WikiLeaks Cables Reveal U.S. Gov't Planned To “Retaliate and Cause Pain” On Countries Refusing GMOs

[Dral]

I could be wrong, but the round-up resistance does not come from genes on GMO crop passing through to weeds. It comes from natural evolution, and that is evident from the fact that the first round-up resistant weed did not appear in a GMO crop stand.

The point that you are missing, I think, is that round-up resistant crop merely allowed farmers to switch the herbicide used, and weeds are resistant to round-up instead of what they have been using before.

And what exactly is lost by round-up resistant weeds? the introduction of round-up resistant crops allowed the use of round-up in cases where it cannot be used previously, so the fact that weed is now resistant means farmers have to go back to what they have been doing prior. Meanwhile they got themselves 20 years of reduced herbicide use and/or quality of life gain (see this for example).

I agree that how GMO crops are used should be improved, but what new technology doesn't have growing pains? Antibiotic-resistant bacteria is a huge issue, but it would be idiotic to stop using antibiotic for that. I am by no means familiar with the science behind GMO, but I feel that the degree to which GMO-crops is vilified is completely unjustified by the scientific literature.

p.s. Globalreach.ca is hardly a credit source for information.

you and your logicalness can just

[Mr.DirtyDangles]

I could be wrong, but the round-up resistance does not come from genes on GMO crop passing through to weeds. It comes from natural evolution, and that is evident from the fact that the first round-up resistant weed did not appear in a GMO crop stand.

The point that you are missing, I think, is that round-up resistant crop merely allowed farmers to switch the herbicide used, and weeds are resistant to round-up instead of what they have been using before.

And what exactly is lost by round-up resistant weeds? the introduction of round-up resistant crops allowed the use of round-up in cases where it cannot be used previously, so the fact that weed is now resistant means farmers have to go back to what they have been doing prior. Meanwhile they got themselves 20 years of reduced herbicide use and/or quality of life gain (see this for example).

I agree that how GMO crops are used should be improved, but what new technology doesn't have growing pains? Antibiotic-resistant bacteria is a huge issue, but it would be idiotic to stop using antibiotic for that. I am by no means familiar with the science behind GMO, but I feel that the degree to which GMO-crops is vilified is completely unjustified by the scientific literature.

p.s. Globalreach.ca is hardly a credit source for information.

Any links you could provide in regards to this would be greatly appreciated. I am not disputing anything, I just want more literature to read on the topic as it is very interesting to me.

Also the last link I provided surely cannot be considered dubious ? The control freaks link seems quite pro round up btw.

[aGENT]

Monsanto and their practices are pretty terrible/questionable. I don't have anything against GMO foods per se, but the way they do business is giving the whole idea a bad name,

My main issues with GMO's (and Monsanto in particular) is that their M.O. is to genetically modify food for their own financial gain at the expense of our environment and freedom of choice while lobbying governments in to cahoots with their profiteering and actively fighting things like simple labeling.

They (Monsanto) have zero interest in "feeding the world" or making our food better or healthier.

That and there's a big leap from the selective breeding that NDT speaks of and inserting foreign DNA from wildly different organisms in to each other. There's no way to know what if any long term effects that may have on our health or the environment the plants are placed in.

If people want smarter farming they should read this guy's work:

[MadMonk]

Any links you could provide in regards to this would be greatly appreciated. I am not disputing anything, I just want more literature to read on the topic as it is very interesting to me.

My points above are mainly synthesized from my own readings (including some of your links), so I don't have a source.

Regarding how weeds acquire resistance, I think relevant facts are:

• Other cases of resistivity, e.g. bacteria acquire resistance to antibiotic, mosquitos acquiring resistance to DDT, did not involve genetical modification, so there is no reason that weeds cannot acquire resistance on its own
• There are lots of weeds that developed resistance to other herbicides other than round-up without a GMO counterpart (see for example the chart in the nature article you linked to), so it is not hard to believe that round-up resistance can spontaneously appear.
• And the facts seemed to agree (see the blog post I linked to in earlier). For example, in 1996, the first weed resistant to glyphosate was found in Australia in canola, cereals, wheat crops, none of which are of GMO variety (source)
• Gene transfer is generally hard. There is certainly a chance of GMO genes transfer to close relatives (i.e. corn to wild corn), and that is very plausible, but going from corn to an unrelated species is very hard, since they can't form fertile hybrids (see here for more).

Also the last link I provided surely cannot be considered dubious ? The control freaks link seems quite pro round up btw.

