list of MONSANTO GMO companies

There is now an app (at least for iPhone and Android) called "Buycott". I tried it yesterday and it works great.

You can sign up for "campaigns" (such as NO GMO) and use the app to scan a barcode and see who the parent company is and if they conflict with campaigns you care about.

It's a teeny bit buggy, but a great tool.

~RUNS AROUND FLAILING ARMS SCREAMING~ UNCLEAN UNCLEAN


Seriously though Monstanto is the Kony of 2013.. give it a few months and there will be something new..

FOR THOSE WHO DON'T LIKE GMO FOOD AND THINK YOU'RE EATING & PAYING MORE FOR ORGANIC SO CALLED HEALTHY FOODS YOU MAY BE IN FOR A SURPRISE IF YOU LIVE IN THE USA!

"Conveniently, organic food is not subject to testing or to the 0.05% rule either. While organic may not be grown with GM seeds and farmers must take steps to prevent cross pollination, there is no federal rule that organic must be GM free..

Genetically engineered seeds are an “excluded method” for certified organic farming. However, organic foods may contain genetically engineered ingredients as long as efforts to exclude them have been made."

Have a nice day:flowerforyou:

^^ Truest story I've ever heard. Thanks for posting and getting the word out there!

To the original poster -- you do understand that everything you eat has been genetically modified over the last 2000 years or so of farming and domestication don't you? Or perhaps its just "evil" corporations that you dislike.

As you said tinfoil meet head -- head meet tinfoil.

Regardless of whether you have problems with GMO foods, Monsanto is a company with poor ethics. I shun their products where I find them for this reason only.

I'm unaware of any ethics issues with the company. If you mean they make money and are good at what they do (i.e. sell lots of products at market sustainable prices) and deliver results for consumers and investors then I again repeat my assertion -- its not Monsanto that you dislike its "evil" corporations.

Uh, Monsanto has serious ethic issues. Just google it or watch a documentary or two on them. I don't have a problem with GMO as I know most of it has been modified over the years and there is probably not really any going back. But I do have a problem with Monsanto. A LOT of people have had a problem with them for years, it's not anything new. People are paying more attention now and a bill was recently signed by Obama that involved them.

My biggest issue is that their farms' seeds will blow in the wind, land on a non-Monsanto owned, non GE farm, turn that farmer's crops to GE and then Monsanto will try to sue them for "stealing" their product. How is this ethical!? They have put people out of business.

§ 205.603 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic livestock production.
In accordance with restrictions specified in this section the following synthetic substances may be used in organic livestock production:

(a) As disinfectants, sanitizer, and medical treatments as applicable.

(1) Alcohols.

(i) Ethanol-disinfectant and sanitizer only, prohibited as a feed additive.

(ii) Isopropanol-disinfectant only.

(2) Aspirin-approved for health care use to reduce inflammation.

(3) Atropine (CAS #-51-55-8)—federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the lawful written or oral order of a licensed veterinarian, in full compliance with the AMDUCA and 21 CFR part 530 of the Food and Drug Administration regulations. Also, for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires:

(i) Use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian; and

(ii) A meat withdrawal period of at least 56 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter; and a milk discard period of at least 12 days after administering to dairy animals.

(4) Biologics—Vaccines.

(5) Butorphanol (CAS #-42408-82-2)—federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the lawful written or oral order of a licensed veterinarian, in full compliance with the AMDUCA and 21 CFR part 530 of the Food and Drug Administration regulations. Also, for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires:

(i) Use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian; and

(ii) A meat withdrawal period of at least 42 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter; and a milk discard period of at least 8 days after administering to dairy animals.

(6) Chlorhexidine—Allowed for surgical procedures conducted by a veterinarian. Allowed for use as a teat dip when alternative germicidal agents and/or physical barriers have lost their effectiveness.

(7) Chlorine materials—disinfecting and sanitizing facilities and equipment. Residual chlorine levels in the water shall not exceed the maximum residual disinfectant limit under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

(i) Calcium hypochlorite.

(ii) Chlorine dioxide.

(iii) Sodium hypochlorite.

(8) Electrolytes—without antibiotics.

(9) Flunixin (CAS #-38677-85-9)—in accordance with approved labeling; except that for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires a withdrawal period of at least two-times that required by the FDA.

(10) Furosemide (CAS #-54-31-9)—in accordance with approved labeling; except that for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires a withdrawal period of at least two-times that required that required by the FDA.

