More information can be found here along with the film in other languages including French, Portugeuse, Romanian and Spanish:

http://www.seedsoffreedom.info/take-action/download/

No surprise your post got ignored - Glocals forum posters seem to be largely people who work for big corporations  doing ignoble things around the world.

Hi Kevin, very important  debate

I have a very interesting film but in french  ( Le monde selon Montsanto) that I could lend you, if you are interested ...

and another references for films conected with this issue (  I have to search in my files)  let me know is you  would like to have more information.

I'm looking the film that you propose tomorrow and I'll be back

 Kind regards

Rosa

great film ( in spanish)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO9SbuXIcTc

Rosa

Hi Kevin,

Interesting topic. You might be interested to read this book (alas in French) editd by the CETIM (Europe-Third World Center, an NGO based in Geneva). It's called "Intellectual proprety vs. biodiversity" and reviews some worrying aspects of GMO culture industry and harmful effects of patents applied to living organisms. I was shocked to learn that although only one of the fourty most consumed grains/seeds in the world is originary from wesern countries, ALL of the patents belong to western companies, literally stealing to South countries their chances of earning benefits of hundreds and thousands of years they spent selecting varieties and setting up useful argriculture techniques and knowledge. One famous example is Basmati rice, which patent is owned by an American company instead of Indian people for example.

http://www.cetim.ch/en/publications_ouvrages/174/la-propriete-intellectuelle-contre-la-biodiversite-geopolitique-de-la-diversite-biologique

There is a lot of scaremongering about GMOs.  If you search for reliable information from scientific sources you get a much different view.

By the way, Monsanto has one third of the revenue and employees of Coop Switzerland.  Hardly a "giant corporation" as you called it!

Does Coop Switzerland use the kind of 'Monsanto bully boy' tactics seen in this video against shoppers that go to Migros?  I think if they did it would be called intimidation!

By the way, Monsanto has one third of the revenue and employees of Coop Switzerland.  Hardly a "giant corporation" as you called it!

Can you clarify? 

Scary stuff. We as consumers must take action. To start with, don't by their dangerous pestidcide

Round up

As my use of the term 'giant corporation' is causing some concern I will withdraw the word 'giant' and just call it Monsanto corporation.

Thanks for your response unfortunately my knowledge of French is rather limited to be able to fully comprehend an article like this but thank you anyway for the thought.

Thank you to everyone who has read the post and a big thank you to those of you who made a comment and added to the debate on this significant topic.  To be factually correct, Monsanto are not the only company in the world promoting the use of GMO technology in food and agriculture, there are several including DuPont, Sygenta etc.  I am sure it will not be the end of the subject as the fight for the rights of farmers to plant their own 'saved' seeds and consumers to know what they are eating is ongoing around the world.  People must continue to demand the right to know if the food they are eating is GMO by the use of labelling.  If GM is to be placed in the food chain then the consumer has the right to make an informed choice and thus it is essential that products for human consumption are clearly and correctly labelled.  In that way people can either take the product that has been genetically modified or leave it on the shelf and pick up the product that has not.

If Mosanto can get into Africa, Africa will be used to feed the world!

Hm... outrage always comes easy.

consider this: two developments enabled mankind to feed the 7+ billion people living on this planet now:

- the tractor

- fertilisers 

since the growth of mankind seems somewhat unstoppable, it looks like a good idea to research and find new ways to increase the productivity and efficiency of food production.

how about looking at the Monsanto controversy as growing pains?

How about aiming your outrage in the right direction. Who allows the corporations to do all this...? 

I love the term 'put pressure on' like it somehow takes the blame away from those in power. If anything it shows how unsuited they are for the political field.

Monsanto is also credited with :

DDT - now banned worldwide

Agent Orange - chemical warfare agent used by the US in Vietnam, but other countries use other chemical weapons ?? OMG let's oblitereate thse uncivilised tyrants !!

PCB's - now also banned worldwide

What other company has such an enviable track record ?  And you are believing Monsanto's hard sell today on OMG's . . . sooner or later we'll see them banned as well . . .

Tractors do not change nature, OMG's and Monsanto do !  Ever ask yourself what is perhaps behind the grotesque obesity problem in the US ?  . . .  think hormones in cattle, OMG's food products, when McDonalds is called a restaurant . . . would you take your family there for a meal ??  where the portion is the key factor, not the taste and nor the quality of the product nor nutritional value !

Thanks Monsanto.

'Thanks Monsanto' - hilarious. This is like the rednecks in the US shouting 'Thanks Obama' for everything they can find to be wrong.

As I stated, it is the regulators and people in governing power who are to blame. Think of the companies as mischievious children and the regulators as the parents. The more lax you are, the more the kids will run riot and do whatever they can get away with.

Now you are looking at a 5 year old, and thinking 'Jeez, that 5 year old kid is so badly behaved & evil!' when you should be looking at the 'parent' and thinking 'well you've fucked this up royally, havent you? Shouldn't you be controlling this situation?'

By the way Poster - would be interesting to see what you accept from science and what you don't, because even slight 'engineering' on a biological level has been happening longer than you've been alive.

it seems that you're making my point: all those chemicals being banned... That's what I meant by growing pains.

