Monsanto to get EU funding.

[Braindead Colonel]

There was a time when the EU cared for the well-being of its citizens. Not anymore!
Apparently Monsanto has managed to get the EU in its pockets, the same way it got the FDA and every administration since Bush senior's in the U.S.

First, the EU ignores recent research linking GMO-corn to Cancer:
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1...corn-to-cancer

And now, your EU tax money to be given over to Monsanto. (edit: they claim it won't go towards GMO crops. Maybe it's just millions of gallons of good ole Roundup™? Since that also was recently discovered to cause cancer and infertility, I'd say its a moot point.)

Monsanto, the world’s largest seed producer and one of the most well-known promoters of genetically modified crops worldwide, is in line to receive USD 40 million of public financial support from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the bank disclosed last month.

http://bankwatch.org/bwmail/54/ebrd-...pport-monsanto

“It is absolutely outrageous that the EBRD plans to use public money to support a giant that already dominates the global seeds and agrochemicals markets,” comments Ionut Apostol, CEE Bankwatch Network’s EBRD coordinator. “The EBRD has as a stated goal to promote the private sector and competition in transition countries; how could giving money to one of the world’s richest corporations possibly count as fulfilling this mission?”

http://www.nyrnaturalnews.com/food/2...-public-funds/



I guess the pressure the US placed on the EU worked after all.

The US embassy in Paris advised Washington to start a military-style trade war against any European Union country which opposed genetically modified (GM) crops, newly released WikiLeaks cables show.
In response to moves by France to ban a Monsanto GM corn variety in late 2007, the ambassador, Craig Stapleton, a friend and business partner of former US president George Bush, asked Washington to penalise the EU and particularly countries which did not support the use of GM crops.
"Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits.
"The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices,"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...us-eu-gm-crops

[Thorn777]

I have been going on about the EU now being in US pocket indefinetly for some years now, as a whole range of previous stances are given up since the US financial-industrial-complex has us by our balls.

Anyway, Monsanto is just a crappy filthy businessmodel, and anyone should second guess why all their doing is allowed. Should tell you thing of where our world is at and is going...

[removeduser_4536284751384]

the US government then. It has no right to interfere in the decision making process of other countries. They deserve a spiteful response from whoever they threaten. A pity most European countries are too spineless for that.

[hellheaven1987]

the US government then. It has no right to interfere in the decision making process of other countries. They deserve a spiteful response from whoever they threaten. A pity most European countries are too spineless for that.

Produce enough cheap food yourself then, Europe.

[conon394]

First, the EU ignores recent research linking GMO-corn to Cancer:
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1...corn-to-cancer

Oh gosh no the horror.... oh wait they rejected the scientific basis of the study because it was a piss poor study (see below) - not just ignored it.

Also so what I suppose the farmers will spray what if not Round Up? Something else I am thinking and I am sorry to say most effective herbicides are carcinogens but many do not break down as fast as Round Up.

But lets just cut to the quick - Monsanto must be bad and daring anti GMO underdogs would never shill BS right - not!

http://rt.com/news/seralini-corn-can...nto-study-987/

"The paper also earned widespread criticism for its methodology. Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King's College London, saying the study was a “statistical fishing trip,” manipulated from the start to achieve a specific result.

Séralini used Sprague-Dawley rats for the study. This sub-species is highly susceptible to developing tumors, with two-thirds of males and more than half of females expected to die from cancer during the course of a two-year experiment regardless of what they ingested."


"The second major criticism of the study was its small sample size. The OECD recommends that 50 rats of each sex be used in any test group. Séralini used test groups of ten, meaning the control group for two years was only twenty rats in total. The difference between the groups fed NK603 corn and the control group was one or two dead rats over a period of two years."


On balance the EU ignored piss poor research as it should have.


