Should Barbados allow the Monsanto seed monopoly? Can we stop it even if we want to?

Monsanto Seeds

“Patents on seed are illegitimate because putting a toxic gene into a plant cell is not “creating” or “inventing” a plant. These are seeds of deception — the deception that Monsanto is the creator of seeds and life; the deception that while Monsanto sues farmers and traps them in debt, it pretends to be working for farmers’ welfare, and the deception that GMOs feed the world. GMOs are failing to control pests and weeds, and have instead led to the emergence of superpests and superweeds.”

… from the Global Research article The Seeds Of Suicide: How Monsanto Destroys Farming

“Monsanto works with farmers from around the world to make agriculture more productive and sustainable. Our technologies enable farmers to get more from every acre of farmland.

Specifically, we are working to double yields in our core crops by 2030. These yield gains will come from a combination of advanced plant breeding, biotechnology, and improved farm-management practices.”

… from the Monsanto website Our Commitment to Sustainable Agriculture

“In the nearly 20 years of applied use of G.E. in agriculture there have been two notable ‘successes,’ along with a few less notable ones. These are crops resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide (Monsanto develops both the seeds and the herbicide to which they’re resistant) and crops that contain their own insecticide. The first have already failed, as so-called superweeds have developed resistance to Roundup, and the second are showing signs of failing, as insects are able to develop resistance to the inserted Bt toxin — originally a bacterial toxin — faster than new crop variations can be generated.”

… from the NYT as quoted in Prison Planet’s Even the NY Times is now rejecting Monsanto GMO science

BFP thanks Green Monkey for suggesting this article


Filed under Agriculture, Barbados

32 responses to “Should Barbados allow the Monsanto seed monopoly? Can we stop it even if we want to?

  1. GreenMonkey

    Can we stop it even if we want to?

    I hope I am wrong of course, but right now it’s looking increasing unlikely – seeing as how Monsanto can get even the President of the United States of America to ignore his pre-election promises, and act as their “Joe Boy” and facilitator as their attempts to control the world’s seed supply rolls on.
    More info at the article excerpted below:

    Obama Monsanto Connection
    Tuesday, April 30, 2013 8:58


    Meet Monsanto’s prime lobbyist, Barack Obama

    After his victory in the 2008 election, Obama filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA:

    At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.

    As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

    As commissioner of the USDA, Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack. Vilsack had set up a national group, the Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership, and had been given a Governor of the Year Award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto.

    As the new Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.

    As the new counsel for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for another biotech giant, DuPont.

    As the new head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had previously worked in key positions for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research.

    We should also remember that Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.

    Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, had previously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the Supreme Court.

    The deck was stacked. Obama hadn’t simply made honest mistakes. Obama hadn’t just failed to exercise proper oversight in selecting appointees. He was staking out territory on behalf of Monsanto and other GMO corporate giants. (my emphasis /GM)

    More at:

  2. St George's Dragon

    The headline is one of the old “when did you stop beating your wife” loaded questions.
    You are tying together Monsanto and monopoly as a given.
    If a farmer wants to buy Monsanto crops should they not be allowed to do so? Is there a ban on GM crops in Barbados?

  3. GreenMonkey

    Anti-globalization activists have long warned that if the globalization trends continue as is we we will see that increasingly we are being ruled by profit seeking, multinational corporations who will have the power to ensure legislation is passed for their own benefit and to lock in place their own corporate profits. This will naturally leave the well being and interests of mere flesh and blood, oxygen breathing, mortal people (as opposed to the self same corporations who claim that billion dollar corporations are just people too) to be cast by the wayside if such interests are deemed to interfere with corporate-people’s profits.

    Hence we have such things as the Monsanto Protection Act being signed into law by that “man of the (corporate) people” President Obama.

    Monsanto Protection Act put GM companies above the federal courts
    Campaigners say that not even the US government can now stop the sale, planting, harvest or distribution of any GM seed

    Monsanto and the US farm biotech industry wield legendary power. A revolving door allows corporate chiefs to switch to top posts in the Food and Drug Administration and other agencies; US embassies around the world push GM technology onto dissenting countries; government subsidies back corporate research; federal regulators do largely as the industry wants; the companies pay millions of dollars a year to lobby politicians; conservative thinktanks combat any political opposition; the courts enforce corporate patents on seeds; and the consumer is denied labels or information.

    But even people used to the closeness of the US administration and food giants like Monsanto have been shocked by the latest demonstration of the GM industry’s political muscle. Little-noticed in Europe or outside the US, President Barack Obama last week signed off what has become widely known as “the Monsanto Protection Act”, technically the Farmer Assurance Provision rider in HR 933: Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act 2013

    The key phrases are a mouthful of legal mumbo jumbo but are widely thought to have been added to the bill by the Missouri republican senator Roy Blunt who is Monsanto’s chief recipient of political funds. For the record, they read:

    “In the event that a determination of nonregulated status made pursuant to section 411 of Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the secretary of agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412c of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorise the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialisation and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimise potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the secretary’s evaluation of the petition for nonregulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorised activities in a time manner …”

    According to an array of food and consumer groups, organic farmers, civil liberty and trade unions and others, this hijacks the constitution, sets a legal precedent and puts Monsanto and other biotech companies above the federal courts. It means, they say, that not even the US government can now stop the sale, planting, harvest or distribution of any GM seed, even if it is linked to illness or environmental problems.

