Anti-, problems with, etc GMO foods

It opens for me on a tablet also, article form this July.

http://www.takepart.com/article/2012...gmo-sugar-beet

Paul

deleted by poster

I am anti GMO. I have been trying to figure out how to responed in this thread.

1. First I would like to thank all the farmers, especially the ones that resemble the farmers Paul Harvey is talking about in the commercial in this link; So God made a farmer

2. Secondly, it will be okay if you wonder what the "L" is wrong with this little crazy "SPIKE" ________________ (fill in the blank how you wish to).

I am not a total conspiracy nut case, but trust very few things in our world. It took many years for the world to make me this way.

Too much of it has to do with money and greed. When big money corporations are in bed with powerful politicians, then coruption is the next step. Right,wrong, and what is good for the people goes out the window.

If there is a question about the safety of the public, then that should be the first concern of the people looking out for us.
There are plenty of questions about GMOs.
Both sides can have their experts and present their cases. But in the end it seems like the money wins most of the time.
Humans have a good history of screwing things up when they try to change the world they live in. Often time not being able to see into the future far enough to see the error of their ways.

Most of the world gets along just fine when you take humans out of the picture. We should work harder to live with it and not change too many things so much faster than natural evolution.

Do you trust The Center fo Media and Democracy?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...up_Ready_Crops

Controversies

Some of the many controversies related to the use of Roundup Ready (RR) crops are illustrated by the testimony of Troy Roush, an Indiana farmer, before Congress in 2010: [23]
"I have been using genetically engineered (GE) soybeans since 2000, when a lawsuit for patent infringement against my family was dismissed by Monsanto. After having endured two years of costly litigation that took its toll on my family, we decided that, in order to protect ourselves from future baseless lawsuits, we would make the conversion to biotech crops and began using Roundup Ready (RR) varieties for our non-organic crops."During the first few years we were able to rely exclusively on RR technology for weed management, applying glyphosate for burndown and again to eliminate weed pressure after the crop emerge. However, due to problems with glyphosate tolerant weeds, the skyrocketing costs of RR seeds and the price premiums being paid for non-GE soybeans, we have since returned to using conventional varieties on approximately half of our 2,600 soybean acres. The diminishing effectiveness of glyphosate, as demonstrated in the dramatic increase in glyphosate tolerant weeds, destroyed any benefit from the technology."Fortunately, Indiana enacted Farmer Protection laws in 2002 after my lawsuit with Monsanto to prohibit patent infringement cases where small amounts of GE content is detected in crops and fields. Without those protections, our return to conventional soybean production would have brought with it the potential of significant risk of patent infringement liability."In 2005, we first began to encounter problems with glyphosate resistance in marestail and lambsquarter in both our soybean and corn crops. Since there had been considerable discussion in the agricultural press about weeds developing resistance or tolerance to Roundup, I contacted a Monsanto weed scientist to discuss the problems I was experiencing on the farm and what could be done to eradicate the problematic weeds. Despite well documented proof that glyphosate tolerant weeds were becoming a significant problem, the Monsanto scientist denied that resistance existed and instructed me to increase my application rates."The increase in application rates proved ineffectual, and I was forced to turn to alternative methods for weed management including the use of tillage and other chemistry. In 2007, the weed problems had gotten so severe that we turned to an ALS inhibitor marketed as Canopy to alleviate the problem in our preplant, burndown herbicide application. In 2008, we were forced to include the use of 2,4D and an ALS residual, to our herbicide programs. Like most farmers, we are very sensitive to environmental issues and we were very reluctant to return to using tillage and more toxic herbicides for weed control. However, no other solutions were then or are now readily available to eradicate the weed problems caused by development of glyphosate resistance...."As I mentioned earlier, I have now returned to the use of conventional soybean varieties for about 1/2 of my total acreage. That proportion of acreage will increase if supply of quality conventional seed varieties increases. While conventional soybean varieties have been very difficult to find, a number of small, independent seed companies are now beginning to respond to the demand. This year, I was able to find convention seeds from a small seed company that sources germplasm from an Ohio breeding program that allowed me to increase acreage in conventional varieties."This testimony highlights: 1) intimidation and legal threats by Monsanto against farmers 2) lack of availability of high quality non-GMO seeds 3) the problem of glyphosate resistant weeds resulting from the use of RR crops and the resulting overuse of Roundup and 4) questions over the claim that use of RR crops reduces or eliminates the use of more toxic herbicides.
Study Links RR Corn to Tumors in Rats