(11) Glucose.

(12) Glycerine—Allowed as a livestock teat dip, must be produced through the hydrolysis of fats or oils.

(13) Hydrogen peroxide.

(14) Iodine.

(15) Magnesium hydroxide (CAS #-1309-42-8)—federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the lawful written or oral order of a licensed veterinarian, in full compliance with the AMDUCA and 21 CFR part 530 of the Food and Drug Administration regulations. Also, for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian.

(16) Magnesium sulfate.

(17) Oxytocin—use in postparturition therapeutic applications.

(18) Parasiticides—Prohibited in slaughter stock, allowed in emergency treatment for dairy and breeder stock when organic system plan-approved preventive management does not prevent infestation. Milk or milk products from a treated animal cannot be labeled as provided for in subpart D of this part for 90 days following treatment. In breeder stock, treatment cannot occur during the last third of gestation if the progeny will be sold as organic and must not be used during the lactation period for breeding stock.

(i) Fenbendazole (CAS # 43210-67-9)—only for use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian.

(ii) Ivermectin (CAS # 70288-86-7).

(iii) Moxidectin (CAS # 113507-06-5)—for control of internal parasites only.

(19) Peroxyacetic/peracetic acid (CAS #-79-21-0)—for sanitizing facility and processing equipment.

(20) Phosphoric acid—allowed as an equipment cleaner, Provided , That, no direct contact with organically managed livestock or land occurs.

(21) Poloxalene (CAS #-9003-11-6)—for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires that poloxalene only be used for the emergency treatment of bloat.

(22) Tolazoline (CAS #-59-98-3)—federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the lawful written or oral order of a licensed veterinarian, in full compliance with the AMDUCA and 21 CFR part 530 of the Food and Drug Administration regulations. Also, for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires:

(i) Use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian;

(ii) Use only to reverse the effects of sedation and analgesia caused by Xylazine; and

(iii) A meat withdrawal period of at least 8 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter; and a milk discard period of at least 4 days after administering to dairy animals.

(23) Xylazine (CAS #-7361-61-7)—federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the lawful written or oral order of a licensed veterinarian, in full compliance with the AMDUCA and 21 CFR part 530 of the Food and Drug Administration regulations. Also, for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires:

(i) Use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian;

(ii) The existence of an emergency; and

(iii) A meat withdrawal period of at least 8 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter; and a milk discard period of at least 4 days after administering to dairy animals.

(b) As topical treatment, external parasiticide or local anesthetic as applicable.

(1) Copper sulfate.

(2) Formic acid (CAS # 64-18-6)—for use as a pesticide solely within honeybee hives.

(3) Iodine.

(4) Lidocaine—as a local anesthetic. Use requires a withdrawal period of 90 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter and 7 days after administering to dairy animals.

(5) Lime, hydrated—as an external pest control, not permitted to cauterize physical alterations or deodorize animal wastes.

(6) Mineral oil—for topical use and as a lubricant.

(7) Procaine—as a local anesthetic, use requires a withdrawal period of 90 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter and 7 days after administering to dairy animals.

(8) Sucrose octanoate esters (CAS #s-42922-74-7; 58064-47-4)—in accordance with approved labeling.

(c) As feed supplements—None.

(d) As feed additives.

(1) DL-Methionine, DL-Methionine-hydroxy analog, and DL-Methionine-hydroxy analog calcium (CAS #'s 59-51-8, 583-91-5, 4857-44-7, and 922-50-9)—for use only in organic poultry production at the following maximum levels of synthetic methionine per ton of feed: Laying and broiler chickens—2 pounds; turkeys and all other poultry—3 pounds.

(2) Trace minerals, used for enrichment or fortification when FDA approved.

(3) Vitamins, used for enrichment or fortification when FDA approved.

(e) As synthetic inert ingredients as classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for use with nonsynthetic substances or synthetic substances listed in this section and used as an active pesticide ingredient in accordance with any limitations on the use of such substances.

(1) EPA List 4—Inerts of Minimal Concern.

(2) [Reserved]

(f) Excipients, only for use in the manufacture of drugs used to treat organic livestock when the excipient is: Identified by the FDA as Generally Recognized As Safe; Approved by the FDA as a food additive; or Included in the FDA review and approval of a New Animal Drug Application or New Drug Application.