I have no problem which opposing Monsanto's hard ball tactics on not creating enough reservoir crops or barrier limits around plantings, and I doubt it needs subsidies unless they are very much going to farmers for implementation but that is rather a different story than the Green fantasy fear of GMO food.

the US government then. It has no right to interfere in the decision making process of other countries

Right too bad the US did not listen to you in 1940/1 and just said hey if Japan wants to kill 10 Million people in China who cares all those silly sanctions just interfering with Japan

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Right too bad the US did not listen to you in 1940/1 and just said hey if Japan wants to kill 10 Million people in China who cares all those silly sanctions just interfering with Japan

Conon you make better posts when you ignore your amygdala. If US interests include protecting its citizens and their property at home and abroad and ensuring a liberal model of international affairs persists, then fine. When US "interests" extend to lining the pockets of wealthy CEOs at the expense of a country's decision making process, they can go and and themselves. Frankly that's not a government interest that's simply government corruption.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I find it funny that people in this thread, and really in life in general, discuss nations and policies as though it's any surprise that the political class and financial/corporate class have collaborated for centuries, regardless of nationality or political climate. Financiers and international corporations provide financial and commercial backing for governments, and governments provide legal protection and favor. Shocking.... I don't know what's more funny; the fact that many people still act like this is a new phenomenon, or the fact that Europeans seem to think their precious social "protections" really were put in place for the benefit of "the masses." Social legislation is billed as "social" in nature only when the issue in question requires public support for success. Meanwhile, the powers which craft that legislation are the only ones who benefit, and usually at the expense of "the people." Who wrote the Federal Reserve Act? The largest banks on Wall Street. Who wrote Obamacare? The insurance and pharmaceutical monopolies. There seems a remarkably close and active relationship between politicians and the powerful entities who put them in office. Someone ought to alert the media to this profound and sensitive information.......

[fkizz]

I find it funny that people in this thread, and really in life in general, discuss nations and policies as though it's any surprise that the political class and financial/corporate class have collaborated for centuries, regardless of nationality or political climate. Financiers and international corporations provide financial and commercial backing for governments, and governments provide legal protection and favor. Shocking.... I don't know what's more funny; the fact that many people still act like this is a new phenomenon, or the fact that Europeans seem to think their precious social "protections" really were put in place for the benefit of "the masses." Social legislation is billed as "social" in nature only when the issue in question requires public support for success. Meanwhile, the powers which craft that legislation are the only ones who benefit, and usually at the expense of "the people." Who wrote the Federal Reserve Act? The largest banks on Wall Street. Who wrote Obamacare? The insurance and pharmaceutical monopolies. There seems a remarkably close and active relationship between politicians and the powerful entities who put them in office. Someone ought to alert the media to this profound and sensitive information.......

We would have a better democracy and more intelligent political discussions if people realized this. I totally agree with you.

[mrmouth]

Whenever you get to this point with anything you need to just start to ask what gain there is for a country to adopt something like GMO and "genetically poison" its own citizens until there are not enough left to vote for anyone.

Is Monsanto a bully of a company? Yes. Hopefully EU countries will impose what the US government didn't in making them more accountable for how they treat people they do business with. Hopefully the lobby wont be as powerful in trying to keep GMO off of food labels, for no logical reason I can see. And hopefully the more Monsanto does work overseas, the more they will be held accountable for the two faced game they play in creating pest problems, so they can sell the solution.

But there is no grand conspiracy here. The US isnt bullying anyone. GMO was always a reality for the EU, just as it is going to be for everyone else. And it has nothing to do with geopolitics. It has to do with the rising costs, and fundamental changes that factory farming has had on food production. That all comes with rising populations, and trickles down straight to how much people have left to spend to drive the economies of the country they live in after the weekly grocery trip.

[Denny Crane!]

I find it funny that people in this thread, and really in life in general, discuss nations and policies as though it's any surprise that the political class and financial/corporate class have collaborated for centuries, regardless of nationality or political climate. Financiers and international corporations provide financial and commercial backing for governments, and governments provide legal protection and favor. Shocking.... I don't know what's more funny; the fact that many people still act like this is a new phenomenon, or the fact that Europeans seem to think their precious social "protections" really were put in place for the benefit of "the masses." Social legislation is billed as "social" in nature only when the issue in question requires public support for success. Meanwhile, the powers which craft that legislation are the only ones who benefit, and usually at the expense of "the people." Who wrote the Federal Reserve Act? The largest banks on Wall Street. Who wrote Obamacare? The insurance and pharmaceutical monopolies. There seems a remarkably close and active relationship between politicians and the powerful entities who put them in office. Someone ought to alert the media to this profound and sensitive information.......