On September 19, 2012, a team led by Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen published a study called "Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize" in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology.[2] The study ran for two years, studying the effects of Monsanto's Roundup Ready corn variety NK603 and/or Roundup herbicide on 200 rats. Only 30% of males and 20% of females in the control group died during the experiment, compared to much higher rates of mortality among treated rats.
"Up to 14 months, no animals in the control groups showed any signs of tumors whilst 10–30% of treated females per group developed tumors, with the exception of one group (33% GMO + R). By the beginning of the 24th month, 50–80% of female animals had developed tumors in all treated groups, with up to 3 tumors per animal, whereas only 30% of controls were affected. The R [Roundup] treatment groups showed the greatest rates of tumor incidence with 80% of animals affected with up to 3 tumors for one female, in each group."[2]
The study found that the first large detectable tumors occurred "at 4 and 7 months into the study in males and females respectively, underlining the inadequacy of the standard 90 day feeding trials for evaluating GM crop and food toxicity (Séralini et al., 2011)." (emphasis added)
For more information on this study, see the article on the NK603 variety of corn.
The Safety of Roundup

One of the arguments in favor of using RR crops is the claim that Roundup is an extremely safe, environmentally friendly herbicide. For example, Dr. Michael D. Owen testified before Congress, saying: "Because it binds to the soil rapidly, is biodegraded by soil bacteria, and has a very low toxicity to mammals, birds, and fish, glyphosate kills most plants without substantial adverse environmental effects on animals or soil or water quality. The widespread adoption of glyphosate-resistant crops has therefore reduced the use of more toxic (albeit EPA-registered) herbicides in soybean, cotton, and corn fields."[24] However, some question the claim that Roundup is "safe" and/or "environmentally friendly." For more information, see the article on glyphosate.
This is a particularly important issue because the use of Roundup has increased dramatically with the adoption of Roundup Ready crops. (Between 1996 and 2006, the amount of glyphosate applied per planted acre of soybeans in the U.S. increased from less than 0.2 to about 1.2 pounds, a six-fold increase.[24])
Increase in Herbicide Use

Predictably, the introduction of Roundup Ready crops resulted in an increase of glyphosate (Roundup) use.
"USDA NASS data show that since 1996, the glyphosate rate of application per crop year has tripled on cotton farms, doubled in the case of soybeans, and risen 39% on corn. The average annual increase in the pounds of glyphosate applied to cotton, soybeans, and corn has been 18.2%, 9.8%, and 4.3%, respectively, since HT [herbicide tolerant] crops were introduced.[25]Simultaneously, as glyphosate resistant weeds began to emerge as a result of over-reliance on glyphosate, farmers began using other - often more toxic - herbicides on crops:
"Growing reliance on older, higher-risk herbicides for management of resistant weeds on HT crop acres is now inevitable in the foreseeable future and will markedly deepen the environmental and public health footprint of weed management on over 100 million acres of U.S. cropland."[25]

__________________
All things should be done with COMMON SENSE!
All things should be done with RESPECT!
All things have a PROPER time and place!
And most things should be done in MODERATION!

Continued from above to provide references, if you do not want to follow the link to the article.
References