I should clarify: I have only have issue with globalresearch.ca, others are perfectly fine!

Sure, but I think you have to keep in mind that it is a blog that is written by a researcher in weed science that actively publishes in the field, so I think his perspectives on the state of the science is probably more accurate than what you can get from an outside source.

I think it will be mistake to discredit it just because for the fact that it appears to be biased. One reason I think is that a lot of the advantages of using round-up rather than traditional herbicides has been lost in the discourse in the public realm.

Edit: For what it's worth: I do read a lot of blogs relating to climate, which is an area that I have a bit of knowledge in, so I think I have a good grasp on what a good scientific blog looks like.

[Mustapha]

My main issues with GMO's (and Monsanto in particular) is that their M.O. is to genetically modify food for their own financial gain at the expense of our environment and freedom of choice while lobbying governments in to cahoots with their profiteering and actively fighting things like simple labeling.

They (Monsanto) have zero interest in "feeding the world" or making our food better or healthier.

That and there's a big leap from the selective breeding that NDT speaks of and inserting foreign DNA from wildly different organisms in to each other. There's no way to know what if any long term effects that may have on our health or the environment the plants are placed in.

If people want smarter farming they should read this guy's work:

I think your point is balanced. However, I feel that GMO food is here to stay. Now it depends on what practices are used to augment the food.

I believe there should be more focus on education and research regarding GMO food as opposed to wild statements such as 'GMO food is harmless' or 'don't eat GMO foods, they will give you cancer'. There is an opportunity to be had with this technology.

I bet in the future artificial engineering of the foods that we eat will be more commonplace and could be implemented to feed more people a healthier diet with a smaller impact on the environment.

As for the corporate mindset and Monsanto, it may be advisable to have a change in government style as opposed to blaming the product. It's not taboo in the US to maximize profits at the expense of consumers' well being. Perhaps if the US was a little more socialist and put the needs of the people ahead of businesses....oh wait I forgot that's just crazy commie talk.

Remember the motto? Better Dead than Red? I guess the US is choosing 'Dead'.

[Buddhas Hand]

I could be wrong, but the round-up resistance does not come from genes on GMO crop passing through to weeds. It comes from natural evolution, and that is evident from the fact that the first round-up resistant weed did not appear in a GMO crop stand.

The point that you are missing, I think, is that round-up resistant crop merely allowed farmers to switch the herbicide used, and weeds are resistant to round-up instead of what they have been using before.

And what exactly is lost by round-up resistant weeds? the introduction of round-up resistant crops allowed the use of round-up in cases where it cannot be used previously, so the fact that weed is now resistant means farmers have to go back to what they have been doing prior. Meanwhile they got themselves 20 years of reduced herbicide use and/or quality of life gain (see this for example).

I agree that how GMO crops are used should be improved, but what new technology doesn't have growing pains? Antibiotic-resistant bacteria is a huge issue, but it would be idiotic to stop using antibiotic for that. I am by no means familiar with the science behind GMO, but I feel that the degree to which GMO-crops is vilified is completely unjustified by the scientific literature.

p.s. Globalreach.ca is hardly a credit source for information.

When you poison weeds there will always be a very small % that live and they will produce seed that is immune to the poison , kinda like how we are creating superbugs by over using anti-biotics.

Man has learnt to manipulate nature but he has not learned how to control it.

I am a farmer i would never use "round-up" glysophate on my farm. People have become lazy it does not require that much effort to hoe weeds rather than spray them.

[MadMonk]

When you poison weeds there will always be a very small % that live and they will produce seed that is immune to the poison , kinda like how we are creating superbugs by over using anti-biotics.

Man has learnt to manipulate nature but he has not learned how to control it.

I am a farmer i would never use "round-up" glysophate on my farm. People have become lazy it does not require that much effort to hoe weeds rather than spray them.

Well I'd image that the economics of manual vs chemical weed control will vary greatly depending on the crop, farm size, and location, so I think that your general statement, 'people have become lazy' is a bit strong. It's great that it works out for you, but it doesn't necessarily translates that everyone can get by without herbicides.

I am not advocating the blind use of genetical engineering and chemicals, but I believe that labelling "Chemicals = bad" and "GMO = Monsanto = bad" is just as damaging as callous use of chemicals in farming.

[Buddhas Hand]

Well I'd image that the economics of manual vs chemical weed control will vary greatly depending on the crop, farm size, and location, so I think that your general statement, 'people have become lazy' is a bit strong. It's great that it works out for you, but it doesn't necessarily translates that everyone can get by without herbicides.

