Occupy Protest Shuts Down Operations at Monsanto Today and Tomorrow
Written by David Greenwald Friday, 16 March 2012 08:45
Occupy groups from across the region converged on Davis this morning to protest and block operations of Monsanto. The protest is part of a "Global Days of Action to Shut Down Monsanto" in dozens of U.S. cities and several countries.
Monsanto has been linked to massive pollution, including the poisoning of drinking water, genetically-modified crops and seeds, chopping down rain forests and other types of social justice violations and environmental destruction.
Several countries, including Brazil, India, Haiti, Peru, France and others in Europe, have enacted recent bans or restrictions on Monsanto and its GMO foods. People worldwide are demanding restitution for hundreds of thousands of deaths, birth defects, suicides and ailments linked to Monsanto. 300,000 organic farmers recently sued Monsanto, said Mr. Payan.
A relatively modest group of people braved light rain and wet conditions to block three entrances to the Davis plant. However, the threat of action and a confrontation caused Monsanto to decide to tell workers to take Friday and Saturday off.
"I received word from the security that work was cancelled today," Steven Payan said. "We shut them down before they got started."
Protesters were claiming victory.
"We had a victory here today, Millions Against Monsanto shut down this site. We have a mission complete today," Mr. Payan told the Vanguard.
Mr. Payan expects hundreds of people to come through, throughout the day. There were likely 50 as early as 7 a.m. this morning.
Davis Police gathered in the school district lot across the street, monitoring the situation.
Lt. Paul Doroshov told the Vanguard, "We've got our resources gathered, our goal is to allow them to exercise their First Amendment rights in a legal fashion to get their message across."
"Our actions will once again be dictated by their actions, what they [do]," he said. "As long as its peaceful, and for the most part legal, we're just there to make sure it stays that way."
Lt. Doroshov added, "I can't exclude all uses of force. Again, our actions are going to be dictated by their actions. As long as they're peaceful and they're legal - that's what we're hoping for. We're hoping we're just there on standby to do that and keep the peace. If there are factions within that group that want to escalate it - that's on them and we'll just act accordingly."
---David M. Greenwald reporting
"...
So now the Occupy movement thinks it is judge and jury on what companies should be shut down."
While I do not share the "occupiers" GMO concerns, I can't help but wonder Rusty if this is not just an extension of the free market in action. People individually, and in groups are certainly free to not patronize any business they want to. If enough people agree, and choose not to do business with that company, it will fail. As long as they are not blocking entrance or stopping anyone who wants to do business physically from doing so, I fail to see the problem here. Companies are always telling people not to do business with their competitors because of inferior products or services. How is this any different except that we are not directly or in hidden costs paying for the ads we would prefer not to see ?
...and maybe we wouldn't have Agent Orange? Gosh, that would be tragic indeed.Hadn't realized that Endel and Burbank had contributed to Agent Orange, nor did I realize that Agent Orange is a genetically modified organism... thank you for setting me straight on that, Civil Discourse.
Medwoman
"I can't help but wonder Rusty if this is not just an extension of the free market in action. People individually, and in groups are certainly free to not patronize any business they want to. If enough people agree, and choose not to do business with that company, it will fail. As long as they are not blocking entrance or stopping anyone who wants to do business physically from doing so"
Medwoman, did you read the article? They weren't just not patronizing, they were blocking the business from functioning. Big difference.
"A relatively modest group of people braved light rain and wet conditions to block three entrances to the Davis plant. However, the threat of action and a confrontation caused Monsanto to decide to tell workers to take Friday and Saturday off.
"I received word from the security that work was cancelled today," Steven Payan said. "We shut them down before they got started."
Protesters were claiming victory.
"We had a victory here today, Millions Against Monsanto shut down this site. We have a mission complete today," Mr. Payan told the Vanguard."
The two questions with GMOs to me are: 1) are the foods safe for human consumption? and 2) is the use of GMO agriculture an invasive threat to other plant species?
