PRESIDENT OBAMA - PLEASE STOP MONSANTO

You've touched on a hugely popular topic here at Greenwala, and I mean that in the worst sense of the word. I knew barely anything about them B.G. (before Greenwala) and then as I started reading articles here and doing my own research, I realized that Monsanto has become the MEGA dominant power behind our food supply. They have been the reigning force in the agricultural industry with their genetically modified "Round Up Ready" seeds for YEARS now -- and for those who are unfamiliar with what that means, they basically insert Round Up pesticide into each seed so that when the crops grow (soybeans and corn, for example), they already have an insurance policy against insect invaders. Naturally, that doesn't stop farmers from dousing the crop with additional chemicals because a funny little thing happens out there in the fields -- insects invariably adapt to the pesticides designed to decimate their populations, so scientists constantly have to go back to their mad labs and concoct newer, more toxic formulations to foil them for at least the next several years. This vicious cycle happens in perpetuity.

If anyone here is new to the whole Monsanto thing, Greenwala has a series of eye-opening videos about them right here: http://www.greenwala.com/community/videos/all/357-The-World-According-to-Monsanto-Part-1-of-10

Here are two other Greenwala articles that touch on Monsanto, too:
http://www.greenwala.com/community/blogs/all/1017-Food-Inc-The-Documentary-Film-You-Can-t-Afford-NOT-To-See

http://www.greenwala.com/community/blogs/all/1005-Organic-Brands-The-Greener-Choice-With-An-Oddly-Crunchy-Darth-Vader-Center

I try NOT to focus on the negative and just live a life by example, but Monsanto is a very bad corporation. Bad for our food, our environment, ourselves. It is very important to be up to date on Monsanto so you can make informed choices and support organizations working to change this.

Thanks Elizabeth, you put it better than I ever could. Yes, Monsanto has to be called to task, just like the tobacco industry except this is much bigger and more damaging than tobacco could ever be. It seeps into every corner of the world and the way they hold farmers hostage is close to "treason". I don't care how much money they give to our politicians, I think it is about time we all stood up and said "enough."
I hope everyone goes to the links you have provided. Thanks again Elizabeth.

Folks,

I admire the passion of the original poster, but she is making claims that are abundantly lacking in proof. First, as someone who majored in science and can do a little research, Monsanto is not the "reigning force" in agriculture. They are number 3 in size behind Dow Agrichemicals and Syngenta Agriculture. As for MSRA, their is a bounty of proof that staff and strep resistant bacteria as growing as a concern because of our increased reliance on antibiotics and antibiotic resistant products. If you study science rather than instinctively bashing it, you'd know that all species of bacteria mutate into new resistant strains over time, creating the need for new antibiotics. Blaming Monsanto for things like this just, frankly, make you look very emotional and foolish.

As for biotechnology, I need some conclusive peer-reviewed data before I sit here with my stomach full and condemn millions to their death by starvation by completely rejecting biotechnology as incompatible with green ideals. They reduce the need for the very incecticides and pesticides you dislike.

Are you planning to rally governments of the world for mandatory population control? Or do you feel comfortable eating three meals a day as long as you don't have to view the suffering of children starving to death?

I like a balanced approach and I watched both the "World according to Monsanto" and "Food, Inc." and noted some of their points. The problem is, both are extremely reliant on one-sided supply for their facts, and a great many of their "contentions" fall apart when examined against readily available research on the internet by peer-reviewed science.

There is so much oustanding work being done to add to the green movement, but honestly, shoddy smear campaigns like this only add to peoples percetions that this movement is run by nuts, and not thoughtful people.

Do your homework before you make one-sided suppositions.

Well I'd agree with you that their name has been
bandied about" as you'd note, but I'm not 100% sure that is not without agenda as well, and I'd even wonder at time whose agenda it is.

I watched the video from the Aspen Ideas Seminar in Colorado recently, where they showed Food, Inc. and also had Hugh Grant (among other panelists), CEO of Monsanto as a speaker. The host put him on the spot to answer questions about the Food, Inc piece, particularly "bullying" farmers with lawsuits.

His answer was direct and to the point, in the last 8 years Monsanto has consumated transactions with 13 million customers. Of that they filed suit againt 139 of them in the same 13 year period. That was for violation of their patents, which is you are watching these days, pales in comparison to music bootleggers on the internet. Any moneys received from the lawsuits went back into the communities where the farmers were, in the form of scholarships or other donations.

