Organic v. Monsanto

[Serpo]

ORGANIC V. MONSANTO
By Danielle Magnuson
Utne
July 18, 2011
Original Link (http://www.utne.com/Environment/Agriculture-Organic-Farmers-Lawsuit-Monsanto.aspx)
More than 270,000 organic farmers are taking on corporate agriculture giant Monsanto (http://www.monsanto.com/) in a lawsuit filed March 30. Led by the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (http://www.osgata.org/), the family farmers are fighting for the right to keep a portion of the world food supply organic — and preemptively protecting themselves from accusations of stealing genetically modified seeds that drift on to their pristine crop fields.
Consumers are powerful. For more than a decade, a cultural shift has seen shoppers renounce the faster-fatter-bigger-cheaper mindset of factory farms, exposéd in the 2008 documentary Food, Inc. From heirloom tomatoes to heritage chickens, we want our food slow, sustainable, and local — healthy for the earth, healthy for animals, and healthy for our bodies.
But with patented seeds infiltrating the environment so fully, organic itself is at risk. Monsanto’s widely used Genuity® Roundup Ready® canola seed has already turned heirloom canola oil into an extinct species. The suing farmers are seeking to prevent similar contamination of organic corn, soybeans, and a host of other crops. What’s more, they’re seeking to prevent Monsanto from accusing them of unlawfully using the very seeds they’re trying to avoid.
“It seems quite perverse that an organic farmer contaminated by transgenic seed could be accused of patent infringement,” says Public Patent Foundation director Dan Ravicher in a Cornucopia Institute article about the farmers’ lawsuit (http://www.cornucopia.org/2011/03/farmers-and-seed-producers-lunch-preemptive-strike-against-monsanto/) (May 30, 2011), “but Monsanto has made such accusations before and is notorious for having sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement.”
Even as the megacorporation enjoys soaring stock, the U.S. justice department continues to look into allegations of its fraudulent antitrust practices (The Street, June 29, 2011):
“Monsanto, which has acquired more than 20 of the nation’s biggest seed producers and sellers over the last decade, has long pursued a strict policy with its customers, obligating them to buy its bioengineered seeds every year rather than use them in multiple planting seasons. Farmers who disobey are blacklisted forever.”
It’s a wide net Monsanto has cast over the agricultural landscape. As Ravicher points out, “it’s actually in Monsanto’s financial interest to eliminate organic seed so that they can have a total monopoly over our food supply.” Imagine a world devoid of naturally vigorous traditional crops and controlled by a single business with a appetite for intellectual property. Did anyone else feel a cold wind pass through them? Now imagine a world where thousands of family farmers fight the good fight to continue giving consumers a choice in their food — and win.


http://nhne-pulse.org/270000-organic-farmers-sue-monsanto/

[palani]

The way you get rid of a corporation is a writ of quo warranto. If they can't prove they exist then they don't exist.

[Serpo]

You have likely seen them dancing through the air and gracing the petals and leaves of various plants and shrubs. But a new study published in the journal Insect Conservation and Diversity says that the popular Monarch butterfly, which is an absolute necessity for farmers, is on the decline. And the cause? Genetically-modified (GM) crops like corn, soy, and cotton, which today blanket millions of acres of American cropland.

Though not necessarily in the same vein as bees and bats, Monarch butterflies are still considered to be migrational pollinators. They travel very long distances and often inadvertently pollinate various flowers and plants. But Monarchs rely on milkweed plants to breed -- milkweed is actually the only plant on which Monarch larvae can feed -- and the use of pesticides in GM agriculture is contributing to the elimination of milkweed, and thus the elimination of Monarchs.

The study explains that during the 2009 - 2010 Monarch overwintering season, which represents the time during which eastern North American Monarch butterflies hold out through the winter in warmer Mexico, populations reached an all-time low. And while they increased slightly the following year, they still remained at dismally low levels.

