Apparently, it is now illegal to sue Monsanto.

[YOUTUBE]ABsyhLbFfM8[/YOUTUBE]

Of all the things going on in the world--drone attacks, etc. this Monsanto shit is the devil.

We all need to have a non-contaminated seed vault, just to deal with the impending Sauron-type evil overlord shit that is happening here.

Where goes wheat, corn is soon to follow.
Maybe this will develop into a revision of the laws protecting Monsanto,
Here is today's big headline in the Oregonian...

OregonLive.com
Eric Mortenson, The Oregonian
May 29, 201

Genetically engineered wheat found in Oregon field, federal investigation underway

Illegal genetically-engineered wheat has been discovered
growing in an Eastern Oregon field, which may cause severe marketing
and export problems for one of the state's biggest crops.

State agriculture department Director Katy Coba said 85 to 90 percent
of the Pacific Northwest's soft white wheat crop is exported to Japan, South Korea,
Taiwan and other nations, where it's used to make noodles and crackers.
Oregon's wheat crop is valued at $300 million to $500 million annually, depending on yield and price.
"Clearly there's a concern about market reaction," Coba said.
"Japan and Korea jump out. They do not want genetically-engineered food,
they do not want genetically-engineered wheat.

[COLOR="DarkRed"]They could shut off the market to us."[/COLOR]<snip>

It has been picked up by the NY Times...

NY Times
ANDREW POLLACK
May 29, 2013
Modified Wheat Is Discovered in Oregon

Unapproved genetically engineered wheat has been found growing on a farm in Oregon
federal officials said Wednesday, a development that could disrupt American exports of the grain.

The Agriculture Department said the wheat was of the type developed by Monsanto
to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup, also known as glyphosate.
Such wheat was field-tested in 16 states, including Oregon, from 1998 through 2005,
but Monsanto dropped the project before the wheat was ever approved for commercial planting.

The department said it was not known yet whether any of the
wheat got into the food supply or into grain shipments.
Even if it did, officials said, it would pose no threat to health.
The Food and Drug Administration reviewed the wheat and found no safety problems with it in 2004.

Still, the mere presence of the genetically modified plant could cause some countries
to turn away exports of American wheat, especially if any traces
of the unapproved grain were found in shipments.
About $8.1 billion in American wheat was exported in 2012,
representing nearly half the total $17.9 billion crop, according to U.S. Wheat Associates,
which promotes American wheat abroad.
About 90 percent of Oregon&#8217;s wheat crop is exported.
<snip>

Good job on the paper for spreading the news far and wide so the Asians would be sure to find out about it. They just might cost Oregon half a billion dollars.

Bullshit, the Asians would have found out anyway, it's the Americans who would have been caught with their pants down when the shit hits the fan. Christ, if there's one thing you should have learned in the last 40 years is no good comes from trying to cover up.

Oh, did I say that out loud? I've been channeling too much Louis CK.

glatt;866519 wrote:

Oh, did I say that out loud? I've been channeling too much Louis CK.

:lol:

From the Oregonian article:

The Center for Food Safety, based in Washington, D.C., said the U.S. Department of Agriculture (i.e. the fox) has "once again failed to protect the food supply from GE crop contamination." (the henhouse)

The current Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack had this to say back in '02 about GMO crops:

TITLE: VILSACK, GROSS WEIGH IN ON BIOTECH DECISION
SOURCE: Associated Press, by Mike Glover
edited and sent by Agnet, Canada
DATE: Oct 24, 2002

------------------ archive: http://www.gene.ch/genet.html ------------------


VILSACK, GROSS WEIGH IN ON BIOTECH DECISION

DES MOINES, Iowa - Gov. Tom Vilsack was cited as writing in a letter to the
Biotechnology Industry Organization that a decision by a biotechnical
industry group not to grow genetically engineered corn for pharmaceutical
purposes in states such as Iowa is "a dangerous precedent," adding that "I
feel this decision by for a pharma-crop ban is a knee-jerk reaction that is
not fully warranted by the scientific evidence." BIO was cited as saying
this week that its members had agreed not to grow pharmaceutical crops in
states where it could contaminate neighboring crops intended for human
consumption. That includes Iowa, and Vilsack reacted quickly, dashing off a
letter asking the group for a clarification of its policy. Vilsack was
quoted as saying, "I support food safety and security, but this decision
appears to be overreaching. It seems more like an effort to exclude the
nation's most productive farmers, small businesses and university
researchers from this emerging industry." Vilsack has said the state could
have a bright future in developing genetically engineered crops for the
pharmaceutical industry.