I am not convinced they are any more or any less different than any other company. People tend to gloss over the fact that Monsanto has long ago divested almost all of the people and products they developed years and years ago.

I see some of your other points, but candidly, I wonder what it is folks want? I read a lot of stuff in this area, and Monsanto is increasingly dedicating itself to sustanable agriculture. Do they make money at it? Yeah, a lot I'd imagine.

I think you kind of marginalize the need side of the eqaution with "heyyy- they're doing us a favor." I have traveled the world and people do starve to death and it is a horrible, horrible thing to see. It's nice and even a bit romantic to think there is an organization that will feed them without any concern for profit, but I'm not so sure that is an opinion that syncs with the reality of the world, no matter how badly we may wish for it to be so.

I just see combatting these companies, rather than working for common understanding to be a losing proposition. I see series like Penn and Teller's "Bullsh&t" that just make people of conscious out to be fools and idiots because of some of the same types of contentions I see here.

So writing to Obama asking him to stop Monsanto? Is that really the way to get increased interest in green tenchologies?

Not in the real world.

Everyone who has commented on this article -- I take my hat off to you. I see so many articles posted in this community that remain unaddressed despite being valuable. I know how much time it takes out of a person's schedule to create something thoughtful and intelligent, so when any of us care enough to spend 3 minutes making a comment, I believe that you're making that writer's day. Even if you do not agree with the writer's perspective, it is still beneficial when you offer constructive criticism and commentary. Doing so helps all of us to grow as individuals and concerned greenies, and in the process, it inspires more community members to write and contribute to this thriving community. So, thanks to everyone who has done so.

Having said that, I have to address Marcus' latest comment -- not as an attack -- simply as a counterpoint. Marcus is definitely entitled to his opinion (as Bob has so accurately stated) and he seems to be able to offer information that is rarely covered in the media regarding Monsanto. Some might claim that Monsanto channeling all patent violation "lawsuit money" back into farming communities smacks of greenwashing -- I'd be very interested to see the actual dollar amounts and some sort of paper trail. It sounds fantastic in theory, but I wonder if and how that money has helped the farmers and community members who now suffer from terrible health ailments due to their agricultural chemicals. Of course, you have to wonder if Dow Agrichemicals and Syngenta Agriculture have made amends -- how have they cleaned up the environment or aided sickened workers?

If Monsanto is dedicated to sustainable agriculture, then how can they continue to make their GMO seeds and agri-chemicals part of the big picture? Those two factors clash entirely with the notion of a sustainable system. To answer your question about what people want, perhaps it's as simple as food that will ensure their longevity rather than be a silent ticking time bomb in their systems. There are increasingly more connections between pesticides and very serious health problems (birth defects are already a given...), including various cancers. http://www.greenwala.com/my_groups/all/107-GREEN-NEWS-TIDBITS-CURRENT-EVENTS/topics/365

How can consumers feel confident about eating a "wholesome diet" of fruits and vegetables that have been sprayed with these chemicals?? It negates the health benefits -- there is no defending that. Recent studies have proven that the average person...even the average child....has a host of chemicals and pesticide residues flowing through their blood. Consumers can certainly buy organic, how many people can truly afford organic, especially in this economy? Imagine if Monsanto invested their massive profits into an entirely organic farming system -- they'd actually be a major driving force of change and environmental restoration that we so desperately need in this world. That would finally give them a great reason to earn the spotlight.

As for writing to Obama, the writer at the very least is doing something -- anything -- to make a difference in this world. Look at what her open letter did in this community -- it compelled you and me to speak up and share our viewpoints. Ideally, I dream of a community where enough Greenwalas decide to take it to the next level -- maybe we draft a community petition which offers constructive steps that Monsanto can take to move forward into a greener future? Then, we let it go viral in the internet for even more effect -- that would make Monsanto sit up and take notice. And to think, it all started with a "Dear Obama" letter.

I too enjoy a healthy discussions of ideas and hope no one is too ruffled that my ideas don't flow along with some others, though I do very much have a passion for true resource conservation.

So I guess I would ask who is it exactly that decided being green and biotechnology are not compatible in their goals? I for one, I suspect among many, do not agree with this contention.

