Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Monsanto's 5 Contributions to Planet Earth



Oh, Monsanto, you sly dog. You keep trying to make us believe you are “committed to sustainable agriculture” with your canny advertisements on American Public Media, even as you force-feed farmers your lab-grown Frankenseeds that expire every year (which are, let’s be honest, opposite of sustainable).

On that note, let’s take a quick look at some of the biotech giant’s most dubious contributions to society over their past century in business.

1. Saccharin


Monsanto burst onto the scene in 1901 with the artificial sweetener saccharin, which it sold to Coca-Cola and canned food companies as a sugar replacement.But as early as 1907, the health effects of the sweetener were being questioned by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientists.

After enjoying decades of unfettered consumption, the sweetener was slapped with a warning label in the ’70s when it was found to cause cancer in lab rats. A subsequent three-decade effort by Monsanto to reverse the decision finally won out in 2001. After all, how could a product derived from coal tar not be safe for consumption?


2. Polystyrene


By the ’40s, Monsanto had moved on to oil-based plastics, including polystyrene foam (also known as styrofoam).

As most of us are aware by now, polystyrene foam is an environmental disaster. Not only is there nothing out there that biodegrades it, it breaks off into tiny pieces that choke animals, harm marine life, and release cancer-causing benzene into the environment for a thousand years or more. Despite the overwhelming evidence against it, the noxious containers are still pervasive elsewhere around the country.



3. Agent Orange

 

First developed as an herbicide and defoliant, Agent Orange was used infamously as a military weapon by the U.S. Army during Vietnam to remove the dense foliage of the jungle canopy.

In the process, they dumped over 12 million gallons of the potent chemical cocktail—described by Yale biologist Arthur Galston as “perhaps the most toxic molecule ever synthesized by man”—over towns, farms, and water supplies during a nine-year period.

“When [military scientists] initiated the herbicide program in the 1960s, we were aware of the potential for damage due to dioxin contamination in the herbicide. . .,” said Dr. James R. Clary, a former government scientist with the Chemical Weapons Branch. “However, because the material was to be used on the ‘enemy,’ none of us were overly concerned.”

According to the Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that lack of concern led to 4.8 million exposures to the herbicide, along with 400,000 deaths and disfigurements and 500,000 babies born with birth defects.


4. Bovine Growth Hormone


Did you know the United States is the only developed nation that permits the sale of milk from cows given artificial growth hormones?

With the lone exception of Brazil, the rest of the developed world—including all 27 countries of the European Union, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia—has banned growth hormone use in milk destined for human consumption.

“The milk we drink today is quite unlike the milk our ancestors were drinking without apparent harm for 2,000 years,” said Harvard scientist Ganmaa Davaasambuu. “The milk we drink today may not be nature’s perfect food.”

According to the Center for Food Safety, thanks to increased consumer demand (and certain movies), approximately 60 percent of milk in the U.S. is rBST-free today.



5. Genetically-Modified Seeds


Not content to do mere incidental damage to the environment, Monsanto decided to get to the root of the matter in the ’80s: seeds.

But with much fuss being made over the company’s aggressive scare tactics and rampant mass-patenting, the biotech giant has, true to form, fought back with a multimillion-dollar marketing and advertising campaign featuring smiling children and making outlandish claims that “biotech foods could help end world hunger.”

“Unless I’m missing something,” wrote Michael Pollan in The New York Times Magazine, “the aim of this audacious new advertising campaign is to impale people like me—well-off first-worlders dubious about genetically engineered food—on the horns of a moral dilemma…If we don’t get over our queasiness about eating genetically modified food, kids in the Third World will go blind.”

What’s clear is that no matter what its justification, Monsanto is a) never giving away all these seeds for free; and b) rendering them sterile so that farmers need to re-up every year, making it difficult to believe that the company could possibly have the planet’s best intentions at heart.

“By peddling suicide seeds, the biotechnology multinationals will lock the world’s poorest farmers into a new form of genetic serfdom,” says Emma Must of the World Development Movement. “Currently 80 percent of crops in developing countries are grown using farm-saved seed.”


 
Credit for the words is to the listed website.
I made the pictures :-)

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Do you subscribe to Option #2?

If there are 28 people in a kindergarten class and 27 of them think it's a good idea to eat glue and staples - it's still not a smart idea. What's my point?

Democracy isn't always a good idea - especially when it's an Electoral College or, obviously a group of juveniles who haven't been educated about the intricacies of how the world works. Everyone knows eating glue is bad, right?


Reading this post - I just had to respond - Celebrating victory right now incites to me being content to being entertained rather than educated. Treated as a commodity rather than a human being will free will. There truly are two options - Option #1... Be a part of a system that focuses on 3 main parts. Art & entertainment. Humanities & language. Technology & politics. There has been a system created that allows individuals to be distracted from fulfilling their own life potential of something specific that is personally relevant to them and becoming hypnotized (for lack of a better descriptive word) by mass-attraction (social correctness). They are enticed by clever marketing and distracted by pretty pictures. They are misinformed by nifty, emotionally stimulating, popular 'social issues' that negatively reflect differences rather than celebrating similarities. Driven by ego, social correctness, greed, fear... option #1. Rather then discuss ways to make things better, collectively, they make rude jokes and expect to be taken care of.

There is another choice - we have all experienced enough to understand that 'collectives' cannot understand and give meaning to individual lives. These groups are better at screaming 'crucify him' rather than 'let's take a subjective look at our own behavior'. Organized sciences can manipulate interest groups by convincing them why they don't want to be like the other guy, rather than on focusing on what they DO want to be like; economy, ecology - even politics. The voice indicates that regardless if the choice is logical, the other way is sooo bad for this list of options so apparently it is the better of two evils. Bad idea.

Option #2... Is consciously understanding your own personal life fulfillment. Pulling away from what's popular and focusing on what's innately right for YOU. Giving effort to someone else's dream is self-destructive. Even if you do win - the reward won't taste that sweet. It's not your dream.

Spend some time alone with the most important person on earth. YOU. Figure out how YOU think, innately. What's your style? What makes you tick? How do you enjoy life, interaction and what can you contribute? Option 2 requires rising above what's popular and doing what's essential to your own life fulfillment. Not because someone says or you're scared, but because you've researched, educated yourself and have decided that, for you, this is the right decision.

Thoughts?