Monsanto looses court case in France!

[SASKFARMER3]

Looks like a company has not told us farmers the facts mam just the facts. Hm has that ever happened before.
here is a link to interesting article.
http://www.naturalnews.com/027352_Monsanto_GMO_Roundup.html

[parsley]

There is a growing trend towards food.In North America, we might be a bit isolated from what governments in other parts of the world look for. I posted a map on my blog.

[parsley]

Just reflecting some of the sentiment flaoting around the world:


1. "Taiwan is not about to allow the import of genetically modified rice from the United States, the Department of Health and the Council of Agriculture said yesterday.

The denials followed the uproar about last week's government deciding last week to allow the import of bone-in beef and other beef products from the United States."

"If (genetically modified rice) is imported, I will step down," COA Minister Chen Wu-hsiung told reporters.

2 Irish Government will now ban the cultivation of all GM crops and introduce a voluntary GM-free label for food - including meat, poultry, eggs, fish, crustaceans, and dairy produce made without the use of GM animal feed.

Feed Market will be impacted.

Pars

[charliep]

Still confused when the above refers to GMO. I assume the definition is the European one which is specific to transgenics/genetic engineering. Other techniques such as mutagenics are okay provided they meet regions safety and environmental requirements. Roundup ready - bad. Clearfield acceptable.

[parsley]

1. and 2. are quotes, charliep, I missed inserting the quotation marks.

But most AVers get the idea of the trend. I also think there is a backlash against the USA. And a trend to buy at home. And a trend to cook at home to save money in this financial environment.

So that results in not only the rich buying food not modified, but also the masses turning to different kinds of food.ie whole pulses uncooked instead of take out.

We can define and undefine and refine, I can understand the angst of those committed to the mofification path, but this is merely a trend line I looked at.

It defines what areas are NOT interested in buying GM food, somewhat like knowing there is not much use in trying to sell pork into defined Muslim countries.

Knowing trends is very very important because to do otherwise can be very very costly. imho Pars

[charliep]

The original story was likely about two factors as much as GMO.

The first is the heavy duty use of roundup and impact on bio diversity with some accusation of carryover. I suspect many (not you Parsley) are regular users of round so they will have their own opinions on this in Canada.

The second is the Monsanto factor itself and the market power they pocess combined with push back at both the production and consumer side. Share values would indicate market power is not the only factor but having said that, the current system seems to favor the mega companies both from the money to invest in research and willingness/ability to take risk.

Someone highlighted some of the activites in the US to ensure competition among this mega companies. Something to be watched.

[Southpaw]

Charlie, when I was in Europe 1998 talking about GMO canola, the biggest thing that hit me was the Anti USA sentiment. The Americans had said that they where not going to segregate gmo and non-gmo soybeans and/or corn. They were telling the Euros that "here is our corn, it's good for you, eat it". Huge hate towards Americans and especially Monsanto.

[ianben]

Monsanto really did underestimate the opposition to GM her in UK and Europe.
The Frankinsein food lobby won media battle and up until now the war.

They where helped by the BSE problems we were having at the time and the health risks that raised.

Not sure BSE caused the public concern in other coutries which discovered it later when the domesday outcome was first feared had subsided

Just a little glimmer of rally now over climate change. GM trying to show much lower carbon footprint and perhaps reopening the debate.

What GM really needs to work here is prooven health benifit cures cancer for example then we will love Monsanto again.

[Hopperbin]

GM foods have a smaller carbon footprint.
Farmers like it because we can use less chemicals and less toxic ones.
We can fallow less and crop more and use min till, so as to conserve moisture and produce more.
We plant gm plants because we make more money. We don't give it all to the chemical companies.

I can see in France the Judge had the picture of the farmer applying Roundup with a back pack hand sprayer, wearing shorts, mixing excessively too high a rate and amounts of product, not knowing what to do with the excess, farmer sticking his nose in the jug, product misting directly on the the fruit.

Am I right or am I right?

[ianben]

This case has not made headlines in UK as far as I am aware.

However with EU law we now work under as farmers all ag chemicals must be approved in every EU country so we are losing lots of good chemicals for dubious reasons in the farmers opinions. eg minute quantities found in water or gramoxone was banned because people in Sweden used it to commit suicide.

Plolitics not farming are making these decisions and while people are well fed with cheap food they are very hard to argue against.

As I said above BSE and the way it was handled has made ploliticians and anybody with a decision to make on food safety want 100% and 99.9% means way too much risk.

It is obviously not sustainable as nothing is ever 100% risk free but till hunger and price force a change I just see more and more restrictions and less inovation.

[stubblejumper]

Hopper you are not totally right. What about the extra chemical we have to use when chem fallowing to kill the volunteer GM crops.

[Hopperbin]

Stubble so instead of spraying roundup or liberty we should go back to spraying treflan, muster, lontrel, at a higher cost per acre not to mention toxicity level, then have chemical residue left over to harm next years crop. Plus have 5 to 10 bushels per acre less canola for another loss of average 70 dollars per acre. Well Stubble remember the greeenpeacers will run with your little bit of info and consumers will listen to them because that is what they want to hear. Meantime you just screwed yourself for a very long time to come. And for what, because you think it is too difficult to control RR canola in chem fallow.

[Hopperbin]

If greenpeace has their way we won't be able to us glyphosate for a desicant anymore. We really must watch what we say, because something we think may be harmless and downloading onto the chemical company may come back to bite us. Without preharvest glyphosate or pre seed glyphosate we would need much more chemical come spring planting and that chemical is not going to be cheap or less toxic. These organizations have a death wish for Monsanto.

[ianben]

Do you have no worries about glyposphate resisance?

Read an artical in farming mag about guy in US who was worried as next to no new products or varieties had been introduced in last 15years only GM/rr,and he thought he was beginning to see poorer control from glyphos with no fallback options.

[bduke]

While glyphosate residues are concerning, I expect
plant tolerance to become a tougher challenge.

Measured half life for glyphosate ranges from 1 to
about 143 days... depending upon soils and soil
conditions.

Average half life is normally reported at about 40 to
60 days.... with detectible levels persisting after
several half life cycles.

Herbicide resistance/tolerance can be a challenge.

There are glyphosate tolerant plants now... some
such as downy brome and some such as cross
pollinated canola.

Crop rotation, herbicide rotation including
perennials, and probably some cultivation will be
necessary.

Some new chemistries are also in the works... but
don't underestimate a plant's capabilities to adapt.

My opinion... Bill