The world according to monsanto.

if you go to prisonplanet.com and scroll to the bottom, you'll find an article about gm foods not being the answer. use the link to the daily mail to read it properly.
the views opposing gm are modestly stated, which is typical there, but they ARE being discussed, unlike in our country, with the exception of vanity fair magazine recently.
 
I just watched the film and I'm soooo disgusted right now. I remember past lawsuits and knew they were evil but this is just diabolical. It's amazing what these people do! I intend to read everything else posted in this thread. Imo, this alone is reason enough to replace every stinking rat bastard politician and higher up in Washington. I believe it but it's still hard to wrap your mind around the scope of what is going on. I guess your only alternative is stocking up on heirloom seeds AND growing them in a greenhouse?
 
I just watched the film and I'm soooo disgusted right now. I remember past lawsuits and knew they were evil but this is just diabolical. It's amazing what these people do! I intend to read everything else posted in this thread. Imo, this alone is reason enough to replace every stinking rat bastard politician and higher up in Washington. I believe it but it's still hard to wrap your mind around the scope of what is going on. I guess your only alternative is stocking up on heirloom seeds AND growing them in a greenhouse?
i was thinking today about the aerial spray plans(www.veganreader.com www.lbamspray.com), and realized that produce from california,( including organic, which will no longer be organic as it will be covered in chemicals), will be inedible.
so, you're correct to say "heirloom seeds, AND growing them in a greenhouse?" if the USDA plan to spray the whole USA happens.

it's very frustrating to have so many things to deal with at once, but the article in the daily mail about gmos is somewhat encouraging, and also, if everyone gets involved in stopping the spray program, things will be better for us and our food. don't give up, our health is the most urgent thing to protect.
www.veganreader.com has several good videos and articles, but the letter to susan g komen explains the issue best.
 
Last edited:
This is really good news. It may be Wal Mart, but I'll take it where I can get it. For now, every dairy product I get will either be Wal-Mart brand or Kroger brand.

Imagine the frelling NERVE of Monsanto to SUE milk producers just for labeling their products as hormone free.
i am very suspicious of this wallmart promotion, meaning i think it is one. get milk at a health store if you can.
 
Last edited:
For those who like McDonalds food and have been keeping up with this thread

How about this for a frightening news item

Dublin, Apr 18, 2008 (M2 PRESSWIRE via COMTEX) -- MON | news | PowerRating | PR Charts -- Monsanto Company announced the appointment of Janice L. Fields to the company's Board of Directors.

Fields is Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer for McDonald's USA, overseeing restaurant operations in more than 13,700 locations worldwide. McDonald's is a global foodservice retailer with over 30,000 restaurants in more than 100 countries.

Fields has spent 29 years with McDonald's, and her career has spanned a variety of disciplines. Prior to her current role, Fields served as President of McDonald's Central Division, where she was responsible for McDonald's restaurants covering seven geographic regions and 24 states across the central United States.

"On behalf of Monsanto Company, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Janice Fields as an independent director to our Board," said Hugh Grant, Chairman of the Board, Monsanto Company. "Jan has extensive experience in sales, marketing and operations in the food industry. We believe her experience and insight will serve Monsanto shareowners well and bring another valuable perspective to our business and the agriculture industry."
 
that macdonalds connection is interesting. poor cloned cattle and their gmo diets.

gmwatch.org was hacked by the opposition a few days ago, and is still not back online yet.
www.organicconsumers.com is available though.
 
These forums have brought to light Monsanto... things I did not know before...

Is this discussion not suitable for the effects of an unregulated free market?
 
These forums have brought to light Monsanto... things I did not know before...

Is this discussion not suitable for the effects of an unregulated free market?

In a free market, Monsanto would not have enough power to make it illegal for normal dairies to label their milk "rBGH Free" and since rBGH Free milk is more popular by something like 8 to 1, they wouldn't have the ability to take over markets. Look, for example, at how much LESS power and influence Monsanto has in Europe where GMO foods are allowed to be labeled.
 
With all this publicity didn't Monsanto realize how badly they have screwed themselves. Now people will seek out Monsanto products and effectively boycott.


It seems their partnership with governments (and media) around the world insulates them from this.


to keep up on things, go to www.alliance-natural-health.org which has worldwide news on the codex problem this is urgent regarding our food, food supplements and health care.

