Europeans were able to do it. Can America take the hint?

[WethePeopleUS]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/03/1213348/-Monsanto-throws-in-the-towel-in-Europe

Despite throwing money at the political process via lobbyists the efforts of Monsanto have not been effective in convincing anyone their products are worthy of European consumers and farmers alike. Because of this the company has decided to discontinue lobbying in Europe in the face of overwhelming distrust in the chemical company's promises of abundant healthy crops.

This is good news for European farmers and consumers alike. For the farmers they will no longer be in perpetual debt because they would have to buy Monsanto's seeds every year instead of planting the seeds from the crop before. The farmers will also save money because those same seeds require chemical additives that can only be bought from Monsanto, and I'm sure priced accordingly. The consumers will feel safer knowing a chemical company known for causing extensive harm with their untested products will not be controlling their food supply.

Can Americans get the same message across to Monsanto?

 

[KevinWestern]

Daily Kos: Monsanto throws in the towel in Europe

Despite throwing money at the political process via lobbyists the efforts of Monsanto have not been effective in convincing anyone their products are worthy of European consumers and farmers alike. Because of this the company has decided to discontinue lobbying in Europe in the face of overwhelming distrust in the chemical company's promises of abundant healthy crops.

This is good news for European farmers and consumers alike. For the farmers they will no longer be in perpetual debt because they would have to buy Monsanto's seeds every year instead of planting the seeds from the crop before. The farmers will also save money because those same seeds require chemical additives that can only be bought from Monsanto, and I'm sure priced accordingly. The consumers will feel safer knowing a chemical company known for causing extensive harm with their untested products will not be controlling their food supply.

Can Americans get the same message across to Monsanto?

Not sure, we should ask Obama about that.

I recall him saying that this Administration would be the most "transparent of all time" so I'm sure he'd be more than happy to answer that question truthfully and honestly. Half the country voted for this guy, surely he wouldn't be selling out to such a horrible company - right?

.

 

[martybegan]

Daily Kos: Monsanto throws in the towel in Europe

Despite throwing money at the political process via lobbyists the efforts of Monsanto have not been effective in convincing anyone their products are worthy of European consumers and farmers alike. Because of this the company has decided to discontinue lobbying in Europe in the face of overwhelming distrust in the chemical company's promises of abundant healthy crops.

This is good news for European farmers and consumers alike. For the farmers they will no longer be in perpetual debt because they would have to buy Monsanto's seeds every year instead of planting the seeds from the crop before. The farmers will also save money because those same seeds require chemical additives that can only be bought from Monsanto, and I'm sure priced accordingly. The consumers will feel safer knowing a chemical company known for causing extensive harm with their untested products will not be controlling their food supply.

Can Americans get the same message across to Monsanto?

Why would anyone buy a product that places them into debt?

 

[KevinWestern]

Daily Kos: Monsanto throws in the towel in Europe

Despite throwing money at the political process via lobbyists the efforts of Monsanto have not been effective in convincing anyone their products are worthy of European consumers and farmers alike. Because of this the company has decided to discontinue lobbying in Europe in the face of overwhelming distrust in the chemical company's promises of abundant healthy crops.

This is good news for European farmers and consumers alike. For the farmers they will no longer be in perpetual debt because they would have to buy Monsanto's seeds every year instead of planting the seeds from the crop before. The farmers will also save money because those same seeds require chemical additives that can only be bought from Monsanto, and I'm sure priced accordingly. The consumers will feel safer knowing a chemical company known for causing extensive harm with their untested products will not be controlling their food supply.

Can Americans get the same message across to Monsanto?

Why would anyone buy a product that places them into debt?

Perhaps because it was sold to them as a good idea years ago, and that "sell" is now irreversible because it's virtually impossible to switch a GMO plot back to a completely non GMO plot.

Sometimes, folks don't have a choice. What happens when a monsanto seed migrates from one plot to another (via wind) and begins to grow on a non-customer's field?
.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

Daily Kos: Monsanto throws in the towel in Europe

Despite throwing money at the political process via lobbyists the efforts of Monsanto have not been effective in convincing anyone their products are worthy of European consumers and farmers alike. Because of this the company has decided to discontinue lobbying in Europe in the face of overwhelming distrust in the chemical company's promises of abundant healthy crops.

This is good news for European farmers and consumers alike. For the farmers they will no longer be in perpetual debt because they would have to buy Monsanto's seeds every year instead of planting the seeds from the crop before. The farmers will also save money because those same seeds require chemical additives that can only be bought from Monsanto, and I'm sure priced accordingly. The consumers will feel safer knowing a chemical company known for causing extensive harm with their untested products will not be controlling their food supply.

