-
-
Monsanto expects Roundup to generate 1.8 billion in profits for 2008
That's a lot of poison in our rivers, streams, food, air and stomachs. Poison for profit. That should be their slogan. And why are these profits so high? Well, because they have bought up close to 90% of the global seed market thus forcing farmers to sign their bogus contracts holding them to buying their seeds and poison every year. They cannot save the seeds, and they have to buy the poison sprays with the seeds yearly. And the pesticides sprayed on crops made by these companies have also been found in higher levels in beehives, suggesting that it is possible that when bees have tried to pollinate GM crops they carry these pesticides back to the hives which makes them sick, thus causing them to desert the hives. Imagine what their seeds with built in pesticides can do for your salad!
And yet, the FDA states there is no difference between this poison and the conventional crops that farmers once grew and could regrow with saved seeds as has been the tradition in agriculture since ancient times. That way they also get out of responsibility from labelling the food you eat. That way you don't know the poisons you are consuming. And even if you are an organic farmer, chances are your crops have also been poisoned by their transgenic pollution. Even without selling you the seeds, you are a part of their big happy poison family.
Oh, and of course, these fake seeds with the poison centers are feeding the world! Don't pay attention to all of the starving people in Haiti, Africa, Asia and elsewhere. Don't let the real truth blind you to their propaganda... profit is good even at the expense of morality, truth, and this planet. That's the Monsanto way.
--------------
From the entry noted:
Monsanto positions itself as a green company.
"Using the tools of modern biology," its website informs us, "we help farmers grow more yield sustainably so they can produce more and conserve more."
Compare that twaddle to this bit from Monsanto's announcement on Tuesday:
[Monsanto's Chief Financial Officer Terry] Crews will indicate that Monsanto's Roundup® and other glyphosate-based herbicides business is on track to be above $1.9 billion of gross profit for the 2008 fiscal year, ahead of the previous forecast. Wow. Nearly $2 billion in profit, from Roundup alone. As recently as February, Monsanto was expecting to make $1.4 billion from its herbicide division this year. I guess farmers applied it even more copiously than expected.
But the company isn't just churning out profit by peddling weed-killer. Its seeds are doing pretty well, too -- particularly corn:
Crews will also note that for the 2008 fiscal year, the company's corn business should exceed $2 billion in gross-profit generation for the first time. Interesting. So it makes nearly as much on herbicide as it does on corn seeds. (Overall, the company expects to make $3.8 billion on seeds in '08).
Investors applauded Monsanto's announcement, sending shares up 7.5 percent Tuesday.
I wonder if they're being short-sighted. Monsanto's success rests on Roundup Ready technology -- selling seeds genetically engineered to withstand heavy doses of its flagship herbicide.
But Roundup-tolerant weeds (so-called "superweeds") are on the rise. Eventully, farmers will have to shift away from Roundup -- Monsanto's $1.8 billion cash cow.
Meanwhile, Bayer is rolling out a new line of herbicide-tolerant seeds, this one designed to withstand doses of Bayer's glufosinate herbicide. Ain't the agrichemical industry grand? That's a lot of poison in our rivers, streams, food, air and stomachs. Poison for profit. That should be their slogan. And why ar... more -
Nebraska farmer regarding Monsanto: it used to be mine
(That was) then
When I was a boy growing up here outside of Langdon, everything on the farm belonged to my family.
At about the age of ten, Dad taught me how to raise hogs. The sows we grew from Hampshire gilts were ours. So was the alfalfa field where we grew hay and hog pasture. Planted to Vernal seed (a public variety), it was where piglets played and slept in the warm summer sun. The wheat field we harvested later that summer was planted to Gage seed, another public variety. We harvested that wheat in July, then sold some for seed and some for grain. Dad saved seed for next years crop, and Mother cooked a little into breakfast cereal and even ground some flour.
After the wheat harvest, we mowed the stubble and baled the straw. The same pigs that grazed the alfalfa were farrowed and later bedded in our wheat straw as the days grew cooler, and Dad fed the shoats our own corn.
When we fed the hogs Dad told me about how he used to go to the corncrib and select ears of open pollinated seed corn from the thousands he had there. He told me how he'd sort through them and choose only the very best of what he'd grown.
And then he told me about how single cross seed corn had replaced open pollinated varieties that he had planted since he was a boy on his father's farm, where everything they grew belonged to them.
The open pollinated ears of corn from Dad 's crib were never worth more than about a penny apiece.
The cloth sacks that held the first single cross seeds he planted still rest in the attic of my home. Most of the seed company imprints on the sacks would be unrecognizable to young farmers today, but they tell a story that is very up-to-date. It is a story of progress, a story of consolidation, and a story of control.
Even as privatized seed came into being, competition made it difficult for one seed company to dominate another. Seed sales depended simply on appearance, the hybrid's ability to withstand stress, its harvestability, marketing, and most of all yield.
Those were the basic parameters of operating a successful hybrid seed company. Farmers might spend a little more for the very best hybrid, but the bottom line was always about profit on the farm. For a hybrid to be good, it had to be profitable because, after all, the profits belonged to the farmers who grew the crops.
snip
(Then came) Monsanto
The seed company where I bought my first private soybean variety seed was purchased lock, stock, and barrel, by Monsanto.
Monsanto was the first commercial company to patent seed, and first to aggressively enforce its rights as a patent holder of living things.
Monsanto has actively sued many farmers for seed patent infringement. Given the power of a billion dollars in earnings, Monsanto never loses a case. Right or wrong, the company can afford to maintain lawsuits in the courts for years. Eventually, farmers who may or may not have done what they were accused of are forced to capitulate or spend the farm to defend themselves.
Thanks to higher land costs and higher prices for petroleum, machinery, chemicals, fertilizer and seed, the cost to grow an acre of soybeans now approaches $500 per acre.
The 2008 national average soybean yield is predicted to be 40.5 bushels per acre -- or about the same yield I got from the public varieties I planted nearly 40 years ago.
At today's price of about $12 per bushel, an average acre of soybeans is worth $486 [barely a break-even price before federal subsidies.]
