View from an Iowa farm: Anti-GMO professor tries to brainwash students against modern farming

|

I recently had the occasion to witness something new in the debate over GMOs. An instructor at the University Of Northern Iowa (UNI) invited two guests to provide a civil discourse for the benefit of her college class. The class was to engage in an exercise, analyzing both arguments and reflecting on how biases can distort how we discuss issues. They chose crop biotechnology as the subject to debate. Students were invited, as well as the public, which is why I attended. I hoped to gain insight on both sides of the issue.

The two guests were Dr. Ruth MacDonald, chair and professor of the Food Science and Human Nutrition Department at Iowa State University (ISU), and Dr. Kamyar Enshayan, director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Education at UNI. Leading up to the debate, I did a bit of research on both guests. Dr. MacDonald has had a long and illustrious career in the field of Food and Nutrition both as a researcher, and an academic. Dr. Enshayan has had a more circuitous route to get where he is today, having begun his career as an agricultural engineer, and finally now a director of a Center at UNI and along the way studied in several different disciplines.

What caught my attention was Dr. Enshayan’s professed dislike for modern commercial agriculture, or “Industrial Agriculture” as he likes to refer to it. I’m not really sure what Industrial Agriculture really is as he clearly put me in that category, but to him it’s something to be hated and feared. He recently wrote an opinion piece for the Des Moines Register in which he compared large scale farming to “Breaking Bad”. You know, the series about the guy with terminal cancer who decides to make meth to fund his families’ future? Yeah, that “Breaking Bad”. In effect he labeled me a cancer patient who makes meth to support his family? Yep, he sure did.

It should have been no surprise that the “civil discourse” exercise at UNI provided as many questions as answers. In his opening statement, Dr. Enshayan did not provide a reason to label GMO crops due to their genetic make-up; instead he supported a label so that the consumer could identify the production method: Industrial Agriculture vs Organic or in his mind Bad vs Good. Dr. Enshayan blamed Industrial Agriculture for creating a simplified system of agriculture, nitrogen pollution of rivers and streams, loss of biodiversity, injustice toward farm workers, the dead zone in the gulf, loss of rural communities, the reduction in population of the Monarch Butterfly and nearly everything in between. I suppose we farmers had a hand in killing Kenny from South Park too? Having been part of the pro/anti-modern ag debate for some time, I’ve learned the talking points of the “antis”. He nicely tied together nearly every activist argument except the Seralini Rat study disaster. Oh but wait…that’s coming!

Dr. Enshayan had a flair for the dramatic. At best, when it came to presenting studies that support his argument, he was a cherry-picking son of a gun. At worst, he was deliberately misinforming his audience using flawed analysis studies that hint at a point he wanted to make. He was very critical of one crop that I grow, herbicide resistant Roundup-Ready corn, which I grow.

For example, he cited a recent joint study between ISU and the University of Minnesota that showed a decline in the monarch butterfly population, which is true. Now I’m just a farmer, not a butterfly researcher, but I can tell you something by reading the report that the researchers involved did not make a direct link between genetically modified glyphosate-tolerant crops and the decline in overwintering monarch butterfly populations in Mexico. Yet, Dr. Enshayan made the causation link because it fits his stance. His comments showed his obvious confirmation bias against crop biotechnology.

Dr. MacDonald addressed Dr. Enshayan’s claims that GE foods are dangerous by explaining that the human body is designed so that it does not incorporate strands of DNA that we ingest into our own DNA. In its most simplistic form, humans ingest food that contains DNA. DNA is broken down into proteins and then absorbed into the body as an amino acid. The human body cannot detect the source of the amino acid.

With a closer analysis, and the use of scientific data, Dr. MacDonald sent Dr. Enshayan’s biases and arguments up in flames faster than the shop cat whose tail got too close to the fire. To this interested observer, Dr. Enshayan had his rehearsed talking points, but when presented with a solid counter argument, he retreated to his rehearsed anti-modern ag mantras or had no response.

Dr. Enshayan concluded with a question: “If GE crops are the solution, what is the problem? Clearly, there is no problem!” GE crops, he concluded, are unnecessary and even dangerous.

With all due respect to the good professor, I doubt he was aware of the herbicide resistance issues that started to arise in the 1950’s as this report states. He is clearly out of touch with modern agriculture and out of touch with the reason so many farmers have adopted GE crops. The use of Roundup-Ready (glyphosate) crops has allowed us to use safer chemicals, lessen the reliance on tillage for weed control, and save more of our valuable Iowa soil in the process. Herbicide resistant weeds were the problem, and GE Roundup-Ready technology was the solution! I would think this is something a Director for Energy and Environmental Education would whole-heartedly embrace.

Dr. MacDonald did not have a closing statement as she covered the issues pretty well previously and left it at that.

The discussion concluded with a question and answer period for the two panelist; they received just two questions from the audience.

One student asked: “If the EPA/FDA/USDA says that these GMO crops are safe, why is it that other countries have banned them?”

Dr. MacDonald answered quite appropriately that the bans in other countries were driven more by politics than data. The scientific community in the EU has publicly proclaimed the current GE crops to be safe, and no different than the non-GE crops. Politicians in some countries have voted to ban or restrict GE crops. Dr. Enshayan had no response.

The second question came from a woman who didn’t have a question as much as a statement. It revolved around the evils of big international corporations and how they “force us to eat food that is not healthy”, etc, etc. She then concluded with: “and there have been no long-term studies about the safety of GMO’s and the one long-term lab study showed that when fed GMO grains, all the rats got cancer!” Ding, Ding, ding!!!! We have a winner! The Seralini rat study! What GMO/non-GMO discussion is complete without the mention of Seralini and his widely debunked rat study that was withdrawn by the journal that published it!

Dr. MacDonald fielded the question, explained that there is no evidence of any harm associated with eating GE foods.  There was no response from Dr. Enshayan.

In the end, the five other adults and thirteen students in attendance didn’t get to hear a discussion on GMO labeling as much as they heard a professor with a platform of propaganda get schooled by someone who bases her views on scientific fact.

Reflecting on what I had witnessed, it was apparent to me that Dr. Enshayan lives in a completely different reality than my own. His views neatly fit into an anti-GMO, anti-modern ag activist training manual. I came away with several other impressions, foremost was the fact that a great deal of misinformation about GE crops still exist, but most concerning is a lack of awareness of simple human biology and plant genetics.

Another thing that concerns me as a farmer is the fact that every day in class Dr. Enshayan has a captive audience of college students, many of whom likely have no knowledge of what happens on a modern farm. We need diverse, opposing points of views to keep us all thinking critically, but we do not need the type of misinformation that I had just heard. If the student’s only knowledge of farming comes from him or someone with such uninformed views, the damage done to agriculture will be irreversible.

I had hoped to hear a lively debate on the pros and cons of GMO crops and whether or not they should be labeled. Instead, I witnessed what appeared to be a microcosm of the debate that has been simmering between those involved in agriculture, food and nutrition, consumers, and activists.  Facts and experience on one side; bias and agenda on the other; and the audience with glazed eyes – some of whom didn’t stay to hear the whole debate. Is this indicative of the wider conversation, or just a local anomaly? I don’t know, but if it is indicative of the conversation going on out in homes, supermarkets, farmers markets and classrooms, we clearly have much education left to do.

Farmers, really everyone involved in agriculture, needs to get involved in the discussion about who we are, what we do and why we do it. I appreciate that Dr. MacDonald took her valuable time to partake in the discussion; students need to hear more of her experience and common sense. We do not need more Dr. Enshayans leading the discussion with those who have no direct knowledge of what I know as modern agriculture.

Dave Walton, a contributing columnist to the GLP, is a full-time farmer in Cedar County, Iowa growing GM and non-GM corn, soybeans, alfalfa and pasture on about 500 acres of the world’s most productive soil.

 

  • DoubleCheck

    Why are the bees dying?

    • Ugasailor

      Last time I checked, all living things die at some point in their life cycle.

      • DoubleCheck

        Do you think you could be more facetious? or is colony collapse part of the ordinary to you?

        • Ugasailor

          Per ARS: “The scientific literature has several mentions of honey bee disappearances—in the 1880s, the 1920s, and the 1960s……..

          There have also been unusual colony losses before. In 1903, in the Cache Valley in Utah, 2000 colonies were lost to an unknown “disappearing disease” after a “hard winter and a cold spring.” More recently, in 1995-96, Pennsylvania beekeepers lost 53 percent of their colonies without a specific identifiable cause.”

          • DoubleCheck

            So that means you are sure the recent dying has nothing to do with the heavily increased pesticide use that often accompanies the use of GMOs.

          • Ammyth

            Do you have evidence of this to present, or are you just flailing about, making unfounded accusations, because it somehow makes you feel better? This is what every anti-GMO person does…”Well, what about THIS? Well, what about THAT?” And it’s all lies and misinformation, none of it with scientific evidence to back it up, but meant to scare people into thinking that maybe, if there are this many questions, then there just might be something fishy about GMOs. It’s an incredibly dishonest way to debate.

          • DoubleCheck
          • Ammyth

            Got any sources that aren’t bullshit conspiracy websites?

            Let me save you some time. THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN GMOS AND BEES.

          • DoubleCheck

            That’s a incredibly dishonest way to debate to call everything not agreeing with corporate controlled data a bullshit conspiracy.

            You know that companies like Monsanto buy up independent companies to eliminate their research that produces questions about their products.

          • Ammyth

            No, I don’t know that Monsanto does that. And if you really think that’s happening, then you need to take off your foil hat and get some sun.

            See at the top of your first link where it says “from GlobalResearch Website”? GlobalResearch is a joke site. It’s a known conspiracy website. It has very little truthful information.

            http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch.ca

            It has nothing to do with “corporate controlled data”. You have no idea how much it makes you look like a fool to link to that crap on a science-based blog like this.

            Post a link to a peer-reviewed scientific study showing a connection between bees and GMOs. If you can’t do that…which you can’t, because it doesn’t exist…then please look at your own motivations for making the argument that you are. Because most likely, your opposition to GMOs is just more anti-corporate, activist silliness.

          • DoubleCheck

            Here are two of many links that you could have retrieved with a simple search that Monsanto buys companies doing research that gets in the way of the profiteering for which they are famous:

            http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9Q1M0UO0.htm

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-schiffman/the-fox-monsanto-buys-the_b_1470878.html

            “Neonics are a nerve poison that disorient their insect victims and
            appear to damage the homing ability of bees, which may help to account
            for their mysterious failure to make it back to the hive.

            This was the conclusion of research which came out in the prestigious Journal Science”

            I suppose that you consider Science “a know conspiracy web site,” as well as Purdue University and Harvard Medical School.

            You seem to argue best by the launching of personal attacks. Please grow up.

          • Ammyth

            Both of those links tell the same story: Monsanto bought a company that had some technology they wanted to continue to develop. That’s not a conspiracy. All big companies do that. See: Facebook buying Instagram and Oculus. I don’t see how this is relevant to what you claimed.

            Two years after they bought the company, Monsanto sponsored “Bee Health Summit”: http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/2498/20130617/controversial-agrichemical-company-monsanto-holds-bee-health.htm

            Wow, those monsters.

          • DoubleCheck

            Sociopathic corporations love gullible people like you, or are you in their publicity department?

            All the big companies conduct themselves like psychopaths by definition of their corporate charters.

          • Ammyth

            When a shortage of facts occurs, just say “But, corporations!”

            I don’t care about them at all. But I do care about the truth, and I care about people vilifying useful technology just because they have a juvenile grudge against corporations.

          • DoubleCheck

            I see no indication that you care about the truth any more than do the big corporations whose operation you know nothing about other than their own propaganda.

          • Ammyth

            “Corporations!”

          • DoubleCheck

            Yes, you have work to do. You understand nothing about them or how they operate. If you did, you wouldn’t be making comments like that.

          • Ammyth

          • DoubleCheck

            Did you present this to show the level of your maturity?

          • Neonics are not related to GMOs. The studies you refer to supposedly implicating neonics in bee health have been superseded by more recent research, confirmed by an independent USDA panel, indicating that neonics play little if any role in bee deaths:
            http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/02/05/bee-deaths-reversal-as-evidence-points-away-from-neonics-as-driver-pressure-builds-to-rethink-ban/

          • DoubleCheck

            True, I was replying to Ammyth’s presumption that Monsanto doesn’t buy up companies whose research is dangerous to their profits.

            The very usual level and extent of bee deaths is complex. (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_bees03.htm) and the large increase of pesticides like roundup accompanying Monsanto’s roundup ready products seem to be a factor.

            We need to move slowly with research independent and unbought by big ag companies. Our bees, our monarch butterflies are more important than the uncaring appetite of these goliaths for big profits.

          • Hey DoubleCheck. Do you plan to respond to my comment above that there is no such thing as a GMO terminator seed?
            That article you linked to was hilarious!!

          • DoubleCheck

            You don’t read very well when you’re emotionally agitated. Please re-read the comment immediately before, before you pop off again.

