13 thoughts on “Monsanto: Seeds of Death


  1. Think healthy clean island, sign this petition…remember that right now Monsanto own most of the seeds in the word and they do also own many many companies that produce seeds…we need to have out own seeds. THE WORLD IS TALKING ORGANIC…WE SHOULD NOT BE LEFT BEHIND FOR MONSANTO TO DUMP WHAT OTHERS DO NOT WANT ON TO THIS ISLAND OR THE REST OF THE CARIBBEAN.

    http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/CLEAN_UP_BARBADOS_NO_TO_MONSANTO_YES_TO_ORGANIC/?fcAByeb&pv=2

  2. PLANTATION DEEDS FROM 1926-2013 AND SEE MASSIVE FRAUD ,LAND TAX BILLS AND NO DEEDS on said:

    Barbados need not to import , if any made it in , they need to be pulled.Remember 1 billion must die, and none of them are white.


  3. Interesting thing how The GM seed pushing corporations intentionally avoid allowing independent scientists access to their patented, proprietary seeds to run independent tests and experiments outside the influence of these same agri-business corporations. If they do grant access to seeds to run an experiment they will be sure to have the final say on if the results of the tests can be made public. If the test results as are not to their liking they’ll forbid the publishing of the report. That’s a good approach from a business point of view if your are trying to sell the crap, but definitely its a puzzle to understand how this is supposed to be considered good science.

    Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?
    Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end
    By the Editors (Scientific American)

    Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.

    To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.

    Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering.

    More at::
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research


  4. When independent scientists do find health problems in lab animals fed GM food, the scientists who kick up a stink about the experiments being invalid because of procedural errors, incorrect protocols etc. usually have a monetary stake in making a buck from GM themselves, but what’s interesting is they have absolutely no interest in re-running the experiments (e.g. long term feeding trials greater than 90 days) to prove that the stuff is really safe and the initial results detecting cancers and all sorts of adverse health implications really were invalid and can legitimately be ignored.

    Just trust us they say, we know what we are doing. If it’s safe you can take our word for it that it really is safe. But wait a minute, if they are so smart as to how this GM technology works, how come Monsanto’s “scientists” couldn’t figure out that their GM wheat traits were liable to show up in supposedly non-GM wheat in another location 9 years after their limited GM wheat trials were completed and, according to them, after the GM wheat in the test plots was destroyed. So maybe they aren’t quite as smart as they would like us to think,

    Interestingly enough it was the “anti-scientific”, “luddite” GM critics who tried to warn that it was a truly stupid decision to allow open air trials of test GM crops because there was no way to guarantee the spread of the GM traits beyond the boundaries of the test plots could be properly controlled to avoid contaminating other similar crops.

    Unfortunately at some point another mistake or oversight in releasing GMOs into our food supply could turn out to be catastrophic for humanity. For example Monsanto owns rights to a strain of GM corn called Epicyte that when eaten causes irreversible sterility by attacking and killing the male sperm in anyone who has consumed the corn. Suppose an “innocent mistake” lets that out into the wild to propagate among some country’s corn crops.

    Finally, you should know that not all scientists are satisfied with the claims that that the experiments run by molecular biologist Seralini in France which detected increased cancer rates and other adverse health effects from one strain of Monsanto’s GM corn in lab rats fed that corn can be ignored as the GM industry would like us to believe.

    From the Seralini web site:

    Following the publication of Séralini’s 2012 study on the health effects of GM NK603 maize and Roundup,1 the editor of the journal that published the paper was bombarded with letters from GM proponents demanding that the paper be retracted. But hundreds of scientists have publicly supported the study and researchers.

    Many of those driving the campaign to get Séralini’s paper retracted have been exposed as having links to GM companies and as having vested interests in the public acceptance of GM technology. These links went largely undisclosed in media articles and even in the published letters to the journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology.2 3

    The aggressive and often irrational nature of the retraction campaign soon gave rise to a counter-movement. Over a hundred scientists wrote letters to the journal editor in support of Séralini’s study and the cause of independent science, asking the editor not to retract the paper. The letters were translated into English by the staff of Séralini’s research institute, CRIIGEN, and are available here:

    Letters of support (1)
    Letters of support (2)
    (The two documents “Letters of Support” are PDFs. Download first before trying to open with Adobe, as if you try to open online it won’t work. Live links are in the original document, see link below).