It isn't new but societies structure has been changing dramatically and so have the relationships between government and the nature of government and how these things interact. Consider traders in the kings court and how much effect it had on peasants compared to the countries now. It just is different, and the sudden and precipitous growth of wealth in so fews hands should be of concern. I'll just disagree with just about anyone on what it is causing it and that is part of where the influence comes from.

[Lord Thesaurian]

It isn't new but societies structure has been changing dramatically and so have the relationships between government and the nature of government and how these things interact. Consider traders in the kings court and how much effect it had on peasants compared to the countries now. It just is different, and the sudden and precipitous growth of wealth in so fews hands should be of concern. I'll just disagree with just about anyone on what it is causing it and that is part of where the influence comes from.

That relationship changed for the better, thanks, I believe, to the Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment which broke the power of those kings (and popes) you refer to, thus facilitating the rise of capitalism, the merchant class, and individual rights. However, I also believe that the "old order," or rather, the most powerful of the "merchant class" who hold political and material sway over nations, have sought to recreate the feudal order with themselves as masters (Rockefeller, Rothschild, Morgan types). I would argue central banks and economic centralization in general, as well as the movement for political globalization, support this idea; especially if one examines where these same Rockefeller and Morgan types spend their money politically. If one "follows the money" of who owns what and who owes whom, the pyramid of western society, and implicitly, the world, begins to take shape.

I know it's conspiratorial, but I don't think these trends are coincidental, nor harmless. The trend of socialism and globalism in particular is much like the French Revolution; both in ideology and ramifications. Those of us who would have celebrated such a trend as "progress" away from the old order of monarchs and clergy may soon discover a new order of "landed nobility" who came to power simply by money, power, and political corruption. I believe Man's baser nature may soon enslave him once more beneath a yoke of neo-feudalism, with the brief and wonderful explosion known as the Enlightenment disappearing as a brief flicker ignited betwixt the chaos of regime change, and we'll have no one to blame but ourselves.

Because this is how "free" capitalism works. If you don't like what the scientists are saying, you just buy their research centers. Then have them refute any remaining independent study. If a country tries to ban GMOs then have the EU or WTO intervene and penalize them.

No, it's how state capitalism works. Because of the emergence of "progressive" mixed economies, government becomes involved in the means of production in a society, facilitating the union of public and private money and interest. In a laissez-faire economy, the government has no role to play in an economy outside of contract enforcement and anti-fraud measures, hence "buying" a politician will not serve any gain, since that politician has no power to garner economic favor for donors. I'm not saying this situation is ideal either, but one must take the good with the bad in any scenario. In the case of mixed economies, one can enjoy social safety nets and government regulation of industry, but then one must also deal with cases like corporations and banks buying up whole sections of the economy and writing their own regulatory legislation.

Even then, careful development of anti-trust laws, such as the idea that, if I am a builder, I cannot own the building inspection firm, I believe, would greatly alleviate these problems you mention. However, if I'm a builder who owns the politician who has the power to inspect buildings, it is the same as if I owned the building inspection firm, only the problem is much more difficult to deal with. If the government has no power to regulate buildings and no building regulation firm exists, I, the builder, have no incentive to buy politicians and regulatory agencies, and I am accountable only to the Market. However, this requires a vigilant consumer who will use the power of purchase against a builder who builds faulty buildings. Again, this system is not ideal; especially when it seems the average person has a hard time remembering what day it is, much less monitoring who's who among construction companies, so we are left with the system we have today. If the citizen is not industrious enough to govern himself, someone else will do it for him, and that "someone else" will probably have financial backing from, say, Monsanto.

