On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 19:18:16 -0400, "Dave Gower"
wrote:

References?

Able to follow a thread?

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 19:11:54 -0400, "Dave Gower"
wrote:

You radical environmentalists are truly bankrupt.

Read what your own canadian researchers have to say about the
disruption of soil biology by glyphosates. Talk to those dry wheat
boys and find out what years of working with Monsanto has gotten them.

Radical is being concerned about the future of our soils?

"Salty Thumb" wrote

If anybody disagrees with that, feel free to voice you support by adding
"Dave Gower You Are My Hero Thank You For Saving Me From The Evil Crazy
Radical Lunatic Organic Hippie Anti-business Did I Mention Evil Nutjob
Salinated Disembodied Finger Crackpot Crazy Rodent-loving Freak-shows!"

Nah. A simple high-five will suffice.

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 19:05:39 -0400, "Dave Gower"
wrote:

You bunch are obviously abysmally ignorant of how corporations work
Apparently there are some enlightened Candians...

http://www.sfu.ca/cag/newsletters/no...wsletter.pdf..

C
restructuring to accommodate the exigencies of 21st century
hyper-capital, are many andcomplex. The general orientation of the
arguments for our research objectives are based ocontention that the
globalizing industrial agricultural model has too many negative
environmental, social, cultural, and political consequences to be
fixed ‘by the mastebelieve that reliance on the dominant scientific
and technical-fix paradigm merely exacerbates contemporary food
problems. We are sceptical of the Monsanto public relations voice in
MichaPollan’s work The Botany of Desire, who asks the world to, “Trust
us�. The increasing consolidation of the global food industry; the
massive environmental subsidies accordedmonocultural and ‘clean soil’
industrial agriculture practices; the trends in seed and other form
patenting processes; the uncertainty inherent to genetic engineering
in food research (let alone the ethos defined by that direction); the
increasing disparities in access to food and controover agricultural
land across the North and the South divide; compel us to work on
alternatives to the global food production system.
life-l 3
Hence, the book emerging out of our SSHRC grant, which we are
tentatively calling Skyscrapers
and Strawbales: The Role of Urban-Rural Linkages in Sustainable
Agriculture. This is a collection of works from diverse parts of the
Americas and Europe exploring ongoing prodeveloping local
food-systems. In some appropriation (or subversion?) of the
business-oriented SWOT analysis (streopportunities, weaknesses, and
tactics), we focus this work centreon food through the lenses of the
barriers, the opportunities, and the strategies for overturning and
displacing the food production trends which run counter to community
food sustainability prescriptions. For example, the contributions to
our book incexperiences that: overcome food access problems via local
governance initiatives in Belo Horizonte Brazil; demonstratrole of
negotiation in building stronger rural-urban food linkages preserve
agricultural production in the peri-urban zones of France the local in
Washington State where consumer markets are hundreds of miles from
prestablish greater clarity regarding the factors that underlie the
consumption of organic agricultural products in Ontario;
comprehensively analyze the benefits and costs circumscribing the
operations of a CSA in Montreal; and examine state-sponsored pilot
projects developing local food sufficiency and ecological agriculture
in Germany. The fifteen or so chapters will sthe basis and experience
for devising a ‘made-in-Niagara’ regional food system meant to build
and strengthen food links between the urban and the rural in this
‘place’. jects in ngths, d lude e the to anoducers; et he geography at
its most overt in this project is about tightening the spatial
feedback loops in r cial f course, as the geographer in the research
group, my aspirations are also replete with the ’
d Argentina; problematize T
between the consumer and the producer. This means literally bringing
the two closer togetherspace and time and overcoming the myriad of
environmental impacts associated with an increasingly long-distance
global food system [consider that the average food item on yousupper
plate has travelled 1800 kms], while simultaneously trying to deal
with the related sodislocation and cohesion issues facing both rural
and urban communities in a globalizing environment – sustainable
community aspirations.
O
geographic questions implicit to work on food and society. For
example, how do theories ofplace and space intersect with regional
food alliance desires? How is the community or ‘localdefined by those
advocating for community food security and sustainability? How do we
rework our conceptions of region through these sorts of cultural
processes? What do local food system hopes mean for working towards
social justice, recognizing uneven development dynamics, and for
managing global food disparities? Or how does the geographic concept
ofthe foodshed and its delineation differ across space – i.e., from
thnorthern reaches of British Columbia? No, I don’t have answers to
these here, but they arepalatable themes for the geographer’s
gristmill, and we hope to work towards some greater conceptual
understanding of these geographies through our work as it progresses.
e Niagara region, to

"Tom Jaszewski" wrote

Talk to those dry wheat
boys and find out what years of working with Monsanto has gotten them.

