Monsanto attacks Permaculture & Organics

[Michaelangelica]

Monsanto steps up its campaign for acceptance of GM

Monday, 30/08/2010
Global biotechnology company Monsanto has begun an education and advocacy campaign to change the opposition many Australia consumers have to genetically modified food.
Speaking at the NSW Farmwriters Forum in Sydney, Monsanto's head in Australia, Peter O'Keefe, argued that organic and permaculture production was "not viable" on a large scale, and Australia was falling behind other countries in productivity improvements because of the reluctance to embrace GM technology.


He said something had to be done to turn around the poor global performance of wheat against other crops, which he said was caused partly by public opposition to GM crops and "crippling" government policies in Australia.
Monsanto has just reached agreement with Grains Research and Development Council to own 20 per cent of the WA research company Intergrain, a move that the GRDC and Monsanto say will produce a "revolution" in the grains industry.
The agreement gives Monsanto access to a large number of Australian varieties, while Integrain has access to Monsanto's research technology.
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201008/s2996789.htm

[eco4560]

organic and permaculture production was "not viable" on a large scale

Pish Tosh as my mother would say....

[Fernando Pessoa]

Just to play devils advocate,can someone please show me on a large scale where Permaculture and Organics is working,in the wheat industry.
When I say large scale lets look at Glenvar,now they use low till,but thats about as close to a permaculture practice they get.
Here is an interesting article about Australias Organic wheat farmers.
http://www.csu.edu.au/faculty/science/saws/afbmnetwork/afbmjournal/volume3/number2/AFBMJournal_v03_n02_01_ToddBirzer&WWarwick.pdf
You will notice that they have a number of problems and that the average size of the farm is quite small.
I would also say that Organics on massive/large scale is also difficult and in doing so I would be defending Monsanto and I am.
Now I am not defending Monsanto or the style of agriculture they promote just the statement,they made.
I would prefer that we all controlled our own food sources and ate nutrient dense easy to grow low maintenance crops as staples,I think the future of all farms is small and diverse and thats when permaculture becomes very abundant and performs very well when edges have synergies and diversity creates stability.So once again thanks to Monsanto for pointing this out,broad scale organics and permaculture are not going to feed the world .You are all going to have to feed yourselfs.
Best wishes Fernando

[milifestyle]

No, Permaculture will not feed the world in traditional Agricultural terms... BUT I strongly believe it WILL feed communities with a simple slight restructuring of the economic system.

[CraigMackintosh]

It's true that sustainable and large scale do not go together. I hate Monsanto and all it stands for, but it's true that we cannot compete at large scale. But the point is that, for a host of reasons (peak oil, soil depletion and erosion, water wastage, soil/water contamination, nutrient deficient food - even carcenogenic food due to soluble fertilisers - insect imbalances, 'weed' imbalances, etc., we have no choice but to shift to small scale systems. One person can observe and take care of an acre of land with a little knowledge. One man cannot observe and take care of a 500 acres from the seat of his tractor.

The longer we prolong the large scale paradigm, the harder it will be to transition to where we need to go - small scale fossil fuel- and chemical-free systems that build soil and hold and filter water. Monsanto's bid to continue with business as usual translates to our being forced to shift to small scale when there's nothing left but dry, dead dust left to work with.

Today we run on the model of exhaust and 'set aside'. Then farming must intensify on the remaining lands - hastening their destruction.

No, we can't farm large scale. Get used to it, and transition away from it.

The horrible reality is that in our present system is that the profits for BigAgri on selling a resource in decline (supply/demand) are increasing. The more vulnerable our situation, the more money they stand to make. Well, at least for the moment. They will cross a threshold where it'll all come unglued.

Re-ruralisation must occur, and soon. Monsanto and the like will only delay this, and make it even harder to action when we finally realise this inevitability.

Ultimately we'll start farming our city parks and sidewalks. We won't have a choice.

[helenlee]

I can show you where permaculture is working ... but it's not in the wheat industry honey.
Be patient with me here ... & yes I know I wasn't listening in class a lot ... but isn't large scale permaculture/organics an oxymoron?

The reason I bought this place I live on now is to make it an ark & a lifeboat ... so my children/grandchildren & anyone else I can fit will be able to eat WTSHTF.

The word compete is going to have to disappear from use. If we can't get our heads around cooperate we are all effed. And I, for one, really intensely dislike being hungry.

Call Monsanto & large scale what they really are - peddlers of disease & death. The Green Revolution has caused poverty & starvation in the third world when indigenous people abandoned their sustainable, small scale lives to embrace the new wonder technology ... that failed them. Again.
So what you're really saying is small scale doesn't work for capitalism & the West? Boo Hoo.

The thing that most inspired me when I did my PC course was the realization that teaching/implementing this stuff really could empower people & change lives. I have a background of working in nursing/youth work/juvenile justice ... & was very disillusioned with the limits of my ability to empower. PC empowers individuals.

You have watched "Cuba - Beyond Peak Oil & Economic Collapse"? haven't you?

[Fernando Pessoa]

Thanks for the reply,are you directing those statements at me?I think if you read my statements again, I am very clear.
That large scale Permaculture and Organics don't work.The example you use"Cuba" is fairly defunct as it consist almost entirely of very small farms and Urban Agriculture.Rather than just a few big organic farms.
If you are talking about the result that occurred in Cuba(with the power of community,as an example.) again,you might,like to consider that as soon as the economy recovered the program saw a drastic reduction in yields and outputs as the community went back to support the newly emerging economy. The film was about feeling good and is a nice piece of inspirational propaganda,until permaculture and organic practice can compete in the open marked place delivering the quality of life people around the world aspire too then it will always be put in the too hard basket.
As far as being a subsistence farmer with a small parcel of land and being able to produce from that,I think that it takes a tremendous amount of skill and expertise handed down from generation to generation at tremendous personal cost especially in the "developing world" and in the "developed" economies we are so completely disconnected from this information about subsistence farming ,that we need to attend specialized institutes that have created a science that deals with this.Fortunately the thing that does motivate a community is selfishness and self need they are both good traits,and amazing forces,used constructively.
Best Wishes Fernando

[eco4560]

That's how Monsanto (and big Agribusiness in general) maintain the status quo. Tell a truth. Give a broadacre wheat farm to a permaculture tribe and ask them to match the yield. Ok can't be done. Therefore by extension everything that Monsanto have to offer after that revelation MUST also be the incontrovertible truth. But it doesn't mean that GMO wheat is going to be the salvation of the world. Eventually the system must collapse. You can't keep stripping the soil of nutrients, adding salt, irrigating from water that isn't there, spraying to kill the pests, adding genes to make the plant resistant to the spray so you can use more, harvest it and toss it into a big truck fuelled by petrol to drive it to a big shiny shop forever.