So instead of becoming angry at Monsanto or the agencies who consistently grant the company unfair market and regulatory advantages, we ought to examine instead the systemic flaws which permitted such a phenomenon to take place. The trendy response is to blame capitalism which is thoroughly erroneous, because it is capitalism and the Market constantly trying to facilitate new growth via creative destuction, which is often squelched and delayed if not eliminated by cooperation between governments and entrenched monopolies. Thus state capitalism and the union of public and private, the very themes facilitated by socialism and socialistic ideas, are to blame, not "free" capitalism - if only because "free" capitalism has never existed except in small capacities, within which it has shown to create the most wondrous creative and economically fruitful effect; ie the United States.

[selder]

Sadly these same people got away with saying Agent Orange was safe as well.

In 2004, Monsanto spokesman Jill Montgomery said Monsanto should not be liable at all for injuries or deaths caused by Agent Orange, saying: "We are sympathetic with people who believe they have been injured and understand their concern to find the cause, but reliable scientific evidence indicates that Agent Orange is not the cause of serious long-term health effects."

While in Vietnam, the veterans were told not to worry, and were persuaded the chemical was harmless. After returning home, Vietnam veterans began to suspect their ill health or the instances of their wives having miscarriages or children born with birth defects might be related to Agent Orange and the other toxic herbicides to which they were exposed in Vietnam.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Monsanto still claims the stuff is safe...do you really think they will tell us the truth about their GM crops?

[selder]

"Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits.
"The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices,"

This was the most telling part for me, I mean seriously. I completely understand sanctions against countries like Iran or North Keorea, but you have to draw the line somewhere. With friends like these right? Its corn...WTF...

No wonder they tried to shut down wiki leaks, imagine what else we don't know.

[Keyser]

I don't know if Monsanto is that "evil", but working on genetically engineered infertile seeds while it is proven over and over that such modifications may pass to other fields and even other species is pure greed and stupidity.
Dangerous lunacy just for profit.
That only makes me fear Monsanto.
And each time this firm is brought to the light of an article in the press it's always for similar things. I understand that OGM might benefit us, but what Monsanto do sure look very shortsighted each time (from round up, to corn, to those seeds etc).

[Denny Crane!]

Patents on seeds is pretty evil but then its governments allowing it.

[conon394]

I don't know if Monsanto is that "evil", but working on genetically engineered infertile seeds while it is proven over and over that such modifications may pass to other fields and even other species is pure greed and stupidity.

So you prefer just radically lower yield once your field is infested with a pest or weed? Monsanto is definatly guilty of pushing back on regulations that would make many of its resistant seeds last longer in the interest of short term profit, but in the end every resistance gene or pesticide or herbicide will have that problem it only a matter of time.

Patents on seeds is pretty evil but then its governments allowing it.

Than so are pretty much all patents and copy rights... Its a fine argument but the fact is Governments and tax payers are not funding seed banks and university based plant breeders enough to do the job so we get Pioneer, Novartis, Monsanto etc.

Conon you make better posts when you ignore your amygdala. If US interests include protecting its citizens and their property at home and abroad and ensuring a liberal model of international affairs persists, then fine. When US "interests" extend to lining the pockets of wealthy CEOs at the expense of a country's decision making process, they can go and and themselves. Frankly that's not a government interest that's simply government corruption.

Again so far all I see is a lot hot air about how Monsanto is for no good reason. Look the US is leading exporter of lots of foods and GM is prominent in that mix EU bans would not just hurt Monsanto but actual farmers and everyone else in the agricultural business. Everyone is favor of being pushy when they think there pocket book is at risk, is anyone here honestly going to tell me the virtuous EU never bullies anyone?

[Keyser]

So you prefer just radically lower yield once your field is infested with a pest or weed? Monsanto is definatly guilty of pushing back on regulations that would make many of its resistant seeds last longer in the interest of short term profit, but in the end every resistance gene or pesticide or herbicide will have that problem it only a matter of time.

Seeds that create infertile plants so you need to rebuy them from the producers is all well and good (well, actually no, it isn't... but lets say it's okay, it's buisness), IF you are sure that just for making profit you don't risk to infect with that infertility trait the wild (and domesticated too) flora around the new crops. And, while by no means being an expert on the matter, what i've heard so far of GMO, it's far from being proved it's impossible. Evidences tends to show the contrary with many cases brought to justice by Monsanto to protect its patents against people who just had fields near fields of people who used Monsanto's products.

