Shop Products
Houzz Logo Print
bbmiche

List of Seed Companies Owned by Monsanto

bbmiche
10 years ago

If you want to avoid using GMO seeds, here is a list of seed companies owned by Monsanto. It also gives a list of seed companies that are not.

http://planet.infowars.com/uncategorized/seed-companies-owned-by-monsanto

Comments (53)

  • kilngod
    9 years ago

    I was already questioning whether the list would be credible or not. Then I read:

    "JohnnyâÂÂs Seeds, Burpee Seeds, Territorial Seeds and Park Seeds Have Been Removed From This List, They Are Not Owned By Monsanto in Any way; These Companies Do Sell Great Quality Products In Whole." Also the list is also, "or sells small percentages of seed from them."

    Now I doubt their whole list. What, remove names once someone finds an inaccuracy? or proves one is wrong? 1% retail connection and then made to look as "owned by"? Looks like poor research, poor presentation.

    If they include links to the proof, then I'll believe it. Web-equivalent of footnotes.

    ***If any company you like is on the list, research their ownership yourself.***

  • prairiemoon2 z6b MA
    9 years ago

    You're right, kilngod, someone should have researched before they put them on the list. Although, how do you easily find out who owns these companies? If you call and ask, I can imagine you could get the run around. And what online source, would be reliable for that kind of information? It is possible that some companies are not eager to advertise what they own.

  • gardener_mary
    9 years ago

    I don't think that that is a very reliable list. I did a bit of research, I don't believe that Ferry Morse/ Jiffy/ American Seed is owned by Monsanto. So I don't trust the viability of this list.

    Good Gardening, Mary

  • prairiemoon2 z6b MA
    9 years ago

    I don't know that I agree with your position. Why buy from a company that you can't trust? And, just for the sake of argument, why would Monsanto own so many seed companies, what's their reason for buying them all? Wouldn't it appear they are trying to have a monopoly on seeds? And what is going to happen to the seed they are selling? I would wonder that they were going to tamper with them. Why would you support that company giving it your money?

    This company seems to be power hungry and has their own agenda as far as the food supply goes and seems to be lacking in integrity. That is a really bad combination. I think they would like to have nothing but GMO seeds available to buy to everyone, including home gardeners. If you support their companies, you have no idea what they are doing behind the scenes. And with their history of trying to influence legislation, at some point, once they have a monopoly of owning seed companies, then what?

    I think you should support seed companies that you can trust, that are working hard to keep seeds GMO free in the future and who work with people they can trust. I have been buying most of my seed from FEDCO the last few years. They are a Coop and have taken a strong position on this subject.

    Bottom Line to me is why give Monsanto more power? Reduce their power and influence by buying from people who are trustworthy and interested in keeping the food supply unadulterated.

    Look at how they closed down the Seeds of Change organic farm after they bought it. And you are depending on the current legal climate, while Monsanto is using all that money you are putting in their coffers to try to alter the legal climate, so that they will ultimately have control of the food supply.

    Consumers have a lot of power that they are not using to support good companies and stop supporting bad companies. And why would someone who likes gardening and natural living work for a company whose stated goals are completely against your values?

  • mori1
    9 years ago

    prairiemoon2,

    You are so right. I found out that Plantation Products (such a lovely company, NOT) owns American Seed, Ferry Morse, Jiffy, NK and McKenzie. However, after doing this research, I have bought my last Ferry Morse seed packet. I'll stick with the friendly, who actually care online seed companies.

  • tomatoman100
    9 years ago

    Oh dear, I just bought from Tomato Growers! I never would have guessed.

  • theforgottenone1013 (SE MI zone 5b/6a)
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    The title of the list is bogus. The list isn't just what companies are actually owned by Monsanto, but it also includes seed companies that simply sell some Seminis seed. They are trying to sensationalize things through scare tactics, in my opinion.

    For example, RH Shumway, Roots and Rhizomes, McClure and Zimmerman, Totally
    Tomato, and Vermont Bean are owned by JW Jung Seed. Not
    Monsanto. But yet they have been included in the list.

    tomatoman-"Tomato Growers Supply Company is a family-owned small specialty seed company founded in 1984 by Vince and Linda Sapp. Our intention was to be the best source possible for gardeners wanting to grow tomatoes from seed. We later expanded the catalog to include peppers and eggplant since they are in the same plant family as tomatoes. After Vince's passing in 2006, Linda remained as owner with her two children occasionally helping in the business."

    Rodney

  • prairiemoon2 z6b MA
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I'm happy with the companies I am doing business with. I trust them, that they are on the same page as I am about protecting the seed supply from Genetically modified seed. This year, I used FEDCO for my vegetable seeds again. Great prices. It's a coop. On time delivery of my seeds. No shipping on orders over $30. Can't beat that. Plenty of organic seed and NO GMO seed. Their catalog is a wealth of information. They also sell organic supplies that are not always easy to find. I bought them last year and it was so convenient not to have to search all over the place for some of the items.

    This year, I also ordered seed from Johnny's seed. They shipped them the next day and I got them three days from when I ordered them. They also had 50 seed in their sunflower packets. I was happy with that purchase too.

  • edlincoln
    9 years ago

    Silly scare-mongering. They only bother to genetically modify major commercial crops. Monsanto isn't the only company that makes GMO crops...why does everyne get worked up over Monsanto, and no one talks about Syngenta? There has been more proven environmental damage caused by planting invasives, over-use of fertilizers, and habitat destruction then GMOs. A list of companies that sell seeds native to your area, and an area specific list of natives and invasives would be more productive.


  • prairiemoon2 z6b MA
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Ed, thanks for posting. Expressing concern and making people aware of an issue, is not what I consider scare mongering. And I don't feel any need to defend my complete dislike of Monsanto and what they are about. Anyone that is interested in what they are up to, can easily find that information. There's plenty of it.

    Syngenta - This is the first I am hearing about it. Thanks for bringing them to my attention. What can I personally do about it? The same as I do about Monsanto. I can avoid their products, which I do. I haven't bought a non organic commercial fertilizer in 30 years of growing. I haven't bought a herbicide or insecticide. I buy native plants and grow organically. I try to learn how to make a habitat for pollinators.

    We grow our lawn without fertilizer and use clover and leave selective weeds in the lawn. Would never use a lawn service and have explained the problems of them to my neighbor who did and doesn't any more. I buy seeds from organizations I have some reason to trust and who are functioning in a way I appreciate. I share my experiences about organic growing. I point people to natives and to the NEWFS to purchase natives. I've ripped out invasives in my own property.

    I think that is the best way to influence others to try organic growing and get to the point where a company like Syngenta has no market.

  • edlincoln
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I wasn't so much saying you were scare mongering as the article. They used a popular buzzword and didn't bother to do the most superficial fact-checking. And the hyperbole..."Monsanto, maybe the most evil corporation ever". Really? Worse then Phillip-Morris, which in addition to selling tobacco, has been cited for child labor? (And FYI has been working on GMOs) Worse then Urban Outfitters, which has modeled clothing after Nazi Death Camp uniforms and been cited for use of (possibly involuntary) child labor?

    Really, a good rule of thumb is that if an article criticizing GMOs doesn't mention DuPont or Syngenta, they really don't know what they are talking about.

  • prairiemoon2 z6b MA
    9 years ago

    That's okay Ed. No problem. Yes, I understand that people exaggerate, often because they've had an emotional reaction to something that really disturbs them. You're right there are plenty of companies competing for worst company status.

    Still any article or post or thread that criticizes GMO is a good thing to me, because it gets the word out. Hopefully if it is explained well enough others might get a better understanding of the issue.

  • PupillaCharites
    9 years ago

    I disagree that a better understanding of 'an issue' is gotten by simply 'getting the word out' with such low quality, false and misleading information with an agenda behind it described above as fear-mongering. This is just a winter sowing forum where people don't come to receive inaccurate information in order to 'convert' them to some belief system. I respect everyone's beliefs which include not giving them false and misleading info because it is morally my belief.

    The original article is trash (but not the underlying subject), not because I say so, but because it is filled with omissions and inconsistencies as nailed by Ed & Rodney. The concerns people have a very real. This is no different from what was done in the name of religious fervor in the middle ages. I prefer to make my own decisions and not be conned.

    BTW, Scott's is so into bed with reciprocal marketing companies with Monsanto compared to the companies mentioned it is crazy. No more Miracle Grow for anyone then, not even sneaking a quick shot of it! And even though we have different viewpoints, I've never used MG, nor do I plan to! But why artificially restrict my options like that. Better to leave the door open!

  • prairiemoon2 z6b MA
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Pupilla - I just saw this response. Please explain, what it is about a desire not to see genetically modified seeds and plants that you object to? And is it inaccurate to say that Monsanto does produce GMO seeds and that is their main goal?

    You want to make your own decision, I haven't reread the entire thread again, but I certainly have said nothing to attempt to take that choice away from you. I've already made my decision and I did enough research before I did to feel very comfortable with my choice. Besides which my overall choice to garden organically was made over 30 years ago, and open pollinated and non GMO seeds just fits right in with that point of view for me.

    I'm not responsible for what you understand or who is marketing what. I'm responsible for what I understand and what I choose. I've shared my views on the subject and what I have done as a result of that and the names of seed companies that I use that make me feel I am living up to my own convictions.

    Since a winter sowing forum is a place where people use seeds, I think the topic is entirely on point. But, I think I've spent enough time responding to this thread.


  • PupillaCharites
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    prarie, I'll summarize what I found disagreeable (it was your post, quoted below) and hopefully the recap will serve as the explanation you ask for:

    1. Nobody has the right to force anyone to eat anything.

    2. Two posters before you objected to how riddled with false information the linked article that forms the basis of this thread is. I quote your response to them:

    "Yes, I understand that people exaggerate, often because they've had an emotional reaction to something that really disturbs them. You're right there are plenty of companies competing for worst company status.

    Still any article or post or thread that criticizes GMO is a good thing to me, because it gets the word out. Hopefully if it is explained well enough others might get a better understanding of the issue."

    3. I cannot support misleading people for political ends. False is false.

  • prairiemoon2 z6b MA
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago


    Pupilla - I'm sorry to tell you this, but I don't find an explanation in your post at all. As a matter of fact, I don't even find it clear and understandable.