As a commercial grower who produces soybeans for the price of $12 per bushel, I haven't simply lost the right to plant my own seed.
I may also have lost the right to earn a profit.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What Monsanto is doing to farming and the livelihoods of farmers is nothing less than a crime. And for those who wanted proof of that, there it is straight out of the farmer's pen. (That was) then When I was a boy growing up here outside of Langdon, everything on the farm belonged to my family. ... more -
Genetically modified seeds pose more problems than natural varieties
The processes of hybridization involving repeated combinations of genetic material were limited for a long time by the fact that natural reproduction only takes place between plants of the same species. But Genetic Engineering took off with the unravelling of the full structure of the DNA 20 years ago. It became possible to insert a gene of one species into the DNA of another, thus offering immense agricultural possibilities.
Some examples include the modification of plants that fix the nitrogen of the air without belonging to the Leguminous family, plants resistant to certain diseases or to dry environments; the possibility of producing drugs and vaccines by genetically modifying bacteria, and many others.
Farmers were thus promised higher incomes; traders were promised lower costs of production and better quality of produce; and the companies producing such foods saw huge profits appearing on the horizon through monopolies and patents of such modified foods. Naturally, their research showed that there was no difference between the natural and engineered foods, that these were safe, and that they would solve the problem of famine in the world.
But if GM foods were all that their producers claimed them to be, why was the process conducted by stealth and sprung on the public without notice? This policy of the fait accompli began with the US government, which neither informed nor consulted its citizens about GM crops nor, worse still, did it require GM foods to be labelled, so as to give the public the democratic choice of whether to buy or not. After this GM foods were imposed on one country after another, in the same utterly undemocratic atmosphere of secrecy.
For a full understanding of the import of GM foods, two sets of results need to be considered: social results on the countries that have adopted them and biological results of the genetically modified foods. Further, GM foods must be analysed as part and parcel of the much touted globalization,to which we now turn.
Dr Vandana Shiva is an India physicist, founder and president of the Research Foundation for Science Technology and Ecology, and one of India's leading activists. She describes in one of her papers how the transformation of peasant agriculture in India to a globally industrialized model, which has GM foods as a supporting pillar, has reduced food security, threatened local businesses and biodiversity, driven farmers off their lands, and opened the door for global corporations to take over the nation's food processing.
The common claim by globalization enthusiasts is that it is natural, inevitable, and evolutionary. Dr Shiva sees it otherwise. Globalization is not a natural process of inclusion. It is a planned project of exclusion that has siphoned the resources and knowledge of the poor of India onto the global marketplace, stripping people of their life-support systems, livelihoods, and lifestyles.
Global trade rules, as enshrined in the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture (AOA) and in the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) agreement, are primarily camouflaged rules of robbery.
The WTO's overall goal: promoting market competition serves two purposes. First, it transforms culture, biodiversity, food, water, livelihoods, needs, and rights into commodities for sale to be conveyed to markets. Second, it justifies the destruction of nature, culture, and livelihoods in terms of rules of competition.
Its officials attack ethical and ecological rules that sustain and promote life, dubbing them as protectionist barriers to trade.
Globalized food and agriculture in effect, means the corporate takeover of the food chain, the erosion of food rights, the destruction of the cultural diversity of food and the biological diversity of crops, and the displacement of millions from land-based, rural livelihoods. The processes of hybridization involving repeated combinations of genetic material were limited for a long time by the fact that natur... more -
Film review: The World According To Monsanto
The most important documentary you will see this year.
How much outrage can a single multinational corporation inspire? How much damage can they inflict? The breathtaking new film, The World According to Monsanto, features a company that sets the new standard. From Iowa to Paraguay, from England to India, Monsanto is uprooting our food supply and replacing it with their patented genetically engineered creations. And along the way, farmers, communities, and nature become collateral damage. The Gazette says the movie "will freeze the blood in your veins." The Hour says it's a "horrifying enough picture" to warrant "fury." But most importantly, this critical film opens our eyes just in time. The film is the work of celebrated award-winning French filmmaker Marie-Monique Robin, whose three years of work on four continents exposes why Monsanto has become the world's poster child for malignant corporate influence in government and technology.
Combining secret documents with accounts by victims, scientists and policy makers, she guides us through a web of misleading reports, pressure tactics, collusion, and attempted corruption. And we learn how the company systematically tricked governments into allowing dangerous genetically modified (GM) foods into our diet-with Monsanto in charge of determining if they're safe.
Deception, Deception, Deception
The company's history with some of the most toxic chemicals ever produced, illustrates why they can't be trusted. Ask the folks of Anniston, Alabama, where Monsanto's PCB factory secretly poisoned the neighborhood for decades. PCBs are Monsanto's toxic oils used as coolants and lubricants for over 50 years and are now virtually omnipresent in the blood and tissues of humans and wildlife around the globe. But Anniston residents have levels hundreds or thousands of times the average. They all know their levels, which they carry as death sentences. David Baker, who lost his little brother and most of his friends to PCB-related diseases such as cancer, says Anniston kids used to run up to him, report their PCB level and ask, "How long you think I got?"
Ken Cook of the Environmental Working Group says that based on Monsanto documents made public during a trial, the company "knew the truth from the very beginning. They lied about it. They hid the truth from their neighbors." One Monsanto memo explains their justification: "We can't afford to lose one dollar of business."
snip
Replacing Nature: "Nothing Shall Be Eaten That We Don't Own" Monsanto is the world's largest seed company and many are concerned. Troy Roush says, "They are in the process of owning food, all food." Paraguayan farmer Jorge Galeano says, "Its objective is to control all of the world's food production." Renowned Indian physicist and community organizer Vandana Shiva says, "If they control seed, they control food; they know it, it's strategic. It's more powerful than bombs; it's more powerful than guns. This is the best way to control the populations of the world." The World According to Monsanto is aptly named. It is about Monsanto seeking to recreate the world in its own image, for its own benefit. They intend to replace (and patent) the entire food supply. And since their genetic pollution self-propagates in the environment, it will outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste. Such widespread permanent influence may not be safe with any individual or company. With Monsanto's record, the results can only be catastrophic. This powerful documentary might just inspire a global rejection of Monsanto's plans for our world. If so, it will be the most important film in history. The most important documentary you will see this year. ... more -
Monsanto sues farmer over seed patent... court to rule
Monsanto is the owner of the patented herbicide Roundup and the also-patented Roundup Ready herbicide-resistant seed.
