Maybe have a read of this. Too many people are jumping on this bandwagon without thinking beyond the current 'hot topic'. This isnt the first company to go along the GM food line...You are shutting the gate well and truly after the horse has bolted, then you made burgers from the horse and are now enjoying the burgers while complaining about your missing horse.

Also I particularly enjoy the 'do some research' where you only offer unscientific anti-GM sites.

Here is a cool site which offers several arguments for both sides of GM production. I imagine some of the quotes are a little out of context to make a point.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/exist/arguments.html
 

Plus denying GM food research is sending a highly arrogant death sentence to many poverty stricken countries like africa.

This is the Kone 2012 of 2013. 

I don't know a LOT about this subject,but one of the things that concerns me is that farmers growing GM crops are not able to collect seeds from their plants for next year's sowing - which makes them dependent on the GM plant company from whom they have to keep buying new plants.

Doesn't sound like a real effort to free people from hunger and dependency - nor does it sound like a philanthropic project.

True, it certainly it is far from a perfect plan, but to shut the whole thing down is ridiculous. The seeds point, I find highly controversial but in theory if you were to spend millions designing and perfecting a product, then you are well within your right to have intellectual rights on it. Having said that, basic foodstuffs are an unexplored area and up for discussion. One of the big benefits for the planet would be that fields wouldnt be ravaged by farmers as they are now, and they are given means to keep the soil at a decent useable level, as that, along with fertiliser/pesticide use are big problems.

A university had designed and grown more efficient quinoa grain, and put in for a patent but considering a large majority of quinoa for the US comes from south america, they were forced into giving up the patent and putting it out there as to keep those farmers in business.

I would be more worried about the complete lack of long term research into things that we consume on a regular basis, and GM foods are definitely on that list. We have no idea how a lot of things we consume (not just GM) will effect us in the coming decades, and it will be too late.

But to only see the downside of brilliant scientific research is a little too negative. The seeds are not ludicrously priced, and even if africa was to have somehow acquired seeds and didnt pay for them, who & how would you go about suing them?

Plus you are thinking solely about specific companies, the greater ideology is to make these crops as to be able to feed the ever growing population of the world. Generally speaking innovations and inventions are done for good, just misused by conglomerates & governments. Without these innovations, we will not be able to feed the people we currently feed and food will just become more and more expensive.

In a conference on sustainability and food resources, the fundamental message from Africa was 'we just want to feed our families as you do'.

I'll end with this thought, do you think traditional farming is going to survive forever?

Of course,if you have not got enough food,your priority will be to "feed your family".You won't be thinking about the long term consequences....and this makes you vulnerable.

As for traditional farming,maybe that should be what we should go back to.At the moment,Western industrialised countries over- produce and over- consume(we have problems of obesity which are growing).If we ate less,consumed less,and didn't arm conflicts in poor countries ,where war often causes starvation,maybe hunger would not be such a big problem.

Well I think considering the number of people who die of starvation, they would choose to keep their families alive over a potentially non-existant risk or even a small risk (and maybe even a medium one). Of course they will be vunerable, they are currently vunerable. But that is not a reason to leave them be, when you have at least something in your hands.

Over consumption is each persons choice, this will never change and if you believe that is the route to take then it is a little naive to be honest. There will always be people who can afford more than they need and a section of those people will over buy and end up throwing away food. To assume that traditional farming is the key is overreaching. If I had the space here, I would grow my own vegetables and herbs, but only as I enjoy that kind of thing, not for the health reasons or 'for the planet'. But we live in a modern world and we neither have the time nor the space for everyone to go back to traditional farming. Plus generally speaking, all these goods would cost more, which is acceptable if you can afford it, but if you can buy 2 chicken breasts for 5CHF why would you choose to cut your money in half and spend 10CHF. Geneva is too affluent for this to be a good example city, but even in london where families really struggle on normal wages, it is patronising to tell families that they should put themselves under more pressure just to avoid big companies. We're not there yet...

With regards to the completely irrelevant war/starvation problem, I say, are you kidding? It is soo much bigger than simply conflict arming. This is also the point I find funny, because people are willing to go nuts over Monsanto, but not over the fact that hundreds of thousands die in africa each year from war/starvation/disease and they dont get so ramped up about it all.  

Obesity and over eating is about education not about production, and it certainly doesnt mean that specific things cant be done better. Why do farmers have tractors/fertilizers/pesticides? because it makes their lives easier and increases their profits, but lowers the quality of food and adds risks.

Traditional farming has always been a low profit/hard work lifestyle. Realistically, the moment that all things can be done by machines, they will be.

and in terms of contect, what percentage of the population know the chemical components of drugs and vaccinations?

I would like to participate ....and sorry Farzam haven't given all your msges a read but i stopped reading the moment you wrote Monsanto's argument.

My humble suggestion to you is please do some more reading before you even think of getting near to the band wagon ...i have been following the company since 2003 and i can tell you the patent on pigs pending approval ain't to eradicate poverty or help any nation.

Well Sami, that's the thing about not reading and picking up one thing from the bits you did read...it generally means you missed the complete picture. Also saying 'i havent listened to you, but you are wrong and misinformed' is a great way to converse...

(Oh and well done for following since 2003, how very hipster of you.)

I never said Monsanto are great and never do anything wrong. This isn't just about Monsanto but GM in general too, people hear a little and just assume the worst without realise what GM is like. It is a case of everything being ok when it is something you use and like but when it is a big PR show then you get all these people who generally don't know anything on the actual subject, that's when it gets a little tiresome.

With relation to the pig patent, no one is studying pigs with regards to poverty. So not really a useful example, it'll always be crops. 

