The people of Boulder County, Colorado have been working very diligently to promote what is referred to as “The Boulder Brand” in an effort to promote organic, good health and sustainable agriculture. After the December 20th deliberations in which the Boulder County Commissioners spoke to endorse genetically modified crops and systemic pesticides, it has been made very clear that there is a set agenda to approve the planting of GM crops on public land.
Although, there are many Boulder County residents who are outraged about this, the County Commissioners failed to step up to their responsibilities to protect the people, to protect the farmers, and to protect the land.
Just how do the people feel about it? The commissioners, otherwise referred to as the “Gang of Three” are each paid $87,000 a year. With the current state of the economy, people ARE paying attention. People are upset and are not going to cower and remain silent. Although, the mainstream media simply refuses to acknowledge any of the opposition (because it is owned by the corporate oligarchy) one disappointed citizen has renamed them the “Gang Of Three “:
The Boulder County Ommissioners
o·mis·sion
| noun?/??miSH?n/ omissions, plural
|
I attended most of the meetings that the county held in regards to GMO’s I felt that the facts were fairly brought forward and while there are still unknowns, the farmers in this area need to have the technology in order to be economically viable and to compete in the marketplace as it exists today. Taking care of the soil is also one of their responsibilities and I feel that the farmers that are renting the ground from Boulder County are doing that very well. I do believe that there are those who do not understand the science behind GMO as well as those who do not understand how to properly take care of our soils and our enviorment. For the most part at these meetings I saw the extremes doing battle for their cause. I think agriculture needs to embrace modern science and temper that with good land stewardship. My thoughts.
Glenn, I don’t know what meetings your attended, because the “facts” that were presented only addressed one aspect of the challenge: Everything was pro-GMOs.
There were numerous fundamental problems inherent in the entire cropland policy development process. First, Open Space set the agenda and put forth the entire policy for the cropland policy advisory group to weigh. They began with the end in mind and even hired a facilitator to make sure the two organic farmers on the group were not able to derail the process. That’s what facilitators do.
Second, the were three county lease-holding farmers making policy that directly effects them, a direct violation of state statute for conflict-of-interest.
Third, the Open Space staff illegally excluded documentation and recommendations in the final policy document. Beyond these omissions there were countless other attempts to thwart input from the public, or you refer to them: extremes, which limited and all but completely discounted the voice of the public.
There is and aways will be an abyss when it comes to GMOs. They divide and conquer communities just as they’ve done here in Boulder. It’s a public land use issue and the public has NOT YET WEIGHED IN ON THE MATTER. This decision was made by three people on behalf of 70 farmers. Right or wrong, I believe the voters should be the ultimate voice of how these farmlands are to be used and whether there are GMOs on County Open Space land.
My intent was to not try to ruin anything, just state my thoughts not create a further abyss between the organic and the modern technologies. The world needs both. GM Supporters are still trying to ruin “The Boulder Brand” via @TheOrganicView http://j.mp/uOE2gd
Not everyone was pro GMO Scott. I feel the decision in Boulder to allow GMO Sugar Beets was a good one. Farmers for the most part try to protect the soil, the environment and the citizens by growing these crops with the best management practices that are available. I attended most of these Boulder meetings and found that there were a few factions on each end of the scale promoting their agenda. I also saw the majority of those in attendance wanting to learn as much as they can about their environment to ensure that they were protected. I felt the procedure followed and the openness of these meetings was a plus and I applaud the county commissioners for educating the citizens. They would not have had to do this. Glenn
Glenn wrote:
“My intent was to not try to ruin anything, . . . not to create a further abyss between the organic and the modern technologies. The world needs both.”
Dear Glenn,
What you don’t seem to understand is that GM is an invasive technology that does not ALLOW other forms of agriculture to co-exist. Percy Schmeiser was a traditional grower of canola (oilseed rape) up in Canada – whose family had secured a hard-won reputation as the breeders of the finest varieties of canola seed in their region of Canada.
Monsanto arrived one day and told him that his entire crop – thousands of acres of canola – was now their property – because the patented gene which is the basis of their GM canola – had contaminated his entire crop – via windblown pollen.
