Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
questionmark

Monsanto GM-corn harvest fails massively

71 posts in this topic

South African farmers suffered millions of dollars in lost income when 82,000 hectares of genetically-manipulated corn (maize) failed to produce hardly any seeds.The plants look lush and healthy from the outside. Monsanto has offered compensation.

Monsanto blames the failure of the three varieties of corn planted on these farms, in three South African provinces,on alleged 'underfertilisation processes in the laboratory". Some 280 of the 1,000 farmers who planted the three varieties of Monsanto corn this year, have reported extensive seedless corn problems.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/270101#ixzz2tha8Y8Jj

Hmmm... brave new world, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The compensation will likely be more of the same going into the future.

From the article:

However Mayet says Monsanto was grossly understating the problem.According to her own information, some farms have suffered up to 80% crop failures. The centre is strongly opposed to GM-food and biologically-manipulated technology in general.

"Monsanto says they just made a mistake in the laboratory, however we say that biotechnology is a failure.You cannot make a 'mistake' with three different varieties of corn.'

Edited by OverSword
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about a free large pizza and two-liter pop for compensation?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Farmers using MONSANTO seeds are obligated by contract to use these seeds only and are not allowed

to use seeds from other suppliers or seeds from the own harvest of a former season. In case of breach of

agreement, fines up to 500K USD can apply.

2nd, if the vitality of seeds were manipulated by lab error, the option is given that seeds can be manipulated

deliberately to non-vitality. With that option the option is given and open to influence foreign harvesting

amounts and so to manipulate the global corn market, for example to the benefit of Stock Exchange Corn Futures.

Test balloon? Very dirty story anyway.

Edited by toast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What nutrition does corn provide, anyways? As far as I can see it's just starch on top of starch..

--

Google tells me it has Iron, vitamin b-6 and magnesium.

...that's it, nutritionally. But yet corn is in everything and it's subsidized by the government. Strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:huh:

Old news, and... "massively"?

Lets see, with genetically engineered maize planted on ~60% area (of total corn), corn production in SA must have been in a deep hole in 2009... Well, in 2009 there was, actually, increase by ~7% (total corn) in comparison with 2008. So much for "massively".

And lets hear what "evil" side has to say:

The average yield reduction was 25% in the fields affected by the pollination variation. It is not 25 % of the total corn planted of the three hybrids and certainly not 25 % of total corn plantings and most definitely not 80% as some blogs and sites are reporting.

[...]

In the end, all complaints were addressed and settled, and Monsanto received positive feedback on how this issue was handled [...]

(link)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that Mexico has banned GMO corn on the back of this. I suppose there is always some silver lining to every disaster.

http://www.trueactiv...ve-immediately/

PS - Go to the horse's mouth for the real story bmk :w00t:

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What nutrition does corn provide, anyways? As far as I can see it's just starch on top of starch..

--

Google tells me it has Iron, vitamin b-6 and magnesium.

...that's it, nutritionally. But yet corn is in everything and it's subsidized by the government. Strange.

starches are hydrocarbons, hydrocarbons are the mainstay of all metabolism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, because non-GM crops have NEVER failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that Mexico has banned GMO corn on the back of this. I suppose there is always some silver lining to every disaster.

http://www.trueactiv...ve-immediately/

PS - Go to the horse's mouth for the real story bmk :w00t:

Br Cornelius

The growing of GM corn, yes. The import, no.

Meanwhile, Brasil has gone all-in on GM foods.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-30/brazil-says-yes-to-genetically-modified-foods-dot-mexico-says-no

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that Mexico has banned GMO corn on the back of this. I suppose there is always some silver lining to every disaster.

http://www.trueactiv...ve-immediately/

PS - Go to the horse's mouth for the real story bmk :w00t:

Br Cornelius

You see it as "victory", don't you? Well, if it will happen (or indeed already happened - too lazy to dig it deeper), I will say: "Welcome back tilting, good morning good old hybrids, or new ones with the same patent issues, same (or worse) pesticide/fertilizer related issues...". Where is a "win", or did I missed something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The primary win is in knocking back Monsanto's plan to dominate and control all Corn seed. The secondary win is in rolling back weakly tested and overall unbeneficial GMO technology.

The current crop of GMO's are all about big business control agriculture, whether there will be any real benefit from GMO's in the future is yet to be seen.

Br Cornelius

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current crop of GMO's are all about big business control agriculture, whether there will be any real benefit from GMO's in the future is yet to be seen.

Br Cornelius

Exactly. And the still underestimated fact is that this control option can be used as a hidden political tool as well.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The primary win is in knocking back Monsanto's plan to dominate and control all Corn seed. The secondary win is in rolling back weakly tested and overall unbeneficial GMO technology.

The current crop of GMO's are all about big business control agriculture, whether there will be any real benefit from GMO's in the future is yet to be seen.

Br Cornelius

Yeah? And what arguments you will put when, for example, DuPont Pioneer will take over seed (hybrids) market?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knowing Monsanto's tactics of prosecuting farmers who have residual GMO on their land - even when they never planted it, almost anything has to be better than their bully boy strategy.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

starches are hydrocarbons, hydrocarbons are the mainstay of all metabolism.

Interesting. Still, I'm not quite sold on it given that we don't seem particularly good at digesting it. Mind you, neither are the cattle that are corn fed. Can someone confirm that corn syrup is now used en mass due to a sugar shortage in the 70's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. Still, I'm not quite sold on it given that we don't seem particularly good at digesting it. Mind you, neither are the cattle that are corn fed. Can someone confirm that corn syrup is now used en mass due to a sugar shortage in the 70's?