At issue in this case is David's right to plant Roundup Ready soybean seeds that he produced from plants grown from Roundup Ready seeds he purchased from Monsanto.
David lost the case, both at trial and at the federal circuit, and was fined $786,989. Last week, David appealed to the Supreme Court.
Presently, farmers must buy Monsanto seed annually to grow a Roundup Ready crop.
Some experts believed that a recent Supreme Court ruling on patent exhaustion indicated that the Supreme Court would grant David's appeal (if patent exhaustion was the issue presented on appeal).
Patent exhaustion means that the first sale of the patent seed exhausts the patent owner's rights.
Under this doctrine, Monsanto could not prevent use of its seed after the first sale.
David did not request the Supreme Court to consider the exhaustion doctrine because he did not believe the earlier ruling to be applicable because Monsanto's license agreement restricts use of the seed distinguishing his client's case from the case at hand.
Some patent experts believe the Supreme Court will therefore deny the appeal. David's lawyer strenuously disagrees.
The result? Monsanto's right to prevent farmers from planting herbicide resistant seeds they grow from Monsanto-patented seeds will remain in place until another suitable case makes its way through the court system. This could take decades.
David's lawyer informs me that $7.25 of the $21 cost of one “unit of Roundup Ready seed is attributable to the Monsanto technology fee.
Monsanto did not respond to my calls for current price structure.
*************
I find it hard to believe that the Supreme Court in this case will rule in favor of the farmer regarding the patent. But then, it is possible though unlikely now that the patent exhaustion doctrine was not brought up in the appeal, which to me makes no sense. I wonder if they got to him? If they grant the appeal and he wins it will set a precedent for farmers everywhere who have purchased Monsanto's Roundup Ready seeds to not be obligated to purchase them every year, thus being able to save seeds as has been the practice of agriculture for centuries.
I truly find it despicable that Monsanto thinks it has the right to patent life itself and control the planting of seeds, and to then sue farmers who wish to use seeds taken from their own crops. Of course Monsanto has the clout and $$$$$$$$$$ to come down hard in influencing the decision on this appeal, as a ruling for the farmer could mean great loss of income to Monsanto. I will keep my fingers crossed for that. Kudos to this farmer for standing up to them and for farming as it should be. Monsanto is the owner of the patented herbicide Roundup and the also-patented Roundup Ready herbicide-resistant seed. ... more -
Don't believe the GMO apologists
Avarice and greed in the name of exploiting a food crisis brought on not by food shortages, but high prices of oil and feed and political corruption propagated by the very governments and agencies like the World Bank that are now pushing GM foods that are untested. Notice a pattern here?
From the article:
Arguments about genetic modification, often wrongly characterised as science versus irrational nature-worshippers, have lost none of their passion. On one side are those who yearn for simple, high-tech solutions to complex problems. Against GM, there are ecological realities and scientific evidence. There is overwhelming evidence that farming took a wrong turn after the last war, with widespread use of artificial nitrogen fertilisers and sprays.
In Britain, we lost up to 95 per cent of our ancient woodlands, flower meadows, hedges and wildlife and saw massive losses of farms and farm workers' jobs. Farming became more oil-dependent. Our food lost vitamins, taste and diversity and our diet became unhealthy.
As the environmental and human cost of industrial farming became harder to deny, along came a new miracle cure ; genetic engineering. Twenty years ago, GM promised unbelievable wonders ; fruit that would never freeze, crops needing no fertiliser or sprays and food with vitamins and medicines engineered in. All food would soon be GM. Geneticists would engineer anything we wanted, taking a gene from a fish here, a pig there, adding a bacteria gene and maybe a bit of a virus.
The greatest coup by the GM companies, and their greatest scientific fraud, was to ensure no GM food had to be tested for safety. In America, they established the concept of "substantial equivalence" which means that if a GM crop looks like its non-GM equivalent and grows like it, then it is it no safety testing is needed before people eat it. GM maize could have added virus and antibiotic resistance genes, and a gene that makes it express an insecticide in every leaf, stem and root but to the US government it looks and grows like maize, so it is safe to eat.
GM crops face mounting scientific evidence of uncertainty, risk and danger. But now, because of rising food prices, the GM industry's claim that GM is needed to feed the world is suddenly newsworthy again. However, a key reason for soaring food prices higher oil costs leading to higher fertiliser prices also presents a massive threat to GM crops. All current and planned GM crops depend on artificial, oil-based fertiliser to grow, and all need to be treated with pesticides to survive.
In 2006, the pro-GM US Department of Agriculture observed that "currently available GM crops do not increase yield potential" a point already made by a 2004 UN Food and Agriculture Organisation report which acknowledged that "GM crops can have reduced yields". The recently published UN IAASTD report, the work of more than 400 international scientists, about the future of global food production under the challenges of climate change and population pressure, concluded that GM crops do not have much to offer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GM foods: 'un'natural selection. Avarice and greed in the name of exploiting a food crisis brought on not by food shortages, but high prices of oil and feed and politi... more -
Dr. Vandana Shiva: Why Prince Charles is right: we need GM free food for food secu...
Corporate monopoly over our food systems is a food security disaster. And while in some places like India these disasters have already had an impact at a global level, they are a disaster in the making.
It is therefore unscientific, illogical and irresponsible for the Environmental Minister Mr Woolas to say that Prince Charles must provide "proof" that a disaster has happened.
I would imagine that he is aware of the environmental principle on which the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change rest.
The principle is called the Precautionary Principle. It is based on the recognition that when an activity or technology has the potential to cause harm, and there is no conclusive evidence to establish the harm that can be caused, then policy and decision making must err on the side of caution.
