Poor Beekeepers 1 Monsanto 0

[Chucaro]

This news made me very happy :banana::banana:

Sweet victory for Mexico beekeepers as Monsanto loses GM permit (http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2014/aug/08/sweet-victory-beekeepers-monsanto-gm-soybeans?commentpage=1)

Now I hope that the Tasmanian beekeepers and others in OZ can use this as a precedent in legal issues.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Its only one small battle in a very large war against a company with lots of lawyers, deep pockets and a history of litigation.

[ramblingboy42]

Bees are so important to humans....

but the big companies would love to develop all their crops so they weren't reliant upon bees for fertilisation....

there must be a greater power out there somewhere to put these greedy bastards in their place.

they are not just content with big profits, they want bigger profits regardless of who it hurts.

there is another HUGE company called Cargill , completely dominating global seed markets , which swallows up beef cattle feedlots (seed , pet food , burger manufacturing) , responsible mainly for corn seed (GM) distribution throughout the world. google and weep.

[Chucaro]

Its only one small battle in a very large war against a company with lots of lawyers, deep pockets and a history of litigation.

That it is the reason why it is a sweet win :)

[jx2mad]

Yes, a good win. I have 3 hives on my property. About 5 years ago all my hives were destroyed by hive beetle attack, despite my countermeasures. For many years there were wild swarms in this area but having lost mine there were no bees at all. I had to frantically hand pollinate my pumpkin crop until I was able to restock. This took about 6 months but all is well again. People really don't understand how vital bees are for our survival. Honey production worldwide is falling with disease taking its toll on hives. I am constantly getting mail from honey distributers offering to buy my honey (3 hives?:D) but I can sell all I can produce from home. Australia is fortunate that so far we do not have all the problems other countries have but it will only be time before we struggle too. Jim

[Gerokent]

Quote: "But this is a high-stakes game to play, in which indigenous communities are being forced to fight their own government and multinational corporations with multimillion-dollar legal departments, simply to have their constitutional rights honoured and protect their traditional ways of farming and living."

Isn't this how most of the populations in most capitilistic countries live these days? Fighting for their constitutional rights and liberties.
It's good to see there are still some people in the judisiory(spellcheck) that have not been brought as of yet.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I think we all agree that bees are important for the planet, but lets not be misled about multinational agribusinesses particularly the one in question.

With current practices of locking farmers into annual seed purchase for cropping, instead of the traditional practice of keeping a portion of production for next season's planting, you can see that their business model is to dominate seed supply Globally. IMHO if they could develop a way for their GM crops to fruit/seed without any biological assistance these giant agrobusinesses would be happy for the complete demise of bees because it is a great buisness plan for them. You can bet they are working on it.

If their previous history is any sort of guide, they will keep these cases in litigation, for decades if needs be, until they get their way or their oposition are bankrupt (or both).

Diana :mad:

(* no its not a typo)

[Chucaro]

I agree, Monsanto, DuPont/Pioneer Hi-Bred, Syngenta, and Dow AgroSciences are very powerful and have the help of greedy agricultural companies and corrupt politicians in some countries.

[wrinklearthur]

It certainly doesn't hurt to visit these type of issues occasionally, bee's are still necessary for us to live as well.

Fruit tree pollination is only one example of what bee's are needed for and they are definitely not a broadacre crop.

[Chucaro]

Going by the news (not from the normal media) looks like that many people have the guts full with Monsanto.

Monsanto Must Pay $93 Million After Poisoning Town (http://www.offthegridnews.com/2014/07/16/monsanto-must-pay-93-million-after-poisoning-town/)

.......and the corrupt politicians do what ever bully tactic is on their hands to support Monsanto

U.S. Government To Pull Foreign Aid In El Salvador For Refusing Monsanto Seeds (http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/07/26/u-s-government-to-pull-foreign-aid-in-el-salvador-for-refusing-monsanto-seeds/)

[Tote]

To play devil's advocate.....