(Stomps off into corner to sulk.....)

[helenlee]

are you directing those statements at me?
No, not you, at the Devils Advocate :)

as soon as the economy recovered the program saw a drastic reduction in yields and outputs as the community went back to support the newly emerging economy.
I don't think PC has ever claimed it can cure laziness & stupidity. In fact, my personal belief is that humans are hard wired for laziness & acquisitiveness (& possibly stupidity ... or at least being short sighted ;)).

until permaculture and organic practice can compete in the open marked place delivering the quality of life people around the world aspire too then it will always be put in the too hard basket.
Nothing can deliver the quality of life the Western World aspires to. Nothing.

expertise handed down from generation to generation at tremendous personal cost
Everything costs. Everything. There truly are no free lunches. It's a just a matter of choosing what one is willing sacrifice & what one hopes to gain ... or ... "choose your poison".

Fortunately the thing that does motivate a community is selfishness and self need
Especially hunger & cold. It's amazing how motivated the most slothful person will get when they're cold & hungry. Sadly, for many, by the time this situation occurs it will be too late to act to achieve a desirable outcome.

And my best wishes to you also Fernando :)

[purplepear]

If we can reduce our reliance on grains, as proposed by Bill in the eighties, then we will not need to compete with large scale and if we diversify cropping land we can easily outproduce them in total output but not in tonnes of wheat per acre. Wer think in a different way to agribusines and to compare apples to chalk is a bit silly but if we were to get the suport that agriculture gets world wide and access to land them calorific (is that a word) or total energy from a properly managed permaculture enterprise would I feel sure bring huge gains on a monocultural system.
Large scale will occure when many join to become an organism of food production.

[helenlee]

Hi Fernando ... ooppps ... for some reason when I came to this thread I came in at your first post, which I thought was the original topic ... not sure how or why, except that I'm a bit dodgy on the computer. I thought I should explain why I was addressing everything to you & not to the original post. I'm sorry if I got up your nose or anything.
If I had read the original post & was responding to that ... I'd say what CraigMackintosh said ;) :)
I'll try not to be so useless in the future ...

[Grahame]

My guess is that these companies are so powerful and are so adept at playing on peoples fears that many who read their comments will take it as truth, whatever the truth may actually be. And more damagingly, people will extrapolate that to believe that permaculture and organics are pretenders in all respects. So my question is....

What are we going to do about it? This to me is the only question we really need to address here in this forum (as I assume most people here are on board with the idea that something must be done). What can we as a group and as individuals DO to counteract the press Monsanto and others get? I feel like we almost need a 'party line' on this, something that any of us can use in any situation where we have the opportunity to reverse peoples thinking and challenge their belief in what these big companies tell them. Some standard responses that clearly show the big picture.

Who's up for the challenge?

Grahame

[purplepear]

Without a doubt we can not compete on their level. I think we need only to do our individual best and try to influence people to get their PDC under their belt as we will reach a tipping point sooner with more people focusing on permaculture. If we strive to get just 18pc of the population talking about Pc we will make a difference. Falling on their own sword remains a possibility while ever the obvious fact remains that a morally corrupt notion can not ultimatly succeed. We need caution in addressing our concerns in a similar way as the big powers.
and cross your fingers too - just in case!!!

[permasculptor]

I think they are running scared. They realise that they are in decline and will use all their dirty tricks to continue to fool some of the people all of the time.This is the first time they have mentioned Permaculture in public that I know of.
Monsanto has a lot to be scared of.

[CraigMackintosh]

What on earth could possibly have them running scared? :think:

http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&client=google-coop-np&cof=FORID%3A13%3BAH%3Aleft%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww. permaculture.org.au%3BCX%3APermaculture%252Eorg%25 2Eau%2520Search%2520Engine%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fperm aculture.org.au%2Fimages%2Fgoogle_search_header.gi f%3BLH%3A100%3BLP%3A1%3BVLC%3A%23551a8b%3BDIV%3A%2 3cccccc%3B&adkw=AELymgW149uMFJlyPOuCd4bY8QJ7SM7VqqLA1gSxDBcQ3 QI_tKk5LUZOPNGebM84K7X2QwNyyX746lrIpVNAZJxLOgHjdgy LUt1lpHT6wPceCHfta91AVrs&boostcse=0&q=monsanto+&btnG=Search&cx=005882427699693072259%3A-ubk9xtrqgq

[CraigMackintosh]

By the way, if any of you guys wants to write up a post on this latest Monsanto statement, please do - and send to me on craig (at) permaculture.org.au

I'd do it, but at the moment I'm busy working on a new people/projects database-slash-social-networking system we'll be announcing and releasing in beta form in upcoming weeks.

[pebble]

I agree with most of what's been said so far, but I'm not sure I agree that permaculture can't be used large scale theoretically (say, if cheap oil wasn't about to run out). Isn't this what Geoff is doing in Jordan in this project?

http://permaculture.org.au/2010/08/06/letters-from-jordan-on-consultation-at-jordans-largest-farm-and-contemplating-transition/

That's 2000 hectares. Not sure if that counts as large in Monsanto terms. And maybe it's premature to use it as an example until the results can be seen ;-) But is there any reason why this can't work?

[milifestyle]

Hi Pebble,

When i first heard of permaculture i thought it meant keeping chickens in a domestic backyard. To think on a bigger scale was not something that entered my mind. It wasn't until i started delving into the concepts of it that i began to think this could work on acres of property.

Convincing a traditional farmer on 200 hectares that they could convert their property to permaculture is likely to fall on deaf ears, but if we demonstrate the small concepts, the idea of broad acre expansion becomes more of a reality...

For me, the key is to get people permaculturing... then start to think bigger.