Besides loss of forest in overwintering areas and continued land development, the report tacks the "expansion of GM herbicide-resistant crops, with consequent loss of milkweed host plants" as the culprit in declining Monarch butterfly populations. After all, Monsanto's Roundup herbicide specifically targets milkweed for termination, and roughly 150 million pounds of the poison are applied to US cropland every year.

If GM crops continue to take over the whole of agriculture with great strides, as they continue to do, Monarch butterflies (as well as bees and bats), may eventually become extinct. And without these pollinators, of course, it will be no longer possible to grow food.

http://www.naturalnews.com/033170_GMOs_butterflies.html

[Serpo]

When it comes down to pure consumer preference, the majority of Americans prefer organic food over conventional food, according to the results of a new poll released by NPR. Most Americans also prefer to obtain produce from either a farmers market or from a home garden rather than from a supermarket, which represents an important shift in public awareness concerning food.

NPR conducted its poll via telephone, asking more than 3,000 adults various questions about their organic and non-organic food buying preferences. Fifty-eight percent of respondents said they prefer to buy and eat organic food over non-organic food, while thirty-six percent said they prefer to buy fruits and vegetables from a farmers market rather than from a supermarket. Twenty percent of respondents stated that produce grown in a home garden was their first choice.

The most popular stated reason for preferring organic food over conventional was a desire to support local farmers rather than factory-farm conglomerates, followed by concern over toxins and other chemicals as the second most popular reason. Those with the highest levels of education were also the most concerned about toxins in non-organic food.

Interestingly, the 31 percent of folks who said they prefer non-organic food over organic food stated that higher cost was their biggest issue. The second most popular reason stated for preferring non-organic over organic concerned the limited availability of organics in the market.

Overall, 11 percent of respondents stated that they did not care whether or not the food they buy and consume is organic or non-organic. Older respondents tended to care less about organics than younger respondents, as 17 percent of the elderly expressed unconcern about organics.

http://www.naturalnews.com/033171_farmers_markets_home_gardens.html

[Dogman]

I would take a slightly beaten and bug chewed, wilted, heirloom seeded, grown vegetable using no man made chemicals, over a nice and pretty non-organic grown one any day.

[palani]

The word "organic" has only been applied to food since 1942. It has been overused and hijacked by government.

I prefer to use the phrase "less crappy" as it means exactly what I say it means.

[iOWNme]

Yet what is the definition of 'Organic' to the FDA?

http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm214869.htm

Read this PDF straight from the Federal Death Administration's mouth:

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/06p0094/06p-0094-cp00001-05-Tab-04-Food-Marketing-Institute-vol1.pdf


The FDA DOES NOT define 'Organic' or 'Natural'.


1. Are natural and organic foods the same?
No, although organic foods are natural by definition, The term. "natural"
U applies broadly to foods that are minimally processed and free of synthetic
preservatives; artificial sweeteners, colors, flavors and other artificial addi-
<r~~,, ~ tives; grow hormones; antibiotics; -hydrogenated oils; stiabilizers; and
emulsifiers. Most foods labeled natural are not suhjeet to government con-
trols beyond the regulations and heath codes that apply to all foods. Excep -
ticns include meat arid poultry. The Food Safety and -Inspection Service
(FSTS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) requires these to be
free of artificial colors., flavors, sweeteners, preservatives and ingredients
that do not occur naturally in the food. Natural meat and poultry must be
minimally processed in a method that does not funciarientally alter the raw
product. In addition, the label should explain the use of the term natural, e.g., no artificial ingredients. The FDA admits that the term 'Natural' means processed in some way. Processed = Void of real nutrition.



5. Are natural and organic foods healthier or safer than con-
ventional foods?
Not necessarily. USDA makes no claims that organic food is safer or more
nutritious than conventionally produced food, and indeed many organic
foods - e.g., milk, butter, ice cream, meat - are likely to match their
conventional counterparts for fat and calories,They try and claim that natural or organic food does not have more nutrition than conventionally processed food. This is a LIE. Most 'processed' food has been boiled, cooked, etc, which KILLS the nutritional value.



