The faces behind "Mr. Monsanto"

I've been told in no uncertain terms that it's my turn to do a post on Monsanto & Co., so here it is - a view of some of the faces behind Monsanto's media monitor, Mr. Monsanto.

PHOTO: Mica Veihman, head of Monsanto’s social media team (seated), with Chris Paton and Kathleen Manning, is tapping into Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. From the St. Lois Business Journal on 8th August 2009.

Regular readers will remember Kathleen for the noteworty line that no blog is too big or small for Monsanto to monitor.

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Monsanto thinks there is something 'magical' about GM pollination of non-GM crops.....

There is no doubt about it, Monsanto & Co employees are a scary group when they start to blog.

Earlier this month in a post titled I am Monsanto one of these happy clappy souls decided to pose a rather sarcastic hypothetical question; Did you know that pollen from our genetically-modified crops will magically migrate into another farmer's field and contaminate his crop?

Apparently (if one is a Monsanto employee) the well-known natural processes known as pollen drift and cross fertilisation are not within the bounds of our world - for GM traits to be found in non-GM crops or GM plants to be discovered in non-GM fields then something otherworldly has to have occurred.

This will come as a complete surprise to biologists and agronomists:

Managing "Pollen Drift" to Minimize Contamination of Non-GMO Corn, AGF-153

Gene flow through pollen drift: a scientific perspective

Pollen drift and the bystanding farmer: harmonising patent law and common law on the technological frontier

However Monsanto employees are not finished with spin on the company blog Monsanto according to Monsanto.

In another post called Agent Orange and Monsanto the case is made for a benign and patriotic Monsanto participating in deliberate dioxin contamination on a large scale because; The U.S. government, under the Defense Production Act, directed seven companies – including Monsanto, which was then primarily a chemical company – to manufacture the material.

Yes, the President made me do it appears to be the argument here.

A government contract defence that U.S. courts have not apparently fully supported, as there was a 1984 case in which in has been reported that Judge Weinstein encouraged settlement and eventually directed Monsanto to pay over a large percentage of an $180 million out of court settlement in favour of American veterans.

However, in a classic look-here-not-there manoeuvre Monsanto directs our attention to the unsuccessful 2004 litigation by Vietnamese veterans in which it was also a co-defendant.

All the while remaining silent on the fact that sales of Agent Orange and Lasso were basically what kept Monsanto's agricultural chemical division in the black during the 1960s and the Viet Nam War.

Now I have been wondering of late why it is that Monsanto employees are so cavalier with how they use available fact and historical record.

I refuse to believe that their obvious youth (in comparison to North Coast Voices authors) is a significant factor because older people do not have a monopoly on commonsense or knowledge.

So I am left with the possibility that Monsanto's corporate culture is so intense that employees are totally indoctrinated by the end of their first year with the firm and thereafter are incapable of recognising that Monsanto & Co hasn't been a uniformly ethical company from its inception up to the more recent past.

Graphic from arizona.edu

UPDATE:

In June 2009 the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an appeal by the Secretary of the Dept of Agriculture et al (including Monsanto Company as Defendant-intervenor-Appellant) and upheld a lower court injunction against the USDA's deregulation determination re GMO perennial alfalfa.

Geertson Seed Farms et al had sought relief from the US courts, in part on the grounds that there was a need to wait until there had been sufficient investigation of the potential for pollen drift and cross-pollination.

Bless their cute curly heads! Monsanto blogs on morality

From Monsanto according to Monsanto post on 20 July 2009:

In this video I discussed the issue of other farmers saving patented seed with farmers who don't believe in that type of farming practice.

If you think about it, it's pretty simple. The law is the law. When you sign an agreement, you must obey that agreement. Just like when I buy a CD of my favorite artist (which I do have quite the collection), I don't burn it for friends. At the same time, I download quite a bit of songs to jam to on my iPod and I buy each and every one of those songs from iTunes.

Although these examples are on a much smaller scale, it's the right thing to do.

My parents raised me to always do the right thing, even if it costs more or doesn't seem like the most appealing option. I was raised on good morals, which I credit and thank my parents daily for. Just as I was raised on these morals, so were the two farmers featured in this video.

