Executive At Monsanto Wins Global Food Honor

[alp227]

Source: new york times

When it comes to agriculture, the World Food Prize is the equivalent of the Oscars.

This year, the prestigious award went the mastermind behind Monsanto’s big move into genetically modified crops. In foodie terms, that is like a commercial blockbuster winning best picture rather than an independent, artsy film.

Started in 1987, the prize aims to recognize people who improve the “quality, quantity or availability” of food in the world. The founder of the award, Norman E. Borlaug, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 as the father of the Green Revolution, which vastly increased grain output.

On Wednesday the World Food Prize Foundation said the honor and the $250,000 cash prize would be shared by Robert T. Fraley, Monsanto’s executive vice president and chief technology officer, and two other scientists, Marc Van Montagu of Belgium and Mary-Dell Chilton of the United States. The foundation said the work of the three scientists, who helped devise a way to insert foreign genes into plants, led to the development of higher-yielding crops that can resist insects, disease and extremes of climate.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/monsanto-executive-is-among-world-food-prize-winners.html

[NYC_SKP]

1. Oh BULLSHIT!

FUCKERS!

[DURHAM D]

2. .

[DeSwiss]

3. ....

FUCK MONSANTO AND ALL THOSE WHO SAIL HER

"Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMO's, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data."

Other Problems With Monsanto's Conclusions

When testing for drug or pesticide safety, the standard protocol is to use three mammalian species. The subject studies only used rats, yet won GMO approval in more than a dozen nations.

Chronic problems are rarely discovered in 90 days; most often such tests run for up to two years. Tests "lasting longer than three months give more chances to reveal metabolic, nervous, immune, hormonal or cancer diseases," wrote Seralini, et al, in their Doull rebuttal. [See "How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects Can Be Neglected for GMO's, Pesticides or Chemicals." IJBS; 2009; 5(5):438-443.]

Further, Monsanto's analysis compared unrelated feeding groups, muddying the results. The June 2009 rebuttal explains, "In order to isolate the effect of the GM transformation process from other variables, it is only valid to compare the GMO … with its isogenic non-GM equivalent."

The researchers conclude that the raw data from all three GMO studies reveal novel pesticide residues will be present in food and feed and may pose grave health risks to those consuming them.

[Buzz Clik]

4. Three heads exploding. I predict an epidemic.

Some people consider feeding starving people to be a noble goal.

Others, like some here, would rather have people starve.

[They_Live]

8. So, you support Monsanto?

You consider Monsanto to be noble?

[Buzz Clik]

9. I consider feeding starving people to be a huge priority.

I also consider spreading lies about the health effects of GMOs to be the height of irresponsibility.

[They_Live]

11. Feeding people is important

I agree. But I feel that Monsanto's priorities lie in the monopolization of the food industry. Priorities of control and wealth.

Are you able to provide some evidence of "lies about the health effects of GMOs"? The toxins present in their corn, for instance?

http://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/monsantocorn.asp

It is okay to feed people but slowly poison them? Varying metabolic rates may process toxins differently, as well (i.e.: children compared to adults).

[Buzz Clik]

12. Your snopes link is interesting: undetermined.

When dozens of people on this board every day state that GMO foods cause cancer and other ailments when there is no proof and they've been told there is not proof, they are lying.

[They_Live]

13. There's also no proof that it doesn't cause cancer,

or organ failure. Yet, you're willing to bet your life and thousands of other lives on it. Personally, I don't want to ingest toxins, insecticides, hormones, or other surprises if I can help it. I am especially concerned about my children (and all children).

If Monsanto is so confident of the safety of their product, then why are they so opposed to the labeling of these GMO foods? You'd think they would be proud and want to shout it from the rooftops. Instead, they are spending millions of dollars to oppose legislation to label GMOs. That doesn't send up a red flag for you?

[Buzz Clik]

14. Yes, I AM willing to bet my life that GMOs are harmless.

If Monsanto is so confident of the safety of their product, then why are they so opposed to the labeling of these GMO foods? You'd think they would be proud and want to shout it from the rooftops. Instead, they are spending millions of dollars to oppose legislation to label GMOs. That doesn't send up a red flag for you?