The Environment Minister also said "Government ministers have a responsibility to base policy on science and I do strongly believe that we have a moral responsibility to the developing world to ask the question: 'Can GM crops help'?
Minister, if you could travel with me through Vidarbha and see the tears in the eyes of farmers' widows, you would be compelled to ask the question:'Can GM crops harm'? That is your moral responsibility.
It is also your responsibility to sincerely base your decisions on real science, not pseudo science. Science based policy would recognise that an agriculture that conserves biodiversity also produces more food and nutrition per unit acre.
Science based policy would recognise that if farmers fall into debt, it is not an instrument for ending poverty, but a recipe for ending the lives of small farmers.
A science based policy would not blindly spread GM crops to Africa without assessing their role in India's agrarian crisis. A science based policy would not be based on unscientific principle of "substantial equivalence" which has prevented independent and serious testing of GM foods and crops.
That is why the Supreme Court of India has served notice on the Government of India to ask why a GMO moratorium should not be imposed till proper testing protocols and tests and facilities for biosafety are in place.
end of excerpt.
``~~~
Dr. Vandana Shiva is one of the most passionate and knowledgable scholars and environmental activists on the topic of GM foods, the global water crisis, Monsanto ( bio technology), sustainability, and environmental democracy. I trust her words and her judgement on this implicitly as I too have done the research. The world needs to listen to and read her words as she speaks truth about the monopoly taking form to control both our food and water in the guise of companies stating they are pushing GM organisms on us for our own benefit, when it is really for their own.
GM foods and the poisons sprayed on them that are in our water and food are not sustainable and will not save this world from a food crisis, but may well perpetuate it especially in areas of severe drought. We have all the conventional food we need to feed this world save political corruption (World Bank) and those in power looking to deny it to those who need it most to suit their own political, economic, and ideological agendas. I hold Dr. Shiva in the highest esteem and take her word on this based on her years of experience over anyone looking to defend the monstrous crime being perpetrated by these biocompanies on our environment and our health. Corporate monopoly over our food systems is a food security disaster. And while in some places like India these disasters have already... more -
GM sugarbeets not a sweet proposition, and citizens are fighting back
Never underestimate the power of a few committed people to change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
-- Anthropologist Margaret Mead
Even if you've heard the above quote many times before, the sentiment expressed is so powerful that I think it's worth repeating. All around the world, small groups of people are organizing public support for improved food safety and successfully challenging large corporations to change their behavior.
That's exactly what Flint Michigan residents Kathleen Kirby and Mark Fisher are banking on: their power to influence change. They're participating in a nationwide consumer boycott of Kellogg's Co. instigated by the Organic Consumers Association. By boycotting the world's largest cereal company, they hope to pressure Kellogg's into rejecting the use of sugar from genetically engineered (GE) sugar beets and to spark widespread market rejection in products ranging from cereal to baby food to candy.
As you may know, Roundup Ready sugar beets are genetically altered to resist Monsanto's toxic weed killer, Roundup, and its active ingredient, glyphosate. But here's the scary truth about these beets:
When the USDA first approved GE sugar beets for commercial planting in 1998, the EPA also increased the maximum allowable residues of glyphosate on sugar beet roots from just 0.2 parts per million to 10ppm. That's a staggering 5,000 percent increase of allowable toxins on beet roots. And, it's little surprise that EPA made this policy change at the request of Monsanto.
Sugar beet roots contain sucrose that's extracted, refined, and processed into the sugar used in the foods we eat. What this means is that the more GE ingredients that find their way into our food, the greater the likelihood that we are ingesting more toxic chemicals.
Thankfully, GE sugar beets have never been grown in the U.S. for sale to food manufacturers -- that is, until this year, when Western farmers planted their first crop of Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beets. Right now, over half of the sugar used in U.S. processed foods comes from sugar beets, with beet and cane sugars combined in those products. What's most disturbing is that once GE sugar beets hit the market, which could be as early as next year, there will be no way to know if we're eating GE sugar because GE ingredients are not labeled.
Currently, only four major GE crops are sold commercially -- corn, cotton, soy, and canola. Most of these are engineered to withstand repeated, large doses of herbicides. For the most part, these crops and their byproducts are largely fed to animals with the exception of some minor food ingredients and oils. GE beet sugar breaks with this tradition in that it could become the first major GE ingredient added to almost all processed foods on our grocery store shelves.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Our food supply is systematically being taken over and poisoned by Monsanto.There is no other way to state it now. If sugarbeets are allowed to continue to become a part of our food supply, then you can expect that EVERYTHING you touch will be genetically modified, and it has NOT been proven to be safe for human consumption or our environment. Please, I have been writing on this for months along with others who have been trying to make people understand how URGENT it is that you get involved in pushing state legislatures to require proper labelling of GM sources in foods. Read up on this at the Monsanto tag and take action.
Citizen activism is the only way to make companies like Monsanto back down. Consumers did it regarding POSILAC, and we can do it with this. Current TV is the only place I have been able to get exposure to this so far aside from my own blog, and it is also because of people here voting the information up so more can see it. So thank you to those who fight the good fight here everyday over those who would do anything in their power to keep this down. Never underestimate the power of a few committed people to change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." ... more -
Farm and food: Monsanto's prices to rise on RoundUp and seeds
In late March, Monsanto Co. sent a Dear Valued Customer letter to most U.S. corn and soybean farmers. The reason, wrote Jim Zimmer, Monsanto's vice president of U.S. branded business, was to discuss some current marketplace dynamics that will directly affect you in terms of increased prices for Monsanto's line of Roundup herbicides for 2008.
Demand for glyphosate, Roundup's generic counterpart, is at an all time high, explained Zimmer. As such, we have seen the demand for Roundup brand herbicide increase more than our current ability to supply.
That's a problem, he continued, because We have a reliable supplier commitment to farmers who choose to purchase Roundup Ready technology and who choose to purchase Roundup brand herbicide that we will have supply available.
The solution?
Our competitive challenges have put our commitment at risk, forcing us to increase our price for Roundup herbicide.