This is a good video on codex as well. According to the video (posted in 2006), acceptance of Codex regulations become manditory for all WTO member nations on Jan 31st, 2009.

Nutricide - Criminalizing Natural Health, Vitamins, and Herbs

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5266884912495233634&q=codex&ei=P7MTSJjxLZP44gLjwpDpBA&hl=en
 
In a free market, Monsanto would not have enough power to make it illegal for normal dairies to label their milk "rBGH Free" and since rBGH Free milk is more popular by something like 8 to 1, they wouldn't have the ability to take over markets. Look, for example, at how much LESS power and influence Monsanto has in Europe where GMO foods are allowed to be labeled.

Interesting. Do you have a source for this, because I'm pretty sure there is milk labeled rBGH free.

Or is this another variant of Bovine Growth Hormone? That would be frightening... When was the law passed, and what party allowed it?
 
In a free market, lobbyist are allowed, no?

I don't like Monsanto, don't get me wrong. I want to clarify this because it is important to me...

What has Monsanto done outside of it's allowance? The other countries that have banned the hormone have done so through their governments.

I can't find any laws that have passed that ban distinction. Starbucks for instance, uses no rBGH, and declares it openly in every state.
 
Interesting. Do you have a source for this, because I'm pretty sure there is milk labeled rBGH free.

Or is this another variant of Bovine Growth Hormone? That would be frightening... When was the law passed, and what party allowed it?
The "r" in rBGH stands for recombinant.

Here is a brief entry from SourceWatch.org:

RBGH
From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search

rBGH is the abbreviation for recombinant bovine growth hormone, also referred to as "rBST" or "BST," a genetically-engineered growth hormone called "bovine somatotropin." rBGH was developed and is marketed by the large agribusiness company Monsanto under the brand name "Posilac," and is reported to increase milk production by 10 to 15 percent.[1] rBGH was the first major biotechnology food product approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in 1993.

Neither Canada nor Europe have approved rBGH, however, due to the health problems it can cause in cows.[2][3] Even the United Nations' Codex Alimentarius Commission refused, in 1999, to declare the drug safe.[4] Nevertheless, Monsanto has been able to sue U.S. milk producers who wish to label their milk as rBGH-free.

Health Canada's decision in 1999 to ban the drug was particularly instructive; Monsanto tried to pressure the regulatory body into approving rBGH and some of the scientists involved were suspended (but later found not guilty of a "breach of loyalty") for publicly exposing the pressure campaign.[5] (Incidentally, in 2004, the same scientists, Shiv Chopra, Margaret Haydon and Gerard Lambert, were fired, in a move their union described as retribution for their whistle-blowing.)[6][7]

In another incident, Fox TV journalists Jane Akre and Steve Wilson lost their jobs because they had tried to broadcast a critical report about Monsanto's rBGH.[8] A jury awarded them damages because they had been pressured to broadcast "a false, distorted or slanted story" and fired for threatening to blow the whistle but an appeals court agreed with Fox that it is technically not against any law, rule or regulation to deliberately distort the news on television.

rBGH has been linked to mad cow disease, since rBGH injections make cows need higher protein diets. One of the cheapest protein sources is slaughterhouse waste, including rendered "downer" cows and other animals at higher risk for disease. As summarized in the book Mad Cow USA:

One activist characterized rBGH as "crack for cows." It forced cows to produce more milk at the price of increased stress on their overall health, exacerbating illnesses such as mastitis, and mining the calcium from their bones. In order to achieve the higher levels of milk production, moreover, cows needed to consume more energy-dense food, adding to the pressure for farmers to use protein adn fat supplements derived from rendered animals - the feeding practice which had created the BSE epidemic in the first place.

In early 2004, Monsanto announced that it was reducing rBGH sales by half. Farmers and others asked, "What's gone wrong with Monsanto's rBGH?"[9] The New York Times reported: "A Monsanto spokeswoman, Janice Armstrong, said the cutback came after a Food and Drug Administration inspection in November [2003] of the factory at which the product was made. The F.D.A. found that more batches of hormone than expected were failing the factory's quality control tests, she said. Although those batches were not sold, Ms. Armstrong said, the factory ... must make changes to correct the problems, cutting into output."[10]
 
The "r" in rBGH stands for recombinant.