I hope you see it that way.

Leaving aside the ungainly stretch inherent in likening perpetual seed patents to music copyright, the irony of Monsanto blogging about morals is readily apparent.

This is the same company which spent years happily spreading dioxin/PCB contamination across the world. Here is a brief potted history of its recent transgressions and another about heavy metal contamination due to Monsanto mining operations.

Sadly Monsanto does not appear to see that its recalcitrant past concerning environmental degradation and denial of human rights makes a mockery of its current claim that; The law is the law.

Picture from Google Images

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Wise words about food......

Remember that every time you buy food you vote for the system that produced it. Choose wisely.
MADGE newsletter, Friday 17 July 2009

Want to shop locally for GM-free food?

So you want to shop for GM-free food? Well, good luck, because there is still no reliable product labelling in place across Australia.

The next best thing is to access the True Food Guide which at least broadly points concerned consumers in the right direction.

The guide now lists alcohol products.

Download updated 16-page True Food Guide here.

If you are blessed with a comfortable income, then Santos Wholefoods of Byron Bay and Mullumbimby offers an online GM-free, organic and natural produce shopping service.

If it's July it must be time to mention Monsanto again....

Another month has passed and the big biotech companies continue their push to dominate the basic mechanism of food production - seeds, fertiliser and chemical weed eradication/suppression.

Each month that passes highlights Monsanto & Co's abysmal safety record.

From the Idaho Business Review, June 29 2009:

Federal regulators say an Idaho mine that Monsanto uses to make Roundup weed killer has violated federal and state water quality laws almost since it opened, sending selenium and other heavy metals into the region's streams. The Environmental Protection Agency says problems at the St. Louis-based company's mine near the Idaho-Wyoming border were documented starting in April 2002, 15 months after it won Bureau of Land Management approval.
The mine recently has failed to halt metals-laden water seeping from a waste dump.
Eva DeMaria, an EPA enforcement official in Seattle, says, "The measures they have implemented aren't working.''
The disclosure comes as Monsanto Co. wants federal officials to approve a new mine in the region.
Monsanto lobbyist Trent Clark says his company has remedied some EPA concerns and continues to work to fix violations at the waste dump.

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Are you having a Wheatless Wednesday this week?

As has been pointed out before - markets do respond to consumer pressure.

With biotech giants like Monsanto constantly (and often successfully) lobbying government to support widespread introduction of genetically modified and perpetually patented seed, now is the time to think about how one might oppose these greedy multinationals.

One can urge the local supermarket to stock food types that are guaranteed to be GM free, one can avoid produce or products which originate with companies known to purchase GM ingredients and one can decide to actively boycott a cropping cereal into which Monsanto et al are attempting to introduce genetically modified seed.

So, anyone for a Wheatless Wednesday?

From CBAN:

Statement of Australian, Canadian and US Farmer, Environmental and Consumer Organizations

June 1, 2009

Summary Statement:

In light of our existing experience with genetic engineering, and recognizing the global consumer rejection of genetically engineered wheat, we restate our definitive opposition to GE wheat and our commitment to stopping the commercialization of GE traits in our wheat crops. We are committed to working with farmers, civil society groups and Indigenous peoples across the globe as we travel the road towards global food sovereignty.

Statement in Full:

In the interest of reiterating the decisive global rejection of genetically engineered (GE) wheat, culminating in Monsanto's 2004 withdrawal of requests to the Canadian and U.S. governments for commercialization of their GE wheat; and in the interest of laying to rest the attempts by Monsanto and other biotechnology corporations to introduce genetically engineered wheat, the undersigned organizations issue the following joint statement:

1. Wheat is an ancient grain that is vital for meeting the nutritional needs of many societies and has deep religious significance in many cultures. Wheat is one of three staple crop plants (the other two are rice and maize) that account for two-thirds of the diet of the world's population. Over centuries of cultivation, farmers have developed a tremendous diversity of wheat varieties, many of which are adapted to the soil and climate conditions of certain regions of the world. These locally-bred varieties are critical to ensuring local food supplies during times of weather-related disasters. In Australia, Canada, and the US, farmers and public scientists have worked collectively with this diversity to develop varieties adapted to local conditions and suited to relevant markets. Multinational seed companies have played an insignificant role in fundamental wheat seed development in these countries or anywhere else in the world.

