*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, February 5th, 2014 3:40pm PST - promote requested by enoch.

I tried to upvote this twice.

It wouldn't let me.

Best episode of mad men ever! And that's 100% NATURAL!

You think "Organic" is any different?

THIS. Quoth wikipedia:
"An organic compound is any member of a large class of gaseous, liquid, or solid chemical compounds whose molecules contain carbon."

Every time you read an "organic" label on something, do your self a favor and mentally replace it with "this product contains carbon". Which puts it in a very very in-exclusive club.

I hate the business of GMO, mainly because of Evil Monopolistic Monsanto®, but are there any scientific studies that even claim these products are less safe for human consumption?

Of course, modifying an organism can have side effects such as decreasing nutritional value, but so can not rotating crops correctly or failure to maintain soil properly.

Nope, not really. There is also the anecdotal 'evidence' of 90% of North Americans having been consuming GMO corn and canola products for nearly two decades to seemingly no ill effect.

@bcglorf
totally agree,
unless you wish to consider the massive rise of:diabetes,hypertension,heart disease,cancer,mental illness,obesity etc etc.

the connections linked to GMO's and its possible harmful effects to mammals and the environment,along with the surrounding ecosystems are beginning to surface.

turns out those company sponsored studies may not be as upfront and truthful as we were lead to believe and there might actually be a reason for concern.

Well, I'll certainly grant you obesity as being the fault of GMOs, but only in that they've made foods cheaper and more abundant and thus obesity is easier to attain.

I thought the links beginning to surface for all the other conditions were the fault of human CO2 emissions, or vaccinations, or the NWO...

Back to being serious though, my big, big trouble with 'linking' or blaming GMO for health problems or, well, anything, is a complete absence of any scientific evidence and studies supporting said statements and claims. The glaring absence of such evidence really, really sets of my skepticism meter when bold claims against GMO products are stated as matter of course. It sounds to me much more like new things scare me talk than reasoned factual argument.

Are any of the cattle, chickens and pigs raised today 'natural', or are they so far removed from their original species by centuries of human directed selective breeding to be deemed man-made? Truth is there arguably never was such a thing as non-GMO Canola. It was invented as a derivative of Rapeseed by a university about 2 hours from me in the seventies. Talking about GMO products as though, oh no, we've never done anything like this ever before in human history so be very cautious just seems ignorant to me.

Cross-hybridization is one thing. Patenting a cow you found in Africa and then suing the life out of the original tribe is the Monsanto way. Or, changing one gene and then claiming ownership of all corn in the US and then suing small farmers when their crops get contaminated (and of course, denying it) is GMO. The fight against GMO isn't always a "health" concern about wanting to stay truer to our millions of years of evolution and cohabitation with certain foods. It's also about fighting against mega-corperations that unfairly target small farmers with regulations such as requiring white painted walls . . . yearly, or requiring an office and bathroom for a health inspector to use once a year that no one else can use ever, or so many laws and regulations that a small farmer can inadvertently break the law, steal someone's intellectual property and be sued out of existence all while doing the same thing their family has been doing for over 100 years.

When we plant crops of only one variety over large swathes of land we invite disaster. It's already happen numerous times. Hell, no one remember deadly spinach killing around 50 people with no way to trace the origin? Mad Cow? Or the destruction of economies in their world countries because Monsanto requires only their crop to be grown and subsistence farmers into the ghetto's of India so that more High Fructose Corn Syrup can be made.

Or worse . . . the US Farm Bill . . . *shivers*

So no, it's not always about health. It's about staying true to the roots of a society that worships our farmers as life-givers, essential to our health and economy and free of unknown risk that could catastrophically damage the world as we know it all while ending a giant untouchable monopoly that refuses to let even the tiniest bit of oversight oversee it's operations so it can continue to "own life."

@shatterdose,
Would you have examples of the farmers Monsanto has sued or driven out of business over cross contamination? I'm not familiar with any myself despite hearing the claim repeatedly and would hate to be blind to such a serious injustice.

I also have trouble understanding your overall position. You seem to spend most of your time arguing how terrible GMO is for farmers and seem to be arguing it is bad because it is harmfull to them. You end your post arguing in favor of farmers again and calling for a return to showing them greater respect than they are being shown today. I hope I followed that much correctly? As a guy who grew up as a farm kid, and have a very big portion of my family and social circle running family farms I would second the importance of those businesses. What I wonder is if you understand that virtually all family farms whose primary income is that farm have been choosing by their own free will to plant GMO crops because it helps their bottom line.

It's not a corporate conspiracy driving the GMO domination of seeds planted here in North America. In fact, all the family farmers I grew up around are well agreed that GMO crops have been one of the biggest factors that has helped them keep their family operations profitable so they didn't have to close up shop and sell things off. The picture you paint of Monsanto systematically driving family farms out of business is simply put, fictional from what I see in the Family farm dominated economy of the region I live in. I haven't looked outside of North America nearly as closely, but for this region your account just does not bear out to the reality I see around me everyday.

100% Naturally Organic!

wut? Organic food refers to the process it goes through to receive organic certification - i.e. you were looking at the wrong wikipedia entry.

Try this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification

Essentially it's growing food without most of the harmful chemicals, it's therefore a sustainable farming practice. Less spray residue in the food, less toxins in the environment, better for pretty much everyone unless you are a worker at Monsanto or get paid by a political think tank.

