Monthly Archives: January 2010

Proof that Monsanto’s Roundup Ready creates weed resistance – Puts the responsibility back on the farmer

By April Reeves

Monsanto is always trying to convince North Americans that Roundup Ready is safe and won’t create resistance, but in Australia, farmers sign on the dotted line to keep vigil over their use of the chemical.

However, the ministry flagged the importance of farmers following procedures to avoid any threat of weedkiller resistance being spread to surrounding plants.

“Effective stewardship of Roundup Ready varieties is important in minimizing the risk of developing glyphosate-tolerant weeds,” a report of the crop trials said.

Monsanto imposes smallprint on buyers of its GM seed range that they inform neighboring farmers, permit official inspections and undertake “weed walks” after glyphosate sprays to see if resistance is spreading.”

Is this not a direct admission to a problem? Those of us who protest these chemicals already know of Roundup’s hazards, yet our governments go on blindly approving it.

Now Monsanto is putting the responsibility onto the farmer. “It’s your problem if something goes wrong” seems to be the statement here.

Why would any farmer WANT to take this on? Does this now open up the farmer to potential law suits from anyone?

Please continue to eat Organic as much and whenever you can.


GMO seed watch: You won’t know you’re planting GM seeds

Here is a GMO  variety heads up, courtesy of Maureen Bostock (a BC expat now based in  Ontario)

It seems Seedway Company out of Pennsylvania is selling BT Sweet Corn in  the U.S. & southwestern Ontario.

The  varieties are marked by the “Attribute” label and are produced by  Syngenta.  BC 0801, WH 0812, BC 0832, BC 0808, BC 0805, BSS 0977 and  BSS 0982 are some of the sweet corn variety names.

Maureen mentioned  that as far as she knows growers are required to sign a user’s agreement for this sweet corn – so most organic producers can easily avoid purchasing  these varieties; but GE varieties of crookneck summer squash are also  listed, and apparently growers are not required to sign a user’s agreement  for them.

Rochelle Eisen
BC’s Organic Extension  Agent
250 499.2413 (phone)
250.502.0323  (cell)
ONLINE  archives of COABC’s Fall Webinar Series <http://www.certifiedorganic.bc.ca/infonews/events.php>  are available
http://www.certifiedorganic.bc.ca/infonews/events.php#seminar

Grain companies exploit flax situation to tighten vise on farmer seed saving

National Farmers Union Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE
RELEASE
JANUARY 18, 2010

GRAIN COMPANIES EXPLOIT FLAX SITUATION TO
TIGHTEN VISE ON FARMER SEED SAVING

SASKATOON, SK: Grain company Viterra wants to force all farmers wishing
to grow flax in 2010 to purchase certified seed.  A Viterra spokesman
delivered that message in a presentation on January 11 at the Crop
Production Show in Saskatoon.

Viterra and others are pushing the requirement for certified seed as a
purported solution to the problem of the Triffid contamination in flax
shipments to Europe.  Triffid is a genetically modified variety not
approved in Europe.  But the NFU believes that the proposed certified
seed cure is the wrong one, and that there will be long-lasting and
negative side effects.
Continue reading

Appeal to farmers and consumers – Act now to stop GM alfalfa

Send your comments to the US Department of Agriculture by February 16,
2010.

Its not yet legal for Monsanto to sell its GM alfalfa seeds in Canada
but a US injunction on planting in that country could soon be
overturned. If GM alfalfa is planted in the US, it will quickly
contaminate our food system as well as Canadian alfalfa crops. It will
also lead to the legalization of GM alfalfa in Canada (Canada approved
Monsanto’s GM Roundup Ready alfalfa in 2005 but it still needs variety
registration as a last step before commercialization here).

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) was court-ordered to conduct
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on alfalfa and GM alfalfa
plantings were halted until this EIS was satisfactorily completed.
This draft EIS is now out for comment until February 16. Farmers and
their organizations in Canada are encouraged to send comments about
the expected impact of GM alfalfa contamination. Consumers are also
asked to express their concern.

Our strong action could stop GM alfalfa and result in an unprecedented
ruling about the real contamination risks of GM.

Please take one of these three actions.