Check in the 2 search sections here : http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/crops/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knowing Monsanto's tactics of prosecuting farmers who have residual GMO on their land - even when they never planted it, almost anything has to be better than their bully boy strategy.

Br Cornelius

OK, fair enough.

But lets back to Mexico and corn: why the hell Mexico needs to import 1/3 of corn demands (data for import and production, year 2013), when they have so much (and many) "superior" native varieties? Why cling onto unnatural native varieties (created by human... and, yeah, find those "thousands" of varieties growing in wilderness, I dare you...), when you can't feed yourself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, fair enough.

But lets back to Mexico and corn: why the hell Mexico needs to import 1/3 of corn demands (data for import and production, year 2013), when they have so much (and many) "superior" native varieties? Why cling onto unnatural native varieties (created by human... and, yeah, find those "thousands" of varieties growing in wilderness, I dare you...), when you can't feed yourself?

GMO's have not demonstrated superior yields so the point is mute.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, fair enough.

But lets back to Mexico and corn: why the hell Mexico needs to import 1/3 of corn demands (data for import and production, year 2013), when they have so much (and many) "superior" native varieties? Why cling onto unnatural native varieties (created by human... and, yeah, find those "thousands" of varieties growing in wilderness, I dare you...), when you can't feed yourself?

Can you say NAFTA? They can´t compete with subsidized US imports. It´s about price.

Since NAFTA came into effect on January 1, 1994, U.S. corn exports to Mexico have almost doubled to some 6 million metric tons in 2002. NAFTA eliminated quotas limiting corn imports (Mexico used to only import corn when its farmers’ production fell short of domestic needs) but allowed U.S. subsidy programs to remain in place – promoting dumping of corn into Mexico by U.S. agribusiness at below the cost of production. While U.S. corn exports to Mexico were almost all yellow corn in the mid-1990s, some 20% are now white corn. However, even before the U.S. white corn exports began to increase, the price paid to farmers in Mexico for corn fell by over 70% as huge amounts of U.S. yellow corn were dumped in the Mexican market

http://www.citizen.o...ct.cfm?ID=11330

Edited by jugoso
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GMO's have not demonstrated superior yields so the point is mute.

Br Cornelius

Of course, if you use "credible" sources like naturalnews and similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you say NAFTA? They can´t compete with subsidized US imports. It´s about price.

http://www.citizen.o...ct.cfm?ID=11330

OK, lets see corn import share in domestic consumption before and after 1994:

1964-1973 - 4%

1974-1983 - 19%

1984-1993 - 15%

1994-2003 - 21%

2004-2013 - 28%

Compare numbers, and you will see that NAFTA contributed to corn imports only partially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, if you use "credible" sources like naturalnews and similar.

No - there is credible evidence showing average farm yields comparing the EU to the USA. No significant difference. However there is also credible evidence to show that in the long term organic systems of cultivation are more productive.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, fair enough.

But lets back to Mexico and corn: why the hell Mexico needs to import 1/3 of corn demands (data for import and production, year 2013), when they have so much (and many) "superior" native varieties? Why cling onto unnatural native varieties (created by human... and, yeah, find those "thousands" of varieties growing in wilderness, I dare you...), when you can't feed yourself?

We can (and should) use GMOs, but we need to employ a little more intelligence than we have so far. We may know our plant pretty well and know what it will do when we outplant it, but what we don't know is what those altered genes will do when released into the environment. Plants are whores - they cross-pollinate indiscriminantly. There's a very high risk of genes from BT corn getting into ragweed, for example, making ragweed poisonous to insects. And that means whole fields of ragweed where we used to grow food. Not to mention problems like: who owns the seeds grown from GMO plants? Can Monsanto dictate who can use those seeds and what they can do with them? There has already been a court case (which Monsanto won) that determined that GMO soybeans, bought and paid for by an elevator company, could not be resold and used as seed by a farmer. Monsanto, evidently, doesn't believe in a free market (or capitalism).

How do we use GMO plants without environmental risk? Only use genes already found in a genus to alter that genus. Example: our food tomatoes taste pretty good and are quite productive, but you can't grow them on high-salt fields. Salinization as a result of irrigation has already done in a large part of California's tomato industry. What to do? Take a gene from salt-resistant tomatoes that grow in Central America and introduce it into our commercial varieties. Just one gene. There's not much danger of us being overrun by large, delicious, salt-resistant tomatoes.

Have you ever been to Mesa Verde National Park? Remember Cliff Palace? In the parking lot is a desert apricot tree. Growing out there in arid pinyon-juniper woodland, along with prickly pears and yuccas. It already tolerates drought. How about modifying it to produce larger fruit? And speaking of prickly pears: they're delicious if you have a cast-iron tongue. How about producing a thornless variety?

We can and should use GMOs, but we need to regulate what is created and what isn't. Monsanto et al. have not demonstrated any ability to self-regulate. And that means "we the people" will have to do the job for them.

Doug

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No - there is credible evidence showing average farm yields comparing the EU to the USA. No significant difference. [...]

At what cost, question is. GMO varieties, you have in mind, aren't developed for yield - they are developed for resistance to pesticides/pests (unwanted weed is pest, if you didn't knew). Why do you think farmers choose GMO over "traditional" hybrids/native varieties? It works. Don't say Monsanto (and other biotech companies) go door to door with a shotgun and force every farmer to buy their seeds.

[...] credible evidence to show that in the long term organic systems of cultivation are more productive.

[...]

More productive? And why all farmers wouldn't go "organic"...

Why, do you think, all that intentional breeding "bedlam" started back few hundred years (1700-1800's) ago? Why all those hybrids were developed if old varieties were so "superior"? And why fertilizing with "bad" chemicals started?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.