Golly, a farmer who telephoned me about the letter asked, How much is their promise to me going to cost me?
Globally, about $411 million, the amount Roundup net sales increased from March through May over the same three months in 2007, according to Monsanto's third quarter, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission June 27.
That's a 54 percent increase.
Additionally, the 10-Q reports, Net sales of Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides increased 63 percent, or $1,222 million $1.222 billion in the nine-month comparison with fiscal 2007's first three quarters.
Remarkably, however, that $1.2 billion increase in Roundup sales, notes the 10-Q, was posted despite a seven percent sales volume drop in Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides in third quarter 2008 and only an 8 percent increase in global Roundup sales for the nine-month period ending in May.
Clearly, Roundup mostly because Monsanto boosted its price hit a home run. Gross profit increased $927 million because of higher sales of Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides in the first nine months of 2008, the company said.
What Monsanto did for Roundup herbicide this spring, it promises to do for Roundup seed corn next year, according to a July interview of company officials by DTN and Progressive Farmer editors.
Indeed, wrote Marcia Taylor for DTN after the gathering, Even the list price on seed corn will topple the $300 per bag barrier starting this fall, up about $95 to $100 per bag, or 35 percent on average, according to Monsanto officials.
snip
Again, according to Monsanto's most recent 10-Q: In the first quarter 2008, Monsanto entered into an agreement on corn herbicide tolerance and insect control technologies with Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc (whereby Monsanto will receive) cumulative cash receipts of $725 million over an eight-year period.
In third quarter 2008, Monsanto and Syngenta entered into a Roundup Ready 2 Yield Soybean License Agreement (under which) the minimum obligation from Syngenta over this (nine-) year period is $81 million, reports the 10-Q.
Is Monsanto everywhere? Almost; according to its June SEC filing, it recently bought a vegetable seed company in Europe, a seed corn company in Guatemala, another in Brazil. In late March, Monsanto Co. sent a Dear Valued Customer letter to most U.S. corn and soybean farmers. The reason, wrote Jim Zimmer, Mo... more -
Exposed: Europe's GMO hype in times of food and fuel crisis
No evidence that GM crops will solve the food and fuel crisis
Most of the EU's animal feed comes from Brazil and Argentina, which are careful to grow only those varieties of feed, both GM and non-GM, that are approved in the EU, so as not to harm their export markets [10]. An article in the Financial Times quotes a Brazilian diplomatic source saying, 'We produce to satisfy our clients. We are not going to produce something they are not going to buy.' The article goes on to say that neither Argentina nor Brazil share the apocalyptic scenario currently being put forward by the biotech and livestock industries and intensive farmers [11].
Such scaremongering ignores the well-known fact that GM crops have at best, variable impacts on yields and are therefore not a solution to the food crisis, as was confirmed by the recent IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development) report on the future of agriculture [12].
More importantly, it ignores the fact that the major cause of the food and feed crisis is not European GM policy, but the rush to biofuels. Even the World Bank has now confirmed what NGOs have been saying ever since the notion of a food crisis was first mooted, that the Bush-subsidised ethanol boom (with the EU's agrofuel boom following in its wake) is by far the single most important factor in creating the food crisis that is driving 100m people worldwide below the poverty line. The report, which has not been published but was leaked to the UK's Guardian newspaper, says biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75 percent. The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3 percent to food-price rises. Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George W. Bush [13].
The irony is that exactly the same people who created this disaster by promoting the rush into agrofuels are now promoting a rush for GMOs as the solution. It is this hype that the European Commission and British politicians appear to be swallowing, without being honest about the vested interests at stake.
Monsanto does a complete about-turn on GMOs being needed to feed the world
And here's another irony. The truth about GMOs as the solution to the global food crisis is not coming from politicians but from industry itself. Previously, in the face of growing global opposition, Monsanto has long proclaimed that GM crops are vital for feeding a hungry world, while critics countered that the food is there and that distribution is the key to tackling hunger. But as opposition to biofuels is rising in Europe and even in the US on the grounds that they are not a solution to climate change and are contributing to the food crisis, Monsanto is now keen to defend the biofuels gravy-train that sent food prices sky-rocketing, and the company's spin has suddenly gone into complete reverse.
The ethanol boom may be pushing millions towards starvation and hundreds of millions deeper into poverty, but, says Monsanto's chief technology officer Rob Fraley [14], "From a production perspective, we have abundance [of food]". Fraley now says the "challenges" are in distribution and access to food because of wealth distribution, in other words, poverty.
Fraley made his pitch at the launch of a new multi-million dollar lobby group for ethanol, the Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy, that Monsanto has helped set up. There could be no clearer demonstration that Monsanto's concern has never been feeding the hungry; its leading role in the ethanol lobby shows that the hungry can happily starve, just so long as it's good for the company's bottom line.
Given that industry has revealed the truth behind its biofuels agenda, is it too much to ask of Europe's politicians that they should be equally honest about the vested interests behind the hyping of GM crops? No evidence that GM crops will solve the food and fuel crisis ... more -
A farmer's fight against GMO contamination
A Northern California farmer and dairyman is on a mission to make food safer for all of us. He is Albert Straus and he runs his family creamery, the first organic creamery west of the Mississippi.
The Straus Family Dairy Farm was established up in Tomales Bay in 1941 with just 23 cows! Now there are more than 300. While the family always followed sustainable land practices, Albert began his quest to become certified organic in 1993. It takes a dairy heard one year to become fully certified to produce organic milk and in 1994, the farm became the first certified organic dairy west of the Mississippi River. Also that same year, Straus opened Straus Family Creamery to produce organic milk, yogurt, butter and ice cream under the family name.
Another thing happened on the way to becoming certified organic. Straus came across animal feed that was contaminated with genetically modified organisms, or GMO's.
"GMO contamination of organic feeds could threaten consumers' safety, as well as my dairy's organic certification," said Straus. "Close to 70% of our food supply has it."
Last year, Straus began testing his purchased certified-organic feeds. He found that one out of every three batches of certified organic corn had some contamination from GMOs, ranging from trace levels up to 6 percent contamination.