    More at:

  4. 4

    Obama sucks!

    You’ll see.

  5. GreenMonkey

    St. George’s Dragon wrote:
    “You are tying together Monsanto and monopoly as a given.
    If a farmer wants to buy Monsanto crops should they not be allowed to do so? Is there a ban on GM crops in Barbados?”</i.

    If just sit on our asses and watch the continuing trend of Monsanto and its corporate partners buying up seed companies and then taking competing, non-GM seeds off the market, in effect Monsanto will have a monopoly, or at best be part of a tight little group of corporate, GM seed pushing oligopolists. And access by farmers to non GM seeds will be severely limited if available for purchase at all.

    So then the question will become, "Is there a ban on NON-GM crops?" And the answer will be "Yes, in effect there is. There may be no official ban on growing non-GM products, but thanks to Monsanto's (and a few corporate partners') control of the seed supply, the farmers will have no practical alternative but to plant Monsanto's superweed and glyphosate in your gut producing GM crap, whether they want an alternative or not. Read the article linked below which explains how Monsanto cornered the USDA into letting them take over the sugar beet industry with Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beets.

    Monsanto’s point of no return
    By Joel Dyer

    To say that the U.S. seed industry has become dangerously and quite possibly illegally consolidated is an understatement. The latter, of course, depends upon the court system’s interpretation of existing antitrust laws, which have lately been seen as nonexistent for any company that knows how and who to lobby, but that’s another story.

    As the seed monopoly map here illustrates, control over the seed industry rests primarily with Monsanto. Dupont and Syngenta are also major players, while corporations like Dow Chemical, Land O’Lakes and Bayer represent a second, yet still significant, tier of consolidated control.

    According to U.S. House Committee on Agriculture testimony, most economists share the belief that when 40 percent or more of any given industry is controlled by fewer than four players, that industry is no longer considered competitive. In the seed industry, according to a report issued by the Farmer to Farmer Campaign on Genetic Engineering, the largest 10 players control more than 65 percent of the market for the world’s proprietary seed (seed subject to intellectual property protections such as patents). Even more disturbing, from an anti-competitive standpoint, is that the largest four corporations in the seed industry control more than 50 percent of the proprietary seed market and also 43 percent of the commercial global seed supply, which includes both genetically modified seeds as well as traditional, non-patented public seed varieties.

    But even these alarming consolidation figures do not reflect the actual concentration levels when you consider that all of these companies have joint ventures with some or all of their supposed competitors (see chart here).

    Likewise, these numbers and charts do not reflect the true extent of Monsanto’s control over the food industry, where its patented seed traits are licensed to the other competitors in the sector and often represent influence over 80 to 90 percent of all seed sold in the U.S. in major crop categories such as corn, soy, sugar beets and cotton — and increasingly fruits, vegetables and alfalfa. GMO wheat is a reality but has yet to take off due to the refusal by China, Russia and Europe to allow such wheat to be imported into their countries.

    It is accurate to say that nearly every food product in the grocery store has Monsanto’s fingerprints on it in one way or another, and this becomes more true with each passing day. Monsanto’s business model is not only built for attaining full control of the market, it is built to do so with previously unimagined speed. (my emphasis /GM)


    In June of this year, the environmental impact study by the USDA was finally completed. All the while Monsanto has been selling its sugar beet seeds with impunity to help stave off a threatened sugar shortage that the company largely created. The study found that Monsanto’s GMO sugar beets do have the ability to contaminate, by pollen drift, not only non-GMO sugar beets — should any such plant still exist — but also table beets, Swiss chard and wild beet varieties. The environmental study also predicts that the Roundup Ready sugar beets may also contribute to the growing problem of both superweeds and superbugs, which are becoming increasingly resistant to glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup.

    Yet despite these concerns, the study recommended full deregulation of GMO sugar beets. This means that the GMO beets qualify for unrestricted planting. The study says that it gave great weight to the fact that there is not enough conventional non-GMO seed left in the marketplace to prevent a sugar crisis, should the Roundup Ready beets have been restricted.

    Victory Monsanto. By distributing its patented trait seed while removing much, if not most, of the non-patented competition from the marketplace, Monsanto was actually able to win for no other reason than it backed the USDA into a corner. The agency had to either allow Monsanto to continue to sell its patented sugar beet trait with absolutely no restrictions, or cause a sugar shortage that would have revealed USDA’s completely impotent oversight of the food industry. Brilliantly played. Our poor county commissioners never had a chance against that kind of firepower.

  6. ready done

    @ St. George dragon. Gmo seeds are not allowed in europe so they should be allowed in Barbados either.

  7. St George's Dragon

    Again – is there a ban on GMO crops in Barbados?

  8. GreenMonkey

    SGD (Still doesn’t get it.):
    Again – is there a ban on GMO crops in Barbados?