1. Send comments from the web: Our partner in the US, The Center of
Food Safety, has launched an action where consumers and farmers can
send comments from their website http://ga3.org/campaign/alfalfaEIS

2. Coordinate with us to write your substantial comments – Please also
send us your comments and cc them to the Minister of Agriculture and
Agriculture Critics from other Parties. Contact Lucy Sharratt, CBAN
Coordinator at 613 241 2267 ext.6 or coordinator@cban.ca

3. Sign your group to the “No to GMO Alfalfa” statement http://www.cban.ca/alfalfa

The “No to GMO Alfalfa” Campaign in Canada is coordinated by the
Organic Agriculture Protection Fund of the Saskatchewan Organic
Directorate and the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network

For more information: http://www.cban.ca/alfalfa coordinator@cban.ca
613 241 2267 ext. 6

Tell the US Government That You Care About GE Contamination of Organic
Food!

In 2006, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) sued the Department of
Agriculture (USDA) for its illegal approval of Monsanto’s genetically
engineered (GE) Roundup Ready alfalfa.  The federal courts sided with
CFS and banned GE alfalfa until the USDA fully analyzed the impacts of
the plant on the environment, farmers, and the public in a rigorous
analysis known as an environmental impact statement (or EIS). USDA
released its draft EIS on December 14, 2009.  A 60-day comment period
is now open until February 16, 2010.  This is the first time the USDA
has done this type of analysis for any GE crop.  Therefore, the final
decision will have broad implications for all GE crops.

CFS has begun analyzing the EIS and it is clear that the USDA has not
taken the concerns of non-GE alfalfa farmers, organic dairies, or
consumers seriously.  USDA’s preliminary determination is to once
again deregulate GE alfalfa without any limitations or protections for
farmers or the environment. Instead USDA has completely dismissed the
fact that contamination will threaten export and domestic markets and
organic meat and dairy products.  And, incredibly, USDA is claiming
that there is no evidence that consumers care about such GE
contamination of organic!

USDA also claims that consumers will not reject GE contamination of
organic alfalfa if the contamination is unintentional or if the
transgenic material is not transmitted to the end milk or meat
product, despite the fact that more than 75% of consumers believe that
they are purchasing products without GE ingredients when they buy
organic.

USDA claims that Monsanto’s seed contracts require measures sufficient
to prevent genetic contamination, and that there is no evidence to the
contrary. But in the lawsuit requiring this document, the Court found
that contamination had already occurred in the fields of several
Western states with these same business-as-usual practices in place!

USDA predicts that the approval of GE alfalfa would damage family
farms and organic markets, yet doesn’t even consider any limitations
or protections against this scenario.  Small, family farmers are the
backbone and future of American agriculture and must be protected.
Organic agriculture provides many benefits to society: healthy foods
for consumers, economic opportunities for family farmers and urban and
rural communities, and a farming system that improves the quality of
the environment. However, the continued vitality of this sector is
imperiled by the complete absence of measures to protect organic
production systems from GE contamination and subsequent environmental,
consumer, and economic losses.

Tell USDA That You DO Care About GE Contamination of Organic Crops and
Food!
http://ga3.org/campaign/alfalfaEIS

This alert was published by the Organic Agriculture Protection Fund of
the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate and the Canadian Biotechnology
Action Network. January 2010.

Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator
Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN)

Collaborative Campaigning for Food Sovereignty and Environmental Justice
431 Gilmour Street, Second Floor
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K2P 0R5
Phone: 613 241 2267 ext.6
Fax: 613 241 2506
coordinator@cban.ca
www.cban.ca

Events in the Okanagan coming very soon!!

From Okanagan Greens.ca: these films should have you questioning a few things:

The Story Of Food – video at USC Canada

Here’s a link to a great little video about food. It’s loaded with information: quite ‘nutritional’.

The Story Of Food

Another video from Hellman’s: Eat Real. Eat Local. Facts in this video:

Ontario imports $4Billion more than it exports.

Most of your tomato’s, cuc’s and peppers are imported.

For every pear we grow, 700 are imported. For every apple we export, we import 5.

Red meat imports grew 600%

Ontario paved over 49% of its prime farmland to build the greater Toronto area.

Green light again for GM alfalfa in the USA

(21 January 2010) In the USA, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) intends to permit the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) alfalfa once more. This recommendation is based on a newly-completed environmental impact assessment. Year-long legal conflicts were antecedent.