[Fernando Pessoa]

Just a heads up on this Pebble,

I considered how the Permaculture ideal is small scale, family managed, biodiverse land holdings – not big farms like this. And I thought about, as I often do, the need to move society towards such an ideal, to get more people onto the land. I thought about land redistribution and the corresponding need to educate those people in sustainable, permaculture systems.(Geoff Lawton in the story)

I knew that the work that needs to be done will never happen in time.
Thus finding methods to transition large systems like this is not only essential to maintaining some order, and, ultimately, peace, but it can also serve as an excellent opportunity to get permaculture concepts onto board room tables, onto fields, and into the minds of farm managers and labourers.
Geoff was given five initial hectares to design. It will be a pioneer section prior to subsequent, larger transitions on the farm. During the consultation process, I have to say I was impressed with Geoff’s boldness. Rather than compromise and water down permaculture principles through an assumption these agribusinessmen would go at it only half-heartedly, Geoff expected much, and got it.
(edited to suit my personal opinion of course;>)
Sure the farm is in transition,25% underway.
The micro will be the macro and that is the only way for the future.Act locally in your watersheds your communities and your friends and families.What transition is going to take is a grass roots attack,with big business which has kept us spoiled westerners healthy and comfortable for many years to meet the grass roots in the middle.Sick of people bashing big business while still enjoying the many fruits of it.We are all stuck in a paradox.So when we harp on the critical rather than looking for the positive we weigh ourselves down with baggage.Personally if Monsanto was willing to give me money to instigate a permaculture project I would take the money,I would focus on the positive.
Just an opinion and we all know what opinions are like.:>)
Best Wishes Fernando.

[pebble]

I didn't read the link in the first post, but I take the statement about permaculture not being viable on a large scale to mean that Monstanto can't make lots of money out of it ;-) Which is a different thing than viability on a large scale being able to feed people without making a killing.

I took that project of Geoff's to mean that he believes large scale Pc is viable. I'll take his expertise over the Monstanto guy any day of the week.

Hard to say unless I was in the situation, but I can't imagine any circumstances which would prompt me to take money from Monsanto. They've done too many evil things and the company deserves to die. But you just might be able to pull it off :-)

I hear what you are saying though, and it's a real dilemma - how to address the powers that are doing the most damage. While I agree with you about the need for proactive and positive approaches I doubt that we have time to get something like Monsanto on board. So it may be a better strategy to throw the shit at them, clog the works up a bit, so other initiatives can get momentum.

[pebble]

Not that I think Pc *should* be adapted to large scale, lets carry on as if nothing is wrong now we have this new cool technique farms. What people have said about small scale and local makes so much sense on so many levels.

[springtide]

I guess most people here have seen "Food Inc." - well that sums up Monsanto - I think that as portable energy becomes more scarce then food miles will start to shrink and locally sourced food will rule, at this point widespread PC will be quite logical until then watch out for big business agriculture as it doesn't appear to have done the Amerikans any favours.

[sweetpea]

What Monsanto is really going to do is keep wheat and grain farmers from keeping their own seed. If you've seen the movie, The Future of Food, they plant huge fields of GM wheat and it blows into other fields of normal wheat, and they cross pollenate, and Monsanto claims patent rights, and the farmers who have collected and improved seeds for generations have to throw it all away. A large family farm tried to sue them to no avail. They want theirs to be the only seed, and this applies to small farmers, gardeners, as well as the large growers. Once they start growing there, they don't have to do anything except sit back and let the GM stuff loose.

But you/re right, there are whole cultures that do not use wheat, and they are doing just fine, so maybe switching over to other grains might be the best kind of protest. :)

[CraigMackintosh]

Just a brief comment to respond to confusion over 'large scale'.

I should clarify my thoughts on this - and I shouldn't have used the words 'large scale'. Permaculture can and should be applied 'large scale', in the sense that we need it practised all over the world. Where I differentiate permaculture systems and 'large scale' agribusiness, is that sustainable agricultural systems necessitate having more people on the land. We cannot persevere with the 1-man-farming-500-acres approach. We need most people involved in producing food for at least some of their needs.

The 'efficiency' of agribusiness is not in how much production you get from a given area (in this they lose hands down - see: http://permaculture.org.au/2009/02/14/an-interview-with-jules-dervaes/), but in how big an area can be farmed by one man.

Permaculture/sustainable systems require diversity - and the more diverse the array of plants and other elements, the more productive, and healthy, it is:

http://permaculture.org.au/2008/09/23/biodiverse-systems-are-more-productive/

You cannot have diverse arrays of plants in an agribusiness 'system', as their systems are based on mechanisation/automation of planting, weeding, spraying, harvesting and processing.

To avoid 'pest' problems, you cannot plant monocrop (http://permaculture.org.au/2008/08/12/which-came-first-pests-or-pesticides/). To avoid 'weed' issues, you cannot plant monocrop. To avoid bad bacteria/fungal problems, you cannot plant monocrop. So, to avoid chemical based systems, you cannot plant monocrop.

Agribusiness 'systems' require monocrops. You cannot use a machine to automate harvesting on non-monocrop fields.

I haven't even spoken about peak oil and the implications for agriculture - which are immense. Farm machinery, pesticides/herbicides, refrigeration, transport, distribution, etc. Agribusiness systems are impossible for biological reasons, and they're impossible for resource reasons.

In addition, heavy farm equipment damage the land (compaction).

[sweetpea]

"but in how big an area can be farmed by one man."

I beg your pardon, but as a farmer of five acres, hopefully it's about how big an area can be farmed by one person. :)

[CraigMackintosh]

"but in how big an area can be farmed by one man."

I beg your pardon, but as a farmer of five acres, hopefully it's about how big an area can be farmed by one person. :)

:blush::)

Oops. Can I say that my use of the word 'man' was as in 'mankind' (all inclusive)? :think:

[paradisi]

the bill gates foundation has decided to invest in monsanto shares - as windows user that funds the bill gates foundation you should express your contempt

google will find the foudnation and they have a contact us - tell them what you think about their latest share purchases

[CraigMackintosh]

the bill gates foundation has decided to invest in monsanto shares - as windows user that funds the bill gates foundation you should express your contempt

google will find the foudnation and they have a contact us - tell them what you think about their latest share purchases

See this: http://permaculture.org.au/2008/11/23/philanthropy-gates-style/

[Fernando Pessoa]