Can Americans get the same message across to Monsanto?

Not sure, we should ask Obama about that.

I recall him saying that this Administration would be the most "transparent of all time" so I'm sure he'd be more than happy to answer that question truthfully and honestly. Half the country voted for this guy, surely he wouldn't be selling out to such a horrible company - right?

.

I'm sure that Monsanto lined Obama's pocket with some cash. Otherwise, how did the Monsanto Protection Act get passed. Obama knew what he was signing.

 

[martybegan]

Daily Kos: Monsanto throws in the towel in Europe

Despite throwing money at the political process via lobbyists the efforts of Monsanto have not been effective in convincing anyone their products are worthy of European consumers and farmers alike. Because of this the company has decided to discontinue lobbying in Europe in the face of overwhelming distrust in the chemical company's promises of abundant healthy crops.

This is good news for European farmers and consumers alike. For the farmers they will no longer be in perpetual debt because they would have to buy Monsanto's seeds every year instead of planting the seeds from the crop before. The farmers will also save money because those same seeds require chemical additives that can only be bought from Monsanto, and I'm sure priced accordingly. The consumers will feel safer knowing a chemical company known for causing extensive harm with their untested products will not be controlling their food supply.

Can Americans get the same message across to Monsanto?

Why would anyone buy a product that places them into debt?

Perhaps because it was sold to them as a good idea years ago, and that "sell" is now irreversible because it's virtually impossible to switch a GMO plot back to a completely non GMO plot.

Sometimes, folks don't have a choice. What happens when a monsanto seed migrates from one plot to another (via wind) and begins to grow on a non-customer's field?
.

So it would be impossible to switch a plot from winter wheat one growing cycle, and say to soybeans during another part of the year (by your logic).

Also, Monsanto doesnt sue for cross pollination, it only sued when someone tries to re-use the seed the next planting season. In the case of the guy in Canada he was cross pollinated, and the saved some seed and re-used it. Monsanto only sued him when he replanted.

The guy then sued Monsanto the next time some of the seed cross pollinated on his land, and he won $660 bucks for disposal of the GMO crop.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

Daily Kos: Monsanto throws in the towel in Europe

Despite throwing money at the political process via lobbyists the efforts of Monsanto have not been effective in convincing anyone their products are worthy of European consumers and farmers alike. Because of this the company has decided to discontinue lobbying in Europe in the face of overwhelming distrust in the chemical company's promises of abundant healthy crops.

This is good news for European farmers and consumers alike. For the farmers they will no longer be in perpetual debt because they would have to buy Monsanto's seeds every year instead of planting the seeds from the crop before. The farmers will also save money because those same seeds require chemical additives that can only be bought from Monsanto, and I'm sure priced accordingly. The consumers will feel safer knowing a chemical company known for causing extensive harm with their untested products will not be controlling their food supply.

Can Americans get the same message across to Monsanto?

Why would anyone buy a product that places them into debt?

You mean like buying cars, homes, appliances, electronics, etc.? Debt is debt, no matter what you buy.

 

[martybegan]

Daily Kos: Monsanto throws in the towel in Europe

Despite throwing money at the political process via lobbyists the efforts of Monsanto have not been effective in convincing anyone their products are worthy of European consumers and farmers alike. Because of this the company has decided to discontinue lobbying in Europe in the face of overwhelming distrust in the chemical company's promises of abundant healthy crops.

This is good news for European farmers and consumers alike. For the farmers they will no longer be in perpetual debt because they would have to buy Monsanto's seeds every year instead of planting the seeds from the crop before. The farmers will also save money because those same seeds require chemical additives that can only be bought from Monsanto, and I'm sure priced accordingly. The consumers will feel safer knowing a chemical company known for causing extensive harm with their untested products will not be controlling their food supply.

Can Americans get the same message across to Monsanto?

Why would anyone buy a product that places them into debt?

You mean like buying cars, homes, appliances, electronics, etc.? Debt is debt, no matter what you buy.

The purpose of a farmer is to grow a crop to cover his expenses, and provide a profit. When a consumer buys cars/homes/appliances etc it is not as part of a business to make money. The comparison is not valid.

If having to buy seed every growing season was not economical, then why would the farmers do it year after year? Why whould Monsanto be making money?

