I was listening to Glenn Beck yesterday and a lady brought up something I did not know about HR-875. HR 875, was introduced by Rosa DeLauro whose husband Stanley Greenburg works for Monsanto and Monsanto is buying up non-GM seeds and seed companies. They are also trying to get a company man setup as a food safety czar. Looking more into this.



http://www.opednews.com/articles/Monsanto-s-dream-bill-HR-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090309-337.html

It is easy to see OpEdNew's bias. Unfortunately OEN's agenda has turned their "news" alert on HR 875, into an opinion piece. The farmers of Eastern Colorado that I share a relationship with, certainly do not have the negitive opinion of Monsanto that OEN seems to have. - Millet (1,386-)

That was the first link I found.


However, the farm bill is still bad. If the lady introducing the bill is the husband of a company that is buying up non-gm seeds and seed companies and that company is trying to get another company man as the food czar, the same person that allowed GM animals in the food supply during the clinton years, there is something very wrong with that picture. Also, there is no distinction between backyard farms and commercial farms. Therefore, it is plausible that the government could come knocking at your door decrying food safety violation.

Follow the money and it will lead you to the problem.

Glen Beck puts on a very interesting ratio show, one that many Americans can learn a lot from. I agree with him 95 percent of the time. Americans certainly have opinions concerning Monsanto. Some opinions are good, some are quite bad, but as is normally the case, most people have either no opinion, or indifference. However, for many farmers, at least in Eastern Colorado, the area that I am familiar with, Monsanto is generally held in a rather noble light. Monsanto's Round-Up ready line of seeds, are frequently planted by a lot of Eastern Colorado's farmers, as are their modified seed line, which offers superior crops, higher yields, less insect damage, and less of the common down sides. This country is still called America, and people are certainly free to hold whatever opinion they wish, but to the American Farmer, I would say that Monsanto is mostly held in a very good light. - Millet (1,385-)

One of the problems with Monsanto's intellectual property protection is a one-way street. It favors Monsanto without regards to dealing with contamination.

For example, they have patented the genes and the associated markers that it is their intellectual property. This is fine, they worked for it, even lobbied for it so that it will be forced unto the public without much notice, without the adequately required long term studies ( which to be adequate should have been in terms of millions of years ), but nonetheless deserve the credit and the royalties.

The big problem that the government tried to look the other way is that there is NO REQUIRED WORK on the part of Monsanto TO PREVENT the CONTAMINATION from their genes and markers the existing gene pool used by farmers. Cross pollination occurs all the time, and there are even cross-species or interspecific hybridization that occurs from time to time. Monsanto's genes will surely find its way into other seeds and Monsanto will also claim that because those seeds have Monsanto's genes, then it is theirs and persecute anyone whose seeds or plants have those genes. There is no way to prevent gene contamination, and that is just one of the other problems with most people against Monsanto. But if everyone uses Monsanto's seeds, then there would be no issue. But the problem is, people want diversity, and Monsanto is contaminating the diversity like cancer, then ultimately claiming that everything is theirs. Patent laws should be revised so that if the genes have recombined and yet their markers remained intact, it should no longer be part of their intellectual property. I liked the idea of real plant patents right now, in that, you cannot reproduce the plants asexually, but you can use the seeds of patented plants to propagate your own. Monsanto's genes are not filed under this category for obvious reasons, and the downside to the rest of us, is that they will be able to contaminate all the crops eventually, by splicing their own proprietary genes for each crop family and letting it spread like cancer until most are contaminated and it would all be claimed as their intellectual property.

The other issues involved GMO crops like tomatoes with longer shelf life and other cross species gene transfer through the wonders of genetic engineering.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I firmly believe the reasoning behind the dramatic rise in food allergies is due to GM crops and industrial "X"cides. Since I do not spray my food with round up, I have no use for RR seeds and they can keep them.

Joe, for the very reasons you wrote above, many people have concerns with Monsanto, and it is easy to understand their concerns. Personally, I have never seen a Monsanto representative, nor do I know a single farmer in my area that has ever seen a Monsanto representative checking the fields, for gene movement, associated markers, cross contamination, or any other items that might be of interest to Monsanto. As 829 writes Round up ready seeds would not be of much interest to the general public growing small gardens, but I can assure you that RR seeds are a HUGE interest to large scale farmers. I believe, fortunately or unfortunately, whether one likes it or not, GMO farming is here to stay, and I predict GMO production will only get larger and larger and larger. There is a lot of truth in what krapes posted above - " follow the money". - Millet (1,385-)

Following the money always leads to politicians.

