Distinguishing MONSANTO's totalitarian "use of science" from its claims to science

[JohnyCanuck]

by Linn Cohen-Cole

SNIP

........No one should be arguing defensively that there isn't enough data to say anything.

Instead, what should be focused on - coming in from every direction - is the immense amount of data on Monsanto itself and its anti-relationship with science. The data reveals Monsanto's disregard for, corruption of, purchase of, blocking of, crippling of, hiding of, denial of, attacks on ... science itself. Rather than asking how can anyone trust Monsnto's products, people can say plainly and factually that Monsanto itself cannot be trusted. All data indicates they are dangerous and lie about evidence they already possess, and about just how dangerous.

SNIP

The public is being presented with Monsanto's GM-crops as though they were about science. The opposite is true. Monsanto's corruption of science (and of democracy to accomplish it) and their past history of hiding evidence of cancers and lying for decades are strong "evidence" of the science they offer. It is based on "experiments" with Monsanto over decades that we as scientists ourselves can say their data, their words, their promises, cannot be trusted. Their total disregard of science and all the ways they go around it, pervert it, hide it, block it, buy it, control it, undermine it, invent it, and twist it, are all the evidence the public needs to have.

Science run by thugs using fear, corruption, and secret plans to undo all competing "theories" and obstacles to control, is not science at all. It must be "labeled" appropriately. It's totalitarianism using "science" as its front in its effort to take control of food around the world.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Distinguishing-MONSANTO-s-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090204-80.html

[Why Syzygy]

1. k/r

[KoKo]

2. Thanks for keeping on top of Monsanto's Latest Moves. K&R!

[JohnyCanuck]

3. Who is Anti-Science?

Hilary Benn & Other GM Supporters

The Cabinet minister betrays his true colours in a head to head with Vandana Shiva and other proponents of organic agriculture as evidence piles up against the safety of GM food and feed.

Hilary Benn had failed to respond to an open letter from Dr Eva Novotny cautioning him on the safetyof GM crops and food <1> (see Letter to Hilary Benn MP on GMOs.) , and was then conspicuously absent from a recent major organic food and agriculture confere nce he was billed to speak at, choosing instead to address the participants via telephone-link <2> . The following is a transcript of how he responded to questions from Gundula Asseez, former Policy Manager of the Soil Association and Dr. Vandana Shiva of Navdanya, New Delhi who were present at the Bristol conference. The questions were moderated by organic gardener Monty Don, who started off by inviting Hilary Benn to talk about the recently approved application for controlled trials of GM crops in t he UK , and what the benefits of GM crops might be.

Hilary Benn: Government's task is to answer those questions. We've made applications for controlled trials because that's one of the ways in which you get an answer to the question. It is for those who are developing their technology to demonstrate .. potential … and then ultimately an individual human being to decide what it is we eat; and shops and supermarkets to decide what it is they stock and farmers themselves decide what it is they grow. I think we should see what the science tells us and then it's for other s to make a decision on that basis.

Gundula Aseez: Hello, I was the Policy Manager for the Soil Association for the last nine years. The minister says that we need to ask the question so I'm asking is the problem that he is afraid of the answer? Because I'm concerned to hear that he is not aware of any scientific evidence of the negative health effects. The majority of the controlled animal feeding trials have been showing a range of serious health effects. These are controlled trials, this is the scientific evidence. Why is the Government still saying that it is ignorant of the science?” (See the latest reports (3-5), GM Maize Reduces Fertility & Deregulates Genes in Mice , GM Maize Disturbs Immune System of Young and Old Mice, and Bt Brinjal Unfit for Human Consumption , SiS 41 ).

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Who_is_Anti-Science.php

[Optical.Catalyst]

4. Monsanto is not about science. Monsanto is about money

The leadership and administration of Monsanto is about making more and more money. They exploit science, scientists, and the public at large for financial gain.

Monsanto completely ignores the dangers of Genetically-Modified Organisms in pursuit of profit. Anyone who attempts to object is smacked down with the hammer of 'Science' as presented by Monsanto's mercenary army of chemists, geneticists, and agricultural engineers.

To compound the problem their attorneys aggressively assassinate the competition with court suits under patient law at any perceived transgression of their products. Monsanto has no problem shutting down farmers growing necessary food crops if the farmers don't pay a 'cut' to the company.

