Monsanto Wins World Food Prize

ThreeBlindMice

I am sure many of you have heard of Monsanto by now.

"For the first time in its 27-year history, a prestigious award for enhancing the global food supply has gone to a creator of genetically modified crops, a top scientist at Monsanto. The choice is likely to add more heat to an intense debate about the role biotechnology can play in combating world hunger".

This could probably be comparable to The Devil himself winning an award For being evil. :P


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/monsanto-executive-is-among-world-food-prize-winners.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=3&

The Backwards Man

Can they genetically modify a cross between gooseberry, blackcurrant and rhubarb jam?

Hownowcow

Genetically modified crops. Nyom nyom nyom nyom.

Jimmy Garlic

Indian farmers are committing suicide hand over fist because Monsanto has driven them to it. An absolutely heinous and sinister corporation that is trying to monopolise agriculture on this planet.

LizT

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Can they genetically modify a cross between gooseberry, blackcurrant and rhubarb jam?

Yeah but it won't beat good old fashioned strawberry jam.

Iwasfrozen

GM food is the way of the future. Like it or not our growing population needs a higher level of produce to sustain itself.

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Indian farmers are committing suicide hand over fist because Monsanto has driven them to it. An absolutely heinous and sinister corporation that is trying to monopolise agriculture on this planet.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

NuckingFacker

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Indian farmers are committing suicide hand over fist because Monsanto has driven them to it. An absolutely heinous and sinister corporation that is trying to monopolise agriculture on this planet.

People should Google it, using, err google. ahem. Gotta love big corporations. They are soo nice. Also, IWASFROZEN, you're wrong. On so many levels it's not right.

The Backwards Man

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

GM food is the way of the future. Like it or not our growing population needs a higher level of produce to sustain itself.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

And a higher level of food distribution. The world produces more than enough food to feed the current population as it is.

Iwasfrozen

NuckingFacker wrote: »

People should Google it, using, err google. ahem. Gotta love big corporations. They are soo nice. Also, IWASFROZEN, you're wrong. On so many levels it's not right.

What's not right? We've been genetically modifying our food for thousands of years.

oppenheimer1

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Indian farmers are committing suicide hand over fist because Monsanto has driven them to it. An absolutely heinous and sinister corporation that is trying to monopolise agriculture on this planet.

They don't have to use Monsanto products though...

The Backwards Man

LizT wrote: »

Yeah but it won't beat good old fashioned strawberry jam.

Would in a fair fight

Iwasfrozen

The Backwards Man wrote: »

And a higher level of food distribution. The world produces more than enough food to feed the current population as it is.

Not to a high enough level. We want to fill the world with Americas and Europes were everyone has food to throw away. Adequacy should not be our goal as a species.

The Backwards Man

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Not to a high enough level. We want to fill the world with Americas and Europes were everyone has food to throw away. Adequacy should not be our goal as a species.

Do we? I must be getting soft and liberal and **** in my old age.

Panthro

As long as she'll fit into the saucepan tis all good.

Iwasfrozen

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Do we? I must be getting soft and liberal and **** in my old age.

Certainly. "What we have is enough" is not an option. It's fine for now but what happens when the world population is 20 billion?

Karl Stein

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

We want to fill the world with Americas and Europes were everyone has food to throw away.

How depressing.

wendell borton

The corporations are trying to implement the genetic equivalent of DRM on crops.

The Backwards Man

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Certainly. "What we have is enough" is not an option. It's fine for now but what happens when the population is 20 billion?

Square pigs.:p

Iwasfrozen

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Square pigs.:p

haha, GM food can make it happen folks!

Iwasfrozen

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

How depressing.

Food abundance is depressing? Or were you talking about me filling the world full of Americas? I didn't mean culturally I mean economically. Every country should have an abundance of food.

Karl Stein

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Food abundance is depressing? Or were you talking about me filling the world full of Americas? I didn't mean culturally I mean economically. Every country should have an abundance of food.

It's depressing that people like you are so twisted by libertarian and right-wing propaganda that you think that turning the entire planet into a hyper-consumerist, resource gobbling, environment degrading dystopia is a desirable goal.

osarusan

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What's not right? We've been genetically modifying our food for thousands of years.

We haven't been patenting them and suing over that patent for thousands of years though.

The Backwards Man

osarusan wrote: »

We haven't been patenting them and suing over that patent for thousands of years though.

