Monsanto: GMOs, Butterflies, and Bees! OH MY!

[DaGip]

I've never been too big on environmental issues until lately. I've known for years about GMOs and started to wonder even more about them when reports of honeybees dying off began to circulate. Back in 2003 I was walking in Hawaii, when I saw a sign with a Pioneer logo.



I thought that was strange, because in South Dakota we see Pioneer stuff all the time; but I never expected to see a Pioneer sign in Hawaii. The sign was placed close to the road and in an empty field and then there were some bigger buildings. I then recognized what the place was. It was a Pioneer GMO experimental crop installation...in HAWAII! One of the most delicate and unique ecosystems on the planet! But even then I never said a word.

Then a few days ago, I saw a report about Monarch Butterflies. They said the monarchs have died off at an extinction level rate. Some 90% of the monarch population has disappeared.

This saddened me, because I remembered from my childhood MILLIONS of monarchs migrating through our small farm town. All of our trees in town would be totally covered with these very bright and vibrant orange wings. It's hard to explain and I wish I had video of the migrations!



Now, we barely see any monarchs. Anyway, scientists are beginning to believe that Monsanto GMOs are responsible for the mass kill-off. Monsanto is so powerful that the honeybee kill-off has been diverted to some "mysterious" disorder. They even gave it a name: Colony Collapse Disorder or CCD.

I'm sure Monsanto doesn't want to be blamed for killing off the bees and eventually humans, so they used all their influence to keep honeybee kill-offs from directly pointing a finger at them.

I am not very knowledgeable on environmental issues, but I am trying to update myself; because this is a very important issue to all of us.

The farmers around here are only now getting involved in fighting Monsanto because China refused to buy their GMO corn. The loss of revenue is catastrophic to these farmers and they have banned together to form a lawsuit against Monsanto.

Anyway, I doubt Monsanto is going anywhere; but perhaps this will at least force them to consider the environmental impacts their products have on the world.

[_sabotage_]

Gip,

First, I'm happy that you have stopped stalking my games and commenting.

Second, you are at Monsanto 101, as you said. As for the environment, the environmentalists are intent on getting Monsanto products implemented by law worldwide. For climate change, of course. A few months back, China had a Monsanto scandal where they found agricultural professors to be receiving nice chunky Monsanto dollars. This became quite a big deal and the government took action. On the other hand, it has recently been announced that animal feed will be Monsanto seed in China. AKA, Monsanto is being simultaneously vilified (rightfully?) and codified.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

You wanna sauce the GMO-CCD connection? As far as I know, CCD is caused by many factors, including pesticides, Varroa mites, and largely the change in apiculture practices. Currently, beekeepers travel along vast regions of the country renting out their colonies during the pollination season, which has at least two negative impacts: 1) less genetic diversity among colonies as well as no permanent regional colonies, and 2) decreased colony health due to constant habitat strain upon the colony.

Screeching about how evil Monsanto is destroying apiculture is just joining the anti-intellectualism movement that fears things like genetic modification or vaccines. Monsanto is evil, but not because they work with transgenics.

-TG

[Dukasaur]

[betiko]

You wanna sauce the GMO-CCD connection? As far as I know, CCD is caused by many factors, including pesticides, Varroa mites, and largely the change in apiculture practices. Currently, beekeepers travel along vast regions of the country renting out their colonies during the pollination season, which has at least two negative impacts: 1) less genetic diversity among colonies as well as no permanent regional colonies, and 2) decreased colony health due to constant habitat strain upon the colony.

Screeching about how evil Monsanto is destroying apiculture is just joining the anti-intellectualism movement that fears things like genetic modification or vaccines. Monsanto is evil, but not because they work with transgenics.

-TG

Very true! The level of research done on every seed is huge and prevents from using all type of pesticides that are much worse for the environment.
High research seeds give a much higher production. Seeds have been hybridated for centuries.
The fact that monsanto has overly agressive marketing and questionable ethics does not mean that this whole industry is doing the wrong thing with GMOs.