They spent time researching the genetics of pigs and found a gene marker which enlightens farmers and scientists as to which pigs are more likely to be bigger and 'juicier'. How do you think patents work? Of course a biotech company is allowed to patent their ideas. How do you think any advances are made? do you think it's all non-profit? 

There are a couple of hundred food patents each year in the US (out of 300k) and no one bats an eyelid. It is only because people think that we can carry on with our current systems and sustain the evergrowing population, which is a fallacy. Food prices are already a lot higher than were, and therefore the introduction of 'budget' ranges appeared in supermarkets. This food is generally of a lower quality+lower nutritional value but people happily buy it because it is cheaper. 

My favourite piece of misinformation is that organic is so much healthier for you than conventional foods. This is just not true but people will pay sometimes up to 3x as much for organic/bio foods. They hear things, and just go with the flow.

So in the end Sami, I was asking for more critical thinking about the whole situation, and monsanto falls under that. Really read up (from both sides of the story) and have an informed opinion, while looking at the larger global picture.

But you know... keep skimreading and judging the person.

and I would be more concerned about the Plant Reproductive Material Law than monsanto

Monsanto is one of the worst, you can name a lot more but that is not the point here. Please, if you claim you want real research, than post valid links.  I think everyone who already put time and mind into the matter knows, what is going on and the march on the 25th is for all of them and to educate the ones who don't know yet but want to shed some light into the dark. 

I am putting my mind a lot into stuff like that and know a bit about permaculture and some projects all over the world, where farmers try to get away from the big companies and go organic and natural again. Just open your eyes, read stuff which is not dependend on state money or big companies and you will think differently. 

If you've ever spoken to a balinese farmer, standing with him on the rice fields, hear him talking about the death of all the animals normally living in the fields, the health damaging, expensive pestizides and herbizides he needs to use now and so many more damaging impacts of GMO's and the Monsanto crops your eyes will be wide open.  

The only possible way is to downscale, to go back to nature and grow local and organic. 

Why do you think there is "risk management" to use gmo crops? 

http://www.gmoera.umn.edu/public/about_project/index.html

http://www.gmo-safety.eu/debate/462.filter-species-examine-detail.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121017141850.htm

Oh and the "real" scientific link. She is one of Switzerlands most acclaimed scientist, one of 5 main authors to write about biotechnology for the IAASTD. 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120227111158.htm

The key is "independent" research. Not funded by the FDA, banks, or multi national companies. 

That is all i wanted to say. 

http://www.gmoera.umn.edu/public/publications/index.html

Actually the key word is not necessarily independant as these can be just as 'dirty' as the one's supposedly funded by the big companies. Oh and the link I had put quoted more than 6 respected individuals (ranging from doctors to WHO heads), and considering I studied biomedical chemistry and have worked both in cancer research and pharma, I am pretty sure I 'get it'. Assuming that I don't know is not a argument against my point, it is essentially like correcting someone's grammar insteading of addressing the point. I think it's adorable that you think that scientists can not be secretly paid by conglomerates to convery views (in reference to your top 5 scientist). Seeing repeated results from many different sources using exactly the same methodology is the only real truth (unless they have played with their results...)

Why do I think there is risk management for GMOs? Why do you think there are risk management system for EVERYTHING? Everything can be misused and altered, and there are obvious safety protocols in place to try and stop incidents from happening, and of course for GMOs this is especially important, but as usual instead of trying to push for these things to be used for the positive, you use one brush against an entire industry, which is close minded among a few others things.

Farming itself is and has always been a huge polluter (one of the greatest) and they don't really put any time/money aside for R&D, so companies come in and do it for them. Current farming practices in the US are the reason for 70% of the pollution in the nation's rivers and streams. Even before the BP Oil Spill, the Gulf of Mexico suffered a "dead zone" the size of New Jersey from run-off from farms along the Mississippi River. 

I hate to break it to you, for the foreseeable future we wont be 'returning to nature'. We do too many things which go against the 'natural order' of the planet. I suppose you don't use or do any cars, buses, trains, planes or anything that uses non clean fuels. Also I expect that you have never smoked, nor had a bbq or used a fireplace? Never worn leather, and only bought things from trusted renewable green sources (furniture, clothing, cosmetics). There are far too many of us for this planet.

You grow everything you eat? Have only ever used recycled products? Are you powering your laptop with a solar charger?

I'm being over the top to make a point. Using the 'destroying nature' argument is incorrect. By and large, smoking and cars and the biggest current evils. I would find it hard to believe you have ever gotten so worked up over cigarettes or cars. Where is the march against these things? 

The paper required to make a cigarette is actually quite staggering, add the toxic smoke released on lighting the thing and you have the greatest accepted evil after cars and at least car companies are slowly (oh so slowly) moving towards greener pastures.

Balinese farmer? emotional blackmail at it's finest. You should look into working for PETA , they are just exceptional at using barely (/rarely) relevant emotional blackmail to gain people. Did he explain to you about the fact that he has always been using pesticides and fertilisers? You do realise once upon a time farmers didnt use fertilisers or pesticides. But then one of them did and there was 'money on the table' so to speak. Basically if a farmer wants to improve his crop yields and uses fert/pest, then to keep up with this farmer, the other farmers will do the same, especially if it means they can make more profit too. So farmers are not the angels of this situation.

Oh and the 'organic vs conventional' argument study was done by stanford university. Which they found that organic is pretty much the same in the end.

And no offence but to claim these companies as pure evil and the worst, is quite naive, when high-fructose corn syrup, salt and sugar are the major culprits. These are the frontrunners for diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular problems.

I would also like to know one final thing, have you been so vigilant about every drug you've ever taken?