From GMO Compass, a good resource site

The cultivation approval of herbicide-tolerant GM alfalfa issued in 2005 was revoked in 2007 after a Californian court ordered the thorough environmental impact assessment. Diverse environmental groups and consumer associations had filed suit against the approval. The plaintiffs accused the administration of insufficient investigation with regard to possible environmental damage, such as may occur through outcrossing with conventional plants or wild relatives as well as through the spread of resistant weeds.

The GM alfalfa was developed by the agro-biotechnology firm Monsanto and displays tolerance to herbicide containing the active ingredient glyphosate (RoundupReady).

By court ordinance, the cultivation of GM alfalfa was subject to strict constraints: for example, fields intended for planting required approval from the agricultural authority. Special obligations applied to the transport, storage and labeling of the harvest. Monsanto filed high-level suits against these constraints and negotiations are expected this year.

Continue reading

Supreme Court to Hear First Genetically Engineered Crop Case

Posted on January 15, 2010 by Heather at The Center For Food Safety

Monsanto Takes Center for Food Safety Legal Victory to Highest Court

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear a first-time case about the risks of genetically engineered crops. Named Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms, No. 09-475, the case before the high court will be yet another step in an ongoing battle waged by the Center for Food Safety to protect consumers and the environment from potentially harmful effects of genetically engineered (GE) crops.

The modified alfalfa seed at the heart of the dispute has been engineered to be immune to Monsanto’s flagship herbicide Roundup. Monsanto intervened in a 2007 federal district court ruling that the Department of Agriculture’s approval of GE alfalfa was illegal. The Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a 2006 lawsuit on behalf of a coalition of non-profits and farmers who wished to retain the choice to plant non-GE alfalfa. CFS was victorious in this case – in addition CFS has won two appeals by Monsanto in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: in 2008 and again in 2009. Now, upon Monsanto’s insistence, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.

“This is truly a ‘David versus Goliath’ struggle, between public interest non-profits and a corporation bent on nothing less than domination of our food system,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety. “That Monsanto has pushed this case all the way to the Supreme Court, even though USDA’s court-ordered analysis is now complete, and the U.S. government actively opposed further litigation in this matter, underscores the great lengths that Monsanto will go to further its mission of patent control of our food system and selling more pesticides.”

Continue reading

Non-GMO Oatmeal with Blueberries and Goji berries

Goji Omega Boost Oatmeal

I eat this almost every morning – this was a find, as my old standby- Quaker Oats – is all GMO now (fools). This is a really good product and lasts me a long time. Made by Dan-D-Pak, all their products are non-gmo. Good for them, as it’s not a trend – it’s here to stay (and grow). I just wish they would put a Non-GMO label on their products. I have a lot of their products in my kitchen: they have some great spice mixes. I found this at Budget Foods in Ladner, but I’ve seen it in other places too. It needs to go into Choices – please contact Choices and ask them to stock it.

Animals Fed Genetically Modified Foods are Different

January 15, 2010

GM Watch

In a landmark ruling, the NZ Commerce Commission has accepted evidence from Prof Jack Heinemann, from an exhaustive review of the literature and on the basis of his own extensive professional experience, that animals fed on GM components ARE different from those which are reared using non-GM feed. This is a direct challenge to EFSA and FSA, who have maintained consistently that there are no differences between GM- fed and non-GM-fed animals, and that there is therefore no need for labelling or segregation of feed supplies to meet consumer demand for GM-free products.

This issue came to a head because of complaints that NZ poultry producer Inghams claimed, in a high-pressure advertising campaign, that its chickens contained no GM ingredients, in spite of using up to 13% GM soy-based feed. In one of its adverts, Inghams said: “Research confirms that animals that consume feed with a component of GM are no different compared to animals that have been fed a low GM or GM free diet.”

Continue reading

Can biotechnology help meet the growing demand for food?

The Executive Summary of the IAASTD Synthesis Report states:

Biotechnology has always been on the cutting edge of change. Change is rapid, the domains involved are numerous, and there is a significant lack of transparent communication among actors. Hence assessment of modern biotechnology is lagging behind development; information can be anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty on benefits and harms is unavoidable. There is a wide range of perspectives on the environmental, human health and economic risks and benefits of modern biotechnology, many of which are as yet unknown.