          • Yes, quite right. I’ve clearly misread where it says “There are many reasons given to the decline in Bees, but one argument that matters most is the use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) and “Terminator Seeds” that are presently being endorsed by governments and forcefully utilized as our primary agricultural needs of survival.”
            So sorry about that.

          • DoubleCheck

            Thank you. We all make mistakes.

          • DoubleCheck

            Here’s something else about the kind of stuff Monsanto does, such as employing…

            Blackwater’s Black Ops
            Jeremy Scahill

            This article appeared in the October 4, 2010 edition of The Nation.

            Internal documents reveal the firm’s clandestine work for multinationals and governments.

            http://www.thenation.com/article/154739/blackwaters-black-ops#

          • DoubleCheck

            Here’s something more about the kind of stuff that Monsanto does to farmers who don’t want to grow their stuff:

            http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/01/201311071754973439.html

          • There is no one more independent than the American farmer. And the American farmer overwhelmingly chooses to grow GMO crops with no coercion whatsoever.

          • DoubleCheck

            Evidence? Big Ag? Family farmers?

            Did you read the reference?

          • You want evidence that American farmers are independent, or that they’re choosing to grow GMOs?

          • DoubleCheck

            Both. Including how you resolve the claim of independence with the grabbing of subsidies.

            Still didn’t read the reference, did you?

          • I’ll join you in getting rid of all farm subsidies. But the independence of the American farmer is baked into their astonishing success. If they were slaves to multinational corporations they’d sell out. It’s a free country, and still a free market, plus land prices are sky-high.
            As for the Al Jazera article, sorry, I thought you were joking about that. I read it when it came out and still think it’s absurd. I don’t care one bit about Monsanto. I’m writing in defense of the science of biotechnology, not any individual corporation involved in it.

          • DoubleCheck

            “But the independence of the American farmer is baked into their astonishing success. If they were slaves to multinational corporations they’d sell out. It’s
            a free country, and still a free market, plus land prices are sky-high.”

            I often think you’re joking too. All of that except the part about land prices is total nonsense. The sky-high land prices are driving the land to the irresponsible, predatory bio-corporations that you don’t care about. Those corporations also abuse the science of biotechnology you claim to be defending.

          • Do you actually know any American farmers who feel they’re being abused by multinationals and wish they could escape the clutches of their farm? If so, please provide their names because I know countless American farmers who would gladly buy them out right now!

          • DoubleCheck

            Okay, give me a list.

          • No, I asked you for a list. Got one?

          • DoubleCheck

            Ha, so you were just pumping out the B.S. about the “countless” American farmers ready to buy. Thought so.

          • No, you’re pumping out B.S. about farmers being turned into slaves by corporations.
            You see Mr. DoubleCheck, every time farm-land prices double, that means there’s twice as much demand for farm land. So, you tell me what it means when an acre of corn land that used to go for $2,000 now goes for $20,000.

          • DoubleCheck

            Farmers being turned into slaves are entirely your hallucination.

            The increase you used means only corporations can afford it.

          • You really don’t know any farmers, do you?

          • CycloneFarms

            Farm land prices are based primarily on the productive value of the land. In other words, it’s income generating property.

          • Quiet right!
            But to hear anti-GMO organic activists tell it, you’d think land prices were based on how enslaved farmers are by multinational corporations.

          • CycloneFarms

            Yeah, there was a story on Mother Jones a few weeks back trying to claim that Wall Street was taking over farm land. The faithful lapped up Philpott’s story and no amount of facts presented would change their little minds.

          • As the nobility of Europe slowly but surely learned after slaughtering every peasant in sight during some of their military campaigns against one another, land ain’t worth a pig’s fart if you don’t have qualified people to work it.
            The American farmer’s job security remains unassailable.

          • Ugasailor

            Thank you for confirming that no intelligent discussion will ocurr as you make quite clear your advocacy of opposition to the science of plant biotechnology.

          • DoubleCheck
          • GMOs reduce pesticide use.
            Colony collapse in bees results from invasion by mites. that’s why even certified-organic hives are allowed to use a synthetic pesticide to kill these mites; they are that deadly.

          • DoubleCheck
          • Oh dear… here we go again… another anti-GMO organic activist who doesn’t know what’s going on.

            The article you linked to Mr. DoubleCheck, blames the disappearance of bees on “the use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) and “Terminator Seeds”.” But I have some very bad news for you; the only “terminator” seeds available are not GMO, they are hybrid seeds which were developed back in the 1920s and which are ALLOWED for use on organic farms.

          • DoubleCheck

            Again you show poor reading skills. did you know that “and” is a conjunction? If you did, you would recognize that your last comment is total nonsense, and that you’re attacking something that was never proposed. Please read carefully before you pop off again.

          • Terminator seeds are NOT responsible for colony collapse in bee populations. Sorry my grammar got in the way, but the link you provided was absurd because there are no GMO terminator seeds.
            (I used “but” instead of “and” that time. Was that okay?)

          • hyperzombie

            “certified-organic hives” What, I thought that honey was just honey. How do you get the bees to do the paperwork needed for certification?

            Organic beekeepers enslaving the bees for corporate profits,,, Oh the Humanity,,

          • In all seriousness, the average organic farmer spends an additional 15 hours a week just keeping up on his paperwork. It’s the height of bureaucratic absurdity. That’s why I stopped performing organic inspections.

          • RAndrewOhge

            Genetic Engineering Companies Promised Reduced Pesticide Use … But GMO Crops Have Led to a 25% Increase In Herbicide Use

            By Washington’s Blog

            Global Research, January 27, 2014

            One of the Main Selling Points for GE Crops – Decreased Pesticide Use – Has Been Totally Debunked

            One of the main selling points for genetically engineered crops is that they would use substantially less pesticides than conventional crops.

            Because of that, and other, promises regarding GE crops, they have taken over much of the food crops in America. For example:

            Monsanto reports that – between 2008 and 2009 – 95% of all sugarbeets planted were genetically engineered to be able to tolerate high doses of the pesticide Roundup

            The USDA reports that 93% of all soy and 85% of all corn grown in the U.S. is an herbicide-resistant GE variety

            Similarly, around 93% of all cottonseed oil and more than 90% of all canola oil produced in the U.S. is herbicide-resistant GE

            However, it turns out that GE crops need a lot more herbicides than conventional ones.

            Washington State University Charles Benbrook – former Executive Director of the Board on Agriculture at the National Academy of Sciences and, before that, Executive Director of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Research, and Foreign Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives – published a study showing:

            Contrary to often-repeated claims that today’s genetically-engineered crops have, and are reducing pesticide use, the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied. If new genetically engineered forms of corn and soybeans tolerant of 2,4-D are approved, the volume of 2,4-D sprayed [background] could drive herbicide usage upward by another approximate 50%.

            Largely because of the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds, HR crop technology has led to a 239 million kg (527 million pound) increase in herbicide use across the three major GE-HR crops, compared to what herbicide use would likely have been in the absence of HR crops.

            Washington State University explains:

            Herbicide-tolerant crops worked extremely well in the first few years of use, but over-reliance led to shifts in weed communities and the emergence of resistant weeds that have, together, forced farmers to incrementally –

            Increase herbicide application rates (especially glyphosate),

            Spray more often, and

            Add new herbicides that work through an alternate mode-of-action into their spray programs.

            Each of these responses has, and will continue to contribute to the steady rise in the volume of herbicides applied per acre of HT corn, cotton, and soybeans.

            HT crops have increased herbicide use by 527 million pounds over the 16-year period (1996-2011). The incremental increase per year has grown steadily from 1.5 million pounds in 1999, to 18 million five years later in 2003, and 79 million pounds in 2009. In 2011, about 90 million more pounds of herbicides were applied than likely in the absence of HT, or about 24% of total herbicide use on the three crops in 2011.

            Today’s major GE crops have increased overall pesticide use by 404 million pounds from 1996 through 2011 (527 million pound increase in herbicides, minus the 123 million pound decrease in insecticides). Overall pesticide use in 2011 was about 20% higher on each acre planted to a GE crop, compared to pesticide use on acres not planted to GE crops.

            There are now two-dozen weeds resistant to glyphosate, the major herbicide used on HT crops, and many of these are spreading rapidly. Millions of acres are infested with more than one glyphosate-resistant weed. The presence of resistant weeds drives up herbicide use by 25% to 50%, and increases farmer-weed control costs by at least as much.

            The biotechnology-seed-pesticide industry’s primary response to the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds is development of new HT varieties resistant to multiple herbicides, including 2,4-D and dicamba. These older phenoxy herbicides pose markedly greater human health and environmental risks per acre treated than glyphosate. Approval of corn tolerant of 2,4-D is pending, and could lead to an additional 50% increase in herbicide use per acre on 2,4-D HT corn.

            Science Daily notes:

            “Resistant weeds have become a major problem for many farmers reliant on GE crops, and they are now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each year by about 25 percent,” Benbrook said.

            Forbes points out:

            A new study released by Food & Water Watch yesterday finds the goal of reduced chemical use has not panned out as planned. In fact, according to the USDA and EPA data used in the report, the quick adoption of genetically engineered crops by farmers has increased herbicide use over the past 9 years in the U.S. The report follows on the heels of another such study by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook just last year.

            Both reports focus on “superweeds.” It turns out that spraying a pesticide repeatedly selects for weeds which also resist the chemical. Ever more resistant weeds are then bred, able to withstand increasing amounts – and often different forms – of herbicide.

            Other Potential Downsides

            Genetically engineered foods have been linked to obesity, cancer, liver failure, infertility and all sorts of other diseases (brief, must-watch videos here and here).

            And genetically-engineered meat isn’t even tested for human safety.

            But government agencies like the FDA go to great lengths to cover up the potential health damage from genetically modified foods, and to keep the consumer in the dark about what they’re really eating.

            The EPA recently raised the allowable amount of a glyphosate – the main ingredient in Monsanto’s toxic Roundup – by 3,000% … pretending that it won’t have adverse health effects.

            And – as noted above – the EPA is leaning towards approving corn specially engineered to tolerate the highly-toxic herbicide 2,4-D. Ironically, Monsanto has proposed this new “Agent Orange corn” to combat the superweeds caused by the use of Monsanto’s Roundup-ready GE crops. What could go possibly go wrong?

            http://www.globalresearch.ca/genetic-engineering-companies-promised-reduced-pesticide-use-but-gmo-crops-have-led-to-a-25-increase-in-herbicide-use/5366371

          • DoubleCheck

            Bravo! Good work! Exactly the kind of stuff normally missing from this site.

          • Why do farmers continue to freely grow GMO crops if they don’t work?

        • Rick Leonard

          I am attaching two excellent articles that discuss potential causes of colony collapse disorder. While I agree Ugasailor’s comment was not very enlightening, I do tend to take a skeptical approach to simplistic assignment of blame. The following questions which are implied in your comments and in others in this thread, are legitimate ones. Is there a documented recent decline in bee colony survival and if so, is this unprecedented? And, Is there reason to believe that changing agronomic practices, including cultural and chemical regimes are a significant contributing factor to CCD?

          The have found the two articles to be a sober and reasoned look at this issue. The articles point out that large and widespread unexplained sudden colony failures are not unprecedented, and have in fact occurred occasionally throughout history. However, the articles do not necessarily vindicate, or attempt to vindicate, modern agriculture, but I think are a good overview of research and other evidence that has gone toward answering the question of explaining the rash of colony collapse disorder. As you can tell, it is very difficult to determine whether recent CCD is a unique phenomenom, or to assign its occurrence to any single cause. It appears that a lot of work has gone to looking at factors that have been suggested, bt crops, pesticides including those associated with herbicide tolerant crops (ge or otherwise – not all herbicide tolerance is ge — e.g. corn is a grass and grass is naturally tolerant to atrazine which is why it is often found in home lawn care weed products as well as used on growing corn in the past. Actually, the advent of glysophate tolerant crops reduced use of atrazine which was probably a plus for bees and other insects). The articles do not necessarily let agriculture off the hook, but generally point out that CCD is not clearly linked to pesticides, or only pesticides, and there may not be any one common factor. The articles both mention varoa mites, a parasite of bees, as a likely contributor. I cannot find the article about it to post the link to, but a very recent research report suggests that while pesticides, habitat changes, and other factors associated with agronomic practices might have causative associations with individual CCD incidents, the evidence is increasingly pointing to the varroa mite as a primary largest causative agent.

          http://www.biofortified.org/2013/03/colony-collapse-disorder-an-introduction/

          http://jimskitchenlab.com/?p=615

          • Let me guess… colony collapse is cause by… (wait for it) … Monsanto!

          • DoubleCheck

            That really dumb.

          • In any debate involving environmental issues, always blame the most profitable corporation or individual involved. Isn’t that how this works?

          • DoubleCheck

            Shallow understanding of corporations makes it easy for you to say things like that, doesn’t it? Why don’t you do some study on the conduct of corporations in respect to their effect on the environment. Maybe you could start with Monsanto, maybe Duke Energy?