The fact that he had NEVER, EVER planted a single GM canola seed manufactured by Monsanto – was neither here nor there. The GM gene had been found in his ‘traditional’ crop – and the courts ruled that he had breached Monsanto’s patent – in effect they claimed his entire crop now belonged to Monsanto. If you can grasp the significance of this – it means that once a GM crop is introduced – all ‘traditional’ farmers and varieties of that crop are automatically robbed of their property.
The same struggle is going on in India – which, until recently had 300,000 regional varieties of non GM rice. I was there two weeks ago and met rice farmers who showed me: red rice, blue rice, white rice, purple rice, flake rice and a hundred other varieties. Monsanto is trying to force the introduction of its new ‘miracle GM rice’ to India – a country of 1.4 billion people that is overwhelmingly self-sufficient in food – and has been for 5,000 years.
If Monsanto’s GM rice is introduced – it will mean that all those 300,000 varieties of rice – husbanded and developed over the past 5,000 years – ALL will disappear within a few years. The patented genes from Monsanto’s GM rice will spread on the wind and contaminate the traditional varieties – and Monsanto will then prosecute any small farmer whose rice is found to contain their patented gene. Over 200,000 small farmers committed suicide in India in the last three decades – due to the impact of GM crops robbing them of their crops, their land and their livelihood.
So, if you look into this, you will find out that GM and organic CANNOT CO-EXIST – the GM companies entire strategy is ‘domination by contamination’ -they have a global steamroller of a strategy – and anyone who gets in the way will be squashed. This is the Third World War – the corporate grab for control of the entire world’s food supply. Their vision is ONE GM CROP – and the rest can go to hell.
Please check out this superb article:
http://www.gmwatch.org/10-reasons-why-we-dont-need-gm-foods
10 reasons why we don’t need GM foods
If you want to print this article as an A4 leaflet, download a PDF.
Genetically modified (GM) foods are often promoted as a way to feed the world. But this is little short of a confidence trick. Far from needing more GM foods, there are urgent reasons why we need to ban them altogether.
1. GM foods won’t solve the food crisis
A 2008 World Bank report concluded that increased biofuel production is the major cause of the increase in food prices.[1] Biofuels are crops grown for fuel rather than food. GM giant Monsanto has been at the heart of the lobbying for biofuels — while profiting enormously from the resulting food crisis and using it as a PR opportunity to promote GM foods!
“The climate crisis was used to boost biofuels, helping to create the food crisis; and now the food crisis is being used to revive the fortunes of the GM industry.” — Daniel Howden, Africa correspondent, The Independent (UK)[2]
“The cynic in me thinks that they’re just using the current food crisis and the fuel crisis as a springboard to push GM crops back on to the public agenda. I understand why they’re doing it, but the danger is that if they’re making these claims about GM crops solving the problem of drought or feeding the world, that’s bullshit.” – Prof Denis Murphy, head of biotechnology, University of Glamorgan, Wales[3]
2. GM crops do not increase yield potential
Despite the promises, GM has not increased the yield potential of any commercialised crops.[4] In fact, studies show that the most widely grown GM crop, GM soya, has suffered reduced yields.[5]
A report that analyzed nearly two decades worth of peer reviewed research on the yield of the primary GM food/feed crops, soybeans and corn (maize), reveals that despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase US crop yields. The author, former US EPA and US FDA biotech specialist Dr Gurian-Sherman, concludes that when it comes to yield, “Traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down.”[6]
“Let’s be clear. As of this year [2008], there are no commercialized GM crops that inherently increase yield. Similarly, there are no GM crops on the market that were engineered to resist drought, reduce fertilizer pollution or save soil. Not one.” – Dr Doug Gurian-Sherman[7]
3. GM crops increase pesticide use
US government data shows that in the US, GM crops have produced an overall increase, not decrease, in pesticide use compared to conventional crops.[8]