From Wikipedia:

Reaction to Vilsack's nomination from agricultural groups was largely positive and included endorsements from the Corn Refiners Association, the National Grain and Feed Association, the National Farmers Union, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the Environmental Defense Fund.[19] Opposition to the nomination came from the Organic Consumers Association, which outlined in a November 2008 report several reasons why it believed Vilsack would be a poor choice for the position, particularly as energy and environmental reforms were a key point of the Obama campaign.[20]
Among those reasons the report cites: Vilsack has repeatedly demonstrated a preference for large industrial farms and genetically modified crops;[21] as Iowa state governor, he originated the seed pre-emption bill in 2005, effectively blocking local communities from regulating where genetically engineered crops would be grown; additionally, Vilsack was the founder and former chair of the Governor's Biotechnology Partnership, and was named Governor of the Year by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, an industry lobbying group.[22]

I'm sure the rest of the department of agriculture reads like a Who's who? of the bio-tech industry.

footfootfoot;866537 wrote:

I'm sure the rest of the department of agriculture reads like a Who's who? of the bio-tech industry.

Exactly. Industry execs should be automatically disqualified from governmental appointments/employment/committees. They do NOT represent us. :mad2:

[rushes out to invest in Australian wheat farms]

Thanks for the tip, guys.

Here is a somewhat lighter-hearted background story,
published today in MarketWatch...

May 29, 2013, 9:31 a.m. EDT
Monsanto sows seeds of protest
Commentary: Is this corporation saving the world, or ruining it?

DENVER (MarketWatch)
Saturday 5/26/13
— Monsanto Co. may have just planted as much ill-will and suspicion
as it has at any point in its controversial corporate history dating back to 1901.
<snip>

If you look up what protesters are saying, Monsanto is all about its “Frankencorn.”
As one protester’s sign put it:
“Still wondering how the zombie outbreak started? One word: Monsanto.”
<snip>

Protester: “If you’re so proud of your products, why don’t you label them?”

Monsanto: “People will ... prosper, through healthier diets, greater educational opportunities,
and brighter futures fueled by more robust local economies.”
<snip>

You can go with how one protester put it:
“If Monsanto needs a bill to protect them from legal action,
then they must know what they are doing is illegal!”

Or you can go with Monsanto:
“Integrity is the foundation for all that we do.
Integrity includes honesty, decency, consistency, and courage.”
<snip>

NY Times
AMY HARMON
August 24, 2013

Golden Rice: Lifesaver?

ONE bright morning this month, 400 protesters smashed down the high fences surrounding a field
in the Bicol region of the Philippines and uprooted the genetically modified rice plants growing inside.

Had the plants survived long enough to flower, they would have
betrayed a distinctly yellow tint in the otherwise white part of the grain.
That is because the rice is endowed with a gene from corn and another from a bacterium,
making it the only variety in existence to produce beta carotene, the source of vitamin A.
Its developers call it “Golden Rice.”
<snip>
They are driving the desire among some Americans for mandatory “G.M.O.” labels on food
with ingredients made from crops whose DNA has been altered in a laboratory.
And they have motivated similar attacks on trials of other genetically modified crops in recent years:
grapes designed to fight off a deadly virus in France,
wheat designed to have a lower glycemic index in Australia,
sugar beets in Oregon designed to tolerate a herbicide, to name a few.

And a looming decision by the Philippine government about whether to allow Golden Rice to be grown beyond
its four remaining field trials has added a new dimension to the debate over the technology’s merits.
Not owned by any company, Golden Rice is being developed by a nonprofit group
called the International Rice Research Institute with the aim of providing a new source of vitamin A
to people both in the Philippines, where most households get most of their calories from rice,
and eventually in many other places in a world where rice is eaten every day by half the population.

