The real point Gower makes is only that it doesn't matter to him how much harm a company is known to have done past or present, he will always find a way to stick up for corporate interests cuz that's his god until an even skankier one comes along. Having first taken the untennable stance that "RoundUp is good" his answer to all Monsanto's history of appalling destructive criminal behavior against humanity & the environment will always be "RoundUp is good." Nothing else matters. Cuz RoundUp is good. When eventually it's on the junkpile of stuff that killed a lot of people & no longer legal to sell (like so many past Monsanto bonanza products) then whatever is next in line to be "safe" & highly profitable will be good enough to keep on excusing Monsanto.
But by "bankrupt" Gower likely means only that Monsanto is getting rich killing people, while envionmentalists' unwillingness to kill people means most of 'em will die poor. It's a Monsanto "neener" -- sure they killed & injured people & places, but in this worldview, the only thing that isn't bankupt is the highest possible profitability.
Read what your own canadian researchers have to say about the disruption of soil biology by glyphosates. Talk to those dry wheat boys and find out what years of working with Monsanto has gotten them.
Radical is being concerned about the future of our soils?
restructuring to accommodate the exigencies of 21st century hyper-capital, are many andcomplex. The general orientation of the arguments for our research objectives are based ocontention that the globalizing industrial agricultural model has too many negative environmental, social, cultural, and political consequences to be fixed ?by the mastebelieve that reliance on the dominant scientific and technical-fix paradigm merely exacerbates contemporary food problems. We are sceptical of the Monsanto public relations voice in MichaPollan?s work The Botany of Desire, who asks the world to, ?Trust us?. The increasing consolidation of the global food industry; the massive environmental subsidies accordedmonocultural and ?clean soil? industrial agriculture practices; the trends in seed and other form patenting processes; the uncertainty inherent to genetic engineering in food research (let alone the ethos defined by that direction); the increasing disparities in access to food and controover agricultural land across the North and the South divide; compel us to work on alternatives to the global food production system. life-l 3 Hence, the book emerging out of our SSHRC grant, which we are tentatively calling Skyscrapers and Strawbales: The Role of Urban-Rural Linkages in Sustainable Agriculture. This is a collection of works from diverse parts of the Americas and Europe exploring ongoing prodeveloping local food-systems. In some appropriation (or subversion?) of the business-oriented SWOT analysis (streopportunities, weaknesses, and tactics), we focus this work centreon food through the lenses of the barriers, the opportunities, and the strategies for overturning and displacing the food production trends which run counter to community food sustainability prescriptions. For example, the contributions to our book incexperiences that: overcome food access problems via local governance initiatives in Belo Horizonte Brazil; demonstratrole of negotiation in building stronger rural-urban food linkages preserve agricultural production in the peri-urban zones of France the local in Washington State where consumer markets are hundreds of miles from prestablish greater clarity regarding the factors that underlie the consumption of organic agricultural products in Ontario; comprehensively analyze the benefits and costs circumscribing the operations of a CSA in Montreal; and examine state-sponsored pilot projects developing local food sufficiency and ecological agriculture in Germany. The fifteen or so chapters will sthe basis and experience for devising a ?made-in-Niagara? regional food system meant to build and strengthen food links between the urban and the rural in this ?place?. jects in ngths, d lude e the to anoducers; et he geography at its most overt in this project is about tightening the spatial feedback loops in r cial f course, as the geographer in the research group, my aspirations are also replete with the ? d Argentina; problematize T between the consumer and the producer. This means literally bringing the two closer togetherspace and time and overcoming the myriad of environmental impacts associated with an increasingly long-distance global food system [consider that the average food item on yousupper plate has travelled 1800 kms], while simultaneously trying to deal with the related sodislocation and cohesion issues facing both rural and urban communities in a globalizing environment ? sustainable community aspirations. O geographic questions implicit to work on food and society. For example, how do theories ofplace and space intersect with regional food alliance desires? How is the community or ?localdefined by those advocating for community food security and sustainability? How do we rework our conceptions of region through these sorts of cultural processes? What do local food system hopes mean for working towards social justice, recognizing uneven development dynamics, and for managing global food disparities? Or how does the geographic concept ofthe foodshed and its delineation differ across space ? i.e., from thnorthern reaches of British Columbia? No, I don?t have answers to these here, but they arepalatable themes for the geographer?s gristmill, and we hope to work towards some greater conceptual understanding of these geographies through our work as it progresses. e Niagara region, to
Here's a good example of how the poison peddlers work.....