    This response from international scientists exposes the falsehood of claims by Séralini’s critics that “the science community” has condemned the study,4 and the impression given by the UK-based Science Media Centre that “expert reaction” to the paper was overwhelmingly negative.5

    http://gmoseralini.org/introduction-to-scientists-support-seralini/


  5. IF BHUTAN CAN DO IT WITH 700,000 INHABITANTS WHY CAN’T WE WITH JUST UNDER 300,000. PLEASE SIGN MY PETITION AND LET US GET BARBADOS CLEAN AND HEALTHY AGAIN…AT LEAST THAT!!! For full read see http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2013/02/hutan-bets-organic-agriculture-is-the-road-to-happiness.html

    Bhutan – The World’s First 100% Organic Nation
    Wednesday, February 20, 2013

    The tiny Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan drew international attention a few years back for saying gross national happiness should trump gross domestic product when measuring a nation’s progress.

    If you’re going to prioritize happiness, the Bhutanese thinking goes, you’d better include the environment and spiritual and mental well-being in your calculations. (Not everyone in Bhutan is happy, and many leave as refugees, as Human Rights Watch and others have noted.)

    But Bhutan, which has only 700,000 people — most of whom are farmers — has another shot at international fame if it can make good on a recent pledge to become the first country in the world to convert to a 100 percent organic agricultural system.

    Last month at the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development, Prime Minister Jigmi Thinley said his government is developing a National Organic Policy because the country’s farmers are increasingly convinced that “by working in harmony with nature, they can help sustain the flow of nature’s bounties.”

    Going all-out organic is a lofty goal for any country given that many farmers — and poor farmers in particular — covet chemical fertilizers and pesticides to enrich their soil, boost production and keep diseases and pests at bay.

    But Andre Leu, an Australian adviser to the Bhutanese government and the president of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, says it’s very doable.

    “I don’t think it’s going to be that difficult given that the majority of the agricultural land is already organic by default,” Leu tells The Salt.

    Indeed, the synthetic chemicals and fertilizers that are used so widely in countries like the U.S. are only available and affordable to a few of Bhutan’s farmers who are widely dispersed across the rugged and mountainous terrain sandwiched between India and China. But very few of the organic-by-default farmers have been certified as such by third-party institutions. (Certified organic food, by the way, makes up less than 1 percent of the world’s calories, and is mostly available to wealthy consumers.)

    According to the World Food Program, Bhutanese farmers mainly grow rice and corn, as well as some fruits and vegetables, including potatoes and oranges.

    But as demand for food has grown in recent years, the country has been forced to import rice and other foods from India, and today Bhutan is a net food importer.

    One of the few products Bhutan exports to the U.S. is red rice; Lotus Foods sells it to chains like Whole Foods. Bhutanese red rice is more nutritious and tastes nuttier than white rice, its boosters say, and is well-suited to pilaf, as Monica Bhide reported for NPR’s Kitchen Window earlier this year. The rice does not have organic certification, but Lotus Foods says it been grown without the use of pesticides or other chemical inputs for centuries.

    The Ministry of Agriculture says the organic program, launched in 2007, is not just about protecting the environment. It will also train farmers in new methods that will help them grow more food and move the country closer to self-sufficiency.

    The ministry is now training extension workers in organic methods and giving farmers who go organic priority for government assistance.

    Not everyone is so sure that a 100 percent organic Bhutan is a great idea. Leu says he’s found some resistance among researchers at the Ministry of Agriculture who’ve been trained in conventional farming techniques abroad.

    And an article last year in the Bhutan Observer notes that many farmers who grow export crops like apple, Mandarin orange, and potato already rely heavily on chemical fertilizers and could be reluctant to give them up.

    Still, Leu is optimistic that Bhutan’s burgeoning organic agriculture research centers will eventually be able to come up with organic methods to boost yields and manage the problems of these crops.

    “All these problems are solvable, they just need a few more years of research to come up with some more effective solutions,” Leu says.

    http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/CLEAN_UP_BARBADOS_NO_TO_MONSANTO_YES_TO_ORGANIC/?fcAByeb&pv=2


  6. @ David
    Err….I get Quackwatch and a Wikipedia entry that says they were set up to combat “health related frauds”.


  7. In the interests of fairness and balance I thought I should post something anti-GM.
    Watch this as it sums up the role of Monsanto:

    Then, convinced of the devilish nature of GMO crops, you should watch this to see what else goes on in the world which we do not know about:

Leave a comment, join the discussion.