an institution fighting for the environment — which has absolutely no value except for its value to humans (the notion that anything has “intrinsic value” is invalid for the simple reason that such an attribution can only come from humans) — as fighting against development. The word “balance” does not appear in Greenpeace’s lexicon.

  • More than 80 percent of Americans support mandatory labels on food that contain DNA, according to a survey conducted by Oklahoma State University's Jayson Lusk and Susan Murray.

    Each month, Lusk and Murray ask about 1,000 people in the US about how much they are willing to pay for certain foods, especially meat. They also ask about people's awareness of certain food issues such as Salmonella and E. coli contamination as well as antibiotic use. This time, they added three ad hoc questions that asked whether respondents would favor certain government policies such as labeling the country of origin of meat, labeling foods containing genetically modified organisms, and those containing DNA.

    As Lusk and Murray say in their survey report, a large majority of respondents — 82 percent — support mandatory GMO labels, and just about the same number of people — 80 percent — support mandatory labels on foods that contains DNA.

    At the Washington Post, Ilya Somin writes that the survey results underscore both scientific ignorance and political ignorance in the US. "The most obvious explanation for the data is that most of these people don’t really understand what DNA is, and don’t realize that it is contained in almost all food," he adds.

    Or, io9's Robbie Gonzalez says, people may not know the difference between a GMO food and DNA.

    In a blog post, Oklahoma's Lusk notes that people's answers to the survey questions may not reveal "deeply held beliefs, but rather they often represent quick, gut reactions." For example, he adds that mandatory GMO labels poll highly, but ballot initiatives in California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington State have failed to get 50 percent of the vote.

    a warning label might look like:“

    WARNING: This product contains deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). The Surgeon General has determined that DNA is linked to a variety of diseases in both animals and humans. In some configurations, it is a risk factor for c

  • Published on Dec 3, 2014

    As agriculture thrives in Brazil, a balance must be struck between healthy farms and forest preservation. Monsanto and Conservation International have partnered with local government, farmers, and seed collectors to conserve precious natural resources and improve lives.

    "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dswlduRiX_8&feature=youtu.be"

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dswlduRiX_8&feature=youtu.be

MON
120.43+0.46(+0.38%)Feb 27 4:03 PMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.