I am not advocating the blind use of genetical engineering and chemicals, but I believe that labelling "Chemicals = bad" and "GMO = Monsanto = bad" is just as damaging as callous use of chemicals in farming.

You have imagined right.

My belief that people have gotten lazier is not just based on their use of herbicides.

I make it work for me , i try to farm sustainably and continually spraying weeds has a negative impact on your soil , other farmers have told me of the negative impact round up has had on their crops.

There are better methods of weed control , Mulching is bar far the best and while i know the costs would go up whats more important , profits or the long term quality of our soils.

I remember seeing a story on landline years ago which was about how the quality of the soil in some farming areas was deteriorating and the produce that was coming from those areas did not have the same nutricinal value as it once had.

From the research i have done and the anecdotal evidence i have recieved from other farmers i have come to the conclusion that monsanto is worse than bad , they are evil.

[Mr. Ambien]

I think your point is balanced. However, I feel that GMO food is here to stay. Now it depends on what practices are used to augment the food.

I believe there should be more focus on education and research regarding GMO food as opposed to wild statements such as 'GMO food is harmless' or 'don't eat GMO foods, they will give you cancer'. There is an opportunity to be had with this technology.

I bet in the future artificial engineering of the foods that we eat will be more commonplace and could be implemented to feed more people a healthier diet with a smaller impact on the environment.

As for the corporate mindset and Monsanto, it may be advisable to have a change in government style as opposed to blaming the product. It's not taboo in the US to maximize profits at the expense of consumers' well being. Perhaps if the US was a little more socialist and put the needs of the people ahead of businesses....oh wait I forgot that's just crazy commie talk.

Remember the motto? Better Dead than Red? I guess the US is choosing 'Dead'.

I find it convenient that your leftist cliché solution is the US being more socialist (read: more government power/involvement) while blaming the government at the same time.

I suppose it fits given the political leanings of people who think the best way to solve a debt crisis is to borrow more.

What really could be used more here is capitalism and the free market. The US government being in bed with Monsanto isn't anything of the sort. Monsanto did not invent Genetically Modified food, it's accomplishments are getting the government to copyright and restrict others from using a technology they, Monsanto, benefited from. Whoopdeedoo. Wanting the US government to get more involved is a stupid idea to me, given the US government already has decided to declare Monsanto a winner in this industry rather than the market deciding anything. So changing the government is a good idea, on the surface, but giving the very people that are the reason Monsanto is in the position it's in more say-so is the worst conceivable "solution". To change the government requires introspective reasoning, and the US population is very, very bad at introspective reasoning.

[MadMonk]

You have imagined right.

My belief that people have gotten lazier is not just based on their use of herbicides.

I make it work for me , i try to farm sustainably and continually spraying weeds has a negative impact on your soil , other farmers have told me of the negative impact round up has had on their crops.

There are better methods of weed control , Mulching is bar far the best and while i know the costs would go up whats more important , profits or the long term quality of our soils.

I remember seeing a story on landline years ago which was about how the quality of the soil in some farming areas was deteriorating and the produce that was coming from those areas did not have the same nutricinal value as it once had.

From the research i have done and the anecdotal evidence i have recieved from other farmers i have come to the conclusion that monsanto is worse than bad , they are evil.

What kind of crops are you growing, and what is the size of your farm? Just curious so I can understand your experiences better.

[Buddhas Hand]

What kind of crops are you growing, and what is the size of your farm? Just curious so I can understand your experiences better.

My parents were one of the first to grow protea's for cut flower production in this country,i have diversified into other lines Pieris , Birds of paradise amongst others and i now grow rose standards.

I have had experience working/running a large ornamental tree farm and also working on very large fruit/produce farms.

My families farm , i do not consider it mine it was handed to me and now i am trying to build something to hand to my son , is 10 acres and it requires constant effort to keep clean , sure i could use poisons to make my life easier but i believe these poisons are having a negative impact on our soils and it seems my suspicion that round-up is polluting our underground water tables is well founded

Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide Contaminates Drinking Water

GM WATCH daily: http://www.ngin.org.uk

---

Danish drinking water resources are under attack from glyphosate - the

active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide - "against all

expectations sieving down through the soil and polluting the ground

water at a rate of five times more than the allowed level for drinking water".