Organic certification is not perfect however, some countries (like China) have poor certification protocols, and many countries labelling laws allow some non-organic food in an organic product and it can still be called organic.

Do you think that's food you are eating?

bcglorf said it already, but I want to answer anyway: correlation is not causation.

https://scontent-b-ams.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/1512611_738979556123058_55665070_n.jpg

@SveNitoR
i was not asking a question nor did i post any research nor arguments,but..thanks? i guess?

@bcglorf
here is a video of just a few of monsantos legal practices with canola farmers in canada:
http://videosift.com/video/north-american-farmers-VS-Monsanto-david-vs-goliath

*controversy *money

Adding video to channels (Controversy, Money) - requested by MrFisk.

The description sounds like it's the story of Percy Schrieber, one man's fight with Monsanto. Forgive me, but if that is in fact accurate I'm not sitting through a 1 hour accounting. Percy Schrieber's story is nothing like those described by Shatterdose and others. He wasn't sued for his crop getting cross contaminated. He wasn't sued for continuing to replant seed from his previous crop as he had been doing for years and years.

Percy Schrieber deliberately and intentionally set out to plant Monsanto's GMO canola on his own fields, and went to MORE work to accomplish this than most any other farmer that'd been growing that variety. What is more, he has freely admitted this. I can NOT understand how he still remains a rallying point for folks claiming Monsanto is suing farmers just because their seed crop was cross contaminated by their neighbor. I have yet to be pointed to an example of Monsanto doing that to anyone in North America. Until I am pointed to one, I'm getting pretty tired of the completely baseless accusation being declared and accepted as proven fact and matter of course. Monsanto IS a massive corporation, and no doubts has all manner of dirty deeds to it's name, but this particular charge seems to be entirely fabricated to me and that drives me nuts. It renders all manner of valid complaints and concerns less valid all to quickly.

@bcglorf
ok.
i guess i could go through all my bookmarks.
correlate all the pertinent information in regards to abuse of sovereign legal systems in order to intimidate local farmers set upon by monsanto.
link watch groups web sites that follow monsanto (and others) in order to illuminate some of their more...egregious abuses.

but that would be based on the presumption i wish to change your mind or convince you of anything.which i am really not interested in at all.

though i was unaware that percy was found guilty of intentionally cross-pollinating.first time i heard that.thats pretty interesting.

Slow down a moment. I wasn't asking for hours of background research to be presented to meet my approval or anything.

The claim has been repeatedly made that Monsanto has been, on a sweeping scale, been suing farmers with no desire to use it's seed when their crops are accidentally contaminated. All I requested was to be given one single example of that actually happening. Nobody has ever presented an example to me. This leads me to not only conclude, but to declare to all who will listen that this particular charge is a lie and a fabrication.

The closest I ever get to an example is Percy, and he sprayed his own seed crop with round up before harvesting the surviving few plants along the border of his neighbor's crop. I do not count carrying on to plant only those seeds as accidental, and Percy has readily admitted that is what he did.

Round up is fucking poison and deleterious to all soil, all food crops, humans, puupy dogs, gophers, and kitty-cats. I and I commend Percy Schmeiser on some guerrilla ball-sack-action against the assholes that are, Babylon Monsanto.

Patent infringer MY ASS Monsanto, he's a fucking hero.

In the unlikely event you aren't just trolling, here goes. It would appear that you know nothing about Ag practices over the last 4-5 decades. Round-up is bar none one of the safest chemicals to humans and vertebrates that there is. One of the single biggest selling points of round-up ready GMO crops has been greatly reducing the need for other more expensive chemicals that are also more hazardous to humans.

Simply put, GMO crops will typically be exposed to lower quantities of less dangerous chemicals than non-GMO crops.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

errr... Sift of the week.

So according to this video, pest-resistant corn is a Bad Thing(tm)?

Oh teh noes, we will get a higher crop yield. Food supply will be more stable, and probably cheaper.

Who will save us from this dystopian nightmare?

Ahem!

...according to Monsanto. I've never seen the CEO drink it or spray it on his kids though.


...except those grown 'organically' or with an effort towards minimal chemical use, and only until the round-up resistant 'weeds' and 'pests' outpace it's toxicity... again. It already takes more, higher concentrated round-up (if not a second formula already) to do the job, and that will only get worse every year. There must be a better solution than 'our poison is less dangerous than the old poisons' coupled with 'our proprietary freak crops are immune to our poisons'. (the best solution for me is simply fewer people, but that sentiment is in the minority it seems)

Round up is one of the safest chemicals according every farmer anywhere. The only fear farmers have with round up is caution not to kill off any union tended plants. A very long list of other chemicals farmers are very cautious using knowing their effects range from giving you headaches, to making you sick, to outright killing you if you use them incorrectly. Round up comes with none of those fears.

If you have or know of a better solution than killing weeds with poison then there are billions of dollars waiting for you to claim them. In the mean time an extraordinarily large number of very smart people are all currently employed on finding better solutions. Round up ready crops are just one big step, there will no doubt be others. You also imply round up is 'new', it is in fact vet much older than most chemicals out there, just so you know.

Less people to feed seems reasonable enough, but the history of effort and success of such ventures hasn't really made it very desirable......