2. The remarkable achievements in wheat breeding that farmers and scientists have managed over generations have not involved genetic engineering or patenting. While farmers and conventional breeders continue to lead the way in innovation with wheat, there are currently no genetically engineered traits in the pipeline for wheat that promise basic agronomic improvements. In reality, the only GE trait in wheat for which approval has been sought is for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. This trait is not designed to increase yields, but to simplify herbicide application. Not only does this technology contribute nothing to feeding the world, genetic engineering is a direct threat to global food security. Genetic engineering can and does lead to contamination of seed varieties, and poses a decisive threat to organic farming and the production of crop varieties bred specifically for local conditions. Moreover, the introduction of GE wheat would put the wheat seed supply in the hands of a small number of multinational corporations, as has happened with the introduction of GE soybeans, GE corn and GE canola. During the recent food crisis, these companies used their oligopolistic positions to dramatically increase the price of seeds and agrochemicals. Farmers planting wheat in the Australia, Canada and the US were less affected by these price increases because they were free to save seeds and had access to public varieties. Monsanto, the world's largest producer of GE seeds, increased its profits by 120% in 2008. It should also be noted that since the introduction of GE crops in 1996, the number of people going hungry in the world has ballooned from an estimated 800 million to over 1 billion.

3. Rather than the area of wheat production decreasing due to competition from GE crops, a March 2009 Statistics Canada survey of farmers in western Canada found that farmers plan to increase acreage of wheat, barley and peas, crops for which there are no GE varieties and where plant breeding is primarily in the public sector. The survey also revealed that farmers intend to cut back on acres planted to canola seed, which is mainly GE in Canada, in order to decrease production costs. Additionally, there is no evidence to substantiate the claim that GE crop varieties increase yields.

4. Plant breeders and farmers have for too long narrowly focused on economies of scale and higher yields. This has resulted in higher input costs and lower net income for farmers. Higher yields have come at a high cost economically, as well as environmentally, because high yielding crops tend to require more fertilizers and chemical inputs. Improved crop quality is more likely than bigger yields to provide higher realized net incomes for farmers. Higher quality wheat can be achieved efficiently and accessibly through conventional plant breeding, and this is where support for research needs to be located.

5. Genetic engineering is a highly imprecise technology. GE crops are inadequately regulated by governments that rely on corporate data rather than public, peer reviewed science. Complex questions relating to the effects of GE crops on soil health, non-target insects, and human health remain understudied. Over 10 years of experience with GE crops has exposed a convincing record of high levels of irreversible contamination and corporate control over seeds as well as continued scientific uncertainty. Additionally, research from wheat organizations (Canadian Wheat Board and Australian Wheat Board) has indicated very strong market rejection of GE wheat. Commercial GE crops have so far been limited to crops used primarily for feed, oil and fibre and have thus not been subjected to national labelling requirements in many countries. GE wheat, however, would primarily be used for human consumption and food products derived from GE wheat would be labelled as GE in many countries across the world. Additionally, if GE wheat is released commercially, contamination would be inevitable and markets would view all wheat produced from these areas as GE unless proven to be non-GE. Farmers growing GE wheat will take on all of the responsibilities, costs and liabilities, with little available legal recourse to recover their losses.

6. Private seed companies are not investing in wheat research because of competition from strong public plant breeding programs and the desire and capacity of farmers to save wheat seeds from year to year. The main reason why seed companies want to introduce GE wheat is so that, by means of gene patents, they can stop farmers from saving seeds. The introduction of patents into wheat breeding will destroy the collective heritage of plant breeding for wheat and erode the strong public breeding programmes for wheat in the Canada, Australia and the US which have always generated impressive returns through minimal public investments and/or farmer contributions. Additionally, in February 2009, 26 top US corn scientists sent a statement to the US Environmental Protection Agency asserting that independent research is being thwarted by industry technology/stewardship agreements.