“The promise was that you could use less chemicals and produce a greater yield. But let me tell you none of this is true.” – Bill Christison, President of the US National Family Farm Coalition[9]
4. There are better ways to feed the world
A major UN/World Bank-sponsored report compiled by 400 scientists and endorsed by 58 countries concluded that GM crops have little to offer global agriculture and the challenges of poverty, hunger, and climate change, because better alternatives are available. In particular, the report championed “agroecological” farming as the sustainable way forward for developing countries.[10]
5. Other farm technologies are more successful
Integrated Pest Management and other innovative low-input or organic methods of controlling pests and boosting yields have proven highly effective, particularly in the developing world.[11] Other plant breeding technologies, such as Marker Assisted Selection (non-GM genetic mapping), are widely expected to boost global agricultural productivity more effectively and safely than GM.[12] [13]
“The quiet revolution is happening in gene mapping, helping us understand crops better. That is up and running and could have a far greater impact on agriculture [than GM].” – Prof John Snape, head of the department of crop genetics, John Innes Centre[14]
6. GM foods have not been shown to be safe to eat
Genetic modification is a crude and imprecise way of incorporating foreign genetic material (e.g. from viruses, bacteria) into crops, with unpredictable consequences. The resulting GM foods have undergone little rigorous and no long-term safety testing. However, animal feeding tests have shown that GM foods have toxic effects, including abnormal changes in organs, immune system disturbances, accelerated ageing, and changes in gene expression.[15] Very few studies have been published on the direct effects on humans of eating a GM food. One such study found unexpected effects on gut bacteria, but was never followed up.[16]
It is claimed that Americans have eaten GM foods for years with no ill effects. But these foods are unlabeled in the US and no one has monitored the consequences. With other novel foods like trans fats, it has taken decades to realize that they have caused millions of premature deaths.[17]
“We are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences.” — Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicologist
7. People don’t want GM foods – so they’re hidden in animal feed
As a spokesperson for Asgrow, a subsidiary of Monsanto, said, “If you put a label on genetically engineered food, you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it.”[18] The GM industry has got around the problem of consumer rejection of GM foods by hiding them in animal feed. Meat, eggs and dairy products from animals raised on the millions of tons of GM feed imported into Europe do not have to be labelled. Some studies show that contrary to GM and food industry claims, animals raised on GM feed ARE different from those raised on non-GM feed.[19] Other studies show that if GM crops are fed to animals, GM material can appear in the resulting products[20] and affect the animals’ health.[21] So eating these “stealth GMOs” may affect the health of consumers.
8. GM crops are a long-term economic disaster for farmers
A 2009 report showed that GM seed prices in America have increased dramatically, compared to non-GM and organic seeds, cutting average farm incomes for US farmers growing GM crops. The report concluded, “At the present time there is a massive disconnect between the sometimes lofty rhetoric from those championing biotechnology as the proven path toward global food security and what is actually happening on farms in the US that have grown dependent on GM seeds and are now dealing with the consequences.”[22]
9. GM and non-GM cannot co-exist
GM contamination of conventional and organic food is increasing. An unapproved GM rice that was grown for only one year in field trials was found to have extensively contaminated the US rice supply and seed stocks.[23] In Canada, the organic oilseed rape industry has been destroyed by contamination from GM rape.[24] In Spain, a study found that GM maize “has caused a drastic reduction in organic cultivations of this grain and is making their coexistence practically impossible”.[25]
The time has come to choose between a GM-based, or a non-GM-based, world food supply.
