Monsanto

Park Life · May 20, 2010

The hybrid corn seeds Monsanto has donated to Haiti are treated with the fungicide Maxim XO, and the calypso tomato seeds are treated with thiram.(3) Thiram belongs to a highly toxic class of chemicals called ethylene bisdithiocarbamates (EBDCs). Results of tests of EBDCs on mice and rats caused concern to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which then ordered a special review. The EPA determined that EBDC-treated plants are so dangerous to agricultural workers that they must wear special protective clothing when handling them. Pesticides containing thiram must contain a special warning label, the EPA ruled. The EPA also barred marketing of the chemicals for many home garden products, because it assumes that most gardeners do not have adequately protective clothing.(4) Monsanto's passing mention of thiram to Ministry of Agriculture officials in an email contained no explanation of the dangers, nor any offer of special clothing or training for those who will be farming with the toxic seeds."

You couldn't make it up. :icon_lol:

tooner · May 20, 2010

Monsanto whould be closed down......they are evil incarnate

Renton · May 20, 2010

Maybe but I'm all for GM personally. Can't stop progress.

tooner · May 20, 2010

really? do you think they should be allowed to fiddle with the reproductive portions of seeds? right now they sell sterile seeds so that farmer have to buy more the next year....bullshit in my opinion.

GM for the betterment of mankind i can get behind, GM for the sole purpose of making money and at the risk of future generations of plants is irresponsible and exactly whats wrong with society as a whole.

Renton · May 20, 2010

That's what I said. :icon_lol:

tooner · May 20, 2010

which? for profit? or for mankind?

Renton · May 21, 2010

I am defending the technology, not the company. Are new technologies open to abuse in a capitalist system? Of course. Does this mean they shouldn't be developed? No in my opinion. GM has the potential to save millions of lives in the right hands.

Missed Sticks · May 21, 2010

As if it was invented for that purpose :security:

Park Life · May 21, 2010

Indian Govt have banned it recently iirc

Renton · May 21, 2010

Banned what? All GM technology or Monsanto? India is quite a backward country anyway tbf.

Park Life · May 21, 2010

Yeah, almost no debt, growing at 7% a year with nukes, a world renowned hi tech sector and plans for a moonmission. As you say...Backward.

Renton · May 21, 2010

128th in the world as ranked by GDP, 11th biggest economy in the world despite mega population, population spiralling out of control, massive inequalities in wealth distribution, no national health service to speak of, life expectancy 20 years behind European average, massive illiteracy problems, and can apparently afford to send men to the moon (something the US never managed :icon_lol: ). Etfuckingcetera.

Aye..... Backward.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Renton

Park Life · May 21, 2010

That's very Eurocentric of you. :security:

What they have achieved from where they started is nothing less than astounding and would beat all of europe together in a standup fight if no nukes were used.

The population issue as with China is a huge challenge and makes for easy point scoring for idiots. :security:

I was wrong anyway. the love the GM. :security:

Edited May 21, 2010 by Park Life

Park Life · May 21, 2010

ISAAA figures show reduced GM crops in 7 countries

Tuesday, 23 February 2010 15:17

Attention: open in a new window. PDFPrintE-mail

GM Crop Expansion Limited in 2009 –

ISAAA figures show reduced areas in seven countries

Immediate release, 23 February 2010

The latest data from the ISAAA on GM crops around the world [1] reveals that seven out of 25 countries had reduced GM cultivation areas in 2009 and another remained static. The data from the industry-funded group reveals that no new countries grew GM crops during this period.

The combined area of all GM crops in 2009 covered just 2.7% of all agricultural land. [2] Very little of this production went directly to feed people, as most went into animal feed (GM maize, soy and canola), industrial scale biofuels (GM maize, soy and canola) or to produce cotton.

The expansion of GM maize in Brazil alone accounted for over 60% of the 9 million hectares increase in GM cultivation area in 2009. In seven other countries the area under GM crops actually fell in 2009 (compared with 2008), including two of what ISAAA describe as "mega" countries:

*China's GM cultivation area was down 3%;

*Paraguay’s GM cultivation area was down 19%.

The only other country with significant growth in area was India, where Bt cotton cultivation expanded. However the biotech industry received a major setback recently when the Indian government placed a moratorium on the approval of GM Bt brinjal (aubergine) for commercial production pending further scientific assessment on safety and cross pollination. The decision followed months of mass protests throughout the country. [3]

Globally the same six countries continue to dominate GM cropping: US, Brazil, Argentina, India, Canada and China grew nearly 95% of all GM crops, while the remaining production area in 20 other countries remains low. One crop, GM herbicide tolerant soybeans (mostly Monsanto’s Roundup Ready), accounted for 52% of all GM crops. In all, GM soybeans, maize, cotton and canola accounted for over 99% of all plantings, demonstrating that no new GM crops have been adopted on any scale since GM crops were first grown commercially.