"When we spray glyphosate on the fields by the rules it has been shown

that it is washed down into the upper ground water with a concentration

of 0.54 micrograms per litre. This is very surprising, because we had

previously believed that bacteria in the soil broke down the glyphosate

before it reached the ground water."

just imagine wht it would be like if RR crops were commercialised

---

http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.sasp?PageID=269614

Poisonous Spray on a Course Towards Drinking Water

Af Anders Legarth Schmidt

Denmark's most popular herbicide Roundup is polluting the underground

water far more than previously thought. Agriculture uses yearly 800 tons

of active glyphosate in herbicide. The Environment Minister is looking

at taking steps to address this.

The Danish drinking water resources are under attack from an unexpected

quarter. The chemical glyphosate that is in the popular herbicides

Roundup and Touchdown is against all expectations sieving down through

the soil and polluting the ground water at a rate of five times more

than the allowed level for drinking water.

This has been shown from tests done by the Denmark and Greenland

Geological Research Institution (DGGRI) in an as yet unpublished

article.

Believed Bacteria broke down glyphosate

"When we spray glyphosate on the fields by the rules it has been shown

that it is washed down into the upper ground water with a concentration

of 0.54 micrograms per litre. This is very surprising, because we had

previously believed that bacteria in the soil broke down the glyphosate

before it reached the ground water."

It is the Environment Ministry that has given permission to use

glyphosate - based on the producers [Monsanto's] own research.

Used against Twitch and Thistles

Farmers spray glyphosate on their fields after the harvest to keep the

soil free of twitch and thistles. It had been earlier found in wells in

Roskilde and Storstroms regions as well as the Copenhagen district

council area. Critics say glyphosate causes cancer, while its defenders

call it a wonder herbicide.

Professor Mogens Henze the head of the Institute for Environment and

Resources at Denmark's Technical University, says that the consequence

of the new knowledge is that water works in five to ten years will need

to clean the water before Danes can drink it.

"The results show that glyphosate is polluting our drinking water. And

unfortunately we have only seen the tip of the iceberg, because

glyphosate and many other spray chemicals are on their way through the

soil at this point in time. Politicians need to look at agriculture in

relation to clean drinking water and decide what it is they are going to

do." says Mogens Henze, who isn't blaming the farmers who use something

that the authorities have allowed.

Use Doubled

Statistics from the Environment Ministry show that the use of glyphosate

has doubled in the last five years. In 2001 800 tons was used and that

made up a quarter of farmers total use of pesticides. This shows that

glyphosate is the most used herbicide by farmers.

As a result of the new research from DGGRI the Environment Minister Hans

Christian Schmidt is currently thinking about doing something about the

use of glyphosate on Danish fields.

"It is simply not acceptable that this stuff is turning up in our

groundwater in such a concentration so high over the acceptable level. If

this is the case then we must react quickly" says the Environment

Minister, who is awaiting a report from the Environment Ministry.

Glyphosate: This Menace Killed 50% of Rats Tested - But It's Hiding in Your Water, Air and Food

January 10, 2012 | 88,399 views

By Dr. Mercola

Roundup is Contaminating Groundwater Supplies

Monsanto, the world leader in the production of genetically engineered (GE) staple crops, has long claimed that its broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup is safe.

In fact, they have even used the following slogans to describe it:

• "It's Safer than Mowing"
• "Biodegradable"
• "Environmentally Friendly"

What we are now finding out -- unfortunately long after hundreds of millions of pounds of the chemical have already been applied to U.S. soil -- is that Roundup is proving to be a pervasive environmental threat, one that may already be poisoning a good portion of the world's remaining natural water supply.

Glyphosate is Also Found in Air and Rain Samples

The quantity of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, in the environment has been difficult to analyze due to its physicochemical properties, such as its relatively low molecular weight and low organic solvent solubility.

However, a recent study used a magnetic particle immunoassay to test for the presence of glyphosate in roughly 140 samples of groundwater from Catalonia, Spain.

The analysis found that glyphosate was present above the limit of quantification in 41 percent of the samples. As noted on GreenMedInfo.com, this indicates "that, despite manufacturer's claims, it does not break down rapidly in the environment, and is accumulating there in concerning quantities."

Groundwater, which is water from rain, lakes, streams or other bodies of water that soaks into soil and bedrock, can easily become contaminated when chemicals in the soil with low biodegradability and high mobility empty into it.