“If some people are allowed to choose to grow, sell and consume GM foods, soon nobody will be able to choose food, or a biosphere, free of GM. It’s a one way choice, like the introduction of rabbits or cane toads to Australia; once it’s made, it can’t be reversed.” – Roger Levett, specialist in sustainable development[26]
10. We can’t trust GM companies
The big biotech firms pushing their GM foods have a terrible history of toxic contamination and public deception.[27] GM is attractive to them because it gives them patents that allow monopoly control over the world’s food supply. They have taken to harassing and intimidating farmers for the “crime” of saving patented seed or “stealing” patented genes — even if those genes got into the farmer’s fields through accidental contamination by wind or insects.[28]
“Farmers are being sued for having GMOs on their property that they did not buy, do not want, will not use and cannot sell.” – Tom Wiley, North Dakota farmer[29]
References
1. Donald Mitchell, 2008. A Note on Rising Food Prices. World Bank. http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/07/10/Biofuels.PDF
2. Daniel Howden, 2008. Hope for Africa lies in political reforms. The Independent, 8 September. http://www.independent.co.uk:80/opinion/commentators/daniel-howden-hope-for-africa-lies-in-political-reforms-922487.html
3. Rob Lyons, 2008. GM: it’s safe, but it’s not a saviour. Spiked Online, 7 July. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5438/
4. Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo and William D. McBride, 2002. The adoption of bioengineered crops. US Department of Agriculture Report, May. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer810/aer810.pdf
5. R.W. Elmore et al., 2001. Glyphosate-resistant soyabean cultivar yields compared with sister lines. Agronomy Journal 93, 2001: 408–412.
6. Doug Gurian-Sherman, 2009. Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops. Union of Concerned Scientists. http://tiny.cc/eqZST
7. Doug Gurian-Sherman, 2008. Genetic engineering — A crop of hyperbole. The San Diego Union Tribune, 18 June. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080618/news_lz1e18gurian.html
8. Charles Benbrook, Ph.D., 2009. Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years. The Organic Center, November. http://www.organic-center.org/science.pest.php?action=view&report_id=159
9. Bill Christison, 1998. Family Farmers Warn of Dangers of Genetically Engineered Crops. In Motion magazine, 29 July. http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/genet1.html
10. N. Beintema et al., 2008. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Global Summary for Decision Makers (IAASTD). http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=IAASTD%20Reports&ItemID=2713
11. N. Beintema et al., 2008. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Global Summary for Decision Makers (IAASTD). http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=IAASTD%20Reports&ItemID=2713
12. B.C.Y. Collard and D.J. Mackill, 2008. Marker-assisted selection: an approach for precision plant breeding in the twenty-first century. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 363: 557–572.
13. J.R. Witcombe et al., 2008. Breeding for abiotic stresses for sustainable agriculture. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 363: 703–716.
14. John Snape, 2002. Gene mapping the friendly face of GM technology. Farmers Weekly, 1 March: 54.
15. – Memorandum to Linda Kahl on the Flavr Savr tomato (Pathology Review PR–152; FDA Number FMF–000526): Pathology Branch’s evaluation of rats with stomach lesions from three four-week oral (gavage) toxicity studies (IRDC Study Nos. 677–002, 677–004, and 677–005) and an Expert Panel’s report. F.A. Hines. US Department of Health & Human Services, 1993.
– Witness Brief – Flavr Savr tomato study in Final Report (IIT Research Institute, Chicago, IL 60616 USA) cited by Dr Arpad Pusztai before the New Zealand Royal Commission on Genetic Modification: New Zealand Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, 2000.
– V.E. Prescott, P.M. Campbell, A. Moore, et al. 2005. Transgenic expression of bean alpha-amylase inhibitor in peas results in altered structure and immunogenicity. J Agric Food Chem 53: 9023–9030.
– M. Malatesta, M. Biggiogera, E. Manuali, M.B.L. Rocchi, B. Baldelli, G. Gazzanelli, 2003. Fine structural analyses of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. European Journal of Histochemistry 47: 385–388.
– M. Malatesta et al., 2002. Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Cell Struct Funct 27: 173-180
– L. Vecchio et al., 2004. Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Eur J Histochem 48: 448-454
– M. Malatesta et al., 2008. A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing. Histochem Cell Biol 130: 967-977
– S.W. Ewen and A. Pusztai, 1999. Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. The Lancet 354: 1353–1354
– Séralini, G.-E. et al., 2007. New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 52: 596–602.
– R. Tudisco R, P. Lombardi, F. Bovera et al., 2006. Genetically modified soya bean in rabbit feeding: Detection of DNA fragments and evaluation of metabolic effects by enzymatic analysis. Animal Science 82:193–199.
– F.B. Brasil, L.L. Soares, T.S. Faria et al., 2009. The impact of dietary organic and transgenic soy on the reproductive system of female adult rat. Anat Rec (Hoboken) 292: 587–594.