[_sabotage_]

90% of all Monsanto GMOs are just so the plant can survive round-up. What can't survive round-up is everything else. We are poisoning the land.

As for production yields, I did this with BBS a while back. Non-industrial input crops have been shown to have higher yields and higher profitability.

[betiko]

You did that with bbs meaning you did that with big bull schnapps right?
If you buy industrial seed you have a guarantee of a certain production. Blame the quality if you want, but in terms of quantity and revenue, it s definitely more interesting for big producers.

[_sabotage_]

And big producers are a good thing?

[Metsfanmax]

Monsanto is evil

Is Monsanto any more evil than the average corporation? If you look at any of the things they are accused of doing that is awful (e.g. patenting seeds so that farmers have to buy a new set every year), I think you can find a number of other corporations that engage in similar tactics in their own industries. I have a suspicion that Monsanto gets targeted specifically for outrage because we feel personally violated when a company attempts to engage in such profit games in the food industry, because food is such a basic asset for human survival, and because everyone needs it.

[betiko]

Max this is horseshit. Every seed company patents seeds, and it s normal. It s also normal for producers to buy new seeds each year, not only to please the seed industry but because it gives them fucking more profits with 96% fucking guaranteed good seeds! The land producers have is a fix figure, how much good crops will grow on it is the variable.
What is evil is the way monsanto makes its contracts in certain areas of the globe and the extreme measures they take to protect their pattents.
Agricultural land is not something that we can expand forever, and if we do it will be through deforestation and all kinds of crap. The world population is growing, the demand for agricultural products will continue increasing in the next 50 years and we will need to follow the pace.
Science is able to make genetically more performent seeds (as i said before... That is what mankind has always been doing through hybridation of vegetable seeds etc). There are some very strict regulations before launching new products on the market.
Now this is better for mass production and to create products needing less/no pesticides and other dangerous products for the soil on the long term. It makes products with longer term life on shelves.
On the other hand, these products are tasteless.. But they are cheaper. what i wouldn t like to see is all the small producers with their tasty products being all crushed by the big cats in the seeds industry forcing them to buy their products because their neighbour farmer use their seeds and with the wind they might end up with pattented seeds on their field.. Which would result in a lawsuit from the seeding company for "illegally using their seeds". There is a lot of fucked up stories like that..

[DaGip]

You wanna sauce the GMO-CCD connection? As far as I know, CCD is caused by many factors, including pesticides, Varroa mites, and largely the change in apiculture practices. Currently, beekeepers travel along vast regions of the country renting out their colonies during the pollination season, which has at least two negative impacts: 1) less genetic diversity among colonies as well as no permanent regional colonies, and 2) decreased colony health due to constant habitat strain upon the colony.

Screeching about how evil Monsanto is destroying apiculture is just joining the anti-intellectualism movement that fears things like genetic modification or vaccines. Monsanto is evil, but not because they work with transgenics.

-TG

Very true! The level of research done on every seed is huge and prevents from using all type of pesticides that are much worse for the environment.
High research seeds give a much higher production. Seeds have been hybridated for centuries.
The fact that monsanto has overly agressive marketing and questionable ethics does not mean that this whole industry is doing the wrong thing with GMOs.

I'm not saying that Monsanto exists to be an evil entity, I am saying that Monsanto has modified seeds to increase farmers' yields without truly knowing what their products would do to the environment. The monarch die-off (soon to be extinction) is a sign that Monsanto needs to be more a "caretaker" than a "profit-maker".

And there is a difference between hybridizing and modifying. Yes, hybridizing of plants and animals has been going on for centuries, but only within this new century have we begun to "modify" plant and animal genes to produce certain characteristics...none of which would have been possible centuries ago (unless of course you are a proponent of Ancient Alien visitors).