Monsanto is the embodiment of evil.

[JohnyCanuck]

5. Thankfully someone had the gumption and guts to stand up to the Monsanto aholes.

Schmeiser pleased with victory over Monsanto
In an out of court settlement finalized on March 19, 2008, Percy Schmeiser has settled his lawsuit with Monsanto. Monsanto has agreed to pay all the clean-up costs of the Roundup Ready canola that contaminated Schmeiser's fields. Also part of the agreement was that there was no gag-order on the settlement and that Monsanto could be sued again if further contamination occurred. Schmeiser believes this precedent setting agreement ensures that farmers will be entitled to reimbursement when their fields become contaminated with unwanted Roundup Ready canola or any other unwanted GMO plants.

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/

[acmavm]

6. This topic never gets the support it needs. This and the control of water.

Whoever controls water and food controls the world. If something is introduced into the water and food supply and it is actually harmful, there is nothing that we can do about it after the fact:

Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805

<snip>
As Rinehart would recall, the man began verbally attacking him, saying he had proof that Rinehart had planted Monsanto’s genetically modified (G.M.) soybeans in violation of the company’s patent. Better come clean and settle with Monsanto, Rinehart says the man told him—or face the consequences.

Rinehart was incredulous, listening to the words as puzzled customers and employees looked on. Like many others in rural America, Rinehart knew of Monsanto’s fierce reputation for enforcing its patents and suing anyone who allegedly violated them. But Rinehart wasn’t a farmer. He wasn’t a seed dealer. He hadn’t planted any seeds or sold any seeds. He owned a small—a really small—country store in a town of 350 people. He was angry that somebody could just barge into the store and embarrass him in front of everyone. “It made me and my business look bad,” he says. Rinehart says he told the intruder, “You got the wrong guy.”

When the stranger persisted, Rinehart showed him the door. On the way out the man kept making threats. Rinehart says he can’t remember the exact words, but they were to the effect of: “Monsanto is big. You can’t win. We will get you. You will pay.”





March 09, 2008
http://static.uspirg.org/consumer/archives/2008/03/free_speech_vs.html

Free speech vs. Frankenfood-- Monsanto fights "hormone-free" milk labels

The chemical and bio-engineering industry is fond of claiming that American consumers are different from European consumers. We've supposedly embraced genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in our food. While the industry had some early success in pushing the use of bio-engineered crops (and the genetic drift from those fields into natural crops will be hard to slow, let alone reverse), the notion that Americans like their food to come from factories and test tubes, not nature, is belied by the battle the agri-chemical behemoth Monsanto is having to fight over GMO-growth hormones in milk. Today's New York Times has a story by Andrew Martin called Fighting on a Battlefield the Size of a Milk Label.

The story reports on the latest battle in the long-running campaign between Monsanto and consumers who want to drink natural milk from un-engineered cows sold by farmers who, incredibly, simply want the right to describe their milk as hormone-free. Monsanto markets Posilac, a genetically-modified, artificial version of a natural hormone. Some, usually bigger, farmers like the product because it dramatically increases milk production and profits.

-MORE-

[JohnyCanuck]

7. Beats me..

how anyone with a conscience could work for those scumbuckets.

Watch this excerpt from the video "The Corporation" on how Monsanto pressured Fox to withdraw a story on the harmful effects of Monsanto's bovine growth hormone treatment for dairy cows.

17. Journalists Jane Akre and Steve Wilson were fired by the Fox News television station they work for after refusing to change their investigative report on Posilac, a Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH) made by Monsanto. Their research documents potential health and safety problems of drinking milk treated with the synthetic hormone, but threatened with legal action from Monsanto, Fox wants the negative effects played down. The court eventually throws out Akre's whistle blower lawsuit after deciding that the media is allowed to lie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw

[Hannah Bell]

8. gates foundation + monsanto

seeding africa

[acmavm]

9. Yes yes yes yes yes! Thank you! I felt very alone here pointing out the

'conflicts of intest' of the Gates Foundation. No one's been mean, but they don't want to discuss it either.

This foundation makes a lot of its money off of a lot of the corporations that create the problems that we are in today.