    Again, the issue is not whether there is a ban on GMO crops, but whether humanity will sit back and allow just a few, colluding, corporate entities, with Monsanto at the head, to consolidate a monopolistic control over the world’s seed supplies, This is especially worrying since we see Monsanto taking over/buying out more and more formerly independent seed companies and using their increasing power over the seed distributors to limit farmers’ access to what were the cheaper, non-patentable and non GMO types of seeds, i.e. the seeds which would be in competition to their own expensive, patentable, GMO varieties. The loss of traditional seeds will also entail a loss of genetic diversity which is a fundamental part of nature’s defense mechanism against plant diseases as the more genetic diversity that exists in any plant species, the easier it is to find strains or varieties which are resistant to a disease and therefore the less potential exists for a widespread crop failure when an unexpected plant disease strikes.

    The ill-effects of Monsanto’s Genetically Modified Seeds in India

    Iqbal Ahmed – 2/3/2012

    Monsanto’s operation in India illustrates monopolization and manipulation of the market economy, tradition, technology, and misgovernance. The world’s largest producer of genetically engineered seeds has been selling genetically modified (GM) in India for the last decade to benefit the Indian farmers – or so the company claims.

    In a country of more than 550 million farmers who are largely poor and uneducated and the agriculture market rife with inefficient business practices, the Indian government sought to reform the market by eliminating subsidies and loans to the farmers.

    The government reform did not help the farmers. With pressure from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Indian government has “forced market liberalization on India which means the elimination of government subsidies and government-backed loans to farmers.”

    Enter Monsanto with its “magic” GM seeds to transform the lives of the poor Indian farmers.


    Market Power
    Using its colossal market power, Monsanto craftily penetrated into the Indian markets.

    Monsanto convinced the Indian government that its GM seeds would produce better crops. According to a report by Farm Wars, one former Managing Director of Monsanto claimed that Monsanto manipulated research data “to get commercial approvals for its products in India.”
    Indian regulatory agencies, instead of verifying the data, simply remained compliant with the findings of what Monsanto presented. “They did not even have a test tube to validate the data and, at times, the data itself was faked,” the Farm Wars report says.

    Government regulations worked in favor of Monsanto to monopolize the Indian seed market. For example, “Prime Minsiter’s Office” in India pressured various state governments to sign MOUs with Monsanto to privatize the seed market.

    Through these “vested interests” with the Indian government, Monsanto eventually has monopolized the GM seed market for more than a decade.

    Unable to purchase traditional seeds, the farmers had to pay a hefty price for the expensive GM seeds. Many farmers had to borrow money from the local lenders to buy Monsanto’s seeds. To cite an example of how expensive the GM seeds are, 100 grams of GM cost $15 to the farmers compared with $15 for 1000 grams of traditional seeds.

  9. The most important thing is for food to be clearly labelled so that consumers can decide whether they want to use the product or not. I must be able to choose between GM or not.

  10. Carson C. Cadogan

    Monsanto seeds are bad because we are told that Monsanto seeds are bad.

  11. CCC, I’d advise you to think before you type…Anymore explanation would be a waste of my time.

  12. Sam

    You ought to have realized by now that campaign promises
    are political rhetoric designed to persuade the electorate.How long have you been watching/ listening to politics in America?

  13. Carson C. Cadogan

    I am yet to be persuaded that Monsanto seeds are bad.

  14. Bajan Abroad

    That’s it! Time to bring out the pitchforks and torches! Actually I cannot comment on this issue because I do not have enough knowledge of it but I should as I A. like to eat, ALOT and B. like a free market and C. dislike monopolies. I have seen this issue raised on facebook always by what I take as my more tree hugging, liberal, granola friends. But this has now sparked my interest and I will have to look into it more.

  15. Carson C. Cadogan

    ” I have seen this issue raised on facebook always by what I take as my more tree hugging, liberal, granola friends.”

    Every time Monsanto is mentioned it is like dangling a red cloth to a Spanish Bull as far as some people are concerned.. So it is like they want all of us to just accept what they say about Monsanto without question.

  16. GreenMonkey

    Anyone willing to sit back and meekly accept Monsanto’s continuing efforts to consolidate its control over more and more of the world’s seeds (and hence the world’s food supply), should at least be aware of Monsanto’s corporate history. The term ethically-challenged comes to mind.

    Monsanto: a history

    Following the Second World War, Monsanto championed the use of chemical pesticides in agriculture. Its major agrochemical products have included the herbicides 2,4,5-T, DDT, Lasso and Agent Orange, which was widely used as a defoliant by the U.S. Government during the Vietnam War and which was later shown to be highly carcinogenic. The Agent Orange produced by Monsanto had dioxin levels many times higher than that produced by Dow Chemicals, the other major supplier of Agent Orange to Vietnam. This made Monsanto the key defendant in the lawsuit brought by Vietnam War veterans in the United States, who faced an array of debilitating symptoms attributable to Agent Orange exposure. Internal Monsanto memos show that Monsanto knew of the problems of dioxin contamination of Agent Orange when it sold it to the U.S. government for use in Vietnam.

    Agent Orange contaminated more than 3 million civilians and servicemen, and an estimated 500,000 Vietnamese children have been born with deformities attributed to Agent Orange, leading to calls for Monsanto to be prosecuted for war crimes. No compensation has been paid to Vietnamese civilians and though some compensation was paid to U.S. veterans, according to William Sanjour, who led the Toxic Waste Division of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “thousands of veterans were disallowed benefits” because “Monsanto studies showed that dioxin [as found in Agent Orange] was not a human carcinogen.” An EPA colleague discovered that Monsanto had apparently falsified the data in their studies. Sanjour says, “If [the studies] were done correctly, they would have reached just the opposite result.”