When groundwater is used as a drinking water source, this contamination poses a risk to animals, plants and humans alike. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) explains further:

That glyphosate has been detected beyond the limit of quantification in 41 percent of groundwater samples tested reveals yet another concerning "side effect" of its rampant use: namely, that it is not biodegrading in the soil, as previously assumed by many scientists, rather, is trickling down below the soil to the groundwater, where processes of biodegradation are much slower, and the opportunity for it to accumulate to toxic levels is much greater. These findings have devastating environmental and human health implications, as glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world and is being found virtually everywhere it has been tested…

"Contaminated groundwater can hurt animals, plants, or humans only if it is first removed from the ground by manmade or natural processes. In many parts of the world, groundwater is pumped out of the ground so it can be used as a source of water for drinking, bathing, other household uses, agriculture, and industry. In addition, groundwater can reach the surface through natural pathways such as springs.

Contaminated groundwater can affect the quality of drinking and other types of water supplies when it reaches the surface. Contaminated groundwater can affect the health of animals and humans when they drink or bathe in water contaminated by the groundwater or when they eat organisms that have themselves been affected by groundwater contamination."

The results of the first report on the ambient levels of glyphosate and its major degradation product, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) in air and rain water were published in the journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry in March 2011. The samples were collected during two growing seasons in Mississippi and Iowa. Glyphosate was detected in 60 to 100 percent of all air and rain samples, which lends further credence to the fact that Roundup does not readily break down in the environment, but rather is lingering all around us.

In 2009, a French court found Monsanto guilty of falsely advertising its herbicide as "biodegradable," "environmentally friendly" and claiming it "left the soil clean." The truth is that Roundup is anything BUT environmentally friendly. Even Monsanto's own tests showed that only 2 percent of the herbicide broke down after 28 days, which means it readily persists in the environment!

Unfortunately, thus far the United States has chosen to ignore the warning signs and allows the deceitful marketing and unabated use of glyphosate herbicides like Roundup. On a brighter note, the EPA is finally looking into the damaging effects of glyphosate on humans and the environment and plans to make a decision regarding its future by 2015. At that time, Roundup could either continue to be used as it is now, be required to have some modifications to its use or be banned entirely from use within the United States

I could post up a lot more articles and studies that link roundup/glysophate to cancers , all the research i have done points to this product having a negative effect on our enviroment and the people who use it.

I would just like to add that I have a great deal of respect for you mad monk.

[MadMonk]

My parents were one of the first to grow protea's for cut flower production in this country,i have diversified into other lines Pieris , Birds of paradise amongst others and i now grow rose standards.

I have had experience working/running a large ornamental tree farm and also working on very large fruit/produce farms.

My families farm , i do not consider it mine it was handed to me and now i am trying to build something to hand to my son , is 10 acres and it requires constant effort to keep clean , sure i could use poisons to make my life easier but i believe these poisons are having a negative impact on our soils and it seems my suspicion that round-up is polluting our underground water tables is well founded

...

I could post up a lot more articles and studies that link roundup/glysophate to cancers , all the research i have done points to this product having a negative effect on our enviroment and the people who use it.

I would just like to add that I have a great deal of respect for you mad monk.

Thank you, and I appreciate it!

Oh I love birds of paradise! By the way, I do think that sustainable practices should be used whenever possible, so kudos to you!

I didn't know about the specific issues on soil quality and longer than expected residence time in soil, so thanks for the info.

Just so we don't misunderstand each other: I don't deny that there are cons with the way GMO-crops are currently used (including perhaps excessive use of round-up), but my view is that if our goal, as a society, is to move agriculture forward so that it meets the demand of the population while being sustainable in the long run, it will have to come from a combination from conventional farming, bio-tech/GMO, organic farming. In this case, ignoring the huge upsides of GMO-crops and exaggerating the health risk is as detrimental as ignoring the issues associated with current practices.

A specific point I have issue with is the association of glyphosate and cancer. My impression that this view is not supported by the scientific literature.

I have read up on articles that purport such a link, and they seem to be based on a few studies: e.g. Seralini's rat study, and an in vitro study on glyphosate and human cancer cells, and ones that are essentially nonsense from what I can tell. I don't think any of them really establishes a link between Glyphosate and cancer, for the fact that they either contains serious flaws, or they are laboratory experiments or animal models that don't really resemble human exposure.

What are some of the studies you have come across? I probably haven't seen all so I'm curious to see what else is out there.

[Buddhas Hand]

Thank you, and I appreciate it!

Oh I love birds of paradise! By the way, I do think that sustainable practices should be used whenever possible, so kudos to you!

I didn't know about the specific issues on soil quality and longer than expected residence time in soil, so thanks for the info.