In light of our existing experience with genetic engineering, and recognizing the global consumer rejection of genetically engineered wheat, we restate our definitive opposition to GE wheat and our commitment to stopping the commercialization of GE traits in our wheat crops. We are committed to working with farmers, civil society groups and Indigenous peoples across the globe as we travel the road towards global food sovereignty.

Signed By: National Farmers Union, Canada Canadian Biotechnology Action Network Union Paysanne, Canada Union Biologique Paysanne, Canada Réseau Québécois contre les OGM, Canada Saskatchewan Organic Directorate, Canada Network of Concerned Farmers, Australia Organic Federation of Australia Biological Farmers of Australia Gene Ethics, Australia Greenpeace National Family Farm Coalition, USA Western Organization of Resource Councils, USA Center for Food Safety, USA Organic Consumers Association, USA

Wheat photograph from Eat. Drink. Better.

National interactive map of GM-free farms, businesses and councils - register now

Gene Ethics has developed an Australian interactive map which shows those farms, retailers, restaurants, caterers, seed suppliers and local government councils which are proudly GM-free.

The map also shows GM farms and receival depots.

To get your NSW North Coast GM-free business on this register, Download this form and email it back to Gene Ethics.

Congratulations to Truefood Trading at Diggers Camp for being the first North Coast business to register.

Monsanto can Twitter but it can't hide

Not long back I added MonsantoCo to my Twitter list.
It has been fascinating to watch the parallel universe in which its public relations employees live.

Equally fascinating is that this urge to tweet appears to follow on from its earlier advertising campaign which was apparently based around the concept of 'sustainability'.

One has to suspect that the campaign in print and radio was not the success Monsanto hoped for, hence the back-up.

Of course Monsanto & Co is not alone in pushing the GMO cause - its clones are out there doing their bit as well.

The Mid America Croplife Association apparently wrote to Michelle Obama trying to head that new White House vegetable garden off at the pass and, Croplife Australia is still plugging way.

Needless to say SourceWatch cites BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow Agrosciences, DuPont, FMC, Monsanto, Sumitomo and Syngenta as key funders for the Croplife group.

Such is Monsanto's chutzpah that through Croplife International (of which it is a member) the company attempted to hijack the U.N. sponsored International Day for Biological Diversity this month which had as its theme Invasive Alien Species.

Invasive alien species are plants, animals, pathogens and other organisms that are non-native to an ecosystem, and which may cause economic or environmental harm or adversely affect human health. In particular, they impact adversely upon biodiversity, including decline or elimination of native species - through competition, predation, or transmission of pathogens - and the disruption of local ecosystems and ecosystem functions.

If you believed Croplife, the international day was actually all about the pesticides/herbicides, genetically modified seed etc., supplied by its member companies.

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

The American Academy Of Environmental Medicine Calls For Immediate Moratorium On Genetically Modified Foods

Press Advisory
May 19,

The American Academy Of Environmental Medicine Calls For
Immediate Moratorium On Genetically Modified Foods

Wichita, KS - The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) today released its position paper on Genetically Modified foods stating that "GM foods pose a serious health risk" and calling for a moratorium on GM foods. Citing several animal studies, the AAEM concludes "there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects" and that "GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health."
The AAEM calls for:

• A moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term safety testing and labeling of GM food.
  
• Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community and the public to avoid GM foods.
  
• Physicians to consider the role of GM foods in their patients' disease processes.
  
• More independent long term scientific studies to begin gathering data to investigate the role of GM foods on human health.

"Multiple animal studies have shown that GM foods cause damage to various organ systems in the body. With this mounting evidence, it is imperative to have a moratorium on GM foods for the safety of our patients' and the public's health," said Dr. Amy Dean, PR chair and Board Member of AAEM.

"Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions," said Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM. "The most common foods in North America which are consumed that are GMO are corn, soy, canola, and cottonseed oil."

The AAEM's position paper on Genetically Modified foods can be found at http:aaemonline.org/gmopost.html.

AAEM is an international association of physicians and other professionals dedicated to addressing the clinical aspects of environmental health. More information is available at www.aaemonline.org.