Agnet is produced by the Food Safety Network at the University of Guelph and is sponsored by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Plants Program at the University of Guelph, Agricultural Adaptation Council (CanAdapt Program), Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, ConAgra Foods, Inc., Pioneer Hi-Bred Limited (Canada), Ag-West Biotech, Inc., Monsanto Canada, National Pork Board, Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Canadian Animal Health Institute, Croplife Canada, Syngenta Seeds Canada, Inc., JIFSAN, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Food Processors Association, Syngenta Crop Protection, Ontario Corn Producers' Association, DuPont Canada, Inc., Office of Consumer Affairs, Burger King, National Meat Association, Ontario Soybean Growers, UC Davis Biotechnology Program, Consumer Federation of America Foundation, Optibrand, University of Idaho Department of Microbiology, Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, Plant Bioscience Ltd., CanAmera Foods, Hospitality Institute of Technology and Management, Inc., Hartono and Company, and Global Public Affairs.
At Tuesday?s annual meeting, the Ontario Wheat Producers? Marketing Board agreed to officially and actively promote a boycott of products from Monsanto, specifically Roundup. The purpose of the effort is to convince the company to delay the sale of Roundup Ready Wheat.
The resolution specifically mentioned the use of alternative brands of glyphosate in the hope that such consumer action will keep Monsanto from releasing the genetically modified variety until a later date, such as when importers from other countries approve its usage and sale.
The motion was approved and the vote was cast, although an official count in favour was not necessary: the motion passed with only one dissenting vote.
Also at Tuesday?s meeting, a representative of the western Canada grain trade was in attendance and held discussions with members of the Wheat Board executive the night before. In the past two years, there has been a growing interest from producers in Canada?s Prairie Provinces in the advances in marketing options being made available to Ontario growers, through the Board.
The Canadian Wheat Board (CWB), which is based in Winnipeg, has also articulated concerns about Roundup Ready Wheat and other Monsanto products in Canada.
Monsanto Uses Canadian Taxpayer Money to Violate Foreign Laws Case highlights need for strong Biosafety Protocol
/CNW/ - Biotech giant [ Monsanto ] exported Canadian genetically engineered (GE) potatoes to Ukraine, ignoring the domestic laws which require environmental impact assessment.
Monsanto NewLeaf potatoes, developed in Prince Edward Island were exported to Ukraine in 1997 and 1998 with the help of Solanum-PEI. Solanum-PEI is a joint venture marketing and research company created by Monsanto and the government of PEI.
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 23:15:35 -0400, "Dave Gower" wrote:
Apparently you live in a bubble....perhaps you should talk to those farmers instead of just statcan ing them!
CWB ASKS MONSANTO TO PUT THE BRAKES ON ROUNDUP READY WHEAT: In a May 22 letter from the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB), Board of Directors Chair Ken Ritter and Adrian Measner, President and CEO, asked Monsanto Canada's President, Peter Turner, to withdraw Monsanto's application for an environmental safety assessment of Roundup Ready wheat (RRW). Monsanto's RRW application is currently before the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The letter detailed the devastating economic impact the introduction of RRW will have on western Canadian farmers. "Economic harm could include lost access to premium markets, penalties caused by rejected shipments, and increased farm management and grain handling costs," the letter states. The CWB has asked Monsanto to confirm its compliance with the CWB's request by June 27, 2003. The CWB has already called on the federal government to close the regulatory gap on genetically modified wheat by adding a cost benefit analysis to the food, feed and environmental assessments currently being undertaken on RRW. However, the CWB is taking this additional step because RRW could be approved before the introduction of any regulatory changes. "Under the current system, RRW could be approved for unconfined release as early as 2004," Ritter said. "We had to move quickly, so we are appealing to Monsanto directly." MONSANTO CANADA DECLINES TO WITHDRAW REGULATORY APPROVAL: The May 28 edition of Agriline reported that Monsanto Canada will continue to seek regulatory approval for GMO wheat despite a request from the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) to withdraw its application, but maintains it will not release any varieties until GMO wheat is approved in the U.S., Japan, and Canada. The article states that approval could come as early as next year.