    If you are attempting to correct something that you believe is misleading about someone's post, than do so. If you have some complaint about something in my post, then clearly state what that is. I see you can 'quote' my post, but what is it about what I said that you object to?

    And I thought my above response was very clear about where I personally stand on this issue, do you have some problem with that?


  • PupillaCharites
    9 years ago

    Thanks your thoughts prarie. I am comfortable with my reply, and understand where you are coming from. I am not looking for an argument and wish you well.

  • prairiemoon2 z6b MA
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Pupilla - That's fine. Well wishes to you too.

  • PupillaCharites
    9 years ago

    Thank you prarie. There is so much common ground between us, it can easily become eclipsed by the emotions surrounding this issue. The real unfortunate part of it is that disagreements between well meaning people like us add to the confusion of someone trying to learn more. That is because so much mistrust that has been sown by both sides.

    I just wish the world could be as calm about it as you and I.

    It would be nice to have first-hand experience, accuracy, truthfulness and completeness in anything we read and I am quick to react when something doesn't smell right. We all want this, right? You wrote:

    "Regardless of whether or not only commercial seeds are GMO, a statement by the company that sells seed to home gardeners, that they don't sell GMO seeds, helps eliminate confusion."

    I'm not sure that was the point you mean to say. FWIW, and a big LOL to that, in the spirit of completeness, Monsanto is one of them. And to be honest, I think above all companies, they won't be lying about this! Notice they do not even qualify it with the word "knowingly", they are giving you a guaranty, unlike the other companies. You could take them to the cleaners for such a misrepresentation:

    "FAQ: Are the home garden seeds genetically modified (GM)?

    No. Monsanto does not offer genetically modified vegetable seeds for the home garden market."

  • prairiemoon2 z6b MA
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Pupilla, it doesn't surprise me, that I made such an unclear statement last night, I was up past my bedtime. [g] Not always easy to get what is in your head clearly down on the page. Anyway, let me try again….without going back to reread the thread again…

    Someone above in this thread, mentioned that they were not concerned with whether or not Monsanto was buying up seed companies, because they doubted that Monsanto would ever sell GMO seeds to home gardeners, because of a worry about their patent. That GMO seeds were only sold commercially.

    I'm simply saying that I don't trust Monsanto. Period. They genetically modify seed. I am 1000% against genetically modifying seed. And against it being sold to home gardeners or to commercial farmers. In my opinion, it should not even be legal to do that. As with many things, our government is influenced by lobbyists. Monsanto spends a lot of money lobbying Washington, so -- we have no law against genetically modifying seed.

    So, when your government does not protect you from companies like Monsanto, you are left to do the best you can to protect yourself and to do your measly part to try to protect the availability of unadulterated seed.

    I would like a list of seed companies that Monsanto owns so I can avoid them. I'd also like a list of commercial farmers who are using Monsanto's GMO seed and the products that they end up in so I can avoid those products. If there are other companies that I should be concerned about, I'd like to know that too and respond the same way to their products.

    I agree with you, it is an emotional issue, so sticking to facts and trying to say no less and no more than what you mean is important, just not always easy to do. :-)

    I hope that clarifies what I was trying to say. :-)


  • theforgottenone1013 (SE MI zone 5b/6a)
    9 years ago

    I have to agree with PC's comment from May 10th which says:

    "I disagree that a better understanding of 'an issue' is gotten by simply
    'getting the word out' with such low quality, false and misleading
    information with an agenda behind it described above as fear-mongering."

    Not all information regarding Monsanto and GMO's is good or even close to good. I remember in a Facebook gardening group about a year, maybe a year and a half ago, a conversation came up about GMO's, Monsanto, and Scotts/Miracle-Gro. There was one woman who was so completely misinformed about the subject that she was worried that the Miracle-Gro potting mix she bought was GMO. Yes, you read that right. Maybe it was her fault for misunderstanding something or maybe it was the fault of whatever she read, but the fact is that all the vague (or downright inaccurate), sensationalist, and/or fear mongering information regarding GMO's and Monsanto that is out there is not really helping anything.

    Rodney

  • PupillaCharites
    9 years ago

    prarie, clear as day. Once of the great things about capitalism is that we can vote with our buying patterns. I do not favor a boycott, but rather the other side of the coin. If others want to do this I am sympathetic but have mixed feelings about the effect of that. There are smaller seed companies out there trying to get established just as the seed industry is consolidating. Where you don't trust Monsanto Dupont, Syngenta, Bayer, BASF and Dow, etc. (all are Big ag GMO producers). of the world, it is not an issue of trust for me as much as supporting seed company diversity. Some seed companies try to keep their (conventional) breeding programs going and this is hard because of all the high tech involved in today's breeding.

    Conventional breeding methods that have become so efficient that the little guy doesn't have the resources to keep up is what concerns me most. Unfortunately the home garden market is only a drop in the bucket and if a big-ag company decided to discontinue it there would be varieties that could be lost forever. I have Better Boy and Early Girl tomatoes in my garden, Monsanto varieties, and others in tomatoes really like Big Beef, another one of theirs all for the home garden market. I don't want to loose those tomatoes, but I can see some people that think losing them would be a victory (against what? The loser is the home gardener). I have a hard time with that because the tomatoes are innocent varieties that were developed before GM veggie products were even on the market.

    Back to your point on voting with your dollars. If I were trying to vote with my dollars, I would direct my attention to commercial products such as Roundup and Miracle Gro, or more directly, the Zima grape tomatoes in the supermarket (link), a Monsanto conventional product not available to home gardeners. They are restricted by commercial agreement to the grower who makes it illegal for us to buy the seeds and Monsanto went along with that as a commercial decision. That burns me up, because this tomato is a pretty good one, just like Big Beef and Better Boy are good conventional products for the home garden. I don't want to see this idea catching on that big companies can cherry pick the best varieties, not let us grow them, and the only way we can get them is by paying $5 for a plastic clamshell of them in Walmart as if they were blueberries out of season.

    There is no question I want a conventionally bred product by a smaller company if there is a real choice, because it keeps conventional breeding strong and competitive and goes against the trends of consolidation which large companies represent. But I am not making a blanket statement. What will Florida be without orange juice? As a Floridian, I am concerned that conventional breeding of oranges will not save the Florida orange industry from Citrus Greening disease in time (or at all) and "a day without Florida orange juice for me is like a day without sunshine". None of Big Ag is involved in making Florida Orange Juice GMO, so it is very different. California now has the same disease. Read this National Geographic Article on GMOs and Florida Orange Juice if you have a moment and you can see some of the difficult issues that consumers may vote soon on with their dollars. It is one thing to be mad when a large company deprives me of seeds and has other businesses that are very profitable which can seem not to benefit consumers. :-|

  • asm198 - Zone 6a (MO)
    9 years ago

    Infowars, the site where the article came from, is not at all what I would consider an unbiased source of information. It's a conspiracy theory website and anyone can post articles there. I could write an article stating that the government is doing covert genetic testing on citizens by adding something to the water to make people taller or shorter and people would think it was legitimate, because some random person typed it up and posted it online.

    Articles like that are written for people who think that every nonsense thing they read on the internet is true. They read any random thing, take it as gospel, and think they're informed without considering the source of the information, the bias of the author, or the fact that data can be manipulated to make any theory true.

    I personally have no opinion about Monsanto, except to roll my eyes when people scream about how they are going to control the food supply and kill us all. The people who are against Monsanto aren't doing their cause any favors by spreading misinformation and the few articles I have read about the issue have been written by people who clearly have an agenda that isn't informing the public, but it to rally people to their cause by any means necessary.

    Also, this isn't meant as an attack on anyone here or their opinions. I'm just sharing my take on it.

  • ZachS. z5 Platteville, Colorado
    9 years ago

    What people seem to neglect in the conversation, is there is another side to the issue of genetic engineering.

    First, some things I will agree on: The overuse of herbicides and pesticides in agriculture and the GE of crops to resist the harmful side effects is cause for concern. "Monoculture" is a problem that has far reaching implications outside the farm itself.

    In fact, the whole concept of modern agriculture, from animal raising to crop growing, is plagued with many serious issues. As consumers, we have to bear the brunt of the responsibility for that. While it may not be the case for many people here on Gardenweb, there is generally a huge disconnect between the people and their food. "There are two spiritual dangers in not owning a farm," wrote Aldo Leopold, "One is the danger of supposing that breakfast comes from the grocery..." When we remove ourselves so far from what is actually going on in our food supply, we basically give the large agribusinesses carte blanche to do whatever they want, as long as the shelves are always stocked.

    Now, with that being said, there are benefits to genetic engineering that are often overlooked in the conversation. Without pioneers in the field of biotechnology, we would still be battling diabetes with insulin taken from slaughterhouse animals. The genetic engineering of human insulin was actually the first patent awarded in the field in the 1980's. The recent development of the "Golden Rice Project" has aimed to genetically alter the staple crop to provide vitamin A to people who depend on rice for sustenance and as a result of their diet, often suffer severe deficiencies in the nutrient which can cause blindness and increases infant mortality rates in the developing world.

    In fact, as the worlds population continues to grow, use of GE crops shows significant promise to stabilizing the worlds food supply. Rice (Oryza sp) is the main food crop of 2.5 billion people across the globe, most living in third world countries of Asia and Africa. The crop employs nearly a third of the worlds population. The plant is often grown in flooded paddies, but it can only survive for about 3 days under water. However, flooding in rice growing regions has caused some major problems for rice growers, and those who rely on it as a food source. Approximately 40% of the rice harvest is lost each year to pest and disease issues as a result of the protracted flooding of paddies. Genetic engineering has been able to create a rice that can survive for up to two weeks submerged under water, and may prove to be a lifeline for these people.

    The Hawaiian papaya industry was brought back from the brink of disaster by splicing ringspot virus DNA with that of the plant, a process similar to the inoculation of humans against disease. Of course, papayas are not as important a crop as rice, the fact of the matter is, GE crops are not always 100% bad. People tend to gloss over all the grey, and even white, areas as a way to paint the entire issue as something to be reviled and hated, something to be fought against. The cries against GE crops can be so shrill and misinformed that it leads people to destroy test fields of the golden rice, ruining not only beneficial scientific progress and research, but medicine that children in poor countries desperately need. It's important to realize that, while there are definitely aspects of the issue that are, at best, unsavory, and at worst downright deplorable, there are also those beneficial and worthy parts of the whole as well.