 

[bripat9643]

Daily Kos: Monsanto throws in the towel in Europe

Despite throwing money at the political process via lobbyists the efforts of Monsanto have not been effective in convincing anyone their products are worthy of European consumers and farmers alike. Because of this the company has decided to discontinue lobbying in Europe in the face of overwhelming distrust in the chemical company's promises of abundant healthy crops.

This is good news for European farmers and consumers alike. For the farmers they will no longer be in perpetual debt because they would have to buy Monsanto's seeds every year instead of planting the seeds from the crop before. The farmers will also save money because those same seeds require chemical additives that can only be bought from Monsanto, and I'm sure priced accordingly. The consumers will feel safer knowing a chemical company known for causing extensive harm with their untested products will not be controlling their food supply.

Can Americans get the same message across to Monsanto?

Why would anyone buy a product that places them into debt?

Perhaps because it was sold to them as a good idea years ago, and that "sell" is now irreversible because it's virtually impossible to switch a GMO plot back to a completely non GMO plot.

Sometimes, folks don't have a choice. What happens when a monsanto seed migrates from one plot to another (via wind) and begins to grow on a non-customer's field?
.

How could it be impossible to switch to non GMO plot? All that's required is to plant the non GMO seeds.

 

[bripat9643]

Why would anyone buy a product that places them into debt?

You mean like buying cars, homes, appliances, electronics, etc.? Debt is debt, no matter what you buy.

The purpose of a farmer is to grow a crop to cover his expenses, and provide a profit. When a consumer buys cars/homes/appliances etc it is not as part of a business to make money. The comparison is not valid.

If having to buy seed every growing season was not economical, then why would the farmers do it year after year? Why whould Monsanto be making money?

They do it because they make more money buying seeds every year than the doing things the old way. The increased productivity more than compensates for the cost of the seeds.

These anti GMO nutburgers are just using scare tactics to get GMO foods outlawed. Millions of people will starve if they get their way.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

You mean like buying cars, homes, appliances, electronics, etc.? Debt is debt, no matter what you buy.

The purpose of a farmer is to grow a crop to cover his expenses, and provide a profit. When a consumer buys cars/homes/appliances etc it is not as part of a business to make money. The comparison is not valid.

If having to buy seed every growing season was not economical, then why would the farmers do it year after year? Why whould Monsanto be making money?

They do it because they make more money buying seeds every year than the doing things the old way. The increased productivity more than compensates for the cost of the seeds.

These anti GMO nutburgers are just using scare tactics to get GMO foods outlawed. Millions of people will starve if they get their way.

Has it been proven that GMO foods are decreasing the famine problem around the world, or either our country? Do they yield a larger surplus than non-GMO foods?

 

[martybegan]

The purpose of a farmer is to grow a crop to cover his expenses, and provide a profit. When a consumer buys cars/homes/appliances etc it is not as part of a business to make money. The comparison is not valid.

If having to buy seed every growing season was not economical, then why would the farmers do it year after year? Why whould Monsanto be making money?

They do it because they make more money buying seeds every year than the doing things the old way. The increased productivity more than compensates for the cost of the seeds.

These anti GMO nutburgers are just using scare tactics to get GMO foods outlawed. Millions of people will starve if they get their way.

Has it been proven that GMO foods are decreasing the famine problem around the world, or either our country? Do they yield a larger surplus than non-GMO foods?

They have to do SOMETHING to justify the cost of buying seeds every planting as opposed to just re-using plain old cultivagted seeds.

if they didnt then why make them in the first place? There has to be SOME benefit, be it increased yield, less water/pesticide/herbicide required, less labor required. SOMETHING.

 

[bripat9643]

They do it because they make more money buying seeds every year than the doing things the old way. The increased productivity more than compensates for the cost of the seeds.

These anti GMO nutburgers are just using scare tactics to get GMO foods outlawed. Millions of people will starve if they get their way.

Has it been proven that GMO foods are decreasing the famine problem around the world, or either our country? Do they yield a larger surplus than non-GMO foods?

They have to do SOMETHING to justify the cost of buying seeds every planting as opposed to just re-using plain old cultivagted seeds.

if they didnt then why make them in the first place? There has to be SOME benefit, be it increased yield, less water/pesticide/herbicide required, less labor required. SOMETHING.

and that is bad because?

 

[bripat9643]

The purpose of a farmer is to grow a crop to cover his expenses, and provide a profit. When a consumer buys cars/homes/appliances etc it is not as part of a business to make money. The comparison is not valid.

If having to buy seed every growing season was not economical, then why would the farmers do it year after year? Why whould Monsanto be making money?