Again, had you actually read all I've written, you'd know it is about critical thinking and making informed decisions. You seem to just claim to be right because you did some reading. Genetic modification is in line with stem cell research and drug research and a whole host of things we try to explore to see if we can improve our lives and surroundings. Monsanto isn't a clean user of this information, but they are certainly not as bad as the attention that people are trying to draw to them. If anything it is the law makers that should be focused on. Aiming at a company is like taking out one player in a game and not the person in charge of the game, in the end it means nothing.

I love how people think scientific explorationa and discoveries required no money and should be free to all. In an ideal world yes, but how very naive, because we live in a far from ideal world.

I'd also say good for you for taking the time to read up on these matters , but keeping a level mind/demenour & trying to focus on the larger picture is also key. So getting to emotional about things distort perceptions and your argument tends to lose a little spark.

If you want to march againt Monsanto, just remember, they created the LED, so remember to trash everything you own that uses them. Smartphone, laptop, TV etc.

They are not all bad, and you use their techonology everyday.

They are not all good either, remeber also no GMO in Switzerland as I understand it.

Some of the people working in Geneva Monsanto are against the same things you are. 

Sorry Farzam, you totally don't get the point. I will not comment what you said.

Just one thing, as it is a personal offense: I spoke to the balinese farmers and worked with a balinese permaculture foundation. I do not have to explain that to you. So please, calm down in stating blackmailing.

That conversations leads to nowhere. You want to find something to critizise, you will. Honestly, do that, fine for me.

I made my point, I wanted to publish the event. Nothing else. Please, feel free not to come.

Oh, and, I never, with a single word mentioned "non financial" research. It is about WHO is funding the research.

Nothing more to say from my side. 

Not taking any sides here, just want to clarify that Monsanto did not "create" the LED, they were just the first company to mass - produce it, making it more affordable and they were followed shorthly by HP. At that time the LEDs were not a novelty. Let's stick to the facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode

People can protest as much they want, as long as they respect private property. Protesters tend to forget real people work behind "evil projects" (whatever they mean, because most of the time they even dont know what the research is TRULY about. I can tell, because sometimes i dont fully understand even what the next-door-lab is doing, and this is same floor, same department!).

I have italian friends that lost years of research (and perhaps their entire PhDs) because "very-wise-protesters" destroyed an entire scientific animal facility (and this included releasing very special modified mice on the environment) some days ago. And sadly this is defo not an isolated case.

Who's hungry?

Exactly my point ......i did read all his msges and i stand corrected .....he is just here to argue regardless of the point.

Farzam, seriously seek therapy or get a job....look at the size of your msges which clearly shows u have no life beside arguing on forums and you spend more time just trying to defend something you don't even understand.

I agree with Corinna so no more replies from my side either....have a good one buddy.

Cheers

Sami,

Though I don't agree to all what Farzam writes, he contributes intelligently to the dicussion. So to slap him on the writst for that is not totally fair, but I'm sure he can defend himself fully well. It's getting a bit the same as the Israel palestine discussion which is extremely interesting as long as people keep their emotions under control. I'm reading this one to actually see the other side, since I strongly believed in small farms, local grown - but after schandale after schandale, starting to really believe that it's a big money making scheme, and my believe in doing right was mainly to satisfy my own feelings and fill the pockets of certain not totally correct people. 

There are enough documented cases where Monasanto goes wrong, but they also have done a lot of good. Just my 2 rappen...

Martin,

Sorry that you feel this way please let me explain the issue here. And kindly send me the source and proof of all the good you know Monsanto has done ? Good os a relative term just like profit....Since we are talking about a company lets deal it then that way. Lets put that good incomparision to bad then we can conclude if it was worth it...? If not we should shut it right ? 

We have 1000s of other issues not only related to farming but also areas like Banking, Pharma, Weapons Trade, Insurance, International Politics, Corruption etc …….  In other words we have a CLUSTER FUCK of problems to solve in this world but unfortunately NO cluster solutions so we can only fight one devil at a time.

I have been following this subject for a very long time and am aware of it deeply so I can assure you with proof NOTHING and absolutely nothing is good about what Monsanto or GMO companies are doing. If anything they are messing with environment and damaging the sustainable farming methods.

Problems:

- GMO crops are not good for health so there is a clear reason behind why they are fighting the labeling of food in US and other countries.

- Patent law is being abused to control the supply and bio diversity …if you read a bit into food / life patenting in US.

- Issues with their crops, you can read case files from India where a lot of farmers committed suicide because they lost their land by farming GMO seeds which made the soil / fields infertile for other seeds…… and crop failed which left them with debts which they couldn’t pay back.

- Monsanto spends over 8 billion a year buying seed companies in developing countries definitely not to help them.

- You can read farmer case files from Canada and US where Monsanto is abusing patent law and filing law suits against farmers even though there was only 1 bush or crop found on their land against their will but by pollination.

- Monsanto was the company behind DDT which marketed it as being safe for humans and now is banned completely in the west.

- Another gift from Monsanto is pesticides which do deposits in soil and are harmful to human health and is many cases farmers in France suffered irreversible brain damage when they accidently inhaled fumes from the fields.

- Referring to documentaries is not my preferred way but you can get some start with “ World According to Monsanto” and “Notre Poison Quotidiene”  (Wenn Essen krank macht- german title)

Food Inc

Like mentioned earlier we have number of problems and each problem has to be isolated and solved individually even though they might be connected but whenever there is enough evidence available we should act fast and sensibly so we don’t add more problems to existing issues.

Subject here is Monsanto and GMO crops. ( one problem out of millions)

Now what Farzam ( if you read his earlier msges) happen to claim:

He neglect to see why people react or raise eye brows when they hear about  Monsanto ? WHY ?   Since he is so intelligent and educated the concept of building trust has become foreign to him ……. company has a history of selling you things as safe and they never were e.g DDT, Round Up  Then there is burying of harmful chemical near villages and polluting water streams…..People don’t give you million chances  -  Fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice shame on me -  applies here very well.

