The road we are headed down may not have any forks left in it if things keep up...

http://www.thebearfootshaman.c...

I think the "Monsanto" name is becoming anathema to a lot of folks. And probably the bees as well.

I am just going to double my wildflower sowings!
And save my own seeds.

I think I'll write my congressman and see how it is legal to slap an organic label on a seed that has been altered or coated with something non-organic. What is that going to do to 'true' organic seed growers?

Gosh - anything's legal according to the USDA/agritech alliance. My senator's a wuss despite endless petitions.

We have the finest government that money can buy.

Instead of a ruling class, we have a "Donor Class" that pays for campaigns for candidates they like, control, or "own". It's a great investment opportunity, to buy laws that assure ever-increasing income disparity.


https://movetoamend.org/

https://berniesanders.com/issu...

https://www.thenation.com/arti...

(Republicans like being able to buy members of Congress.)

This is very troublesome, How can a GMO possibly be organic? Yikes.

Well said, Rick.
Currently reading "Altered Genes, Twisted Truth" after hearing Jane Goodall talking about it. Very scary.

I didn't follow the logic in the link in the OP. They idea of spraying gene-altered bacteria onto plants is a new one on me. I had heard of spraying modified RNA, but not whole bacteria.

I don't know if M is just re-writing English to call GMOs "organic", but I've heard they want to stress the idea that RNA sprays (if ever commercially viable) do not genetically change anything, hence are not genetically Modified Organisms.

From there to "organic" is a leap that I can't follow.

However, if M lawyers succeed in re-defining the term"organic", they will have undercut their main opposition's ability to even NAME what they are in favor of.

I'm angrier at M for what they do in court, and for "cornering the market" on commercial seed vending, so that global crop seed diversity is harmed. than I am about what they have done to plant genomes so far.

RickCorey said:We have the finest government that money can buy.

Instead of a ruling class, we have a "Donor Class" that pays for campaigns for candidates they like, control, or "own". It's a great investment opportunity, to buy laws that assure ever-increasing income disparity.


https://movetoamend.org/

https://berniesanders.com/issu...

https://www.thenation.com/arti...

(Republicans like being able to buy members of Congress.)

I don't want to get in a political battle here --- and WON'T ---- but if you check the facts, as much or more "corporate" money flows to Democrats these days. WRT Wall Street money, more flows to Democrats than Republicans.

Has anyone read the book by Brian Wilcox - "We're Monsanto - Still Feeding the World, Lie After Lie"? Debating about adding it to my reading list.

Thanks for pointing that out, David.

The parties might distinguish themselves from each other when they vote for or against effective campaign finance reform.

Right now, when a candidate either has to HAVE millions or COLLECT millions to compete in an election, they do HAVE TO take that money and the obligations that go with it, just to get elected. It's our responsibility to correct that systematic flaw, so that we can have more representatives with fewer obligations to please rich donors.

I'll try harder to keep politics out of garden threads, but I suspect that some politics will always find its way into discussions of either GMOs or Monsanto.

In my opinion, Monsanto would not have as many laws that favor them to exploit, if they couldn't buy representatives.

Used to say on Monsanto's website, something to the effect of 'Our mission is to feed the world'. (not sure just how it was worded, but something like that...) Now if that doesn't make the hair on the back of your neck stand up, you have connection issues in your brain. It is very clear that people all over the place, (dare we say 'world'?) are not happy about the whole GMO toxic food thing, and at least not happy about the lies and lack of labeling even they don't disagree persay about the GMO itself. Deceitful business practice doesn't set well with many folks. This whole things reeks of money money money, and politics... just greediness oozing out all around it.

When I think of vets with Agent Orange maladies, it brings to mind the term "collateral damage" and the government/Monsanto alliance.

It also brings to mind the words, cover up, lies, excuses, and disposable.
The FDA and the big pharm co are in bed together and Monsanto is paying them all off to its benefit. It is very sad all the way around.

So will the REAL organic market come up with a new way to market authentic organic products? i would suspect so. I would expect farmers markets to put a few new rules in place as well. I think it is all going to even more confusing than it is now.

Yet another reason to buy locally - at least you can question farming practices direct from the grower.

Maybe it 8is part of a preemptive plan to neuter any legislation that requires consumer labeling for any food with any GMO content.

First, make sure that "organic" no longer means anything, and that GMOs can be labelled "organic".

Then, they won;t care if labeling laws are passed, because none of the words will mean anything any more.

I think that's a variation on "the big lie". If you can make words meaningless, people can't use them against you.

I have been seeing a lot more 'non-GMO' labels on products at the store lately, which is a good counter-response to the big corporations' steadfast refusal to label GMOs. (If they truly think GMOs are great, one would think they'd be proud to label their products as such...hmmm...)

well organic will mean it was grown organic, but not that the seed itself was organic before being planted? that is my understanding here ...