Continue reading

Rapidly declining honeybee numbers threaten our economy

Pesticide use, warm weather have dramatically reduced their population

By Reese Halter, Freelance January 15, 2010
Side note: from April Reeves: The honey bee issue is a big one for me, as I fully understand the link between them and our survival. We won’t. And although this may seem an odd post in a GE Free blog, it’s absolutely pertinent and timely. While we work at producing healthy foods for sustainability, another ‘side’ is slowly eating away at the crucial element that holds it all together. Unfortunately, I am adding one more element here that you won’t like. Cell phones. I don’t carry one because I understand the damage it does to the necessary ‘lines of communication’ bees have with each other and nature. No one has tried to prove this, but in my gut, the dots all line up (but I secretly hope to be wrong). So I’m posting this for this reason. There will be small areas of the world where bees will continue to thrive, but those areas cannot sustain urban food needs. Now the article:

Over the past three years, more than 50 billion honeybees have died. Scientists understand the causes and now we need everyone to lend a helping hand.

The humble honeybee has been inextricably linked to humankind since prehistoric times. At first we were drawn to this remarkable creature because of its sweet honey. Honey is to a bee what electricity is for humans — energy. One teaspoon of honey weighing 21 grams contains 16 grams of sugar or 60 calories, and it took 12 bees their entire foraging lives, combined flying time of about 9,700 kilometres, to produce it.

Continue reading

Interesting viewpoints on the future of food security

The following 2 posts were in the Western Producer. It’s interesting how Big Biotech’s are on this crusade to ‘feed the world’. I have commented many times both here and in speaking that they have no such intention. Poor people can’t buy food. Period. Finally, someone else shares my thoughts, only this time with a twist:

By Barry Wilson, Ottawa bureau
November 19, 2009

The marvel of 21st century science is that it seems to have almost no limit other than stilted imaginations.

The physical mysteries of life are revealed through genome mapping.

A rocket is crashed into the moon and water is discovered.

The laboratory has become nature-in-a-hurry, making discoveries that would have been science fiction a generation ago.

Now, if those brainiacs could just create a way to embed calories into empty rhetoric, the world’s billion hungry people would find their bellies growing from nutrition.

Continue reading

Was 2009 the year that the world turned against GMO?

Lucy Sharratt – CBAN Coordinator <coordinator@cban.ca>

Welcome to a new year of action! 2010 will certainly be a critical
year on GM crops and foods here in Canada.
GM flax contamination, GM
alfalfa, SmartStax corn, new health critiques, Monsanto’s increased
seed control, GM sugarbeet, and GM wheat are all active issues and
campaigns right now. And the industry has stepped up its PR to sell GM
as the solution to the crises of our time. Please consider your
support to CBAN and our campaigns this year. Stay tuned for new
announcements from CBAN and our Members across Canada. Thank you for
your support and action.

Was 2009 the year that the world turned against GM?

The Ecologist, UK
Claire Robinson & Jonathan Matthews

http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/other_comments/395845/was_2009_the_year_the_world_turned_against_gm.html

11.01.2010

Claire Robinson and Jonathan Matthews are co-editors of GMWatch

Despite promising the world in 2009, biotech corporations have
increasingly raised the hackles of scientists and citizens worldwide

2009 was a year in which the biotech industry, Gates and their US
Administration allies did everything in their power to drive the world
down the GM road, but it was also a year marked by remarkable global
resistance.

It was a year too in which the truth emerged more clearly than ever
about not just the severe limitations and risks of GM crops, but the
viability of the many positive alternatives to GMOs alternatives from
which the profit-driven GM-fixation diverts much needed attention and
resources.
Continue reading

DuPont urges U.S. to curb Monsanto seed monopoly

From: Lucy Sharratt – CBAN Coordinator <coordinator@cban.ca>

By Carey Gillam

KANSAS CITY, Jan 8 (Reuters) – DuPont on Friday asked U.S. regulators to rein in practices by seed industry leader Monsanto Co, claiming its rival is hindering competition and limiting innovation needed to feed a growing world population.

DuPont, which owns Pioneer Hi-Bred International, said Monsanto is unfairly using monopoly powers to drive up prices and stymie competition.