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Monsanto is evil

Is Monsanto any more evil than the average corporation? If you look at any of the things they are accused of doing that is awful (e.g. patenting seeds so that farmers have to buy a new set every year), I think you can find a number of other corporations that engage in similar tactics in their own industries. I have a suspicion that Monsanto gets targeted specifically for outrage because we feel personally violated when a company attempts to engage in such profit games in the food industry, because food is such a basic asset for human survival, and because everyone needs it.

Probably not, and you're probably right there. I know Monsanto is particularly litigious when it comes to these matters, but as you say, this may be more apparent to the public because of Monsanto's high profile where another corporation from some other industry might be less well known.

You wanna sauce the GMO-CCD connection? As far as I know, CCD is caused by many factors, including pesticides, Varroa mites, and largely the change in apiculture practices. Currently, beekeepers travel along vast regions of the country renting out their colonies during the pollination season, which has at least two negative impacts: 1) less genetic diversity among colonies as well as no permanent regional colonies, and 2) decreased colony health due to constant habitat strain upon the colony.

Screeching about how evil Monsanto is destroying apiculture is just joining the anti-intellectualism movement that fears things like genetic modification or vaccines. Monsanto is evil, but not because they work with transgenics.

-TG

Very true! The level of research done on every seed is huge and prevents from using all type of pesticides that are much worse for the environment.
High research seeds give a much higher production. Seeds have been hybridated for centuries.
The fact that monsanto has overly agressive marketing and questionable ethics does not mean that this whole industry is doing the wrong thing with GMOs.

I'm not saying that Monsanto exists to be an evil entity, I am saying that Monsanto has modified seeds to increase farmers' yields without truly knowing what their products would do to the environment. The monarch die-off (soon to be extinction) is a sign that Monsanto needs to be more a "caretaker" than a "profit-maker".

And there is a difference between hybridizing and modifying. Yes, hybridizing of plants and animals has been going on for centuries, but only within this new century have we begun to "modify" plant and animal genes to produce certain characteristics...none of which would have been possible centuries ago (unless of course you are a proponent of Ancient Alien visitors).

You could say the same for any farmer who uses hybridization agriculture.

The rest: What's wrong with modifying? Perhaps I'm misreading your position here, but you seem to be anti-modification, what with the "it wouldn't be possible" line and the photo of the mice. I'm not sure you realize the pivotal role transgenics has played in pretty much all facet of our modern lives.

The picture you posted looks like the GFP gene. This gene is widely used to measure expression of many things. It is a mainstay of modern molecular biology and we can use it to determine function and location of so many, many things, all which assists our understanding and eventual treatment of defects, diseases, etc. And literally all it does is fluoresce under UV light.

Are you against all GMOs, or only the ones the anti-intellectuals like to rail about? What about synthetic insulin? The vast majority of diabetics use synthetic insulin derived from, you guessed it, transgenic E. coli or yeasts.

-TG

[Metsfanmax]

The most thoughtful criticism I have seen of GMOs comes from economist Nassim Taleb, the author of The Black Swan.

http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf

This paper is worth a read, even though I disagree with many of its conclusions. The argument is that when you're concerned about the chance that something can go wrong, we should distinguish between fat-tailed and thin-tailed probability distributions. A fat-tailed distribution is one where a particular event can dominate the distribution of outcomes and alter the system, whereas a thin-tailed distribution is one where no individual event is likely to fundamentally change the nature of the system. For example, evolution by natural selection has thin tails because even if something catastrophic happens to a group in a particular location, the geographic isolation of that group (for example; could also be some other isolating factor, like inability to transmit diseases across species) will limit the spread of the catastrophe. A nuclear missile launch has fat tails because there's a very likely chance it could trigger a global catastrophe. He argues that if we consider a system with a fat-tailed distribution that could result in complete devastation of the system (for example, total extinction of life on earth) then we should not engage in that action no matter how small the chance of the devastation is, because we value the devastation as infinitely bad. (And a finite number times infinity is still infinity.)