Lack of the vital nutrient causes blindness in a quarter-million to a half-million children each year.
It affects millions of people in Asia and Africa and so weakens the immune system that
some two million die each year of diseases they would otherwise survive.
<snip>
If Golden Rice is a Trojan horse, it now has some company.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is supporting the final testing of Golden Ricem
is also underwriting the development of crops tailored for sub-Saharan Africa,
like cassava that can resist the viruses that routinely wipe out a third of the harvest,
bananas that contain higher levels of iron and corn that uses nitrogen more efficiently.
Other groups are developing a pest-resistant black-eyed pea and a “Golden Banana”
that would also deliver vitamin A.

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Beyond the fear of corporate control of agriculture, perhaps the most cited objection to G.M.O.’s is
that they may hold risks that may not be understood. The decision to grow or eat them relies,
like many other decisions, on a cost-benefit analysis.[/COLOR]

Washington State has an Initiative #522 on the next ballot to require
food products containing genetically modified products to be labeled.

What is strange are the TV ads being run in opposition to this labeling...
This one is a woman on a "family farm" that is "a certified non-Genetically Modified farm"

[YOUTUBE]UGvSTTd-Gso[/YOUTUBE]

...but notice the small family farm sponsors at the end of the ad...
Monsanto
Dupont Pioneer
Dow Agrisciences LLC
Bayer CropScience

William Leggett would not be a fan of these special privileges, it may be time to listen when the lefties talk about revoking corporate charters.

Governments have no right to interfere with the pursuits of individuals, as guarantied by those general laws, by offering encouragements and granting privileges to any particular class of industry, or any select bodies of men, inasmuch as all classes of industry and all men are equally important to the general welfare, and equally entitled to protection.

Leggett rocks. :thumb2:

Washington Post
Brady Dennis
10/18/13

A new method against genetically modified salmon:
Get retailers to refuse to sell it

Consumer and environmental activists, facing likely defeat in their bid to block
government approval of the first genetically engineered salmon,
are trying a different tack to keep the fish off America&#8217;s dinner plates:
Getting retailers not to sell it. And they&#8217;re making headway.

Some of the nation&#8217;s most recognizable chains
&#8212; including Whole Foods, Trader Joe&#8217;s and Target &#8212;
have agreed in recent months to steer clear of the fish.
A spokeswoman for Safeway, the nation&#8217;s second-largest grocery chain,
said the chain doesn&#8217;t have &#8220;any plans to carry GE salmon.&#8221;
Activists are pressing Kroger, the country&#8217;s largest grocer, to make a similar commitment.
<snip>

Massachusetts-based AquaBounty Technologies first applied for
permission to sell its genetically altered salmon in 1995.
Its AquAdvantage salmon consists of an Atlantic salmon containing a growth hormone
from a Chinook salmon and a gene from the ocean pout, an eel-like fish.
The result: A fish that grows to market size in about half the time as a traditional salmon.

For years, opponents have argued there&#8217;s not enough data to prove the salmon is safe to eat.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]They have also warned there could be devastating environmental consequences
if the fish were to escape confinement and breed with wild salmon.[/COLOR]

Of course, people could refuse to buy it.

.

This couldn't happen to a better company.

Monsanto Weedkiller Is &#8201;&#8216;&#8201;Probably Carcinogenic,&#8217; WHO Says
Bloomberg News - Jack Kaskey - 3/20/15

Monsanto Co.&#8217;s best-selling weedkiller [COLOR="Red"]Roundup probably causes cancer[/COLOR],
the World Health Organization said in a report that&#8217;s at odds with prior findings.

Roundup is the market name for the chemical glyphosate.
A report published by the WHO in the journal Lancet Oncology said Friday there is
&#8220;limited evidence&#8221; that the weedkiller can cause non-Hodgkin&#8217;s lymphoma and lung cancer
and &#8220;convincing evidence&#8221; it can cause cancer in lab animals.

The report was posted on the website of the International Agency for Research on Cancer,
or IARC, the Lyon, France-based arm of the WHO
<snip>

Even if it is not the case, I hope this article scares the bejesus out of farmers and the public
...enough to break this litigious corporation in it's march towards monopoly over food crops.

And Monsanto says... besides fuck you...