“Monsanto has engaged in numerous practices that improperly seek to expand the scope of intellectual property rights at the expense of competition, innovation, and choice,” DuPont said in a report.

The company submitted its 18-page report of allegations to the U.S. Departments of Justice and Agriculture in advance of a public hearing on competition and antitrust concerns in the seed industry slated for March.

Continue reading

Non-GE Food Finds #1

I’m going to start posting all the non-GE foods I can find, and add each one to the Food Page. I’ll try to find the locations that sell them, and all links.

Find of the Day

Falafel Chips

This chip is all organic, no-gm and it’s fantastic! Just tried it today and ate the whole bag, oops! Dip these in hummus, bet they taste even better. Buy an extra bag and keep at all times in your car. They come in regular and spicy. The spicy rocks. High fiber, high protein, great flavor. This company thought of it all, including recycled paper bags you can use as a lunch bag after. Rates a #1 with me!

Locations: All Choices markets, BC         www.falafelchips.com

Non-GMO label getting a local push by Lundberg Family Farms

I think Lundberg is both intelligent and brave to be the first to label Non-GMO! Email them and let them know you’re proud of them: Lundberg contact

By HEATHER HACKING – Staff Writer

Posted: 01/11/2010 12:00:00 AM PST

RICHVALE –Lundberg Family Farms is among the leaders in a trend to label foods as non-GMO. GMO stands for genetically modified organisms, which are created through transferring genes from one organism to another.

Most Americans consume genetically modified foods every day. The majority of soy, cotton, corn and canola grown in the United States contains genetically modified crops, most of which have been altered to resist pests and weeds.

Other genetically modified foods may contain higher nutrients, are more tolerant to adverse growing conditions or produce higher yields.

Previously there has been no organized system in the United States for people to know whether the foods they buy contain GMOs.

Over the past two years, Lundberg Family Farms, which produces organic rice products, and others in the organic industry have created a new labeling system and verification process to label foods as “non-GMO.”

The group is a nonprofit organization called the Non-GMO project.

Continue reading

Quick note from April Reeves, GE Free’s admin

I just want to thank all the people who have shown up to this blog the last few days. We have had record numbers! Thank you a hundred times to those who told me they tweeted us and to those who passed on our information on their facebook pages. It all helps to support and move this organization forward. We all want to see a better world, with labels and choices when we shop. This show of people puts a HUGE smile on my face!

Yesterday, I heard Obama ‘mention’ that GM may be part of the reason why autism, allergies and cancer is on the rise. Interesting…

Institute For Responsible Technology’s Newsletter

Friday Jan 8 2010

Jeffrey Smith has great news today for those wanting choice in your foods:

Supermarket News Forecasts Non-GMO Uprising

For a couple of years, the Institute for Responsible Technology has predicted that the US would soon experience a tipping point of consumer rejection against genetically modified foods; a change we’re all helping to bring about. Now a December article in Supermarket News supports both our prediction and the role the Institute is playing.

“The coming year promises to bring about a greater, more pervasive awareness” of the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in our food supply, wrote Group Editor Robert Vosburgh, in a trade publication that conventional food executives and retailers use as a primary source of news and trends in the industry. Vosburgh describes how previous food “culprits” like fat and carbs “can even define the decade in which they were topical,” and suggests that GMOs may finally burst through into the public awareness and join their ranks.

Vosburgh credits two recent launches with “the potential to spark a new round of concern among shoppers who are today much more attuned to the ways their food is produced.” One is our Institute’s new non-GMO website, which, he says, “provides consumers with a directory of non-GMO brands . . . developed ‘for the 53% of Americans who say they would avoid GMOs if labeled.’”

The other launch is the Non-GMO Project, offering “the country’s first consensus-based guidelines, which include third-party certification and a uniform seal for approved products. . . . The organization also requires documented traceability and segregation to ensure the tested ingredients are what go into the final product.”
Continue reading

Bhargava slams move to adopt GM crops

This post is from Mumbai Bureau, and has a very interesting note from a speech Obama gave recently. Read on:

Even as Environment minister Jairam Ramesh is scheduled to begin consultations on the safety and feasibility of approving genetically modified (GM) brinjal, or Bt brinjal, on January 13, Dr P M Bhargava, top scientist, has cautioned against its adoption. If India adopts genetically engineered food crops, there are chances that the country will lose out on the potential export market worth Rs 100,000 crore for its fruits and vegetables, according to Bhargava.