Here is an updated answer from peer-reviewd, mainstream, biomedical science:
"In contrast to the documented benefits of GM crops, there are few documented cases of potential health effects [14] or economic drawbacks [15,16] to GM crops. However, the issues of potential risks of GMOs continue to be raised, particularly in Europe, and the media is being used to attract attention to the question of whether GMO products are safe. For example, the "Flavr Savr" tomato is a genetically modified tomato that has altered DNA to delay ripening, thereby prolonging shelf-life [17]. It was the first GM food to be authorised for human consumption in the United States and received broad coverage by the media even though it is not a poison or a food known to cause illness. A GM soybean that contained a Brazil nut allergen [18] is arguably the only incident that got more attention from the media when GM crops were first commercialized. The intense media coverage resulted in cessation of further development of this particular variety due to potential health risks. In contrast, another incident that attracted media attention was that of a scientist that claimed a genetically engineered potato caused a depressed immune response in rats [19], but subsequent investigation showed that the experiment was scientifically flawed.
"It should be noted that eating conventional foods is not risk free as they are known to contain allergies. For example, there was no known allergy when kiwifruit were introduced into the European and United States markets in the 1960s, but the fruits are now known to cause allergic reactions [20]. GM technology is like any other new technology and has its merits and drawbacks. Over the period of time that commercially available GM foods have been produced, no studies have indicated that GM foods are less safe than traditional counterparts. Although merit may be given to concerns of unintended gene flow from genetically engineered agricultural products, further studies are required to establish the reality and/or scope of this and other potential environmental risks due to GMOs. Unintended adverse effects of GMOs on non-target species (e.g. butterflies) have been reported to be similar to what currently exists in traditional agricultural products [21]. While there are other individual claims that GMOs could pose health risks to human beings, most of these findings are not peer-reviewed in international scientific journals or by any officially recognised standard. Rather, these are individual works that are being promoted on websites or by non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Unfortunately, when issues like these are raised and debated, many people condemn GMOs outright based upon unverified sources and also fail to see if there are advantages associated with the application of GMOs."
Other questions you might like to consider are whether extensive use of one particular herbicide has led to glyphosate-resistant weeds, and whether concentration of ownership of seed production of a food crop at one corporation raises antitrust issues.
http://www.businessweek.com/ma...82011.html
...and maybe we wouldn't have Agent Orange? Gosh, that would be tragic indeed.I was not suggesting that ALL genetic modifications are good... I seem to remember that some seed companies produced crop seeds that were 'infetile', and then marketed them in third world countries, selling the idea that they would produce greater yield, more nutrition, etc, but the "gotcha" was that the plans were not self-sustaining. Then the poor farmers had to buy more seed for each crop. Somewhat morally reprehensible. Are you saying, Don, that you carry NO 'genetically engineered' product? I believe that genetically modifying crops/organisms is not evil in itself... neither black nor white. I agree that the implications of a specific genetically modified crop/organism being released into the environment should be fully "vetted" before doing so. But if we could genetically modify a mosquito, so when they are released in the Philippines, would change the native breeding stock so that ultimately, they could no longer transmit denge fever, this would be an evil thing?
Even though the best evidence suggests GM foods and crops are safe, I do agree with the Monsanto agitators that we should label GM crops. I think people should be able to make informed choices, even if their choices are more emotional than rational.
Also, I think we need very strict controls and monitoring by government on the planting of GM crops in order to make sure that they don't cause harm to other plant species or cause any other sort of contamination. If after 20 or so more years of GM crops that worry is fully put to rest, then the monitoring and controls could ease some. But it seems to me prudent in that respect to err on the side of caution.
"Other questions you might like to consider are whether extensive use of one particular herbicide has led to glyphosate-resistant weeds ..."
Actually, as I am sure you must have read or heard, this is exactly what has happened with Round-Up. And that is specifically related to GM crops. But as you surely also know, this is the same sort of problem which has occurred over and over again with chemical agriculture. Ideally, the use of GM species should eliminate the use of chemical herbicides, while maintaining or improving crop yield. But so far all the commercially available GMOs have done is reduce the use of chemicals, but they have not (AFAIK) removed the need for them.