Just so we don't misunderstand each other: I don't deny that there are cons with the way GMO-crops are currently used (including perhaps excessive use of round-up), but my view is that if our goal, as a society, is to move agriculture forward so that it meets the demand of the population while being sustainable in the long run, it will have to come from a combination from conventional farming, bio-tech/GMO, organic farming. In this case, ignoring the huge upsides of GMO-crops and exaggerating the health risk is as detrimental as ignoring the issues associated with current practices.

A specific point I have issue with is the association of glyphosate and cancer. My impression that this view is not supported by the scientific literature.

I have read up on articles that purport such a link, and they seem to be based on a few studies: e.g. Seralini's rat study, and an in vitro study on glyphosate and human cancer cells, and ones that are essentially nonsense from what I can tell. I don't think any of them really establishes a link between Glyphosate and cancer, for the fact that they either contains serious flaws, or they are laboratory experiments or animal models that don't really resemble human exposure.

What are some of the studies you have come across? I probably haven't seen all so I'm curious to see what else is out there.

No worries mate , it is people like you that give me hope for our species.

3 days ago had some severe frosts that fried a lot of my birds , thats farming.

I believe that farmers must work together with scientists , my parents worked with the CSIRO during the 70's and 80's on several research projects , this is the key to sustainably feeding a rapidly growing population.

It is not just the crops themselves but the laws suits that accompany them , take the case of the percy shmeiser

"The Court ruled after a two-and-half-week trial that it was the first patent infringement case on a higher life form in the world. The Judge’s ruling and Percy Schmeiser’s name became famous overnight:

·It does not matter how a farmer, a forester, or a gardener’s seed or plants become contaminated with GMOs; whether through cross pollination, pollen blowing in the wind, by bees, direct seed movement or seed transportation, the growers no longer own their seeds or plants under patent law, they becomes Monsanto’s property.

·The rate of GM contamination does not matter; whether it’s 1 percent, 2 percent, 10 percent, or more, the seeds and plants still belong to Monsanto.

·It’s immaterial how the GM contamination occurs, or where it comes from.

The Schmeisers tracked down the source of the contamination. It was their neighbour who had planted GM crops in 1996 with no fence or buffer between them. Nevertheless, the Schmeisers’ seeds and plants reverted to Monsanto, and they were not allowed to use their own seeds and plants again, nor keep any profit from their canola crop in 1998.

The Schmeisers appealed against the ruling, and after another two years, it was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal judges even though they did not agree with all the trial judge’s statements. The Schmeisers believe that the case should have been thrown out of Court and not upheld. After having lost the two trials costing them $300 000 of their own money, Percy took the case to the Supreme Court of Canada. He was warned that there was only a very small chance that the case would be heard; but was granted a second leave of Appeal by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Schmeiser raised important questions during the Supreme Court Appeal

The Appeal was good news for the Schmeisers, but in the meantime Monsanto had brought another lawsuit against them for $1million in legal costs, fines and punitive damages. Monsanto said that the Schmeisers were recalcitrant and that they wanted a million dollars from them. For good measure, Monsanto brought a third lawsuit against the Schmeisers to seize their farmland, farm equipment and house, in an effort to stop them mortgaging their assets to pay their legal bill".

I was careful to use the word linked not cause when associating round-up/glysophate with cancer , as you have stated there is not a lot of compelling evidence yet , but were are now 30 years down the track and i believe that more information/evidence will be forth coming.

[elvis15]

^ Good post and another viewpoint that hasn't been breached as much in the discussion so far. Again, it's the rich get richer, and they'll spend any amount necessary to protect that ability to continue getting richer regardless of whose lives they destroy in the process.

It's an even better illustration of how we shouldn't just be blaming anything with the label of 'GMO' but rather the companies (or perhaps more so the corporations) that are best known for GMOs and aren't operating ethically.

[aGENT]

Just so we don't misunderstand each other: I don't deny that there are cons with the way GMO-crops are currently used (including perhaps excessive use of round-up), but my view is that if our goal, as a society, is to move agriculture forward so that it meets the demand of the population while being sustainable in the long run, it will have to come from a combination from conventional farming, bio-tech/GMO, organic farming. In this case, ignoring the huge upsides of GMO-crops and exaggerating the health risk is as detrimental as ignoring the issues associated with current practices.

FWIW, we make far and away enough food to feed the world and then some. We do not have a food supply problem, we have a food distribution problem (and a wealth disparity problem).

[elvis15]

FWIW, we make far and away enough food to feed the world and then some. We do not have a food supply problem, we have a food distribution problem (and a wealth disparity problem).

Absolutely.

[aGENT]

Absolutely.

To add to that, we'd be far better off not deteriorating our soil and polluting our water with modern agricultural methods (chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides etc).