GMO have a positive side and is doing good at some level with its faults (WRONG)  giving healthy people cancer and hiding behind labels can never do any good. If there was any positive side to it do you really think so many EU countries will collectively put a ban on them ?  WHY ? because they don’t like cheap products and tax money ? Please

Then he goes on about it is helping poverty stuck countries (WRONG) please take the time to read what Monsanto crop is doing in India  (poverty struck country) – Note: debt is also the cause but it is generated by false marketing to farmers assuring them that Monsanto seed is fail proof.

Being a Co-operation, it is impossible to leave out the Immoral aspect and there is a degree to which one can let go  but Monsanto’s moral compass is way off.

The list goes on but

Lastly he goes off point ……. takes an emotional machine gun starts shooting with 100 other issues to one problem but fail to see that out of 100000s of problem the topic is simply tackling one small area and all that argument does not belong under this heading.

 Sorry for this long ass message.

Cheers

thanks Sami, I find this highly interesting so will look for sure way more deeper into it, let me read through it. Have seen Food Inc. and was shocked. (was one of the reasons to buy local - so that I know what I get  - even though it's not always true). Will keep on reading!

Thank you Sami! 

And the movies you are mentioning are a very good way to dive into the topic!

Hope to see you on the 25th so :) 

DDT was actually originially designed in 19C, and then a Doctor won the noble prize in medicine which included his discovery that it was effective in killing insects. Used in WWII. One of the greatest minimisers of malaria. mass production start in the mid 40s by monsanto. So sure, let's say they invented it and not question why the US became the leading producer. (it is still used in many countries around the world despite the health implications)

Monsanto uses cross-breeding as well as gene insertion, which has lead to crops containing vitamins and healthy fats. In India where vitamin a deficiency blindness was(is to some extent) common, their gm maize contains the highly scarce vitamin a with a reduction of potnetially 20m cases.

In the 80s/90s Farmers would to produce maybe ~70 bushels of corn per acre and now they reach ~160. How do you think this happened? Through innovation, technology and science. BUT they use a third less nitrogen, saving in fuel due to a lower need to spray crops, shorter growing cycles, better quality of product. 88% of of cotton is now modified to resist pests and insecticide use has halved.

965m pounds of pesticide have not been used because of the the adoption of GM crops. This all leads to lower CO2 emissions especially when you think that fewer ploughings of a field releases less CO2. The estimations of the amount of CO2 emissions saved is up for discussion and very dependant on many factors but it is somewhere n the fields of 5-9m cars off the road per year.

Generally, technologies are judged on their net benefits, which is fair, but to overlook the good done and to repeatedly speak of things that are not the 'patient zero' of a situation is a waste of time. The whole point of regulation is to keep companies in order, and if you feel a company is bouncing to and from that line, then it is the government's fault. For example the US FDA does not require biotech companies to do premarket safety testing, so if a nut gene is introduced and could cause an allergic reaction then they would find out in the market. This is why you shouldn't be outside the companies doors with pitchforks and fire but the regulatory bodies and governments. The whole point of scientific experimentation is that you do a whole bunch of experiments and then take the ones that work, but having a regulatory body standing over to tell you that of the ones that 'work' you are only allowed to release x number of them is key. This is where the problem lies. How do you think smoking is legal!? It has no benefit apart from profit. And the downsides are far more severe than any GM crop has ever been proven to cause.

GM is the cornerstone of agricutlure, the wild cabbage was turned into brussel sprouts, broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower and kale.

And thanks for putting words in my mouth Sami, but of course I have my concerns (which I have mentioned previously) for example antibiotic-resistance genes which could end up being transferred to a pathogenic bacteria in us. There is still a lot of research to be done but to remove the whole research is counterproductive.

Generally speaking a lot of research has been done to find the harmful sides of gmos and most of them have been criticized by the scientific community for 'loading the dice' so I would rather keep an open mind to the idea rather than take the trend of picking on company and attacking them while several other companies carry on unwatched and unregulated.

Here is a classic example of misinformation and how quickly people jumped onto it and started shouting about it.
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121128.htm

My original point was that let's at least put benefits and downfalls of gm out there, and for people to realise that once/if monsanto falls, it certainly isnt the end and no real last benefit will occur. It's just taking out weed's flower, while leaving all the other buds and the roots in place.

Martin - thats all I wanted, is for people to get a sense that it isnt all one sided, like everything nowadays, what comes to light isnt the only thing in the shadows. Things this like paint GM and biotech as complete horrors when in fact we have happily used them in our lives but now it is being made into the zeitgeist scapegoat.

Sami - you seem far too onesided to take in most of what I'm saying. Oh and by the way, I am a scientist, I love scientific discussions and spending 20mins writing is not a chore, though reading it seems to be one for you. Maybe twitter is more your speed.

Wow guys, this is turning into a very interest thread. Thanks for posting! Really interesting from both sides on a subject I was quite unaware off. 

All very interesting, but (being European) the only post you really need to read is number 8, then go here - 

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/pressroom/docs/proposal_aphp_ia_en.pdf

It's not Monsanto "taking over the world" but Brussels.   (The place - not the vegetable, obviously.....).  If it all goes through, then "Bertie Basil & "Clive the Chive" on my balcony will be for the compost heap

Thanks, particularly to Farzam, for very interesting, articulated posts (except for #19 which just seems to be a personal attack/rant just because Farzam is bringing pro-Monsanto facts to the forum). 

Won't be attending the protest, but would be interested in the outcome, particularly as to how a successful outcome would affect those employed by the Monsanto office in Morges. 