  • prairiemoon2 z6b MA
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago


    Rodney - PC misquoted me, I said people becoming aware of the issue of GMOs was a good thing.

    Pupilla - Not following you. Are these smaller seed companies you are concerned for, owned by Monsanto?

    I can hear that you are torn, but I am not having that problem at all. To me, you can’t go in opposite directions at the same time. Monsanto and the other companies you mention, are basically in the biotech field. I’m actually against biotech entirely. It goes against my core beliefs. It’s not easy to explain it completely, but I’ll give it a try.

    I see the natural world, and I see the effect that humans have had on it, when they assume that they know enough to tamper with it. I see some noble motive given to something, like trying to cure disease attached to the pursuit of biotech methods, but many other motives become more the focus as that pursuit develops. More selfish motives that ignore what is good for mankind or the natural world, in general. Profit over everything, disguised as something else.

    Large companies, consolidating and growing into mammoth organizations, to me, are responsible for a lot of ill effects in the world. I would like to see the world get away from this kind of development. I’d like to see individuals participate more in creating businesses that are all about community and supporting the environment. Multiple smaller, non high tech companies that are manageable by individuals and an asset to their communities.

    I don’t see why gardeners can’t support small companies who are not trying to compete with high tech seed companies. I suspect it is a lack of awareness.

    I am not concerned about losing varieties of seeds as you are. I don’t care if we lose Monsanto varieties. There are so many, many tomato seeds in the world there has to be enough for everyone, that we can do without a couple, if it means gaining something more valuable. You can’t have one without the other at this point. If you can’t have Better Boy and Early Girl, without Monsanto and their biotech efforts, I’ll willingly give up their varieties.

    Have you read the FEDCO company’s catalog? Their small Co-op is struggling with just these kind of decisions. I have tremendous respect for what they are trying to do. Their paper catalog usually has an update each year about what is going on with varieties that they are finding that are non GMO and varieties they are dropping because of an association with GMO seeds. This link gives an explanation of their position on Monsanto and GMO seeds:

    http://www.fedcoseeds.com/seeds/monsanto.htm

    When you say, you would vote with your dollars for products like Roundup and Miracle Gro, and you are angry that a Monsanto product is not available to you, what I hear you saying, is that you are on board as far as seeing the ill effects of inorganic methods of gardening, but you’re not really against genetically modified seeds. GMOs don’t seem to concern you. Is that right?

    You seem to still want to believe that GMO seed may not be such a bad thing. You see diseases developing, like the Citrus Greening disease, and you think, well…maybe GMO and Monsanto will rescue us from these. Is that your point of view?

    I’m not an expert on Monsanto. I don’t know what you consider a ‘good source’ of accurate information about Monsanto, but I’ve quickly turned to Wikipedia for some.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto

    If any of that information is inaccurate, maybe someone on this thread can point out what it is.

    I haven’t got the time to do an ‘expose’ on Monsanto. I don’t even have the time to read the above entire article on Monsanto, but a quick scan of the section on ‘Controversies’, shows that all over the world, people are fighting against Monsanto because of the ill effect that their association with the company has had.

    How about the film it links to, called ‘Bitter Seeds’ which is a documentary about… “the impact of genetically modified cotton on India’s farmers and the suicide rate of over a quarter million Bt Cotton farmers each year due to financial stress resulting from massive crop failure and the price of Monsanto’s Bt seeds”?

    Here is a link to an article about it on the Huffington Post…

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leslie-hassler/bitter-seeds-documentary_b_2155970.html

    I read the Wiki synopsis of the film and it reports that India’s farmers dispute claims that Monsanto’s crops require less pesticide or produce higher yields. So there is the ‘promise’ of better seed, better crops, and then the actual result of crop failures and Monsanto’s PR department trying to claim they are a success. It sounds more like an environmental disaster in India to me, if this information is accurate.

    In India, it goes on to say, there is now a biotech seed monopoly and Bt cotton seed has become the standard and organic seed has become unobtainable. If this is true, how did that happen?

    So, is that true or isn’t it? And is that the only such story about the effects of Monsanto and their seeds and the biotech seed field? Anyone have any information about that?

    I have to stop here, I haven’t even been able to read the comments made after Pupilla’s. I will try to get back here and finish reading everyone’s later.


  • prairiemoon2 z6b MA
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    ASM198 - Since the ‘Infowars’ site is unreliable, I went looking for reliable sources and tried to think what I consider reliable. Two publications that came to mind are the Christian Science Monitor and Mother Earth News, a magazine that has been in business for 35 years. And I'm not sure about Ecowatch, but supposedly that is a reliable website with news about the environment…

    Here are some articles that should be reliable...

    From Mother Earth News - 35 years in business

    Where to Buy Non-GMO Seeds 2015

    http://www.motherearthnews.com/organic-gardening/where-to-buy-non-gmo-seeds-zm0z15fmzsor.aspx

    Resources for Taking Action on GMO Foods 2014

    http://www.motherearthnews.com/real-food/gmo-foods-resources-ze0z1409zcwil.aspx

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Zach - you are right, there is always two sides to an issue, but consider the fact that Monsanto has a fortune to spend on convincing the public to see things from their point of view.

    See this article ……

    Christian Science Monitor

    Monsanto mounts an aggressive GMO PR campaign 2015

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Bite/2015/0318/Monsanto-mounts-an-aggressive-GMO-PR-campaign

    And here is another article, from Reuters….

    RPT-Food giants pour millions into defeating Washington GMO label measure

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/30/usa-politics-gmo-idUSL1N0IJ2G820131030

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I agree that we are all too far removed from the reality of what is going on with our food supply, but I also believe that most people expect the government agencies to be protecting us from risks and dangers to the food supply, which would include GMO seeds and foods. Are they protecting us?

    Try this article….

    From EcoWatch

    Five Ways the FDA Has Failed Consumers on Genetically Engineered Foods 2013

    http://ecowatch.com/2013/03/07/fda-genetically-engineered-foods/

    And this article is from Reuters ---

    USDA will not take action in case of GMO alfalfa contamination

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/17/usa-alfalfa-gmo-idUSL2N0HD1SQ20130917

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    You suggest GMO Crops show promise…how about a track record of crop failures and disasters? How about law suits against GMO because of damage done? What about the risks of GMO seeds and plants? Who is considering that?

  • ZachS. z5 Platteville, Colorado
    9 years ago

    Crop failures and disasters have been a reality since the dawn of agriculture. For instance, the Irish potato famine (which actually effected almost the entire continent of Europe) and the more recent (1970s) famine caused by almost total annihilation of the wheat crop in the USSR. To blame it all on GE crops is not an accurate portrayal of reality.


    That being said, I will admit that GE crops are faaaaaaaar from impervious to these same kinds of disasters. But, to be honest, that is an effect more of the monolithic style of farming that has been the standard in this country since the end of the Second World War rather than a direct result of growing genetically engineered plants.


    In the end, I think it is rather ridiculous to toss the entire biotech industry based on the fact that bad things have happened. There have been remarkable and beneficial gains made through their scientific research. Trouncing the entire field because we don't like some parts of it is effectively throwing the baby out with the bath water.


    As for the people who rely on the government and regulatory agencies to protect them, I'd say that putting all your faith in the government for ANYTHING is living in a fools paradise. Similar to our situation with the food supply, dependence on the government is only a service to the government, never the governed.

  • PupillaCharites
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi prarie,

    Thanks for the reply and summarizing your GMO fears and beliefs, and how that contributes to your actions. You made two comments about me that I feel are not accurate. One of them I am confused by, and in the other one you say, I'll address first, starting with your quotes which relate to similar questions about me and my issues:

    " Are these smaller seed companies you are concerned for, owned by Monsanto? I can hear that you are torn, but I am not having that problem at all. To me, you can’t go in opposite directions at the same time. Monsanto and the other companies you mention, are basically in the biotech field. I’m actually against biotech entirely. It goes against my core beliefs. It’s not easy to explain it completely, but I’ll give it a try....

    ...You seem to still want to believe that GMO seed may not be such a bad thing. You see diseases developing, like the Citrus Greening disease, and you think, well…maybe GMO and Monsanto will rescue us from these. Is that your point of view? "

    No. The smaller seed companies I was referring to are generally independent operators and do not have the resources of Big Ag behind them. That's why I'm concerned about them. It is like watching supermarkets (Big Ag) swallow up the local produce markets (Kramer's Corner Peach Shop), and then either take control over and frequently discontinue products I like.

    I don't consider myself "torn" as you've interpreted from my writing. You detail your beliefs, and I respect everyone's beliefs , especially yours, whether your beliefs are religiously-based, socially-based, or logically-based. I do not think my emotions or anything I believe or present as testimonials makes any difference to others. If you need to label me, which I feel is unfair and would not do to you, please put me in the category of "independent thinker" and "undecided" on the whole GMO mess. I do not conform to a world of "believers" and "infidels" used by both sides which are quick to exclude any middle ground.

    Citrus Browning disease to me is not a philosophical worry, it is an economic, cultural, and very real problem today that may force me to make a decision on a particular instance of a particular GMO. There is a present and significant danger that the $10 billion citrus industry in Florida will be destroyed and the best solution so far is a GMO project going on. Monsanto is not invoved which is refreshing. It is sort of intended as an "open source", freely distributed GMO introduction going on in Florida right now. The release will only happen if it passes the regulatory hurdles and more importantly works. Loss of the citrus industry will be catastrophic and change Florida. I always support local agriculture! And I prefer US grown produce always. The Citrus Browning is global, so if GMO is the only workable solution, not adopting it in Florida (after our Citrus growers sponsor it) will just mean other growing areas will pick up the slack, probably Brasil, and they likely will need to implement the GMO citrus and just take out produce just as Mexico did with strawberries and tomatoes already.

    So, no, I do not envision Monsanto doing anything about it or "rescuing us" as you put it. As for the GMO involved, yes, it is the leading potential solution and everyone will probably have equal and free access to it, including every other country around the world growing Citrus.