Than so are pretty much all patents and copy rights... Its a fine argument but the fact is Governments and tax payers are not funding seed banks and university based plant breeders enough to do the job so we get Pioneer, Novartis, Monsanto etc.

But, that's not like that everywhere in the world, in France we have such seed banks*...

(*And the system isn't without it's own problems, such as loosing diversity in culture in favor of a few varieties who were felt good for the agro-industry (Resistant, quick maturation, good conservation etc) without taking in account things that the consumer like (like taste... ). It's changing thanks to some peasants and cooperatives, but good agricultural products who were kinda the norm 50 years ago are becoming a luxury... I like being able to have fruits that don't rot in a day, or outside the normal season, but if they taste like water (at best) that's a loss)

[Keyser]

DP. Sorry

[Denny Crane!]

Than so are pretty much all patents and copy rights... Its a fine argument but the fact is Governments and tax payers are not funding seed banks and university based plant breeders enough to do the job so we get Pioneer, Novartis, Monsanto etc.

Paraphrasing:

-Patents have been the engine behind tremendous market concentration in the seed sector, destroying competition and forcing small and medium enterprises out of the market.
-Patents lead to higher prices for farmers, less choice for consumers and a negative impact on agro-biodiversity.

Patents are increasingly being granted on things derived from conventional breeding methods leading to this:

-There is a negative impact on innovation as breeders are not allowed to use the patented plants, animals or genetic material freely for further breeding.

And I'll assume this is before we start addressing the land grab issue?

Again so far all I see is a lot hot air about how Monsanto is for no good reason. Look the US is leading exporter of lots of foods and GM is prominent in that mix EU bans would not just hurt Monsanto but actual farmers and everyone else in the agricultural business. Everyone is favor of being pushy when they think there pocket book is at risk, is anyone here honestly going to tell me the virtuous EU never bullies anyone?

Generally fine with big business and monsanto, despite what I said there is some positive evidence for their work in Africa with some rather large caveats. Big business that knows how to utilise government for its own ends not so good. But lord on earth with a labradoodle in tow please tell me that this isn't going to be debated on a black and white "big company=evil, no big company=good, no I disagree with everything=I disagree with everything" because not interested.

It is possible for a company to be doing a whole load of good and yet still be causing big problems elsewhere, it is the nature of multinational divergent corporations.

[Braindead Colonel]

Oh gosh no the horror.... oh wait they rejected the scientific basis of the study because it was a piss poor study (see below) - not just ignored it.

The attitude of the ESFA is evident here:

no ban on planting GM crops can be declared without valid scientific evidence

http://www.agrimoney.com/news/french...gal--3901.html

Excuse me, but if you plan on putting GM food on my and my family's plate, you should prove that it is safe,
instead they allow it until someone comes along to prove that the stuff is poisonous.

Just look at Monsanto's RoundUp:
It's been out for decades, Monsanto claimed "it is as safe as table salt", the EU allowed it saying they researched it and its fine,
and only now is proof coming out that the stuff causes birth defects, cancer, infertility etc....
http://www.naturalnews.com/033772_Monsanto_Roundup.html

Again so far all I see is a lot hot air about how Monsanto is for no good reason.

Hardly. This wouldn't be the first time Monsanto poisoned someone.

Monsanto to Pay $1.5 Million in Poisoning Case

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/09/us...ning-case.html

They've also had scientists manipulate data for them

On two occasions, the United States EPA has caught scientists deliberately falsifying test results at research laboratories hired by Monsanto to study glyphosate

And they are still at it.

Monsanto buys leading bee research firm after being implicated in bee colony collapse

http://www.naturalnews.com/035688_Mo..._collapse.html

Because this is how "free" capitalism works. If you don't like what the scientists are saying, you just buy their research centers. Then have them refute any remaining independent study. If a country tries to ban GMOs then have the EU or WTO intervene and penalize them.

And since through pollination GM crops spread on their own, contaminating natural crops miles away, soon there won't be any non-GM products out there. In the end, it won't matter if companies label their GM products. The mutations would have done the company's work for them.
Just one of many examples around the world:
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listin...pread-in-japan