I express my contempt at myself daily,no matter what good I do in the world through my actions I undoubtably cause harm.
Last year I gave away about 5% of my wealth and did about 500 hours community or aid work.I drive,I shop,I consume,I drink,I smoke etc etc etc .
.
I think the target of peoples contempt should be those that have done nothing to add to the quality of life of those less fortunate,if you really need to express contempt..
I just think all of this negativity about major corporations and super wealthy people is a little bit of a joke when we all happily use the system to enjoy a stable life,ergo we support the system.
I will be highly controversial here and throw out that, I think Ghandi was the cause of great suffering because it was his efforts that caused the partition and left us with the shattered subcontinent of India.You see it's very easy to look at the negative.
What about Nelson Mandella leader of a terrorist organisation married to and in cohoots with a know terrorist Winnie Mandella,he has caused some major problems in South Africa,they have left South Africa with some huge problems..
The Dalia Lama has made so many errors when dealing with the Tibet situation,that he has cause plenty of suffering for those people.
See it's easy,to concentrate on the negative..
Whats hard is making the problem a solution because it requires more than just talk or protest,it really requires personal action.
I find it hard to believe that with all the money Gates and Buffet are throwing around that some of it hasn't achieved some good.
Rather than supporting that we go at them like rabbid dogs frothing at the mouth pointing out just how bad they are for attempting to change,and what mistakes they have made.
The time for blame has gone,it's really down to looking at ourselves as individuals and seeing what we can do that is really positive really forward,because we are the ones who put the carbon in the air ,we are the ones that support the system,we are the one who are in the greatest benifit from this plunder.Those that have lost the most and who will lose the most from the coming climate catastrophe are not represented on this forum because they don't have the means to connect.
Every time I attend a Permaculture gathering or environmental meeting and this big business bashing comes up.The rest of the time is hijacked pissing and moaning about how evil it is.
When the room full of human resources could have been better focused on delivering some positive change somewhere else.It really is high time Permacultralists just stuck to the implementation of the design science and not get caught up in the negative.We have other watchdog organisations out there for that.
Best Wishes
Fernando

[mischief]

Yep.
good point on the big business bashing easy to do doesnt solve much tho.

However.
Australia Is the origins/home of Permaculture.
Monsanto Is trying to get their product into this country and see Organic movements like said Permaculture as a basic stumbling block that needs to be lessened in the eyes of 'the educated public'.
Solution.
Stop defending Permaculture.
Stop saying 'ok it can never compete in large scale terms.(it wasnt actually designed to do that) and to be honest the only reason it hasnt been done large scale is probably cos nobody has done it yet cos everybody is saying it cant be done... shoot yourself in the foot.
instead recognise that the monsanto finger pointing is just that.
therefore the solution is to redirect the attention of the'educate public' to the documented evidence available as to why such a company should never be allowed to unleash its product and the documented evidence of what has happened to other countries/farmers/fragile environments etc...when they have been allowed to promote and distribute their products..

Put the attention back onto what it belongs to Monsanto where it will have the most effect.
Screaming blue murder wont work.
Cold hard facts presented in the right way in the right place will/should.
Time for shoulder to shoulder with all walks of the organic movement.

If htey get into Aus it wont be long before they bulldoze their way into NZ too.

[Fernando Pessoa]

They are here they are here in a big way.They are every where and in a big way.We are the system that supports them.Everyone on this forum has 1 degree of separation from Monsanto,something you eat,something ,you plant,something you buy will always be connected to them.Fighting the corporation is like throwing stones at a tank.Putting a small scale localized food system in that is high yield low input is the most direct way to combat that.The place to start is on your own lawn.Any other action that diverts from that is wasted.Once your system is up give someone else a leg up.It's not rocket science,I don't see a chapter in the Manual devoted to protest and whinging,I have never been to a P.C teaching facility that offered a 3 day workshop in sulking and stamping and you got a placard to wave at the end.This big bus bashing is like shooting a fish in a barrel.
Best Wishes Fernando.

[springtide]

Weren't they considering legal action against the Aust government for our plan to label all gm foods - something about it being "descriminatory" (ie. Australians would be able to descriminate gm from non gm foods and make a choice - i thought that was the purpose of labels).

When they try to dictate to us what our laws should be then i think some bashing is good therapy.

[milifestyle]

Compared to traditional agriculture, what would be considered large scale in Permaculture?

Large scale in my mind would be 100 acres divided between 40 to 50 families creating a sustainable community. Is that stinkin thinkin ?

[mischief]

Ummm.
Large scale would be pretty much what you or I would do in our backyard, using the ethics and principles to achieve our goals without causing anymore harm than has already been done.
Unfortuanately while I have spent alot of time as a child and teenager on farms dairy sheep and cattle and milk goat, I am not a farmer and do not have the farmer point of view.

Alot of emphasis is placed on moving the food to the people which IS all very well and good but the reality is that if all large farms just stopped producing food (not that this would happen), the people would not be able to feed themselves; therefore rather than ostrasize the large scale farmer who may just happen to accidentally hit this site and wonder whether it had anything to offer his business, perhaps we should look at comments that direct said farmer businessman to relook at what they are actually achieving with overloading the soils with chemicals and how could they possibly start to turn this around.

I have heard and unfortuantely cant remember where, that you cannot take a (eg) dairy farm and just stop using the chemicals on the livestock, they drop like flies probably due to impaired immune systems and that there has to be a gradual reduction in both livestock management and soil management.

[mischief]

Forgot to reply, 100 acres used to be considered an average sized Waikato dairy farm, they are alot larger than this now and do Not support a whole family.

Have we forgotten that the reason Permaculture was set up in the first place was in reaction to the distructive practises and chemicals that were being used and still are.....In the Agricultural Community.

The purpose of changing the heart of farming to a environmentally sound soil and livestock management has not been met and the fault for that does not neccessarily lie just with the farmer.

You/We also share that responsibility in the fact that we have not achieved a set goal.
No ifs but or maybe's that a fact.
30 years or so thats not really good enough, come on.

[Michaelangelica]

More from the article Craig posted

Gates Foundation Invests in Monsanto
“The Foundation’s direct investment in Monsanto is problematic on two primary levels,” said Dr. Phil Bereano, University of Washington Professor Emeritus and recognized expert on genetic engineering.
“First, Monsanto has a history of blatant disregard for the interests and well-being of small farmers around the world, as well as an appalling environmental track record. The strong connections to Monsanto cast serious doubt on the Foundation’s heavy funding of agricultural development in Africa and purported goal of alleviating poverty and hunger among small-scale farmers. Second, this investment represents an enormous conflict of interests.”

Monsanto has already negatively impacted agriculture in African countries. For example, in South Africa in 2009, Monsanto’s genetically modified maize failed to produce kernels and hundreds of farmers were devastated. According to Mariam Mayet, environmental attorney and director of the Africa Centre for Biosafety in Johannesburg, some farmers suffered up to an 80% crop failure. While Monsanto compensated the large-scale farmers to whom it directly sold the faulty product, it gave nothing to the small-scale farmers to whom it had handed out free sachets of seeds.
“When the economic power of Gates is coupled with the irresponsibility of Monsanto, the outlook for African smallholders is not very promising,” said Mayet. Monsanto’s aggressive patenting practices have also monopolized control over seed in ways that deny farmers control over their own harvest, going so far as to sue—and bankrupt—farmers for “patent infringement.”http://www.infowars.com/gates-foundation-invests-in-monsanto/

http://www.onepennysheet.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/monsanto2.jpg

Monsanto trying to outlaw Truth In Labeling

Rbghfree This week, Monsanto declared war on dairy companies that have chosen to ban the injection of their cows with Monsanto's genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH).

