I am a person who buys nothing but organic foods because when the gene pool in changed in a food plant it cannot serve the purpose to feed people .Chemical sprays to weed and stop bugs are just as bad as GM food products.Since i have changed my diet to organic foods i have a new lease on life .Research GM products that are roundup tolerant as roundup is a chemical spray .

examinator, I understand it is sinful to make a profit. Companies only make profits if they produce something customers want to buy. The fact that Monsanto makes profits from its seed products reflects the fact that farmers want to grow them. It is not like Monsanto have the only crop on the market.

I am aware there is a perception that the life science companies are omnipotent, but reality does not bear this out. Monsanto does not even make the Fortune 500 list of the 500 largest corporations in the world and comes in at number 448 on Forbes’ list. The largest life science company is in fact BASF at 72 and 80.

The changes in the agrochemical industry are a response to return on investment, not profit per se. The companies moved into seed because there was too much competition in the agricultural chemical market from generic manufacturers based in China.

Again, it is totally missed that there is a lot of R&D in plant science in the public sector. Many of the breakthroughs for the development of GM crops have come out of public research. They have been licensed to companies and royalties flow back to public research.

The funny thing about the supposed public rejection of GM crops is that the area sown to these crops continues to grow and they continue to be used in the food chain. Now I am not suggesting GM food should be forced on people who don’t want to eat it – there is after all organic food and I notice posters on this thread who state that is all they eat, yet they want to deprive me of my right to eat GM food – I am suggesting that the ‘public rejection’ of GM food is not quite what it is touted.

one under god, I don’t usually do this, but the simplest response I can give to your post is that Jeffrey Smith believes he is able to yogic fly. I am not at all surprised that someone that deluded can make up the list you posted. http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/11/kim-chances-yogic-flying-farce-in-wa.html

obviosly agrominist has intrests like his name,
so clearly has his own blind spots[if not financial intrest's]

he wishes his right to eat gmo
i wish he did as well[exclusivly]

trouble is this wise agrominist hasnt heard of wind-drift
and how his right to eat poisen
can contaminate my right not to

of course we cannot take his claim to want to eat the stuff seriously
[if only by his use of his name he clearly reveals his intrest]

i note he takes the usual ridicule point's
[yet not rebuttal]
and gives another site[which no doudt thoughilly researched out the site poster to ridicule the sumation posted[because they caNT REBUT HIM]

yes all agrominists should be forced to eat
the experiments they expect us to eat

[if smokers cant smoke in public how do these pest-acide/poisen merchants get the right to spread their poisen and mutated pollen?}

you just gotta love the clever joinder he created in his quote

<<The changes in the agrochemical industry are a response to return on investment,not profit per se.>>

ie a LACK of return
or diminishing return
because earlier seed modifications
were threatening to send them broke

they saw the trend line and decided that owning seed would set them up to controle the people who need to eat

[just like in the old days you got the seed to plant from the lord of the manor]in return for his share[and to control his serfs]

[dont think the land/water grab is going un noticed either]

anything to control the wage slaves

<<The companies moved into seed because there was too much competition in the agricultural chemical market from generic manufacturers based in China.>>

gotta love the joinder of china with its ongoing product contamination[trouble is my dear agro-[gmo supplyer]
gmo preceeds the china opening

[but your rebutal point allows and further verifies my warning about greed having no bounds to what it will do to make their gross proffits

dont you sweat about it dear agro[we ALL are eating more gmo than we know]so your side is winning at least read the link bro

mally, you let it slip didn't you "by interferring with nature , the world population will continue to grow. We can't afford the luxury of over populating the world"

I think you are more certain of this than gm having a negative effect on population.

"IF it's so safe, why is America giving away their GM produce to starving nations?? Because they can't sell it!! It's called 'Foreign Aid" and the farmers still get paid"

Because the US does not segregate GM, all produce can be assumed to be GM by those who worry. The US is giving away it's produce, not specifically GM produce.

"Someone still makes a profit by feeding the poor"
thank goodness for that or they'd starve. Starving is not a pleasant experience, so if you just want the poor dead find another method.

mattermotor, unfortunately the projected world population cannot be sustained by organic production, hopefully this population has decreased again by the time the fossil fuels run out that are needed to make fertiliser. Unless GM plants can make their own in the future, that is. Some will critisise GM till they're blue in the face even if it does save hundreds of thousands of lives through less chemical exposure, or through increased future food availability. On intuition? Because monsanto and other companies are profit driven?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy that Monsanto charge me more for their technology than they do Indian farmers(who get more benefit too) but I still use some of their products, because of environmental and financial returns.

Agronomist,
I really thought you were beyond such supercilious attempts at ad hominem ridicule. But I guess I’m wrong... disappointing.

Did you look at the site I provided?

As an expert in soil management and field-crop production I expect your perspective to be on the efficiency of GM as a vector. But that is one perspective.
A gun is both a tool and a weapon depending on how it’s used.

My post agreed that GM as a product may be unfairly treated.

The fact that it’s growing industry is like saying tobacco sales are legal and growing therefore it’s a good product. That takes no account of the collateral damage or the tactics used to achieve this growth.

I merely acknowledged that there is a widespread resistance to GM and offered an opinion why based on international literature indicating that these corporations (plural) have (justifiably) perceived bad track records for heavy handed tactics.
Including enlisting the US govt to manipulate and heavy countries to accept product they don’t want. What does this say about level playing field and national sovereignty? Are you denying that?
Then there’s the infamous Bhopal and its aftermath. Specifically the corporate shuffle to drag out and/or avoid paying reasonable damages.

LSC’s position on the Fortune 500 is irrelevant. ABC learning wasn’t on that list yet its effect was/is significant in a dominated market.

Return on investment! Another red herring.

Likewise much of the public research is funded by these corporations in universities and biotech research companies which focus on the high profit products. I also made note that the real needed research is simply ignored.

If I were supercilious as your opening comment I would suggest you open a herring cannery. But that would be tit for tat and childish so I won’t.

Agronomist

In addition to Examinator's excellent assessment, I would question your total silence on the state of Australia's soils.

That you are promoting GM crops but failing to acknowledge that our soils are in desperate need of remediation, gives one cause for concern.

Particularly worrying is CSIRO's axing of soil expert Dr Maarten Stapper who has advised that GM crops will not solve our problems.

"This travesty of justice shows again that priorities for taxpayer-funded research are grossly distorted by CSIRO contracts with companies that direct public funds to private profits," the director of Gene Ethics, Bob Phelps, said.

"Stapper was sacked because GM giants like Bayer and Monsanto can't patent know-how on healthier soils."

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/csiro-dumps-antigm-expert/2007/05/26/1179601737365.html

One wonders just how effective the GM salesmen have been in influencing CSIRO's research findings?

Should we inspect their trash can for brown paper bags?