-more-

About AAEM The American Academy of Environmental Medicine was founded in 1965, and is an international association of physicians and other professionals interested in the clinical aspects of humans and their environment. The Academy is interested in expanding the knowledge of interactions between human individuals and their environment, as these may be demonstrated to be reflected in their total health. The AAEM provides research and education in the recognition, treatment and prevention of illnesses induced by exposures to biological and chemical agents encountered in air, food and water. ###

More GM lobby machinations?

Times Higher Education earlier this year:

A charity has come under fire for failing to declare all industry affiliations of the experts it enlisted to compile a booklet explaining genetic modification to the public.
The pamphlet was produced by Sense About Science (SAS), a charity that claims to promote scientific reasoning in public discussions.
According to anti-genetic modification campaigners and academics, it failed to mention links between some of the experts who wrote the booklet and GM firms.
For example, the guide's biography of Vivian Moses, emeritus professor of microbiology at Queen Mary, University of London, and visiting professor of biotechnology at King's College London, does not mention that he is also chairman of CropGen, a GM lobby group that receives funding from the biotechnology industry.
It says only that he has been "a full-time researcher in biochemistry and microbiology" and is now "primarily concerned with communicating science to the public".
Critics also argued that the guide should have noted that the John Innes Centre, where eight of its 28 contributors are based, received funding from biotechnology companies.
Michael Antoniou, a geneticist at King's College London, described the omissions as "outrageous".
He said: "GM is a sensitive issue. People have been extremely suspicious because of its industrial connections. So it is imperative that they declare these in this context, as in a journal publication."
Dr Antoniou, who himself provides technical advice to anti-GM campaign group GM Watch, speculated that SAS had not disclosed Professor Moses' directorship because it was afraid of arousing public suspicion.

GM Watch tells us that there are even more 'scientists' hidden in the woodpile:

The pro-GM lobby group Sense About Science (SAS) has been caught with its pants down by Private Eye. The famous satirical magazine has obtained a confidential draft copy of SAS's recently published GM guide which shows it had a "ghost writer" that SAS failed to declare. Here's the article.
Private Eye No. 1232, 20 March - 2 April 2009, Books and Bookmen (p.26)
A spat has broken out over a Times Higher Education article highlighting the failure of a new guide to GM food, 'Making Sense of GM', to disclose its industry connections. Tracey Brown of Sense About Science, publisher of the guide, condemned the T.H.E. article as "mischievous" and "rude" and claimed it relied on "tortuously indirect links" between the authors and the GM industry.
But the Eye has a copy of an unpublished draft of the guide - and it seems it wasn't just the industry links of some of its authors that didn't appear in the final published version. One of the guide's listed authors, Andrew Cockburn, is also missing. Who he? None other than GM giant, Monsanto's former director of scientific affairs, and a figure so controversial that when former PM Tony Blair invited him to author part of the government's official GM Science Review, it led to questions being raised in the House and the resignation of one of the expert panellists. No wonder Sense About Science felt erasure was the better form of valour.

*Sense about Science issued a statement to the effect that in the end Cockburn did not review its GM guide.

In addition,this month MADGE blew the whistle on Graincorp:

AUSTRALIANS will soon be eating genetically modified food whether they like it or not.

The nation's major grain handler, Graincorp, announced this week that genetically modified canola will be mixed in with the main crop in this year's harvest.

Anti-GM groups say the decision means canola oil and a large amount of commonly bought processed food made with canola will now be genetically modified.

They say staples that will become genetically modified include baby food, potato chips, biscuits, frozen vegetables, crackers and pre-prepared meals.

They claim the move is premature because GM food has yet to be tested properly.

"All GM food has been created randomly. The DNA of these plants has been altered and no one really knows where it will go," said Madeleine Love, spokeswoman for Mothers Are Demystifying Genetic Engineering (MADGE).....

Graincorp corporate affairs manager David Ginn confirmed the two streams of canola will be mixed together this year after the October harvest.

Meanwhile, GMO bananas are being trialled in Queensland and can be now added to North Coast Voices' March 2009 GMO watch list.

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Biotech: the unmet promise of genetically engineered crops?