Straus decided to act, starting a non-GMO program , that requires all feed and ingredient suppliers to submit the results of a strip test analysis prior to shipment of the feed or ingredient.
"I started this program in order to safeguard my livelihood as an organic farmer," said Straus. "Our requirements are causing other companies to sit up and take notice."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are companies sending out bands of thugs to deliberately contaminate organic crops? The pervasiveness of it seems to be too coincidental to just be the wind blowing. Good to see farmers standing up to this. A Northern California farmer and dairyman is on a mission to make food safer for all of us. He is Albert Straus and he runs his family... more -
Dennis Kucinich introduces three bills regarding genetically modified food safety
Washington, Jul 30 -
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) introduced three bills designed to protect consumers, defend farmers' rights, and increase food safety yesterday. The bills collectively create a comprehensive framework to regulate genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
We have a responsibility to put the public health and the environment before profits. These bills spell out common sense precautions.
The three bills are titled, respectively, H.R. 6636, The Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act, H.R. 6635, The Genetically Engineered Safety Act, and H.R. 6637, The Genetically Engineered Farmer Protection Act.
H.R. 6636, The Genetically Engineered Food Right To Know Act, would require mandatory labeling of all foods that contain or are produced with genetically modified material. A legal framework to ensure labeling accuracy without significant economic hardship would also be established.
H.R. 6635, The Genetically Engineered Safety Act, would require that genetically engineered foods follow a food safety review process to prevent contamination of food supplies by pharmaceutical and industrial crops. This Act would also require that the FDA screen all genetically engineered foods to ensure they are safe for human consumption.
H.R. 6637, The Genetically Engineered Farmer Protection Act, places liability from the impacts of genetically engineered organisms on the biotechnology companies that created the GMOs, and protects farmers from law suits by biotechnology companies
We are eating genetically engineered foods every day. Farmers are sowing genetically engineered seeds every day. Yet, we have never studied the long term effects of genetically modified organisms on our health, our children or our environment. Congress must take steps to maximize the benefit and minimize the risks of biotechnology.
Congressman Kucinich has used his position as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic Policy to examine food safety issues and the rights of farmers. A Subcommittee hearing held by Rep. Kucinich in March examined the impact on farmers caused by contamination of conventional crops by genetically engineered plants significantly influenced these bills.
# # #
~~~~
THANK YOU Dennis Kucinich! Now what we need to do is call his office and tell him we support these bills, and send this on to our own Congress members and tell them to support them too. Perhaps we will have some progress on this if people join together and hold Congress to doing its job. At least Dennis Kucinich is doing his. Washington, Jul 30 - ... more -
She's talking about Monsanto, but it's not talking to her
Monsanto doesn't want anything to do with French investigative journalist Marie-Monique Robin.
The American biotechnology and herbicide-producing giant wouldn't co-operate with Robin in her three years researching her highly critical documentary The World According to Monsanto and her accompanying, French-language bestseller (with an English translation on the way).
Now that her film is being shown in more and more countries, and advocacy groups are featuring clips of the documentary on their websites, Monsanto still hasn't called Robin.
To many viewers, the company's "no comment" may appear to be damning in itself, given the litany of accusations made against Monsanto by farmers, scientists, watchdog groups, health and agriculture advocates.
Googling for seeds of truth
The documentary shows farmers alleging that Monsanto - a leader in developing genetically modified seed and herbicides - has pitted farmer against farmer, encouraging them to rat on anyone suspected of not buying new Monsanto seed each year. It shows agricultural experts alleging genetically modified corn has invaded indigenous Mexican corn, with monstrous varieties being found. And advocates in India alleging that cotton farmers sometimes commit suicide owing to their dependence on genetically modified crops and the risk of low harvests. The list of accusations goes on.
A spokeswoman from Monsanto Canada, however, did respond to calls for this article. "Any of the allegations that have been made in the movie have been responded to publicly on our website," spokeswoman Trish Jordan said. A segment on the company's website labelled For the Record, she explained, "basically responds to some of the common allegations that are dredged up by activists. And I think that would probably give you our position on most, if not everything, in her documentary."
The film does refer to the website, and the explanations used by Monsanto in response to various criticisms.
Still, Robin said she was astonished by what she found when making the film. "Yes, I was very surprised. It's very difficult to understand how they manage - what they called in the U.S. the revolving door," she said. By this, she means the way in which government officials and elected leaders have often worked for corporations such as Monsanto, only to later pass regulations while in office favouring their former employers.
It was also difficult to get people to talk. "It's very difficult," Robin said, whether officials within regulatory agencies, scientists or other journalists. She said that one regulatory insider told her they didn't want to have any problems with the company, since it's so powerful.
The World According to Monsanto is as disturbing as any Hollywood thriller. Robin's next documentaries will likely be just as heavy, with a film on the U.S. military's use of what many see as torture during interrogations and a documentary on environmental causes of cancer.
So what drives Robin to investigate such dire topics?
"I have three daughters at home," she said, "and I think when I'm doing this kind of documentary, it's for my daughters. ... With what's going on with GMOs [genetically modified organisms] and what it means, in 20 years, if we don't react, it's very worrisome."
Aug.1,2008 Monsanto doesn't want anything to do with French investigative journalist Marie-Monique Robin. ... more -
Barren Spring
Author Claire Hope Cummings dishes the dirt on genetically modified food
By Bonnie Azab Powell
01 Aug 2008
One of the most encouraging things about the sustainable-food movement is how effortlessly it crosses traditional political-party, religious, ethnic, and other lines. The right to good, clean, and fair food, to borrow Slow Food's shorthand, seems to unite people who'd never otherwise find themselves chatting at the same party: Home schoolers and dreadlocked hippies, libertarian DIYers and heartland moms.
But there are little pockets of polarization where brawls can break out. One of them is the so-called elitism of such food. The biggest hot-button issue by far, though, is that of transgenic crops. The food movement's Christian wing opposes it for religious reasons, the Berkeley brigade for dogmatic ones, the moms out of health fears. Those with science or technology backgrounds, however, tend to see genetically modified organisms as just another tool in the how-we-are-going-to-feed-the-world toolbox -- and tend to get pretty impatient with those who fear them.