There should be far greater work towards utilizing mother nature as opposed to fighting it. Far too many people have the view of "conquering" nature, weeds, pets etc instead of bothering to take the time to learn best how to naturally work within an ecoystem.

Typical human arrogance.

[Mr. Ambien]

To add to that, we'd be far better off not deteriorating our soil and polluting our water with modern agricultural methods (chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides etc).

There should be far greater work towards utilizing mother nature as opposed to fighting it. Far too many people have the view of "conquering" nature, weeds, pets etc instead of bothering to take the time to learn best how to naturally work within an ecoystem.

Typical human arrogance.

The hell does "utilizing mother nature" mean?

What do you think the reason is that genetic modification became desirable?

[elvis15]

To add to that, we'd be far better off not deteriorating our soil and polluting our water with modern agricultural methods (chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides etc).

There should be far greater work towards utilizing mother nature as opposed to fighting it. Far too many people have the view of "conquering" nature, weeds, pets etc instead of bothering to take the time to learn best how to naturally work within an ecoystem.

Typical human arrogance.

I'd say arrogance and dominance. Cutting down massive swaths of forest/jungle to farm particular crops because the wealthier people want those things, not focusing on sustainable farming (rotating crops/growing related crops), pesticides and many other practices aren't healthy long term - all so we can get our favourite fruit out of season.

Here's an excellent article I read a while back on a similar subject:

How John Muir Is Revolutionizing the Farm-to-Table Food Movement

My revelation in the kitchen occurred 10 years ago, standing over a bag of all-purpose flour.

The flour-bin is parked outside my office window in the kitchen, so it’s constantly in view. I watch it being emptied and refilled, emptied and refilled, all day long. We use a ton of flour at Blue Hill—we’re not unusual in that regard. All-purpose flour is probably the most ubiquitous ingredient in my kitchen. But I realized one day that I knew nothing about this particular ingredient. I didn’t know where it came from, or how it was grown—I only knew that it had absolutely no flavor, and it was in everything.

There I was, running a farm-to-table restaurant—meticulously sourcing my produce, cheese, and meats—and I hadn’t given a thought to this basic facet of my cooking.

So I decided I wanted to get my hands some delicious flour, flour from wheat with a story, flour with presence you could taste. Like any farm-to-table chef, I figured I’d start by finding a local, organic grain farmer. I found a guy named Klaas Martens, from upstate New York, who grew emmer wheat. This particular variety of emmer was, at the time, nearly extinct—but Klaas was preserving it, and he started to supply Blue Hill. I bought a grinder for the restaurant, and we ground Klaas’s wheat, milled it into our own flour, and made this stunning whole wheat bread.

There I was walking the farm-to-table walk with my organic heirloom wheat, basically milled to order. But before long, things started to get more complicated.

I went back to visit Klaas’s farm, thinking I’d write about him for my book, which was then in its earliest stages. On that visit, I had a second culinary epiphany—one that took place not in the kitchen, but in the field. Looking out from the middle of Klaas’s farm, about 2,000 acres, I realized there wasn’t any wheat—at least, not at that time of year. I was surrounded by millet, and oats, and barley, and buckwheat, some mustard greens, some kidney beans—but no wheat. All these crops, I learned from Klaas, had very specific functions. The beans gave the soil nitrogen, and the barley was there to build soil structure, the mustard plants helped cleanse the soil of pathogens and diseases. They were planted in this carefully timed sequence throughout the year. All of this was to prepare the soil, to create the best possible conditions for that great, amazingly flavored emmer wheat. Klaas couldn’t grow his healthy, vigorous, chemical-free wheat without those rotating those other crops in, too.

I remember thinking: Oh my god, I’ve got this all wrong. I'd created a market for this local, heirloom emmer wheat, but I wasn't doing anything to support the entire system that sustained it. Seventy percent of the crops supporting me weren't even being used. They were essentially dumped into bag feed for animals. At the time, there wasn’t a local market for buckwheat, for barley, or for millet, or rye, so Klaas had no alternative. He was just breaking even to build up enough soil fertility for wheat and corn and the stuff that could actually make him money. It just struck me as insane. I realized that, to support a farmer like Klaas, I needed to change my cooking. I needed to cook with the idea of the whole farm in mind.

...