1. ↑ William Neuman and Andrew Pollack, "Farmers Cope With Roundup-Resistant Weeds," New York Times, May 3, 2010, Accessed February 18, 2011.
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Gilles-Eric Séralini, Emilie Clair, Robin Mesnage, Steeve Gress, Nicolas Defarge, Manuela Malatesta, Didier Hennequin, Joël Spiroux de Vendômois, "Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize," Food and Chemical Toxicology, Available online September 19, 2012.
3. ↑ Daniel Charles, Lords of the Harvest: Biotech, Big Money, and the Future of Food, p. 63.
4. ↑ Daniel Charles, Lords of the Harvest: Biotech, Big Money, and the Future of Food, p. 65-66.
5. ↑ Daniel Charles, Lords of the Harvest: Biotech, Big Money, and the Future of Food, p. 67.
6. ↑ Daniel Charles, Lords of the Harvest: Biotech, Big Money, and the Future of Food, p. 68-69.
7. ↑ Daniel Charles, Lords of the Harvest: Biotech, Big Money, and the Future of Food, p. 120.
8. ↑ Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 99, May 24, 1994.
9. ↑ Novel Food Decisions - Approved Products, Health Canada, Accessed August 17, 2012.
10. ↑ Daniel Charles, Lords of the Harvest: Biotech, Big Money, and the Future of Food, p. 163-164.
11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Monsanto - Company History, Accessed August 1, 2012.
12. ↑ Herbicide Resistant Weeds: Horseweed, Accessed August 17, 2012.
13. ↑ Herbicide Resistant Weeds: Giant Ragweed, Accessed August 17, 2012.
14. ↑ Geertson Seed Farms v. Johanns, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
15. ↑ Tadlock Cowan and Kristina Alexander, "Deregulating Genetically Engineered Alfalfa and Sugar Beets," Congressional Research Service, January 25, 2012.
16. ↑ Herbicide Resistant Weeds: Palmer Amaranth, Accessed August 17, 2012.
17. ↑ Herbicide Resistant Weeds: Common Waterhemp, Accessed August 17, 2012.
18. ↑ Herbicide Resistant Weeds: Palmer Amaranth, Accessed August 17, 2012.
19. ↑ Monsanto Company History, Accessed August 14, 2012.
20. ↑ Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 143, July 24, 2008.
21. ↑ Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 242, December 16, 2011.
22. ↑ Petitions for Nonregulated Status Pending, USDA, Accessed August 9, 2012.
23. ↑ Testimony of Troy Roush, "Are ‘Superweeds’ an Outgrowth of USDA Biotech Policy? (Part I)," Hearing, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, July 28, 2010.
24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 Testimony of Michael Owen, "Are ‘Superweeds’ an Outgrowth of USDA Biotech Policy? (Part I)," Hearing, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, July 28, 2010.
25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 Charles Benbrook, "Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years" and Supplemental Tables, The Organic Center, 2009.

External resources

• GM Crop Database, Center for Environmental Risk Assessment
• Overview of GMO Events Commercially Available and Regulatory Status
• Novel Food Decisions - Approved Products, Health Canada.
• Charles Benbrook, "Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years" and Supplemental Tables, The Organic Center, 2009.
• "Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops," Union of Concerned Scientists, 2009.

External articles

• Dan Charles, "Farmers Face Tough Choice On Ways To Fight New Strains Of Weeds," NPR, March 7, 2012.
• Jack Kaskey, "Attack of the Superweed: New strains resist Roundup, the world’s top-selling herbicide," Business Week, September 8, 2011.
• Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, "Monsanto's Superweeds & Superbugs," Pesticide Action Network North America, GroundTruth blog, September 8, 2011.
• Michael J. Coren, "Monsanto-Resistant Weeds Take Root, Raising Food Prices," Fast Company, July 20, 2011.
• Tom Philpott, "Monsanto's "Superweeds" Gallop Through Midwest," Mother Jones, July 19, 2011.
• William Neuman and Andrew Pollack, "Farmers Cope With Roundup-Resistant Weeds," New York Times, May 3, 2010.
• Seeds of Doubt, a five part series on agricultural biotechnology from the Sacramento Bee.
• Benbrook Technical Papers
• Transgenic Superweeds?
• Superweeds fear from GM crops
• Herbicide Resistance is Out of Control say Canola Farmers
• Crop pollen spreads further than expected
• If modified plants contaminate your crops it could cost you dear
• Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants: The Scope and Adequacy of Regulation
• The Case for A GM-Free Sustainable World

Retrieved from "http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...s&oldid=590954"

__________________
All things should be done with COMMON SENSE!
All things should be done with RESPECT!
All things have a PROPER time and place!
And most things should be done in MODERATION!

Would you trust the Institute for Responsible Technology.

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-education

GMO Education

What is a GMO?