We've been killing, pillaging and burning storehouses though, since we were able to do it. I just can't see GM being the devil people want it to be. Agriculture itself is GM.

nmop_apisdn

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

GM food is the way of the future. Like it or not our growing population needs a higher level of produce to sustain itself.

Can sustain at least 12 Billion without GM.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What's not right? We've been genetically modifying our food for thousands of years.

No we haven't

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

They don't have to use Monsanto products though...

I think Monsanto has seed Monopoly there.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Certainly. "What we have is enough" is not an option. It's fine for now but what happens when the world population is 20 billion?

Never gonna happen. Nature or a few corporations will make sure of that.

9.6B by 2050 current estimate.

osarusan

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I just can't see GM being the devil people want it to be. Agriculture itself is GM.

My issue isn't with GM itself so much as the patenting of what is modified/engineered.

Cookie_Monster

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Certainly. "What we have is enough" is not an option. It's fine for now but what happens when the world population is 20 billion?

the obvious solution would be to not let it get that high. But that would require countires taking responsibility for their populations, no one bar China even bothers as yet.

nmop_apisdn wrote: »

No we haven't

we have though, to date its been selective breeding rather than direct manipulation of genes but it's basically just the next step in the same process.

nmop_apisdn

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

the obvious solution would be to not let it get that high. But that would require countires taking responsibility for their populations, no one bar China even bothers as yet.

And they continue to make an absolute mess of it. Preference for male children has created gender number imbalance of 20+ million.

Hersheys

nmop_apisdn wrote: »

Can sustain at least 12 Billion without GM.

No we haven't

I think Monsanto has seed Monopoly there.

Never gonna happen. Nature or a few corporations will make sure of that.

9.6B by 2050 current estimate.

We actually have been gm'ing crops for years. Cross pollination of corn crops to produce more hardy corn, higher produce yield, more resistant to extremes and disease.

We also use genetics to modify our milk. Cross breeding cows to give the best milk is common practice.

nmop_apisdn

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

we have though, to date its been selective breeding rather than direct manipulation of genes but it's basically just the next step in the same process.

Hersheys wrote: »

We actually have been gm'ing crops for years. Cross pollination of corn crops to produce more hardy corn, higher produce yield, more resistant to extremes and disease.

We also use genetics to modify our milk. Cross breeding cows to give the best milk is common practice.

The crosses made nowadays in the lab would never happen in the wild. It's different. I'd like to see more trial time and the removal of the (widely reported as unsafeharmful) pesticide producing plant varieties gone.

http://earthopensource.org/index.php/1-the-genetic-engineering-technique/1-1-myth-genetic-engineering-is-just-an-extension-of-natural-breeding

Karl Stein

In the west we have people dying young from obesity related illness, huge quantities of food being routinely thrown in the bin, billions spent on fine dining, billions more spent on sugary drinks, burgers and fries..

OMG we're running out of food!

Cookie_Monster

nmop_apisdn wrote: »

And they continue to make an absolute mess of it. Preference for male children has created gender number imbalance of 20+ million.

at least they're trying.

Jimmy Garlic

Hersheys wrote: »

We actually have been gm'ing crops for years. Cross pollination of corn crops to produce more hardy corn, higher produce yield, more resistant to extremes and disease.

We also use genetics to modify our milk. Cross breeding cows to give the best milk is common practice.

Not the same thing at all, this is propaganda put out by the GM corps and repeated frequently. The hybridisation of naturally compatible plant varieties or animals within the same species cannot be compared to genetic modification. Hybridisation happens naturally in the wild, it doesn't have to be mans hand that encourages it. GM processes create things that would never come about naturally.

Einhard

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Not the same thing at all, this is propaganda put out by the GM corps and repeated frequently. The hybridisation of naturally compatible plant varieties or animals within the same species cannot be compared to genetic modification. Hybridisation happens naturally in the wild, it doesn't have to be mans hand that encourages it. GM processes create things that would never come about naturally.

I can see where you're coming from, but it could be pointed out that most of the medicines we consume could not come about naturally in the wild. Just because something isn't natural, doesn't mean that it is, by dint of that, a bad thing.

Can someone explain the patent thing that is causing all this hate towards something that could be positive?

Mike Funnelly

Deleted User wrote: »

Can someone explain the patent thing that is causing all this hate towards something that could be positive?

Essentially what happens is that you buy the seed, grow the seed, and sell all the seed to whoever buys it. If you keep some to grow the following year, you are technically infringing on their patent. You are not allowed to keep it and store it for the next growing season.

