You are here

After watching Food, Inc. on youtube a video about Monsanto

this is the video about Monsanto... Food, Inc. can easily be found on youtube as well

i would love some input here... please find the time to watch these 2 videos on youtube...

i am scared... the more i learn about corporate greed the more i get upset... GMO's are invading crops and corporations are patenting GMO seeds and forcing farmers to plant them (basically is what i understand)... it is ruining life as we know it :(

please if anyone has more info about this or letting me know that it is pure bs i would love to know... i am really upset about what is going on in our world... i know a lot of you peeps are really well red and researched please give some input!

thank you, amy

It happens ;)b.

And back on topic:
I don't know why I didn't think to check knowmore, but here's the page they have:

By the way, it's a different Hugh Grant.


Yabbitgirl also posted a latin quote once-- I forget the context -- that I think applies here...

Non iligitimi vincit: 'Don't let the bastards win!' 
(Hope I got that right, YG!)

Well, that's what I posted. But I'm not at all sure of my terminations. My Latin is mostly based on herbs and liturgical music  (not together, you understand) so I'm not sure of the declination. It's probably incorrect because I think "vincit" is singular. But until someone comes along and corrects me, it'll do. And it sounds way noble.  8-)


You might also checkout the books "Seeds of Deception" and "Genetic Roulette" by Jeffrey M. Smith and the film "The World According to Monsanto". 

Edit: Oops!

cool i was already thinking about checking out your first suggestion but i will see about genetic roulette as well :)


News article today: 3 Approved (Monsanto) GMOs Linked to Organ Damage -- summary at


(1)  Monsanto's use of patents is a problem of government, not "corporate greed".  "Intellectual property" is a highly irrational construct that isn't based on Natural Rights - only on cronyism, lies, and blunt government force.  (The Complete Liberty Podcast just did an excellent series of episodes dealing with this very issue, in case anyone here is interested.)

(2)  All food is "genetically modified" through mutation, cross-breeding, and man's artificial selection - it's just a matter of degree.  Most of the plants we eat were drastically different just 10,000 years ago from what they are today.  Human beings evolved over millions of years to a very different "natural environment" than the one we live in today - an environment that would doom >90% of the world's current population to famine and extinction, and the survivors would face a miserable existence that is "nasty, brutish, and short".  Humanity was able to surpass all other animals through its ability to hack nature for its benefit, and modern genetic manipulation is just another logical step along the same successful path.

(3)  I agree that genetically modified foods may have some negative trade-offs and risks of side-effects, but they have positive attributes as well, which is the reason why they were created and popularized in the first place, in spite of all the fear-mongering and bad press they have caused.  A way of growing crops more cost-effectively, or in conditions where they were previously a lot more difficult to grow, or making them more resilient to pests or spoilage, etc all translate into better nutrition for billions of poor people for whom those crops were the best of all available alternatives.  People who let "perfect" become the enemy of "good" often end up with "evil" instead (speaking as a pragmatic compromise, not an ideological one), and millions of people may die if government regulations interfere in them being able to buy the best food that they are able to buy!

(4)  I'm a big fan of food labeling, transparency, and consumer activism, and the third can be used very effectively to encourage the former two.  I blame the current "government didn't ban it so it must be good" complacency of the average consumer on the government's inherently-corrupt quality assurance monopoly (ex. the FDA).  Without it people would be a lot more skeptical of every product they buy, and no reputable food manufacturer, distributer, or supermarket would ever be able to put out uncertified or mislabeled products without fearing a massive consumer backlash as the cost of scientific substance analysis continues to decline and access to information continues to improve.  "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow."


I think if they’re interested in (a) behaving ethically, and (b) changing their reputation for behaving otherwise, Monsanto needs to do change both their behavior and their method of response to criticism.

They have (what appears to me) to be a well-documented history of hiding or falsifying data, to lead people to thing stuff is safe that isn’t (agent orange, dioxin, pcb’s, etc.). My hubby’s a journalist, and I’ve read numerous trade journals/ articles about M’s propensity for censorship, even attempting to pressure journalists into saying things that are actively false. They have been basically caught trying to bribe officials, in Canada; they have (according to what I’ve read and seen) actively tried to suppress scientific inquiry into whether certain of their GMO products are safe for consumption. They consistently fail to answer these concerns, except in the format of a press release.

Why not be interviewed by Robert Kenner, for ‘Food Inc.’? Why not explain away the data, in ‘The World According to Monsanto?’ I am not a radical activist; consumers like me have no vested interest in viewing Monsanto or anyone else as the devil, if in fact they aren’t. But I’m also not stupid. There’s some shady stuff in Monsanto’s history, and I need a heck of a lot more than PR from them, if I’m gonna believe that they’re not still as unpleasant a company as ever. They demonstrate a consistent pattern in which safety research is inadequate or suppressed. Then the products cause health &/or environmental problems later (after the profit’s already made, and the ecosystem permanently changed in ways we don’t fully understand, and can’t fix).

I look forward to reading ‘Tomorrow’s Table,’ which advocates a joint use of RESPONSIBLY MANAGED GM crops and organic farming, for maximum yield with minimum impact… I don’t necessarily think it has to be all one way or the other. But the way that GM technology has been handled to date has been, imo, wildly irresponsible… and that’s squarely on Monsanto. I think we’re suckers if we don’t notice and comment on that.... and I DON'T think that this company should be in charge of our food supply.


I think if they’re interested in (a) behaving ethically, and (b) changing their reputation for behaving otherwise, Monsanto needs to do change both their behavior and their method of response to criticism. 

Monsanto is behaving ethically - it is tasked with maximizing its profits for its investors within the confines of the law, which is exactly what it is doing.  It's the law and the inherently-corrupt government system behind it that is the problem.  If Monsanto wasn't doing it, some other corporation(s) would inevitably have taken its place instead.


It's the law and the inherently-corrupt government system behind it that is the problem.  If Monsanto wasn't doing it, some other corporation(s) would inevitably have taken its place instead.

I agree with you, in that we need to take a good long look at how we enabled them to get to this point, and do as much damage as they have; but unfortunately, we are where we are, and Monsanto IS doing the damage (not a hypothetical other corporation). So perhaps the solution (if there is one to be found) is twofold: reform the legal underpinnings that allowed Monsanto to become the devil; AND unseat the devil.


I'm dramatizing a little... but I do have to disagree with your take on M's ethics; I think that unethical  behavior is unethical behavior -- lying, cheating, stealing, & poisoning people/ animals (I'm thinkin' about agent orange, dioxin, etc) is wrong: EVEN if it benefits you financially. Yes, the laws are wrong that let that happen, but that's only part of the equation.

If a rapist escapes prosecution b/c of a badly written law, that's a problem, and should be addressed... but he's still a rapist.



Log in or register to post comments