    The success of the herbicide Lasso had turned around Monsanto’s struggling Agriculture Division, and by the time Agent Orange was banned in the U.S. and Lasso was facing increasing criticism, Monsanto had developed the weedkiller “Roundup” (active ingredient: glyphosate) as a replacement. Launched in 1976, Roundup helped make Monsanto the world’s largest producer of herbicides.

    The success of Roundup coincided with the recognition by Monsanto executives that they needed to radically transform a company increasingly under threat. According to a recent paper by Dominic Glover, “Monsanto had acquired a particularly unenviable reputation in this regard, as a major producer of both dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) – both persistent environmental pollutants posing serious risks to the environment and human health. Law suits and environmental clean-up costs began to cut into Monsanto’s bottom line, but more seriously there was a real fear that a serious lapse could potentially bankrupt the company.”

    Such a fear was not misplaced. By the 1980s Monsanto was being hit by a series of lawsuits. It was one of the companies named in 1987 in an $180 million settlement for Vietnam War veterans exposed to Agent Orange. In 1991 Monsanto was fined $1.2 million for trying to conceal the discharge of contaminated waste water. In 1995 Monsanto was ordered to pay $41.1 million to a waste management company in Texas due to concerns over hazardous waste dumping. That same year Monsanto was ranked fifth among U.S. corporations in EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory, having discharged 37 million pounds of toxic chemicals into the air, land, water and underground. In 1997 The Seattle Times reported that Monsanto sold 6,000 tons of contaminated waste to Idaho fertilizer companies, which contained the carcinogenic heavy metal cadmium.

    Continued here:

  17. St George's Dragon

    Again – is there a ban on GMO crops in Barbados?

  18. GreenMonkey

    In the Youtube video below two reporters for a Fox News station in Florida find out the hard way the power of Monsanto to kill a news story which will alert the public to health hazards associated with a new Monsanto product. They also find out the hard way that there is no law broken if a news broadcaster, airing its news programs over the public’s airwaves, knowingly orders its reporting staff to lie to its audience in a news report or documentary.

  19. Carson C. Cadogan

    Monsanto has a right to protect its interests.

  20. GreenMonkey

    Previously (May 2nd) I posted the following comment:

    Again, the issue is not whether there is a ban on GMO crops, but whether humanity will sit back and allow just a few, colluding, corporate entities, with Monsanto at the head, to consolidate a monopolistic control over the world’s seed supplies, This is especially worrying since we see Monsanto taking over/buying out more and more formerly independent seed companies and using their increasing power over the seed distributors to limit farmers’ access to what were the cheaper, non-patentable and non GMO types of seeds, i.e. the seeds which would be in competition to their own expensive, patentable, GMO varieties. The loss of traditional seeds will also entail a loss of genetic diversity which is a fundamental part of nature’s defense mechanism against plant diseases as the more genetic diversity that exists in any plant species, the easier it is to find strains or varieties which are resistant to a disease and therefore the less potential exists for a widespread crop failure when an unexpected plant disease strikes.

    Regarding the importance of maintaining genetic diversity, especially in our staple food crops, see this video from the Real News Network which quite concisely explains why genetic diversity and an open access by farmers to multiple strains of our crop seeds is essential for maintaining the viability of human life on the planet Earth.

  21. Riots in de land!!!

    To Carson C. Cadogan and St George’s Dragon coz the de two ah wunna dont seem to understand. Monsanto patents seeds. Monsanto patents DNA the building blocks of life given to all freely. soon we shall see them tax air, we already payin for water. Their mutant organisms contaminate natural seeds. When these natural seeds are contaminated with the tampered dna of monsanto’s frankenstiens they can now sue me and you or a farmer for copyright theft if we plant seeds with their patented DNA without their permission, even thought they contaminated your plants through polinization with the tamperd DNA. The law in america cant do nothing bout this coz pollination is an act of nature and not monsanto’s fault. But they don’t realise this is a clever act of terrorism, right here monsanto is using nature as a vector in biological warfare.

    These plants monsanto creates are found to be lacking in nutrition compared to a natural plant. They require a peculiarly large amount of monsanto’s “round up” to kill weeds or have a pesticide built into the plant’s DNA. Imagine a pesticide built into a plant, sounds lovely eh, tell me what is so wrong with that. You’re just eating pesticides is all, and then we wonder where all these gastrointestinal problems are comming from, these built in pesticide are killing our guts natural enzymes. Another thing about monsanto’s “miracle” seeds are they are programmed to only produce one crop, using “terminator” technology. They go inside the DNA and turn off the future plant’s ability to reproduce. This is so the farmer must come back to monsanto for fresh seeds every planting season.
    All of this stinks of the nastiest form of monoply in human history, put a chokehold on the food industry, he who controls the seeds.

    To recap above’s paragraph, plants offer less in nutrition, must use large amounts of monsanto’s own pesticides, some built into the plant’s DNA, killing your guts natural enzymes and you. Terminator technology so plants dont produce seeds and farmer must come back to monsanto. Their frankenstien plants can contaminate natural plants with their DNA
    altering the natural genepool with god know what. They can then sue you for planting without permission their patented, copyrighted organisms. Niether you Carson C. Cadogan and St George’s Dragon.