I began to rethink my relationship to food, understanding that each isolated ingredient in my kitchen is implicated within a complex network of relationships. If I want Klaas’s wheat, I should try to find a way to support his beans and his rye and his mustard greens, too. We talk about nose-to-tail eating of animals—to waste less, to innovate, by finding inspired culinary use for all the gamy, complex, less “choice” cuts of meat. Well, we need nose-to-tail eating of the whole farm. We’ve got to learn ways to give these “undesirable” crops some mojo through really creative cooking.

I made a dish from Klaas’s rotation crops called “Rotation Risotto”—it was all the crops that went to support the wheat, but no wheat, and no rice because he doesn’t grow it. It was 12 or 13 different lowly grains—barley, rye, grasses like buckwheat, legumes like Austrian winter peas, and seeds, everything, to use Muir’s word, “hitched” to the wheat. I fashioned these ingredients into something that resembles a risotto. Not only does it get people asking questions—“What the hell’s a rotation?”—it’s incredibly tasty.

...

I saw this on another trip to Klaas's farm, many years later. He had started farming animals: chickens and pigs. After the emmer wheat is harvested, the pigs go out and forage on the stalks left in the field. All of a sudden, the wheat becomes a double crop: We take the grain, the pigs forage on the stalks and get free feed, and they drop their manure in the field. As a result, the soil is better prepped for this next rotation.

And I realized: What's the difference between supporting Klaas’s buckwheat, or barley, and supporting the pigs? I had to support the pigs. And I had to buy Klaas’s eggs, because the chickens were doing same things on the other grains: They were eating the discarded grains, for instance, grains that were ruined by rain the day before a harvest, and were not fit even for sale as bag feed. Before he had chickens, Klaas would compost these grains. Now, you've got a waste product being fed to an omnivore creating this unbelievably delicious end product—essentially for free.

On a more recent trip, I went up and found that the system had evolved even more. A malting facility opened not far from Klaas’s farm. And why did a malter open? Because there's an explosion of microbreweries in New York state, and nobody can get local barley malt because nobody's growing barley—except for the farmers like Klaas who are using it in their rotations. Now Klaas makes a 30-percent profit selling his barley to the malter. And, as a chef, I’m forced into making another connection: to support Klaas’s wheat, I need to drink local beer.

My point is that it keeps expanding. That's the beauty of Muir's line: You can spend a lifetime, if you're a good farmer or a thoughtful cook, being surprised by the connections. But you can spend a lifetime ignoring them, too. Because the techniques used in our industrial food system can be characterized by disconnection, a systematic unhitching. Everything is relegated to its own silo: vegetables over here, and animals there, and grain somewhere else. All the component parts are kept apart. And because they’re unhitched from each other, unsurprisingly, they're unhitched from any kind of food culture.

So what is the role of the chef? It’s to help with the hitching. To show there is pleasure, good taste, and environmental sustainability in fostering connections. After all, that’s what cuisine is: the way a region’s unique ecological relationships, and place-specific advantages and challenges, become manifested through delicious food.

You see this time again throughout history: When Parmesan cheese was developed in Parma, Italy, it created an excess of whey. So, the farmers fed the whey to their pigs—and then they cured the meat and got prosciutto di parma. The whey, a byproduct of the Parmesan process, fattened the pigs into this wonderfully flavorful and delicious ham.

Or when French peasants wondered what do to with the tough and inedible meat of roosters and old laying hens. They broke down the bonds of the proteins by braising the meat in wine (another regional product), and got coq au vin.

You find that in Southern cuisine, too. Hoppin’ John—a quintessential southern dish—is rice, but it’s also cowpeas. That leguminous crop was so important in the south, because it allowed the southerners to preserve their soil well enough to get them rice. Then, they mixed in collard greens, because collards helped desalinate the soil. (And some bacon, because pigs were also part of the agriculture.)

In other words, people created these dishes to support an ecological reality. And they become ingrained in the cuisine, and culture of the place.

People just want to 'buy the wheat' for the most part, they don't care how the product they want gets to them, just that it gets there.

The hell does "utilizing mother nature" mean?

What do you think the reason is that genetic modification became desirable?

That's one look at what 'utilizing Mother Nature' means. Just because we can genetically modify things doesn't mean the only approach is to force something to work through science. Mother Nature seems to do just fine on these things without science's help.

[aGENT]

The hell does "utilizing mother nature" mean?

What do you think the reason is that genetic modification became desirable?

It means there's millions of years of evolution in nature that already naturally do what we we attempt to strong arm our farmlands in to doing with chemicals.

Crop rotation, companion planting etc are all ways to work WITH nature to naturally fertilize soils and ward off pests and disease.

Read Elvis' post and/or the book I posted earlier.