    Similarly, Monsanto has the rights to Better Boy, one of my regular tomatoes. It is not my fault that they bought it. It is a free country and they can do that. I will not throw my favorite large red hybrid tomato, developed before 1970, under the bus just because Monsanto bought it. I do not think Better Boy or the entire home garden seed market makes any difference to Monsanto. It is my assumption that they are losing money on home garden seeds since production has to cost them more than their tiny sales, and they just keep it going so no one accuses them of discontinuing popular American tomato varieties. If Monsanto buys the mortgage to a house you live in one day, I wouldn't hold it against you and I would still respect any of my friends, because I like my friends and I don't have to like who owns the house they sleep and breed in :-). I will not martyr my favorite varieties as you might. Boycotting Better Boy by others, as an example, hurts me, not Monsanto. They could care less about it. I use $0.50 worth of seeds each year from it. Lowes gets $0.25 of it. Burpee gets $0.10 of it, marginalized Asian Indian farmers producing it get $0.05 of it (I'd rather buy US seed, but cheap hybrid seed is usually produced there which at least helps very needy and hardworking people), Florida gets $0.03 if I paid sales tax on retail seeds (can't remember) UPS gets $0.01 of it. After the material costs, Monsanto get about $0.02 per year from me and it probably costs them $0.03. If they discontinue their variety they know me and thousands of others will kick their butt. LOL! I keep my variety! I also have many other heirloom tomatoes which I enjoy too, and I am happy with the current GMO-free assortment of interesting heirlooms and faithful hybrids I get dependable results growing and are delicious.

    The other thing you said *about* being misquoted is *false*, quoting what you say now:

    "PC misquoted me, I said people becoming aware of the issue of GMOs was a good thing."

    I take umbrage to that comment. I did not misquote you. I put your complete, and in context quote in your original words above my reply. I am not here to play games with words or be tripped up or trip anyone up. That is hurtful to all. This is what you originally said and what I quoted verbatim:

    "Yes, I understand that people exaggerate, often because they've had an emotional reaction to something that really disturbs them. You're right there are plenty of companies competing for worst company status.

    Still any article or post or thread that criticizes GMO is a good thing to me, because it gets the word out. Hopefully if it is explained well enough others might get a better understanding of the issue."

    If you would like to clarify or interpret differently what you said (specifically the bolded part), that is fine and your right and no shame in that, I do it all the time and I do change opinions all the time too. You suggested that you respected this by saying afterwards:

    "I agree with you, it is an emotional issue, so sticking to facts and trying to say no less and no more than what you mean is important, just not always easy to do. :-)"

    But please own your words, since those original words I found objectional, and I respect you for what you say, and would feel foolish to participate in a conversation where at the end I am told I misquoted someone when I did not and would not, and if it happened by accident I would instantly correct and apologize, because I will own my mistake. I support first-hand experience, accuracy, truthfulness and completeness when evaluating any product. Those are the only tools I find useful as an independent thinker in the undecided category. Being undecided means I have issues with both sides. I am not "torn", because that is creating a false dichotomy as if I must only bow to Anti-Monsanto preachers or Monsanto marketers. I choose to evaluate products on a case by case basis rather than be preached to by articles (such as the info one that started this thread) or lobbies (such as those sponsored by lawyers on both sides, or lobbies). I vote with my pennies, just as you do with yours.

    PS. I purchase more seed from FEDCO, than Monsanto (Better Boy, Early Girl). I don't read their marketing politics or missions because all that is important to me is a product I am comfortable growing. Thanks for the rest of the links. I'm going through them all :-)

    PC

  • prairiemoon2 z6b MA
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Pupilla - I’m surprised, that you have taken offense at my last post.

    Especially, that you take offense that I said you misquoted me. I had already said the same thing in an earlier post, but did not use the word, ‘misquoted’ and you had no problem with that.

    Here is my original statement:

    "Still any article or post or thread that criticizes GMO is a good thing to me, because it gets the word out. Hopefully IF it is explained well enough others might get a better understanding of the issue."

    And here is where I corrected what you said the first time….

    “You disagreed that I said …"a better understanding of an issue was gotten, simply by 'getting the word out'", which was not what I said.

    [And you did not directly quote me before disagreeing with what I said in that instance.]

    To clarify - I believe there are still many people who are unaware of GMOs and what they are, so whenever that subject comes up, it makes people at least aware of it. I believe if it interests them enough, they will look into it further, themselves.”

    As tedious as it is, I would like to get this right. Can we distinguish between, what you said --- that I originally said that ‘getting the word out’ produced a better understanding. -- and what I said, which was that ‘getting the word out’ produces an ‘awareness’ of GMOs as an issue. An awareness, not a better understanding. And that has not changed since the first time I posted it.

    And I’ve further offended you, by suggesting that what I understood you to say was that you were torn about GMOs. Is there actually a big difference between someone being torn and being undecided? If there is, it is a very thin line, despite your long explanation of why they are not the same thing.

    And please note, I have used the words ‘you seem to have’, and please note how many times I use that phrase when responding to someone whose words on a page I am trying to understand. Please see, where I have added the question, ‘is that right?’ and “Is that your point of view?” in an attempt to give you the opportunity to confirm or deny my interpretation of what you’ve said. So why was that not good enough for you? There was no need to be offended, my addition of those key phrases might have indicated to you my intention to not offend you and that my mind was still open to further explanation.

    Your interpretation of another comment is again, not quite accurate. Here is a quote of what I said --

    “You seem to still want to believe that GMO seed may not be such a bad thing. You see diseases developing, like the Citrus Greening disease, and you think, well…maybe GMO and Monsanto will rescue us from these. Is that your point of view?”

    And here is what you said in response --

    “So, no, I do not envision Monsanto doing anything about it or "rescuing us" as you put it. As for the GMO involved, yes, it is the leading potential solution and everyone will probably have equal and free access to it, including every other country around the world growing Citrus.”

    You are splitting hairs. No you don’t see Monsanto ‘rescuing us’ but yet, you are hoping that the GMO potential solution will. I said --

    GMO AND Monsanto.

    You’ve said twice you consider yourself an independent thinker. Do you see yourself as ‘above the fray’? You evidently see no need to choose a side, but in making no choice you actually do make a choice. To choose to evaluate ‘each product on a case by case basis’ -- If I understand you to mean that if a product is GMO based, you will evaluate it at that point? -- if that is correct, than what you are saying is that you do choose GMO.

    You accused me of ‘labeling you’. You’ll have to show me where I have labeled you. Yet you don’t consider this statement a label? --

    “…if I must only bow to Anti-Monsanto preachers or Monsanto marketers.”

    That is an example of what I understand a ‘label’ to mean. And since I am ‘anti-Monsanto’ I see no other way to interpret that, except that you consider me and anyone against what Monsanto does to be an ‘anti-Monsanto preacher’. Are you not against any of the things that Monsanto has done and is doing?

    and adding ‘if I must only bow…’ to your statement, you have increased the negativity of what you said.

    Yes, I do have fears about producing GMO seed and tampering with something that the entire life of the planet depends on. As should every living person on the earth. And if it is a fact, that due to the way in which Monsanto was allowed to introduce GMO cotton seed in India, that there is now no non GMO seed available there, then how do we unring that bell?

    I've made an attempt to at least present some links to what should be reliable sources of information. Certainly enough to raise concern for anyone willing to consider it and have a starting point to better understand it.

    Zach - I haven’t forgotten your post. I’ll be back to respond to it when I can.


  • PupillaCharites
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi prarie,

    I do own my words and own my entire prior post, and your reply re-enforces that we are very far from each others' interpretation of events around us. I have not responded to each point you've made because my posts would become much too long. For that reason I did not respond to your comments that were not relevant to the points, and that should not be assumed to be agreement, but only my way of prioritizing what was important (from my POV).

    However there is one point I can beef up. It is my use of the words bow and marketers in your objection and your conjecture that I am labeling you in your words:

    [[[You accused me of ‘labeling you’. You’ll have to show me where I have labeled you.

    Yet you don’t consider this statement a label? --

    “…if I must only bow to Anti-Monsanto preachers or Monsanto marketers.”

    That is an example of what I understand a ‘label’ to mean. And since I am ‘anti-Monsanto’ I see no other way to interpret that, except that you consider me and anyone against what Monsanto does to be an ‘anti-Monsanto preacher’.]]]

    A marketer and a preacher are two even handed words in my vocabulary. I do not consider it more honorable or more negative to be either. If they word "bow" creates linguistically more negative emphasis on preaching, which may be true, I should replace it with words that do not. Rather than bow, I will use the word "succumb".

    As to me labeling you, no, absolutely not. My main objection to the combination of "GMO AND Monsanto" debate as you have presented is two-fold. First, you have fused two subjects together based on the fact that one uses the technology. One is a technology and one is a company and equating them continuiously stymies critical thinking by fusing them together. This logical flaw is similar to "Denying a Conjunct" (wiki link where it is defined).

    The big picture, this is just more of the False Dichotomy fallacy I discuss in my post which activists on both extremes seek to bully anyone chosing not to align themselves with the extremes. When you infer (incorrectly) I could be labeling you, you miss the foundation of my point, which is that anti-Monsanto preachers and Monsanto marketers are a false dichotomy (a.k.a., an exclusion of the middle) and my context is that I will not succumb to either rhetorical extreme (faith-based or money-based). The observation that you think I was referring to you or labeling you, is incorrect, and I would counter that you clearly are labeling yourself. Because my clear meaning was to say I do not fit in those categories that others are trying to force upon me.

    There is only room for one other comment before this post becomes to long for me. I will address your issue about the reputed 250,000 suicides per year in India which you have taken on faith to be true, and not critically taken the time to fact-check. You have used it a a major component of two posts. The first time I let it slide because you said you hadn't time to read as much as you would like and were unsure about the accuracy of the sources. But in this reply you conclude in your post again referencing India with another false dilemma sometimes called The Appeal to Fear in a conclusion that is built on multiple conjectures that you have, and has also been called fear-mongering by others (but not my description of choice since I prefer to call it a logical fallacy). Yours is a textbook statement of the fallacious logical argument of appeal to fear / argument from adverse consequences.