From The Economist of 15 Sept 2015:

IN THE early 1970s Asia&#8217;s rice farmers faced ruin. The brown planthopper, an insect up till then found mostly in Japan, began to appear across the region. It fed on young plants and transmitted grassy stunt virus, causing crops to shrivel and brown. As it swept through Asia&#8217;s paddy fields, yields crashed. By the end of the decade it had caused damage costing over $300m&#8212;more than $1 billion in today&#8217;s money.

Scientists raced to find a solution. They screened over 6,000 samples of rice and its wild relatives until they found a unique sample from central India of a wild species called Oryza nivara that was resistant to the virus. By crossing it with domesticated rice strains, plant-breeders transferred the resistant genes into a new variety. Today, millions of farmers across Asia grow rice derived from such crosses.

Also called genetically modified. Today, most every food we eat is genetically modified.

Today's tools do same faster. But it is still doing same. Nothing but fear says GM foods are dangerous. Genetic modified foods were once called hybrids. That was not as emotionally fearful as the expression Genetic Modified. So people once did not fear technology.

We can also discuss Hilary's e-mails if conspiracy is the purpose of life.

tw;942024 wrote:

We can also discuss Hilary's e-mails if conspiracy is the purpose of life.

The know ones that contained classified info which weren't protected or the ones she deleted?

tw;942024 wrote:

Genetic modified foods were once called hybrids. That was not as emotionally fearful as the expression Genetic Modified. So people once did not fear technology.

Monsanto has spent a lot of money arguing otherwise in court so they can argue that they own the genes in the pollen in the air.

http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/impact.html

There is nothing inherently wrong with the tech. The problems with overuse of Roundup and the ownership issues where a giant multi-national reaps the benefit of ownership without the responsibility of same are real issues apparently not discussed in your no link. This conflict does include some anti-science folks but it also includes anyone with a concern about monopolistic practices.

well said, Griff.

Griff;942114 wrote:

There is nothing inherently wrong with the tech. The problems with overuse of Roundup and the ownership issues where a giant multi-national reaps the benefit of ownership without the responsibility of same are real issues apparently not discussed in your no link.

Use of pesticides is completely different from GM foods. Yes, glyphosate problems are noted due to overuse. Both in quantities (similar to fertilizer overuse) and in creating glyphosate resistance plants. If I remember, 25% of farms in America has identified glyphosate resistant plants.

Even Monstanto understood this long ago. Has been moving to new variations so that one need not continue using glyphosate. Those solutions are in development. That ongoing change is why Monstanto recently purchased another company (name forgotten) so as to diversify how we raise crops.

GM crops and excessive use or constant use of glyphosate are separate issues.

tw;942129 wrote:

GM crops and excessive use or constant use of glyphosate are separate issues.

Roundup resistance was introduced through genetic modification.

Griff;942158 wrote:

Roundup resistance was introduced through genetic modification.

Plants (ie weeds), that have no genetic modification, have become resistant to glyphosate. That was found in farms that did not rotate their weed killers in three or less years. Unfortunately, those other killers require greater care and are not as effective as glyphosate.

This concern is not just found on farms. Homeowners should also take same care using Roundup. Some glyphosate resistance has also been reported in residential venues. Same reason - which has nothing to do with genetically modified crops.

Genetically modified crops did nothing to make other plants - especially weeds - glyphosate resistant. Some reports implied these weeds were so resistant as to require physical removal.

I wish the bees would develop a resistance.

tw;942184 wrote:

Plants (ie weeds), that have no genetic modification, have become resistant to glyphosate. That was found in farms that did not rotate their weed killers in three or less years. Unfortunately, those other killers require greater care and are not as effective as glyphosate.

This concern is not just found on farms. Homeowners should also take same care using Roundup. Some glyphosate resistance has also been reported in residential venues. Same reason - which has nothing to do with genetically modified crops.

Genetically modified crops did nothing to make other plants - especially weeds - glyphosate resistant. Some reports implied these weeds were so resistant as to require physical removal.

Just keep in mind that agriculture's overuse was made possible by the genetic manipulation of Roundup Ready crops. Those crops were sprayed heavily forcing the weeds to evolve. Whether or not Monsanto encouraged misuse is an open question.

