Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
 |
|
 |
|
The Future of Food. A must-see documentary now on Hulu [1hr 29mins] : food
Do you like food?
I do. Cooking, restaurants, recipes, food network, foodies, talk about it here
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Food in the future will be considerably more profitable than now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Future of Food can only be streamed within the United States, hence the rest of the world will die of hunger.
Non U.S'ers it's time to UNITE!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is there a get_hulu like a get_iplayer??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I use hotspot shield .
It's minorly annoying in that you hit a search page occasionally when you start it up, but that's the worst thing that's ever happened to me because of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone have a summary for non-USA people?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I think its pretty safe to assume that monsanto is more interested in high yeilds of food than the resulting health and economic problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it is pretty safe to say that Monsanto is more interested in making money than they are in producing food despite the resulting health and economic problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's safe to say that they are in the business of making a profit selling agricultural products to farmers, and I think it's safe to say that if their products don't satisfy their customers, they'll fail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In a fair and just world that would be the truth but when it comes to Monsanto all bets go out the window.
Monsanto seen the writing on the wall back in the 1970's when "Say NO to GMO!" was the war cry of the day.
They changed their marketing strategy to make Stock Profits their main product and seeds became the way to produce that product.
Monsanto's real "customers" are their shareholders, corrupt and undereducated governmental leaders that have been paid off to allow Monsanto products in their countries are Monsanto's number one "business expense" and the local farmers are the "test subjects" for experimentation.
Monsanto has built a business that makes a profit whether the farmers want their product or not.
The real customers, the shareholders, will continue to push for the Monsanto monopoly as long as they continue to profit from it.
India has laws that force farmers in certain areas to only plant Monsanto seeds, whether they will produce or not.
Even to the extent of forcing farmers to plant seeds that need 4-8 times more water than the previous seeds needed.
Thousands of Indian Farmers have committed suicide to attempt to get their families away from the Governmental contracts, but even that doesn't work because new laws passed in 2007 and 2008 pass the contracts and associated debts on to any living relatives.
Monsanto has sued and won cases of copyright infringement against American farmers, who own fields next door to Monsanto seed lots, because the farmers seeds carry the genetically modified genes that Monsanto owns the rights to even though the genes were transferred accidentally by the wind.
Monsanto has copyrighted swine genes that they isolated from wild pig DNA--they didn't create it, they just isolated it.
Now any pigs that carry the gene technically belong to Monsanto and they have sued and won cases to force farmers to pay usage fees on pigs that carry the gene even if the farmer can prove the parentage of his stock for generations.
Monsanto, in effect, has figured out a loop-hole in the Supply and Demand system and has been using it for years to make money even when no one wants to buy their products.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As soon as you use hyperbole in your argument, you loose credibility.
India has laws that force farmers in certain areas to only plant Monsanto seeds
Citation?
I've heard it's advised, but I've never heard it's forced by law.
Farmers have always done whatever they can to increase their bottom line, they're not all too stupid to add and subtract.
They can figure the difference between the higher cost of the seed per acre vs higher yields per acre, and the savings they'll enjoy from requiring less insecticides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Citation?
I didn't list the citations because anyone who has picked up any news in the last 10 years knows that Indian farmers are committing suicide and that the reason most often given for the suicide is debt and governmental contracts with Monsanto.
Higher cost doesn't matter if the GMO seeds are THE ONLY SEEDS that can be sold legally.
It is a crime to save seeds from previous crops.
Less pesticides?
These farmers didn't use any pesticides at all 20 years ago.
In some cases they didn't even have some of the current pests until the pests were imported along with the seeds.
The "higher yield" numbers ONLY work if the GMO plants get enough water and there never was enough water in India.
You have to either be completely uninformed or a Monsanto employee to even bring up the argument that those Indian farmers chose to starve and then commit suicide over a product that they were sold under false pretenses and then forced to continue because the laws favor Monsanto.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You must have assumed I wouldn't read your link.
There's nothing in there about Indian farmers being forced to farm Monsanto's BT cotton, but there's plenty of info in your link about Indian farmers choosing Monsanto's BT cotton.
You continue with the hyperbole.
"These farmers didn't use any pesticides at all 20 years ago." What a load of shit.
Indian farmers chose to starve and then commit suicide over a product that they were sold under false pretenses and then forced to continue because the laws favor Monsanto.
Looks to me like they were envious of their neighbors yields, and they made poor seed choices.
Even simple minded farmers know that there are differences in varieties with regards to culture.
You must feel American farmers can't add or subtract because they continue to choose Monsanto products including BT cotton, and they continue to claim higher yields with their products.
The "higher yield" numbers ONLY work if the GMO plants get enough water and there never was enough water in India.
