As an addendum to this indictment of Monsanto, consider their attempt to make labeling of milk produced from cows shot up - OR NOT - with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) into a crime. Their thrust was not merely to make it unnecessary to do so, but a criminal act for any seller of milk to, however honestly, claim the non-use of rBGH. Whatever the effects of this hormone itself may be on humans - and it does show up in the milk of 'treated' cows, and has been traced by the usual radioactive labeling techniques though otherwise undectable by currently employed analytical methods - there's no question it affects the health of the cow, who has been pushed to make an additional 10% of milk. Since dairying is a business with a narrow profit margin and a highly organized 'middleman' structure with many laws on the books regulating and supporting that structure, the herds are already highly stressed. As a result, it becomes necessary to employ antibiotics at an even higher constant preventative basis, loading the milk and the environment with them. The final ironic twist is that all this "improvement" in productivity has not resulted in much additional profit for the dairyman, who has to micromanage his herd to forestall any signs of infection, cull animals sooner as they wear out under the productive stress, and buy the junk from monsanto, along with the antibiotics, to keep his business functioning. Malcolm
Marshall Dudley wrote: > Ode Coyote wrote: > > > There must have been more to it that just that, like maybe, he was under > > contract with Monsanto on some portion of his property and violated some > > clause in that contract?..or he really did rip off something or did use > > second generation Monsanto seeds and used a plausable excuse to hide it? > > People do lie in court ya know. > > As Paul Harvey says, what's the rest of the story? > > Obviously, farmers breaching contracts must be a protection problem for > > Monsanto or they would not have bothered developing the terminator. If it > > was terminator pollen and it does render seeds sterile, the farmer wouldn't > > have a crop to get sued over. > > It was not over the terminator one, it was on the one that makes the crops > immune > to roundup. The crop was Rape. Here is one of many articles on this: > http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,191157,00.html and > http://www.percyschmeiser.com/ > > > > > Don't get me wrong here, I don't like Monsantos products or tactics > > either, but there's something fishy about that story. If that actually did > > happen as stated, it would be pretty wide spread. Pollen does not lend > > itself to control and Monsanto does not have a seed monopoly [yet]. Are > > there other stories like it? > > Check out http://www.purefood.org/monlink.html for more of this type of > information on Monsanto heavy handedness. > > Marshall > > -- > The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. > > To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to: > silver-list-requ...@eskimo.com -or- silver-digest-requ...@eskimo.com > with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line. > > To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com > Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html > List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>