Griff;942223 wrote:

Whether or not Monsanto encouraged misuse is an open question.

Same question exists with fertilizer (ie potash) companies.

Not to mention the fact that Monsanto's position is that the LABELING of foods as GMO is anathema to them. They're allergic to the prospect of being required to offer to the consumers information on the label of the products they have a part in producing. That's just preemptive defensiveness. Whether or not it is healthful or productive or profitable or otherwise is a separate point. They strenuously argue that such labeling should NOT be required, though they do accept other regulatory requirements, including labeling requirements.

They're just trying to pre-empt any ... anything. "NO!" "Keep your rules off my body (of intellectual property)!"

If they had to swear or affirm safety, it comes with liability. Just the cost of suits brought on behalf of a small group with problems clearly stated in the "possible side effects", would be big bucks.

Nah, the government already affirms that it's safe, if it were possible to sue people would already be doing it. The labeling issue is just so people are made aware of what they're buying. Monsanto rightly understands that, correctly or not, people are going to avoid buying GMO products once they actually know which ones they are. And GMO products are the only thing Monsanto makes.

xoxoxoBruce;942463 wrote:

If they had to swear or affirm safety, it comes with liability.

Problem: most of us only reason using soundbytes. So is salt safe or a killer? Both. But that requires numbers. Most of us do not want and cannot make judgements using perspective. Most want a soundbyte answer often found in extremism.

In a world where extremist soundbytes have more credibility than long technical reality, then anyone can appreciate why Monsanto (and so many others) desperately want a low profile.

Perfect example - Keystone pipeline. Opposition only exists due to extremist half truths and outright lies. Where is one hard fact (with numbers) that says that pipeline is bad? None exist. So why do so many have opinions? Again, many adults still think like children. Their emotions (not facts) created by soundbytes justify their opinions.

If we must label foods as genetically modified, then we should label all foods. Since virtually all are genetically modified.

Or do what does not exist in health food stores and should be required. A full sheet describing every ingredient with numbers that say how much AND numbers that say what the recommended daily amount is. In this case, wackos in government will oppose that because honesty would bankrupt the health food (ie GNC) industry that buy politicians.

How many foods have probiotics and bifidus regularis? Magic ingredients that improve digestion? Of course. All foods improve digestion because even more junk food increases the amount digestion. But Dannon sales increased more than 20% due to a soundbyte lie. So many can be scammed by 'magic' expressions that are only 'good' or 'evil'. In an extremist's world (or a world of adults who are still children), only those two conditions exist.

Define affirmed safety.

The thing that people don't understand, when they point out that this is just evolution on a faster timescale, is that the potential intolerances occur on a faster scale too. Evolution is a dance between both populations, the eater and the eaten.

Say a strain of tomatoes develops naturally in the wild with a gene mutation. There's a chance, perhaps even a good chance, that some portion of the human/animal population is not going to tolerate that new gene sequence as well--is not going to be able to digest it as easily, is going to be more likely to be allergic to it, happens to cause a greater incidence of heart disease, whatever. But since that strain took 20 years to occur, and would take another 100-200 to spread widely across the land, those incompatible individuals are weeded out just as slowly. This is why tomatoes are generally good for us--not because they're magically good for us, but because the people for whom they were not good died. Conversely, if too many animals/people are intolerant of the new gene sequence, then the tomato dies out instead of spreading because no one is eating it, and ejecting the seeds wide and far through their fecal matter.

Immediately change the gene sequence of a huge portion of the food supply, and you've skipped that dance. Maybe most of the population can't tolerate it, in a subtle but insidious way--say, I don't know, they're allergic to it. Did you know that peanuts were one of the first widely-spread GMO foods?

And hey, maybe that's better in the long run. Maybe we make our species stronger faster by sickening and brutally weeding people out faster. But you can't just speed up one half of evolution without speeding up the other.

Clodfobble;942487 wrote:

Immediately change the gene sequence of a huge portion of the food supply, and you've skipped that dance. Maybe most of the population can't tolerate it, in a subtle but insidious way--say, I don't know, they're allergic to it. Did you know that peanuts were one of the first widely-spread GMO foods?