    "Yes, I do have fears about producing GMO seed and tampering with something that the entire life of the planet depends on. As should every living person on the earth. And if it is a fact, that due to the way in which Monsanto was allowed to introduce GMO cotton seed in India, that there is now no non GMO seed available there, then how do we unring that bell?

    I've made an attempt to at least present some links to what should be reliable sources of information. Certainly enough to raise concern for anyone willing to consider it and have a starting point to better understand it."

    Please research the 250,000 suicides issue you referenced in the earlier post. You will find it is considered baloney by reliable fact-checkers that published a peer reviewed study which concluded the the rate of suicide has no correlation with the cited GMOs in India. Here is the reference from the British publication Nature. Nature has a non-aligned editorial board and attempts to be on the cutting edge of gold-standard research in the public's interest. For example they were where the pioneering 1973 peer-reviewed paper of CFCs causing the breakdown of ozone was published (link). It is also false to say non-GM cotton is not available in India. It is available, however the poorest starving workers currently earn more using the GM cotton, which to them means more money for nutrition, health and the other necessities their earnings buy. The facts that it benefits them do not prove a point and are not intended to prove anything about Monsanto's commercial practices or the safety of GMOs. They are intended only to understand why farmers in India use Bt cotton. The movie "Bitter Seed" is simply a movie. It is not a reliable reference as it was debunked by the peer-reviewed study in the Nature link. Really, using B/Hollywood or wherever it was made a "reliable" source of information scares me about your concept of reliability. Also, government regulators are not reliable either!

  • prairiemoon2 z6b MA
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Pupilla - I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and consider your posts here as well intentioned. I spent over 2 hours composing a post this morning, which amounted to defending what I meant by what I said and after two hours of that, had no time left to actually discuss GMOs.

    Now I see that two hours was not even enough to satisfy you and that you have more about what I’ve had to say, to criticize and pick apart. And more detailed explanations about what you meant and what you think. And this is actually your version of limiting the scope of your discussion to only what was relative?

    I don’t find this constructive at all, so I’m sorry but I’m going to end here.

    Good luck, Pupilla. :-)


  • PupillaCharites
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi prarie,

    My participation in this thread stems from the desire to see first-hand experience, accuracy, truthfulness and completeness in evaluating any product. That is difficult to do when my friends are talking about, and I quote you describing a "documentary":

    "How about the film it links to, called ‘Bitter Seeds’ which is a documentary about… “the impact of genetically modified cotton on India’s farmers and the suicide rate of over a quarter million Bt Cotton farmers each year due to financial stress resulting from massive crop failure and the price of Monsanto’s Bt seeds”? ... (link to huff post article and Bitter Seeds article)

    ... So, is that true or isn’t it? And is that the only such story about the effects of Monsanto and their seeds and the biotech seed field? Anyone have any information about that?"

    Initially, I did not respond to this because although you framed it in an appeal to dire consequences, you carefully put a disclaimer transferring the burden of fact-checking to others. After nobody else volunteered you used information about the India topic which you presented as an obligation of every living person with another if:

    "Yes, I do have fears about producing GMO seed and tampering with something that the entire life of the planet depends on. As should every living person on the earth. And if it is a fact, that due to the way in which Monsanto was allowed to introduce GMO cotton seed in India, that there is now no non GMO seed available there, then how do we unring that bell?

    I've made an attempt to at least present some links to what should be reliable sources of information. Certainly enough to raise concern for anyone willing to consider it and have a starting point to better understand it."

    This illustrates the cycle of misinformation undecided folks face. A movie (or someone else) comes up with some terrible conspiracy theory sort of plot. It then gets called a documentary. The movie, etc., claimes a quarter of a million people have killed themselves because of GMOs. The most cited scientific journal on the planet takes the space to publish peer review a 270,000 figure and debunks it as a myth which is false and shows absolutely no correlation. It doesn't matter to activists that it has been debunked, and the falsehood is repeated, for whatever reason, by people who wish to gain public attention. It even shows up innocently on GW here, except misquoting the quarter of a million figure total as a quarter of a million people per year :-( You are not pleased with me for "picking apart", even though you request fact checking on your link.

    I hope to be able to continue having options to grow all conventionally bred varieties, including Better Boy tomatoes, therefore I will have no part of any boycott of wholesome, certifiably organic vegetable varieties smearing them so that they eventually might become discontinued and lost forever to those of us who like to grow them.

    I feel all comments among us should be assumed to be in good faith without having to win favor in "the benefit of the doubt", as this shouldn't be a political forum. I assumed good faith on your part and I accept you have a differing point of view, and I would not introduce the possibility of ulterior motive on your part for that! We are in the same boat, since it took me at least as much time as you to compose my replies for you or may I dare say maybe longer :-(, and your replies were not a walk through the park to read and I did visit and read every link you offered.

    Good luck, too, and thanks again!

  • prairiemoon2 z6b MA
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago


    Pupilla - From my point of view, in any conversation with another person, you have to ‘win their favor’ enough to interest them in continuing a conversation with you. [g] With all the healthy social skills you can muster.

    Instead of discussing, either GMO seeds, or Monsanto, or other corporations that are producing GMO seeds, or the availability of non GMO seeds and how to preserve that, you’ve turned the discussion into an analysis of words and meanings of words, and what I meant when I said what and in what ways my end of the conversation fits in with your ideas of debate theories and techniques.

    You repeat your reasons for participating in the conversation like a campaign slogan but in the face of the way you participate, it rings a little hollow to me.

    I’ve made a few points that represent my own point of view and you skip right over them in favor of suffocating the conversation with more of your own opinions and explanations and analysis.

    I’ve asked you a few questions which you have ignored.

    ~ GMOs don’t seem to concern you is that right?

    ~ Do I understand you to mean that if a product is GMO based, you will evaluate it at that point? In other words, you want GMO seeds and plants to go forward and evaluate it after the fact?

    ~ Are you not against any of the things that Monsanto has done or is doing?

    I provided eight links and you ignored seven.

    So, because of all these conversational choices you’ve made, from my end, it feels more like a monologue instead of a conversation. You seem to feel that what you have to say is much more important than anything I have to say.

    So why would I want to continue this conversation?

    If you have some opinion on GMO seeds, on Monsanto, or other companies producing GMO seeds, or the preservation of non GMO seeds, which are the topic of this thread, then perhaps you might share that in concise and direct language and leave out the rest.


  • PupillaCharites
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Pupilla - From my point of view, in any conversation with another person, you have to ‘win their favor’ enough to interest them in continuing a conversation with you. [g] With all the healthy social skills you can muster.

    Only if you are trying to convince them of something. You already said it is an emotional issue for you and you think it is 1000% wrong. It is your right to have that belief, whether religiously-based, socially-based, scientifically-based, statistically-based, etc. The context of my comment was that in exiting the conversation you told me you were going to give me the benefit of the doubt about my intentions. I simply replied that I do not, would not and have not called attention to your intentions because they were never part of this discussion. I expect the same good faith from you.

    Instead of discussing, either GMO seeds, or Monsanto, or other corporations that are producing GMO seeds, or the availability of non GMO seeds and how to preserve that, you’ve turned the discussion into an analysis of words and meanings of words, and what I meant when I said what and in what ways my end of the conversation fits in with your ideas of debate theories and techniques.

    Here is the original post which drew my attention and the topic I was staying on as much as possible:

    "If you want to avoid using GMO seeds, here is a list of seed companies owned by Monsanto. It also gives a list of seed companies that are not.(link)"

    Home gardeners can not purchase GMO seeds. That's about it. Any talk of avoiding the seeds for purchase is circular logic intended to manipulate people by bullying them and using fear as a weapon.

    Others have posted that the link is on some random site that makes no effort to insure quality information and that anyone can post anything they want, no matter how misleading, inaccurate or incomplete it is.

    You repeat your reasons for participating in the conversation like a campaign slogan but in the face of the way you participate, it rings a little hollow to me.

    Sorry. I am not here for an in depth debate on GMOs since the premise of the thread is how to avoid GMO seeds. To do that you just can buy any home garden seed you want.

    You are free to say whatever you want and I don't complain or label what you say as a "campaign slogan" or "hollow" which is not respectful. I just call you out for using fallacious logic or repeating long debunked claims you choose to provide links for about millions of people dying which have been debunked. If you repeat the same flaws, I will respond by repeating myself, too. I don't see much else other than getting frustrated.

    I’ve made a few points that represent my own point of view and you skip right over them in favor of suffocating the conversation with more of your own opinions and explanations and analysis.

    Let me get this straight. We are off-topic of avoiding GMO seeds (since all home garden seeds are GMO-free, even those from big bad Monsanto).

    Now we meander into the never-ending GMO debate when and you give me about 7 points with links they you don't have time to review for quality, which have nothing to do with the boycott I objected to. You pepper your posts saying *if this and that are true*, and then you expect me to clean up that mess by answering them all? That is disrespectful. You should not assume I must do all the grunt work for an argument if I start and find no credibility nor effort to fact check on your part. I can't be the guy you throw a million things at hoping one will stick. To learn from a debate my partner needs to provide quality information. I don't want to win, I want to learn from you.

    I’ve asked you a few questions which you have ignored.

    No, I've read everything including all links. I have selected one or two only at a time to respond to and even with those I have written at least as many, but I think plenty more words than you. Please be respectful of my time. I have not appealed to you even to acknowledge that you told me millions of people are dying due to GMOs in India. Saying such a tragic thing is like Chicken Little saying the Sky is Falling, as if it were on equal grounds with the gravity of the rest of this.

    ~ GMOs don’t seem to concern you is that right?

    I have already answered this at least twice. Once that I buy only conventionally bred seeds, and prefer only conventionally bred vegetables and fruits and GMOs concern me but this is a case by case problem. Then I illustrated it by showing you that the Florida Citrus Greening disease is here right here and now. It is a disease where I will be forced to make a decision if the GM technology is the solution that will save the $10 billion Florida Citrus industry. I gave you a link to what I thought an realistic assessment on it from National Geographic, too where some concerns are mentioned.

    ~ Do I understand you to mean that if a product is GMO based, you will evaluate it at that point? In other words, you want GMO seeds and plants to go forward and evaluate it after the fact?