Commenting on the safety of Bt brinjal, he said the technology was a credible one, but it should be tested and verified before introducing it in the plates of the consumers. “Around 8 tests that should be conducted before the safety of Bt brinjal can be gauged were not conducted by the Genetically Engineered Approval Committee (GEAC), he said.

“Around 84% of the GM consumption happens in four countries — the US, Brazil, Argentina and Canada. Several countries including 90% of the European Union have banned the import of GM crops,” Dr Bhargava, founder and director, Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad, said. The 10-year decline of American citizen’s health as mentioned by US President Barack Obama and increase in consumption of Bt products might have correlation, he said.

Despite pressures from the US to repeal the GM labeling law, the Europeans are continuing with it, due to the presence of widespread consumer awareness. India, on the other hand, has no such law and a consumer will not know whether the vegetable he is eating is Bt or not, according to him.

Peter Ladner: Debate over agricultural land reserve is long overdue

By Peter Ladner

Diane Katz’s recent Fraser Institute study calling for the agricultural land reserve (ALR) to be dismantled is easy to dismiss out of hand.

Protecting the ALR has become close to a religion for lots of people: anyone challenging it is deemed an infidel and banned from the temple of orthodoxy. No policy that ties up 4.7 million hectares of land, including 21% of all the land in the Lower Mainland, should be above scrutiny, especially when it’s had such little effect on fixing agricultural woes. It hasn’t stopped the decline in owner-operated farms, it hasn’t increased the percentage of food being grown locally; it hasn’t resulted in more young farmers going into farming; it hasn’t stopped the decline in farmland dedicated to field crops and vegetables.

And even if it did stimulate more production of local food, Katz argues that locally produced food is neither healthier, safer, better tasting, environmentally friendlier nor more appealing to consumers than imported food. (I’ll leave that one for another discussion.)
Continue reading

GM Seeds Threaten World Food Supply

December 30/09 (NaturalNews) The agribusiness strategy of aggressively promoting genetically modified (GM) and highly hybridized seeds are placing world food security at risk, according to studies conducted by researchers from the International Institute of Environment and Development (IIED) and presented at the World Seed Conference in Rome.

Researchers are increasingly warning that global warming and the ensuing worldwide ecological disruption may render many popular seed varieties unsuitable. A recent study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that temperature rises from global warming are likely to lead to shortages in corn and soy, two of the world’s most important food crops.
Continue reading

Forbes.com names Monsanto ‘Company of the Year’

Monsanto has just been named “2009 Company of the Year” by Forbes Magazine. It’s an interesting read of a rather slanted version of the great things Monsanto does for the world, while leaving out the realities Monsanto has to deal with on a daily basis. Forbes obviously ignores the ruthless tactics of Monsanto, is afraid of losing ad revenue, or simply chooses to dish out frivolous content.

A comment from the article sums it up nicely:

This article is nothing more than a blatant PR attempt to divert from the fact that two circuit appeals court rulings stopped the planting of GM alfalfa and GM sugar beets.

It failed to address farmer suicides due to poverty brought on by the high prices of BT cotton and the contracts and patents on these seeds that bind poor farmers to them, causing many to commit suicide by drinking Round Up.

It fails to address the exacerbation of climate change and pollution through the deforestation of the Amazon and other Latin American countries to grow GM soy which is pushing small farmers off their land in lieu of creating mega monocultures that are not providing stable economies for poor farmers.

Continue reading

How many seeds have patents? How far has Genetic Modification gone?

By April Reeves

I found a great site and PDF on which vegetables have patents, and the level of diversity in patents. While the patent community argues that this is nothing, in my world one is too many, given there are no real solid studies on human effects and casualty (and I have asked Monsanto and all the others, by email and phone conversations). The whole idea of patenting plants and allowing them to roam free over our world is greed and insanity at its best. But then, I had no problem with food before Monsanto. The industry wasn’t broke; there was nothing to fix. If only they had used their ingenuity in other ways, Monsanto could have been our best friend.