They do it because they make more money buying seeds every year than the doing things the old way. The increased productivity more than compensates for the cost of the seeds.

These anti GMO nutburgers are just using scare tactics to get GMO foods outlawed. Millions of people will starve if they get their way.

Has it been proven that GMO foods are decreasing the famine problem around the world, or either our country? Do they yield a larger surplus than non-GMO foods?

Monsanto | Do GM Crops Increase Yield?

Mexico - yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybean of 9 percent.
Romania – yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybeans have averaged 31 percent.
Philippines – average yield increase of 15 percent with herbicide tolerant corn.
Philippines – average yield increase of 24 percent with insect resistant corn.
Hawaii – virus resistant papaya has increased yields by an average of 40 percent.
India – insect resistant cotton has led to yield increases on average more than 50 percent.

 

[martybegan]

Has it been proven that GMO foods are decreasing the famine problem around the world, or either our country? Do they yield a larger surplus than non-GMO foods?

They have to do SOMETHING to justify the cost of buying seeds every planting as opposed to just re-using plain old cultivagted seeds.

if they didnt then why make them in the first place? There has to be SOME benefit, be it increased yield, less water/pesticide/herbicide required, less labor required. SOMETHING.

and that is bad because?

Its not bad at all. To compensate for the added cost of buying seed every planting, something has to be better about GMO seeds.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

Why would anyone buy a product that places them into debt?

Perhaps because it was sold to them as a good idea years ago, and that "sell" is now irreversible because it's virtually impossible to switch a GMO plot back to a completely non GMO plot.

Sometimes, folks don't have a choice. What happens when a monsanto seed migrates from one plot to another (via wind) and begins to grow on a non-customer's field?
.

How could it be impossible to switch to non GMO plot? All that's required is to plant the non GMO seeds.

Is it possible that once a GMO plot has been used, the amount of chemicals sprayed will inhibit natural growth of crops?

 

[martybegan]

Perhaps because it was sold to them as a good idea years ago, and that "sell" is now irreversible because it's virtually impossible to switch a GMO plot back to a completely non GMO plot.

Sometimes, folks don't have a choice. What happens when a monsanto seed migrates from one plot to another (via wind) and begins to grow on a non-customer's field?
.

How could it be impossible to switch to non GMO plot? All that's required is to plant the non GMO seeds.

Is it possible that once a GMO plot has been used, the amount of chemicals sprayed will inhibit natural growth of crops?

Chemicals like the organics used for pesticides and herbicides dont have that long of a duration is soil, at least in concentrations that could affect plants. If that was the case all you would have to do is apply said chemical once.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

How could it be impossible to switch to non GMO plot? All that's required is to plant the non GMO seeds.

Is it possible that once a GMO plot has been used, the amount of chemicals sprayed will inhibit natural growth of crops?

Chemicals like the organics used for pesticides and herbicides dont have that long of a duration is soil, at least in concentrations that could affect plants. If that was the case all you would have to do is apply said chemical once.

Good point!

 

[WethePeopleUS]

They do it because they make more money buying seeds every year than the doing things the old way. The increased productivity more than compensates for the cost of the seeds.

These anti GMO nutburgers are just using scare tactics to get GMO foods outlawed. Millions of people will starve if they get their way.

Has it been proven that GMO foods are decreasing the famine problem around the world, or either our country? Do they yield a larger surplus than non-GMO foods?

Monsanto | Do GM Crops Increase Yield?

Mexico - yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybean of 9 percent.
Romania – yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybeans have averaged 31 percent.
Philippines – average yield increase of 15 percent with herbicide tolerant corn.
Philippines – average yield increase of 24 percent with insect resistant corn.
Hawaii – virus resistant papaya has increased yields by an average of 40 percent.
India – insect resistant cotton has led to yield increases on average more than 50 percent.

Are you really going to use a Monsanto source lol? Of course they are going to say their crops yield a bigger harvest..

 

[TemplarKormac]

They have to do SOMETHING to justify the cost of buying seeds every planting as opposed to just re-using plain old cultivagted seeds.

if they didnt then why make them in the first place? There has to be SOME benefit, be it increased yield, less water/pesticide/herbicide required, less labor required. SOMETHING.

and that is bad because?

Its not bad at all. To compensate for the added cost of buying seed every planting, something has to be better about GMO seeds.

You're kidding right? GMO is like fixing what ain't broke! Ancient civilization seemed to manage without it, so why aren't we taking the hint?