    Wunnah really think business and the goverments they own really give a damn about anybody anymore and they obviously dont give a damn about children either cuz this will affect future generations coz their children will be safe. Remember that seed vault (then again what am I saying, wunnah don’t live pun Earth, wunnah live in buhbadus), The Svalbard Global Seed Vault. That’s where they get their food from 100% natural. Thats them protecting them @$$es. These too, read and weep.

    From Rolling Stone Magazine-
    Everything Is Rigged: The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever

    The Scam Wall Street Learned From the Mafia

    How Wall Street Killed Financial Reform

    Bank of America: Too Crooked to Fail

    The capitalism pigeons have finally come home to roost!

  22. Pingback: Vandana Shiva: Traditional Knowledge, Biodiversity & Sustainable Living | Friends of St Lucia's UNESCO World Heritage Site

  23. GreenMonkey

    Some more background info on Monsanto’s POSILAC product (i.e. a genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone, AKA rBGH or rBST, sold to dairy farmers to increase milk production in dairy cows) and the controversy surrounding its health implications. Also see the video above labelled “THE CORPORATION”

    (NB Some years ago Monsanto sold off the rights to POSILAC to the Eli Lily Company and no longer deals in the product itself.)

    rBGH (rBST)

    As for the product itself, recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (a.k.a. rBST) – an engineered hormone, is sold under the name POSILAC®. Approved in 1993 it was Monsanto’s first G.M. product. Injected every two weeks it increases a cow’s milk output 15 percent or about a gallon plus (10 lbs) a day. Concern has been raised about the strain of this extra production on the cows themselves (photos) [35] [36].
    Cows on rBST

    The list of serious ailments to cows is long and sad [37] [38]. On each package of Posilac Monsanto itself warns of “increases in cystic ovaries and disorders of the uterus”, “decreases in gestation length and birthweight of calves”, “increased risk of clinical mastitis (visibly abnormal milk) [note: mastitis is very painful]. The number of cows effected with clinical mastitis and the number of cases per cow may increase. In addition, the risk of sub-clinical mastitis (milk not visibly abnormal) is increased”, “increases in somatic cell counts”, “increased frequency of use of medication in cows for mastitis and other health problems”, “periods of increased body temperature unrelated to illness”, “increase in digestive disorders such as indigestion and diarrhea”, “increased numbers of enlarged hocks and lesions (i.e. lacerations)” It should be noted that Monsanto uses the word “may” before several of these disorders. Disputed by Monsanto is the charge of draining of the animal’s bones of calcium to the point of lameness, though Health Canada, in their analysis “concluded that the risk of clinical lameness was increased approximately 50% in cows treated with rbST” [39]. Canada has banned the product because it “presents a sufficient and unacceptable threat to the safety of dairy cows”. “This is a drug that revs up cow metabolism so high that they’re typically burned out after two lactation cycles and slaughtered. Non-rBGH cows typically live four, seven, ten or more years” says Rick North, director of Campaign for Safe Food from Physicians for Social Responsibility’s Oregon chapter [40]. “It’s like putting a Volkswagen car in with the Indianapolis 500 racers,” says Jeff Kleinpeter, a fourth-generation dairy farmer in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, whose dairy was targeted by Monsanto, “You gotta keep the pedal to the metal the whole way through, and pretty soon that poor little Volkswagen engine’s going to burn up” [41].

    Posilac has also been banned by all 15 (now 27) nations of the European Union, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. Furthermore, Codex Alimentarius, the U.N. Body that sets food safety standards, has twice refused to approve the safety of rBGH [42].

    “In return for accepting increased pus, more antibiotics, and a tumor-promoting chemical in their glass of milk, what benefits will consumer’s get? None whatsoever. Zero. Even FDA says there are no consumer benefits. In fact, because the U.S. already produces a surplus of milk, which is purchased by Uncle Sam, increasing milk production with rBGH will COST the taxpayer an additional $200 million or more each year, estimates Consumers Union. That’s family money pumped into some chemical company’s pocket. That’s who benefits” [43]. See also Got Pus?.

    The tumor promoting chemical is Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1) which has been linked to breast, prostate and colon cancers [44][45][46][47]. See also [48]. Studies have indicated that milk from cows treated with rBGH have up to a 20-fold higher level of IGF-1 [49]. “‘If you have even just subtle amounts of IGF-1, there’s a link to breast, prostate and colon cancer,’ said Dr. Jenny Pompilio, an internist with Kaiser Permanente in Oregon. ‘It’s been known for years that that particular hormone is linked with cancers [because of its] effects on the endocrine system. The endocrine system is so sensitive that subtle effects can [make a difference]'” [50].

    How many cows in the United States are treated with Posilac? Monsanto says about one-third [51]. However says Gary Barton, Monsanto’s director of biotechnology, communications, “because milk from many dairies is mixed together, essentially all [non-organic or not specifically labeled rBGH or rBST free] milk is treated” [52]. A 2007 USDA Dairy Survey estimated rBGH use at 15.2% of operations and 17.2% of cows. The Survey noted that rBGH use increases as herd size increases – 9.1% of small operations use the hormone, whereas 42.7% of large operations use it.

