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

proverbialwisdom

(4,959 posts)
31. The consequences are a failed business model.
Sat Jul 20, 2013, 01:36 AM
Jul 2013

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: <>

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. They’ve hired 13 former members of Congress. They’ve 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 don’t put a stop to it here, we’re 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 the—well, it’s 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 just—just a few companies. Since that time, we’ve 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, there’s all this rhetoric about competition and that our economic system is built on competition, but what we’ve 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 there’s 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 it’s 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 three—two 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 that’s coming out tomorrow, "Monsanto: A Corporate Profile."
Major K&R. closeupready Jul 2013 #1
Dear Monsanto .. 99th_Monkey Jul 2013 #2
The best thing the U.S. can do is to dump Monsanto's GMO foods too. avaistheone1 Jul 2013 #3
+1 sakabatou Jul 2013 #4
Fat Chance LiberalLovinLug Jul 2013 #7
It's different in Europe DFW Jul 2013 #5
Daily shopping too tazkcmo Jul 2013 #14
Yeah, our fridge is no bigger even today DFW Jul 2013 #15
I just figure that... SoapBox Jul 2013 #6
Third eyes actually can improve vision. True. closeupready Jul 2013 #8
This describes the hysterics to a T roseBudd Jul 2013 #19
That's silly. proverbialwisdom Jul 2013 #28
That's silly. proverbialwisdom Jul 2013 #29
More historical context. proverbialwisdom Jul 2013 #54
More. proverbialwisdom Jul 2013 #30
You demonstrate my point with confirmation bias roseBudd Jul 2013 #34
Forget Seralini; try 118 articles on glyphosate from 'US National Library of Medicine' publications. proverbialwisdom Jul 2013 #41
I hate Monsanto, but where's the evidence that eating GM foods is bad for you? alp227 Jul 2013 #9
At least by making its labelling mandatory dipsydoodle Jul 2013 #10
That is all I'm asking for. Let me make the choice, indeed! eom Purveyor Jul 2013 #51
I'm sure you can volunteer to guinea pig for human testing closeupready Jul 2013 #12
Yep. laundry_queen Jul 2013 #59
There's plenty of evidence..... DeSwiss Jul 2013 #13
You mean like the botulism, created by Nature, or how about that natural roseBudd Jul 2013 #17
It works slowly. DeSwiss Jul 2013 #20
Very scientific claims there to back up your beliefs roseBudd Jul 2013 #22
Fraudulent science, how about sick kids? These findings give support to The Precautionary Principle proverbialwisdom Jul 2013 #33
Fail. that is not evidence. roseBudd Jul 2013 #35
"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
Pusztai is a heavy-hitter, as described in post #43. No contest. proverbialwisdom Jul 2013 #60
Logical fallacy Argument from Authority roseBudd Jul 2013 #62
ABSOLUTELY FALSE -"Peer review tells us that...Pusztai performed shoddy research." proverbialwisdom Jul 2013 #65
This, too. proverbialwisdom Jul 2013 #43
Again Pusztai. Embarrassing roseBudd Jul 2013 #58
Replacement link. proverbialwisdom Dec 2013 #75
Ironic you'd mention risk factors. Here's a 2009 Press Release from Breast Cancer Action about rBGH. proverbialwisdom Jul 2013 #49
I was wondering when the Monsanto roody Jul 2013 #23
I am not a Monsanto folk, I research before I jump on band wagons roseBudd Jul 2013 #36
Courtesy Michael Hansen, PhD Senior Scientist, Consumer Reports: Monsanto, GM foods & Health Risks. proverbialwisdom Jul 2013 #46
And climate change deniers have Roy Spencer also a PHD roseBudd Jul 2013 #63
FALSE - "The vast majority of scientists agree that biotech food is safe. " The field is evolving. proverbialwisdom Jul 2013 #64
Climate change deniers do the same thiing. They flock to that roseBudd Jul 2013 #67
+1000 this is a giant waste of time... roseBudd Jul 2013 #18
The consequences are a failed business model. proverbialwisdom Jul 2013 #31
I imagine it's easier to trivialize and minimize the person than it is to take valid exception LanternWaste Jul 2013 #53
Check it out. proverbialwisdom Jul 2013 #72
"'no one in conventional medicine will have the data' to prove it"?? alp227 Jul 2013 #73
Oh, it's just a single case history, but wait for the GMO labeling laws to be implemented. proverbialwisdom Jul 2013 #74
K&R DeSwiss Jul 2013 #11
This is the left's climate change denial... roseBudd Jul 2013 #16
There's no point. crim son Jul 2013 #24
You can shop at Whole Paycheck, no one is preventing you from paying too roseBudd Jul 2013 #37
Um, take your Frankenfood shill act closeupready Jul 2013 #44
Whole Paycheck is full of GMOs! roody Jul 2013 #45
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
Check it out. proverbialwisdom Jul 2013 #32
Al Gore: The challenges raised by human biotechnologies on par with those of global climate change. proverbialwisdom Jul 2013 #50
Yea! Now let's do that in the US! blackspade Jul 2013 #21
Is European science crim son Jul 2013 #25
That is not evidence roseBudd Jul 2013 #39
you really are outnumbered here .... chillfactor Jul 2013 #52
K&R MotherPetrie Jul 2013 #26
Good to see felix_numinous Jul 2013 #27
It is not condescending to point out bad science. roseBudd Jul 2013 #38
This message was self-deleted by its author felix_numinous Jul 2013 #40
Clearly SPAM is not gmo n/t mathematic Jul 2013 #55
Witty. nt proverbialwisdom Jul 2013 #56
More. proverbialwisdom Jul 2013 #61
Europe has its own ag-biotech companies--GMOs are here to stay Dagny_K Jul 2013 #66
GMO is needed to deal with 9 billion future humans & climate change roseBudd Jul 2013 #68
GMOs are Here to stay Dagny_K Jul 2013 #69
GMOs save arable land. GMOs given the opportunity can prevent over fishing, roseBudd Jul 2013 #70
Financial Times says Europe right to doubt GM crops. proverbialwisdom Jul 2013 #71
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»No more GMO: Monsanto dro...»Reply #31