Plant varieties have been changing for hundreds of years due to selective breeding - heritage seeds are now a business in their own right.
GM is just another example of mankind finding a method to speed up this process.
No one forces farmers to use GM products, if it makes business sense to do so large commercial agriculture ventures will utilise methods that gain them a 2% gain as they have the scale to do so, in contrast smaller operations will plant non GM crops if there is a market for them (fed by the people who beieve that GM is intrinsically evil)
The arguments in the GM field are typically as rational as those that decry vaccination as being bad ie. you are interfering with "nature", none of the allegations of the evils of Glyphosate have been proven to be real by science.
In Australia some wheat farmers are returning to traditional cultivation practices after years of direct drill because labour and fuel are cheaper than spraying paddocks prior to planting anyway.
From the chemical companies perspective the patent has gone from glyphosate long ago and they now need to generate another income stream and the concept of being able to spray a crop to kill unwanted weeds after the crop has emerged is an attractive new use for glyphosate.
None of this has much to do with bees except that using GM seeds does not require bees to polinate crops for seed. This has never been the case with many hybrid oilseed crops anyway as the plants were sterile even before being GM.

This is not to say that the bee industry is not in dire straits but that is a seperate issue that is much more complicated than whether GM seeds contribute to it or not. Besides it is a little ironic that the anti GM lobby crying about the demise of honeybees in Australia are fretting over an introduced species anyway.....

Regards,
Tote
/flame suit on

Regards,
Tote

[Chucaro]

There are many reputable scientific papers about the topic, I am not going to post ll the links here , I live the research for those interested in the issue.
Here is one :

Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases (http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416)

I would not compare this with the vaccine topic ;)

[PhilipA]

The basic problem is that markets give no incentive to farmers to grow non GM crops.
When I worked for NSW Ag I advised the government not to allow trials of GM Canola as our major markets including Japan stated that they would not allow import and that trials would inevitably lead to production which would foul the supply chain and neighbouring farms.

The biggest problem is the supply chain, unless there is complete discrimination between GM and non GM, all non GM is then rendered unable to meet import checks.
However it turned out that Japan then allowed GM canola in for non human consumption . They didn't care what the cows ate .

This in turn lowered the premium in the market for non GM to the extent that non GM became a profitability destroyer for farmers.

So what did the farmers do ? Grow GM of course.

So its like organic. Unless the market is willing to pay hefty premiums the rational farmers lose money and then say "bugger it". Its only the devoted "true believers" that stay producing.

Regards Philip A

[Lotz-A-Landies]

To play devil's advocate.....

Plant varieties have been changing for hundreds of years due to selective breeding - heritage seeds are now a business in their own right.
GM is just another example of mankind finding a method to speed up this process.
Regards,
ToteAbsolutely correct, most gene manipulations are no more than atificially re-creating the same end result that could be obtained by cross and selective breeding over tens or hundreds of generations of the organism. The big issue is when a gene sequence from a non related species is spliced into a current species e.g. an animal sequence into a plant.

The fear is that we don't know the end consequence of the manipulation. e.g. Did the Hawaiian sugar cane farmers understand the consequences on the Australian environment of introduction of the Bufo marinus to Hawaii? Did they even care?

It wasn't even considered that the cane toad would have a devastating impact upon Australian native fauna they had no concept it would even be tried. Such is the risk of gene manipululation.

[Ferret]

There are many reputable scientific papers about the topic, I am not going to post ll the links here , I live the research for those interested in the issue.
Here is one :

Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases (http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416)

I would not compare this with the vaccine topic ;)

I don't really like Monsanto, nothing to do with GM foods as such, more the practice of patenting seeds. So don't take this as a defence of Monsonto. It is not. However, there appears to be quite a few writers disputing just how reputable that paper is.

Take a look at the journal it was published in, a special edition of 'Entropy' (who ever they are) entited "Biosemiotic Entropy: Disorder, Disease, and Mortality"

Entropy is a self publication journal, you pay to get your work published. Nothing necessarily wrong with that in itself. However, in that special edition there are only 12 papers published. 7 of those 12 are all contributed to by the same author ~ Seneff. Not much diversity of thought going on there and doesn't say much for the editorial standards either. At best it shows the editor of the journal is lacking content for whatever the field of "Biosemiotic Entropy" actual is.

Glyphosate might/might not be bad for you, but I really doubt that is one to cite as a starting point for further reading.