8. How does the certification process work?
The Organic Foods Production Act of l990 required the USDA to develop All organic production
national standards for organically produced products. Thai resulted in the and handling operations
NOF certification process, which took effect October 21, 2002.

The labeling requirements are as follows:

-Products labeled "100 percent organic" must contain only organi-
cally produced materials.

-Products labeled "organic" must contain at least 95 percent organic
ingredients. Products in this or the first category may (but art not re-
quired to) display the USDA Organic seal shown an page 2.

-Products that contain between ?0 arid 95 percent organic ingredients
may use the phrase "made with organic ingredients" on the label and
may list up to three of the organic ingredients (e.g., carrots) or food
groups (e.g., vegetables) on the principal display area.

-Products with less than 70 percent organic ingredients may not use
the term organic other than to identify specific organic ingredients


Seems the entire game of organic v natural v GMO is purposefully setup for people to eat crap. The FDA says there is no nutritional difference between them, and they admit that organic/natural is around 20-30% more expensive. This is setting the course for people to feed cheap poison to themselves and their families.

[Uncle Salty]

The way you get rid of a corporation is a writ of quo warranto. If they can't prove they exist then they don't exist.

So why don't you do the world a favor and get a writ of quo warronto for Monsanto?

[palani]

So why don't you do the world a favor and get a writ of quo warronto for Monsanto?

I am no magician. I cannot make Monsanto appear. Once an appearance is made is the time to use the writ to drive them back into non-existence.

[Uncle Salty]

I am no magician. I cannot make Monsanto appear. Once an appearance is made is the time to use the writ to drive them back into non-existence.

Then WTF were you talking about making corporations go away with the writ of quo warranto? Seriously. You talk about all the solutions you have with your fancy latin words, so why not put them into action? Or are you just spouting bullshit?

[palani]

Then WTF were you talking about making corporations go away with the writ of quo warranto? Seriously. You talk about all the solutions you have with your fancy latin words, so why not put them into action? Or are you just spouting bullshit?

Monsanto does not exist. They are a fiction of your mind. Where I to conjure them into existence to make them prove they exist then why bother with the exercise as by MY action I have proven they exist and I could no longer question their existence.

The time to question their existence is when one of their agents or representatives gets in your face acting in the capacity of agent or representative for Monsanto. That is when you produce your writ directed to the sheriff to have him produce the corpus.

But then I don't expect you to really beleive all this because you actually do believe in fictions. The real world and the fictional world are never destined to meet and if you expend all your energies fighting fictional entities you won't have any energy left to fight the real battles or (heavens forbid) you might mistake a real battle for just another of your fictional ones.

[ximmy]

Exactly!!!... & GMO food allergies & negative reactions don't exist either, they are all in your head... and skin...

pay no attention to the zombies among you...
http://jimbonham.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Monsantos-Genetically-Modified-Foods.jpg

[palani]

Exactly!!!... & GMO food allergies & negative reactions don't exist either, they are all in your head... and skin...

pay no attention to the zombies among you.

Alternatives abound in the form of nutritional food. Many people seem to prefer to keep the "food" portion of their budget below 5% of their income so that they might take vacation, purchase McMansions and have their heads stuffed full of Harry Potter at the cinema. They voluntarily pass their seed through the fires of Moloch and now would like to blame others for the result.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch


Moloch, Molech, Molekh, Molok, Molek, Molock, or Moloc (representing Semitic מלך m-l-k, a Semitic root meaning "king") is the name of an ancient Semitic god, in particular a god of the Phoenicians, and the name of a particular kind of child sacrifice associated with that god.

Moloch was historically affiliated with cultures throughout the Middle East, including the Ammonite, Hebrew, Canaanite,[1] Phoenician and related cultures in North Africa and the Levant.

In modern English usage, "Moloch" can refer derivatively to any person or thing which demands or requires costly sacrifices.