My problem with Monsanto is not the GMO foods, but the fact that they are killing local farmers.

If the government keeps up their alliance with Monsato, there will eventually be no more famrers, just a centralized US farm company called Monsato.. :explode:

You do know many farmers in the US buy from Monsanto right?. Monsanto does not own all of the farmland, they sell the seed to farmers who plant and till and harvest the seeds. Farmers buy from Monsanto because their seeds have been improved to be drought resistant and other advantages. I'm in the midwest, farmers here love monsanto (edited to add that I'm sure not ALL farmers in the midwest have universal love for monsanto). Monsanto does require you sign an agreement that says you will not replant seeds, but have to buy from them for next years crop. You can use seeds for feed and stuff, but not for crops, that infringes on the patent. Thats why people get sued, because they violate the agreeement and try to replant.

Excerpt from a farmer who is so scared of monsanto

George Wherry, a Washington County farmer and member of the farm bureau's state board of directors, said he supports the Supreme Court's decision to protect Monsanto and its investment in providing high-quality seeds.

"We're fortunate to have a company in this country willing to do this," Wherry said. "It's not at our expense as farmers trying to develop or do this. We're not all rocket scientists. We're tillers of the soil, really."

Wherry said the seeds are not only resistant to weed killers but stand up to drought, so crops can survive with a minimal amount of water.

My problem with Monsanto is not the GMO foods, but the fact that they are killing local farmers.

If the government keeps up their alliance with Monsato, there will eventually be no more famrers, just a centralized US farm company called Monsato.. :explode:

You do know many farmers in the US buy from Monsanto right?. Monsanto does not own all of the farmland, they sell the seed to farmers who plant and till and harvest the seeds. Farmers buy from Monsanto because their seeds have been improved to be drought resistant and other advantages. I'm in the midwest, farmers here love monsanto (edited to add that I'm sure not ALL farmers in the midwest have universal love for monsanto). Monsanto does require you sign an agreement that says you will not replant seeds, but have to buy from them for next years crop. You can use seeds for feed and stuff, but not for crops, that infringes on the patent. Thats why people get sued, because they violate the agreeement and try to replant.

Excerpt from a farmer who is so scared of monsanto

George Wherry, a Washington County farmer and member of the farm bureau's state board of directors, said he supports the Supreme Court's decision to protect Monsanto and its investment in providing high-quality seeds.

"We're fortunate to have a company in this country willing to do this," Wherry said. "It's not at our expense as farmers trying to develop or do this. We're not all rocket scientists. We're tillers of the soil, really."

Wherry said the seeds are not only resistant to weed killers but stand up to drought, so crops can survive with a minimal amount of water.

If a farmer deliberately violates their agreement with Monsanto, then yes, Monsanto should be able to protect their investment. I'm personally not talking about that - what I don't like is when their GMO pollen or seeds gets transported to a non-Monsanto-using farmers fields, due something beyond their control, and the farmer gets sued for that.

My problem with Monsanto is not the GMO foods, but the fact that they are killing local farmers.

If the government keeps up their alliance with Monsato, there will eventually be no more famrers, just a centralized US farm company called Monsato.. :explode:

You do know many farmers in the US buy from Monsanto right?. Monsanto does not own all of the farmland, they sell the seed to farmers who plant and till and harvest the seeds. Farmers buy from Monsanto because their seeds have been improved to be drought resistant and other advantages. I'm in the midwest, farmers here love monsanto. Monsanto does require you sign an agreement that says you will not replant seeds, but have to buy from them for next years crop. You can use seeds for feed and stuff, but not for crops, that infringes on the patent. Thats why people get sued, because they violate the agreeement and try to replant.

Excerpt from a farmer who is so scared of monsanto

George Wherry, a Washington County farmer and member of the farm bureau's state board of directors, said he supports the Supreme Court's decision to protect Monsanto and its investment in providing high-quality seeds.

"We're fortunate to have a company in this country willing to do this," Wherry said. "It's not at our expense as farmers trying to develop or do this. We're not all rocket scientists. We're tillers of the soil, really."

Wherry said the seeds are not only resistant to weed killers but stand up to drought, so crops can survive with a minimal amount of water.

I do understand that some farms buy from them willingly.. BUT they are still suing and taking crops from farmers who do NOT buy their seeds. Whether they are transferred from neighboring fields or any other reason they can come up with.. They have sued farmers who purchased seeds in the past for crops several years later with NO evidence that they were saved or replanted Monsanto seeds. They have sued farmers who did not purchase their seeds at all but took samples from others farmer's fields to use against them...

