Vegan Forum

Monsanto is a chemical company best known for providing the U.S. military with "Agent Orange". "Agent Orange" is a defoliant that was used in the Vietnam war. It was designed to chemically rid trees of all of their leaves so that the enemy could be seen from the air. As a result, in time, many people (including American soldiers) got very sick and many died.

In 1996, Monsanto introduced Round-up. Round-up is an herbicide that eliminates every plant that it comes into contact with, and in order to grow crops in this hostile environment, Monsanto has also had to genetically modify seeds. They do this by injecting seeds with a patented gene which immunizes the crop to the ill-effects of Round-up.

Seeds which carry Monsanto's patented gene are owned by Monsanto. Monsanto forbids farmers from saving their patented seeds. Wind drift, however, can cause unwanted cross-pollination. Farmers suspected of saving Monsanto's seeds can expect to be hit with a financially crippling lawsuit.

So are these seeds safe?

"Health Canada does not conduct independent tests but relies on privately owned data submitted by companies applying for product approval." (Canadian Biotechnology Action Network)

There are four genetically modified crops grown in Canada: Corn, Canola, Soy and Sugar Beet.


Glucose and fructose are made from GM corn.

Canola oil is derived from GM canola.

GM soy beans can be present in tofu, soy beverages and soy puddings.

The newest GM crop on the market is sugar beet. Lantic Inc manufactures sugar from this crop.

hi wude
What is the point of these posts?

"What is the point of these posts?"

Chilling reality that all species survival is in the hands of an international chemical corporation that has genetically modified our food which is altering our body cells, and who knows what else. Yet, we continue to ask "...what is the point."

Chilling reality that all species survival is in the hands of an international chemical corporation that has genetically modified our food which is altering our body cells, and who knows what else.

very good! So the chemical industry is evil is it? Remember that when some bastard tries to sell you washing-up liquid! Or a plastic bag!
It's very sad that the green movement in general is so anti-science. GM food is by far the most powerful tool in the hands of agricultural science, and is directly helping increase yields on marginal land. It's great fun for us fat westerners to condemn it, but feeding people is a serious business, and needs big business and science on-side.
You might not like it wildsyrinx, but if your children were starving to death, your priorities would be different.

The greatest fact is that organic agriculture leads to better yields. Experiments and science finally are done.

“We won’t solve hunger and stop climate change with industrial farming on large plantations,” Olivier De Schutter, United Nations Special Rapporteur and author of the report “Agro-ecology and the Right to Food”, said in a press release. “The solution lies in supporting small-scale farmers’ knowledge and experimentation, and in raising incomes of smallholders so as to contribute to rural development.”

Organic agriculture protects soil, does not pollute water and ensures biodiversity.

Lets all opt for organic produce whenever it is possible!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/ ... ZJ20090729

This article as well as the study itself (it's interesting, read it) details how organic food has no nutritional o environmental benefits.

I'm sorry but the science just isn't there supporting organic food and if you're willing to ignore the apparent facts to further some kind of vegan agenda then you need to take a good look at yourself.

The science today as well pharmaceutical science is ordered and bought.
Pesticide companies belong to BIG OIL, pharmaceutical companies belong to BIG OIL etc.

Only independent science is real science.

I am glad that at least UN in recent years have started real thinking not only listening to lobbyists.

Based on an extensive review of recent scientific research, the report demonstrates that agro-ecology, if sufficiently supported, can double food production in entire regions within 10 years while mitigating climate change and alleviating rural poverty.

Even if one does not believe in more nutrients in ripe, organic foods, they do taste hundred times better.

Claiming that organic food tastes better is subjective and contains not even a shred of argumentative merit.

Would you please provide a source to back up your claims that science as we know it is a lie and that the UN has figured it out.

Also what report are you referring to that "demonstrates that agro-ecology, if sufficiently supported, can double food production in entire regions within 10 years while mitigating climate change and alleviating rural poverty."?
You need to provide sources if you're going to make specific claims like that.

http://www.srfood.org/index.php/en/comp ... ht-to-food

And please do not be naive what all the chemicals are doing to the people who are first working in the chemical sprayed fields, then to people who are eating it. Somehow even conventional doctors advise pregnant women to opt for organic food, why would the pesticide,herbicide, artificial mineral fertilized can do any good for any person...