Due to escalating consumer demand, an increasing number of large dairies around the U.S. have declared themselves rBGH-free in the last couple of years. Monsanto, the sole producer of the synthetic hormone, has seen substantial losses in sales as a result of this voluntary movement of the industry towards healthier milk. Although rBGH is banned in most industrialized nations, including Europe and Canada, due to its links to breast and colon cancer, the controversial drug remains legal in the U.S.

This week, Monsanto filed a formal complaint with the FDA and Federal Trade Commission, demanding that labeling of rBGH-free diary products be made illegal. Learn more and get involved with OCA's "Millions Against Monsanto" campaign by signing on to our petition. http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_4698.cfm
http://rawlivingfoods.typepad.com/1/political_issues/


From the mid-1990s, the Illuminati pesticide and chemical producers, notably Monsanto and Dow, began to buy the seed producers. Monsanto spent some eight billion dollars alone and Dr. Charles M Benbrook, former Board of Agriculture Director at the Academy of Sciences, said: 'Basically, the US pesticide industry bought the seed industry for all intents and purposes.'

http://www.davidicke.com/oi/extras/october/foodforthought.jpg
Isn't the MD of Google great mates with the MD of Monsanto?

[Michaelangelica]

Old men is suits?
http://high-speed-satellite-internet.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/1279930408-60.jpg

http://assets.bizjournals.com/cms_media/stlouis/blog/2010/06/grant%2ChughCEOmag.jpg?site=bizjournals.com

With Goggle and Monsanto looking after us all we can relax

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9I1IkbcHNE

[milifestyle]

Forgot to reply, 100 acres used to be considered an average sized Waikato dairy farm, they are alot larger than this now and do Not support a whole family.

Have we forgotten that the reason Permaculture was set up in the first place was in reaction to the distructive practises and chemicals that were being used and still are.....In the Agricultural Community.

The purpose of changing the heart of farming to a environmentally sound soil and livestock management has not been met and the fault for that does not neccessarily lie just with the farmer.

You/We also share that responsibility in the fact that we have not achieved a set goal.
No ifs but or maybe's that a fact.
30 years or so thats not really good enough, come on.

So a single street of permaculturalists could be considered a "large scale" with individually cared for parcels...

... you start in your backyard mischief i'll start in mine... ;)

[pebble]

Fighting the corporation is like throwing stones at a tank

We need people to throw stones at the tanks though. If there weren't activists opposing wrongs then the powers of evil would be much stronger than they are. Throwing stones at the tank doesn't stop the army. It occupies them while you can organise the resistance to grow their own food ;-)


I think the comparison with Gandhi et al is inaccurate. While they may have caused some problems, those problems have to be weighed against the good that they did. But what good have Monsanto done?

Where I live there are people, many many people, who believe that roundup is completely benign. It only kills the plants it is applied to, and then it breaks down completely and has no adverse effects. The reason that people believe this is because Monsanto had a very smart campaign to educate people about their product. Sure I can take a positive approach - oh you don't need to use that herbicide, you can mulch or use chicken tractors or whatever. But why would they bother doing that when they already have a perfectly useful and benign tool for weed control. And yes, I know the answer to that, but do you get my point? You have to say something negative about glyphosates so that people realise there actually is a problem.

I'm not willing to wait for everyone to make the philosophical shift to Pc, Natural Sequence Farming etc. Things need to be said now. And there's no reason why we can't challenge as well as build.

[milifestyle]

Where I live there are people, many many people, who believe that roundup is completely benign. It only kills the plants it is applied to, and then it breaks down completely and has no adverse effects. The reason that people believe this is because Monsanto had a very smart campaign to educate people about their product. Sure I can take a positive approach - oh you don't need to use that herbicide, you can mulch or use chicken tractors or whatever. But why would they bother doing that when they already have a perfectly useful and benign tool for weed control. And yes, I know the answer to that, but do you get my point? You have to say something negative about glyphosates so that people realise there actually is a problem.

Well said pebble...

[ppp]

even worse than that, I was told by a farmer I know well, that in fact, sheep really like weeds that have been rounded up. Apparently it causes the sugars to all move to the leaves or somethign.
I find it a little hard to beleive, but I doubt he would say it, unless he has seen sheep prefer the sprayed, to non-sprayed areas. Yes, sounds bad doesn't it. Not sure if that's an intended use of roundup. Scary, how much rounded up weeds a sheep might eat in a couple of days.

[pebble]

Weeds love ground that has been sprayed. I used to watch this for a decade with a neighbour who sprayed the gap between their hedge and the footpath. They did this a couple of times a year, and the rest of the year the patch of ground grew the most lush weeds. I don't know if that's because the ground was vacuum to be filled, or if there was something about the herbicide that prompted this, or both.

[milifestyle]

even worse than that, I was told by a farmer I know well, that in fact, sheep really like weeds that have been rounded up. Apparently it causes the sugars to all move to the leaves or somethign.
I find it a little hard to beleive, but I doubt he would say it, unless he has seen sheep prefer the sprayed, to non-sprayed areas. Yes, sounds bad doesn't it. Not sure if that's an intended use of roundup. Scary, how much rounded up weeds a sheep might eat in a couple of days.

That sounds pretty much on the money... given how glypho works to block the production of certain amino acids...

[mischief]

I just re read my last couple of posts and realised how dumb and garbled they were.
Put it down to lack of sleep please.

What I meant to say was ....
I dont think size is The Issue.
So long as the ethics and principles are being applied by people on farms that are run by People and not corporations, then to me that is the original intended recipient of the Permaculture message.

Large is a matter of local comparisons.
For example it is a well known fact that Australian sheep stations are Huge.
They need to be just to get by.
It may well be that they shouldnt be running sheep at all but kangaroos but thats not the point I'm trying to make.

There is growing concern that Monsanto will get their GM seeds into Australia and New Zealand.
The target is the farmers.

I think it is quite unfortuanate that farmers have not got the message that Permaculture has been trying to get across.
The Consumers have got the message to some degree, in that alot of people now grow at least some of their own food/buy organic.