UNCLASSIFIED USDA Foreign Agricultural Service MONSANTO URGES OTTAWA TO CONTINUE APPROVAL PROCESS: On June 12, representatives from Monsanto appeared before the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture. Kerry Preete, Monsanto VP of U.S. Markets, testifying on the importance of allowing Roundup Ready Wheat to proceed through the Canadian regulatory approval process, said, "We believe it is important to have regulatory agencies in Canada, US GAIN Report - CA3036 Page 3 of 7 and Japan review the food, feed and environmental safety of this product. Successfully completing the regulatory review process will send an important message to our customers around the world that this product has been comprehensively reviewed and is deemed safe. This review will help address questions and concerns raised during customer acceptance discussions." On the issue of market acceptance, Preete indicated that Monsanto was committed to working with the Canadian grain handling industry to "establish an effective segregation system" so that grain production could accommodate both GM and non-GM wheat varieties. CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD MULLS COURT ACTION TO STOP MONSANTO: According to a June
19 article from the National Post, Adrian Measner, president and chief executive of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB), was cited as telling Reuters on June 18 that the CWB may consider legal action to stop Monsanto Co. from growing genetically modified (GM) wheat in Canada outside limited government-run trials, adding, "We've given strong assurances to our customers that we will make sure this situation is resolved in Canada and we intend to take whatever action necessary to do that." The story says it is the strongest statement the CWB has made to date on how far it will go to prevent GM wheat from being grown in the near future in Canada. Mr. Measner was further quoted as saying, "Having it grown in Canada, it's not an option. The costs are just too horrendous and it needs to be addressed." The CWB asked Monsanto to agree by tomorrow to withdraw its application. Monsanto t has not yet formally responded, he said. Monsanto has promised it will not commercialize the wheat until at least some customers accept it and until it can be dealt with separately within the bulk grain handling system.
Sustainable development is a high priority for many industry associations. For example, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) developed a national sustainable forest management certification program for Canada's forest industry. Based on internationally agreed criteria and advice from interested stakeholders, the standards verify that a defined forest is being managed according to a sustainable forest management system. Model forests have also been established in many provinces to gain practical experience in sustainable forest management techniques. Some provinces, such as British Columbia and Alberta, have also launched discrete sustainable forest management initiatives.
Several major enterprises in Canada have adopted sustainable development policies, for example Shell, Imperial Oil, Ontario Hydro, TransAlta, Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, IBM, Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries, and Daishowa- Marubeni International. Cooperation: Canada endorses the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises as an important tool to support sustainable behavior by Canadia n companies investing in the developing world. For more information on the Canada and the MNE guidelines visit:
Oh, dear, you are dreadfully and terminally naive. I fear there is no hope for you.
And please, don't presume to group me into that group of "most of us". Given a choice, I'd rather be grouped into that group considered by you of subhuman intelligence, which foolishly presumes big chemical companies of considering their bottom lines first and foremost. I delight in the name you will thus choose to label me with.
Ah, the last bastion of a loser......calling people names.
Yes, people do say things. Stupid things. And you are a gleaming example. Go right ahead and believe your Monsanto gods. :::shaking head:::: I really don't see why people defend Monsanto so ferverently. Monsanto doesn't give a sh*t about you, they'll mow you over to make a profit. And you'll defend them until they do.
now who is being naive? I can just imagine Steins asking if the products are safe. LOL. As long as they have somebody else to point the product liability finger at they are going to resell anything that makes them a profit. I dont see any corporation sharing their secret internal memos with an outside company. But the corporate CEOs, who represent the company certainly can and do lie for the company. Interestingly, corporations can be sued.
formatting link
"A corporation is different, and it is a pretty interesting concept. A corporation is a "virtual person." That is, a corporation is registered with the government, it has a social security number (known as a federal tax ID number), it can own property, it can go to court to sue people, it can be sued and it can make contracts. By definition, a corporation has stock that can be bought and sold, and all of the owners of the corporation hold shares of stock in the corporation to represent their ownership. One incredibly interesting characteristic of this "virtual person" is that it has an indefinite and potentially infinite life span." Now CEO's may come and go, even boards come and go, but since they dont go all at once (well unless they belly up and close their doors) the prevailing mentality of a corporation is propagated ad infinitum, ad nauseum. So Monsanto is not going to turn into a Ben and Jerry's. Ingrid
"Dave Gower" wrote: Such professionals ask tough and precise
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
formatting link
the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make.