A GMO (genetically modified organism) is the result of a laboratory process where genes from the DNA of one species are extracted and artificially forced into the genes of an unrelated plant or animal. The foreign genes may come from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or even humans. Because this involves the transfer of genes, GMOs are also known as "transgenic" organisms.
This process may be called either Genetic Engineering (GE) or Genetic Modification (GM); they are one and the same. Read more.

Where are they?

In your food! First introduced into the food supply in the mid-1990s, GMOs are now present in the vast majority of processed foods in the US. While they are banned as food ingredients in Europe and elsewhere, the FDA does not even require the labeling of GMOs in food ingredient lists.
Although there have been attempts to increase nutritional benefits or productivity, the two main traits that have been added to date are herbicide tolerance and the ability of the plant to produce its own pesticide. These results have no health benefit, only economic benefit.

What foods are GM?

Currently commercialized GM crops in the U.S. include soy (94%), cotton (90%), canola (90%), sugar beets (95%), corn (88%), Hawaiian papaya (more than 50%), zucchini and yellow squash (over 24,000 acres).
Products derived from the above, including oils from all four, soy protein, soy lecithin, cornstarch, corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup among others. There are also many "invisible ingredients," derived from GM crops that are not obviously from corn or soy. Read more
Why should you care?

Genetically modified foods have been linked to toxic and allergic reactions, sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ studied in lab animals. The effects on humans of consuming these new combinations of proteins produced in GMOs are unknown and have not been studied. See more under GMO Health Risks.
Crops such as Bt cotton produce pesticides inside the plant. This kills or deters insects, saving the farmer from having to spray pesticides. The plants themselves are toxic, and not just to insects. Farmers in India, who let their sheep graze on Bt cotton plants after the harvest, saw thousands of sheep die!
Herbicide tolerance lets the farmer spray weed-killer directly on the crop without killing it. Comparative studies on the toxic residues in foods from such crops have not yet been done.
Pollen from GM crops can contaminate nearby crops of the same type, except for soy, which does not cross-pollinate. In fact, virtually all heritage varieties of corn in Mexico (the origin of all corn) have been found to have some contamination. Canola and cotton also cross-pollinate. The long-term effects on the environment could be disastrous. See more under Environmental Dangers.
Read more on the genetic engineering process
Read more on Invisible Ingredients that contain GMOs

__________________
All things should be done with COMMON SENSE!
All things should be done with RESPECT!
All things have a PROPER time and place!
And most things should be done in MODERATION!

This is from the New York Times. A THREE year old with arthritis?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/magazi....entaryme dicine

I never thought about GMO. Was not the least bit concerned, until I started reading about it. I watched a 10 part series on YouTube by Aretheykillingyou (I didn't notice the name initially and if I had I probably would have dismissed it altogether-dramatic to the max). But I did watch it. SHOCKING!
Illness in workers, even death, and the same for livestock.

A researcher in, I think it was somewhere Europe, received documents from an anon source. They were internal, stolen documents, many marked "confidential, destroy after reading". That gets your attention! Anyhow, Montasano was aware of problems and the EPA was ignoring and covering up.

UC Berkeley did a study in interior Mexico on the local, non-gmo corn. It was infected already. None of the farmers used gmo corn, yet the corn already showed traces of gmo properties.

So if I buy non gmo seeds...... I actually get gmo? Is it too late?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I don't think the government is out to get us and business are inherently evil. Some individuals are, however. I have questions, as many do, and I want the option of choosing not to use a product.

Gmo issues have gone to the Supreme Court again, a fella bought soybeans from the elevator and planted them. This would be against the growers agreement that would cover a gmo crop.....

I'm surprised no one here has mentioned it. Been in the news in the farm forums, actually on several of my tv and newspaper headlines....

Anyhow, from what I understand, the farmer and his counsel is doing a poor job of explaining the details of the case, and it appears the Justices are heavily favoring Monsanto's position on this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/bu...ase.html?_r=1&

It is not near settled and is a live case going on right now. A news report I saw today, even recording studios and computer programmers are supporting Monsanto's side on this as they feel it would affect their patents as well.