Quite the opposite in fact, I think one is a sensible and proven route to the other.

I like the freedom of a marketplace of ideas. I like that we can have organic farms and biotech farms and believe that their goals are not mutually exclusive.

But it has to be in an atmosphere that has not been polluted with half facts and emotionalism.

Note this except from a very good article in "Reason" magazine about some of the myths of organic farming;

------------

Below is an except from the “Reason” website;
***********************************************************************
The Independent is running a good article on "The great organic myths." I highly recommend reading the whole article, but below are some highlights:

Myth one: Organic farming is good for the environment

The study of Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) for the UK, sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, should concern anyone who buys organic. It shows that milk and dairy production is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). A liter of organic milk requires 80 per cent more land than conventional milk to produce, has 20 per cent greater global warming potential, releases 60 per cent more nutrients to water sources, and contributes 70 per cent more to acid rain....

Myth two: Organic farming is more sustainable

Organic potatoes use less energy in terms of fertilizer production, but need more fossil fuel for ploughing. A hectare of conventionally farmed land produces 2.5 times more potatoes than an organic one.
Heated greenhouse tomatoes in Britain use up to 100 times more energy than those grown in fields in Africa. Organic yield is 75 per cent of conventional tomato crops but takes twice the energy – so the climate consequences of home-grown organic tomatoes exceed those of Kenyan imports...

Myth three: Pesticide levels in conventional food are dangerous

The proponents of organic food – particularly celebrities, such as Gwyneth Paltrow, who have jumped on the organic bandwagon – say there is a "cocktail effect" of pesticides. Some point to an "epidemic of cancer". In fact, there is no epidemic of cancer. When age-standardized, cancer rates are falling dramatically and have been doing so for 50 years...

Myth four: Organic food is healthier

To quote Hohenheim University: "No clear conclusions about the quality of organic food can be reached using the results of present literature and research results." What research there is does not support the claims made for organic food.

Large studies in Holland, Denmark and Austria found the food-poisoning bacterium Campylobacter in 100 per cent of organic chicken flocks but only a third of conventional flocks; equal rates of contamination with Salmonella (despite many organic flocks being vaccinated against it); and 72 per cent of organic chickens infected with parasites...

The Independent article concludes:
In a serious age, we should talk about the future seriously and not use food scares and misinformation as a tactic to increase sales.

-------------------

I think there are two sides to every debate, if this is a debate and the answer lies in the very sensible center.

Forcing one system of agriculture over another, when both can co-exist, simply is not the answer anyone who has interest in avoiding matheuselan level disasters would advocate.

Posted on Sat, Aug. 8, 2009

MONSANTO ROUNDS UP SUPPORT, DISSENT FOR IDAHO MINE

JOHN MILLER
The Associated Press

SODA SPRINGS, Idaho - As it races to replenish phosphate supplies for its weed-killing cash machine Roundup, Monsanto Co. insists its history of polluting southeastern Idaho's high country shouldn't prevent it from digging fresh open pits here.

Three of the St. Louis-based chemical company's previous mines in this region of broad valleys and forested ridges are under federal Superfund authority; a fourth is now violating federal clean water laws. In all, several companies are responsible for polluting at least 17 sites southwest of Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks.

With its current mine in the region nearly played out, Monsanto now wants federal regulators to let the company open a new one by 2011, contending safeguards on the project will keep poisons out of the Blackfoot River. The trout stream just a few hundred yards away is among 15 southeastern Idaho waterways where selenium that leaked from mines exceeds legal state levels.

David Farnsworth, Monsanto mining manager, walked the 1,400-acre Blackfoot Bridge site in late July, describing a liner meant to stop pollution. Even if it fails, he said, vast containment ponds below will keep poisons out of rivers downstream.

"The best laid plans show that Mother Nature changes the game plan," Farnsworth said. "The water shouldn't become contaminated, but if it does, there are the means to handle it."

Marv Hoyt, of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition in Idaho Falls, counters Monsanto and fertilizer makers J.R. Simplot Co. and Agrium Inc. have squandered all trust with their past pollution.

At J.R. Simplot's Conda site, hundreds of sheep died in the 1990s after eating toxic forage. Nearby, Canada's Agrium is spending $500,000 at its North Maybe Mine to control selenium discharges blamed by state wildlife officials for killing all aquatic life in a creek.