Science and technology will always push the envelope, but it is only after a while of those pushed envelopes being around that we realise the side effects.

oh and btw: DDT is back in limited use in malaria infested areas, BUT with the knowledge of past mistakes, dosages and applicability are carefully monitored.

The word bioengineering was only recently coined by British scientist and broadcaster Heinz Wolff in 1954.

The bioengineering undertakings of Monsanto and other co's have NOT been around that long, which is about as long as I have been around.

What riles me are the dirty tactics undertaken by such companies as Monsanto in order to force their way onto the market, and in particular Monsanto which is known to be virulent and despicable. 

Would I buy "Round-up" ? - I'd like to in order to quickly and (seemingly) painlessly kill my weeds, but on principle NO . . . so I just pull at the roots - works just as effectively !!

More discussion on Monsanto and GMO - political pressure vs scientific investigation    

http://youtu.be/LSDEkoPwMfk

http://responsibletechnology.org/docs/BabyFoodCampaignBroch.pdf

http://youtu.be/4mfyyYljsAQ

Kevin, please:

Infowars show as a credible source? Alex Jones himself admits that he's a conspiracy theorist...

On your second source: I have nothing against Jeffrey Smith, I believe consumer activism to be a good and necessary thing. I just wished that J.Smith would use less hyperbol and more verifiable facts, lol. But I guess he has to do that to secure funding...

And again: Sad truth is that humanity has this strong tendency to lock the stable door after the horse has bolted, i.e. we will only know if there are dangers associated with genetically manipulated foodstuffs once some have become seriously ill/died from it.

Hi Olaf,

Yes I know that infowars has somewhat of a reptation that precedes it LOL but I think that GMO campaigners find it difficult to get access to the main corporate owned press channels so in this case Jeffrey Smith has used the outlet that is available to him.  I fully agree in relation to your comment about bolting the door after the horse has bolted but unfortunately this has happened as a direct result of insufficient testing of GMO crops prior to their introduction to the food chain.  I have seen discussion by scientists who say that GMO has its place but that it should not have been allowed into the food system without proper testing and with the backing of the US Government and the FDA bio-tech food has been fast tracked into the food chain and we will only see the full effect of this on the health of human beings in the years to come.  Food allergies in children and adults seem to be increasing and if you watch the whole video presentation from Mr Smith you will see that he addresses that point in it and how GMO crops may have had a part in that.  We are lucky to live in Europe and not in the USA that if for sure.

We all make decisions every day as to what we eat and what we buy so I feel it is only right to give people the information for them to be to make an informed choice - simple as that. 

If politicians and businesses like Monsanto are allowed to dictate what we know about our food then it is a very sad day for humanity.  Why when 9/10 Americans want GMO labelling does the Government not make it happen?  Why is the GMA (Grocery Manufacturers Association) in America spending substantial sums of money to lobby politicians and legally oppose GMO labelling?  They know that foods with GMO labelling will be left on the shelf by the American consumer. Organisations like http://justlabelit.org/ are campaiging hard for open food labelling so that shoppers can make an informed choice in the store.  If 9 out of 10 people voted politicians would have to stand up and take notice but large Corporations and Superpac money has destroyed American politics and people are pre-occupied with all the other things they have to do in life so do not find the time to fight and sit back and hope that the government and the food standards departments do the right thing on their behalf.  Anyway you can watch the video and we can aree to differ on it's contents but at least there is debate on a subject that will effect the lives of everybody over the years to come.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/29/food-giants-pour-millions_n_4175592.html

Hi again Kevin,

although I couldn't agree more that things inside our food should be labeled outside, I'm afraid it's of absolutely no use: 2.4 billion people give away information about themselves every day on the internet. Even when told over and again about the dangers this entails (that's the labelling in this analogy), they blissfully ignore such warnings and merrily go about publishing details about their private lives that can so easily be used against them to the detriment of their sanity, financial and otherwise.

So the only ones that would read and take GMO labelling serious, are the ones that are already campaigning for it; the rest either dont care or dont have neither access to the internet nor labelled foodstuffs to start with.

Now, don't call me cynical just because I've seen horses throw up, and that in front of the pharmacy (lol)!