And what's AMAZING is that no one came in and tried to turn it into a joke or try to force some picture of half-naked women into it(mentioning no names here )

Well done Glocallers for actually having an interesting,thoughtful,informative forum discussion!

I do not agree with anything you say not because i am ignorant or not open to ideas but i prefer to have it the safe way. Above all i believe we think of this as a race and going to fast without proper testing and evaluation of long term side effects. 

Now to your long messege again.....no formal proof of any kind just your words...please link to any studies or news which were published by reputed  sceince journal ? Or any research done by anyone not supported by Monsanto.

You talked so much but didnt say anything.... 2 most important question were not answered.

1. Why Monsanto refuses to properly Label their GMO food ? 

2. Why EU and many other countries have complete ban on most GMOs ?

I will rest my case with 2 statements:

Anything which outweighs  its downside does not need Lobbying

The day Monsanto labels their products properly stating contains GMO i will buy each and every product of Monsanto to consume daily.

Just to add i not not onesided and certainly not Dumb sided....

if someone wants me to consume their product they should be upfront and honest about what they are selling to me and not hide behind labels. All you have tried to do in the whole msg is to shift the blame from Monsanto to US and FDA to be short in setting up proper guidelines and free Monsanto of any moral responsibilty. For you it seems the bush is grown and that is it but you do not see how many billions are spent after in health care for problems caused by GMO crops. There are many government fund studies showing GMO bad for health and environement so i beg please show me one proper study and statistics conducted by an independent entity proving otherwise.

 i am sure you didn't follow through as short sighted you are that some of those people in India developed a cancer shortly after and died.

(I'm glad people are finding this interesting)

Of course the US and FDA are responsible. Companies around the world try to push the boundaries and if their respective regulatory bodies had stated that several years worth of testing would be needed and that no ill affects could show up, then and only then could they release anything for mass consumption. Think of this like the banking system. If the banks had strict regulations then we could avoided several recessions, but instead they did as they pleased and pushed us to the brink of anarchy. People go crazy at the bankers, but in reality maybe 20 people were in charge and in the end they were allowed to do what they like by the regulatory bodies. You wouldnt give gunmakers the same amount of attention, it is the government and those who use the guns. So it doesnt mean the banks are not to blame, but like naughty children, the buck stops with the parents.

Again you seem to think I am pro monsanto. Some people need reptition so i'll mention it again, I am not. I am pro-scientific exploration and innovation. I personally would do years of research before I released anything used by humans as history tells us that once in a while we get it very wrong. But the fact that they don't need to do this by law, means they are unlikely ever to do so. No company actively cuts deep into it's profits just for the sake of it (in this case the sake being health). Do you think companies that don't need to pay tax, choose to pay tax? It is all about regulation. We were using microwaves and mobile phones way before we knew the consequence. We were given cigarettes and still are, despite the fact that they are literally cancer sticks, people know this, see this on the packaging and continue to buy.

I dont think that gm food and biotechs will go away so we should at least regulate them, and that doesnt mean that companies like Monsanto are getting off the hook or attempting to...how did you put..' free Monsanto of any moral responsibility'. But thanks for putting words in my mouth again. The point is that the US and other governing bodies and regulatory bodies allow this to happen. The buck stops with them, at the end who has the final say? The lawmakers. Though them being corrupt is part of the problem otherwise Monsanto, guns & smoking would all be strictly regulated in the US. While in reality, until recently a US kid could more easily get their hands on a gun than a Kinder surprise egg.

I entirely agree that they should label things, and one of the main issues I have with this whole Monsanto thing is that uneducated (on the subject) people hear the current bad stories of GM and they are tainted against it. GM and biotech has not been and will not always be so tainted by greedy companies, and unfortunately we could be set back years. With this in mind, they know people have a flinch reaction to the word GM so putting that on food will harm sales. So I get why they dont want to, not necessarily means I like them or their attempts to sell but it's a marketing thing. 

In the end I think the current crops are not tested enough and like any drug, they should have to have several stages and tests done. But I promise you that until they are made to do so, we carry along on this road where large companies will slowly buy up smaller ones and it will get to the point where we literally have no control over what is being produced. Now tell me, how would you enforce that, through companies or lawmakers?

And please, if you insist on telling me what I have and have not missed, try steering clear of cancer as I worked for Oxford university doing cancer research, shortly after working for 2 maxillofacial cancer surgeons. I fully understand the repercussions of our environment and our choices. Guess why most of the patients were there...smoking.

Very well put by you  "some people need repitition" so i repeat i did ask for sceintific studies n proof of advantages you mentined earlier and not your opinion and twice you just wrote huge ass msges of just blah blah blah giving cross example of how we failed on other fronts. I just need sceintific studies to back up all positive claims you made regarding GMO to make up my own mind so please if u have them just share otherwise i stand corrected that u just argue to argue.

Monsanto is part of corruption and it is clear they want to bend the law so they don't have to label the product. We made a big mistake with tabacco so it should not be repeated but i don't have anything against tabacco now nor all those over the counter drugs which come with 3 pages of side effects so u can well imagine how much side effects does GMO has that they are fighting against the labelling.

Tabacco is known to cause cancer ....correct and why do we know it because it is labelled and we can see it ...it is traceable and that is what GMO companies are worried about that once it is labelled it will be traceable and we will have alot of data to compare n see. So you can well imagine what kind of side effects are awaiting us down the road. 

The choice should be ileft on us to consume or not but by not labelling you take away that choice which STINKS

So are you writing these papers to get them published ?  Do you have scientific proof  whatsoever for all those arguments you made earlier ? 

Read my first reply to you where i mentioned i stopped reading your mag because i have a good idea when someone is just shooting shit but i thought may be and just may be he has some good info.......

Damn i can't believe that u wasted all of our time with your baseless arguments (opinions)

Really shame on you.....