You cannot shoot the farmer for niot getting the message, it obviously has not been put across in a way that gives them a solution.
To throw down a mattress and plant a tree may well get the attention of some people, to a farmer who has to keep 1000's of sheep/cattle alive - that is quite frankly an insult to intelligence and offers no solution to the differculties they face and actually shows a complete lack of understanding of their circumstances and is insulting.
I know/have known alot of farmers and they are generally caring of their livestock and their farms even if they are only the sharemilker on it.
One forestry nursery I have worked in has been using deep water seaweed and some sort of liquid worm compost to fertilise the nursery beds.
I dont think they continued this due to very high costs.
I do know that that manager does know the land would be better off with this sort of thing rather than chemical products.
Unfortunately he has to answer to somebody else and needs to show results Now, not 2-5 years down the track.

Stop belittling the farmers/station holders etc.. just because they are not doing what you think they should.
They are 51 % right just because they have produced the meat/bread/milk etc that you just ate for tea tonight.
We arent.

I originally came across the permaculture designers manual 20 years ago when I was researching for data to "prove" to my then husband that it would be a really good idea to move the family to the country and how this could work, unfortuantely this didnt happen and it could have.
I actually thought up til recently that permaculture Was about farming (til I got Lindas book)

I see this portion of society as the ones who need to get the message.
The fact that they havent shouldnt be a mark against them but those that are trying to get the message across.
It really is time to change the message so they do get it and can see how they and their livelyhood can benefit.
We are running out of time.
Monsanto and co have excellent PR/ marketing strategies which need to be met or bettered.
I find it interesting that they target Permaculture and other Organic movements, they are obviously expecting a counter move and this needs to be done.
Whose up for it?
So rather than putting the farmer down, how do you get the message to them that chemical additives on their farm is destroying it and there is a better way of getting results?

I mentioned last week to one person I work for that I thought mono/farming was insane, they agreed.
They work within the ag community.
A fellow work mate overheard and said 'Oh yeh, back to dad and dave farms'
Yet it is also a well known fact that even running afew old Ewes on a dairy farm will clear out the ragwort from the farm and keep it clear, because the old girls love it, its like candy to Them, doing away with the need for chemical intervention

The last point I was trying to make was ...
Too often we take alittle knowledge and run with it and run our mouths off with it.

Does anybody know actually how many farmers are trying to cut back the chemical imput on their farms,
how many are trying to keep stock away from the waterways,plant trees,take that next slow but sure step to improve their soil/stock management?

How many have bothered to target the farmers in their promotions when pushing permaculture design?

How many have bothered to find out what the farmers want and what the problems are that they see need fixing right now?

Its easy to sling off at someone who is not doing something right when you see that the solution is obvious, but, they are the ones walking the walk and if you havent solved these problems and Dont have hands on understanding of them then you should keep your mouth shut.:angel:

[milifestyle]

Does anybody know actually how many farmers are trying to cut back the chemical imput on their farms,
how many are trying to keep stock away from the waterways,plant trees,take that next slow but sure step to improve their soil/stock management?

A drive in the country would give us a fair idea. Looking at the number of farms with dead paddocks in the middle of the growing season. There are probably as many contract sprayers in the North West of Tasmania as their are farmers - certainly as many boom sprays...

Tests have revealed both MCPA and 2,4-D in the Duck River in N.W. Tasmania AGAIN. Health regulations say a maximum of 2 parts per billion in rivers is acceptable. The tests in the Duck river was more than 9 Parts Per Billion... Permaculture would certainly be an answer to preventing this type of runoff...

http://www.theadvocate.com.au/news/local/news/general/duck-river-poison-fears/1930229.aspx

[mischief]

Our problem is the opposite.
The paddocks are green, look lovely the cows give great milk, birth out well so.... hey theres nothing wrong is there,, why change anything?

We have pre emergence spraying contractors here too.
A friends husband is a retired one, who on selling his business refused to sell it to a young man who had not gotten married and/or had kids.
This is the same person who for years defended the practise and said the spray did no lasting damage, yet when it comes time to pass it on to someone else he chose to sell it to a married with children, just in case I had a point.

Its hard to sell people the idea that certain things like chemicals in everything is not a good idea because they Are healthy.

So, if you drive throught he countryside and see all these dead driedout paddocks, why are these farmers not getting the point that something needs to be done differently?
They have evidence before them.
Its only going to get worse if Monsantos deadseeds get thru the doors.
I think the point that everybody misses and I think this will only become apparent in many many years, is that we are living off the health of our grandparents.
By that I mean genetically, we may appear not to be sufferring from ill effects because we have the health of our parent and grandparents health/ier lifestyle, foods, environment to sustain us.
I'm sure that in years to come it will become known that chemical overload has caused genetic damage resulting in unhealthy people.

In the bible somewhere it says something about the sins of the father will be passed unto the 7th generation.(I think I got that right).
I think it works both ways, ie the health of our predecessors, means we dont show the symptoms of the damage being done.

[mischief]

You guys are still using 24D?
You gotta be kidding!!

[milifestyle]

Yeah, I rang the ag department once and questioned it... they said it was basically MCPA by another name... Not very intelligent people working there.

Its funny how people don't see the signs of the effects of chemicals around them.

- One in Two people will have cancer at some point in their lives. It may well be the illness that kills them - its taken 50 years for most to understand the dangers of cigarettes.

- Autism has exploded in the past few years - nobody knows why.

- Other birth defects and genetic abnormalities with "just one of those things" answers.

- Obesity is a major problem these days, many people are not aware that the body creates fat to store chemicals it can not immediately get rid of. I wrote an article about this recently... here - http://ezinearticles.com/?Healthy-Eating---How-Environmental-Synthetic-Chemicals-Affect-Weight-Gain&id=4510131

People who can't see these symptoms are taking a trip up the Nile in a boat with one oar... Denial is a funny thing.

[Michaelangelica]

Impressive post Fernando.
it should provide us all with food for thought

My 5c worth
My stand on persistent non-biodegradable chemicals has been consistent for over 40 years now. What I see/have seen is one gets banned and a new one emerges; then, 10-20 years down the line it gets banned.
I recently read a research paper from Europe where researchers had found 400 foreign chemicals in mother's milk. Something that should be pristine and pure. That is outrageous and horrible enough. But you read on and something more shocking is hidden in the article.
The researchers found 400 chemicals and ONLY 400 chemicals because that is ALL THEY COULD AFFORD TO TEST FOR!