    Monsanto has routinely funded scientists who publish positive studies about rBGH. Dale E. Bauman and Terry Etherton are two such scientists who have received Monsanto funding and published studies with data supporting the use of rBGH.


    Intrigue surrounds Canada’s decision as the scientists involved alleged that Monsanto attempted to bribe and pressure them into approving Posilac. Says the Ottawa Citizen 10/23/98 “Veterinary scientists from Health Canada’s Human Safety Division testified yesterday that they are being pressured to approve a controversial hormone intended to boost milk production in dairy cattle. ‘We have been pressured and coerced to pass drugs of questionable safety, including rBST’, Dr. Shiv Chopra told the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. The senators sat dumbfounded as Dr. Margaret Haydon told of being in a meeting when officials from Monsanto Inc., the drug’s manufacturer, made an offer of between $1 million and $2 million to the scientists from Health Canada — an offer that she told the senators could only have been interpreted as a bribe”, additionally, “Dr. Haydon also recounted how notes and files critical of scientific data provided by Monsanto were stolen from a locked filing cabinet in her office.” [53] [54].

  24. GreenMonkey

    Hello BFP, I have a post still held for moderation timestamped May 5 2013, 1:58am. Could you release it please, and then read and compare that post to this (below) – the more things change etc. etc

    Ingredient in Roundup Weed Killer Found in Food
    April 27, 2013 by Kathy Will 10 Comments

    A peer-reviewed study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), published in Entropy, has found that residues of glyphosate, the main ingredient in the weed killer Roundup, have been found in food. Glyphosate is used on crops that are genetically engineered (GMO foods) to be “Roundup Ready”.

    Monsanto scientists have claimed for years that Roundup is safe and non-toxic because it targets the shikimate pathway in plants, which is absent in animals. But this pathway is present in bacteria that live in human guts, which play an important role in human physiology, from immunity to synthesizing vitamins.

    The study’s authors say that glyphosate does induce disease and is a “textbook example of exogenous semiotic entropy.” Glyphosate detoxifies xenobiotics and interferes with cytochrome P450 enzymes, which enhances the damaging effects of other chemical residues and toxins, and very slowly damages cellular systems in the body through inflammation. Residues of glyphosate are found in sugar, corn, soy, and wheat, some of the main components of the Western diet.


    The effects of glyphosate can take 40 years to manifest as symptoms of disease, which make them very hard to trace and attribute to the chemical. And this isn’t the first time an issue has been raised with glyphosate. In 2005, a study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives showed that glyphosate is toxic to human placental cells and concluded that the “endocrine and toxic effects of Roundup, not just glyphosate, can be observed in mammals.” The toxic effects were found when glyphosate concentrations used in the study were 100 times lower than the recommended use in agriculture.

    Much of Monsanto’s patented, GM seed was created to allow crops to withstand doses of Monsanto’s glyphosate based Roundup herbicide which would easily kill similar non-GM crops, so it is hardly surprising that Monsanto actively works with other like minded corporations to fight tooth and nail to ensure that labeling laws in the US are not passed which would clearly identify food items containing GM products to consumers.

    Monsanto by its actions shows it does not believe that consumers should have the right to chose whether or not they should accept their bland assurances that their GM products are perfectly safe and good for the environment without first seeing those products undergo thorough, independent testing by scientists not beholden to Monsanto for paycheques or research grants etc..

    Also bear in mind that in the US and other countries agencies like the FDA etc that are supposed to regulate the introduction of GM crops do NOT DO THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT RESEARCH OR SAFETY VERIFICATION. Instead they just rely on whatever Monsanto shovels their way by way of supposedly scientific studies conducted by Monsanto affiliated scientists to support releasing a new GM product into the environment and into consumers’ bellies.

    “Trust us, says Monsanto, Would we lie to you?” Well you can read the earlier post above detailing some highlights of Monsanto’s corporate history and draw your own conclusion.

  25. GreenMonkey

    Hello BFP, this is my 2nd request that my post on this thread timestamped May 5, 2013 @1:58 am be released from moderation. Thanks.

    In the meantime here’s some news about a former research scientist for Agriculture Canada, Dr Thierry Vrain, whose job description when he worked for the Canadian government included defending the safety of GM crops to the public. He says over the last 10 years he has come to have serious reservations that he had been doing the right thing in defending the safety of GMOs in the course of his employment.

    Former Pro-GMO Scientist Speaks Out On The Real Dangers of Genetically Engineered Food.

    I retired 10 years ago after a long career as a research scientist for Agriculture Canada. When I was on the payroll, I was the designated scientist of my institute to address public groups and reassure them that genetically engineered crops and foods were safe. There is, however, a growing body of scientific research – done mostly in Europe, Russia, and other countries – showing that diets containing engineered corn or soya cause serious health problems in laboratory mice and rats.

    I don’t know if I was passionate about it but I was knowledgeable. I defended the side of technological advance, of science and progress.

    I have in the last 10 years changed my position. I started paying attention to the flow of published studies coming from Europe, some from prestigious labs and published in prestigious scientific journals, that questioned the impact and safety of engineered food.