    How did we get to this point? What does my belief have to do with it? Why are you insisting to know my religious beliefs, which is what I consider this? I am not an evangelist, simply a critical thinker who keeps their faith to themselves and encourages others to respect the belief of all ... just not to manipulate others with the sort of false, misleading & manipulative, and incomplete information which activists on both artificially created poles routinely are doing.

    ~ Are you not against any of the things that Monsanto has done or is doing?

    Again, thread was how to avoid planting GMO seeds. Again, Nobody, including Monsanto, will sell them to the Home Gardener. Again, You can buy from any company you want and you will never get any GMO seeds from Monsanto or anyone else.

    Again, we have much common ground about our misgivings of Big Ag, and how the 7 big aggies are gobbling everything up and the smaller companies have difficulties keeping up and having the R&D funding to compete with the new breeding technologies besides GM, and how I support the little guys with a large portion of my seed purchases. Again, I am worried that the consolidation will cause the loss of many varieties, and I think the original post calling for a boycott will only accelerate that since the home garden market is negligible. Again, I gave you alternate suggestions of how to hit Monsanto's bottom line so much harder, that included not purchasing Round-Up, not purchasing Miracle Gro products, and not purchasing the commercial Zima tomato product, which I thought would make you happy since it is conventional Monsanto seeds and the growers conned Monsanto into giving them an exclusive, which prevents all home gardeners from getting this conventional seed, even though it is super delish and was developed conventional before Monsanto bought them out.

    These three suggestions will hit Monsanto's bottom line perhaps 1000X more effectively than some boycott of seeds such as Big Boy, Better Boy, Early Girl, Big Beef, etc., all conventional hybrids that are excellent tomatoes and are delicious, GMO-free, conventional good tasting tomatoes that are home garden seeds, which get discontinued all the time when consumer demand drops leaving those of us who like the varieties crying that Big Ag stopped producing them because there wasn't enough demand. And I don't think Monsanto will own these forever, the way they go, not very long at all since it is such an insignificant business to them. So hopefully the home garden varieties can hang on until they find a nicer home.

    I provided eight links and you ignored seven.

    I addressed this in this post already. I have answered your post this time by copying the body of it and putting yours in italics in its entirety so I would not miss anyting and responded to each and every point. I know you won't like all my replies but I don't want you to think I am ignoring anything. Now look how long the post got, but no matter, you have honest reply to at least everything here.

    So, because of all these conversational choices you’ve made, from my end, it feels more like a monologue instead of a conversation. You seem to feel that what you have to say is much more important than anything I have to say.

    This is just disrespectful. It does not refer to anything specific and is just disrespectful. I am answering everything I possibly can and just look at all the time we have BOTH spent. You said it is an emotional issue and I respect that, but it doesn't give anyone the right to say hurtful things like not thinking what you say is important after coming this far. We just have different ways of looking at this and won't change each other.

    So why would I want to continue this conversation?

    OK, I don't know what to think about this comment other than feeling you are a bully because you say I don't listen to you but you want to force a dichotomy on me again, either answer how you want or you are not interested. I do not respond to bullying, by you, by Big-Ag, nor by Anti-Big-Ag. I will continue to grow my varieties no matter who makes them since any home garden variety I can buy is GMO-free so it is a no-brainer since I like the variety I should stick up for it because tomato seeds don't have a voice in this mess and they will be lost forever, and anyone boycotting home garden seeds that Monsanto bought will only contribute to the loss of these varieties since Monsanto is only a friend of its shareholders and with the stroke of a pen will stop producting these varieties and make them lost forever.

    If you have some opinion on GMO seeds, on Monsanto, or other companies producing GMO seeds, or the preservation of non GMO seeds, which are the topic of this thread, then perhaps you might share that in concise and direct language and leave out the rest.

    OK :-) Thank you for telling me the rules. I only insist on using good references and doing a little fact checking. I did the best I could in responding line by line and I hope even if we cannot agree on viewpoints, we can amicably tolerate each other's.

  • edlincoln
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Is there any way to stop getting notifications of this topic? It is way too long, and was built upon a post that is riddled with misinformation, so it requires far more fact checking then I have time for right now.

    Oh, for the record, The New York Times, Science, Nature, and NPR are reputable sources, someone was asking what was considered a reputable source. If you can tell their ideology from the title, it probably isn't,

  • prairiemoon2 z6b MA
    9 years ago

    Ed, do you see the green sentence at the bottom of the thread, to click on to switch off notifications? That should do it. BTW, you only see it when you are signed in.

  • prairiemoon2 z6b MA
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago


    Pupilla -

    Pupilla - From my point of view, in any conversation with another person, you have to ‘win their favor’ enough to interest them in continuing a conversation with you. [g] With all the healthy social skills you can muster.

    Only if you are trying to convince them of something. You already said it is an emotional issue for you and you think it is 1000% wrong. It is your right to have that belief, whether religiously-based, socially-based, scientifically-based, statistically-based, etc. The context of my comment was that in exiting the conversation you told me you were going to give me the benefit of the doubt about my intentions. I simply replied that I do not, would not and have not called attention to your intentions because they were never part of this discussion. I expect the same good faith from you.”

    I disagree, that only when you are trying to convince someone of something, do you need to ‘win their favor’. Any conversation, on any subject, even the weather, someone can participate in that conversation in a way that creates an unwillingness on the part of the other person to continue the conversation.

    I said this topic was an emotional issue for everyone, not just me. In fact, I was agreeing with you, after you had already said that.

    And what does my belief that GMOs are 1000% wrong, or any reason why I believe that, have anything at all to do with the sentence you are responding to? Nothing.

    As to questioning your intentions - I had reason to question your intentions, what do you call this statement you made?

    “Initially, I did not respond to this because although you framed it in an appeal to dire consequences, you carefully put a disclaimer transferring the burden of fact-checking to others”

    I ‘framed it in an appeal to dire consequences’? I ‘carefully put a disclaimer transferring the burden of ‘fact checking to others’?

    That is an analysis of my part of the conversation and intentions and a label that you’ve added to describe your interpretation of it. Apparently, based on debate theory. And I find it hard to believe that you are not fully aware that you are doing that. But because I don’t know you, and because you continue to state your intentions are good, I choose to believe that you don’t understand how adding this kind of analysis to the conversation becomes a problem.

    And are you then saying that because the story about India was not completely accurate, that means that there is nothing to fear? Or that people who oppose GMOs do not have legitimate reasons to consider them dangerous?

    And what did you mean by 'carefully'? And I'm transferring the burden of 'fact checking' to others? What is it you expect - for me to write a thesis on GMOs to include for this thread? Do you have 12 months to wait for it? Yes, you have the burden of fact checking any information for yourself.

    And this is just one example of you analyzing my contributions to the discussion. This kind of statement makes the conversation now about me and keeps diverting the conversation away from the topic and adds lengthy discussion back and forth about me. [And now about you]

    I get it, you are a ‘critical thinker’, and ‘independent thinker’ and a very detail oriented thinker. And I’m sure that can be useful and beneficial, but sometimes our best strength can become our biggest weakness. Concise and to the point and analyzing the subject you’re discussing and not the person you are discussing it with is also beneficial.

    So, perhaps you can now see, how we are a very poor fit to have a conversation? After only your very first paragraph, I am already disagreeing with everything you’ve said. And that is the reason why I wanted to end this conversation.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Instead of discussing, either GMO seeds, or Monsanto, or other corporations that are producing GMO seeds, or the availability of non GMO seeds and how to preserve that, you’ve turned the discussion into an analysis of words and meanings of words, and what I meant when I said what and in what ways my end of the conversation fits in with your ideas of debate theories and techniques.

    Here is the original post which drew my attention and the topic I was staying on as much as possible:

    "If you want to avoid using GMO seeds, here is a list of seed companies owned by Monsanto. It also gives a list of seed companies that are not.(link)"

    Home gardeners can not purchase GMO seeds. That's about it. Any talk of avoiding the seeds for purchase is circular logic intended to manipulate people by bullying them and using fear as a weapon.

    Others have posted that the link is on some random site that makes no effort to insure quality information and that anyone can post anything they want, no matter how misleading, inaccurate or incomplete it is.

    If you really believe that your side of this conversation represents staying on the original subject ‘as much as possible’, than you did the best you could. That's fine, but that does confirm my conclusion that we are not a good fit for a conversation and it has not been constructive, for me.

    As for the subject of this thread - it was originally about seed companies that Monsanto has bought and people who want to avoid seed companies that Monsanto has bought - if you do not understand the reasons that people are avoiding Monsanto seed companies, than you don’t. But you claim that you do. What you have said here, is that people should not be avoiding Monsanto seed companies and you actually are indicating that you think that anyone who is avoiding Monsanto seed companies is either without logic, or has been manipulated or bullied and is afraid of something that they should not be afraid of. Do you realize that is what you are saying?

    That’s a pretty negative view of people who you don’t agree with.

    'Any talk of avoiding the seeds for purchase is circular logic - intended to manipulate people by bullying the and using fear as a weapon'

    So, because I have discussed avoiding GMO seeds, I am deliberately manipulating people and bullying them and using fear as a weapon, with an argument that is illogical? How did you come to this conclusion? I'd really like to know. And to report something that is fearful, is 'using fear as a weapon'? How about if the potential outcome is something to really be afraid of, that doesn't matter? Or is it just that you reject the idea that it could possibly be a frightening outcome?

    Yes, your original objection about the link that was inaccurate, was an early part of the topic being discussed. Very early in this thread, that problem was addressed and resolved. Everyone on the thread was made aware that it was inaccurate, everyone agreed that it was and that we are on our own as far as learning which seed companies are owned by Monsanto and which are not. So why is it still being discussed?

    And let me draw attention to the fact that you did not address the other half of my statement which was about the way in which you’ve added your analysis of me into the discussion. Not relevant enough. I guess, the long past resolved discussion of the inaccuracy of the original link was relevant.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    You repeat your reasons for participating in the conversation like a campaign slogan but in the face of the way you participate, it rings a little hollow to me.

    Sorry. I am not here for an in depth debate on GMOs since the premise of the thread is how to avoid GMO seeds. To do that you just can buy any home garden seed you want.