So each year they get their pound/ton of flesh, selling you new seed.

Son Of A Vidic

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

GM food is the way of the future. Like it or not our growing population needs a higher level of produce to sustain itself.

Monsanto couldn't have written that better themselves. Maybe go to your local HSE hospital site or hotel/restaurant and just watch the sheer volume of food that is wasted every day. Oh there is more that enough food on this planet right now, but just not everyone is getting it.

Wibbs

Mike Funnelly wrote: »

If you keep some to grow the following year, you are technically infringing on their patent. You are not allowed to keep it and store it for the next growing season.

The seed is usually infertile anyway.

So each year they get their pound/ton of flesh, selling you new seed.

For me monsanto are among the most truly destructive agencies on this planet. Modern farming ain't too sweet on the environment either. Less a problem here, but look at the single squillion acre fields raising monocultures in the UK and elsewhere. Remember the flic saving private Ryan. One of the reasons they shot part of it here was because we still have hedgerows and fields, most of the ones in Normandy are gone today.

clairefontaine

Wibbs wrote: »

The seed is usually infertile anyway.

For me monsanto are among the most truly destructive agencies on this planet. Modern farming ain't too sweet on the environment either. Less a problem here, but look at the single squillion acre fields raising monocultures in the UK and elsewhere. Remember the flic saving private Ryan. One of the reasons they shot part of it here was because we still have hedgerows and fields, most of the ones in Normandy are gone today.

I agree. I think they are evil. And trust me I'm no Birkenstock wearing Obama voter. Nowhere near it.

Montsanto are evil. And some former bigwig from Montsanto was appointed high up in the FDA.

CruelCoin

The Backwards Man wrote: »

And a higher level of food distribution. The world produces more than enough food to feed the current population as it is.

Not all food is transportable, or affordable.

You can make all the grain you want in the west, but even if you managed to ship it to Africa for free (you can't) the locals wouldn't be able to afford it at market rate anyway.

So in effect, anyone who is talking about "distribute it better" is really talking about charity, which does little to help or encourage local populations to develop to a sustainable point.

This is a harsh point but: If you feed that starving child, likely he will grow up to have 8 more starving children, all of whom will need feeding.
You're being kind short-term, but long-term you're being a dick.

Sergeant

I propose we set up state-run farms on the steppes of Northern Kazakhstan. This will help to provide the workers of the world with 3 square meals a day.

GalwayGuy2

Monsanto couldn't have written that better themselves. Maybe go to your local HSE hospital site or hotel/restaurant and just watch the sheer volume of food that is wasted every day. Oh there is more that enough food on this planet right now, but just not everyone is getting it

My biggest gripe with that is that it is impossible to prove. Also, would there be so much of food if there wasn't a market behind it? And what about the economics of food?

Slutmonkey57b

Hersheys wrote: »

We actually have been gm'ing crops for years. Cross pollination of corn crops to produce more hardy corn, higher produce yield, more resistant to extremes and disease.

We also use genetics to modify our milk. Cross breeding cows to give the best milk is common practice.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. And like many people who are bogglingly ignorant, you're absolutely confident you're right. Frightening. Genetic scientists are barely scratching the surface of understanding how existing individual genes work and interact with each other. Suggesting they're capable of manipulating said genes and understanding all the implications in advance is ridiculous.

For a primer on whether allowing profiteering corporations or arrogant central planners determine agricultural policy, I encourage you to visit America's dust bowl.

Iwasfrozen

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

It's depressing that people like you are so twisted by libertarian and right-wing propaganda that you think that turning the entire planet into a hyper-consumerist, resource gobbling, environment degrading dystopia is a desirable goal.

The fact of the matter is millions are starving in the world as we speak and GM food can provide enough food to solve these problems. Sure the west could give up their own but that's never going to happen and our goal as a species should be more then adequacy.

Hersheys

Hersheys wrote: »

We actually have been gm'ing crops for years. Cross pollination of corn crops to produce more hardy corn, higher produce yield, more resistant to extremes and disease.

We also use genetics to modify our milk. Cross breeding cows to give the best milk is common practice.

Hitler reversed Germanys economic downturn, got people working again, opened up factorys left and right and bolstered Germany's military power as well as revolutionizing Germanys Automobile industry.

Iwasfrozen

nmop_apisdn wrote: »

Can sustain at least 12 Billion without GM.

How? By shipping the food? That costs money for transit and preservation and the locals won't be able to afford it anyway. What you're talking about is charity.