"Shouldn't you figure out how to fix the old problems before you start new ones?" asked Hoyt, a former environmental consultant for coal industry.

About 240 million years ago, southeastern Idaho was covered by a warm sea where dead fish and plankton piled up, creating a prehistoric muck that hardened to phosphate- and selenium-rich rock. Today, phosphate mined here provides raw materials to help keep teeth white, doughnuts rise, crops grow and weeds under control. And it forms the backbone of the regional economy.

Monsanto's Roundup will generate over $1 billion in gross profits annually, the company forecasts. In Caribou County, where 7,000 people live, Monsanto alone pays more than $29 million in wages and benefits.

And in June, J.R. Simplot threatened to slash more than 100 jobs at its Smoky Canyon Mine if a court-ordered halt to expansion , the result of a lawsuit by Hoyt's group , wasn't lifted. On Wednesday, a federal judge ruled against Hoyt's group.

Hoyt pledged to appeal, something that doesn't sit well with Soda Springs locals who rely on Agrium, Simplot and Monsanto to pay the bills.

"Sixty or 70 percent of the people in our community have a financial interest in what happens in the mining area," said Mayor Kirk Hansen, whose 17-employee fuel distributorship makes about 30 percent of $90 million in annual sales to mining companies.

"Some would consider it a threat to their livelihoods," he said.

In a sign of just how important the mine is to Monsanto's future, it's paying the public relations firm of former U.S. Interior Secretary Cecil Andrus to promote Blackfoot Bridge as "a new way to mine." Andrus didn't return phone calls seeking comment.

Bureau of Land Management officials now reviewing the Blackfoot Bridge proposal insist government regulators and industry have learned from mistakes of the past that led to mines that decades later are leaking toxic metals and will likely cost millions to remediate.

For instance, after livestock died in the 1990s and officials realized selenium was a problem, the BLM began requiring more stringent reviews of new mining plans.

"The public has a right to be damned mad," said Jeff Cundick, the BLM minerals chief in Pocatello. But "I believe we're rising to the challenge. The past just can't happen again."

The last project approved under the less-stringent review was Monsanto's existing mine, South Rasmussen Ridge. A decade ago, the BLM concluded the company's design "would not allow selenium and other contaminants to migrate from the lease."

But federal Environmental Protection Agency officials now monitoring South Rasmussen say its waste dump is leaking selenium, cadmium, nickel and zinc into a Blackfoot tributary. On Aug. 18, 2008, for instance, selenium levels measured more than 30 times what Idaho law allows.

"There are serious, ongoing violations of the federal Clean Water Act that continue to this day," said Dave Tomten, an EPA geologist.

Farnsworth said his company is doing everything it can to remedy South Rasmussen's violations and insists precautions at Blackfoot Bridge will prevent repeat problems, protect the environment , and allow it to dig enough phosphate to pump out more than 200 million gallons of Roundup and other herbicides yearly.

"Monsanto has recognized the same old things we've done are not acceptable," Farnsworth said.

Chuck Trost, a retired Idaho State University wildlife biology professor in Pocatello, wrote the BLM in 1997 that he feared South Rasmussen's dump would leak. Those concerns now realized, Trost worries about Blackfoot Bridge, in spite of the company's assurances.

"There are problems in the Blackfoot River and they're not being addressed," he said. "It's a problem that's not staying where the mine is."

http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/business/20090808_ap_monsantoroundsupsupportdissentforidahomine.html

President Barack Obama has been trying everything just to pass a comprehensive health care reform this August. American people will benefit from this health care reform since they are worrying more and more about the quality of health care that they are receiving from the government. Health care is a huge national concern. There's a lot of talk about health care reform, and the industry does need it, especially since so many people that are only after the most basic of care have to get emergency cash loans to cover something as simple as a simple antibiotics script, and a full third of the nation is without health insurance. The lead researcher for the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care, Elliot Fisher, a practitioner for over 20 years, has pointed out that areas that spend more on health care interestingly spend more on unnecessary procedures, and have higher mortality rates. So why do we need payday cash advances for <a rev="vote for" title="More Health Care Doesn’t Mean Better Health" href="http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2009/06/16/health-care-health/">health care</a> that is worse when more expensive?