          • Here’s a news flash my friend. I don’t really care about the “conduct” of corporations. Call me calloused if you will, but all I care about is whether their products work.
            These products help advance civilization by making us more efficient, healthy and prosperous. And the minute a company fails to deliver on any of these points, I stop doing business with them. Simple.
            In the meantime, as long as these products work, I believe they should be shared with the whole world, just like the light bulb and the personal computer.
            Who’s got time to “research” a company? Ever heard of the free market? Buyer beware.

          • DoubleCheck

            Of course you don’t care about corporations, while pretending to care about the environment that will happily wreck for profit. It’s much more fun to pop off at people.

            Thanks for admitting your ignorance and your pride in substituting shallow slogans for knowledge.

          • CycloneFarms

            What is your reason for all your off-topic comments?

            Attention seeking? Sure looks like it.

            Especially considering you’re calling people here ignorant and dumb among other things, yet you play victim like this: “…I’m sorry, but from the papers selected at this site and the nastiness with which my probing was attacked…”

          • DoubleCheck

            Q.E.D.

          • Corporations are good for the environment. Farmers are GREAT for the environment. And the worst thing ever devised by man when it comes to the environment is socialism.

          • RAndrewOhge

            Calloused? No doubt. Paid to be here touting the “Party Line”? Highly likely.

            Free Market? Not for decades…if the Oligarchs don’t like it, fear it, or have negative feelings regarding the individuals, vision or priorities involved, the products, services, research, and even the people, professionally AND LITERALLY are buried faster than a Chicago Voter.

            Embracing Products that work? I agree, it’s a no-brainer. As it is when they cease to work AS ADVERTISED, which describes Biotechs totally out-of-step, 40+ year old traitorous traits to a tee.

            These variants were dropped in 1993-94, kind of worked for a while, then began to develop problems, initially a little than a lot of resistant weed issues.

            The real problem now?

            BioScience has moved on. Ever heard of XNA? of Synthetic life? Quantum Expression? Here’s where the REAL State-Of-The-Art is NOW.

            Monsanto still produces its “products” by using a micro-engineered E-Coli based Bacteriophage to literally infect the target gene with the “desired traits”[Identified by ALSO hanging on to out-dated techniques and thinking].

            How DARE you folks call “us folks” “ANTI-SCIENCE”? State-of-the Art Versus forty year old science. Who’s the Luddites NOW?

            Inserting genetics? That’s SOOOOOO 20th Century…AHEM.

          • There has been no greater scourge on the delicate ecosystems of planet earth than socialism, communism and totalitarianism. Only the free market is green.
            And, by the way, no one paid me to say that or anything else I have said here. I am 100% independent, and proudly so. After all, it’s still a free market. Right?

          • RAndrewOhge

            Rather than be blind-sided by Oligarchical Greed and Manipulation, I MAKE time. Folks NOT doing so get what they deserve. The very concept of Caveat Emptor dictates one MUST take responsibility to do just that, or become RESPONSIBLE for the outcome.

            Either you’re part of the solution, or you’re part of the problem. IF the reading of Reports, Papers and Studies are too time consuming, do what I did, I learned Speed Reading, Pattern Recognition, and Research Core Parameters. ALL can be learned by anyone-even outside the Academic Community.

            Call you callous, if this is REALLY your stance[I rather hope it isn’t]? I call it lacking a long-term perspective. Without that, what APPEARS to work today [Like Glyphosate did in the mid-nineties] may NOT do so down the road.

            That short-sightedness ALWAYS comes at a cost.

          • Modern farmers are part of the solution. Of that I assure you.

          • CycloneFarms

            Since when did this thread become your personal soapbox to air your perceived grudge against corporations?

          • DoubleCheck

            You again. Ha!

          • RAndrewOhge

            UN, Monsanto, Mining, Oil & Gas Companies Directing BLM Plans For Our Public Land

            THIS CONNECTS THE DOTS ON THE BLM, The Harry Reid/China Land Grab, and WHO, as well as WHAT lies behind this. IT’S Big and has been going on for YEARS

            Marti Oakley-Debbie Coffey Copyright 2011 All Rights Reserved.

            Resource management plans (for your land?)

            How does the UN, Monsanto, mining, and oil & gas companies get their hands into Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Resource Management Plans and Environmental Assessments to dictate the use of our public lands (and our future)?

            Well, I found one way. I noticed that two companies, Tetra Tech and Environmental Management & Planning Solutions, Inc. (EMPSi), are preparing BLM (and Forest Service) Resource Management Plans (RMPs), Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), Environmental Assessments (EAs) and other reports. (So what do we pay BLM employees to do, just look pretty in their uniforms?)

            Tetra Tech

            It’s not some small environmental company. Tetra Tech has 13,000 employees in 330 offices around the world. Tetra tech owns about 25 other companies and makes billions of dollars in annual revenues. They work with developers, nuclear power, energy, mining and minerals processing, etc. On the Tetra Tech website, it declares: “Our Mission: To be the premier worldwide consulting, engineering, and construction firm.”

            Tetra Tech even bought PRO-Intelligent, an international security and intelligence consulting firm used by the US State Department. So they seem to have their hands in everything.

            The most troubling aspect about Tetra Tech preparing the plans for the BLM can be seen by looking at Tetra Tech’s Board of the Directors:

            Hugh M. Grant is the Chairman, President and CEO of Monsanto.
            (on Tetra Tech’s website, this fact was omitted in his bio). Why would Monsanto’s CEO be on the Board of an engineering and construction company?

            J. Kenneth Johnson is a Director of Alaska Air Group, which owns Coeur D’ Alene Mines Corp. and Pioneer Natural Resources Co. (oil and gas exploration). He’s President of Pacific Star Energy LLC, and managing director of Alaska Venture Capital Group (a private oil and gas exploration firm) He was also an ARCO (BP) executive. Albert Smith was an Exec V.P. at Lockheed Martin and worked for the CIA.

            J. Christopher Lewis co-founded Riordan, Lewis & Haden and is on the Board of Secure Mission Solutions. Riordan, Lewis & Haden has investments in Tetra Tech and Secure Mission Solutions.

            Patrick Haden was a partner in Riordan, Lewis & Haden and Director of TCW Strategies Income Fund and The TCW Funds. (And USC’s athletic director.)

            Richard H. Truly is Director of Xcel Energy, Inc. and is on the Board of the Colorado School of Mines.

            Dan L. Batrack, has a vague bio: Batrack “has served in numerous capacities over the last 30 years, including project scientist, project manager, operations manager, senior vice president and president of an operating unit. He has managed complex programs for many small and Fortune 500 clients, both in the United States and internationally.”

            There seems to be possibilities for conflicts of interest. And also a possibility to exert some control over land, water and resources.

            Tetra Tech has been contracted by the BLM to help the BLM Winnemucca, Nevada office with their RMP. Which is interesting, because within the Winnemucca BLM district is the Rochester Mine, owned by Couer d’Alene Mines, which Tetra Tech Board Member J. Kenneth Johnson may have an interest in, since he’s on the Board of Directors of the company that owns Couer d’Alene Mines.

            In Tetra Tech’s SEC filings, it states that in regard to revenues, it received 21.9% from Department of Defense agencies, 11.3% from USAID and 11.8% from other U.S.federal government agencies.

            It also claims that international business grew 195.0% in the third quarter of fiscal 2011, and that they expected international business to grow significantly in fiscal 2011 and continue strong demand for their services in the mining and energy markets worldwide.

            In 2011, they also acquired a mining engineering company in Australia, which they expected to “enhance” their “technical expertise in the mining and minerals processing sector” and expand service in Australia and “serve as a gateway to new markets across Asia and Africa.”

            Sounds like they’re in the mining business to me. Could they be creating “gateways” here in the USA to increase their business?

            If Tetra Tech owns or has clients who own, energy and mining companies, and they are preparing or helping to prepare the RMPs, EISs and EAs, it seems like they might be tempted to cut themselves a good deal.

            Tetra Tech RTW mining services provides Heap Leach Facility Design, Tailings Facility Design, Tailings Delivery Systems, and Mining Process Fluid Management. If they’re “providing” tailing delivery systems to mines, isn’t this “selling” this to mining companies? And unless they’re providing their services for free, their business depends on mining. Most businesses want to keep their customers happy and think of ways to make more money.

            Tetra Tech has some interesting connections in the oil and gas industry. They bought Halliburton’s subsidiaries Brown & Root Environmental and Halliburton NUS (Nuclear Utilities Service Corp.) in 1997.

            Tetra Tech EC designed and constructed more than 20 nuclear power facilities from 1960 through 1990. It’s a good thing Tetra Tech also does remediation. They could potentially clean up at both ends of the deal.

            Environmental Management & Planning Solutions Inc. (EMPSi)

            The BLM Battle Mountain District Office (Nevada) awarded a $1.6 million contract to Environmental Management Planning Solutions Inc. to prepare a resource management plan (RMP) “to guide development and conservation on 10.5 million acres of federal land within Lander County, Eureka County, Nye County, and Esmeralda County, Nevada.”

            EMPSi was part of the “Outreach Core Team” to implement Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) to facilitate geothermal development on “federal” lands throughout the western US. It seems EMPSi was/is also doing geothermal permit development support for “confidential clients” in Nevada. So they’re preparing a Resource Management Plan for development and conservation (which may mean just saving assets for their clients) on the one hand, then on the other hand they’re helping confidential clients get their permits.

            Who OWNS EMPSi? It’s a private company and it’s hard to find out much about it. It seems that key employees of EMPSi have also worked for Tetra Tech. That includes John E. King, the “Principal” of EMPSi, who has been at EMPSi since 2006. Before that, he was at Tetra Tech from 1982-2006, and was a Vice President. EMPSi lists Tetra Tech as a “Client.”

            EMPSi was incorporated in Delaware in 2000, so it’s impressive that a company that is only about 10 years old (again, it’s hard to find the history of this company, even on its website) has clients including about 11 US government agencies (including the Departments of Defense, Interior, Agriculture) states, cities, banks and major energy companies.

            EMPSi even assisted Solyndra in getting a Department of Energy loan guarantee.

            The UN Connection

            If you look at the services on EMPSi’s website , you see terms like socioeconomic & environmental justice, visual resource management and sustainable development. These terms probably weren’t in US environmental assessments 30 years ago. Socioeconomic justice, also called “equity,” is communism.

            If you look on the UN’s website, specifically about sustainable development in the USA (and note in the heading on the link that this is Agenda 21), , be sure to take note of a sentence in the first paragraph “In the absence of a multi-sectoral consensus on how to achieve sustainable development in the United States, the PCSD was conceived to formulate recommendations for the implementation of Agenda 21.” (PCSD is the US President’s Council on Sustainable Development).

            You’ll also see the subtitle “Integrated” Decision Making. UN’s Agenda 21 is what is being integrated and implemented in the USA, sidestepping Congress and the Constitution. Read Agenda 21: . There are chapters about “changing consumptive patterns” and “promoting sustainable human settlement development” (this means moving you out of rural areas and into stack and pack apartments in cities) and “integrating environment and development into decision-making.” (This includes decision-making like RMPs, EISs and EAs.)

            Both Tetra Tech and EMPSi have US agencies as “clients.” U.S. agencies that are members of the UN’s IUCN are: U.S. Departments of State, Commerce, Agriculture (Forest Service), the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These agencies are also on the Rural Council.

            On the IUCN website, it states: “IUCN links its Mission to the paramount goals of the international community on environment and sustainable development, in particular Agenda 21…” Agenda 21 expert Cassandra Anderson of http://www.morphcity.com states that Agenda 21 is the United Nations’ ACTION PLAN.

            Tetra Tech “participates” in IUCN’s DCMC (DC Marine Community). The World Bank is on the Advisory Board. Tetra Tech implemented a USAID funded a project, the Forest Carbon, Markets and Communities (FCMC) Program, led by Scott Hajost (Chief of Party). Hajost is a member of the IUCN-US Board, and has served on IUCN Commissions on law and ecosystems. Hajost was Senior Counsel to the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) for two years. (He was writing the UN laws to be integrated and implemented.)

            Resource Management Plans

            RMPs are a big deal because a lot of BLM plans for “multiple uses” are based on RMPs for 10 or 15 years. An RMP (as described on the BLM website), “will be to establish guidance, objectives, policies, and management actions for public lands” and addresses:

            Air Quality
            Cultural Resources
            Soil and Water Resources
            Vegetation
            Lands and Realty Management
            Wildlife Habitat and Fisheries Management
            Mineral and Mining Resources
            Recreation and OHV Use
            Visual Resource Management
            Special Management Designations
            Hazardous Materials
            Other Issues
            I guess with the “other issues,” the RMP covers everything.

            RMPs, EISs and EAs give the green light to certain “multiple uses” on our public lands (like expanding mining or a free-for-all on the oil and gas lease sales of our public lands for as little as $2 an acre) or take away things that were on our public lands, like removing our wild horses to make room for other uses.