In her new book, Uncertain Peril: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Seeds, Claire Hope Cummings marches through the middle of these often reflexive con and pro positions in search of a more nuanced big-picture view. An environmental lawyer for 20 years, including four spent with the USDA, Cummings now reports regularly on agriculture and the environment. She has also farmed in California and in Vietnam. These experiences inform her book, which chronicles how transgenic seeds came to market; how their corporate backing has affected farmers, biodiversity, and agricultural sovereignty; and what their unfettered spread may mean for humankind.
It's not a happy picture. Just as Rachel Carson opened Silent Spring with the allegory of a town that woke up to find all the birds gone silent, Cummings said she considered starting Uncertain Peril with a scene in which everyone goes out to check their spring gardens, only to find that nothing has grown. Recently Cummings stopped by my house in Oakland, Calif., (yes, on the Berkeley border) for a chat conducted at her usual breakneck pace.
* * * * *
Click on the pic for the rest of the article and for the in-text links. Author Claire Hope Cummings dishes the dirt on genetically modified food By Bonnie Azab Powell 01 Aug 2008 ... more -
Obama considers Monsanto ally Ann Veneman for VP (!?)
Barack Obama's vice presidential search team had begun floating the name of former Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman, one of George Bush's most loyal lieutenants, as a possible running-mate on the 2008 Democratic ticket.
What the Obama camp is doing is clear enough. They are signaling that the candidate might consider a bipartisan "unity" ticket. That's reasonable, as long as the Republican has some record of taking stands that might by some reasonable stretch of the imagination be considered breaks with Republican orthodoxy. Of course, Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, an edgier critic of the Bush administration's foreign policies than most Democrats who recently traveled with Obama to Afghanistan and Iraq, tops most lists of cross-over contenders.
Former Iowa Congressman Jim Leach, a determined internationalist who like Obama opposed attacking Iraq and generally served as a moderate (some would even say "liberal") Republican, would fit the bill.
Maybe someone like former Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee, a steadfast Iraq War foe who has endorsed Obama, would find a place on a list of possible running mates.
Perhaps former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Danforth, who was no liberal when he served as a senator from Missouri but who is universally recognized as an honorable and realistic political player, would fit the bill.
But Ann Veneman?
Veneman would be a uniquely awful choice.
All of her political roots are in California -- where her father was a prominent ally of Ronald Reagan -- a state Obama will win with or without her in November.
Veneman is not trusted by farm and rural folk, so it would be ridiculous to think that adding her to the ticket would help in Midwestern and Plains states that might be in play this fall. In fact, this uniquely un-charismatic bureaucrat who has never held elective office was booed on visits to farm country when she served as Bush's Secretary of Agriculture.
And Veneman, whose background was as a corporate lawyer specializing in trade issues, was known to organized labor as one the most militant advocates for free trade in a militantly pro-free trade Bush administration.
In sum, it is hard to imagine a worse Republican to put on a Democratic ticket.
When Veneman first entered the national spotlight in 2001, I penned an assessment of her record for The Nation.
It was titled "No Friend of the Farmer" and read:
~~~~~~~~~~
I surely hope this is NOT true. If it is and it ever happened, NO WAY he would get my vote. Just what is his "search team" smoking? Proof positive this process is not about principle for her name to even be on the list. Barack Obama's vice presidential search team had begun floating the name of former Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman, one of G... more -
Indian farmers shun genetically modified crops for organic solutions
Bt cotton was engineered to combat pests, with the introduction into the cotton seed of a gene from a soil bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which has a natural insect-killing poison called Bt-toxin. When it was introduced into India at the turn of the century, it was promoted as the "wonder product" that would solve the serious problem of pests, which many of India's 17 million cotton farmers were facing.
Many of the farmers had not been growing cotton as a cash crop for very long. In the late 1980s, under pressure from the International Monetary Fund, India had opened up its strongly protected economy and encouraged its farmers to switch to modern farming, with its hybrid seeds, fertilisers and pesticides. The idea was to turn India into an important exporter of commodities, including cotton.
At first, cotton farmers did well. They got high yields and enjoyed a real increase in income. But then problems arose. The hybrid cotton proved susceptible to pests and diseases, and it was not uncommon for farmers to spray their fields up to 30 times in a single season. Production costs went through the roof and farmers got trapped in debt. They became desperate for a technical fix, and Bt cotton seemed to be the answer.
In its first year of sales, Mahyco-Monsanto sold its entire stock of Bt cotton. According to the company, the area in India under Bt cotton rose from 3.1m acres in 2005 to 14.4m acres in 2007. According to Sekhar Natarajan, regional leader of Monsanto India, Bt cotton yielded 700kg-900kg per acre, compared with 300kg-400kg an acre with conventional seeds.
However, some say that what has been happening on the ground has been very different from the official success story. Scientists Abdul Qayum and Kiran Sakhari assessed Bt cotton's performance in the first three years and found that, despite claims by the company, farmers were not achieving big yields. This perhaps was to be expected, because Bt cotton had been engineered to reduce pesticide use, not to increase yields. But, more surprisingly, they found that pesticide use was not falling either, because farmers were facing serious problems with secondary pests. They worked out that, on average, the income of non-Bt farmers was 60% higher than that of Bt farmers. Monsanto contests these numbers.
There have been other, more alarming problems. In her chat with the visiting farmers, Sattemma says she had seen several of her neighbour's goats die after spending all day grazing on post-harvest Bt cotton plants. Such a story could be dismissed as anecdotal, if it were not backed up by more solid evidence. In 2006, more than 1,800 sheep died in similar circumstances in other villages in Warangal district. The symptoms and post-mortem findings suggested that they had died from severe toxicity. Hundreds of agricultural workers had also developed allergic symptoms when exposed to Bt cotton. Bt cotton was engineered to combat pests, with the introduction into the cotton seed of a gene from a soil bacterium called Bacillus t... more -
Small Farmers, Ecofeminism, Vandana Shiva
For more than a century, farms have been getting bigger while seeds, fertilization and pest control have been getting more uniform. Led by farm suppliers, it has raised productivity. But negative byproducts of this trend include increasing chemical dependence and loss of biodiversity. Ecofeminist Vandana Shiva is at the Organic World Congress to protest the human and environmental cost of monoculture. The pendulum may be swinging back her way as consumer preference (among "locavores") for locally grown food and organic food increases, as the public becomes more aware of the impact of chemicals on the environment, and as higher petroleum prices result in pricier fertilizers and pesticides.