I agree that a lot of people carry on and do things either not caring or not knowing but that is life and you might say the lasiness of modern day human beings.  That is why it is so difficult to fight obesity in society - we all know we should get more excercise and eat our 5 a day but how many people do it?  Food labelling I believe is a consumer right and if the lazy are not prepared to fight for it then those that have the energy, time and will to do it will have to take on that task.  If we leave it to big business and politicians we are all doomed.   I am sure people will say, vote out the politicians that you do not like.  And yes, I fully agree with that sentiment. But and there is a but here, the political parties are becoming so similar due to the success of lobbying money and vested interests, I guess, that it is difficult to find someone who agrees with people's views on these important issues.  If a politician does agree come election time he sure as hell will not once he has your vote and is elected.  The Greens are the only party in Europe that really take a stand on environmental issues but they rarely get enough of the vote to make much difference.  In the UK the parties are now so aligned that you never really know who is in power as they all push through similar policies.  They all back the money and whilst they screw the voter for as much as they can get from taxes etc they let the likes of Amazon and Starbucks pay tiny amounts of tax on billions of euro turnover by leaving convenient loopholes in the tax laws to allow corporations to drive a bus through.  Am I a Communist - no I am not but the balance between the people and big business has changed to the detriment of everyone but the few who control it and that has to change or there will be serious social unrest in many areas of the world, Europe included.  GMO is one discussion that I believe shows the extent of Corporate power over elected Government but this power of the Corporations over the population of countries like America and the democratically elected Government set to serve has become unsustainable and the citizens are starting to realise this. Switzerland has it right I think as the citizen has the power of the vote on important subject and the government has to sit up and listen - the rest of use are left to discuss and become consumer activists to try and get things changed.  Anyway that is enough from me on my soap box, the sun is shining outside and I am going to go out and enjoy it.

Brilliant.

In response to your comments about politicians and regulators being the real problem - yes you are right, I agree with your point. This article from 2012 highlights some of the overlaps and you could rightly say, 'conflict of interest', between US Government departments under the Obama administration and big business.  It makes for an interesting read especially when you see where the people with the business ties are placed in Government - the FDA and the USDA!  Positions like that would certainly open doors for a company's product when you have your own people sitting on the other side of the desk!

http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-controls-both-the-white-house-and-the-us-congress/5336422

What about reading what science says about GMOs?  You know, science.  The thing that really tells us how reality works -- not hoaxes, urban legends, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and misinformation crackpots in general.

Refreshing! Thanks! Hope this gives closure to this debate...

(but then again: isn't it hope that dies last?)

I'll come back to this at some point no the general discussion but the PDF for keeping GMOs away from children is on a par with the autism/vaccination hysteria, in other words, shameful. Using children to drive a political/ideological point is incredibly low. (it actually states that they generally eat more than adults! Sure,my 1 year old cousin constantly eats me under the table...)

Which leads me to the video of the 'girl giving the guy a verbal smackdown about gmo's"
- Golden Rice does work, and more importantly it's constantly being improved.
- Her calculations are based on the first strains and still off!
- When you say you are completely against GMOs of all varieties (be it food or non-food), you can't really be trusted in the debate, especially if you complete ignore or misuse information. (would be trust someone who says science is a sham during a discussion on a particular science?)
- The guy interrupting the 'debate' aka the host should be shot for his show and the painful editing. Firstly he is about as unbiased as hitler re: jews, and secondly he is twisting and warping the discussion. The difference between people with the knowledge and experience of factual debate, tend not to be hyperbolic or lose their cool. 

If anything is clear from most of the 'anti-gm' sources, they are hyperbolic, unverfiable and inconsistant. 

I am not entirely on one side, but I f**king hate misinformation parading around as fact.

To speak of politicians and regualtions and the pressure for funding. If you really gave a damn, you would take up a science degree and force your way into a political party and drive for the changes you want to see. Anything below this will do nothing. If you believe that money has made them all corrupt, then the only thing you can do is get your hands dirty yourself and no armchair activism will bring about any real change. 

The funny thing is that the reverse of the 'we will see the effects in ourselves' is that if you had nothing or GM, what would you do? Zambia decided to let them millions starve rather than take GM aid. What happened next? All those anti-GM folks ran around covering their backs like it was second nature.

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/about/greenpeace-gm-food-aid-and-zambia

This is why all this uneducating, hysterical 'debating' has lead to people flat out saying no to something they couldnt even explain if given access to the internet.

If you dont believe me, just look at the outbreaks of different diseases like measles in the US due to parents not vaccinating their children. Why? my answerr to that will have this post sensored. 

(i didnt have time to find the link I wanted, but this gives you a clear enough indicator and can all be checked as they luckily source everything)

For those commenting so far in an anti-gm fashion, please don't take this the wrong way, I am here to discuss but prefer to clear out the haziness (the newly accepted trend of not having repeatable studies/facts) in a debate about science. In fact I am glad this is being discussed.

(So clearly I didnt want to come to the general discussion later  - apologies all)

Oh and Kevin - agreed to some extent on the political front, but the only real solution I can think of is having the same rules that apply to lawyers and those relating to law (police etc):

You break the law, you can no longer practise law.

So if a politician says they will do something and break that promise when they could have followed through, they should be banned from politics. Why do we allow the least trustworthy to hold these positions. The penalty needs to be so severe that you would think thrice before trying anything.

They would drop like flies. 

I have lawyer friends who genuinely fear the possibility of accidentally or stupidly doing something that could have them careerless, and rightly so.

Thought this might be interesting to post in this forum - there is a political pressure group in the UK called 38 degrees and this group boasts a lot of members so much so that Government is starting to sit up and listen to their lobbying.  On the back of one such petition an 'early day motion' has been put forward in parliament, if passed it would allow voters to call for their elected member of parliament to be recalled and potentially voted out of position. 

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/business-papers/commons/early-day-motions/edm-detail1/?session=2014-15&edmnumber=25