    One argument I hear repeatedly is that nobody has been sick or died after a meal (or a trillion meals since 1996) of GM food. Nobody gets ill from smoking a pack of cigarette either. But it sure adds up, and we did not know that in the 1950s before we started our wave of epidemics of cancer. Except this time it is not about a bit of smoke, it’s the whole food system that is of concern. The corporate interest must be subordinated to the public interest, and the policy of substantial equivalence must be scrapped as it is clearly untrue. (My emphasis /GM)
    More at:

  26. LC

    Hi David, so will Barbadians join the world-wide ‘March Against Monsanto’ on May 25th, 2013? Check out the posts above for details. Also, check out Jeffery Smith’s website A true cursador whos’ been up against monsanto from day one. His website is the most comprehensive on GMO”S, simply a wealth of information. His newest documentary, ‘Genetic Roulette’ is OUTSTANDING!!! It’s in everyone’s best interest to watch it
    as he explains the W5’s of GMO’s and all of it’s dangers. Backs it all with scientific proof. If you want to protect your health, the health of your families and the health of all living things, this is the film! Lorraine

  27. GreenMonkey

    Congratulations to Peru for standing up to Monsanto and the biotech lobby. (And no doubt the US diplomatic service which acts as Monsanto’s hired guns when it comes to arm twisting reluctant countries into accepting Monsanto’s inadequately tested, high priced, patented GM seed products to the detriment of traditional or native strains of seeds, often seeds which were developed over thousands of years to adapt to local growing conditions).

    Peru bans GMOs: Will America take the hint and follow suit before it’s too late?

    Wednesday, May 08, 2013 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer

    (NaturalNews) The only other country in the Americas besides Ecuador to completely ban genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) from being cultivated within its borders, the South American nation of Peru has taken charge to help protect not only its own citizens but also the people of the countries to whom it exports food crops from the horrors of biotechnology. As reported by, Peru has successfully implemented a 10-year moratorium on GMOs while extensive, long-term safety tests are conducted.

    Accomplishing what practically no other country in North, Central, or South America has yet had the willingness or boldness to even attempt, Peru has essentially told the biotechnology industry to take its untested “Frankencrops” and shove them where the sun does not shine. Not only are GMOs dangerous for the environment and humans, agree many local experts and farmers, but they also threaten to decimate the rich biodiversity that has sustained the many civilizations of Peru for millennia. (my emphasis /GM)

    “They’re a big monoculture, which is why people usually end up using GMOs,” says Chef Pedro Miguel Schiaffino about the detriments of factory farming, as quoted by Schiaffino owns two restaurants in Lima that serve clean, native foods, including many unique varieties found only in the Amazon rainforest. “[W]hen you have monocultures, the crops end up getting diseases, and you have to look for these extreme ways to fix them.”

    More at:

  28. GreenMonkey

    Another video documentary Seeds of Freedom

    The story of seed has become one of loss, control, dependence and debt. It’s been written by those who want to make vast profit from our food system, no matter what the true cost. It’s time to change the story.

    Seeds of Freedom charts the story of seed from its roots at the heart of traditional, diversity rich farming systems across the world, to being transformed into a powerful commodity, used to monopolise the global food system.The film highlights the extent to which the industrial agricultural system, and genetically modified (GM) seeds in particular, has impacted on the enormous agro -biodiversity evolved by farmers and communities around the world, since the beginning of agriculture.

    Seeds of Freedom seeks to challenge the mantra that large-scale, industrial agriculture is the only means by which we can feed the world, promoted by the pro-GM lobby. In tracking the story of seed it becomes clear how corporate agenda has driven the take over of seed in order to make vast profit and control of the food global system.

    Watch it online here (30 min);

  29. Crossroads

    Barbados does have restrictions againts the importation of GM seeds. All seed products must be accopanied by a previously approved licence.

  30. mrcorrecto

    White Slavery and Servitude in Barbados

    Between the years of 1652 to 1659 it is estimated that well over 50,000 men, women, and children of Irish descent were forcibly transported to British imperial colonies in Barbados and Virginia to serve as slave labor on plantations.
    Other prisoners of war, as well as political dissenters, taken from conquered regions of England, Wales, and Scotland were also sent into permanent exile as slaves to Barbados. This essentially enabled Cromwell to purge the subject population of any perceived opposing elements, as well as to provide a lucrative source of profit through their sale to plantation owners. The extent to which White prisoners were transported to Barbados was so great, that by 1701, out of the roughly 25,000 slaves present on the island’s plantations, about 21,700 of them were of European descent. Later, as the African slave trade began to expand and flourish, the Irish slave population of Barbados began to drastically recede over time, due in part to the fact that many were worked to death early on in their arrival and also as a result of racial intermixing with Black slaves.