[Michaelangelica]

Monsanto Denounces GMO Crops, Launches Permaculture Design Service


“We’re not immune to making mistakes,” said Monsanto spokesman Mark James. “But we now realize that genetically altering crops is a dangerous game. We also know that making the transition to organic farming will be difficult for our farmer friends who use pesticides. That’s why we’re launching the Monsanto Permaculture Design Service.”
Monsanto’s service will make use ofpermaculture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture)principles (i.e. farming/planting crops based on relationships found in natural ecologies) to help farmers and gardeners across the world redesign and diversify and their crop layouts.
“We’ll offer consultations on organic farming,
http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/04/monsanto-denounces-gmo-crops-launches-permaculture-design-service/

Monsanto Says, "Buy Organic to Avoid GMOs" (http://kjpermaculture.blogspot.com/2010/07/monsanto-says-buy-organic-to-avoid-gmos.html)



http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/frankenfood-monsanto-gm.jpg


Recent news from Organic Consumers Association (http://www.capwiz.com/grassrootsnetroots/issues/alert/?alertid=15154336&type=ML) (who should change their name to Organic Citizens Association. "Consumer" is the name corporations spliced onto us.)

"If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it." - Norman Braksick, president of Asgrow Seed Co., a subsidiary of Monsanto, quoted in the Kansas City Star, March 7, 1994

Ever wonder what Monsanto's executives feed their kids? The following quote, taken directly from Monsanto's Web site, shows that Monsanto's savvy employees understand that if they want to avoid genetically engineered foods, all they have to do is buy organic:

"Individuals who make a personal decision not to consume food containing GM [genetically modified] ingredients can easily avoid such products. In the U.S., they can purchase products that are certified as organic under the National Organic Program. They can also buy products which companies have voluntarily labeled as not containing GM ingredients. The law allows for voluntary labeling so long as the information is accurate, truthful and avoids misleading consumers about the food. Monsanto supports both options."

Of course, Monsanto's bottom line business model relies on misleading consumers, monopolizing seeds, buying off scientists and politicians, and strong-arming farmers. They're not afraid of organic, so long as certified organic crops and foods remain a small niche market. Unfortunately Monsanto's business model seems to be working, at least in North America. The overwhelming majority of corn, soybeans, cotton, canola, and sugar beets grown in the U.S. and Canada are Monsanto's patented GMO varieties, despite mounting evidence that these "Frankencrops" are bad for the environment and hazardous to animal and human health. While nearly everyone in North America has eaten genetically modified foods, only 26% believe that they have. The only way to turn this around is to label genetically engineered foods, which Monsanto, of course, opposes. They understand that health and environmentally conscious consumers are increasingly becoming aware of the dangers of GMOs, and that if given the choice through mandatory labeling, as in the European Union, they will avoid them or boycott them. http://kjpermaculture.blogspot.com/2010/07/monsanto-says-buy-organic-to-avoid-gmos.html
I'll save that one up for next April

[Michaelangelica]

USDA sued over genetically modified beet permits
Related News


Google faces Texas AG inquiry, settles privacy suit (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0312083220100904)
Food safety a "priority" for Senate: Reid aide (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68164720100902)Thu, Sep 2 2010


SAN FRANCISCO | Thu Sep 9, 2010 7:51pm EDT

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Groups opposed to genetically modified foods announced a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture on Thursday over the agency's recent decision to allow limited plantings of altered sugar beets.
; ; ;

At issue are beets that are modified to resist a Monsanto herbicide, Roundup, which Monsanto sees as a way to improve crop yields and opponents see as driving evolution of dangerous weeds that overcome the herbicide treatment.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6885XA20100909

[mischief]

Good to see some people still have guts as well as principles.

[philippa]

I wanted to say, in defence of farmers, that they are price takers, not price setters and that this factor, more than any other, determines how they farm.

When multinational food stores can set the price of produce then the margins per unit to farmers are reduced to an absolute minimum. That means that, in order for farmers to make a profit from the business of farming then they must grow many more units. And the only feasible way they can see to do this is to mechanize the farming operation, to plant a monoculture and to use large scale machinery to farm.

I don't believe that all farmers are opposed to permaculture and alternative food production techniques, but I think that they need to take back control of their product and to be able to get a reasonable return for their produce. The current system severly undervalues all of the resources involved in production; the water use, the soil degradation costs, the human labour, the fossil fuels, the loss of biodiversity.

The evolution of CSA schemes has allowed some farmers to make a reasonable living from their properties and this is encouraging, but as long as farmers are dictated to by the buyers then there will be no incentive for them to change the way they farm. I reckon there needs to be a tiered pricing system which everyone adheres to, with a minimum floor price for produce which covers all the inputs and still makes a return for the farmer.
I'm not, in any way, in defence of chemical and monoculture farming, but I think it's way too simplistic to put the emphasis on farmers to make the change when most of us are complicit in supporting such a system. I produce some of the food my family eats but I still shop and as long as I buy supermarket brand butter, for example, I am supporting a system of farming which is unsustainable and toxic.

[milifestyle]

true phillippa, but have you seen the price of some of that chemical stuff... makes organic production look cheap!

[mischief]

I agree with you phillippa,
Farmers not only are given little say in the prices they receive, they also are not allow to sell at a higher price at the gate.
In NZ this includes vinyards which means there is no point in going around on vinyard tours as my parents used to ( for example) cos you have to pay the same price as in the supermarket.

There must still be some way for those who are looking at even just cutting costs, to start in one area and work on that then move on to the next.
It might take alittle time but it would make a difference over time.

[Grahame]

I don't know. I reckon you ALWAYS have a choice.

This is what I don't get. There is a figure of something like 70% of Australian farms that are unprofitable (i.e. do not make a profit) So why don't they stop what they are doing, grow an acre of food for themselves, run a few cows or something just to get a bit of cash flow. Surely they are already better off than trying to grow mega-acres worth of crops for no benefit and then driving to town to buy their groceries from the Oligopoly? Is there something I'm missing or is there something enjoyable about banging your head against a brick wall?

[mischief]

I think maybe the Jones's have something to do with it.
Or maybe its the subsidies they get for each headache.

[milifestyle]

Sometimes its just easier to continue doing what you've always done... but the definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again while expecting a different result... To many change is an Evil word!

[philippa]

And to institute a policy among farmers which sets a minimum price requires all farmers to co-operate and not do some deal privately with a buyer which undermines the whole process.

I do agree with Grahame that we always have a choice but I think that a lot of farmers are not skilled in adapting to change, either in the marketplace or in their farming techniques. I know a farmer who grows tomatoes for a living and many have tried to convince him to grow heirloom varieties and to market them to the right customers but he just won't be in it; it's too hard to think it through and make the change, so he just muddles through and gets the same shitty prices every year, unless farmers elsewhere have a natural disaster and then he has a good year.
I know another farming couple who run an organic vege farm and market directly to their customers via their website. They can't get enough produce.