[Chucaro]

There are many aspects that concern me, one it is the use of specifically chemicals on the crops that not only damage the soil and ecosystem but also have serious side effects in humans and fauna.
First was the introduction of GM seeds and now we have the GMO which it is worse than the GM.
GMOs are created by splicing genes of different species that are combined through genetic engineering (GE), something that is impossible to do in nature.
Monsanto, one of the manufacturers of a glyphosate based herbicides with his brand Roundup introduced this chemical without any independent study of its implications in human health.
Year ago when I was at Uni one of the trails done and after recommended to the dairy farmers was to use Roundup to suppress Kikuyu pastures and be able to saw on it a rotation pasture using zero tillage techniques.
Now we know that residues of that chemical can be in the milk that we drink.
Monsanto GM and GMO seeds depend on this modified herbicide to work with their crops.

[Chucaro]

I don't really like Monsanto, nothing to do with GM foods as such, more the practice of patenting seeds. So don't take this as a defence of Monsonto. It is not. However, there appears to be quite a few writers disputing just how reputable that paper is.

Take a look at the journal it was published in, a special edition of 'Entropy' (who ever they are) entited "Biosemiotic Entropy: Disorder, Disease, and Mortality"

Entropy is a self publication journal, you pay to get your work published. Nothing necessarily wrong with that in itself. However, in that special edition there are only 12 papers published. 7 of those 12 are all contributed to by the same author ~ Seneff. Not much diversity of thought going on there and doesn't say much for the editorial standards either. At best it shows the editor of the journal is lacking content for whatever the field of "Biosemiotic Entropy" actual is.

Glyphosate might/might not be bad for you, but I really doubt that is one to cite as a starting point for further reading.

Stephanie Seneff is a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and have good credentials.
Have in mind that any scientists that will take on Monsanto will have pages and pages in the internet discrediting him.
Think why people that criticize big corporation have to publish papers in sites like Entropy.

[nat_89]

I find companies such as monsanto and the rest of the massive companies that do disgraceful questionable things to the environment just unbelievable how do they go home and sleep at night i mean goodness what a joke and they will happily just waste millions and millions to fight pointless crap!!

I read a quote the other day "If you really think the environment is less important than the economy, try holding your breath while you count your money." I had a good laugh and thought it could not be any truer words spoken.

[Tote]

Absolutely correct, most gene manipulations are no more than atificially re-creating the same end result that could be obtained by cross and selective breeding over tens or hundreds of generations of the organism. The big issue is when a gene sequence from a non related species is spliced into a current species e.g. an animal sequence into a plant.

The fear is that we don't know the end consequence of the manipulation. e.g. Did the Hawaiian sugar cane farmers understand the consequences on the Australian environment of introduction of the Bufo marinus to Hawaii? Did they even care?

It wasn't even considered that the cane toad would have a devastating impact upon Australian native fauna they had no concept it would even be tried. Such is the risk of gene manipululation.

Yep, very fair point but that sort of research should be done before the horse has bolted and sometimes (often) historically we screw it up eg DDT, Arsenic sheep dips, killing wedgetail eagles etc etc.
What frustrates me is the bleating at the popularist level to achieve ends that are not based in science.

Regards,
Tote

[Ferret]

Stephanie Seneff is a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and have good credentials.
Have in mind that any scientists that will take on Monsanto will have pages and pages in the internet discrediting him.
Think why people that criticize big corporation have to publish papers in sites like Entropy.

Yep she is with MIT, in the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. What she publishes on GM stuff is her personal hobby horse and I would guess not connected with her appointment at MIT as such.

Perhaps Monsanto publish stuff to discredit her GM related writings, I don't know. Certainly other people do, all connected with Monsanto - I doubt it.

If you look in other fields she publishes in she is in trouble there also. Try the vaccine related stuff she publishes (also in Entropy) - same furore.

Up coming episode on Catalyst is about the role gut bacteria, should be worth watching.

[Chucaro]

Yep, very fair point but that sort of research should be done before the horse has bolted and sometimes (often) historically we screw it up eg DDT, Arsenic sheep dips, killing wedgetail eagles etc etc.
What frustrates me is the bleating at the popularist level to achieve ends that are not based in science.

Regards,
Tote

What about the based on science?

Is the research from the professors Professor Marja Makarow and Professor Liselotte Højgaard no scientific?
The research of Gilles-Eric Séralini,Emilie Clair, Robin Mesnage, Steeve Gress, Nicolas DefargeUniversity of Caen, Institute of Biology, CR, France
ot the work done in the University of Verona, Department of Neurological, Neuropsychological, Morphological and Motor Sciences ?

I can go on and on with different Universities and specialists.