It's interesting that agro ecology can double food production but agro ecology goes far beyond mere organic food. Agro ecology is a huge shift in focus for farming over abroad range of fields so it is misleading to claim that this report explicitly supports organic food. I'm not saying that you have Dacite, I'm just saying that agro ecology does not equate to organic or an entirely vegetarian diet. As for what chemicals are doing to people, general trends have shown that the human life expectancy is getting longer not shorter, I suppose that gives some indication as the the effect of "all the chemicals".

What are the environmental benefits of organic agriculture?

Sustainability over the long term. Many changes observed in the environment are long term, occurring slowly over time. Organic agriculture considers the medium- and long-term effect of agricultural interventions on the agro-ecosystem. It aims to produce food while establishing an ecological balance to prevent soil fertility or pest problems. Organic agriculture takes a proactive approach as opposed to treating problems after they emerge.

Soil. Soil building practices such as crop rotations, inter-cropping, symbiotic associations, cover crops, organic fertilizers and minimum tillage are central to organic practices. These encourage soil fauna and flora, improving soil formation and structure and creating more stable systems. In turn, nutrient and energy cycling is increased and the retentive abilities of the soil for nutrients and water are enhanced, compensating for the non-use of mineral fertilizers. Such management techniques also play an important role in soil erosion control. The length of time that the soil is exposed to erosive forces is decreased, soil biodiversity is increased, and nutrient losses are reduced, helping to maintain and enhance soil productivity. Crop export of nutrients is usually compensated by farm-derived renewable resources but it is sometimes necessary to supplement organic soils with potassium, phosphate, calcium, magnesium and trace elements from external sources.

Water. In many agriculture areas, pollution of groundwater courses with synthetic fertilizers and pesticides is a major problem. As the use of these is prohibited in organic agriculture, they are replaced by organic fertilizers (e.g. compost, animal manure, green manure) and through the use of greater biodiversity (in terms of species cultivated and permanent vegetation), enhancing soil structure and water infiltration. Well managed organic systems with better nutrient retentive abilities, greatly reduce the risk of groundwater pollution. In some areas where pollution is a real problem, conversion to organic agriculture is highly encouraged as a restorative measure (e.g. by the Governments of France and Germany).

Air. Organic agriculture reduces non-renewable energy use by decreasing agrochemical needs (these require high quantities of fossil fuel to be produced). Organic agriculture contributes to mitigating the greenhouse effect and global warming through its ability to sequester carbon in the soil. Many management practices used by organic agriculture (e.g. minimum tillage, returning crop residues to the soil, the use of cover crops and rotations, and the greater integration of nitrogen-fixing legumes), increase the return of carbon to the soil, raising productivity and favouring carbon storage.

Biodiversity. Organic farmers are both custodians and users of biodiversity at all levels. At the gene level, traditional and adapted seeds and breeds are preferred for their greater resistance to diseases and their resilience to climatic stress. At the species level, diverse combinations of plants and animals optimize nutrient and energy cycling for agricultural production. At the ecosystem level, the maintenance of natural areas within and around organic fields and absence of chemical inputs create suitable habitats for wildlife. The frequent use of under-utilized species (often as rotation crops to build soil fertility) reduces erosion of agro-biodiversity, creating a healthier gene pool - the basis for future adaptation. The provision of structures providing food and shelter, and the lack of pesticide use, attract new or re-colonizing species to the organic area (both permanent and migratory), including wild flora and fauna (e.g. birds) and organisms beneficial to the organic system such as pollinators and pest predators.

Genetically modified organisms. The use of GMOs within organic systems is not permitted during any stage of organic food production, processing or handling. As the potential impact of GMOs to both the environment and health is not entirely understood, organic agriculture is taking the precautionary approach and choosing to encourage natural biodiversity. The organic label therefore provides an assurance that GMOs have not been used intentionally in the production and processing of the organic products. This is something which cannot be guaranteed in conventional products as labelling the presence of GMOs in food products has not yet come into force in most countries. However, with increasing GMO use in conventional agriculture and due to the method of transmission of GMOs in the environment (e.g. through pollen), organic agriculture will not be able to ensure that organic products are completely GMO free in the future. A detailed discussion on GMOs can be found in the FAO publication "Genetically Modified Organisms, Consumers, Food Safety and the Environment".