            Tetra Tech received a $55 million contract from the EPA for a Pollution Prevention Program and a $20 million contract from State Department USAID for a Climate Change Program. Looking at the larger picture, what really seems to be on the horizon in terms of “change” is the loss of our democracy, and the “prevention” of private land ownership.

            _________________________________________________

            SOURCES:

            http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/usa/inst.htm

            http://www.tetratech.com/us/our-company.html

            http://www.tetratech.com/us/management-team/

            http://www.tetratech.com/us/sec-filings/

            http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=108748481

            http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices-government/5397351-1.html

            http://safetycouncil.ehscareers.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/jobsbysubscriberdetails/SID/4074/Tetra_Tech_NUS__Inc..htm

            https://www.gsaadvantage.gov/ref_text/GS07F0578N/0GMBKC.20PF8F_GS-07F-0578N_TT84071309.PDF

            http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyProfile?symbol=TTEK.O

            http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-king/4/44B/284

            http://www.answers.com/topic/tetra-tech-inc

            http://securemissionsolutions.com/vision-values.html

            http://www.pioneernrc.com/about/profile.htm

            http://www.curtisswright.com/

            http://people.forbes.com/profile/dan-l-batrack/77995

            http://www.tetratech.com/us/commercial-energy.html

            http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/empsi-awarded-contract-for-battle-mountain-resource-management-planning-project-117229608.html

            http://www.linkedin.com/pub/scott-hajost/9/A72/715

            http://dcmarine.net/members_dcmc.html

            http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/battle_mountain_field/blm_information/rmp.html

            http://www.emps2.com/BLM_EMPSi.html

            http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-king/4/44B/284

            http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/empsi-receives-award-for-renewable-energy-development-115093879.html

            http://securemissionsolutions.com/management.html

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riordan,_Lewis_%26_Haden

            http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=1669010

            http://www.linkedin.com/pub/david-batts/5/4a/21a

            http://www.linkedin.com/pub/holly-prohaska/10/269/81a

            http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Gentile_Andrew_489432920.aspx
            http://www.sanfranciscohypnotherapy.com/About_Andrew.htm

            http://www.docstoc.com/docs/46393630/Consultation-Agreement

            http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/BLM_Information/newsroom/2003/draft_management_plan.html

            http://www.tetratech.com/All-Projects/desert-sunlight-photovoltaic-project.html

            http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices-government/5397351-1.html#ixzz1cKFhLYPa

            https://delecorp.delaware.gov/tin/controller

            http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/geothermal_eis/final_programmatic.Par.23512.File.dat/vol3_final_appA.pdf

            Main Article: http://ppjg.me/2011/11/01/monsanto-mining-oil/

          • RAndrewOhge

            What personal grudges? I just posted a bunch of inconvenient facts SOME folks don’t want anyone to EVER hear about. Did YOU get uncomfortable with them? GOOD.

          • CycloneFarms

            I didn’t reply to you, Mr. Crank.

            I replied to “DoubleCheck”. He’s also a crank. You two could probably have a bromance.

          • RAndrewOhge

            Since when would anyone call your mental ejaculations replies? You’re a cypher with nothing but a little unimaginative vitriol to add to the grown-ups conversation.

            Back to the little table.

          • RAndrewOhge

            The Big Corporations are QUITE transparent in their machinations-they only THINK they’re not.

            A glance at the rosters of everything from the halls of Congress, to SCOTUS, POTUS and the “Alphabet Agencies” show huge numbers of former Biotech, Bankster and Wall Street Shills carefully placed “where needed”.

            The Corporatists are just torqued off they’re being discovered. Throughout the REST of the world, these folks are being finally outed, arrested, imprisoned and even executed.

            Coming Soon To A Corporation Near You!

          • DoubleCheck

            You’re quite a breath of fresh air on this corporate propaganda site for irresponsible corporate manipulation by GMO.

          • RAndrewOhge

            I represent an anomaly to them. I’m NOT against Biotech Science-the REAL Science is poised to do some incredible things, but do them from a Quantum Perspective. From that vantage point, there’s no such thing as “simple proteins or simple expression. This is the State-of-the-art. These folks have developed artificial forms of DNA like XNA, built on SIX rather than four protein base sets.

            The Corporatocracy is too LAZY and Backwards to either investigate or move toward that. In fact Monsanto has pulled the rug recently out from under a team of Scientists investigating the use of MicroRNA as a better medium for Gene “Fine-Tuning”.

            They simply squelched it and continue funneling money into propaganda and buying Legislation to keep the “same-old-same-old” le riguer.

            It’s sad, really, as America should be the leaders and innovators, not the silly “Cigarette Scientists” and Oligarchical Luddite Drones they’ve become.

          • Would you be interested in writing an article on this for the Genetic Literacy Project. If so, I’d be interested in running it…sounds like you have a thoughtful and provocative perspective.

          • DoubleCheck

            Neither am I against Biotech Science either, but I’m am against it driven to exclusion of everything by corporate profit. Maybe you are right that the Corporatocracy is too LAZY, but I think their backwardness may be more due to their motivation, the continued seizure of wealth by CONTROL of development and production. Evidently the team mRNA investigators seemed to them to threaten profiteering also established to their advantage. I also hold suspicions that continue this research in secrecy where their control may be more secure.

            You say:

            It’s sad, really, as America should be the leaders and innovators, not the silly “Cigarette Scientists” and Oligarchical Luddite Drones they’ve become.

            I agree, but I think that we’ve always had a certain subpopulation of such ones obedient to special interest. But the relative size of this population has grown and will continue to grow with the expansion of the corporatocracy.

          • RAndrewOhge

            I’m impressed by your response, as well as what Mischa has been willing to consider. I’m not trying to make converts, but I DO believe what I stand for, and am willing to go toe to toe with “them”. I HAVE been on the phone and in Email exchanges with some top officials from Monsanto, Bayer, the Pioneer side of DuPont. There’s nothing I’ve said here I either haven’t already said, or would be willing to say to them directly. thank you for reading my responses with critical thinking and not simply dismissing them.

          • RAndrewOhge

            I’ve emailed them and spoken with Board Members. I have a number of disciplines in my background. At the time I really started breaking this all down, I was attempting to Market to Monsanto, Bayer Crop Science, and DuPont/Pioneer. Of the three, it took the most work to ferret through Bayer Crop Science, which is actually one of three primary Subsidiaries of Bayer Worldwide-initially broken down here: http://www.bayer.com/en/profile-and-organization.aspx

          • RAndrewOhge

            As the man said, “Follow the money.” It’s the “Golden Rule”…He who has the Gold, makes the rules…”

          • Yes, but a lot of very wealthy individuals have given us great things: Thomas Edison, Nicolai Tesla, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs for instance. So sometimes when we “follow the money” we find humanitarian “gold.”

          • RAndrewOhge

            SOMETIMES that can be true-I know of others more out-standing in that respect than those you cited, but Tesla died broke and broken, partially because of Edison, and Bill Gates AND Steve jobs stole everything they “invented” from other Tech Companies, starting with the real first GUI from Xerox.

            You watch something long enough and it will tell you something you weren’t expecting to find.

            WHERE is Biotech strongest in the world? The US, UK, Australia, Canada, WAS in India, and is making inroads to Africa, as this article points out.

            ALL were, or perhaps, still ARE part of the British Empire/Commonwealth of Nations ruled by the same Queen that owns $46 Trillion in Global Real Estate and Assets[Forget the “Official UK Registry”, it’s a scam]including $17 Trillion in Uranium Futures[thus answering WHY the Nuclear Cartel remains SO intransigent.]

            The Brits are holding the door open for Monsanto, Bayer, and the other Ag-Chem Oligarchs in Association with Big Oil, with a lot of help from the Rothschild controlled IMF and EU.

            Corporatocracy explores Neo-Colonialism, and America, this IS your Tax Dollars at work. Don’t take MY mrer word on it read this, and start connecting the dots.

            WHY innovate, when you can Legislate and Bully your way into continued big payoffs at the expense of the Middle Class, the Working Poor, and with the backing of the Global Elite?

            There’s some good “starts” in the following article-just don’t stop there.
            http://farmlandgrab.org/post/view/23219#sthash.fjuSAtts.dpuf

          • Biotech is strongest in countries where farmers enjoy the strongest private-property rights.

          • RAndrewOhge

            You didn’t read the article. ALL the small Farmers were evicted at gunpoint by the corrupt minions of the corrupt local politicians looking to earn payoffs. The US and UK grabbed 80 million hectares from them in just the last few years. What’s planted on that land now? Corn and Beans for biofuel and processed food-ALL for export.

            There goes the Meme about feeding Africa’s hungry millions-We MADE Africa’s hungry millions, all in the name of corporate greed. By the way, can you guess what KIND of Corn and Beans got planted?

            Monsanto, Bayer and friends are just useful tools of the planets REAL terrorists and Monsters, starting with the Houses of Guelph and de Rothschild.

            You live in one of their bestest colonies-you just THINK it’s a Republic. [As we remain a Member of the Council of 300:

            Abdullah II, King of Jordan
            Abramovich, Roman
            Ackermann, Josef
            Adeane, Edward
            Agius, Marcus
            Ahtisaari, Martti
            Akerson, Daniel
            Albert II, King of Belgium
            Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia
            Amato, Giuliano
            Anderson, Carl A.
            Andreotti, Giulio
            Andrew, Duke of York
            Anne, Princess Royal
            Anstee, Nick
            Ash, Timothy Garton
            Astor, William Waldorf
            Aven, Pyotr
            Balkenende, Jan Peter
            Ballmer, Steve
            Balls, Ed
            Barroso, José Manuel
            Beatrix, Queen of the Netherlands
            Belka, Marek
            Bergsten, C. Fred
            Berlusconi, Silvio
            Bernake, Ben
            Bernstein, Nils
            Berwick, Donald
            Bildt, Carl
            Bischoff, Sir Winfried
            Blair, Tony
            Blankfein, Lloyd
            Blavatnik, Leonard
            Bloomberg, Michael
            Bolkestein, Frits
            Bolkiah, Hassanal
            Bonello, Michael C
            Bonino, Emma
            Boren, David L.
            Borwin, Duke of Mecklenburg
            Bronfman, Charles
            Bronfman, Edgar Jr.
            Bruton, John
            Brzezinski, Zbigniew
            Budenberg, Robin
            Buffet, Warren
            Bush, George HW
            Cameron, David
            Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall
            Cardoso, Fernando Henrique
            Carington, Peter
            Carl XVI Gustaf, King of Sweden
            Carlos, Duke of Parma
            Carney, Mark
            Carroll, Cynthia
            Caruana, Jaime
            Castell, Sir William
            Chan, Anson
            Chan, Margaret
            Chan, Norman
            Charles, Prince of Wales
            Chartres, Richard
            Chiaie, Stefano Delle
            Chipman, Dr John
            Chodiev, Patokh
            Christoph, Prince of Schleswig-Holstein
            Cicchitto, Fabrizio
            Clark, Wesley
            Clarke, Kenneth
            Clegg, Nick
            Clinton, Bill
            Cohen, Abby Joseph
            Cohen, Ronald
            Cohn, Gary
            Colonna di Paliano, Marcantonio, Duke of Paliano
            Constantijn, Prince of the Netherlands
            Constantine II, King of Greece
            Cooksey, David
            Cowen, Brian
            Craven, Sir John
            Crockett, Andrew
            Dadush, Uri
            D’Aloisio, Tony
            Darling, Alistair
            Davies, Sir Howard
            Davignon, Étienne
            Davis, David
            de Rothschild, Benjamin
            de Rothschild, David René
            de Rothschild, Evelyn
            de Rothschild, Leopold
            Deiss, Joseph
            Deripaska, Oleg
            Dobson, Michael
            Draghi, Mario
            Du Plessis, Jan
            Dudley, William C.
            Duisenberg, Wim
            Edward, Duke of Kent
            Edward, Earl of Wessex
            Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom
            Elkann, John
            Emanuele, Vittorio, Prince of Naples
            Ernst August, Prince of Hanover
            Feldstein, Martin
            Festing, Matthew
            Fillon, François
            Fischer, Heinz
            Fischer, Joschka
            Fischer, Stanley
            FitzGerald, Niall
            Franz, Duke of Bavaria
            Fridman, Mikhail
            Friso, Prince of Orange-Nassau
            Gates, Bill
            Geidt, Christopher
            Geithner, Timothy
            Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia
            Gibson-Smith, Dr Chris
            Gorbachev, Mikhail
            Gore, Al
            Gotlieb, Allan
            Green, Stephen
            Greenspan, Alan
            Grosvenor, Gerald, 6th Duke of Westminster
            Gurría, José Ángel
            Hague, William
            Hampton, Sir Philip
            Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein
            Harald V, King of Norway
            Harper, Stephen
            Heisbourg, François
            Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg
            Hildebrand, Philipp
            Hills, Carla Anderson
            Holbrooke, Richard
            Honohan, Patrick
            Howard, Alan
            Ibragimov, Alijan
            Ingves, Stefan
            Isaacson, Walter
            Juan Carlos, King of Spain
            Jacobs, Kenneth M.
            Julius, DeAnne
            Juncker, Jean-Claude
            Kenen, Peter
            Kerry, John
            King, Mervyn
            Kinnock, Glenys