    You are free to say whatever you want and I don't complain or label what you say as a "campaign slogan" or "hollow" which is not respectful. I just call you out for using fallacious logic or repeating long debunked claims you choose to provide links for about millions of people dying which have been debunked. If you repeat the same flaws, I will respond by repeating myself, too. I don't see much else other than getting frustrated.

    Again, you opened up the discussion of GMO when you challenged the idea of boycotting GMO seed companies.

    You continue to reduce the reasoning behind avoiding Monsanto owned seed companies and any other GMO seed companies to your own limited scope, that because all seed sold to home gardeners are now non GMO you don't have to avoid them. Which by the way, you don't actually know is true, unless some lab somewhere is doing random testing on the seed sold by Monsanto seed companies. So you claim there is no reason to avoid any seed company. And I believe I have already explained other reasons for why I avoid GMO seeds and Monsanto which you evidently don't accept.

    And you are free to say whatever you want, but I have an opinion of what you had to say and have honestly shared it with you, as much for your benefit as for anything else. I do not doubt that your ‘intentions’ are to find accurate, truthful, and complete information but intentions and execution are two different things. What a person intends and what they end up doing are not always the same. And even in our conversation, I have not found you to accurately read and understand what I've written. I'm sure I have done my share of that, too. So any conclusions either of us draw from this conversation are not accurate or complete. We are all human and perfect accuracy is beyond all of us. And complete information doesn't exist, there is always some amount of information that is unavailable to us.

    You have ‘peppered’ your comments with plenty of complaints and labels of what I have had to say. Perhaps they were a little more subtle.

    You ‘call me out’? - Do you realize that the dictionary definition to ‘call someone out’ is to ‘challenge someone to a fight’?

    There is nothing wrong with my logic. Since I’ve been too busy responding to your comments, I’ve yet to read where the India situation was debunked. But it would seem to me that, while the conclusions about what happened in India may have been controversial, something definitely negative happened in India as a result of Monsanto introducing GMO seed. Or do you actually believe that all the lawsuits [which there are many beyond what happened in India] and the complaints against Monsanto are manufactured and Monsanto and GMO seeds are above reproach?

    ‘Repeat the same flaws?' And providing a link that I alerted you to, that I had not checked out, is not exactly a flaw. And your end of the conversation is without flaws?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I’ve made a few points that represent my own point of view and you skip right over them in favor of suffocating the conversation with more of your own opinions and explanations and analysis.

    Let me get this straight. We are off-topic of avoiding GMO seeds (since all home garden seeds are GMO-free, even those from big bad Monsanto).

    Now we meander into the never-ending GMO debate when and you give me about 7 points with links they you don't have time to review for quality, which have nothing to do with the boycott I objected to. You pepper your posts saying *if this and that are true*, and then you expect me to clean up that mess by answering them all? That is disrespectful. You should not assume I must do all the grunt work for an argument if I start and find no credibility nor effort to fact check on your part. I can't be the guy you throw a million things at hoping one will stick. To learn from a debate my partner needs to provide quality information. I don't want to win, I want to learn from you.

    Here you go again, criticizing the way in which I've contributed to the thread. And calling my contribution, 'a mess', that you were expected to clean up. And you are complaining that I am disrespectful? And once again - there is the old 'debate theories and rules,' that you have decided apply to our conversation. If you wanted to discuss this topic, based on debate rules and theories, you should have mentioned that in the beginning and sought my agreement to discuss accordingly. You would have saved us both a lot of time.

    Pupilla, if you didn’t intend to discuss GMO, then I cannot understand why you would enter the conversation and object to a boycott of GMO seed companies. If you object to my desire to boycott, then you require me to explain my reasons and in doing so, a GMO discussion ensues.

    I normally would not provide links to support my position. The only reason I did in this instance was because so much was said about the original link being suspect. In hindsight, I should not have taken the time to do so, I was rushing.

    When I entered this thread, it was a year ago, when I had the time to participate fully in a discussion. At this point in time, I do not have the time and did so reluctantly because I felt obligated to respond to your 2015 post addressed directly to me. Go back and look at the first three comments made in 2015. Two people posted about two seed companies on the list. I get notifications on this old thread. I responded with a simple report on the seed companies I enjoy using that I have confidence do not carry GMO seeds. I had no intention of starting a GMO discussion.

    Ed and I briefly went back and forth about the original article and I made a simple comment that I was always glad when GMO was brought to the attention of the public for the benefit of those who are unaware of it, which I've already apologized for not making clear enough. and that concluded the discussion, Ed and I had.

    Then read your own comment. You entered the conversation challenging the idea of boycotting GMO seeds. So who is it that began the never ending GMO debate? And a few comments later, you said you were ‘not looking for an argument’, but I dispute that statement. I could easily conclude that you were looking for an argument about whether people should be boycotting GMO seed companies.

    Argument: an oral disagreement; verbal opposition…. 2. a discussion involving differing points of view; debate:

    And no, I did not ‘expect’ you to read all the links and report back on them to the thread. They were certainly optional for anyone that had a desire to read them. But if you did not have an interest or the time to look at them, you only had to say so. And if you did not want to, then why did you find the one link that you disagreed with and respond to only that?

    You call this a debate and I object to the use of that term. I don’t object to the casual substitution of ‘debate’ for ‘discussion’, but you have made enough comments throughout this thread to indicate that you meant an ‘official’ debate, as in using debate theory and rules and in doing so, you elevated what should have been a friendly discussion to something more adversarial.

    I would have liked to have had a friendly, collaborative discussion, but unfortunately, that is not how this conversation has evolved.


  • prairiemoon2 z6b MA
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago


    I’ve asked you a few questions which you have ignored.

    No, I've read everything including all links. I have selected one or two only at a time to respond to and even with those I have written at least as many, but I think plenty more words than you. Please be respectful of my time. I have not appealed to you even to acknowledge that you told me millions of people are dying due to GMOs in India. Saying such a tragic thing is like Chicken Little saying the Sky is Falling, as if it were on equal grounds with the gravity of the rest of this.

    Respect your time? I think you ought to be looking at yourself here as well, and accept your share of the responsibility for the way in which you have extended this conversation and turned most of the discussion into a discussion of me. [And now you]

    No, Pupilla, I did not tell you millions of people were dying, a link I posted reported that, which I asked if it were true, did I not? I still do not know what the truth is about what happened in India so it is not possible to discuss it at all, but obviously something very negative happened in India and I would have preferred if you gave a balanced explanation of why you felt that link was incorrect, instead of stating that it was completely debunked, as if that completely clears GMOs and Monsanto from any wrong doing in India.

    I do not grasp the gravity of GMO seeds? If either of us does not grasp it, I think the person who is willing for GMO technology to tamper with our food supply is the more likely person to not grasp the gravity of the situation.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    ~ GMOs don’t seem to concern you is that right?

    I have already answered this at least twice. Once that I buy only conventionally bred seeds, and prefer only conventionally bred vegetables and fruits and GMOs concern me but this is a case by case problem. Then I illustrated it by showing you that the Florida Citrus Greening disease is here right here and now. It is a disease where I will be forced to make a decision if the GM technology is the solution that will save the $10 billion Florida Citrus industry. I gave you a link to what I thought an realistic assessment on it from National Geographic, too where some concerns are mentioned.

    You think that you have answered it, but to me that was not an answer. You answer in a round about way. Do you usually answer questions with yes or no answers? That was not the complete information I was looking for. If GMOs concern you, then what are your concerns? Which if you had shared that, we might have found some common ground.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    ~ Do I understand you to mean that if a product is GMO based, you will evaluate it at that point? In other words, you want GMO seeds and plants to go forward and evaluate it after the fact?

    How did we get to this point? What does my belief have to do with it? Why are you insisting to know my religious beliefs, which is what I consider this? I am not an evangelist, simply a critical thinker who keeps their faith to themselves and encourages others to respect the belief of all ... just not to manipulate others with the sort of false, misleading & manipulative, and incomplete information which activists on both artificially created poles routinely are doing.

    Huh? We got to this point, because you think you make understandable comments but they are not as understandable as you think they are.

    And where does it refer to ‘your belief’ in anything I said? I asked you to clarify what you meant. And OMGosh - where oh where did I ever at any point in this entire thread bring religious beliefs into the conversation? That is completely from out of left field.

    You've made broad, generalizations about the people on both sides of this controversy as if you are not part of either side. You seem to be trying to straddle both sides and see yourself ‘above’ everyone else. Only you, evidently, are in pursuit of the truth, and are not trying to mislead or manipulate? And since I definitely fall on one side of this issue, I can only conclude, that you see me as 'trying to manipulate others with false, misleading, manipulative and incomplete information.'?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    ~ Are you not against any of the things that Monsanto has done or is doing?

    Again, thread was how to avoid planting GMO seeds. Again, Nobody, including Monsanto, will sell them to the Home Gardener. Again, You can buy from any company you want and you will never get any GMO seeds from Monsanto or anyone else.

    Again, we have much common ground about our misgivings of Big Ag, and how the 7 big aggies are gobbling everything up and the smaller companies have difficulties keeping up and having the R&D funding to compete with the new breeding technologies besides GM, and how I support the little guys with a large portion of my seed purchases. Again, I am worried that the consolidation will cause the loss of many varieties, and I think the original post calling for a boycott will only accelerate that since the home garden market is negligible. Again, I gave you alternate suggestions of how to hit Monsanto's bottom line so much harder, that included not purchasing Round-Up, not purchasing Miracle Gro products, and not purchasing the commercial Zima tomato product, which I thought would make you happy since it is conventional Monsanto seeds and the growers conned Monsanto into giving them an exclusive, which prevents all home gardeners from getting this conventional seed, even though it is super delish and was developed conventional before Monsanto bought them out.

    These three suggestions will hit Monsanto's bottom line perhaps 1000X more effectively than some boycott of seeds such as Big Boy, Better Boy, Early Girl, Big Beef, etc., all conventional hybrids that are excellent tomatoes and are delicious, GMO-free, conventional good tasting tomatoes that are home garden seeds, which get discontinued all the time when consumer demand drops leaving those of us who like the varieties crying that Big Ag stopped producing them because there wasn't enough demand. And I don't think Monsanto will own these forever, the way they go, not very long at all since it is such an insignificant business to them. So hopefully the home garden varieties can hang on until they find a nicer home.