Vandana is one of the speakers at the opening ceremony of the Organic World Congress in Modena's large Piazza Grande, which fills the center of the city behind the famed (Michelin three-starred) Romanesque Duomo, shown below earlier in the day as the seats were being set up.
An eloquent defender of the property rights of small farms in India and other countries, Vandana has devoted much of her life to research on the effects of loss of biodiversity resulting from monoculture and has allied herself with the Slow Food Movement. Her books include The Violence of the Green Revolution and Monocultures of the Mind. She decided that science was not serving the interests of small farmers, so she left the academic world and formed her own organization, Navdanya.
Because she associates monoculture with a masculine wish to dominate -- and sees it as threatening both small farmers and biodiversity in the name of temporarily higher productivity -- Vandana has been called an ecofeminist, a term attributed to the late Francoise d'Eaubonne describing someone resistant to abuse of either women or mother nature, and adds in empathy for the small farmer in developing countries.
Small-farm consolidation continues, as was highlighted in South Africa just this week. The Valley Trust has for years been working with rural communities to provide health and other services and support organic farms. It has recently broken ranks with the South African Department of Agriculture for its pressure on small-scale farmers to join cooperatives. Small farmers are promised financial help, farm equipment, water piping and free seeds in return for joining the larger farming unit. The catch is that the small farmer must plant genetically modified seeds, which create farmer dependence on commercial monoculture. The director of Biowatch, an NGO promoting alternatives to GMO farming, says: "In the end, most farmers end up in huge debt, because they can't save seeds and are obliged to buy the matching GM fertilizers and pesticides" .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Shiva was nominated for the Nobel Prize in 2005. I think she should be nominated again and win in this year for her work to sow seeds of hope and peace in place of the seeds of deception and environmental destruction that have been planted by Monsanto. For more than a century, farms have been getting bigger while seeds, fertilization and pest control have been getting more uniform. Le... more -
Majority Won't Buy Genetically Modified Food
According to a recent CBS News/New York Times poll, 53 percent of Americans say they won't buy food that has been genetically modified. But CBS News investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian reports that it's not that easy to avoid. While most packaged and processed foods do contain genetically modified ingredients, the labels don't have to say so.
Robyn O'Brien teaches her kids to keep a close eye on the labels of the foods they eat.
"In terms of labeling," she says, "they're not always comprehensive and thorough."
What concerns parents like O'Brien is not what's listed, but what is not. Particularly foods made with genetically modified organisms - or GMOs.
"My concern as a mother is, are these kids part of a human trial that I didn't know that I had signed them up for," O'Brien says.
Today, more than 90 percent of the U.S. soybean crop is genetically modified - had its DNA altered to increase production and withstand chemical weed killers like roundup. Nearly three-quarters of all corn planted in the U.S. genetically modified.
Experts say that means if it comes in a can or a box and the label lists soybean oil or corn syrup as ingredients, odds are that it contains GMOs. Overall, 65 percent of all products in your local grocery store have DNA-altered ingredients...not that you'd know it by looking.
"The industry that makes genetically modified foods fought so hard to make sure that it wasn't labeled," nutritionist Marion Nestle tells Keteyian.
Nestle, a former FDA advisor, says this was a fight that boiled down to one basic fear.
"They didn't want it labeled because they were terrified that if it were labeled, nobody would buy it."
Robert Brackett is spokesman for the Grocery Manufacturers of America.
"I think that consumers have that information available to them if they want to look for it," says Brackett, "You can find it on websites. You can go directly to the manufacturer."
When pressed by Keteyian to explain his organization's role in providing information to the consumer, Brackett said, "Well, it's our responsibility to make sure that the foods that are put in the grocery store shelves are safe."
The FDA and bio-tech giants like Monsanto say there's no evidence that GMOs are anything but safe, but food safety advocates ask: how would we know, if the food is not labeled?
"Labeling is the only way that health professionals are going to be able to trace if there is a problem," says Andy Kimbrell from the Center for Food Safety. "For example, if you're a mother and you're giving your child soy formula and that child has a toxic or allergic reaction, the only way you'll know if that's a genetically-engineered soy formula is if it's labeled."
The FDA does not require "disclosure of genetic engineering techniques...on the label," calling GMOs the "substantial equivalent" of conventional crops.
Baloney, says Kimbrell.
"There is nothing - nothing, substantially equivalent from a conventional crop to a GMO crop," he says. "And in every cell of these new GMO foods are bacterias we've never seen in food before: viruses, genetic constructs, antibiotic bugs that they put in there, laboratory contructs that they've put into every cell of these foods."
A new CBS News poll found that 87% of consumers would like GMO ingredients to be labeled, just as they are in Europe, Japan and Australia. Yet the U.S. Congress has never even held a vote on the issue, to give shoppers the opportunity to exercise their most basic right - to make a choice. According to a recent CBS News/New York Times poll, 53 percent of Americans say they won't buy food that has been genetically mod... more -
India: Farmers, civil societies seek scrapping of GMO bill
'The Coalition For GM-Free India', representing farmers' unions and civil society organisations today sought scrapping of the National Biotechnology Regulatory Bill-2008 pleading that 'its provisions are unscientific, undemocratic and amenable to reduce Indians as 'guinea pigs' for the promotion of Genetically Modified (GM) crops and GM foods.'
The Bill envisages setting up a National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority (NBRA) for ensuring a 'single widow' provision for speedy clearance of GM organisms and products. Such fast clearance mechanism is being put in place to facilitate the approval and propogation in India of GM organisms and products being
-