            Kissinger, Henry
            Knight, Malcolm
            Koon, William H. II
            Krugman, Paul
            Kufuor, John
            Lajolo, Giovanni
            Lake, Anthony
            Lambert, Richard
            Lamy, Pascal
            Landau, Jean-Pierre
            Laurence, Timothy
            Leigh-Pemberton, James
            Leka, Crown Prince of Albania
            Leonard, Mark
            Levene, Peter
            Leviev, Lev
            Levitt, Arthur
            Levy, Michael
            Lieberman, Joe
            Livingston, Ian
            Loong, Lee Hsien
            Lorenz of Belgium, Archduke of Austria-Este
            Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou
            Louis-Dreyfus, Gérard
            Mabel, Princess of Orange-Nassau
            Mandelson, Peter
            Manning, Sir David
            Margherita, Archduchess of Austria-Este
            Margrethe II, Queen of Denmark
            Martínez, Guillermo Ortiz
            Mashkevitch, Alexander
            Massimo, Stefano, Prince of Roccasecca dei Volsci
            Massimo-Brancaccio, Fabrizio Prince of Arsoli and Triggiano
            McDonough, William Joseph
            McLarty, Mack
            Mersch, Yves
            Michael, Prince of Kent
            Michael, King of Romania
            Miliband, David
            Miliband, Ed
            Mittal, Lakshmi
            Moreno, Glen
            Moritz, Prince and Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel
            Murdoch, Rupert
            Napoléon, Charles
            Nasser, Jacques
            Niblett, Robin
            Nichols, Vincent
            Nicolás, Adolfo
            Noyer, Christian
            Ofer, Sammy
            Ogilvy, Alexandra, Lady Ogilvy
            Ogilvy, David, 13th Earl of Airlie
            Ollila, Jorma
            Oppenheimer, Nicky
            Osborne, George
            Oudea, Frederic
            Parker, Sir John
            Patten, Chris
            Pébereau, Michel
            Penny, Gareth
            Peres, Shimon
            Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
            Pio, Dom Duarte, Duke of Braganza
            Pöhl, Karl Otto
            Powell, Colin
            Prokhorov, Mikhail
            Quaden, Guy
            Rasmussen, Anders Fogh
            Ratzinger, Joseph Alois (Pope Benedict XVI)
            Reuben, David
            Reuben, Simon
            Rhodes, William R.
            Rice, Susan
            Richard, Duke of Gloucester
            Rifkind, Sir Malcolm
            Ritblat, Sir John
            Roach, Stephen S.
            Robinson, Mary
            Rockefeller, David Jr.
            Rockefeller, David Sr.
            Rockefeller, Nicholas
            Rodríguez, Javier Echevarría
            Rogoff, Kenneth
            Roth, Jean-Pierre
            Rothschild, Jacob
            Rubenstein, David
            Rubin, Robert
            Ruspoli, Francesco, 10th Prince of Cerveteri
            Safra, Joseph
            Safra, Moises
            Sands, Peter
            Sarkozy, Nicolas
            Sassoon, Isaac
            Sassoon, James
            Sawers, Sir Robert John
            Scardino, Marjorie
            Schwab, Klaus
            Schwarzenberg, Karel
            Schwarzman, Stephen A.
            Shapiro, Sidney
            Sheinwald, Nigel
            Sigismund, Grand Duke of Tuscany, Archduke of Austria
            Simeon of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
            Snowe, Olympia
            Sofía, Queen of Spain
            Soros, George
            Specter, Arlen
            Stern, Ernest
            Stevenson, Dennis
            Steyer, Tom
            Stiglitz, Joseph
            Strauss-Kahn, Dominique
            Straw, Jack
            Sutherland, Peter
            Tanner, Mary
            Tedeschi, Ettore Gotti
            Thompson, Mark
            Thomson, Dr. James
            Tietmeyer, Hans
            Trichet, Jean-Claude
            Tucker, Paul
            Van Rompuy, Herman
            Vélez, Álvaro Uribe
            Verplaetse, Alfons
            Villiger, Kaspar
            Vladimirovna, Maria, Grand Duchess of Russia
            Volcker, Paul
            von Habsburg, Otto
            Waddaulah, Hassanal Bolkiah Mu’izzaddin, Sultan of Brunei
            Walker, Sir David
            Wallenberg, Jacob
            Walsh, John
            Warburg, Max
            Weber, Axel Alfred
            Weill, Michael David
            Wellink, Nout
            Whitman, Marina von Neumann
            Willem-Alexander, Prince of Orange
            William Prince of Wales
            Williams, Dr Rowan
            Williams, Shirley
            Wilson, David
            Wolfensohn, James
            Wolin, Neal S.
            Woolf, Harry
            Woolsey, R. James Jr.
            Worcester, Sir Robert
            Wu, Sarah
            Zoellick, Robert

            “Three hundred men, all of whom know one another, direct the economic destiny of Europe and choose their successors from among themselves.” –Walter Rathenau, 1909, founder of the mammoth German General Electric Corporation

            The Committee of 300 is a product of the British East India Company’s Council of 300. The East India Company was chartered by the British royal family in 1600. It made vast fortunes in theopium drug trade with China and became the largest company on earth in its time. Today, through many powerful alliances, the Committee of 300 rules the world and is the driving force behind the criminal agenda to create a “New World Order”, under a “Totalitarian Global Government”.

          • DoubleCheck

            You may be right, but I think you venturing on shaky ground here. Is such formality needed for a super ruling class to operate? Besides, a description of the corporate financial structure and motivation is enough to establish a huge potential for abuse is currently being realized in regard to GMOs.

            I did a few searches, checked Wikipedia, but couldn’t find anything I could judge reliable in regard to the kind of Council or Committee of 300.

            Are there are references you would like to recommend?

          • RAndrewOhge

            This may be a more exhaustive report and investigation by former Intelligence Officer John Coleman. It gives you the full text: http://archive.org/stream/TheStoryOfTheCommitteeOf300/TheStoryOfTheCommitteeOf300_djvu.txt

          • DoubleCheck

            Thanks. Let me look it over. It’s very long.

          • RAndrewOhge

            Here’s the cast of no-gooders complete:

            UN, Monsanto, Mining, Oil & Gas Companies Directing BLM Plans For Our Public Land

            THIS CONNECTS THE DOTS ON THE BLM, The Harry Reid/China Land Grab, and WHO, as well as WHAT lies behind this. IT’S Big and has been going on for YEARS

            Marti Oakley-Debbie Coffey Copyright 2011 All Rights Reserved.

            Resource management plans (for your land?)

            How does the UN, Monsanto, mining, and oil & gas companies get their hands into Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Resource Management Plans and Environmental Assessments to dictate the use of our public lands (and our future)?

            Well, I found one way. I noticed that two companies, Tetra Tech and Environmental Management & Planning Solutions, Inc. (EMPSi), are preparing BLM (and Forest Service) Resource Management Plans (RMPs), Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), Environmental Assessments (EAs) and other reports. (So what do we pay BLM employees to do, just look pretty in their uniforms?)

            Tetra Tech

            It’s not some small environmental company. Tetra Tech has 13,000 employees in 330 offices around the world. Tetra tech owns about 25 other companies and makes billions of dollars in annual revenues. They work with developers, nuclear power, energy, mining and minerals processing, etc. On the Tetra Tech website, it declares: “Our Mission: To be the premier worldwide consulting, engineering, and construction firm.”

            Tetra Tech even bought PRO-Intelligent, an international security and intelligence consulting firm used by the US State Department. So they seem to have their hands in everything.

            The most troubling aspect about Tetra Tech preparing the plans for the BLM can be seen by looking at Tetra Tech’s Board of the Directors:

            Hugh M. Grant is the Chairman, President and CEO of Monsanto.
            (on Tetra Tech’s website, this fact was omitted in his bio). Why would Monsanto’s CEO be on the Board of an engineering and construction company?

            J. Kenneth Johnson is a Director of Alaska Air Group, which owns Coeur D’ Alene Mines Corp. and Pioneer Natural Resources Co. (oil and gas exploration). He’s President of Pacific Star Energy LLC, and managing director of Alaska Venture Capital Group (a private oil and gas exploration firm) He was also an ARCO (BP) executive. Albert Smith was an Exec V.P. at Lockheed Martin and worked for the CIA.

            J. Christopher Lewis co-founded Riordan, Lewis & Haden and is on the Board of Secure Mission Solutions. Riordan, Lewis & Haden has investments in Tetra Tech and Secure Mission Solutions.

            Patrick Haden was a partner in Riordan, Lewis & Haden and Director of TCW Strategies Income Fund and The TCW Funds. (And USC’s athletic director.)

            Richard H. Truly is Director of Xcel Energy, Inc. and is on the Board of the Colorado School of Mines.

            Dan L. Batrack, has a vague bio: Batrack “has served in numerous capacities over the last 30 years, including project scientist, project manager, operations manager, senior vice president and president of an operating unit. He has managed complex programs for many small and Fortune 500 clients, both in the United States and internationally.”

            There seems to be possibilities for conflicts of interest. And also a possibility to exert some control over land, water and resources.

            Tetra Tech has been contracted by the BLM to help the BLM Winnemucca, Nevada office with their RMP. Which is interesting, because within the Winnemucca BLM district is the Rochester Mine, owned by Couer d’Alene Mines, which Tetra Tech Board Member J. Kenneth Johnson may have an interest in, since he’s on the Board of Directors of the company that owns Couer d’Alene Mines.

            In Tetra Tech’s SEC filings, it states that in regard to revenues, it received 21.9% from Department of Defense agencies, 11.3% from USAID and 11.8% from other U.S.federal government agencies.

            It also claims that international business grew 195.0% in the third quarter of fiscal 2011, and that they expected international business to grow significantly in fiscal 2011 and continue strong demand for their services in the mining and energy markets worldwide.

            In 2011, they also acquired a mining engineering company in Australia, which they expected to “enhance” their “technical expertise in the mining and minerals processing sector” and expand service in Australia and “serve as a gateway to new markets across Asia and Africa.”

            Sounds like they’re in the mining business to me. Could they be creating “gateways” here in the USA to increase their business?

            If Tetra Tech owns or has clients who own, energy and mining companies, and they are preparing or helping to prepare the RMPs, EISs and EAs, it seems like they might be tempted to cut themselves a good deal.

            Tetra Tech RTW mining services provides Heap Leach Facility Design, Tailings Facility Design, Tailings Delivery Systems, and Mining Process Fluid Management. If they’re “providing” tailing delivery systems to mines, isn’t this “selling” this to mining companies? And unless they’re providing their services for free, their business depends on mining. Most businesses want to keep their customers happy and think of ways to make more money.

            Tetra Tech has some interesting connections in the oil and gas industry. They bought Halliburton’s subsidiaries Brown & Root Environmental and Halliburton NUS (Nuclear Utilities Service Corp.) in 1997.

            Tetra Tech EC designed and constructed more than 20 nuclear power facilities from 1960 through 1990. It’s a good thing Tetra Tech also does remediation. They could potentially clean up at both ends of the deal.

            Environmental Management & Planning Solutions Inc. (EMPSi)

            The BLM Battle Mountain District Office (Nevada) awarded a $1.6 million contract to Environmental Management Planning Solutions Inc. to prepare a resource management plan (RMP) “to guide development and conservation on 10.5 million acres of federal land within Lander County, Eureka County, Nye County, and Esmeralda County, Nevada.”

            EMPSi was part of the “Outreach Core Team” to implement Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) to facilitate geothermal development on “federal” lands throughout the western US. It seems EMPSi was/is also doing geothermal permit development support for “confidential clients” in Nevada. So they’re preparing a Resource Management Plan for development and conservation (which may mean just saving assets for their clients) on the one hand, then on the other hand they’re helping confidential clients get their permits.

            Who OWNS EMPSi? It’s a private company and it’s hard to find out much about it. It seems that key employees of EMPSi have also worked for Tetra Tech. That includes John E. King, the “Principal” of EMPSi, who has been at EMPSi since 2006. Before that, he was at Tetra Tech from 1982-2006, and was a Vice President. EMPSi lists Tetra Tech as a “Client.”

            EMPSi was incorporated in Delaware in 2000, so it’s impressive that a company that is only about 10 years old (again, it’s hard to find the history of this company, even on its website) has clients including about 11 US government agencies (including the Departments of Defense, Interior, Agriculture) states, cities, banks and major energy companies.

            EMPSi even assisted Solyndra in getting a Department of Energy loan guarantee.

            The UN Connection

            If you look at the services on EMPSi’s website , you see terms like socioeconomic & environmental justice, visual resource management and sustainable development. These terms probably weren’t in US environmental assessments 30 years ago. Socioeconomic justice, also called “equity,” is communism.