That's quite a sweeping generalization about a very large country.
That's like assuming that all of the U.S.
Is experiencing a drought because the southwestern U.S.
Is experiencing one.
You have to either be completely uninformed or a Monsanto employee
That argument never fails to come up in any debate that involves conspiracy theories.
According to those I've debated on the internet, I work for the Bush administration (truthers), the corn lobby (HFCS con theory preachers), and now Monsanto.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YOU ARE AN IDIOT.
envious of their neighbors yields,
If your neighbor plants Monsanto GMO seeds and they cross pollinate with your field of non-GMO seeds, you must pay Monsanto a fee to use your own seeds for the next planting even if you are a farmer in the USA
Monsanto Bt cotton, Bollgard, has failed miserably for small farmers in Andhra Pradesh, India, in terms of yields
Mealy bugs were introduced with Bt Cotton Seeds
American bollworm introduced with Bt Cotton Seed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are a con theorist falling for and preaching con theories in the usual style of one invalid argument after another.
If your neighbor plants Monsanto GMO seeds and they cross pollinate with your field of non-GMO seeds, you must pay Monsanto a fee to use your own seeds for the next planting even if you are a farmer in the USA
It's very simple.
A company has invested it's own resources to develop GM agricultural products with superior traits, and they've pulled patents on them to protect their investments so they may profit from them for the next 20 years.
Sounds fair to me.
Either don't use their product and get someone elses, develop your own, or buy theirs.
Higher cost doesn't matter if the GMO seeds are THE ONLY SEEDS that can be sold legally.
That was a lie in the usual spirit of con theorists.
India has laws that force farmers in certain areas to only plant Monsanto seeds, whether they will produce or not.
That was a lie you got caught in, and were unable to copy and paste an example, so you posted a link as if evidence was in the link, and hoped I wouldn't read it, but I did.
After I'm done with this comment, I'm not going to waste any more time reading any links you send me unless you copy and paste some evidence that there may be a citation for a claim within it.
Monsanto has copyrighted swine genes that they isolated from wild pig DNA--they didn't create it, they just isolated it.
Now any pigs that carry the gene technically belong to Monsanto and they have sued and won cases to force farmers to pay usage fees on pigs that carry the gene even if the farmer can prove the parentage of his stock for generations.
Still more hyperbole.
Monsanto NEVER filed a patent application for a pig gene.
Monsanto Bt cotton, Bollgard, has failed miserably for small farmers in Andhra Pradesh, India, in terms of yields
It was a success for some, and a failure for others.
Some farmers had record yields, so other farmers purchased the product in the hopes that they could duplicate the successes, but there are no crop varieties that are suited to all the variables that can be found, not the least of which is the amount of water that's available throughout a season.
Selecting the right variety for your location is one of many things all farmers have to contend with.
American, Indian, and many other customers from countries all over the world are having enough success with Monsanto products, that they are continuing to purchase their products.
You probably think you're smarter than those farmers though, don't you?
Mealy bugs were introduced with Bt Cotton Seeds
On your link, it's under the heading "False Propaganda"
Oh, and;
Http://www.ncipm.org.in/Mealybugs/Non-invasivePhenacoccus_solenopsis.pdf
American bollworm introduced with Bt Cotton Seed.
Was your link supposed to take me to someplace other than articles about pesticide use in India?
BTW, I found an article about American bollworm infestation in India from 2001.
Http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010825/main7.htm Have you always been a sucker for junk science, rumor, and all sorts of hyperbole?
If you're an activist trying to stop the introduction of GMO crops or if you're a follower of those activists, and there are a lot of them, you have a long way to go before you can prove your opposition to GMO is more than undue paranoia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That argument never fails to come up in any debate that involves conspiracy theories.
According to those I've debated on the internet, I work for the Bush administration (truthers), the corn lobby (HFCS con theory preachers), and now Monsanto.
He said you could be an employee or uninformed.
EDIT: or she
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's safe to say that if their products don't satisfy their customers, they'll fail.
Not true since the final customer isn't allowed to know if a food is GMO.
They fight every attempt at labeling because they're scared consumers would avoid their products.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I saw this premiere.
It was written, directed and produced by Jerry Garcia's widow.
And it's engaging and interesting...
But it isn't really "The Future of Food." It's more like "Monsanto sucks."
Which is not to say that Monsanto doesn't suck.
But try resubmitting it to "videos" or "politics" or something like that with the title "Jerry Garcia's Widow spends an hour and a half quantifying the myriad ways that Monsanto sucks!" and you'll get a bazillion upvotes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/8dppg/jerry_garcias_widow_spends_an_hour_and_a_half/
Done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|