In the face of a review of GM crop yield studies which concluded that there was no appreciable difference between crops grown from conventional and genetically modified seed, talk of herbicide resistant weeds being associated with land used for GM crops and the banning of GM maize MON 10 by Germany on environmental grounds, the big biotech companies are pretending that is still business as usual.

And if you are a large multinational corporation like Monsanto, with lobbyist tentacles reaching into so many national or state governments around the world, I expect that it really is business as usual.

So usual that it is thinking of starting yet another court case in its pursuit of the 'golden' apex of a global agricultural food chain.

Still it doesn't hurt if you also create a slice of corporate propaganda like this:











View and Download this Ad
from Monsanto website











* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Monsanto goes a-Twittering

It's no secret that Agwired has a relationship with Monsanto the biotech giant.
So when it came out with this it was hardly surprising:

I ran across this article, Planting Cyber Seeds, written by Jeffrey Tomich for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and I thought I would share it will all of you. The article is about how Monsanto has worked to tackle big issues through Twitter, the social networking tool that answers the question, What are you doing?

Because environmentalists were constantly trying to derail Monsanto in the media, the company quickly realized that they needed to address some big issues in the news for themselves. The group uses Twitter to discuss controversial topics like food labeling and genetically modified foods. Like many agriculture groups, Monsanto has realized that this is the best outlet to interacting with the nation's food consumers.

Sounds as though Monsanto is on top of the social media game doesn't it? However when you search for Monsanto on Twitter you find a different story.

MonsantoCo shows the company-endorsed face of Monsanto tweets, but over at the official Monsanto blog they linked to a Twitter realtime search which showed 5 pages of more varied results, with anti-GM tweeters hogging the space right now.
Including beekeeper protests and links to media articles about GM crop failures.
Although it has to be said the Monsanto Twitter is hardly overwhelmed with people tweeting it.

Seems that whatever online PR Monsanto tries, it comes to grief.

Suicide: Monsanto blames it on the weather and ........

Monsanto according to Monsanto, the official blog of that monolithic U.S. bio-tech multinational corporation, has decided to tackle those posts out in the blogosphere which draw a correlation between an increase in suicides amongst Indian farmers and the introduction of GMO cotton seed into that country in 2002.

In its post Indian Farmer Suicide - The Bottom Line Monsanto has decided that these suicides are due to a number of factors including the weather, but finally plumps for personal debt as the chief cause; A variety of third-party studies have proven that personal debt is the historical reason behind an Indian farmer's decision to commit suicide, not biotech seed.

The company blog points to an article in The Financial Express, which it implies exonerates biotech crops (such as cotton) from culpability.
However, this article points out that; "Increased liberalisation and globalisation have in fact led to a shift in the cropping pattern from staple crop to cash crops like oilseeds and cotton, requiring high investment in modern inputs and wage labour. This increases credit needs. But when the prices declined farmers have no means to supplement their incomes,".

Not quite the clean report card for biotech multinationals as Monsanto according to Monsanto would have us believe.
Modern inputs for an Indian farmer with a GM cotton crop in the field can include recurring annual seed costs and Monsanto's technology fee as part of seed price.

Nor does a 2008 study cited by Monsanto undertaken by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPR) give unqualified support for Monsanto's assertion that the introduction of GMO cotton was benign; in specific regions and years, where Bt cotton may have indirectly contributed to farmer indebtedness, leading to suicides, its failure was mainly the result of the context or environment in which it was planted. We close the paper by proposing a conceptual framework for empirical applications linking the different agricultural and institutional factors that could have contributed to farmer suicides in recent years in certain districts of Central and Southern India.

The Monsanto blog goes on to mention the Virdabah district as being an area where GM cotton was a great success, but neglects to mention that according to that same IFPR paper ; The largest number of reported cases [of suicide] was concentrated in districts of northeast Maharashtra (Vidharba District).