            If you look on the UN’s website, specifically about sustainable development in the USA (and note in the heading on the link that this is Agenda 21), , be sure to take note of a sentence in the first paragraph “In the absence of a multi-sectoral consensus on how to achieve sustainable development in the United States, the PCSD was conceived to formulate recommendations for the implementation of Agenda 21.” (PCSD is the US President’s Council on Sustainable Development).

            You’ll also see the subtitle “Integrated” Decision Making. UN’s Agenda 21 is what is being integrated and implemented in the USA, sidestepping Congress and the Constitution. Read Agenda 21: . There are chapters about “changing consumptive patterns” and “promoting sustainable human settlement development” (this means moving you out of rural areas and into stack and pack apartments in cities) and “integrating environment and development into decision-making.” (This includes decision-making like RMPs, EISs and EAs.)

            Both Tetra Tech and EMPSi have US agencies as “clients.” U.S. agencies that are members of the UN’s IUCN are: U.S. Departments of State, Commerce, Agriculture (Forest Service), the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These agencies are also on the Rural Council.

            On the IUCN website, it states: “IUCN links its Mission to the paramount goals of the international community on environment and sustainable development, in particular Agenda 21…” Agenda 21 expert Cassandra Anderson of http://www.morphcity.com states that Agenda 21 is the United Nations’ ACTION PLAN.

            Tetra Tech “participates” in IUCN’s DCMC (DC Marine Community). The World Bank is on the Advisory Board. Tetra Tech implemented a USAID funded a project, the Forest Carbon, Markets and Communities (FCMC) Program, led by Scott Hajost (Chief of Party). Hajost is a member of the IUCN-US Board, and has served on IUCN Commissions on law and ecosystems. Hajost was Senior Counsel to the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) for two years. (He was writing the UN laws to be integrated and implemented.)

            Resource Management Plans

            RMPs are a big deal because a lot of BLM plans for “multiple uses” are based on RMPs for 10 or 15 years. An RMP (as described on the BLM website), “will be to establish guidance, objectives, policies, and management actions for public lands” and addresses:

            Air Quality
            Cultural Resources
            Soil and Water Resources
            Vegetation
            Lands and Realty Management
            Wildlife Habitat and Fisheries Management
            Mineral and Mining Resources
            Recreation and OHV Use
            Visual Resource Management
            Special Management Designations
            Hazardous Materials
            Other Issues
            I guess with the “other issues,” the RMP covers everything.

            RMPs, EISs and EAs give the green light to certain “multiple uses” on our public lands (like expanding mining or a free-for-all on the oil and gas lease sales of our public lands for as little as $2 an acre) or take away things that were on our public lands, like removing our wild horses to make room for other uses.

            Tetra Tech received a $55 million contract from the EPA for a Pollution Prevention Program and a $20 million contract from State Department USAID for a Climate Change Program. Looking at the larger picture, what really seems to be on the horizon in terms of “change” is the loss of our democracy, and the “prevention” of private land ownership.

            _________________________________________________

            SOURCES:

            http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/usa/inst.htm

            http://www.tetratech.com/us/our-company.html

            http://www.tetratech.com/us/management-team/

            http://www.tetratech.com/us/sec-filings/

            http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=108748481

            http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices-government/5397351-1.html

            http://safetycouncil.ehscareers.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/jobsbysubscriberdetails/SID/4074/Tetra_Tech_NUS__Inc..htm

            https://www.gsaadvantage.gov/ref_text/GS07F0578N/0GMBKC.20PF8F_GS-07F-0578N_TT84071309.PDF

            http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyProfile?symbol=TTEK.O

            http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-king/4/44B/284

            http://www.answers.com/topic/tetra-tech-inc

            http://securemissionsolutions.com/vision-values.html

            http://www.pioneernrc.com/about/profile.htm

            http://www.curtisswright.com/

            http://people.forbes.com/profile/dan-l-batrack/77995

            http://www.tetratech.com/us/commercial-energy.html

            http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/empsi-awarded-contract-for-battle-mountain-resource-management-planning-project-117229608.html

            http://www.linkedin.com/pub/scott-hajost/9/A72/715

            http://dcmarine.net/members_dcmc.html

            http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/battle_mountain_field/blm_information/rmp.html

            http://www.emps2.com/BLM_EMPSi.html

            http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-king/4/44B/284

            http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/empsi-receives-award-for-renewable-energy-development-115093879.html

            http://securemissionsolutions.com/management.html

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riordan,_Lewis_%26_Haden

            http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=1669010

            http://www.linkedin.com/pub/david-batts/5/4a/21a

            http://www.linkedin.com/pub/holly-prohaska/10/269/81a

            http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Gentile_Andrew_489432920.aspx
            http://www.sanfranciscohypnotherapy.com/About_Andrew.htm

            http://www.docstoc.com/docs/46393630/Consultation-Agreement

            http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/BLM_Information/newsroom/2003/draft_management_plan.html

            http://www.tetratech.com/All-Projects/desert-sunlight-photovoltaic-project.html

            http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices-government/5397351-1.html#ixzz1cKFhLYPa

            https://delecorp.delaware.gov/tin/controller

            http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/geothermal_eis/final_programmatic.Par.23512.File.dat/vol3_final_appA.pdf

            Main Article: http://ppjg.me/2011/11/01/monsanto-mining-oil/

          • I’ll agree with you this much: no one, not a bureaucrat, politician or environmentalist has any business trying to tell a farmer how to run his farm.

          • RAndrewOhge

            You just reached the foundation of the real reason I stand where I do. What made me a “Conspiracy Theorist” three years ago is coming out in spite of all the efforts to contain it. Every sovereign man’s Farms and Rights to Land, Resources and Right to even BE an independent Farmer is being not just undermined, but at this point coming brazenly under attack.

            If you read the response headed by “UN, Monsanto, Mining, Oil & Gas Companies Directing BLM Plans For Our Public Land”, you’ll begin to see these “Old Boys” are now and have always been playing for keeps-and total control is what they want, as well as all they will settle for.

            You and I? We will be squeezed dry of all we have, until we become the “Useless Eaters” they describe the 1% as being…unless we discover what we SHARE of the American Vision and stand together on that.

            As one of our Forefathers eloquently said, “Either we hang together, or we will surely hang separately…”

          • Independent farmers are the best defense we’ve got against runaway government bureaucracy!

          • RAndrewOhge

            Oh, I’d say Bayer Crop Science[Bastard offspring of I. G. Farben-Hitler’s “little helper”…gave us Fluoride, not to fight cavities, but to calm down those noisy folks in the Death Camps] has more to do with that. Neonicotinoids are banned throughout most of the EU, now.

          • Let’s say you’re right and Bayer Crop Science is to blame for colony collapse. Do we really need to discard all modern science in agriculture, along with the new science of genetic engineering? Or can we just solve the specific problem you refer to?

          • RAndrewOhge

            From a Comment below regarding folks like me as “Anti-Science”:

            “It is when they cease to work AS ADVERTISED, which describes Biotechs totally out-of-step, 40+ year old traitorous traits to a tee.

            These variants were dropped in 1993-94, kind of worked for a while, then began to develop problems, initially a little than a lot of resistant weed issues.

            The real problem now?

            BioScience has moved on. Ever heard of XNA? of Synthetic life? Quantum Expression? Here’s where the REAL State-Of-The-Art is NOW.

            Monsanto still produces its “products” by using a micro-engineered E-Coli based Bacteriophage to literally infect the target gene with the “desired traits”[Identified by ALSO hanging on to out-dated techniques and thinking].

            How DARE you folks call “us folks” “ANTI-SCIENCE”? State-of-the Art Versus forty year old science. Who’s the Luddites NOW?

            Inserting genetics? That’s SOOOOOO 20th Century…AHEM.

          • The great thing about the free market is that if something doesn’t work… or if it stops working… people will quit buying it. And no one is more in tune with what works and what doesn’t than a farmer. So leave this issue in their capable hands.

          • RAndrewOhge

            I just found the reason behind WHY they keep pushing the current “technology”. PLease Read this article to understand the statements I make in it’s wake:

            Scramble for Africa threatens to leave continent starving – See more at: http://farmlandgrab.org/post/view/23219#sthash.fjuSAtts.L5cCNxVr.dpuf

            You watch something long enough and it will tell you something you weren’t expecting to find.

            WHERE is Biotech strongest in the world? The US, UK, Australia, Canada, WAS in India, and is making inroads to Africa, as this article points out.

            ALL were, or perhaps, still ARE part of the British Empire/Commonwealth of Nations ruled by the same Queen that owns $46 Trillion in Global Real Estate and Assets[Forget the “Official UK Registry”, it’s a scam]including $17 Trillion in Uranium Futures[thus answering WHY the Nuclear Cartel remains SO intransigent.]

            The Brits are holding the door open for Monsanto and their little BFF’s, with a little help from the Rothschild controlled IMF and EU.

            Corporatocracy explores Neo-Colonialism, and America, this IS your Tax Dollars at work.

          • DoubleCheck

            The World Bank is involved in land grabs for corporate exploitation the world over. This search brings up a flood of documentation.

            https://duckduckgo.com/?q=World+Bank+%2B+land+grab

            Also water grabs:

            https://duckduckgo.com/?q=World+Bank+%2B+land+grab

            While the corporations drive normal seed rights out of reach of poor farmers:

            https://duckduckgo.com/?q=proprietary+seed+rights

            The dissolution/nationalization of these huge bankster and corporate entities would benefit everyone but the oligarchs and their vastly overpaid corporate executives.

          • RAndrewOhge

            Many of them are either trapped in the Industrial System[Debt and the growth of Farm size has about made moving away from Gm impossible. You must leave the ground fallow for five years, go through a bureaucratic “proctological” exam to get certified, then if your neighbor’s GM pollen drifts into your fields, you’re [email protected]#*ed.]

            In the last couple decades the US has lost over 250,000 Small/Family Farms. Rural Communities aren’t really supported by the more industrialized style of AG, as there’s little small business can offer to service it. Look at the list of “Monsanto Companies”-they do everything at the large distributor price.

            [I wrote about this in 2012, after someone over at TATT, touted the need for the Industrial Farm Model to maintain sustainability-I guess I’ve at this for a while, as when I Googled it, I came up with my own Commentary.]

            In 2012, Stamp Farms, LLC, one of the nation’s “Giant Farm Success Stories”, and IN AgWeb Daily’s top farms of the year for 2012, went Bankrupt. IS this direction REALLY SUSTAINABLE? I really have my doubts.

          • You really believe farmers grow GMO crops because they’re forced to? Then how do you explain high farm-land prices? Any farmer who wants could easily sell out his property and equipment and retire very comfortably. But they choose to keep farming, as do their kids and their kids after them. These are hardly the signs of people in distress, let alone people being coerced in any way.
            Now, I don’t mean to corner you here RAndrewOhge, but have you ever worked on a farm?

          • RAndrewOhge

            Yes…back in those bad old days where we “walked beans”, detasseled, baled real hay, fed cows and pigs real food, and drank milk fresh from the cow, ate our own chickens, pork and beef, ate bread made from our own flour, with butter we made ourselves, with coffee we ground, with REAL sugar and REAL cream in a sustainable REAL American Lifestyle that at the end of the day, left us tired, but fulfilled, happy with the work of our hands, and healthy as a horse.

            Remember? Or were you born too late to have had the experience? If so, that’s not your fault, but IS your loss.

          • I grew up doing all those things. Except I don’t look upon them as anymore “REAL” than what farmers do today.
            But at least we’ve figured out the nature of your distress. You want farming to go back in time. And as long as it keeps moving forward with labor-saving technology, you’re upset by it.

          • RAndrewOhge

            Again, these current technologies pretend to do things that don’t actually happen. On one hand, TATT has been actively promoting the “introduction” of Biotech in Africa-while actually, the old Colonialists have been taking tens of millions of hectares of Africa at gunpoint, planting GM Corn and Beans primarily for export as Biofuel, followed by animal feed and processed food additives. The dispossessed are starving. So who REALLY is behind this all? It’s in at least two other comment responses in total, with links and sources to be read by whoever cares enough to do so.

            By the way, the Global Oligarchy wants control over it ALL, including that which you think YOU own. Your turn will come if they succeed. Remember this day I warned you.

          • The biggest problem on the African continent doesn’t come from Western multinationals or “colonialists”; it comes from corrupt African rulers.

          • RAndrewOhge

            I’d say it’s a very mutually enriching and symbiotic relationship. What food we can get to impoverished countries mostly ends up traded for arms or sold for profit for whichever despot gets it.

            Sadly, this IS the “Colonial” System in a nutshell. The American Revolution showed a possibility, but one never really duplicated elsewhere, and badly needed right here.

          • No… what you accurately describe is the opposite of the colonial system.
            Enriching despots who enslave their own people has to end. And the best way to do that is by giving African farmers the latest agricultural technology to grow their own food with. Otherwise, they will remain slaves.