[DonHansford]

are you directing those statements at me?
No, not you, at the Devils Advocate :)

as soon as the economy recovered the program saw a drastic reduction in yields and outputs as the community went back to support the newly emerging economy.
I don't think PC has ever claimed it can cure laziness & stupidity. In fact, my personal belief is that humans are hard wired for laziness & acquisitiveness (& possibly stupidity ... or at least being short sighted ;)).

until permaculture and organic practice can compete in the open marked place delivering the quality of life people around the world aspire too then it will always be put in the too hard basket.
Nothing can deliver the quality of life the Western World aspires to. Nothing.

expertise handed down from generation to generation at tremendous personal cost
Everything costs. Everything. There truly are no free lunches. It's a just a matter of choosing what one is willing sacrifice & what one hopes to gain ... or ... "choose your poison".

Fortunately the thing that does motivate a community is selfishness and self need
Especially hunger & cold. It's amazing how motivated the most slothful person will get when they're cold & hungry. Sadly, for many, by the time this situation occurs it will be too late to act to achieve a desirable outcome.

And my best wishes to you also Fernando :)

I really try to never quote a large volume of text, but I will make an exception this time. Helen, you have made an excellent response to Fernando's questions.Your remark ..."Nothing can deliver the quality of life the Western World aspires to. Nothing." ... was exactly what I felt!
@ Fernando .. Permaculture is not about competing with industrial agriculture - it is about alternatives - you can NEVER solve the problem with the same mindset that created it! The response to the failure of broadscale cropping, is not broadscale cropping with lipstick on -- it is to find a new way to produce the needs of the world, and that will NOT be found more than 5 klms from where the food is needed, and it most definitely won't be found in a monocrop situation!

[DonHansford]

I don't know. I reckon you ALWAYS have a choice.

This is what I don't get. There is a figure of something like 70% of Australian farms that are unprofitable (i.e. do not make a profit) So why don't they stop what they are doing, grow an acre of food for themselves, run a few cows or something just to get a bit of cash flow. Surely they are already better off than trying to grow mega-acres worth of crops for no benefit and then driving to town to buy their groceries from the Oligopoly? Is there something I'm missing or is there something enjoyable about banging your head against a brick wall?
Hi Grahame
I live in one of those districts. "Why don't they stop what they are doing?"
It's all they know ... I know that's sad, but they don't get 'out and about' like we do! They are (often enough) too busy working a 7am - 5pm job in town for sh!t wages, then trying to fit some farm chores in before dark, then doing Amway, or Avon, or something in the evening, all trying to meet next months' interest bill on the overdraft they took out fifteen years ago (on the advise of a "financial advisor - owned by the bank) - to keep the farm afloat ... etc ...etc... etc! The problem (at least around here) is that most of them DO NOT HAVE $50 TO SPARE to try some "left field" idea, even if they recognise that it is the only way they can survive! The bank will only loan money for chemical and "proven" seed, not airy-fairy trees and koalas. We need (as a movement), to start working on the forces that are stopping the small farmers from aligning with us, not wasting time beating our breasts against those who will never, and can never, change

[pebble]

In NZ apparently it's even worse than that for many farmers. They've got so much debt now that they can't afford to not farm and sell to the man, unless they want to walk off the land. And land is astronomically expensive there now. I think this has something to do with children now being expected to buy farms from their parents whereas in the past they inherited them. But also there are the farmers who wanted to get rich and so borrowed massively to shift from a family farm to a big business farm and are now stuck with the debts. I think it's very complex and some farmers have alot of choice whereas others have very little.

[Michaelangelica]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw&feature=channel
Murdock /Monsanto and the truth

[milifestyle]

Great stuff Michael...

[andrew curr]

That's how Monsanto (and big Agribusiness in general) maintain the status quo. Tell a truth. Give a broadacre wheat farm to a permaculture tribe and ask them to match the yield. Ok can't be done. Therefore by extension everything that Monsanto have to offer after that revelation MUST also be the incontrovertible truth. But it doesn't mean that GMO wheat is going to be the salvation of the world. Eventually the system must collapse. You can't keep stripping the soil of nutrients, adding salt, irrigating from water that isn't there, spraying to kill the pests, adding genes to make the plant resistant to the spray so you can use more, harvest it and toss it into a big truck fuelled by petrol to drive it to a big shiny shop forever.

(Stomps off into corner to sulk.....)
i suspect there are care permaculturalists now with us whoCAN out yield the big boys

[CraigMackintosh]

A post that may interest readers of this thread:

http://permaculture.org.au/2010/09/09/monsanto-has-us-walking-the-gangplank-and-wants-to-give-that-final-push/

[Michaelangelica]

A post that may interest readers of this thread:

http://permaculture.org.au/2010/09/09/monsanto-has-us-walking-the-gangplank-and-wants-to-give-that-final-push/

http://www.permaculture.org.au/images/cartoon_scale.jpg
Why indeed?

thanks for the link
Lord Sainsbury, an establishment apologist, was doing the same, talking up GM.
I have some sympathy for his approach, his heart seems in the right place. His research in/on GM is more directed at crop improvement rather than gouging more money out of the system/people.

I do hope their PR/spin people have kept this out of the press?

It’s been proven that GM technology can actually reduce yields:

Genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops, an authoritative new study shows, undermining repeated claims that a switch to the controversial technology is needed to solve the growing world food crisis.

… The Nebraska study suggested that two factors are at work. First, it takes time to modify a plant and, while this is being done, better conventional ones are being developed. This is acknowledged even by the fervently pro-GM US Department of Agriculture, which has admitted that the time lag could lead to a “decrease” in yields.

But the fact that GM crops did worse than their near-identical non-GM counterparts suggest that a second factor is also at work, and that the very process of modification depresses productivity. The new Kansas study both confirms this and suggests how it is happening. — Independent

And, amongst other things, rather than the supposed drought tolerance Monsanto keeps promising but never achieving, it’s the high water demands of GM crops, amongst other related issues with them, that are contributing to massive farmer suicide rates in India:

Far from being magic seeds, the GM crops were devastated by bollworms. They also required double the amount of water.

[Michaelangelica]

Learn more about some of the details of the case by watching video of Dan Ravicher speaking at the National Heirloom Expo in Santa Rosa, California. Dan is the Executive Director of the Public Patent Foundation and a lecturer in law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. http://www.pubpat.org/

Monsanto’s motion to dismiss the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA) et al v. Monsanto will be heard in federal district court on Tuesday January 31, 2012 in Manhattan. Judge Naomi Buchwald’s decision will establish if organic farmers are to see their day in court.
http://www.osgata.org/learn-more-about-osgata-et-al-v-monsanto