According to a March 2008 3D paper on intellectual property rights asserted by biotech companies in India;
Owners of IPRs can prevent others from producing or selling the seeds or plant varieties over which he or she owns the rights, which makes farmers dependent on the owner of the intellectual property to supply the seeds. The IPR owners (usually private corporations) are free to set high prices or royalties on the seeds, and they retain a degree of control over how seeds are used or reused. With increasing corporate concentration in the agricultural sector, the seed owners have the power – which they already use – to raise prices of seeds and other agricultural inputs. In India the introduction of genetically-modified cotton has already had devastating effects. In addition to increasing the cost of food, jeopardizing the ability of farmers to derive a livelihood from farming when seed prices increase, and slowing down public-interest-oriented agricultural research, the ownership of IPRs on seeds goes counter to traditional practices of exchanging and saving seeds, thus undermining community and cultural rights.

The Indian Journal of Psychiatry in 2007 confirmed a rise in official suicides rates over the last twenty years, that the 'real' rate is probably somewhere in the vicinity of six to nine times the official rate and, that there has been a recent spate of farmer suicides.

Monsanto according to Monsanto is right when it points to the complexities surrounding suicide, but that doesn't mean that it can ignore the fact that the economics of growing GM cotton may place an onerous burden on poor, marginal farmers in India.

Neither can it chose to ignore the fact that in India in 2006 Monsanto through its joint venture Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (MMB) went to court in an effort to force an increase in GM cotton seed prices or the fact that Monsanto is also accused of profiting from bonded child labour on that continent.

Australian consumers need to decide whether buying products containing GM ingredients is supporting biotech companies truly committed to environmentally sustainable and socially responsible agriculture production or is just supporting companies who put such sentiments on their websites and forget these principles thereafter.

Monsanto hits the digit at 33,333

Last Wednesday Monsanto Inc out of St. Louis became the 33,333rd visitor to the North Coast Voices blog.

To celebrate here is the list of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being trialled across Australia by the major biotech companies or the CSIRO:

Canola
Indian mustard
Grapevines
Cotton
Maize
Papaya
Pineapple
Wheat
Barley
Sugarcane
Perennial Ryegrass
Tall Fescue
White Clover
Torenia.

The list is getting longer, isn't it?
You can do a local government area search here to see if GMOs have reached your backyard yet.

Monsanto According To Monsanto: no blog is too big or small, we read all of them

No blog is too big or small, we read all of them says Monsanto on its new blog Monsanto According to Monsanto.

On the first post by Kathleen our blog North Coast Voices gets not one but two links within the text.

So if all blogs are read - does someone also go out on behalf of Monsanto and take notes at any protest rally or town meeting?

Spin Watch tells us a little about corporate strategy in relation to the Internet.
Source Watch tells a similar story and Gene Watch records Monsanto's alleged attempts to deceive as well as quotes a section of the book Don't Worry, It's Safe to Eat .

Kathleen may like to think that she is the 'nice' face of a 'good' company.
Sadly for Kathleen I am too old to for fall for the froth and spin, when court transcripts and research papers (some discussed elsewhere on North Coast Voices) tell of a socially and environmentally irresponsible, destructive multinational who doesn't give a toss about the rest of the world.

Graphic is Kathleen's avatar

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Walking on the wildside: GMO transgenes found in wild maize

Evidence of the irresponsible nature of the biotechnology industry in general and Monsanto in particular.

Molecular Ecology:

A possible consequence of planting genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in centres of crop origin is unintended gene flow into traditional landraces.

In 2001, a study reported the presence of the transgenic 35S promoter in maize landraces sampled in 2000 from the Sierra Juarez of Oaxaca, Mexico.

Analysis of a large sample taken from the same region in 2003 and 2004 could not confirm the existence of transgenes, thereby casting doubt on the earlier results.

These two studies were based on different sampling and analytical procedures and are thus hard to compare. Here, we present new molecular data for this region that confirm the presence of transgenes in three of 23 localities sampled in 2001.

Transgene sequences were not detected in samples taken in 2002 from nine localities, while directed samples taken in 2004 from two of the positive 2001 localities were again found to contain transgenic sequences.

These findings suggest the persistence or re-introduction of transgenes up until 2004 in this area.

We address variability in recombinant sequence detection by analyzing the consistency of current molecular assays.

We also present theoretical results on the limitations of estimating the probability of transgene detection in samples taken from landraces.

The inclusion of a limited number of female gametes and, more importantly, aggregated transgene distributions may significantly lower detection probabilities.