I'm putting this in the negative thread, as I said before I'm opposed to the idea of someone owning a patent on a life form so I see this as a negative.

Paul

It is not looking good for that farmer so far.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/india...ry?id=18540373
He bought the seed from the elevator hoping it was round up ready seed, and in 2007 writes a letter to monsanto? Why did he do that? Why didn't he keep his mouth shut?

__________________
Oh my, dishes yet to wash and dry

See My Pictures at
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/0903/arabianknight/

Recently, I saw an ad in Farm World magazine, where a dealer is offering a $2.50 premium for conventional soybeans.

I discussed this with Hubby. He told me one of our neighboring "big" farmers was talking to him last fall about coming away from RR crops. I haven't talked to him yet, so don't know his reasoning. It is encouraging, though.

Today, I finally sourced barley locally. Progress is being made.

I don't see this guy as any kind of anti-Monsanto, anti-GMO champion. If I understand the situation correctly his intention was to grow a GM crop by a work-around that avoided the cost and contracts associated with purchasing directly from Monsanto. He appears to be pro-GMO and wants the technology without paying for it.
I don't care if he wins or loses. I can't stand a cheater even if they're cheating the side I don't agree with.
I want the scientists and other really smart people who are showing over and over that there are big problems with this technology to win the battle, or at least back Monsanto, et al. off until safety can be proven.

I resurrected this thread because I wasn't sure if it was okay to start a new one on anti-GMOs.
Just saw this posted on FB - need to figure out how to share it here. Meanwhile, seems on page 46 of 47 pages of the Monsanto User Contract from 2008 "It is recommended that Monsanto Roundup Ready Winter Canola NOT BE GRAZED ... at the present time insufficient information exsists to allow safe and proper grazing recommendations".
I realize that is from 2008 and it has been a mere 4 years since that was printed - yet I'd love to know if more information has proven otherwise. Or if more information has even been sought by Monstanto on their product.


https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.ph...type=1&theater

It recommends it not be grazed due to REDUCED YIELDS as well as the NITROGEN requirements of Canola, that can present potential dangers of NITRATE poisoning, which can occur with many forages under the right conditions:
http://www.monsanto.com/SiteCollecti...ter-canola.pdf


It really has nothing to do with the "GMO" aspects of the Canola:
http://www.uwex.edu/ces/forage/pubs/nitrate.htm

Quote:

Nitrate poisoning is a condition which may affect ruminants consuming certain forages or water that contain an excessive amount of nitrate. Causes of Nitrate Poisoning Under normal conditions, nitrate ingested by ruminant livestock, like cattle, sheep and goats, is converted to ammonia and then bacterial protein in the rumen by bacteria. The steps of conversion in this process are as follows: ------Bacterial Protein------ Nitrate (NO3) ——› Nitrite (NO2) ——› Ammonia (NH3) ——› Amino Acid ——› Protein Nitrate is converted to nitrite faster than nitrite is converted to ammonia. Consequently, when higher than normal amounts of nitrate are consumed, an accumulation of nitrite may occur in the rumen. Nitrite then will be absorbed into the bloodstream and will convert hemoglobin to methemoglobin, which is unable to transport oxygen. Thus, when an animal dies from nitrate poisoning, it is due to a lack of oxygen. The occurrence of nitrate poisoning is difficult to predict because nitrate levels can change rapidly in plants and the toxicity of nitrate varies greatly among livestock due to age, health status, and diets. However, concern should certainly be raised when plant growth has been less than half of normal or nitrogen application more than twice recommended.

http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/livestk/01610.html

Quote:

Some perennial grasses (fescue and johnsongrass) and weeds (pigweed, mustard, kochia, nightshade and lamb’s quarters) also can contain dangerous levels. The corn may be safe but weeds harvested with it may be poisonous. Stinging nettle, elderberry, burdock and Canadian thistle are a few of the known nitrate accumulators. In fact, some of these will accumulate nitrate to such a high concentration that they literally explode when burned – nitrate is explosive. Accumulation usually is triggered by some environmental stress where plant growth is restricted but absorption of nitrate from soil continues. The most common stress of summer annuals is drought. Lack of moisture, together with excessive soil nitrogen for existing growing conditions, is a frequent cause of toxic levels of nitrate in sorghums. Other stress factors that favor buildup are reduced sunlight from cloudiness or shading, frost, certain herbicides including 2,4-D, acid soils, low growing temperatures, and deficiencies of essential nutrients like phosphorus, sulfur and molybdenum. When more soil nitrogen is present than needed for maximum growth, some plants tend to accumulate nitrate even without environmental stress. This response is particularly true with hardy soil feeders like sorghum, noted for “luxury consumption” of certain nutrients.