Africa is a country, although your point is well noted. I am very much in agreeance with your suggestion many people jumping the gun actually know the basic facts of GM food production the overwhelming arguement of its benefits and the scaremongering surrounding it.

Well I'm glad you started this discussion with 'get a job or get a life' for spending time on here and then proceed to chastise me for not responding to you in less than 24hrs. And then tell me you dont have time to read, and once someone shows you up for all of that, suddenly you give it 100% of your attention.
The lady doth protesteth too much me thinks.

So I'll start with the fact that I had put a link in at the very beginning from an article showing several accounts from differing sides of the argument. This included people in the pro-column including Dr's, The chairman of the UK FDA (Sir John KRebs), Dr Norman Borlaug (nobel prize winner), here it is again, it has people on both sides.
It might be PBS who made the article but their references are still true.

The reason I gave 

Then I'll give you examples which are universally known, like any animal we currently eat. All of them have been genetically modified. None of them originally where like that before agricultural engineering took place. Do you think they look like that before? Cows are now montrous meat and milk machines. 

And on that topic I give you the low allergen cow - http://www.pnas.org/content/109/42/16811

The transgenic papaye of Hawaii and now further afield (exports to canada too)
http://www.apsnet.org/publications/apsnetfeatures/Pages/papayaringspot.aspx

A blue rose was genetically modifed as it does not occur naturally. This is sold worldwide now...I think originally by Florigene but I'm not sure about that

Taliglucerase alfa, a plant derived enzyme is used to used to treat Gaucher's disease. And is FDA approved. 
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/05/first-plant-made-drug-on-the-market.html

Fumonisins are toxins made by fungi, carreid by insects that can then grow in crops that these insects go to. Test have shown that this can cause cancer in animals. In areas where people consume more corn (eg s.africa,china, italy), there are higher occurences of oesophageal cancer, which is associated to fumonisins. Corn treat with Bt (bacillus thuringiensis) contain lower levels of fumonisins, which when inserted will have the same effect.

Bt (bacillus thuringiensis) has been used for decades as an insecticide (used a lot for keeping the 'corn borer' out of crops.

We use gm for encoding fluorescence proteins to be physically linked to mammalian genes and therefore co-expressed. They help identify sought after proteins or systems in the body, which is used for many different biological sectors including medicine. We have used RNA interference for years in genomics, medicine and biotechnology.

 So there is a host of situation where use gm everyday and it is widely accepted and applauded.

The funny thing is, you are more bent on making sure I am wrong, than seeing that there are so many potential benefits. For example the transgenic papaye was used to ride areas of infection, and then they could carry on growing non-transgenic papaye as well, and in fact the crop yields for non-transgenic papaye increased. As they could coordinate between transgenic and non transgenic, so fencing off the available virus innoculum, and having safe zones. So it might not the positives that you expected but that is exactly my point. Because you are so anti-GM, you cant see any positives and this is an infectious mentality spreading through people who do not know enough and are not willing to know more.

'The day Monsanto labels their products properly stating contains GMO i will buy each and every product of Monsanto to consume daily.' - Sami - post 26.

So you claim to be anti gm, anti monsanto, but it really is only a matter of labelling for you. Interesting.

Once you put your ego to one side and stop trying to be the big man here, telling me to 'get a life', 'get a job', that I am talking rubbish, telling me I am wrong...sorry 'WRONG', and that i'm 'shooting shit' and have 'baseless arguments (opinions)'. After you stop all this you might actually see that I'm trying to have a discussion, you are just trying to argue (as has been highlighted by others). 

You have been eating GM for years, knew you were and didnt care, but the latest round of GM has been highly unregulated and suddenly all gm is the devil. It's just the next phase of GM. 

I have issues with it, but I can see the positives and the negatives, if we had let the negative nancys stop us, then where would we be on stem cell research, possibly one of the greatest chances we have on a lot of problems and diseases. It is all about testing and regulation. Not about one company.

You seem to have a GM bee in your bonnet. If you keep arguing in this way, you just lose the essence of your comments. And in the end you will come across as someone arguing like a politician/car salesman than being in a scientific discussion.

People have commented on how interesting this is, and therefore by that alone I havent wasted anyones time with my 'baselss...shit'. Especially as this page went a week without a comment, and now we have many commenters (though mostly us two ) and many many views.

Charles Dapaah - Thanks  there should be an 'in' between the words, but thanks, it shows you are reading with focus 

Ah - you spoke to soon, buzzcocks.  

Farzam has been "trying" to have an "interesting, thoughtful, informative forum discussion" Even if you don't agree with everything he says, you can't dispute the eloquence with which he says it and his research.  

Sami, on the other hand, seems to be turning it into a one-sided rant, rebuking everything he says, contradicting himself and using vulgar (U.S.) "F"-this and "Ass"-that language.

Shame - but I'm out of here.  Hitting the "unsubscribe" button now. 

If eating GM food gives me hair as thick as Farzam's then I would do it.

I mean look at it! You can't see a TRACE of scalp through his hair line.

Haha be careful what you wish for. My eyebrows were once described as the coming together of two hairy caterpillars... 

Surely Carolyn is expert on this subject ...just didn't see her input to the arguments. 

Farzam, so good you provide some sources let me go through the info and i will come back to you tomorrow..

Cheers 

Maybe that's because HE doesn't wear a woolly hat ....indoors

So I'm back.  But just because of Sami's comment which a friend forwarded to me with the comment "WTF - can you believe this guy". 

Sami - I have never EVER said I'm an expert on any subject related to this post. I have never posted any opinion other than whether or I do or do not agree with the content of yours and/or Farzam's posts. (That's called diplomacy btw.)

I don't need to "input to the arguements" because I don't have an arguement - I am only interested in Corrina G's original discussion and the opinions mouthed thereafter.