Rich: Yes, and every step of the way Monsanto adamantly denied that superweeds could happen. Until they did. Use of GM species has increased use of glyphosate massively worldwide. Planting of GM crops is supposedly strictly controlled, and Scotts (partner with Monsanto) has been fined the maximum fine for violating those regulations with respect to bentgrass turf.
http://www.capitalpress.com/ne...tts-061711
I could go on.
There's a difference between hybrids and GMO's.Ok... perhaps my knowledge is lacking... I mean this in all sincerity... I thought the two are basically the same, except for techniques used... can you point me to a source where I can learn the difference (hopefully a source that has no strong biases)?
"Resistance Update
At least 15 species have documented cases of weed resistance against glycines, according to Weedscience.org, a community of resistance researchers funded by the Herbicide Resistance Action Committee, the North American Herbicide Resistance Action Committee, and the Weed Science Society of America. The group has documented 323 resistant biotypes, 187 species (112 dicots and 75 monocots) and more than 300,000 fields. The first documented case of weed resistance to glyphosate was in Lolium rigidum in Australia in 1996. Now there are more than 75 cases, all but four of them occurring in the past 10 years."
Sales of glyphosate are about $4.7 billion worldwide.
http://www.farmchemicalsintern...oryid=1652
BTW, aren't the so-called "killer bees" a hybrid, vs a GMO? Kudzu?
What about any 'normal' species that messes things up when they are non-native? When they are introduced to an environment/location where normal biological checks and balances are not in play... that Australian snail in Putah Creek? Water hyacinth in the Delta?
Rich: GMO regulation is actually diminishing; http://motherjones.com/tom-phi...regulation
hpierce: invasive species of all kinds are certainly a concern. Africanized bees are hybrids; interesting and long history there. Kudzu is simply an invasive species, not a hybrid, just like the Australian snail and the water hyacinth. None of those are GMO's.
I think Wikipedia's overview is reasonable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering
Interesting that the one picture shows a tent placed in the driveway, leaving the bikepath clear. As of about an hour ago, tents have been moved to fully block the bicycle/pedestrian path. Looks like the protest is aimed as much at bicyclists or pedestrians than the corporate entity.
biddlin wrote "Just a side note, mothers of starving children don't care about the pedigree of the corn . The occupiers are off target again."
How presumptuous is that statement?
Mothers of starving children in India might beg to differ:
sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_in_India
"In 1998, the World Bank's structural adjustment policies forced India to open up its seed sector to global corporations like Cargill, Monsanto, and Syngenta. The global corporations changed the input economy overnight. Farm saved seeds were replaced by corporate seeds which needed fertilizers and pesticides and could not be saved"
"Ok... perhaps my knowledge is lacking... I mean this in all sincerity... I thought the two are basically the same, except for techniques used... can you point me to a source where I can learn the difference (hopefully a source that has no strong biases)?"
I don't have any sources, but I'm pretty sure the difference is that a hybrid can naturally occur in nature, but a GMO (or at least certain types of GMOs) cannot. An example is Monsanto putting genes from salmon into tomatoes.
"Mothers of starving children in India might beg to differ:
sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_in_India"
This, and they also relentlessly sue any farmers who they perceive to be "infringing" on their patented seeds. There are many instances (most famously the Canadian Schmeiser vs. Monsanto case) where Monsanto's patented seeds blow into neighboring farmers' territory, and those farmers are then sued for copyright infringement.
Also, using their political clout and money to allegedly distort news reports:
http://consumerist.com/2006/08...-milk.html
"This, and they also relentlessly sue any farmers who they perceive to be "infringing" on their patented seeds."
Yes and other seed companies too. Monsanto tried to change its herbicide resistant genes just to get a new patent and continue extracting royalties from other companies stacking other genes on top of that gene when it goes off patent.