That assumes most all tomatoes would suddenly switch to one new hybrid strain. That is not what GM foods are about. GM means variety; different strains optimized for that unique enviroment and other changes.

Serious problems are recently identified for crops such as bananas and coffee. Most bananas are the Cavendish variety. Suddenly a fungus began appearing in Central American because everyone was still growing the Cavendish variety. New hybrid (genetically modified) bananas are needed. GM also means toxic hybrids can be identified long before going into production - without using consumers as guinea pigs.

Need for genetic modification using new tools is exasperated by so many and increasing numbers of invasive species. Unfortunately GM tools are not fast enough for the banana crop. Orange crop has recently (in the past ten years) also seen a threat that entered in eastern FL and is now widespread even in CA oranges. More reasons why better genetic modification tools are needed.

To increase deaths, ban GM development. Only fear invented more diseases and deaths from GM crops.

tw wrote:

GM means variety; different strains optimized for that unique enviroment and other changes.

No, GM means the opposite. Monsanto created the "ideal" new strain of soybean that is Roundup-Ready, and it is now effectively the only strain of soybean grown at all. It has invaded the fields of even those farmers who didn't want to grow it (i.e., pay for it,) and then Monsanto sued them for having the patented soybean species on their land even when they were trying not to. The same is true of corn, by the way. It is basically impossible to buy corn nowadays that is not the primary GMO strain.

The ubiquitousness of Cavendish bananas, while not the result of genetic modification, are most certainly the result of human intervention, wiping out other species and planting only that species that has the longest shelf-life after picking and thus can be shipped the farthest.

Humans don't aim for variety. Our natural instinct is to find the one "best" answer and throw every hat we have into that ring.

Clodfobble;942499 wrote:

No, GM means the opposite.

Absolutely. Monsanto is in the business of market control any other outcomes are incidental.

Clodfobble;942499 wrote:

Humans don't aim for variety. Our natural instinct is to find the one "best" answer and throw every hat we have into that ring.

Then why do soi many varieties of tomatoes exist? And corn (maize)? And rice? Roundup resistance is only one example of GM foods. And a first example of doing the same old thing with very new tools. We have only been doing this stuff for 20 years - literally only just started. Since these new tools have only been recently developed, there is plenty of work to be done creating new varieties for all other foods. But naysayers want to attack on some Frankenstein myth that Roundup resistant crops are destroying agriculture like an invasive species. Even Frankenstein was fiction.

So where are the killer bees that would soon destroy domestic bees. Where are the lung fish that would jump out of lakes, flop across roads, and wipe out all domestic fish. Where is this epidemic of West Nile disease. Fear of Roundup resistant crops means we should ban all genetically modified foods? Nonsense. That is only an emotional fear not supported by numbers and still not happening across the agriculture industry.

Hybrids are why the earth feds many times more people than what was once thought possible. Fear of hybrids, using the expression GM, is not justified by facts - with numbers. How was most of the world's rice industry saved? What could have averted the great potato (or potatoe depending on who you are) famine in Ireland? Genetically modified crops.

Our natural instinct is to keep inventing and innovating. To keep advancing mankind. How does banning innovative new crops do that?

tw wrote:

We have only been doing this stuff for 20 years - literally only just started.

On that we agree. We have no clue what we're doing yet.

tw wrote:

Where is this epidemic of West Nile disease.

It is humorous that you would accidentally say this to someone who got West Nile. But I freely admit that the 4 days of morphine were pretty awesome.

We are forgetting that Monsanto, in their genetic tinkering, have also made all their seeds sterile, preventing farmers and even hobby gardeners from saving seeds to replant next season. And thereby forcing all planters large and small to buy new seeds every season, increasing their profits.

And for those who dare to plant heirloom seeds, they have various legal remedies to stop you. This doesn't mean your backyard garden is illegal, but if you sell to an out of state customer at a farmers market, you may feel their wrath. Ditto raw milk and rGBH free meats.

Flint wrote:

Of all the things going on in the world--drone attacks, etc. this Monsanto shit is the devil.

Yes Flint indeed so!!

We need to try hard to get rid of this GMO garbage!!!!!! -- No good!!