          • RAndrewOhge

            Scramble for Africa Threatens to Leave Continent Starving

            [OR, As Ric Sees It: “It’s time to shut down the access Biotech has outside of the US. The EU, Russia, Argentina, Poland, Italy, Argentina, China & a Number of others have. This is part of the Monsanto/Biotech claim this will feed billions-and they’re right…sort of…it will feed billions into their Fat-Asshat Corporate Coffers.”

            Published: 01 Mar 2014
            Posted in: Africa Review | 28 February 2014

            Mechanised rice harvesting at a 17,000-hectare farm in western Kenya leased out to a US company to grow rice. Rich countries are leasing prime land on the continent in deals which critics say pay little attention to the fate of the communities dispossessed in the process. By 2013, most of these deals were in seven countries: Ethiopia, Ghana, Madagascar, Mali, Sudan, Mozambique and Tanzania.

            Scramble for Africa threatens to leave continent starving

            By PATRICK MBATARU

            In five short years, rich countries have acquired about 80 million hectares of land in Africa and other developing countries in what is now a worrying trend.

            Critics have dubbed this “the big land grab”, or “the new type of neo-colonialism”. What is happening?

            Now, foreigners have always owned land in Africa. What is new in this “second scramble for Africa” is the scale, size and more importantly, the exclusion of civil society and local communities in the process.

            The United Nations has very little data, and the governments or corporations involved are not willing to talk.

            There is a strong feeling among observers that most of the negotiations are done behind closed doors.

            The sheer mystery surrounding these acquisitions and the circumvention of land laws of the host countries have attracted global attention.

            “There is a huge lack of transparency on land governance matters…regarding pricing, decision-making processes, contractual agreements and issues of community involvement and compensation,” says the International Land Coalition (ILC).

            Land acquisition of such a scale in Africa was last witnessed in the historical scramble for the continent more than a century ago, when European powers met in Berlin, Germany, drew arbitrary lines on a piece of paper, and shared the different parts of the continent among themselves.

            Host governments are generally receptive to these acquisitions for obvious reasons: they offer various opportunities to create jobs, increase foreign direct investments and of course, for the extraction of rent.

            But questions are emerging about the implications of these land deals, especially the exposure of economically fragile groups to further marginalisation through speculation and land rights transfers, loss of access to land and resources for pastoralists, small-scale agricultural producers, and subsistence farmers.

            Factors behind the rush for land

            Firstly, the recent increase in food prices around the world has raised fears of mass hunger in rich countries.

            The food riots in Egypt, Senegal, and other parts of the world a couple of years ago stirred rich countries to lease land in Africa, South America and Asia, fearing similar protests in their countries.

            American, Asian and Middle East companies have leased millions of acres in developing countries.

            Secondly, the world is reeling from an energy crisis. The sharp increase in the price of fossil fuels in the last 10 years and the emerging global ecological trends, particularly climate change, has placed tremendous pressure on governments to find suitable alternatives to fossil fuels.

            The hidden factors are more unsettling. Globally, the world is moving more and more towards bio-fuels.

            The European Union, for example, requires that 10 per cent of all transport fuel should come from plant based bio-fuels.

            The US Congress has already voted to increase ethanol production. In 2011, 130 million tons (40 per cent of US production) of corn was converted to ethanol. Food production is becoming increasing sidelined.

            In all, Africa should expect a greater rush for land by foreigners due to the anticipated rise in prices, consumption rates and market demand for food, bio-fuels, raw materials, water and timber.

            There is also increasing carbon sequestration and trading (making money by removing carbon from the atmosphere).

            Of the 1,217 deals reported by the ILC, 754, representing 56.2 million hectares, are in Africa.

            By 2013, most of these deals were in seven countries: Ethiopia, Ghana, Madagascar, Mali, Sudan, Mozambique and Tanzania.

            Some reports say 60 million hectares of African land had been purchased or leased by 2009.

            Overall, 83.2 million (some say up to 227 million) hectares have been sold or leased since 2001 in developing countries.

            This represents 1.7 percent and 4.8 per cent of the world’s and Africa’s arable land respectively.

            Further, one third of the transactions in Africa are in eastern Africa, with Tanzania and Ethiopia leading the pack.

            Investors are targeting underprivileged countries that are poorly integrated into the world economy, and with weak land institutions and, therefore, feeble tenure security.

            Sixty-six per cent of the reported deals are in countries with a high prevalence of hunger.

            Investors like to cut corners

            Africa is especially targeted because of its abundant natural resources, cheap labour, and the fact that land is mostly state-controlled, and therefore, easy to acquire.

            “Africa is particularly attractive to land grabbers due to the perception that there are vast amounts of land available for large-scale agricultural investments.

            “Not only does Africa have a lot of available land, but it is cheap, has rich natural resources such as water and soil nutrients and there is cheap labour available for agricultural production,” says a report, ‘Land Grab in Kenya’, by Pauline Makutsa.

            Although there are large leases reported in Kenya, information about them is scanty.

            However, lobby groups for the rights of marginalised communities have been raising issues regarding the rights of the local stakeholders at the community level. Perhaps the best example of this trend is the Dominion Farms in Western Kenya.

            The country’s Vision 2030 recognises the centrality of the agricultural and natural resources sectors in the economy.

            This development blueprint identifies agriculture as one of the key sectors that should propel Kenya’s projected growth rate to 10 per cent annually. But to boost agriculture, foreign direct investment has to be encouraged.

            To this end, the Investment Promotion Act was enacted in 2004, giving legal teeth to Kenya’s investment agenda.

            Currently, the government is looking for investors for the Galana-Kulalu irrigation scheme in Tana River and Kilifi counties at the coast region.

            The only requirements for foreign investors in agriculture is proof that their ventures will contribute towards job creation, skills and technology transfer, tax revenues and foreign exchange, as well as use of local raw materials.

            There is no evidence from implemented farm projects elsewhere that this happens, because investors quickly look for ways to cut costs as much as possible.

            “The investment legislation and policy do not require that the investor look into the economic, social, cultural land environmental impacts and implications of their investment, particularly on local communities,” says the report by Makutsa.

            The study focused on the Tana River Delta region, the most targeted area for large-scale land acquisition in the country. The investments in the delta and the surrounding areas add up to more than 500,000 hectares.

            These investments range from sugarcane plantations, bio-fuel crops such as jatropha, crambe, sunflower and vegetables.

            Impact of these ventures

            Since investors have a tendency to target land with high yield gaps, good accessibility and desirable population density to source labour, there is increasing fear of future competition for cropland between local communities and investors.

            Indeed, land conflicts, water, mineral rights and other land-based resources are on the rise.

            In some countries, ignoring the land rights of the host communities in these deals has led to repeated conflicts.

            A major cause of the wars in central African countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo have their origin in warped land transactions involving multinationals.

            Large farming or mining communities are suddenly dislocated from their ancestral land, leading to more poverty and instability.

            Underrated in this debate are the environmental effects of the large-scale “scientific” farming.

            The effects of massive use of chemicals and huge amounts of water are just beginning to be felt in Asian countries that embraced the “Green Revolution” in the 70s.

            China, for example, has millions of wasted hectares that are now undergoing rehabilitation. There is no knowing the extent of the impact on human and animal health.

            In central Africa and some west African countries, land transfers are characterised by poor contracts, low prices and inadequate government taxation on profits.

            Most foreign investors use tax avoidance tactics like offshore investment. The effects of these are all too obvious.

            Pollution is common. Images from the Niger Delta, for example, grimly portray what happens when governments scheme with foreign investors with little regard to local communities and their ecology.

            Pollution in the Delta portrays the insatiable greed that informs some of these transactions. Elsewhere, we see serious threats to wildlife resources.

            Hundred per cent food repatriation

            Faced with hunger, high unemployment, and the need for investments, it is easy to understand why host countries might not be overly concerned with these issues.

            Although supporters of these transactions cite food security as one of the benefits, it is not obvious that the land deals will address local food insecurity.

            Most of the land leased is for speculation, bio-fuels and food production for export, leaving no food to meet local needs.

            What worries observers is that most investors seem to insist on a 100 per cent food repatriation. In most of the contracts, domestic markets are of marginal concern.

            Besides, the farmers are often contracted to grow patented seeds with a “terminator gene”, which ensures that they cannot replant the seeds, effectively ending family farming systems that have for generation ensured seed preservation.

            Or they may get chicks and return the hens when they mature. They are just paid for their labour. In all these, the traditional role of farmers in deciding what to plant, when and how, is lost.

            Due to the exposure this is causing to poor farmers, there is a reported rise in suicide cases in India and other Asian countries where contract farming is widely practiced.

            However, countries are increasingly looking for solutions to these problems. Both the African Union and the UN have come up with a framework and guidelines on land policy intended to help countries review their individual land policies and laws.

            The guidelines specifically caution member states to ensure that their land policies provide adequate measures to guarantee that market-driven policies for land development do not expose vulnerable groups to further marginalisation through speculation and land rights transfers.

            The UN has called for a “code of conduct” to regulate international purchases of farmland. There is pressure to base the deals on the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), which is formalised through article 32 of the 2007 UN declaration on the rights of the indigenous peoples.

            New form of ‘neo-colonialism’

            The basic principle here is that local land stakeholders have the right to accept or reject proposed development on their land. And governments are responsible for making sure that effective systems for grievance, redress and mitigation are in place.

            Some countries like Mali, Mozambique and Ghana have streamlined their administrative processes to enhance transparency. One-stop shops and investment promotion agencies play key roles towards that end. And more rich and poor governments alike are making tax evasion increasingly difficult.

            Today, several African governments favour investors who will generate substantial spillovers for the local economy. In addition, governments are increasingly requiring that companies buying assets publicise details of assets sales.

            Still, others like Ghana and Botswana, have managed to invest back substantially in social services. Also popular is the use of public-private-partnership facilities. Generally, countries are enacting stricter laws on contracts.

            By and large, the single most important solution is to work out a model that does not involve the transfer of land rights from communities to investors.
            Proponents cite the rosy side of the trend, pointing out that if anything, Africa needs to encourage “foreign investments”.

            Where critics see the latest form of “neo-colonialism”, supporters point at the economic benefits in countries where massive leases have allegedly revamped agriculture and raised foreign exchange earnings.

            Ethiopia is said to exports fruits worth $60 million (Sh5.1m) and $160 million (Sh13.6bn) million dollar worth of flowers, thanks to foreign-owned farms.

            In this breath, such positives as jobs creation and food security are mentioned as some of the benefits. “The thing is, foreign firms have owned land in Africa since the onset of colonisation,” says a supporter in one of the numerous reports written on the subject.

            “In many countries, colonial farmers never left. And where they did, local political elites took over and continued the same commercial production. What is the difference between that and a foreign firm leasing land now?”

            Well, time has changed. Today people are more alert and aware of their rights than they were 50 years ago.

            See more at: http://farmlandgrab.org/post/view/23219#sthash.fjuSAtts.dpuf

          • It’s better for Africans to participate in growing their own food with the latest in agricultural technology than to keep sending food aid for ever and ever.

          • RAndrewOhge

            My friend, READ THE Article!! The UK, US, China AND the Biotech Industry are using local “Strong Men and Police” to force the AFRICANS OFF OF OVER EIGHTY MILLION HECTARES OF THEIR LAND[just in the last 4-5 years] and TAKING IT for GM CORN and BEANS being raised for EXPORT-NOT to feed so much as ONE AFRICAN!!! The DISPERSED AFRICANS can[just a few] work as veritable slaves for the Multi-Nationals-OR STARVE-OR FIGHT. Either Educate yourself about what’s REALLY going down-stop being a DELIVERY VEHICLE for the Multinational’s Memes, or go back to being a good Corporate Serf for the Biotech Cabal-at least until they can get along without you, at which point YOU’LL be looking at a choice exactly like that of the totally screwed over Africans.

          • You’re confusing the science of biotechnology with thugery. If what you’re saying is true, and African land has really been taken from Africans, what does it have to do with GMOs?

          • RAndrewOhge

            I gave you the answer, but it did require you read it. We have no more to discuss until you do. The quality and specificity of your questions will tell my whether you have, just like this one showed me complete obliviousness to the answer already contained in one of my other responses.

            Now, consider this my “Parting Gift”, as I’m sure you’re familiar with the Bundy Ranch Confrontation and all the Happy [email protected]#%* Theories as to what was “really going on”. As a Rancher/Farmer this CONCERNS you too:

            BLM Fracking Racket Exposed! Armed Siege and Cattle Theft From Bundy Ranch Really About Fracking Leases-The Truth Is, Nothing We “OWN” or “Have” Is Exempt From Land Grabs or Resource “Re-Allocation”!

            April 10th, 2014

            The Bureau of Land Management says its 200-man armed siege of the Cliven Bundy ranch in Nevada is all about protecting an “endangered tortoise.” But a Natural News investigation has found that BLM is actually in the business of raking in millions of dollars by leasing Nevada lands to energy companies that engage in fracking operations.