    In stark contrast to the small number of White indentured servants present on Barbados, who could at least theoretically look forward to eventual freedom no matter how bad their temporary bondage may have been, White slaves possessed no such hope. Indeed, they were treated the same as slaves of African descent in every manner imaginable. Irish slaves in Barbados were regarded as property to be bought, sold, treated and mistreated in any way the slave-owner saw fit. Their children were born into hereditary slavery for life as well. Punitive violence, such as whippings, was liberally employed against Irish slaves, and was often used on them immediately upon their arrival in the colonies to brutally reinforce their enchained status, and as a warning against future disobedience. The dehumanizing and degrading cattle-like physical inspections used to assess and showcase the “qualities” of each captive for prospective buyers, which reached infamy with the Black slave markets, was also practiced upon both White slaves and indentured servants in the colonies of the West Indies and North America. Irish slaves were marked off from their free White kinsmen through a branding of the owner’s initials applied to the forearm for women and on the buttocks for men by a red-hot iron. Irish women, in particular were seen as a desirable commodity by White slave owners who purchased them as sexual concubines. Others found themselves sold off to local brothels. This degrading practice of sex slavery made Irish men, women and children potential victims to perverse whims of many unsavory buyers.

    In reality, White slaves fared no better a fate as unwilling human property than did contemporary captive Africans. At times they were even treated worse then their Black counterparts due to economic considerations. This was especially true throughout most of the 17th century, as White captives were far more inexpensive on the slave market than their African counterparts, and hence were mistreated to a greater extent as they were seen as a conveniently disposable labor force. It was not until later that Black slaves became a cheaper commodity. An account dating back to 1667 grimly described the Irish of Barbados as “poor men, that are just permitted to live,… derided by the Negroes, and branded with the Epithite of white slaves.” A 1695 account written by the island’s governor frankly stated that they labored “in the parching sun without shirt, shoe, or stocking”, and were “domineered over and used like dogs.” It was common knowledge among the Irish of this era that to be deported, or “barbadosed”, to the West Indies meant a life of slavery. In many cases, it was actually common for White slaves in Barbados to be supervised by mulatto or Black overseers, who often treated captive Irish laborers with exceptional cruelty. Indeed:

    The mulatto drivers enjoyed using the whip on whites. It gave them a sense of power and was also a protest against their white sires. White women in particular were singled out for punishment in the fields. Sometimes, to satisfy a perverted craving, the mulatto drivers forced the women to strip naked before commencing the flogging and then forced them to continue working all day under the blistering sun. While the women were weeding in the fields in that condition, the drivers often satisfied their lust by taking them from the rear.

    Such instances of horrific rape and unwilling sexual union between Irish female slaves and Black slave-drivers, was actually implicitly encouraged by many of their White masters. Mulatto children, who resulted from such unions, both willing and unwilling, were seen by the plantation masters as a potentially unlimited breeding stock of future native-born slave labor, acquired free of charge and without the costs of transportation. Existing public records on Barbados reveal that some planters went as far as to systematize this process of miscegenation through the establishment of special “stud farms” for the specific purpose of breeding mixed-race slave children. White female slaves, often as young as 12, were used as “breeders” to be forcibly mated with Black men.

    The enchained Irish of Barbados played a pivotal role as the instigators and leaders of various slave revolts on the island, which was an ever-present threat faced by the planter aristocracy. Such an uprising occurred in November 1655, when a group of Irish slaves and servants escaped along with several Blacks, and proceeded to attempt to spark a general rebellion among the enchained community against their masters. This was a serious enough threat to justify the deployment of militia, which eventually overcame them in a pitched battle. Before their demise they had wreaked considerable havoc upon the ruling planter class, having hacked several to pieces in brutal retribution for their bondage. They had not succeeded in their broader strategy of completely laying waste by fire, the sugar fields in which they had been forced to labor for the enrichment of their masters. Those taken prisoner were made examples of, as a grim warning to the rest of their kindred Irish, when they were burned alive and their heads were thereafter displayed on pikes throughout the market place.

    As a result of a steep increase in Black slave labor migration to Barbados, compounded with high rates of Irish mortality and racial intermixing, White slaves, which had once constituted the majority of the population in 1629, were reduced to an increasingly dwindling minority by 1786. In the present era, there remains only a minuscule, yet significant community within the native Barbadian population comprised of the descendants of Scots-Irish slaves, who continue to bear testimony to the tragic legacy of their enchained Celtic forebears. This small minority within the predominantly Black island of Barbados is known locally as the “Red Legs” , which was originally a derogatory name, understood in similar context to the slur “redneck”, and was derived from the sun-burnt skin experienced by early White slaves who had been previously unadjusted to the tropical Caribbean climate. To this day, a community numbering approximately 400 still resides in the northeastern part of the island in the parish of St. John, and has vigorously resisted racially mixing with the larger Black population, despite living in abject poverty. Most make their living from subsistence farming and fishing, and indeed they are one of the most impoverished groups living in modern Barbados.
    just a reminder.1!!!!!!!!!!

  31. Anonymous

    Barbadians please do not allow Monsanto GM seeds to enter the island. It will be the hugest mistake – health wise – you make as a nation.

    For many years, America has been the guinea pig for this company and we have the highest increase rate of cancers, autism, life-threatening food allergies and other diseases since the crops have been on the market. We can’t do anything about it because our government is in bed with the lobbyist and top executives of Monsanto. But you can! Do your research (not the research they provide). European nations are refusing their seeds because they know the outcome.

    Stand strong. The health of your children and the future generations of Barbados depends on it.

  32. Free viewing of Jeffery Smith’s most recent documentary “Genetic Roulette” exposing the latest scientific studies and developments of the health dangers of GMO’s.
    also, Jeffery’s website