– A. Pusztai, S. Bardocz, 2006. GMO in animal nutrition: Potential benefits and risks. In: R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek, T. Zebrowska, eds. 2006. Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals 4: 513–540.
– G.E. Séralini, D. Cellier, J. Spiroux de Vendomois, 2007. New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 52: 596–602.
– A. Kilic, M.T. Akay, 2008. A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation. Food Chem Toxicol 46: 1164–1170.
– J.S. de Vendomois, F. Roullier, D. Cellier, G.E. Séralini, 2009. A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health. Int J Biol Sci 5:706–726.
– A. Finamore, M. Roselli, S. Britti S et al., 2008. Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric Food Chem 56: 11533–11539.
– A. Velimirov, C. Binter, J. Zentek, 2008. Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Familie und Jugend Report, Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV Band 3/2008.
– M. Trabalza-Marinucci, G. Brandi, C. Rondini, et al., 2008. A three-year longitudinal study on the effects of a diet containing genetically modified Bt176 maize on the health status and performance of sheep. Livestock Science 113: 178–190.
16. T. Netherwood et al., 2004. Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract. Nature Biotechnology 22: 204–209.
17. Paula Hartman Cohen, 2006. Trans Fats: The story behind the label. Harvard Public Health Review. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/review/rvw_spring06/rvwspr06_transfats.html
18. Anil Netto,2000. Consumer groups for mandatory labelling of GM food. IPS News, 13 March. http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/groups.htm
19. Jack A. Heinemann, PhD, 2009. Report on animals exposed to GM ingredients in animal feed. Prepared for the Commerce Commission of New Zealand, 24 July. http://bit.ly/4HcJuJ
20. – R. Sharma et al., 2006. Detection of transgenic and endogenous plant DNA in digesta and tissues of sheep and pigs fed Roundup Ready canola meal. J Agric Food Chem 54: 1699–1709.
– R. Mazza et al., 2005. Assessing the transfer of genetically modified DNA from feed to animal tissues. Transgenic Res 14: 775–784.
– A. Agodi et al., 2006. Detection of genetically modified DNA sequences in milk from the Italian market. Int J Hyg Environ Health 209: 81–88.
– T. Ran, L. Mei, W. Lei, L. Aihua, H. Ru, S. Jie, 2009. Detection of transgenic DNA in tilapias (Oreochromis niloticus, GIFT strain) fed genetically modified soybeans (Roundup Ready). Aquaculture Research 40: 1350–1357.
21. – R. Tudisco, V. Mastellone, M.I. Cutrignelli, et al., 2010. Fate of transgenic DNA and evaluation of metabolic effects in goats fed genetically modified soybean and in their offsprings. Animal 4: 1662–1671.
– Jack A. Heinemann, PhD, 2009. Report on animals exposed to GM ingredients in animal feed. Prepared for the Commerce Commission of New Zealand, 24 July. http://bit.ly/4HcJuJ
22. Charles Benbrook, 2009. The magnitude and impacts of the biotech and organic seed price premium. The Organic Center, December. http://www.organic-center.org/reportfiles/Seeds_Final_11-30-09.pdf
23. E. Neal Blue, 2007. Risky business: Economic and regulatory impacts from the unintended release of genetically engineered rice varieties into the rice merchandising system of the US. Report for Greenpeace. http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/risky-business.pdf
24. Soil Association, 2002. Seeds of doubt: North American farmers’ experience of GM crops. http://www.soilassociation.org/seedsofdoubt
25. R. Binimelis, 2008. Coexistence of plants and coexistence of farmers: Is an individual choice possible? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21: 437–457.
26. Roger Levett, 2008. Choice: Less can be more. Food Ethics magazine 3: 11. http://www.foodethicscouncil.org/node/384
27. See, for example, Marie-Monique Robin’s documentary film, Le Monde Selon Monsanto (The World According to Monsanto), ARTE, 2008; and the website of the NGO, Coalition Against Bayer-Dangers, http://www.cbgnetwork.org
28. – BBC News Online 2000. GM firm sues Canadian farmer, 6 June. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/779265.stm
– Center for Food Safety, 2007. Monsanto vs. US Farmers: November 2007 Update. Washington, DC and San Francisco, CA, November.