Here is a brief entry from SourceWatch.org:

I know what recombinant is...

In fact the actual hormone is bovine somatotropin, produced in the pituitary glands of cows.

Recombinant means that they synthetically produced somatotropin by adding "junk" dna to strands that didn't have them before...

This doesn't address my question.
 
I know what recombinant is...

In fact the actual hormone is bovine somatotropin, produced in the pituitary glands of cows.

Recombinant means that they synthetically produced somatotropin by adding "junk" dna to strands that didn't have them before...

This doesn't address my question.
You asked if it was a variant of Bovine Growth Hormone. Sounds to me like it is.
 
You asked if it was a variant of Bovine Growth Hormone. Sounds to me like it is.

Sorry, read it again. I asked if there was ANOTHER variant. I can't find a single law that has been passed that prohibits a product from identifying themselves as rBGH-free. There was an attempt in Pennsylvania. It failed.
 
Sorry, read it again. I asked if there was ANOTHER variant. I can't find a single law that has been passed that prohibits a product from identifying themselves as rBGH-free. There was an attempt in Pennsylvania. It failed.
I'm not sure. I know here in VT they tried to make it illegal to label dairy as rBGH-free but we fought it. It was argued that labeling dairy as such would "unfairly" have a negative effect on dairies who chose to use the hormone because consumers would assume that their products were less safe than the hormone-free varieties. Fortunately for us Ben & Jerry's was at the forefront of this issue and the St. Albans Coop from which they get all their milk makes up a huge market for dairy farms here.
 
I'm not sure. I know here in VT they tried to make it illegal to label dairy as rBGH-free but we fought it. It was argued that labeling dairy as such would "unfairly" have a negative effect on dairies who chose to use the hormone because consumers would assume that their products were less safe than the hormone-free varieties. Fortunately for us Ben & Jerry's was at the forefront of this issue and the St. Albans Coop from which they get all their milk makes up a huge market for dairy farms here.

I just wrote a similar email to MicahNelson about this very fact.

Ben and Jerry was one of the first to fight it. (go liberals =P)

Anyway, here is an example press release proving my point: http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/pressdesc.asp?id=819
 
You've probably seen these if you're researching, but here are some articles about labeling. My understanding is that since Monsanto could not force a federal non-labeling rule they are making it very expensive and difficult on a state-by-state and processor-by-processor level.

The Consumerist April 22, 2008:
Monsanto failed to get the FDA to ban "rBGH-free" labeling nationally, and it's had mixed success at the state level. Now the company and its gang of ethics-free dairy farmers (those are the ones who use rBGH to increase profits, but want that truth kept out of the marketplace because it's unpopular with consumers) have scored a significant win in Ohio this week. Yesterday the state passed a law that forces extra, rBGH-friendly fine print on every milk label that promotes itself as "rBGH-free." The goal of the ruling: to require expensive label redesigns on competitors, and to crowd the label with unnecessary fine print in order to dilute the marketing power of the "rBGH-free" label.

Columbus Dispatch April 21, 2008:
The rule now requires a disclaimer about synthetic bovine growth hormone, or rBST, to be placed immediately following any label advertising milk as coming from cows that don't receive the hormone. Currently, the disclaimer can be anywhere on the label.

From a 1995 Vegetarian Times article:
The Pure Milk and Ice Cream Co. of Waco, Texas, is being sued by Monsanto for putting BGH-free labels on its milk. The legal basis is a federal statute that prohibits unfair competition that takes the form of false and deceptive advertising and promotion.

BGH labeling in Vermont was halted after several trade organizations sued the state over what Vermont officials interpreted as mandatory labeling requirements.
 
Sorry, read it again. I asked if there was ANOTHER variant. I can't find a single law that has been passed that prohibits a product from identifying themselves as rBGH-free. There was an attempt in Pennsylvania. It failed.

And yet even though the vast majority of consumers would prefer to buy rBGH free dairy products, the labelling is not in common practice. Could that be because Monsanto has the capability of bringing millions of dollars worth of expensive lawsuits, so that win or loose any company who chooses to label, is punished?
 
Back
Top