Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: No more GMO: Monsanto drops bid to approve new crops in Europe [View all]proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)31. The consequences are a failed business model.
See: http://www.gmwatch.org/component/content/article/31-need-gm/12348-introduction
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/4/2/the_monsanto_protection_act_a_debate
TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 2013
The Monsanto Protection Act? A Debate on Controversial New Measure Over Genetically Modified Crops
<>
AMY GOODMAN: what is the problem here, then, if there has been no change?
WENONAH HAUTER: <>
TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 2013
The Monsanto Protection Act? A Debate on Controversial New Measure Over Genetically Modified Crops
<>
AMY GOODMAN: what is the problem here, then, if there has been no change?
WENONAH HAUTER: <>
.
And I think we have to look at how much money that the biotech industry has spent on lobbying. I mean, over the last 10 years, the biotech industry has spent $272 million on lobbying and campaign contributions. They have a hundred lobby shops in Washington. Theyve hired 13 former members of Congress. Theyve hired 300 former staffers for the White House and for Congress. And Monsanto alone has spent $63 million over the last 12 years on lobbying and campaign contributions. This is about political muscle and forcing their will on the American people. And if we dont put a stop to it here, were going to see many, many more serious violations
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/4/2/foodopoly_the_battle_over_the_future
TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 2013
Foodopoly: The Battle Over the Future of Food and Farming in America from Monsanto to Wal-Mart
<>
WENONAH HAUTER: Well, over the past few years, since thewell, its the past few decades, since the Reagan administration eviscerated antitrust law. Those are the rules that prevented companies from getting too big, from buying their competitors, from concentrating power in the hands of a justjust a few companies. Since that time, weve seen the grocery industry consolidate. We now have four grocery stores that control 50 percent of sales, and in many areas 70 to 90 percent of sales. Wal-Mart is the very largest. One out of three grocery dollars is spent at Wal-Mart. And if you look at the economic impact, the Wal-Mart heirs have as much wealth as the bottom 40 percent of Americans.
And what Wal-Mart has figured out, how they operate, is that they have a logistical system that sucks all of the profit out of the food chain. So, one thing is that they need enormous volume. So, they would much rather deal with a giant meatpacker like Tyson than a lot of smaller family farms or even midsize farms. They have a system where they force their suppliers to use their IT system, to track their own inventory, to use all of the contracting requirements that they put into writing. In fact, there are no contract negotiations with Wal-Mart. And so, even the largest food processors in this country have to do whatever Wal-Mart says.
And we have 20 food-processing companies that do control most of what Americans eat. So, you know, theres all this rhetoric about competition and that our economic system is built on competition, but what weve actually seen, especially since the 1980s, is that all of the rules and regulations are geared at allowing enormous consolidation. And so, for the food industry, beyond Wal-Mart and the grocery retailers, we have the big food-processing companies. So when a consumer goes into the grocery store, they believe that theres a lot of diversity and choice, but actually we have 20 food-processing companies that own most of the brands in the grocery store. And unfortunately, 14 of these large food processors also own many of the largest organic brands.
So this kind of concentration is making it very difficult for consumers to have real choices about what they eat. And its squeezing all of the profit out of actually producing food, even producing corn and soy. A conventional farmer makes about three to five cents off of a giant box of corn flakes, about threetwo to three cents on a giant bag of corn chips, and under a penny on the high-fructose corn syrup in a can of soda.
<>
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much for being with us, Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. Her recent book, Foodopoly: The Battle Over the Future of Food and Farming in America. We will link to your new report thats coming out tomorrow, "Monsanto: A Corporate Profile."
TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 2013
Foodopoly: The Battle Over the Future of Food and Farming in America from Monsanto to Wal-Mart
<>
WENONAH HAUTER: Well, over the past few years, since thewell, its the past few decades, since the Reagan administration eviscerated antitrust law. Those are the rules that prevented companies from getting too big, from buying their competitors, from concentrating power in the hands of a justjust a few companies. Since that time, weve seen the grocery industry consolidate. We now have four grocery stores that control 50 percent of sales, and in many areas 70 to 90 percent of sales. Wal-Mart is the very largest. One out of three grocery dollars is spent at Wal-Mart. And if you look at the economic impact, the Wal-Mart heirs have as much wealth as the bottom 40 percent of Americans.
And what Wal-Mart has figured out, how they operate, is that they have a logistical system that sucks all of the profit out of the food chain. So, one thing is that they need enormous volume. So, they would much rather deal with a giant meatpacker like Tyson than a lot of smaller family farms or even midsize farms. They have a system where they force their suppliers to use their IT system, to track their own inventory, to use all of the contracting requirements that they put into writing. In fact, there are no contract negotiations with Wal-Mart. And so, even the largest food processors in this country have to do whatever Wal-Mart says.
And we have 20 food-processing companies that do control most of what Americans eat. So, you know, theres all this rhetoric about competition and that our economic system is built on competition, but what weve actually seen, especially since the 1980s, is that all of the rules and regulations are geared at allowing enormous consolidation. And so, for the food industry, beyond Wal-Mart and the grocery retailers, we have the big food-processing companies. So when a consumer goes into the grocery store, they believe that theres a lot of diversity and choice, but actually we have 20 food-processing companies that own most of the brands in the grocery store. And unfortunately, 14 of these large food processors also own many of the largest organic brands.
So this kind of concentration is making it very difficult for consumers to have real choices about what they eat. And its squeezing all of the profit out of actually producing food, even producing corn and soy. A conventional farmer makes about three to five cents off of a giant box of corn flakes, about threetwo to three cents on a giant bag of corn chips, and under a penny on the high-fructose corn syrup in a can of soda.
<>
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much for being with us, Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. Her recent book, Foodopoly: The Battle Over the Future of Food and Farming in America. We will link to your new report thats coming out tomorrow, "Monsanto: A Corporate Profile."
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
75 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Forget Seralini; try 118 articles on glyphosate from 'US National Library of Medicine' publications.
proverbialwisdom
Jul 2013
#41
Fraudulent science, how about sick kids? These findings give support to The Precautionary Principle
proverbialwisdom
Jul 2013
#33
"Because while our children may only represent 30% of the population, they are 100% of our future."
proverbialwisdom
Jul 2013
#42
Pusztai? Embarrassing. That the antis have nothing but bad science should tell you something
roseBudd
Jul 2013
#57
ABSOLUTELY FALSE -"Peer review tells us that...Pusztai performed shoddy research."
proverbialwisdom
Jul 2013
#65
Ironic you'd mention risk factors. Here's a 2009 Press Release from Breast Cancer Action about rBGH.
proverbialwisdom
Jul 2013
#49
Courtesy Michael Hansen, PhD Senior Scientist, Consumer Reports: Monsanto, GM foods & Health Risks.
proverbialwisdom
Jul 2013
#46
FALSE - "The vast majority of scientists agree that biotech food is safe. " The field is evolving.
proverbialwisdom
Jul 2013
#64
I imagine it's easier to trivialize and minimize the person than it is to take valid exception
LanternWaste
Jul 2013
#53
Oh, it's just a single case history, but wait for the GMO labeling laws to be implemented.
proverbialwisdom
Jul 2013
#74
FYI, claims of altruistic and humanitarian motives are explored in investigative reports here.
proverbialwisdom
Jul 2013
#47
IAASTD examined global agriculture on scale comparable to Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change
proverbialwisdom
Jul 2013
#48
Al Gore: The challenges raised by human biotechnologies on par with those of global climate change.
proverbialwisdom
Jul 2013
#50