Ecological services. The impact of organic agriculture on natural resources favours interactions within the agro-ecosystem that are vital for both agricultural production and nature conservation. Ecological services derived include soil forming and conditioning, soil stabilization, waste recycling, carbon sequestration, nutrients cycling, predation, pollination and habitats. By opting for organic products, the consumer through his/her purchasing power promotes a less polluting agricultural system. The hidden costs of agriculture to the environment in terms of natural resource degradation are reduced. A recent publication by Jules Pretty: "The Real Costs of Modern Farming" examines many of these issues in greater detail.

I have several issues with the block of text you just posted. Off the bat, none of your claims are sourced or substantiated in any way. I don't generally expect sourcing from claims in forums but when you make quite large claims which actually do require some scientific basis it pays to provide sources to increase credibility and separate it from a rant (albeit an eloquent one).

In the first paragraph you state the aims of organic agriculture and that's fine but you then say "Organic agriculture takes a proactive approach as opposed to treating problems after they emerge.", isn't the whole point of many of the pesticides and chemicals that organic agriculture is against to stop observed problems (insect infestation, lack of soil nutrients) from happening in the first place? That sounds proactive to me.

In the second paragraph you begin by mentioning many common farming practices that can be applied to organic and non-organic farms and although I agree with what you say about these effective farming methods it doesn't prove much beyond that these methods are useful. What gets me is where you say "In turn, nutrient and energy cycling is increased and the retentive abilities of the soil for nutrients and water are enhanced, compensating for the non-use of mineral fertilizers.", although all of these methods may add to nutrients in ground and may even altogether add an equal number of nutrients into the ground as non-organic fertilizers; the question looms: Why not use mineral fertilizers on top of that? The second half of this paragraph raises even more questions. You claim that "The length of time that the soil is exposed to erosive forces is decreased, soil biodiversity is increased, and nutrient losses are reduced, helping to maintain and enhance soil productivity.", how? What evidence do you have to prove that using basic farming methods like "crop rotations, inter-cropping, symbiotic associations, cover crops, organic fertilizers and minimum tillage" coupled with non-organic soil treatment and fertilizer effects erosion at all? After this you contradict the whole point of the paragraph above by stating that "it is sometimes necessary to supplement organic soils with potassium, phosphate, calcium, magnesium and trace elements from external sources.", there is no difference between this and using mineral fertilizer.

I almost completely agree with the second paragraph except that farming is inherently invasive to the surrounding area and this paragraph implies that organic farming will somehow not be; which is wrong. Also there are a huge variety of unfounded claims. How does "enhancing soil structure and water infiltration. Well managed organic systems with better nutrient retentive abilities, greatly reduce the risk of groundwater pollution"? And what evidence do you have to prove it?

You claim that "Organic agriculture reduces non-renewable energy use by decreasing agrochemical needs (these require high quantities of fossil fuel to be produced)" yet you ignore the fact that the prime producers of organic manure (livestock) are some of the largest greenhouse producers on the planet(http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/200 ... index.html). Naturally if non organic fertilizers will be reduces than organic forms like cattle and other livestock must be increased to meet the demand thus negating the previous point to a degree. As for the rest of the paragraph the only problem I have is, once again, some unfounded claims like "Many management practices used by organic agriculture (e.g. minimum tillage, returning crop residues to the soil, the use of cover crops and rotations, and the greater integration of nitrogen-fixing legumes), increase the return of carbon to the soil, raising productivity and favouring carbon storage." although this does sound quite credible in itself.

Right from the get go this paragraph makes a huge un-sourced generalization. You claim that "At the gene level, traditional and adapted seeds and breeds are preferred for their greater resistance to diseases and their resilience to climatic stress." however the entire point of gene modification is to make the product more resistant to exactly what you said (as well as increasing yield) so unless you can find some evidence to support your claim logic dictates that it is unlikely for a gene that has not been modified to survive in an environment will survive in an environment better than one that has been modified. You say that "At the species level, diverse combinations of plants and animals optimize nutrient and energy cycling for agricultural production.", claims like this need to be substantiated, where is your evidence to prove that this happens and what are its practical application to agriculture? I find it amusing that in the following quote "The provision of structures providing food and shelter, and the lack of pesticide use, attract new or re-colonizing species to the organic area (both permanent and migratory), including wild flora and fauna (e.g. birds) and organisms beneficial to the organic system such as pollinators and pest predators." you fail to mention that the "provision of structures providing food and shelter, and the lack of pesticide use" will by its very nature attract pests as well, potentially crippling farms until the rest of the ecosystem moves in to prey on said pests.