I suggest you may want to consider some anger management courses, before you post anything else.

Peace out and try to stay calm, cool. respectful and eloquent in all that you say and do - you will gain much more respect that way.  Attack is not an option in a win/win situation.  "Just sayin'" as you probably like to say on your side of the pond......

And I would like to add - Friends, Romans and Countrymen - please feel free NOT to forward me any more of these posts, because I don't think it's a healthy, conducive, constructive, or a contribution to any of these posts - wisely and intelligently started by Corinna G - you're not doing the original poster any favours. 

Really.

Carolyn....please go back n read your msges.

Let me please enlighten you how it sound outside your own head.

You didn't contribute to the argument nor you demonstrated any knowledge of the subject.....just walk in gave your verdict of what you find interesting and  left.

Your agreement without any sound facts to relate to or back it up with is useless.  It's like a junkie on the street giving his opinion on how Benz should manufacture their cars.

I am sorry i am not interested in your opinion nor care what you find interesting but if you have facts or knowledge of the subject please share.....

You are one piece of work you know.....u are a type of person who always wants to have a last say....you mentioned that i contradict myself, bash my argument n left ???? If you are to say something like that then point out exactly what u r refering too. Now you came back again to bash me then pointing out again that you don't want any one to tell you about my reply.

Please don't and do us all a favor sk we can stick to the subject.

I don't have an anger problem i am allergic to bullshit ahem ahem ppl like u :) 

so enjoy your night 

Dude I would take that deal any day.

This thread is absolutely hysterical and hilarious. Here is why I am laughing my ass off.

FACTS:

(1) There are NO GMO products for sale or consumption in Switzerland. Not even for animal feed. None in Germany either or most European nations for that matter. 

(2) Monsanto sells no ( nada, kein, nyet, zero, nessuno) products in Switzerland..... or Germany for that matter.

(3) Monsanto's "Round-up Ready" product line is not made or sold for human consumption. These products are only allowed to be used in animal feed products in the USA.  If they are used otherwise in some countries it's only because of local corruption. They were never designed for human consumption. 

(4) Organic fruits and vegetable have no nutritional value advantage over GM fruits and vegetables. The science has been done. They just often times taste better and give some people a psychologically driven warm, happy and fuzzy feeling. 

(5) GM seeds are designed to have higher yields and longer freshness life.  So hence, they feed more people with significantly less land use and capital investment. This brings down the costs to make more fruits and vegetables affordable to lower income families. Organic produce is nice. And I love it. But it's very expensive and uses a lot more land to generate the same yield. It also rots quicker, creating considerable food waste. 

Of course we can debate the value of providing the opportunity of affordable fresh food to the poor. However it's my general opinion that it's a good thing to offer more choice and food freedom to everyone. And I would like to see more comprehensive labeling for the sake of food education and awareness. It's important to take into account that the population of the world is exploding, especially in Asia and in the Muslim world,  and more food will be needed every year on an exponential level. Organic farming is not going to feed the world in the long term......Sorry..  It's simple mathematics. But hey...at one time some people thought the world was flat....right?.. Clearly math isn't for everyone. 

Now I am in agreement that Monsanto is a hardcore profit machine bent on achieving maximum market share worldwide. I have worked with them in the past. So I am speaking from experience. And I was really bummed when they won that big court case in Indiana this past week. Because I was really rooting for the little farmer guy.  But I am very confused why anyone who is not even remotely affected by their business (i.e. just about everyone in Europe and especially those living La Dulce Vita in Sweeeetzerland!) would give a rats ass. And even if they did for some odd reason. Why protest in Zurich or Bern? Seriously, because WIPO is held every year in Geneva. The world press attends that event. It's doubtful that anyone but a local Marxists blogger or a local op-ed writer will cover these demonstrations. Seems to me that it's was amateur hour at the last 'Protest For The Sake of Protesting' planning pow-wow. 

This whole thing sounds completely Short Bus. But I am sure that some folks will still want to ride. After all, it takes all kinds to make this world go round. 

For those who joined the march, thanks a lot! I was a huge success. Peaceful, calm and over 400 participants in Zurich. 

I will not comment the last post. For those who know the facts they will find the mistakes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VEZYQF9WlE

It was a huge success! Ah, we need an editing function here...

Not forgotten this thread.

To Farzam, read most of the pages on the link....nothing concrete so i leave you with this final link to close the argument ...you be the judge if the benefits by any means out weight the downside. If FDA n USDA are dropping the ball what is the choice left ? Take matters in our own hand and create awareness plus boycott to purchase food containing GMO.

This is what you call a valid source:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/07/09/100122123/index.htm

To Roman, not generalizing just stating a fact Americans are known to have short sighted thinking .....now read you comment and think a bit.

1. Just because it is not happening here doesn't mean it won't. Since we are Just doing good it doesn't mean we stop giving a fuck about rest of the world.

2. GMO are sold in America without any labels (round up is not the discussion point here)

3. It s true that GMO is not sold directly in most Europeon Countries but if you take packed supermarket stuff containng soya or corn ...you can surely find traces.

4. Purpose of the demonstration was to create awareness n i am pleased to say it was a success in Bern as well you could people reading the banners ( lips reading STOP MONSANTO) and i alone was approached by 8 ppl to ask what Monsanto was. 

5. I witnessed people taking out their iphone to check  and you could  just see name Monsanto n the protest sparked the curiousity.

6. I don't know from where or how you get your facts but we don't have food issues.....we have enough land n enough ppl to grow it take out the big corp n let the man earn profit you will that kids of future might want to do a masters in farming. 

Anyways, pointless to argue as you won't get it.

Cheers

Sami

This. It would really be great to be able to edit one's own posts!