Taleb applies this to GMOs by arguing that the hybridization we have been performing until now has thin tails: if any one farmer tries a hybrid and it has dangerous side effects, that farmer will go out of business and the method won't spread past his farm. In contrast, he argues that the problem with GMOs is that we're essentially performing a global experiment, where wide swaths of the planet are being switched to the same crops in a very short period of time. If there is any chance at all of this going wrong, it will then go wrong on a very large scale and do something terrible like lead to mass starvation.

I think there are some obvious flaws with their argument, but I don't want to bias the discussion before people have a chance to consider the idea.

[betiko]

My cousin is a biological engineer for monsanto. Those seeds are tested for years and years before being put out on the market you know. Testing the effects on lab rats etc. a very very small % of the research is then sent on the market, and you have tons of agricultural regulations to comply to.
This is very similar to the medical industry, and it s a bit like not trusting new meds launched on the market.

[_sabotage_]

Betiko,

I think you are missing the point.

GMOs have three main problems and nothing to do with the actual modification:

1. It's not the modification itself, it's what the modification allows. By far the most common form of GMO is round-up ready. Round-up literally won't let stuff grow. It kills everything except that which has been genetically modified to withstand it.

Dumping round-up over millions of acres destroys the land and the water. Round-up is an unrecognized petrochemical to nature and is not broken down. In remains on the land, leaches into the water, is picked up in wildlife and just goes round the food chain. The land will be less likely to grow without GMOs again.

2. Massive industrial farming. GMOs are best suited to large scale operations. The size of farms is increasing worldwide. Smaller farms are being sold, larger farms consolidated. In Canada all small scale farms are decreasing in number, while only the largest farms are increasing in number. China has several hundred million farmers, is it a good thing to attempt to get them out of their livelihood? What will they then do?

Larger farms create monocultures. In nature, a diverse mix of plants is necessary in order to meet potential invaders and fulfill the requirements over different periods of time. In permaculture, weeds are kept to provide a medicinal source against disease, with the mycelium mat of mushrooms acting as doctor and dispenser. When soil is plough end, the mycelium structures are destroyed, when a single plant is grown over a large area it leaves the area barren of resources for most of the year. If only wheat is grown for miles around, then there will only be available resources during the harvest time for wheat, and it will be harvested and not available to any animals anyway. This is one problem monarchs and bees are having, the food sources are extremely abundant for a very limited time and then gone for miles around.

3. Monsanto's shady side. Monsanto has been accused of bribing several governments, of manipulating reports, they chair the regulatory body overseeing them (in the US), produced Agent Orange and other chemical weapons and ruinous chemical products in the past. These chemical concoctions have a direct link to cancer. It's odd after living in "the factory of the world" which has extreme industrial pollution to realize that a small farming town 100 km away from a modest city has much higher cancer rates than the PRD with 10s of millions of people engaged in manufacturing. Gill Deacon has a good book on why this is so.

The main problem with Monsanto is the results it creates. It creates massive, heavily polluting farms and makes them profitable while making smaller scale healthier farms simultaneously less profitable. It leads us to many negative aspects, while only providing (and only in comparison with it's already industrialized counterparts) slightly cheaper food. It's like going to a doctor with acne and he suggests you skin yourself alive to deal with it.

[DaGip]

You could say the same for any farmer who uses hybridization agriculture.

The rest: What's wrong with modifying? Perhaps I'm misreading your position here, but you seem to be anti-modification, what with the "it wouldn't be possible" line and the photo of the mice. I'm not sure you realize the pivotal role transgenics has played in pretty much all facet of our modern lives.

The picture you posted looks like the GFP gene. This gene is widely used to measure expression of many things. It is a mainstay of modern molecular biology and we can use it to determine function and location of so many, many things, all which assists our understanding and eventual treatment of defects, diseases, etc. And literally all it does is fluoresce under UV light.