29. Stephen Leahy, 2004. Monsanto ”seed police” scrutinize farmers. InterPress Service, 15 January. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0115-04.htm
I can see Graham that you are quite involved in this GMO issue. First of all, I am not for or against GMO’s. In regards to your comments about rights. I was involved in the sale of both conventional and GMO soybean seed sales. I saw first hand what some farmers will do when they have a choice. IN this case not to stain your Canola story but farmers had a choice. They bought the cheaper seed that had the genetic strain to resist glyphosate with the full knowledge that it was sold to them as non GMO seed. They knew it was seed cleaned from that which was designated to go to market but planted it anyway. This is not ethical but was ignored. So I do not believe for one second that Mr. Schmeiser was completely innocent. He probably had plenty of warning. To your issue of Rice. If Boulder was in an area where Rice was an issue I could probably speak on that issue. To the best of my ability in this country where rice is grown as a commercial crop the seed of choice is probably without a doubt GMO and for probably good reasons. The first would be a yield that is far superior to non GMO. Now in India where the average farm is very small 02-5 hectare which would be just a bit more than some large gardens I suspect that the cost and the treatment of GMO seeds would be non-sustainable and rightfully so. These subsistence farmers should not go to the expense of this technology. Finally your statement that 200,000 India farmers committed suicide due to the use of GMO seeds I cannot agree or disagree with. All I know is that in the 30’s when farmers could not make it because of a lot of reasons mostly economical there were quite a few suicides in the US as well. The world needs this technology but it needs to be tempered with food and farming facts. I cannot believe that this world with the educated people we have believe in domination by GMO’s and the rest can go to H3ll as you state. I read your linked article. Please feel free to read this one. One does not have to take sides:>) http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/
What other sites do you recommend that discuss too?
Glenn, You say the seed of choice for commerical rice growing in the US is GM, but GM rice is not available for commercial cultivation in the US. GM rice has only been grown commercially by accident because of contamination of conventional rice crops caused by the *experimental* growing of GM rice in crop trials. It is precisely contamination incidents of this sort that point to the impossibility of coexistence.
You imply that contamination cases like that of Scheiser can be explained by some sort of brown bagging. The University of Guelph agronomist E. Ann Clark has made some interesting points in this regard:
“To all the farmers and farm organizations that applauded the prosecution of Schmeiser two years ago, and have since sat back and watched him swinging in the wind waiting for judgment:
a. he was not found guilty of brown bagging or improperly buying or stealing Monsanto seed – indeed, those highly publicized allegations were dropped at the actual hearing stage due to a complete lack of evidence,
b. he was found guilty of having Monsanto genetics on his land,
c. it’s doubtful whether there’s a farm anywhere in western Canada that does not have
Monsanto Roundup Ready canola seed in its soil,
d. if you have it, you are to call Monsanto and they are to come out and deal with it. How, pray tell, are they going to do this – by plucking out the offending plants one by one – for up to 10 years after each contamination event occurred (canola seed can remain dormant under western Canadian conditions including no-till) – during which time you are disallowed from growing canola because if you do, and volunteer Monsanto canola emerges, sets seed, and shatters, it all starts over again?”
That’s what GM coexistence means. You’re gonna have it whether you like it or not.
Ben Perlman is an attorney who happens to have been attorney for Boulder County Open Space, Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and has recently been selected by the OTHER two commissioners to become the “NEW Boulder County Attorney”. As an ambitious attorney, clearly, he knew what the violations of the law are yet he chose to do nothing. This is yet again another case of more government corruption at the hands of the Agro-chemical companies. If the people of Boulder think that that this was simply an oversight for Perlman perhaps so was his passing of the Bar exam. These facts alone disqualify him for the position of County Attorney.
Mr. Babcock appears to be sincerely concerned but his views are a good example of how the public has been deceived and misinformed by a public process fought with distortions, evasions and outright lies with regards to GMO’s and systemic pesticides.