That MIGHT "limit" the extravagant harm done. Unfortunately the "instructions" are based on tests (fudged by Monsanto) of breakdown rates of glyphosate at room temperature in a microbe-rich environment. These tests are not on the actual mix of chemicals used, & do not take these issues into consideration:
1) In alkaline or low-organic content soils or soils with fewer microbes the glyphosate can remain active for over a year.
2) In colder zones (usda 5 & below) the glyphosate can remain active for well over a year, up to indefinitely alpine gardens.
3) If breakdown does occasionally happen as rapidly as the (fudged) lab-test-based results indicate, & upon which recommendations for safe use are founded, the results in no way actually apply to gardens where, unlike in a lab, Roundup breaks down into toxins such as formeldahyde, plus:
4) A percentage of the glyphosate bonds with the soil in such a manner as to be released for at least three months as still toxic, as shown by the clover tests with clover stunted by "properly" used glyphosate when planted three months after the glyphosate was "properly" used.
5) "Properly" used near trees & shrubs decreases winter hardiness of shrubs, & renders trees & especially maples more susceptible to fungal disease.
6) The surficant in RoundUp does find its way to watersheds & rivers no matter how carefully used.
7) The recommendations for proper use do not even take into consideration the increased toxicity of glyphosate when mixed with surficant, but are based on a "best case" (fudged) scenario based on pure glyphosate's break-down under ideal labratory conditions.
All of the above are major problems when "used as directed," even before considering the very real fact that it is rarely used as directed so that there are additional problems of use near water, of drift that has been shown in England to "accidentally" kill hedges at considerable distances from where used, the use of stronger mixtures & even application from airplanes, & use on & around edible crops intentionally altered to withstand glyphosate exposure & so ending up in human diet -- & the fact that every other product Monsanto ever claimed to be 100% safe as directed turned out to be unsafe to the nth degree. But discounting all that greater reality, & restricted to the things that make it UNSAFE as directed, this is the only factual conclusion:
USED RIGIDLY WITHIN THE PROPER GUIDELINES & INSTRUCTION, GLYPHOSATE IS NEVERTHELESS UNSAFE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT & CAUSES LASTING HARM.
So even your narrow argument for supporting a bad company & bad product simply does not apply. You either lie intentionially or more likely yoyu delude yourself & pass on your delusion, hoping to convince others as you've convinced yourself that the exact same company that brought us "safe" Agent Orange & "safe" PCBs & "safely" made its own company town the most poisoned in America is in this one & only case totally honest about "safe" glyphosate -- because liars proven to have falsified data time & again are, on your say-so, totally honest for the first time in their history, when it comes to the product YOU want to slather around "as directed."
Under law, alas, corporations are persons, with the individual rights of free speech (or expensive speech in paid advertising) & suchlike that SHOULD belong to individuals but are purchased by corporations so that rights become increasingly the province of Corporations that can afford these rights, & not of individuals. The spokespersons & legal teams & bought-&-paid-for research teams get paid to speak for the corporation, not for themselves.
When you make these infantile deluded arguments as you persistant in doing, you just make yourself sound sillier projecting your own failings onto Ann & others.
"Dave Gower" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@magma.ca:
When 'answers' are of dubious veracity, it common to use whatever information is available assess the veracity of the 'answers'. To say Monsanto is a totally different entity now is ridiculous. If anything, they have retained all the lawyers who know exactly what loopholes in the laws they can exploit. I suppose you think jailing a common criminal results in the rehabilitation of the criminal, when in all likelihood, he has just as much chance of learning new ways to break the law while in jail.
I wonder if some of these same "hard-nosed, savvy purchasing managers" were responsible for the introduction of anti-bacterial soap. I suppose the industry only hires Ph.Ds in chemical engineering to manage their purchasing departments, even it would be so much cheaper to just hire yokel off the street who can point at a random 'scientific' journal and say, "well that says such-and-such, so it must be true", which by the way, will hold up in court. But, at the end of the day, the only thing that really counts is whether are not there are any marks who will buy the product.
Yes, I totally agree. Companies cannot "lie" any more than they can create "products" Only people can do that. If there are any problems, the people operating the factory machinery should be held accountable, not Monsanto, which really doesn't even exist.
-- Salty
And, oh yeah, I did a search back to 1789(!), and no one in rec.gardens has ever asked about the purchasing habits Monsanto's corporate customers. hmm, off-topic or not? I hope no one goes crying to the topic police.
Try not to let the irony or sarcasm in this reply go flying over your head this time.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.