Are you against all GMOs, or only the ones the anti-intellectuals like to rail about? What about synthetic insulin? The vast majority of diabetics use synthetic insulin derived from, you guessed it, transgenic E. coli or yeasts.

-TG

Let's make this clear. My stance is not anti-GMO, it is anti-incompetence. Hybridization vs Modification is simple. Hybridization doesn't include splicing DNA from other species of plants and animals. It includes seeding genetic features that are desired (those little tomatoes for salads, Yukon Gold potatoes, Rottweilers, etc.) The farmer doesn't genetically modify the DNA with other species (Goat Spider, Glowing mice and monkeys, Corn Bacterium, etc.)

Yes, the agriculture corporations might spend years studying the possible environmental effects; but what if it takes more than "years" for severe problems to arise? Surely, Monsanto didn't set out to exterminate all the Monarch Butterflies? That much I am sure of. They should, however, bear responsibilities for the unseen failures of their products.

Where I come from, I haven't seen a butterfly, bee, or small song bird for a few years now (or I should say: very few). Where are they? What happened to all the birds, bees, and butterflies? The report on Monsanto's GMO being sought by scientists as the cause for the Monarch kill off raised my awareness to the issue. How can it not raise awareness with you or anyone else?

In addition, GMOs are being investigated for the Morgellon's Disease mystery.

The Federal study on Morgellon's was given grant to Oklahoma State University. The latest studies are pointing towards Morgellon's sufferers, a shared gene between sufferers and plants, and modified corn (Bacterium Corn).

Basically, a larger portion of the populace is infected by Morgellon's but only the humans that have the shared plant-gene reject the corn-bacterium from their bodies. This causes pain and itching on their skin and in their joints. The mutated corn-bacterium acts like a living thing and "worms" its way through tissues causing a "bug" crawling on the skin sensation. The Agrobacterium uses iron from human blood to develop into chitinous fibers that "grow" through human tissues and skin.




Yes, I hope that these environmental mistakes will teach us, but why do I want to be a guinea pig? Why would you? It isn't "anti-intellectual" to tread lightly is it?

I guess I would rather be considered an "anti-intellectual" than be intellectually exterminated.

[_sabotage_]

Morgellon's disease does not officially* exist.

*Morgellons (also called Morgellons disease or Morgellons syndrome) is a condition whose sufferers have the delusional belief that they are infested with disease-causing agents described as things like insects, parasites, hairs or fibers, but in reality no such things are present.[1]

Wikipedia.

I.e., the camera that takes the pictures is delusional.

We have been splicing DNA for more than three thousand years since grafting was invented in China.

[warmonger1981]

What about the effects of cross polonization of other farmers fields. Is it possible for Monsantos plants to infect another farmers field? Then what are the consequences? Anyone hear about Monsanto trying to patent a natural tomatoes or tomatoes without GMO in Europe. If this is true then they would potentially own the rights to natural tomatoes. Or is it good they own about 25% of seed production world wide. AKA a company controlling a quarter of the worlds seeds. Food for thought.

[DaGip]

Morgellon's disease does not officially* exist.

*Morgellons (also called Morgellons disease or Morgellons syndrome) is a condition whose sufferers have the delusional belief that they are infested with disease-causing agents described as things like insects, parasites, hairs or fibers, but in reality no such things are present.[1]

Wikipedia.

I.e., the camera that takes the pictures is delusional.

We have been splicing DNA for more than three thousand years since grafting was invented in China.

Agreed. I cannot argue with that point that Morgellon's does not "officially" exist. Many things "officially" never existed in the past but now they do. Sufficient evidence has not been presented to overturn the belief of the body science.

However, the arguing points of its existence are being made by more qualified humans than you and I.

The Australian Dermatologist Peter Mayne has found connections between Lyme and Morgellon's. His notion is that Lyme and Morgellons are the same disease that shows differently in the host. Borrelia burgdorferi (the bacteria that is the culprit in Lyme's) can be found in lesions of Morgellons victims:

Spirochetal presence in the skin of diagnosed Morgellons patients has previously been demonstrated, including PCR detection of borrelial pathogens5. In this segment PCR validation of systemic borrelial infection with diagnosed MD is addressed.