I agree with most of this paragraph except that you say "he potential impact of GMOs to both the environment and health is not entirely understood", does this mean that when a particular GMO is understood it will be considered 'organic'? Also, grouping all GMOs as "not entirely understood" is a generalization which should be avoided, to be practical GMOs should betaken on a case by case basis.

In what seems to be your summary paragraph you seem to only attempt to reinforce the points you made earlier so I'll just allow you to refer to my problems with those.

In summary, much of what you said is either logically wrong or such a broad generalization that you need to provide evidence to back the claim. Seeing as you have not provided evidence for your claims they are unsubstantiated, and thus can be dismissed insubstantially

Source: http://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq6/en/

+I have an organic garden myself- a living evidence.

That article was an interesting read to be sure, but it is only one article. Although I trust the FAO, perhaps it would be best to wait and see if more articles pop up in corroboration, maybe then these claims would be definitely worth taking action on.

As for "living evidence", another word for that is anecdotal evidence and it is bad.

wildsyrinx wrote: Chilling reality that all species survival is in the hands of an international chemical corporation that has genetically modified our food which is altering our body cells, and who knows what else. Yet, we continue to ask "...what is the point."

How exactly do GM foods alter our body's cells? Makes no sense.

It doesn't have to make sense. He's fear mongering.

AndyBa wrote:hi wude
What is the point of these posts?

What is the point of my posts regarding Monsanto?


The main purpose for genetically altering crop seed is to make them withstand chemical herbicide and pesticide use. The use of any chemical herbicide or pesticide kills the vitality of the soil, poisons bugs (many of which animals feed on) and causes a lot of pollution to our water systems.

The Earth is also alive and it nourishes animals and humans alike. Humans need to respect all living things, not just animals.

AdamD wrote:It doesn't have to make sense. He's fear mongering.

Fear mongering? Come on.

You're the one with the secret agenda if you don't think that Gmo's are dangerously harmful.

I think that bio-dynamic farming should be the agricultural way of the future.

In India, Peter Proctor has had a lot of success reclaiming farms damaged by Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. See: the documentary film "One Man, One Cow, One Planet.)

It was philosopher Rudolph Steiner that said that a farm is like a living organism. Like humans, all of its parts must be must be in proper working order or else it will become sick. Poisonous chemicals make a farm, the environment, animals and ultimately humans sick.

clearwood wrote:

It's very sad that the green movement in general is so anti-science. GM food is by far the most powerful tool in the hands of agricultural science, and is directly helping increase yields on marginal land. It's great fun for us fat westerners to condemn it, but feeding people is a serious business, and needs big business and science on-side.
You might not like it wildsyrinx, but if your children were starving to death, your priorities would be different.

These are false statements. Monsanto's herbicides, pesticides and seeds have been proven to be non-effective and harmful many times over; but these findings can not be officially published anywhere because Monsanto will not allow independent testing on any of their products unless there are a lot of strings attached.

There is also no proof that Monsanto seeds increase yields. They are taking credit for the work, saving and mixing seeds, many generations of farmers have done. Monsanto only cares about profit and control.

You are also sadly mistaken if you think the West feeds the world. The World Bank and corporate driven global trade entities steal produce from poor countries. Poor countries would probably be better off without the West.

I suggest you see the documentary "The World according to Monsanto" or check out www.cban.ca You don't seem to know much.

AdamD wrote:Claiming that organic food tastes better is subjective and contains not even a shred of argumentative merit.

.

Have you ever tasted cow corn? It's inedible, unless processed. I'd love to see you try and eat it.

Yes, most of that corn that you see in the countryside is a genetically modified crop destined to be processed as feed for livestock. It has little or no nutrition by itself and is mainly used to fatten up livestock such as cattle.

I suggest that you see a documentary film entitled "King Corn".

Till then, please refrain from making such stupid statements. People may be fooled into believing such nonsense.

Crickets.

AndyBa wrote:hi wude
What is the point of these posts?

I answered your question about the point of my posts. A question which seems to have been posed, in a sneaky manner, long after I had abandonned this site.