Believe me, I am all for the free market. But our president signed a bill, written in part by Monsanto, protecting a private company from judicial review, (whose board of directors have held federal government positions including one of Obama's advisers) to manipulate the free market and collect ridiculous profits, there is a major problem and conflict of interest. . Monsanto is already supplier of a huge percentage of seeds and now bankrupting farmers who do NOT buy their seeds while the government backs them. Or leaving farmers with no alternative to purchasing other seeds.

Most disturbing, their seeds have never been questioned by the FDA/USDA. Shocking, considering two Monsanto directors have held positions within those agencies....There are many other sources for GMO seeds but require millions of dollars and years of testing to be approved, Monsanto was never held to that standard.

Monsanto=government run agriculture.

Every suit i have seen is people who violate the patent. Not them randomly suing them. Not saying it's not there, I just haven't seen it. The bill you reference has been largely sensationalized, making claims saying it prevents anyone from suing monsanto, which is completely false.

Do any current or former farmers who don't work for or use Monsanto products hold positions with FDA and USDA? If so, then they are probably evil people with huge conflicts of interest as well.

To the original poster -- you do understand that everything you eat has been genetically modified over the last 2000 years or so of farming and domestication don't you? Or perhaps its just "evil" corporations that you dislike.

As you said tinfoil meet head -- head meet tinfoil.

ALL of this!!!

bump!

To the original poster -- you do understand that everything you eat has been genetically modified over the last 2000 years or so of farming and domestication don't you? Or perhaps its just "evil" corporations that you dislike.

As you said tinfoil meet head -- head meet tinfoil.

Agreed. Though I do believe that Monsanto seems to wield far too much power in the halls of government.

99% of their food is processed crap anyway. The only 2 things I saw on the list that I eat are Quaker oats and Uncle Ben's rice and I can switch to organic.

You know the marketing term organic doesn't mean the lack of pesticides. They actually use quite a few as well as farming practices that have far more damaging effects on the soil than the methods you're clamoring about as bad.

The best part of this thread was all the evidence on how harmful GMO is

To the original poster -- you do understand that everything you eat has been genetically modified over the last 2000 years or so of farming and domestication don't you? Or perhaps its just "evil" corporations that you dislike.

As you said tinfoil meet head -- head meet tinfoil.

Respectfully, this is a common misperception. There is a VAST difference between genetic engineering and selective breeding.

2000 years ago we most certainly did not have the capacity to splice the gene of a spider into a goat to produce silk in its milk. Historically, humans have used *selective breeding* in an attempt to have the most positive traits of two CLOSELY RELATED organisms (different species of corn, cattle, etc.) come forward in the resulting offspring. We've done that here for years on our farm with the livestock. It's done through selective breeding, be it through the "regular" means, cross-pollination, artificial insemination, etc. This form of production can be reproduced in nature.

Genetic engineering, on the other hand, splices DNA from several unrelated organisms into embryotic tissue with a small percentage of these attempts actually surviving. NOT a form of production reproducible in nature. And this is more than crossing animal DNA, we're also talking combining animal and/or plant DNA with DNA from viruses & bacteria ... several genetic combinations at a time ...

The part that truly worries me are the consequences of these GM crops now appearing in the form of super resistant weeds. So much for RoundUp ready fields! A vicious cycle. This is akin to overuse of antibiotics developing a super-strain of antibiotic resistant diseases.

As for the Monsanto/farmer controversy. The current lawsuit, as I understand it, prevented a farmer from saving seed from a previous years crop - a standard practice for the past 2000 years or so - how's that for tying it in to the original post! ) - and effectively forcing him to buy new seed annually from Monsanto. The GM seed beginning to be used today is a "terminator" seed, i.e. sterile, which reinforces the buying from Monsanto. These RoundUp Ready crops require buying Roundup from the pesticide company ... which is guess who? Monsanto.

Now if you are trying to avoid GM crops, be prepared to be sued by Monsanto for patent infringement if your fields are downwind and become cross-pollinated by neighboring fields growing Roundup Ready crops.

Conspiracy? No. Monopoly? LOL

Let's discuss this again in 5 years and see how the wind blew. (pun intended) How many of us believed processed food and fast food were "just fine" 5 years ago because we were told it was so?

Bump for later