Because of this Dr. Mayne is pushing to change the name of Morgellon's to borreliosis dermatitis (he is already responsible for the change of Lyme's to borreliosis in Australia).

Because something doesn't "officially" exist, should one stop searching for evidence?

To be fair, Lyme's didn't "officially" exist until the mid '70's. The first scientific discussions on this disease started in 1909. The disease never "officially" existed. It took almost seventy years for Lyme's to be "officially" recognized. The same, I believe, is happening with Morgellon's.

The search has so far connected Lyme's and Morgellons through a bacterium. The microscope is now being lowered on Agrobacterium and Bt Corn as possible catalysts of this "officially" nonexistent disease.

If all such cases are just delusion, then why is there research still being done? Obviously there are those cases that have convinced further investigation.

As far as your grafting comment, I don't think you can seriously believe that grafting plants to other plants is in anyway equal to chemically cutting out pieces of DNA and splicing in differing species? Next time you should try grafting a cow to a tree and see what you get!

[_sabotage_]

There are many issues that can be taken with GMOs. I try not to take them all as they can make the issue more cumbersome.

We can for example point out that bees are transported in, a potential cause of CCD because monocultures, in the same sphere as GMOs, create environments that don't support bees locally.

But the key issue for me is simple. Let's say China goes full throttle with GMOs, they are convinced that large scale GMO production ( which climate change folks are advocating for) increases output by double. Great, half the population was already feeding off the farms before the output was calculated previously. Half the population was off the housing, food, garbage, job markets. Now you've managed to feed the same amount of people, but doubled unemployment, exasperated your housing supply, created a new menu for the folks and a alien environment to compete in.

It would be far better if technological development was geared at improving the individual yields and individual lifestyle of the farmers. But people like Mets want to make people feel the pain of climate change. They want to ensure its devastation by exposing as many people as they can to harsh environments. They want Beijing crowded with former "peasants" as Mrs would say. He wants China to taste the Grapes of Wrath.

Permaculture has greened deserts, increased profitability and lifestyle and output for individual farmers. It is better for the environment, all inhabitants, for consumers, for society in general. Governments should be focusing resources on helping the small scale farmer, but instead are forcing them out.

Monsanto is just giving the devil a name.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Yes, the agriculture corporations might spend years studying the possible environmental effects; but what if it takes more than "years" for severe problems to arise? Surely, Monsanto didn't set out to exterminate all the Monarch Butterflies? That much I am sure of. They should, however, bear responsibilities for the unseen failures of their products.

This is all applicable to hybridization techniques and the farmers who practice them. Just sayin'. You have this idealized version of "Mother Nature" or something, yet fail to fully grasp just what things like hybrids can do.

Where I come from, I haven't seen a butterfly, bee, or small song bird for a few years now (or I should say: very few). Where are they? What happened to all the birds, bees, and butterflies? The report on Monsanto's GMO being sought by scientists as the cause for the Monarch kill off raised my awareness to the issue. How can it not raise awareness with you or anyone else?

I see shitloads of all those things. Maybe you should get out more.

Re: Moregellon's-- Never heard of it. Looked it up, according to the CDC it's mostly middle-aged white women who self-diagnose using the internet, and the "fibers" were cellulose fibers, likely cotton. Like, from you clothes. Scary.

-TG

[riskllama]

i watched a doc a year or so ago(forget the name)about monsanto and its practices. i remember being very, very angry about some of the shit they are doing/have done...

[DoomYoshi]

I don't even know where to begin. Tails, do you need any support on any particular point? Mets?

[_sabotage_]

Hey, I need support. Perhaps after our duel?

[Metsfanmax]

I don't even know where to begin. Tails, do you need any support on any particular point? Mets?

Just stay out of this one. It'll help with your sanity.