Now I have a question for you:

What makes you think that you are qualified to administrate on this site and if you think that you are qualified, then don't you think that you have to bear some responsibility in allowing some of us the opportunity to criticize Monsanto's unproven GMOs.

wude wrote:

AdamD wrote:It doesn't have to make sense. He's fear mongering.

Fear mongering? Come on.

You're the one with the secret agenda if you don't think that Gmo's are dangerously harmful.

I think that bio-dynamic farming should be the agricultural way of the future.

In India, Peter Proctor has had a lot of success reclaiming farms damaged by Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. See: the documentary film "One Man, One Cow, One Planet.)

It was philosopher Rudolph Steiner that said that a farm is like a living organism. Like humans, all of its parts must be must be in proper working order or else it will become sick. Poisonous chemicals make a farm, the environment, animals and ultimately humans sick.

I find it amusing that one moment you talk about how much pesticides and herbicides are damaging the planet then you go on to bash genetically modified crops which may, given time, eliminate the need for pesticides and herbicides.

I suppose that a few people will always protest when new, good science arrives on the block and I suppose they will always have a few strange 'documentaries' to back them up. Such is the way of things.

AdamD wrote:

wude wrote:

AdamD wrote:





I find it amusing that one moment you talk about how much pesticides and herbicides are damaging the planet then you go on to bash genetically modified crops which may, given time, eliminate the need for pesticides and herbicides.

I suppose that a few people will always protest when new, good science arrives on the block and I suppose they will always have a few strange 'documentaries' to back them up. Such is the way of things.

Good science? What planet are you from? The whole reason for genetically modifying seed is so that they can withstand herbicides and pesticides, and because Monsanto can put a patent on their seeds, they are also aggressively trying to own food itself. They already control 96% of the world's GM seeds (see:www.cban.ca).

More people, in Western society, are stricken by cancer than ever before. The diabetes epidemic is out of control. Obesity is a huge problem. Surely the root cause of all this lies with the processed foods western society consumes; much of which contains GM ingredients, such as HFCS made from GM corn.

If Monsanto would only allow independent testing of their GMOs, then sound science would be free to publish their findings without fear of being hit by financially-crippling lawsuits.

Your argument relies on correlation. Correlation does not imply causation so all of the above post is moot.

AdamD wrote:Your argument relies on correlation. Correlation does not imply causation so all of the above post is moot.

Are you kidding me? Use your common sense, Man. Your fancy words mean nothing. Do you realize the harm that you may be doing to people who actually believe your tripe. Some people (and I know some) will accept Monsanto's garbage ideology just because they can make a lot of money working for them. Do you have ties to them? I wonder.

AdamD would have you believe that Monsanto's genetically-engineered, experimental seed is backed by good science. It is not. Monsanto has never allowed their GM seeds to be tested by independent scientists. Many independent scientists have done testing, but are unable to successfully publish their findings for fear of being sued by a corporation with very deep pockets. The bad people at Monsanto do not care about your safety. They only care about huge profits and control.

I've said all this before, but AdamD knows that he is wrong so he tries to wear Monsanto opponents down by continually espousing gobbledygook.

The Canadian Biotechnology Action Network is a respectable organization which tries to petition the government of Canada to keep Monsanto's creepy produce at bay. The organization is respected by many environmentalists, scientists and even politicians. Why read AdamD's nonsense when you can read the truth about Monsanto simply by logging onto http://www.cban.ca

For forty days, I could survive on organic sweet corn and organic fruit juices and, in all likelihood, would be no worse for wear.

AdamD, however, could not survive forty days (without getting extremely sick) by eating the genetically-modified corn used to fatten livestock and drinking a top brand of soda pop which is usually sweetened with sweeteners processed from GM corn.

AdamD is espousing dangerous fiction.

AdamD, where are you? Are you out eating delicious cow corn? ...mmm yummy!

Natural corn is delicious and has nutritional value. Monsanto, however, decided to alter two genetic traits in corn. This resulted in Monsanto having invented a variety of corn which can withstand certain chemicals, but is inedible (unless processed) and has little or no nutritional value. It is often referred to as "cow corn".

Cow corn has so little nutritional value in it that when many cattle spend their last forty days at feed lots getting fattened-up for slaughter by this same corn, they have to be vaccinated in order to be kept alive. What's worse is that sweeteners made from cow corn, such as many types of fructose/glucose and dextrose, can be in practically every kind of food sold at your local grocery store.