Pamela;942606 wrote:

We are forgetting that Monsanto, in their genetic tinkering, have also made all their seeds sterile, preventing farmers and even hobby gardeners from saving seeds to replant next season. And thereby forcing all planters large and small to buy new seeds every season, increasing their profits.

Plenty of other seed manufacturers exist. The problem with your reasoning is that farmers have chosen whose seed they want. It is called a free market. Monsanto is not the Central Committee of the Communist Party as so many assume.

I prefer the plants themselves to "manufacture" their seeds.

Clodfobble;942558 wrote:

It is humorous that you would accidentally say this to someone who got West Nile. But I freely admit that the 4 days of morphine were pretty awesome.

Did you discuss this somewhere? I don't know anyone who got West Nile. And do not know about the experience (how one knows, what symptoms are like, what is involve in treatment).

Clodfobble;942682 wrote:

I prefer the plants themselves to "manufacture" their seeds.

Then buy those seeds; not the Monsanto seeds that claim to grow sterile crops. Many farmers do not want your preference.

Genetic innovation means more options. And crops that can adapt to a farmers environment and needs. I have no idea why anyone would want to stifle invention and innovation.

I do $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

I found the chart at agrimarketing.com. they got the info from Farm Journal.

This is the notation for the chart of market share.
Five Years of Seed Market Share: Company/brand consolidations and genetic performance continue to drive changes in seed market shares. One share point of seed corn in the U.S. market in 2014 (90.9 acres at 31,500 planting rate) represents 357,000 standard units of sales at an estimated retail value of $107 million. One share point of soybean seed in 2014 (84.2 million acres at 140,000 planting rate) represents 842,000 standard units of sales at an estimated retail value of $50 million.

Monsanto has since purchased Syngenta.

tw wrote:

Did you discuss this somewhere? I don't know anyone who got West Nile. And do not know about the experience (how one knows, what symptoms are like, what is involve in treatment).

The symptomatic result was meningitis. Typical appearance: a little fatigue, stiff neck, severely debilitating headache. After two primary physicians gave me painkillers and muscle relaxers, I ended up in the ER for the pain where they gave me a spinal tap "just to be sure."

The tech said, "You can see the fluid coming out is pretty clear, so I doubt it's meningitis..." Then they left the room to do the test, and when they came back everyone was wearing masks. And he said, "So, you can probably imagine why we're wearing these now..."

The white blood cell count was so high, they figured it couldn't be anything but bacterial, but on the other hand, "if it were bacterial you should be dead by now." After about 24 hours they confirmed it was viral (of some kind), and stopped the IV antibiotics, but continued testing the sample further because the symptoms were so severe. On I think the third day of hospitalization some new doctor came in to let me know that they'd confirmed it was West Nile, and were reporting that to the CDC as required, but since I was almost better by then (well, better enough to go home anyway) it was a formality at that point.

After getting off the morphine IV and going home, I had to stay on the hydrocodone pills for I think a week, and then regular ibuprofen for maybe another three weeks after that.

I had been camping in the Texas woods the week before all this happened, so they assume it was transmitted from a mosquito bite during that trip.

Glad you pulled through.

Nah, West Nile has been blown out of proportion like most of the slightly-unusual diseases. Only 1 in 150 cases of infection actually results in meningitis, and only 3-15% of those folks die, and it's only the weak/elderly/young doing the dying, just like people who "die" from the flu. They never even considered giving me antivirals, SOP is to just manage the pain until you get better.

Texas is for whatever reason a relative hotbed for West Nile as far as those things go, a friend of my dad's also got it.

glatt;942847 wrote:

Glad you pulled through.

Of course, but what about the poor little mosquito. Won't somebody think of the mosquitos. :haha:

Griff wrote:

Monsanto has since purchased Syngenta.

I think they are trying to take over the ORGANIC market as well as everything else!

Dude111;942936 wrote:

I think they are trying to take over the ORGANIC market as well as everything else!

If I remember, the Syngenta purchase is the address the glyphosate resistant crop problem. Monsanto is big into genetic modification. But is not strong in pesticide development. Intent was to create a new pesticide/genetic crop combination to do what was originally done with glyphosate. So that farmers can rotate their crops - to eliminate problems associated with only using one product - as described earlier in post 24