            This document from the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology(1) shows significant exploratory drilling being conducted in precisely the same area where the Bundy family has been running cattle since the 1870′s. The “Gold Butte” area is indicated on the lower right corner of the document (see below), and it clearly shows numerous exploratory drilling operations have been conducted there.

            What’s also clear is that oil has been found in nearby areas and possibly even within the Gold Butte area itself.

            It is, of course, customary for the U.S. government to bring armed soldiers to an oil dispute. (Operation “Iraqi Freedom” for starters…) Heavily armed snipers, helicopters and militarized soldiers have never been invoked over tortoises. (Anyone who thinks this siege is about reptiles is kidding themselves.)

            Here’s the map showing the oil exploration conducted on the land where Bundy runs his cattle (all the red crosshairs are oil and gas exploration drilling operations):

            BLM collects $1.27 million in shale fracking leases

            The Bureau of Land Management has just cashed in with $1.27 million in oil and gas leases in Nevada. This was just reported two weeks ago in ShaleReporter.com, which states:

            U.S. Bureau of Land Management geologist Lorenzo Trimble tells the Las Vegas Review-Journal the Elko County oil and gas leases sold Tuesday for $1.27 million to six different companies. The auction took place in Reno. The leases are near where Houston-based Noble Energy Inc. wants to drill for oil and natural gas on 40,000 acres of public and private land near the town of Wells. The Review-Journal reports the project would be the first in Nevada to use hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to extract oil and gas from shale deposits.

            The way this works, of course, is that BLM runs land theft operations by claiming they are “managing” the land and thereby kicking everyone else off it. They then invoke a reptile, an owl, a bird, a snake or some other animal which they claim to be “saving,” even while they are stealing and destroying hundreds of cattle belonging to a private rancher trying to make an honest living in a nation where productive Americans are increasingly branded “enemies of the state.”

            Once control of the land is established via court order or by bringing armed men with automatic weapons, BLM then turns around and leases the land to fracking companies who proceed to exploit the land using hydraulic fracturing techniques that inject toxic chemicals into groundwater supplies (and have been linked to earthquakes). The money collected by the BLM is then used to increase BLM salaries and bonuses.

            In essence, the BLM is a criminal mafia racket, and Cliven Bundy just happened to be in the way of their next target, the Gold Butte area of Nevada. That is why they brought hundreds of heavily armed men to a “save the tortoise” operation.

            “Endangered tortoises” is merely the government cover story for confiscating land to turn it over to fracking companies for millions of dollars in energy leases. In truth, the BLM was rapidly euthanizing these very same reptiles en masse last year.(2)

            As part of its police state intimidation to control the land, BLM unleashed attack dogs on a pregnant woman.

            See the brutality invoked by the BLM against peaceful protesters in this video of a near-riot just outside the Bundy ranch:

            Does anyone really believe this is still about a tortoise? Does Anyone Think THEY Are Exempt From Treatment Like This?

            – See more at:http://www.thedailysheeple.com/blm-fracking-racket-exposed-armed-siege-and-cattle-theft-from-bundy-ranch-really-about-fracking-leases_042014#sthash.duh96I2P.dpuf

            But there’s more-here from the BLM Site [http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/prog/minerals/leasable_minerals/oil___gas/oil_and_gas_leasing.html]:

            Nevada>BLM Programs>Minerals>Leasable Minerals>Oil and Gas>Oil and Gas Leasing
            Print Page
            Oil and Gas Leasing
            Guidelines for Submitting Expressions of Interest (EOI)
            EOI Blank Form
            EOI Filled in Form Example
            Split Estate Notice
            Oil and Gas Leasing Reform – Land Use Planning and Lease Parcel Reviews
            (Washington Instruction Memorandum No. 2010-117)
            Oil and Gas Competitive Lease Sale
            September 9, 2014 (2nd of 2 scheduled “same-day” lease sales)

            Parcels (For Winnemucca District & Carson City District)
            Shapefiles (Please understand that these files are a tool and are not intended to be the official documents of the United States. The official documents are the Master Title Plats and Use Plats. The Sale Notice identifies the specific lands available for lease. Sale parcels are subject to change up to the time of the sale. These files were created using ArcMap 9.3.1.)
            Oil and Gas Competitive Lease Sale
            July 17, 2014

            Parcels (For Battle Mountain District)
            Shapefiles (Please understand that these files are a tool and are not intended to be the official documents of the United States. The official documents are the Master Title Plats and Use Plats. The Sale Notice identifies the specific lands available for lease. Sale parcels are subject to change up to the time of the sale. These files were created using ArcMap 9.3.1.)
            Oil and Gas Competitive Lease Sale
            June 24, 2014 [POSTPONED to September 9, 2014 (1st of 2 “same-day” lease sales)]

            Parcels (For Elko District)
            Stipulations are contained in Appendix B (pg. 98) of the NEPA document. See link below.
            NEPA Documents for Leasing
            Elko District Office
            News Release: BLM Seeks Public Comment on Public Lands Nominated for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development (1/09/14)
            Shapefiles (Please understand that these files are a tool and are not intended to be the official documents of the United States. The official documents are the Master Title Plats and Use Plats. The Sale Notice identifies the specific lands available for lease. Sale parcels are subject to change up to the time of the sale. These files were created using ArcMap 9.3.1.)
            Notice of Postponement

            News Release: BLM Nevada Postpones Oil and Gas Lease Sale (03/21/14)
            • Upcoming Sale Schedule
            • Prior Sales
            • Forms
            • Bidder Registration Form
            • Code of Federal Regulations
            Lease Adjudication 775.861.6615

            Here’s More-Your Local Nevada Connections[in pdf Format to Download]:http://www.nbmg.unr.edu/nps/201312%20NPS%20Dec%202013%20News.pdf

            But WAIT, There’s Even MORE! Here’s the BLM’s Brochure[Pdf Download-Enjoy the Pretty Photos on the Cover…Odds Are They Won’t Look Like That For Much Longer]Outlining it’s whole plan for 2014 and Beyond:http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/nv/resources/racs/trirac/feb_2014.Par.28618.File.dat/2014-tri-rac-state-director.pdf

          • Oh I get what you’re trying to say. You’re pretending that GMO technology gives GMO corporations control over farmers. But you’ve failed to grasp the fact that the GMO crops being developed for use in Africa, like Golden Rice and brinjal, are non-proprietary, and give all control to farmers.
            Sorry.

          • RAndrewOhge

            Another clueless and disingenuous ejaculation that demonstrates your responses are mostly automatic/scripted, and either you didn’t use my comment posts to research and at least come back with a question better qualified than that of a “paid commenter”.

            If displacing the indigenous farmers of nearly a 100 MILLION HECTARES of THEIR Farmland AT GUNPOINT, WITH NO COMPENSATION, to plant GM Corn and Beans FOR EXPORT doesn’t look like CONTROL to YOU, then I have to ask, Partner…what the frack have YOU been smoking?

            What a maroon. However, thanks to Search Analytics, a LOT more folks tracked this “conversation” than ever would have without your circuitous ploys. Of course, they’ll see both sets of responses.

            I wonder which one will appear to be the most meaningful and intelligently crafted?

            Anyway, thanks for the S.E. tweak-you’re a Mensch!

          • Displacing indigenous farmers is the problem you’re pointing to. Not GMOs.

          • RAndrewOhge

            All part of the same game. Where’s Monsanto BIGGEST? HOW DID they get into Africa so quietly AND easily? I already gave you the answer, but you’re ego, forcing you to have the “last word”, seems bent on getting a few thousand more readers here thanks to the S.E.

            I used to be disgusted-now, I’m just amused.

          • That’s like blaming Henry Ford because someone died in a car accident.
            I think it’s horrible what you’re describing. And the people doing it should face justice! But I can’t even begin to blame this on a field of science.

          • RAndrewOhge

            Well, there you go, fudging the topic beyond sanity, as nothing I said even remotely did that. I PRAY you have no children. One of you is one too many.

          • Genetic engineering is science, not a political ideology.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            Concerning Africa and Monsanto, I need to point out a project I am distantly involved in. There is a devastating disease going through western Africa now called Maize Lethal Necrosis. It is a virus based disease and there is very little natural resistance. Monsanto and other private companies are working diligently to find resistance to this disease in diverse germplasm. This is a NON-GMO approach. People are dying from starvation and Monsanto likely will be a big contributor to finding a solution. All non-GMO at this point. So, spend your time knocking Monsanto. But they are spending their time out there trying to solve a serious problem and feeding people. By the way, I do NOT work for Monsanto.

          • Don

            Do you realize the term “maroon” as an insult is racist? It comes from the Camaroon.

          • DoubleCheck

            Thank you for by far the best response I’ve received here. I agree with just about everything you say.

            A DuckDuckGo search for varroa mites bring out many references you could use, including Wikipedia. The same for a search “pesticide effects on bees.” Reviewing these it appears that our bees are suffering very complex health problems from the number of pesticides and their effect on the the bees susceptibility to parasites. I read a paper on that, but like you could not find the reference right away.

            Yes, less atrazine is better, since it is estrogenic and turns male frog into females. But all pesticides are dangerous and the use of ALL of them should be minimized. This means that modern farming methods should be used with that in mind, not just the immediate profit of corporations, especially pesticide corporations.

            Study the corporations and what they do, how they lie, how they despoil the environment, even kill people, all for shareholder value. That’s why all scientific research testing for negative should be utterly independent and funded by tax money.

            I’m sorry, but from the papers selected at this site and the nastiness with which my probing was attacked, this site seems to be supported by big agriculture corporations.

          • DoubleCheck

            Yours was one of only two message here I haven’t already trashed. Thanks again.

          • RAndrewOhge

            However, starting this year, the Atrazine is back. It’s being suggested by the Biotech Companies as a way to hold back the increasing instances of resistant weeds. Atrazine and Glyphosate together cannot be good, either for humans or the biosphere, as it has been shown it persists in the ground AND in the food chain much longer than originally touted.

          • David Walton

            Atrazine never left. Farmers have been using atrazine all along. We have many restrictions on it’s use, but to characterise it as a return is simply not true.

          • RAndrewOhge

            I’ll give that to you on exact terms…but there IS a difference, now. The Chemical Companies will be pushing it, along with other nice products like 2, 4-D, Dicamba and Paraquat as a way to make up for the increasing deficiency of Glyphosate.

            Having it be a choice on the shelf, that smarter Farmers would more likely not make, is different than having your Agronomist tell you weed control isn’t going to work well enough without it.

            There’s getting to be a LOT of chemicals going on the fields, into the food chain, and into the aquifers.

            What with the Fracking and Companies like Nestle pulling water out, as well, how can that be good for ANY kind of Farming?

          • David Walton

            All those chemicals listed have been in our arsenal for decades. We use them, when needed, to control problem pests. In case you haven’t noticed, farmers don’t indiscriminately used herbicides just because they are available. First, there is the cost, second – we are trying to manage resistance issues just like we have for many decades. 2,4-D is used on nearly all no-till acres and likely every blade of grass in most municipalities. Dicamba, has been around for decades as well and is one of the most effective broadleaf weedkillers for any grass crop (this includes corn for the non-farmers). Although it’s use has been limited recently, it’s still an important tool. Do you have a point to make, or just throwing stuff at the wall, hoping it will stick?

          • RAndrewOhge

            When they start showing up in 75% of test subjects breast milk that might be a bit much.

            The containers you use have warnings-often DIRE warnings. As you point out, there’s a cost issue, and Farmers don’t WANt to be using chemicals indiscriminately.

            However, the required usage is escalating as the resistance rises and diversifies.

            The same companies with the seeds have the chemicals. The seed cost goes up, Equipment wear increases, chemical cost, usage and exposure increase, as the Farmers profit margin require more and more acres to stay ahead of this curve…and are slipping backwards. Without crop insurance and subsidies, many would not make it at all, and many have already failed.

            So…who wins in this scenario? The folks hawking all the failing and dangerous products.

            If, getting screwed by the “Biotech” Cabal is your idea of “Farming”, don’t let ME deter you from your course. Just don’t curse me when you see the wall coming up.

      • ColoradoBrit

        Life is a terminal disease. And sexually transmitted, too!

  • RobertWager

    Good article and I completely agree we need more farmers in the debate.

    • In a sense, farmers are already involved in the debate because so many of them freely choose to use GMO seed. And this explains why anti-GMO organic activists try to pretend farmers are dumb and gullible. Thankfully, I grew up as a farmer and can attest this is not so!

  • Loren Eaton

    “If GE crops are the solution, what is the problem? Clearly, there is no problem!” If indeed there is no problem, it is due to the success of the very industrial agriculture that he condemns. Organic sure as hell can’t pull it off.

  • Mark Glenn Keen

    DNA is broken down into nucleotides. Proteins are broken down into amino acids. And the source really doesn’t matter for either.

  • marie72

    If eating it makes a study group of rats grow tumors i think it should be labeled.

    • Marie, there is no published study that links GMOs to rat rumors. One had been published but was withdrawn in part because researcher used rats bred to get cancer and all the rats, controls and others, naturally did.