The US grew the highest number of different types of GM. However, deregulation of GM herbicide tolerant alfalfa and GM sugar beet have both been suspended by US courts because of the failure of the US Environmental Protection Agency [4] to conduct an environmental impact assessment on the crops.

The ISAAA report fails to assess weed resistance to glyphosate, which has become a major problem in GM herbicide tolerant crops in North and South America. [5] More weed killers are being used to combat this problem, and in the US the total of amount of herbicide used each year has increased since GMHT crops were introduced in 1996. [6]

In Europe, the majority of GM maize (the only crop approved for cultivation) was again grown in Spain, but there was a 4% fall in the area grown in 2009. Figures given by ISAAA for the EU reveal that the area fell in five out of seven of the principal maize growing regions in Spain in 2009 [7] – a decline that began in some regions in 2004.

Elsewhere in Europe the area of GM maize fell for the second year in a row:

*Germany's GM cultivation (where a ban was introduced in 2009) was down 100%;

*The Czech Republic's GM cultivation was down 31%;

*Romania's GM cultivation was down 57%;

*Slovakia's GM cultivation was down 54%.

The area in Poland under GM remained static in 2009. Five other EU countries have banned the cultivation of Monsanto's GM maize. [8]

Park Life · May 21, 2010

E.U. Signals Big Shift on Genetically Modified Crops

By JAMES KANTER

Published: May 9, 2010

BRUSSELS — Madeira is more than 500 kilometers from the African coast and is officially one of the “outermost regions” of the European Union.

Green

A blog about energy and the environment.

Go to Blog

Despite that far-flung status, Madeira catapulted into the center of the Union’s agricultural and environmental affairs last year when Portugal asked the European Commission for permission to impose an unprecedented ban on growing biotech crops there.

Last week, the commission quietly let the deadline pass for opposing Portugal’s request, allowing Madeira, which is one of Portugal’s autonomous regions, to become the first E.U. territory to get formal permission from Brussels to remain entirely free of genetically modified organisms.

Madeira now will probably go ahead and implement the ban, a spokeswoman for the Portuguese government said Friday.

Individual European countries and regions have banned certain genetically modified crops before. Many consumers and farmers in countries like Austria, France and Italy regard the crops as potentially dangerous and likely to contaminate organically produced food.

But the case of Madeira represents a significant landmark, because it is the first time the commission, which runs the day-to-day affairs of the European Union, has permitted a country to impose such a sweeping and definitive rejection of the technology.

The Madeirans’ main concerns focused on preserving the archipelago’s biodiversity and its forest of subtropical laurel trees.

Such forests, known as laurisilva, were once widespread on the European mainland but were wiped out thousands of years ago during an earlier period of climate change.

That has left Madeira with “much the largest extent of laurel forest surviving in the world, with a unique suite of plants and animals,” according to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, which named the Madeiran laurisilva a World Heritage Site in 1999.

The forest also is a growing attraction for tourists, who make up a significant portion of Madeira’s earnings.

In seeking to ban biotechnology on Madeira, the Portuguese government told the commission that it would be impossible to separate crops containing genetically engineered material from other plant life.

The “risk to nature presented by the deliberate release of GMOs is so dangerous and poses such a threat to the environmental and ecological health of Madeira, that it is not worthwhile risking their use, either directly in the agricultural sector or even on an experimental basis,” the Portuguese told the commission, using the acronym for genetically modified organisms.

In an internal memorandum seen by the International Herald Tribune, the commission said it had let the deadline in the Madeira case pass without a formal assessment and more fanfare because that could “create misunderstandings and send confusing signals” at a time when Europe was reconsidering its approach to cultivating GMOs.

In reality, the Madeira case marks the unofficial beginning of a new — and potentially highly contentious — policy that would give European nations and regions far greater freedom to decide when to ban such crops.

In return for that freedom, skeptical countries like Austria would be expected to drop their opposition at E.U. meetings to approving more biotech crops for cultivation, allowing countries and regions that do wanted to plant them to do so.

The policy would be aimed at overcoming an institutionalized stalemate in Europe that has left governments unable to reach decisions on whether to allow cultivation of new biotech products.

As a result of that stalemate, only two biotech crops are allowed in Europe: a corn called Mon 810 from Monsanto and a potato called Amflora from the German industrial group BASF. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/business...nt/10green.html

Renton · May 21, 2010

Always thought those Indian chaps had good heads on their shoulders. :icon_lol:

Sign In

Monsanto

Recommended Posts

Park Life 71

Link to comment

Share on other sites

tooner 243

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Renton 22007

Link to comment

Share on other sites

tooner 243

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Renton 22007

Link to comment

Share on other sites

tooner 243

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Renton 22007

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Missed Sticks 0

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Park Life 71

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Renton 22007

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Park Life 71

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Renton 22007

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Park Life 71

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Park Life 71

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Park Life 71

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Renton 22007

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Important Information