    ‘Monsanto… will not sell GMO seeds to the Home Gardener.’ First of all, you don’t know that. You surmise that. And for the sake of argument, let’s say that Monsanto is not now selling GMO seed to home gardeners. You still don’t know that they won’t at some future time. Second, you don’t have any way of knowing, why Monsanto is buying up so many seed companies. Since their main activity and goals are to create GMO seed and not to produce conventionally hybridized seed, then it is not unreasonable to consider that they have plans to use the seeds of those companies to genetically modify them.

    Pupilla - you seem to clearly be of a divided mind here. On one hand, you object to boycotting Monsanto seed companies, on the other you’re willing to offer suggestions on ‘hitting their bottom line’ in other ways, as long as that doesn’t jeopardize the tomato varieties that you don’t want to lose. You’re concerned with a few tomato varieties but yet, you can’t seem to grasp the concern opponents of GMO seeds have about the potential loss of ALL unadulterated seed that supplies the world’s food suppy?

    You give me alternative suggestions, but I’m afraid you have not solved the GMO issue with your alternative suggestions at all. It is not a solution to me. And as I already said, I already do avoid the products you mention. Always have for 30+ years. And you thought these suggestions would make me happy? That can only be because you have failed to grasp what my concerns are and what they mean. Perhaps because half of this thread is me, explaining and defending myself.

    You’re worried about losing a ‘super delish’ tomato and I’m worried about the world getting to the point of having no food supply. I’m worried about foods produced with GMO seeds that are not digestible and create immune reactions, and plants that do not feed insects and birds and animals. Do you realize that many people already are avoiding all soy and corn because of the difficulty now of finding non GMO soy and corn?

    ‘I don’t think Monsanto will own these forever’ - You have no way of knowing what Monsanto will do. You don’t even know the reason why Monsanto is buying so many seed companies.

    My original question ‘Are you against any of the things Monsanto has done or is doing?’ you don’t want to answer. If you have done any research at all, you have to be aware of things that Monsanto has done and is doing, that you don’t agree with. Unless you are saying that all information that is critical of Monsanto is false. Yet at the same time, you suggest ways of affecting their bottom line, which would indicate you are against them to some degree.

    Do you realize how confusing that is? You are trying to sit on the fence and not be on either side, and to tell you the truth, it sounds as if you really don’t know what you think on the subject. Which makes it difficult to discuss with you.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    So why would I want to continue this conversation?

    OK, I don't know what to think about this comment other than feeling you are a bully because you say I don't listen to you but you want to force a dichotomy on me again, either answer how you want or you are not interested. I do not respond to bullying, by you, by Big-Ag, nor by Anti-Big-Ag. I will continue to grow my varieties no matter who makes them since any home garden variety I can buy is GMO-free so it is a no-brainer since I like the variety I should stick up for it because tomato seeds don't have a voice in this mess and they will be lost forever, and anyone boycotting home garden seeds that Monsanto bought will only contribute to the loss of these varieties since Monsanto is only a friend of its shareholders and with the stroke of a pen will stop producting these varieties and make them lost forever.

    You don’t know what to think about my question? Since I just listed the reasons why I wanted to end the conversation, the question does not need to be answered by you. The question means, ‘that based on all the preceding explanation I gave of the difficulty I was having with the conversation, why would I want to continue it? It's rhetorical.

    And where does the word ‘bully’ enter into it? What is it that you feel I am bullying you into doing? I attempted to end the conversation very briefly without a long explanation in the comment before this one. Not because of any dislike for you, but for what I would consider obvious reasons, that the discussion was not constructive, which I said. And I added as a reason - the difficulty I was having with the amount of time it was taking to respond to your comments, your analysis of ‘me’ that made - ‘me’ - more the topic of conversation than the subject being discussed. Continually defending and explaining myself.

    We are not well suited to discuss controversial subjects with each other. Not a good fit. We are both very detail minded, wanting precise meaning of words used, not enjoying being misunderstood triggering lengthy explanations. Both a little assertive.

    The length of this thread has now become ridiculous. I'm sure that what I've had to say will not be satisfactory to you. I require no more discussion at all. Any questions I've asked were rhetorical and require no response. If you feel I have offended you in some way and you want to respond, then I will continue until you feel satisfied.

    I have no complaint about you personally, only with the incompatibility of our conversational style and how that interferes with us gaining any ground in either of our positions on this issue. I think we can both persue our understanding of GMO issues separately and perhaps, in the future we can stick to discussing which tomato tastes the best.


  • molanic
    9 years ago

    One thing is for sure. This discussion proves that Houzz is no longer truncating long posts! :) The depth of these posts is a nice contrast to the lengthy discussions elsewhere on the site regarding whether shiny brass hardware is currently "in" or "out." :)

    I will say I do read Mother Earth News and have seen some documentaries and news pieces on the subject. I am not a fan of Monsanto's practices or the other big agri-chem companies. Not all "progress" is a good thing and we often dive headfirst into it without truly knowing the full ramifications.

    I don't expect that me avoiding buying their products is really going to put a dent in their bottom line, but I still don't like giving them my money. It is hard to avoid them though when they are buying up companies left and right. That is why there is a plethora of graphs and guides online trying to keep track of what they actually own. There are also plenty of graphs showing the overlap of government officials that make policy and Monsanto employees... which is more worrying to me actually.

  • prairiemoon2 z6b MA
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi Molanic - Yes, I'm glad they are not truncating long posts any more. ;-)

    I appreciate that you see some value in it. :-)

    I get Mother Earth News out of the library once in awhile. I used to read it a lot when they first became a magazine. That coincided with my first efforts to begin gardening and their organic, 'love the earth' approach was like a life line. Back in the early 1980s, there was only a 'seed' of the organic movement. There was no Whole Foods, or organic seed, fertilizers, etc.

    I completely agree with you, that we do dive headfirst into what is considered 'progress' and in the process we let go of what is very valuable and sometimes priceless then only in hindsight, do we acknowledge or understand what we've done. You only have to look around at many examples of when we have done that. You wonder why we don't learn our lesson.

    I don't like giving them my money either and I don't. I'm trying to avoid their products too. I stick to the few seed companies, who I think take avoiding their seed pretty seriously. and aside from seeds, I don't use the kind of products they make any way. And you are right, we're probably not putting a dent in their bottom line. If home gardening seed is a small portion of the seed they sell, then targeting commercial seed sales seems to be the way to go. If someone could only convince farmers to stop using GMO seeds.

    edit:

    As it is, many people are already avoiding corn and soy products in the supermarket because it is difficult to find any that are not genetically modified.

    And I wonder if anyone has thought of trying to convince shareholders to stop supporting Big Agriculture? I imagine there are many people who have stock funds that they don't even know have these stocks in them.

    I was unaware that there are graphs 'trying' to track what they now own. I'll have to look for them, to see if I can't expand the seed companies I do business with.

    Didn't know someone was trying to track the government officials who are making policy that allows Monsanto to continue along. That is the scariest part to me too. Between Monsanto having all the wealth on their side, to blanket us with their own carefully crafted PR campaign and the government having the power to give them carte blanche, it's easy to see why those that oppose what they are doing have a hard time being heard and understood.

    Thanks for pointing me in a direction to find a better list of Seed Companies that are owned by Monsanto.

  • molanic
    9 years ago

    I looked and this is the one Mother Earth News article that I was thinking of in particular. It is from the Jan 2015 issue and talks about sourcing high quality seeds. They covered the seed company acquisitions briefly and had a graphic with the citation leading back to this person's research. He has lots of info on this and related subjects. There is a link to a pdf on his site that shows the graphics a little more clearly. I have not read it all because I am not able to delve too much into it at this point in time. Just thought I would put it out there for anyone interested.

    https://www.msu.edu/~howardp/seedindustry.html

  • prairiemoon2 z6b MA
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Molanic, I just finished reading that article in Mother Earth News. Really good article, I learned a few things. I was reminded that 10 giant chemical and pharmaceutical companies now own 80% of the world's commercial seed. That is pretty depressing.

    But it was encouraging to read about …"small-scale breeders who are developing and stewarding regionally suited crop varieties, nurtured in part by the Organic Seed Alliance.

    https://www.seedalliance.org

    Whose goal is to…"Advance the ethical development and stewardship of the genetic resources of agricultural seed."

    This put it in a whole new positive light on the subject. Instead of simply looking for companies that are owned by Monsanto to avoid, I can also direct my attention to these small, regional, seed breeders who are producing quality seed that is suited to my garden. And this article does a great job of explaining why I want to buy seed from these companies.

    I saw that article in my travels but didn't have time to read it and I almost posted a link to it earlier. Thanks for providing me a second look at it.

  • tomatoman100
    9 years ago

    Thank you for the link to Seed Alliance, that was encouraging.

  • Dirtwreck
    6 years ago

    Gunna go GMO & Chemical ( & other non-goodie stuff ) free!

    Do you think the "Natural" or "Original" Species of plants ( and maybe other organisms too ) will go extinct because of the GMOs overpopulating the Whole World?

    This is so sad. I Like The Natural Species given by Mother Nature Much Better!





  • Vicki Green
    5 years ago

    You can't believe anything from infowars - their site has been taken down because of all of the conspiracy theories and fake news. A more reliable source of the seed companies owned by Montsanto can be found on this link: https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/sites/default/files/fs_1802_1406-monsantoseedsupd_web.pdf

  • prairiemoon2 z6b MA
    5 years ago

    I have a better idea. Instead of focusing on Monsanto why not try an article like this, that talks about the other side of the coin. All the people working tirelessly to be stewards of seeds and to create varieties of seed for home gardeners that are what we all want....


    How To Source Truly High Quality Seeds

  • maryann schewe
    2 years ago

    That link will not open

  • prairiemoon2 z6b MA
    2 years ago
    last modified: 2 years ago

    Maryann, you mean the 'How to Source Truly High Quality Seeds' ?

    I just clicked on it and it went right to it.

    The 'foodandwaterwatch...' link doesn't work, but it is two years old.

  • Janine G
    2 years ago

    If you want to find out who owns a company, go to the website of the attorney general of the state where the company is located. All corporations have to be registered with the AG of their state, with the names of the owners and primaries. That is the best way to find out who owns a company.

Sponsored