A video from Dusty Smith about Monsanto.

Don't watch it, if you don't want to hear curses.

Sure ....here in Europe Channels for example Arte n many others are making documentaries about Monsanto n airing them to public. So I ask if the information is false how come Monsanto has not sued them yet for reputation damage ? 

Plus this link and many more http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/07/09/100122123/index.htm

OK, I read though four pages of an article you linked with the title: "Attack of the mutant rice" and in the end, the "Attack of the mutant rice" was as efficient as the October 2012 attack on Washington DC by a group of maurauding Smurfs. No harm done.

There is, not only with GMOs but in many fields a huge disparity between what "the public" thinks and what the experts believe. Public believe in god or gods, scientist don't. Public believes in a young earth and god-guided creation on man, biologists don't. Public believes in homeopathy and don't like immunisation even though doctors deny the effect of homeophathy, acupuncture etc. and know that immunisation works well.

The public fears GMOs even though the facts do not support their fears. The public accuses pesticide of killing bees, even though there is no scientifical evidence.

Dusty is no scientist. And I strongly disagree with him about the existance (not the divinity) of the historical Jesus. But like him, I trust the experts, like Richard Dawkins who think it is retarded to destroy rice which could feed millions because there is an unfounded fear of possible harm.

Alan, it is a subject very dear to me and i am not asking any one to believe me.....

Look science is not complete and specially bio-tech since by the time you realize the damage is already late...no need to go far but same experts once said : Agent Orange, PCB, Ciggerates, DDT, Lead in Fuel  all was safe so excuse the public if they don't take their word this time around.. 

Different area but governed in same manner: Pharma

Pharma (experts)  - my father in law is spending last 20 years in clinic because at the time of his illness they thought Tamesta pills were the solution...now they don't prescribe them like that because they destroy the person after a while but where are those experts to take the bill and responsibility? 

I had my brush with doctors n experts when my daugther was born...did you know that every kid is injected with Vitamin K mins after the birth with dosage 2000 -3000 times more than the body needs because 1 out of 100'000  MAY yes u read it right may die with blood clot. So if u deny it they are very rude to u that u might as well kill your kid so i said to those experts sure i will inject my daughter with Vitamin K but since you are such an expert would you sign that if it is proven harmfull in 5 yrs time you will liable for it ? U think some of these experts would ?

without getting too much off topic believe but sometimes try to see beyond just the words and recognize the bull shit. 

I don't wish to discuss this more but will surely read your say or reply if you any.

iphone not the best to write msges

Sami, the question there is of public health... Just like wearing belts on the car. So many things are done nowadays pro-society, without asking your opinion, and when you target millions of people, obviously the 0.01% reacting in odd ways will still be a significant proportion. Luckly i just work with cells in a dish, it's scarry making public policies, but they need to be done.

As for collateral effects of drugs.... Unfortunately, same as I said before applies. Approval of drugs it's an amazingly costly, regulated and long process, and although the last phase screens around 5000 people, it's impossible to spot all the nocive effects of a drug (because it'll happen in only a very small % of people or will cause damage only much later or in special situations, like pregnancy :s)

We kinda pay for the benefits of advanced medicine. i just doubt any person would prefer the model of 100 years ago. But in a sense, everyone can decide to do not go to doctors and not take drugs, n'est-ce pas? Same as for all this OGM discussion. Monsanto is not obliging anyone to buy their seeds. Besides, most governments have a kind of agricultural agency (well, at least, Brazil does) that promotes public research and provides new technologies freely.

I know this is already long, but just to remind people that every single piece of thing we eat has been modified by genetic selection (in natura for thousands of years or in lab, in a much quicker way), and that OGMs are essential for our way of life nowadays (diabetic people should know, their insulin dosis is coming from modified bacteria...)

Wanessa, i agree with some of the points you mentioned above.

We have mutiple subjects going on at the same time so a long msg :) sorry

Monsanto is not obliging anyone to buy their seeds ...because it doesn't need too. I give you a simple example: you own a shop and u sell product A for 1 dollar now i (monsanto) set up my shop opposite you and sell the so called product A for 0.50 cents and on top sell it to your clients ...you will be out of business in no time but wait a minute how about i tell u how i can sell it for so cheap ...what would be your logical decision as a business person adapt my ways of doing things ..et voila 

Also, like i mentioned above public trust has been breached many times before .....it is very hard to gain it back. It is also the way Monsanto is doing it...figthing the labeling of GMO ....Aspirin comes with a list of 2 dozen side effects so how come they don't want to apply the same to GMO give people the choice.

I for one do not rely on medicine ....in Switzerland you will often find 2-3 Apotheke at one corner with each 5-6 employees that tells me at least that we are getting more sick everyday. I am not doubting at all the benefits of medical advancements but i am just saying that it could be a vicious cycle .... Would you say we have more obesity nowadays ? People consuming more artificial food and chemicals everyday ? So they get more sick and in turn we need more medical advancement to fix that but we are not paying attention to the root cause.

I never claimed, that science is always right, nor that scientists are always telling the truth nor that they are all ethical.

Nor does this apply to companies or industries.

BUT! scientists have always been proven wrong by other scientists. Scientists showed, that cigarettes are harmful. Scientists showed that DDT has negative effects that might outweigh the positive effects.

So do the science and prove, within reasonalbe doubt, that GMOs are the devil.

I agree with Vanessa that we live in a world, where advances have been made, that wouldn't have been thought possible 100 years ago. I just watched "The Tudors" about King Henry VIII. He was the head of one of the mightiest nation at that time but lacked medical care that many people in third-world countries have today.

It is not that I could not imagine negative effect of GMOs, but I am not convinced by snake-oil-salesmen as I am not conviced by preachers or other charlatans, as if those were not also selling a product...