No we haven't.

Yes we have. Breeding is genetic modification simply by natural means.

Never gonna happen. Nature or a few corporations will make sure of that.

9.6B by 2050 current estimate.

Never say never.

Hersheys

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. And like many people who are bogglingly ignorant, you're absolutely confident you're right. Frightening. Genetic scientists are barely scratching the surface of understanding how existing individual genes work and interact with each other. Suggesting they're capable of manipulating said genes and understanding all the implications in advance is ridiculous.

For a primer on whether allowing profiteering corporations or arrogant central planners determine agricultural policy, I encourage you to visit America's dust bowl.

Hmmm. Have no idea what I'm talking about. Right. I have spent the past 5 years working closely with bovine geneticists testing milk fractions to determine their composition, nutritional requirements and how they fit into the quota issue and milk quality issue that affects many, many farmers. I am aware that geneticists are barely scratching the surface of understanding gene function - if they knew everything science would stop. It's the nature of the work.

90% of all statistics are made up on the spot, but I would hazard a guess that about 80% of all "modified" corn products are as a result of natural selection, cross pollination occurring because different grains are planted close to each other. It's natural selection at work. Plants adapt to their surroundings and can withstand the harsh environments, drought, heat...

Am I agreeing with Monsanto? No. Preceeding my work on milk I did a degree in genetics. As part of that degree I had to do a term paper and presentation on Monsanto - positives, negatives... I found it hard to find any positives.

Disagree with Monsanto. Agree with the principle of GM.

Iwasfrozen

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

the obvious solution would be to not let it get that high. But that would require countires taking responsibility for their populations, no one bar China even bothers as yet.

Top down population control can't happen without serious infringement of rights. Individual people themselves have to choose not to have children and one of the things that would help them come to that conclusion (besides contraceptives) is greater farm productivity where they can grow the same level of produce with less cheap child labour.

But anyway I agree with osarusan my issue isn't with GM itself so much as the patenting of what is modified/engineered.

But then without patents how to encourage research into these fields?

ThreeBlindMice

Deleted User wrote: »

Can someone explain the patent thing that is causing all this hate towards something that could be positive?

Placing a patent on heirloom seeds of a vital food commodity is hate.

Slutmonkey57b

Hersheys wrote: »

Hmmm. Have no idea what I'm talking about. Right. I have spent the past 5 years working closely with bovine geneticists testing milk fractions to determine their composition, nutritional requirements and how they fit into the quota issue and milk quality issue that affects many, many farmers. I am aware that geneticists are barely scratching the surface of understanding gene function - if they knew everything science would stop. It's the nature of the work.

90% of all statistics are made up on the spot, but I would hazard a guess that about 80% of all "modified" corn products are as a result of natural selection, cross pollination occurring because different grains are planted close to each other. It's natural selection at work. Plants adapt to their surroundings and can withstand the harsh environments, drought, heat...

Am I agreeing with Monsanto? No. Preceeding my work on milk I did a degree in genetics. As part of that degree I had to do a term paper and presentation on Monsanto - positives, negatives... I found it hard to find any positives.

Disagree with Monsanto. Agree with the principle of GM.

Is it your contention that scientific manipulation of genes is the *same process* as natural selection, or natural cross pollination? Because if it is, your defense falls down.

Hersheys

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Is it your contention that scientific manipulation of genes is the *same process* as natural selection, or natural cross pollination? Because if it is, your defense falls down.

No, I'm just saying that plants do undergo their own genetic modification. I am not saying that the likes of the crop from Monsanto are the same as the natural selection crops that exist. See the part where I said "disagree with Monsanto, agree with GM"

Seaneh

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

They don't have to use Monsanto products though...

I plant my field with normal corn that I've been planting my whole life, seeds I've saved, a crop that my family have been planting for countless generations.

My neighbour decides to switch to monsanto corn. He sells his old seeds and plants his monsanto.

Later in the year we both harvest our crop, and as usual I save my seeds for next years crop, he is not allowed to do this but his increased yeild will probably offset this if he's lucky, and the time he's saved in the fields will mean he probably has another income as well.

Next year I plant my saved seeds.

Someone from monsanto comes and takes a sample of my crop.

He finds the Monsanto crop from my neighbor's farm has cross pollinated with my own and my crop now has the monsanto genetics.

Monsanto can now seize my crop AND prosecute me for copyright theft.



They are a disgusting company.