Canola is especially prone to excessive nitrate amounts due to it's high water content:
http://canola.okstate.edu/productionguides/pt20051.pdf

__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Ah yes a facebook site loaded with all kinds of fear. As bearfoot says, there are real reasons not to graze canola, gm varieties or not. You would not want to graze radishes, broccoli, cabbage, or any other brassica under the same conditions either, due to the nitrate possibility...

Judy, that's the talk around here too, except they're searching for non-GMO corn.

I think my DH hit it on the head. He said the use of GMO crops in the United States is the biggest uncontrolled biology experiment in the history of mankind; and we are the lab rats. And we are given little choice, via responsible labeling, as to whether or not we participate.

__________________
‎"The trouble with quotes over the Internet is that you never know if they are genuine." - Abraham Lincoln

So the statement does not apply to RR Canola but yet any brassica? Gosh, I missed that clarification in the Monstanto contract. So really, sufficient studies haven't been done on cattle grazing on brassicas? And Monsanto is so concerned about cattle it is issuing a warning for all crops that might cause nitrate overdose? I would think that any farmer smart enough to use Roundup Ready, GMO Feed-the-World canola would already be smart enough to know this. And I had no idea that Monsanto was so concerned with brassica toxicity. Maybe we are all wrong about this obvious altruistic company.

Cattle, pigs sheep and all kinds of animals have been grazed on brassicas, provided they are not exposed to frosts. Which spike the nitrites. In any crop actually. Bayer, brett young, canterra seeds, these companies all would caution against grazing a brassica that is coming out of, or going into dprmancy. Brassicas have high n content to begin with, so they are one of the more worrisome crops to graze.

A last note: If it were only the gene they were talking about, and it had any merit, there would be no wildlife left in western Canada after two decades of gm canola being grown. They graze is impassionately, right after spraying glyphosate, they graze it when it blooms, they eat the seeds that spill. Through this all, wildlife populations in western Canada have never been as healthy as they are now. Just a few things going on where the stuff is actually grown every year.

So Monsanto does include the lack of information about grazing on their RR Winter Canola in their contract because the super smart famers who grow their GMOs don't know how dangerous any brassica might be? You guys are blowing this off like it's Farming 101 so why would Monsanto advice against it since clearly only the brightest and best would enter into an agreement with them ??

PP, farmers must have known this at least almost 60 years ago, long before most here were born. As an FFA member in high school, I was able to get a lot of free seeds to trial on the farm. One type was rape and any member with hogs could take some. We were instructed to not allow cattle to forage on it. There wasn't any long reason give for not letting the cows in since merely informing us not to do it was sufficient.

Martin

Monstanto says there is not enough information to prove grazing cattle on RR Winter Canola is safe so it should not be done.
Pro-GMO folks here say that it's common sense-a well known fact that's been around longer than I've been alive.
So Monsanto feels the need to repeat this common knowledge in the contract? Wouldn't their Pro-GMO super smart farmers already know this? Seems the farmers must know more than Monstanto does-as Monstanto seems to think that there isn't enough information to prove it safe.

My point --> Monstanto says don't graze your cattle on their GMO crop.
Pro-GMO folks say that has nothing to do with GMOs --> it's common knowledge.
I say Monstanto isn't repeating common knowledge. Monstanto knows that it's not nitrate poisioning that is the concern --> Monsanto knows that grazing cattle on their toxic fields is not a good idea. Every farmer around since before my time already knows about nitrate toxicity. Monstanto isn't trying to educate them on what is common knowledge. Monsanto is looking to CYB because RR GMO canola is not fit for consumption for man nor beast.