Mr. Babcock should dig deeper and review the evidence himself rather than trust what he has been told by those who purport to serve him.
The evidence of the damage caused by these two destructive technologies (GMO’s and systemic pesticides) is ample and abundant and has simply been ignored by the commissioners.
We know that Systemic pesticides:
1. are cumulative in the soil with successive uses.
2. are water soluble and contaminate ground water and surface water.
3. can last for years and be drawn up by untreated plants.
4. that in amounts as small as 1/10th of a part per billion can have dramatic consequences.
5. are damaging to soil health because they kill soil organisms, microbes, earthworms, arthropods, and fresh water invertebrates. We could hardly design a more pernicious pesticide!
Dear Mr. Roseboro. I have dug deep and there are many issues that each side to this GMO issue need to listen to and absorb. Too often only one side strikes the tone of the conversation and the other is drowned out. Conventional Agriculture production and new technology need to find a way to work hand in hand. The old Wild West thought of shoot and ask questions later just will not take this issue to a conclusion good for the world’s. It so often is not about food. I feel if it was it could be resolved quite easily. Government, Big Business, Local State and Federal politics, Education, Lack of Same, Temperament, and a quandary of other things just get in the way. Glenn
Whew! This has been a very interesting discussion to read! This issue won’t be easily resolved. As long as America wants everything as cheap as possible, and as long as consumers stay uneducated and talk with their wallets (only buying the cheapest stuff) this will be an uphill battle. All one more reason to grow my own stuff in my backyard, buy organic whenever possible, and avoid grains. We get our eggs from our own chickens, our berries from our own yard and farmers we know… And I like it that way.
Dear Mr. Graham White. Your post imploring that I did not understand GMO’s. You are right. I don’t know everything there is to know. But there is one thing that I do know. You must state the facts, not just parts of the story. I was asked by another blog participate to really read your 10 reasons why GMO’s are so bad for society. My reaction was, I really want to know the facts on your Mr. Percy Schmeiser story. My initial reaction was right. Your account was not factual and certainly not the whole story. Mr. Schmeiser was not innocent. In fact, Mr. Schmeiser was far from a victim. Please pass this on to @JuneStoyer and the @TheOrganicView as it was her that recommended I read your best thoughts. It is polar reaction like this that makes little the remainder of your arguments against GMO’s at this time in my mind. Finally, As you so eloquently put this to me earlier, and I quote, “Please check out this superb article.”:http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/percy-schmeiser.aspx
I hope the people of Boulder that care will win this fight. There is evidence that these systemic GMO’s are killling off bees, how much proof do they need?! In fact, it’s killing off more than the bees, upsetting the whole ecosystem!
Coming Soon to a community near you!
Again as in the past, there has to be and there must be a way to soften the hard feelings toward the scientific and commercial application of research designed to increase the worlds ability to feed itself. In regards to the question of GMO’s killing Bees. This is a statement that I found and the source. Statement first: Furthermore, CCD cases are known in areas of Europe and Canada where Bt crops are not grown, such as SwitzerlandFurthermore, CCD cases are known in areas of Europe and Canada where Bt crops are not grown, such as Switzerland. Again, the other side of the issue must be sought out and mentioned. This site talks about the many causes of Colony Collapse Disorder and in some cases has occurred where GMO crops have never been grown. I still contend that organic horticulture and commercial crop production must find a way to physically and intellectually live and farm together. Source and Bee research by a number of contributors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder
Sincerely, Glenn Babcock
These environmental issues– whether it be GMOs, hydraulic fracturing for natural gas, the commodification of fresh water, or coal mining– are becoming an increasing concern to public health. Citizens in places such as Boulder really need to educate themselves on what’s going on in their community and take action to ensure that any commissioners pushing a DMO agenda are voted out asap. Only by being informed, active citizens who make our collective voices heard loudly can we have a chance of standing up against the deep-pocketed corporate lobbyists who seem intent on destroying the planet in the name of capitalism… and us in the process.
Is anyone able to recommend cheap Cooked Meats B2B Business Data? Thanks 😀
Has anyone ever been to Vape Verde Ecigarette Shop located in 1128 N Plum St?