Our analytical and sampling considerations help explain discrepancies among different detection efforts, including the one presented here, and provide considerations for the establishment of monitoring protocols to detect the presence of transgenes among structured populations of landraces.

This is not the first time transgenes have been found in the wild as GMO seed dispersal also leads to engineered seed establishing itself amid original species and cross-pollinating, as appears to be the case in relation to certain grasses.

Thanks to Balneus for pointing me in the direction of this information.

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Monsanto related environmental and health risks lead to court case - again

According to The Madison St Clair Record last week:

A group of Illinois residents who live in or near Sauget have filed a class-action lawsuit over the release of various hazardous substances that they claim has created a severe health risk and has contaminated their properties.

Lead class plaintiffs Vernon Lee Anderson Sr., Ernestine Lawrence, Katie Burnett-Smith, Martha Emily Young, Marcella Phillips and Bernice Laverne Collins argue that three release sites - a 90-acre landfill operated by Sauget and Co., a 314-acre W.G. Krummrich Plant and property owned by Cerro Flow Products - have released PCBs and other various substances, including dioxins and furans, into the atmosphere for more than 70 years.

Residents fear they will develop a deadly disease from the PCBs, which have been shown to result in toxic effects in the brain and nervous system and in low birth rates and birth defects.

"According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, a lifetime dose of one milligram of PCBs is sufficient to cause cancer and other serious and life-threatening diseases," the suit filed Feb. 10 in St. Clair County Circuit Court states. "According to the World Health Organization, there is not safe level of exposure to PCBs."

Dioxins and furans are also known to be dangerous and to create significant health problems through inhalation, ingestion, dermal absorption and ingestion of homegrown produce.

In addition to the health risk, the residents claim the PCBs have contaminated property within a two-mile radius of the release sites, waterways and groundwater, the suit states.

The releases began after the W.G. Krummrich Plant, which is also referred to as the Monsanto Facility in the complaint, began producing, storing and disposing of PCBs at its facility, the residents claim.

In fact, "more PCBs were produced at the Monsanto Facility than at any other site in the United States, and perhaps even the free world," the suit states.

This Sauget flood plain region is well-known to the US Environmental Protection Agency and Monsanto had previously entered a negotiated settlement with the State of illinois.

Fox River Watch has a history of PCB health problems in the US here.

And with a corporate history like that Monsanto (along with the other biotech multinationals now operating here) expects Australians to take its word that the genetically modified crop types it is pushing onto often unwilling communities will do no harm?
Show us the longitudinal studies which scientifically demonstrate this, Monsanto.

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Monsanto propaganda rules! Or does it?

Monsanto propaganda rules - or does it?

Here is Monsanto's spin laced with alternative images:

Monsanto's research program centers on increasing yields for three key crops used for food, feed, fiber and fuel - corn, soybeans and cotton. The company's research pipeline uses more precise breeding techniques to develop higher-yielding germplasm. Other technologies result in plant traits that provide better protection against pests and better weed control. Monsanto's objective under this new commitment is to double yield for these three crops by 2030 in countries where farmers have access to current and anticipated new seed choices offered by the company.
{Genetically Modified Crops Implicated in Honey Bee Collapse Disorder}

This would mean, for example, that corn production in the prominent agricultural markets of Argentina, Brazil and the United States would reach a weighted average of 220 bushels per acre by 2030, compared to 109.1 bushels per acre in 2000. Soybean production in those countries would rise from a weighted average of 39.5 bushels per acre in 2000 to 79 bushels per acre in 2030. Cotton would increase from 1.4 bales (672 pounds) per acre to 2.8 bales (1,344 pounds) per acre.
{GM crops have failed and Canola yeild stoush}

Monsanto will establish a five-year, $10 million grant for rice and wheat research to be administered by a panel of world experts on food production in developing countries. Rice and wheat are key crops for food security, but are not a primary focus for the company. The chairperson of this panel will be named in the near future. A panel of independent judges will select one project per year to receive a $2 million grant. Further details on this program will be developed and announced in the coming months. {GM trial results spark debate}

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Monsanto fruit?

From Animal Magic: or what happens when graphic artists get bored

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.