The Government & efficiency?? ---- When? Where?

The last I read in the newspapers, US House members, and Senators will not be joining the proposed new public governmental "health care" plan. They want nothing to do with it, and will keep their current gold plated medical plan.- Millet (1,260-)

This is from a email Bonnie sent me the other day.

Quote:

HEALTH CARE PLAN Time that the “elite” class become normal taxpayers again !! If they don’t feel that a revised ‘governmental health care plan’ is good enough for them and their families, then it isn’t good enough for those who pay the bills !! That includes what we each have in the way of medical coverage today as well. It’s long past the time to bring politicians back to ‘”the real world” from the ‘elite’ status they have voted for themselves !! FINALLY...THE $50,000 QUESTION WAS ASKED!!! YESTERDAY ON THE ABC "OBAMA SPECIAL ON HEALTH CARE". PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS ASKED "MR. PRESIDENT, WILL YOU AND YOUR FAMILY GIVE UP YOUR CURRENT HEALTH CARE PROGRAM AND JOIN THE NEW "UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM" THAT THE REST OF US WILL BE ON? PRESIDENT OBAMA IGNORED THE QUESTION AND DIDN'T ANSWER IT!!! A NUMBER OF SENATORS WERE ASKED THE SAME QUESTION AND THERE RESPONSE WAS....WE WILL THINK ABOUT IT!!! IT WAS ALSO ANNOUNCED TODAY THAT THE "KENNEDY HEALTH CARE BILL" HAS WRITTEN INTO IT THAT CONGRESS WILL BE EXEMPT FROM THIS GREAT HEALTH CARE PLAN!!! HOW ABOUT THOSE APPLES...NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA OR CONGRESS...BUT "OK" FOR THE REST OF US!!! WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, NEED TO STOP THIS ASAP AND REVOLT...THIS IS WRONG!!! IF YOU AGREE PLEASE PASS THIS ON...IF NOT, PLAN TO SUFFER WITH THE OBAMA HEALTH CARE PLAN FOR "FREE"...WHILE OUR POLITICIANS TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES...

3% overhead sounds drastically more efficient than 10-20%. I do not care who can provide better care be it the private or public sector, I just believe in progress. As for the plan that congressmen get, I never had any illusions of the government providing such plans to the general public and I do not think any congressmen claimed to offer people that? I do believe that all that has been proposed is allowing people to be able to buy into a plan offered through the government that will not discriminate in enrollment, eliminate the concept of a pre-existing condition, not drop clients and operate in a not-for-profit fashion.

I am quite familiar with the health industry's plan to discredit the public option as it is essentially the exact same tactics as in '93-'94. Frank Luntz's memo pretty clearly illustrates how to discredit it without providing any information to support the status quo. http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_luntz.html
Here's Alex Castellano's take as well: http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_gop_health_care_strategy_memo.html

PBS also offers a nice bit of info on the topic without the corporate bias:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/archives/archives.php

I just believe in getting as much information from all sides on this topic before becoming throughly convinced one idea is best. This is an important debate and there is no need to rush to a judgement or legislation for that matter. I am just leary of getting any facts from Glen Beck as I have seen him clearly fake tears on his show several times to sell a point or his love for the country. You should not have to try to convince me you love your country.

I obviously have hijacked this thread though and would like to apologize. If anyone would like to continue this discussion please feel free to start a new healthcare thread and I would love to talk more. This is an important topic and I am always up for good political talk as there is no way to be sure of your view if you do not fully understand another's.

As for GMO crops I feel like Millet is 100% correct on this topic as they are here to stay. Like with many topics, I would love to see more legitimate scientific research reguarding the issue.

I certainly do not believe that the government only having a 3% overhead, perhaps 3,000 percent is closer to the truth. obama should stop throwing the peoples money away, and stop pushing obama care down the throat of the public. I think it is best, concerning this subject, to just agree to disagree, and leave it at that. My last post on this subject. Take care. - Millet (1,260-)