I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that as soon as the labeling started, the hysterical masses filled with unscientific hokum where their brains should be would immediately boycott all those foods, hurt the food sales, and cause food manufacturers to demand non-GMO food, and farmers would initially get hosed (as usual) but would eventually start turning away from GMO crops. That's why we want the food labeled, right? To kill sales despite the lack of evidence that the food is harmful?

[They_Live]

15. You don't know for sure

whether that sends up a red flag?

And you just outlined the problem that Monsanto has created for itself by creating a monopoly, by not proving the safety of its product, and by not standing behind its product. You want me to feel sorry for Monsanto?

They want me to just take their word for it? Something that might gradually kill me, and my children? As they drive conventional farmers out of business?

Then there's the whole honey bee problem. How about that?

[Buzz Clik]

16. Ok. Live your life based on the fear of the unknown.

I'll pass.

[They_Live]

18. Not necessarily fear of the unknown,

Last edited Thu Jun 20, 2013, 07:51 PM - Edit history (1)

it's the corporate mindset I fear, and their lack of responsibility for their actions against society.

They've got their hooks into you, I see.

[They_Live]

17. The reason that I want food labeled

is so that I can CHOOSE what I eat, and what my children eat.

Why do you oppose that? I've spent too many years consuming poison already.

You may choose to eat all the poison you want. I won't stop you.

[WovenGems]

19. Never said that

I have said folks who hate GMO's detest being treated like test lab rats. The FDA is funded by fess thus is not concerned with proper testing for fees aren't paid till product is approved. With no safety net you can't expect folks to be trusting of megacorps.

[Kelvin Mace]

5. Well, they gave Kissinger and Obama the Nobel Peace Prize

so why not a food prize for Monsatan?

[Buzz Clik]

10. Rock bottom.

[SwankyXomb]

6. It's the equivalent of

McDonald's getting a Michelin star.

[DeSwiss]

7. ....

[Catherina]

20. The Revolving World Food Prize, Brought to You by Monsanto

The World Food Prize, Brought to You by Monsanto

—By Alex Park | Wed Jun. 19, 2013 3:35 AM PDT

...

This is the 10th year that the State Department has hosted the World Food Prize's announcement ceremony; according to a Department press release, the event is intended to showcase "the administration's dedication to improving lives; counteracting suffering; and focusing on the role that science, technology and policy play in reducing hunger and under-nutrition." But while the US government's involvement might suggest that the prize is a neutral barometer of agricultural excellence, funders of the foundation which backs it have a vested interest in promoting industrialized farming around the world. In fact, many of the World Food Prize's major donors are among the biggest names in agribusiness today.

This is the 10th year that the State Department has hosted the World Food Prize's announcement ceremony; according to a Department press release, the event is intended to showcase "the administration's dedication to improving lives; counteracting suffering; and focusing on the role that science, technology and policy play in reducing hunger and under-nutrition." But while the US government's involvement might suggest that the prize is a neutral barometer of agricultural excellence, funders of the foundation which backs it have a vested interest in promoting industrialized farming around the world. In fact, many of the World Food Prize's major donors are among the biggest names in agribusiness today.

...

The World Food Prize's connections to the US government also run deep. In 2004, Congress declared October 16 of that year (already known as World Food Day) "World Food Prize Day." Four years later, the US Department of Agriculture and the World Prize Foundation formalized their relationship, allowing the two organizations to "consult regularly together," according to Kenneth Quinn, a former US ambassador to Cambodia and the Foundation's president.

...

So why would the US government want to align itself with the World Food Prize? Several reasons: Ever since the 2007-08 food price spike that saw riots in cities throughout the developing world, the Obama administration has been ramping up agricultural development as both a means of third-world poverty alleviation and a business opportunity for Americans.

...

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/06/why-did-john-kerry-announce-world-food-prize

These are crimes. Poor countries don't need these huge agricultural farms that provide one or two products while forcing them to rely on for-profit imports because their local crops and smaller sustainable farms are being replaced with what the First World needs, like Palm Tree plantations for oil.

Local crops that provide a healthy variety of food and seeds to replant are totally destroyed by these monsters. All for profit.



This is just sick. Another for-profit scheme run by millionaires. What another a sick surprise. Can someone explain to me why people walking around barefoot, who can't even afford a pot to piss in are being forced to subsidize the lavish bonuses of international corporate criminals?