To all those who believe Nature is not Intellectual Property.

To all those who believe Nature is not Intellectual Property.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing has ever really motivated me to get involved with politics before; my motto has always been 'never alert the authorities,' which in light of the NSA scandal looks increasingly like an impossibility, but what are you going to do? My nephew intimated this to me: 'we should all use buzz words such as bomb, terrorist or revolution in every one of our personal correspondents,' that way we can at least make it a little harder for these swine, after all, they can't lock us all up, can they?

Perhaps by now you consider me clownish. I figured I'd go in light-hearted because I'm pretty sure - this is purely an observation based on your facial features rather than anything you may or may not have done politically - that you are not in the business of culling the masses.

Yes, it's that epic. How can we be hyperbolic when the very fabrics of our continued existence are becoming corporate property? And the government which is supposed to check this unscrupulous and unprincipled force are undoubtedly in bed with them? Most notably we see an example of this with the appointing - by good old innocent Obama - of Michael R. Taylor, former Monsanto VP to the position of deputy commissioner for the FDA (Food and Drug administration). In America, over 90% of people have said they wish to see labelling of GMO products; a demand repeatedly rejected by what can't be a government serving the will of the people, but rather a bunch of corporate lackeys working tirelessly to protect corporate interest. It is as clear as day.

I'm looking around for threats, middle-eastern terrorism is way down the list, don't you think? Nano technology is vaguely in the periphery, a ticking time bomb filled with a manmade plague. Nuclear war is an oldie but goody. Here's one from the Ministry of Truth, surely the most persistent and indefatigable person to stand against Nuclear war - a man who has protested peacefully outside the Whitehouse for over 25 years - is said to have been labelled the first US domestic terrorist. 2 + 2 = 5.

But - in my slightly foggy mind - these two horrific developments of technology pale in the wake of the pending hunger games, perhaps because I'm hopeful enough in the theory of mutual assured destruction (is that the term?) and I'm not too great at looking into the future.

Hunger games? Just a YA novel right? Yeah I know, again I'm trying to be friends here in the hope that you will do my bidding, or at least something conducive to it. And now you must be thinking 'for (*)(*)(*)(*) sake get on with it man, I'm busy not culling the masses over here, Jesus Christ what in the name of (*)(*)(*)(*) are you waffling on about?' or rather, that's what your PA or whatever other poor sod who might be reading this is thinking. For inspiring that frustration, I hope you will accept my apologies.

So, after all that required suspense for such a momentous issue, I am writing to express my concerns about David Cameron's comments made recently about GM crops. Why? Well it's just a gut feeling more than anything, since I heard about the complete disregard for human and environmental life, along with every abuse of power and corruption you could think of displayed by chemical giants such as Monsanto I figured it was only a matter of time before Europe followed America down this damned sewage pipe.

So I had a quick look and coincidently there was old Dave suggesting we need to review the issue, ie: climb up Monsanto's ******** like a rat with a tumour.

All independent studies seem to show that GM foods are a massive risk to health; pigs and rats fed on this stuff are experiencing all sorts of problems such as: inhibited growth, stultified organ development, weakened immune system and pre-cancerous cell growth leading to you know what. This is to say nothing about the epicyte gene; patented gene purchased by Monsanto and Du Pont known to cause sterilisation through ingestion. Or the lawsuits filed by Monsanto against farmers who are inadvertently infected by their 'patented' seeds.

This is the gushy bit; we don't bloody want it, not in our country, not on our children's plates. It is an insidious plot devised by some profit driven psychopaths who should be burned as sacrifices to Gods which don't exist. Ok... I don't mean that, but seriously what are they doing? - apart from setting in motion the end of the world as we know it and precipitating an age of totalitarian oppression and serfdom (yes, it's that bloody epic). We must look at ways to stop this impersonal force from reaching its goals, at home, and globally.

I'd implore you to watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUd9rRSLY4A but I know how unfashionable Youtube films are amongst the intellectual elite (bit of sycophancy there for you).

Yours in good faith,
J.Constantine

 

Well it IS in line with the business model of standardizing everything so it's commercially available to everyone everywhere... Monsanto is the latest in a long line to say their way is better. We used to have over a thousand varieties of apples 100 years ago and today we have a dozen or so- the rest went extinct. Where is the "bring back the old apples" campaign?

 

I've got a sense of humour, honest.

But to answer your question, apple choice doesn't matter in the big scheme of things. A limited variety of apples doesn't really stop people from being able to have a healthy diet; a fundamental right which is under attack. At the very least, people should have the choice to know what is on their plate, in America, you don't have that choice. You just get what you're given and hope for the best.

 

I am talking about choice- the one thing that separates us from Communist Russia. It is beneficial to business to limit choice so you can focus on more quantity... been that way since the 50's. I just don't see a conspiracy here.

Re-reading the OP- are you against genetically modified crops because people can patent a plant, or because of unknown consequences with playing dice?

 

For a minute there, I had thought this was going to be about the recent Supreme Court case concerning patents on genes.

 

There's a lot of things which separate you from communist Russia.

But the idea that there is limited choice with regards to food in general is ludicrous, I mean tell that to the Cubans living on beans and rice everyday. I remember watching a Ted Talk about it entitled the paradox of choice, the hypothesis was that greater choice led to more dissatisfaction, a sort of nation of spoilt and depressed teenagers. Barry Schwartz cites the amount of salad dressing available at his local supermarket which was 175.

But that's irrelevant really. This isn't really a conspiracy in a traditional sense, because conspiracies are supposed to be secret, it's more like Newspeak (form of political rhetoric which creates a façade of benevolence concealing a more sinister underbelly). But really, this stuff is done fairly openly.

To answer your question, both. But it's not just unknown consequences but the known implications which we have from independent studies. Every independent study suggests that GMO's are a massive risk to health. Through lab testing on rats and pigs, scientists have found that these animals fed on GM food exhibit stunted growth, organ failure, cancerous cell growth leading to tumours and various other problems.

So if this stuff is potentially dangerous to your health, why doesn't the food and drug administration say so? Well because Monsanto has infiltrated the FDA. The very body which is supposed to check private companies with regards to food safety is represented by the ex Vice president of Monsanto. So both bodies have a vested interest to suppress that information which is becoming increasingly irrefutable.

And why would Monsanto and Du Pont be so intent on purchasing a gene, a patented gene, which effectively kills off sperm when ingested? (the epicyte gene)

And Monsanto have also developed terminator seeds along with all these other patented seeds which do not reproduce. Now imagine if that is commercialised. Monsanto owns 40% of the seed market, and they're growing. If they can buy up all the top seed companies, or coerce them into using the terminator patent then farmers will have no choice but to get their seeds from the company. Imagine the power that entails.

Moreover; Monsanto are already in the business of filing law suits against farmers who are contaminated by patented seeds. To wit, if you're an organic famer whose crops happens to be close to some Monsanto GM crops, and there's a downwind blowing seeds into your crop, you'll be contaminated, and, liable for patent infringement. Monsanto have filed some 140 law suits of this nature already, most of which against farmers who wanted nothing to do with their products.

It boils down to this. If GMO's are dangerous, which studies say they are, then don't the people deserve at least government enforced labelling on products?

That gives you a flavour of it, for a better overview it's useful to watch the Documentary posted, 'Seeds of Death' a crude title I know, but still very informative and convincing.