I live in an area surrounded by farmers and they think Roundup is great
providing (here we go again, take a deep breath) IT IS USED ACCORDING TO
INSTRUCTIONS.

"Ann" wrote

the major point is....we can't and shouldn't
believe what Monsanto says. About anything. Roundup or PCBs.

As I said in another post, no corporation "says" anything. People do. To
talk that way reveals your infantile delusion.

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 19:05:39 -0400, "Dave Gower"
wrote:

You bunch are obviously abysmally ignorant of how corporations work



Here's a good example of how the poison peddlers work.....


Agnet is produced by the Food Safety Network at the University of
Guelph and
is sponsored by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Plants
Program
at the University of Guelph, Agricultural Adaptation Council (CanAdapt
Program), Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, ConAgra Foods,
Inc.,
Pioneer Hi-Bred Limited (Canada), Ag-West Biotech, Inc., Monsanto
Canada,
National Pork Board, Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Canadian Animal Health
Institute,
Croplife Canada, Syngenta Seeds Canada, Inc., JIFSAN, National
Cattlemen's
Beef Association, National Food Processors Association, Syngenta Crop
Protection, Ontario Corn Producers' Association, DuPont Canada, Inc.,
Office
of Consumer Affairs, Burger King, National Meat Association, Ontario
Soybean
Growers, UC Davis Biotechnology Program, Consumer Federation of
America
Foundation, Optibrand, University of Idaho Department of Microbiology,
Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, Plant Bioscience Ltd., CanAmera
Foods,
Hospitality Institute of Technology and Management, Inc., Hartono and
Company, and Global Public Affairs.

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 19:11:54 -0400, "Dave Gower"
wrote:

how does this relate to "current discussion" on this newsgroup? I


Ontario Wheat Board to Boycott Monsanto
Effective Date: 8/28/2003

Source: DePutter Publishing Ltd.



Article:

At Tuesday’s annual meeting, the Ontario Wheat Producers’ Marketing
Board agreed to officially and actively promote a boycott of products
from Monsanto, specifically Roundup. The purpose of the effort is to
convince the company to delay the sale of Roundup Ready Wheat.

The resolution specifically mentioned the use of alternative brands of
glyphosate in the hope that such consumer action will keep Monsanto
from releasing the genetically modified variety until a later date,
such as when importers from other countries approve its usage and
sale.

The motion was approved and the vote was cast, although an official
count in favour was not necessary: the motion passed with only one
dissenting vote.

Also at Tuesday’s meeting, a representative of the western Canada
grain trade was in attendance and held discussions with members of the
Wheat Board executive the night before. In the past two years, there
has been a growing interest from producers in Canada’s Prairie
Provinces in the advances in marketing options being made available to
Ontario growers, through the Board.

The Canadian Wheat Board (CWB), which is based in Winnipeg, has also
articulated concerns about Roundup Ready Wheat and other Monsanto
products in Canada.

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 19:11:54 -0400, "Dave Gower"
wrote:

how does this relate to "current discussion" on this newsgroup? I


http://www.cwb.ca/en/topics/biotechn...pdf/070803.pdf

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 23:15:35 -0400, "Dave Gower"
wrote:


I live in an area surrounded by farmers and they think Roundup is great



Apparently you live in a bubble....perhaps you should talk to those
farmers instead of just statcan ing them!


CWB ASKS MONSANTO TO PUT THE BRAKES ON ROUNDUP READY WHEAT: In a
May 22 letter from the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB), Board of Directors
Chair Ken Ritter and
Adrian Measner, President and CEO, asked Monsanto Canada's President,
Peter Turner, to
withdraw Monsanto's application for an environmental safety assessment
of Roundup Ready
wheat (RRW). Monsanto's RRW application is currently before the
Canadian Food Inspection
Agency. The letter detailed the devastating economic impact the
introduction of RRW will have
on western Canadian farmers. "Economic harm could include lost access
to premium markets,
penalties caused by rejected shipments, and increased farm management
and grain handling
costs," the letter states. The CWB has asked Monsanto to confirm its
compliance with the CWB's
request by June 27, 2003. The CWB has already called on the federal
government to close the
regulatory gap on genetically modified wheat by adding a cost benefit
analysis to the food, feed
and environmental assessments currently being undertaken on RRW.
However, the CWB is
taking this additional step because RRW could be approved before the
introduction of any
regulatory changes. "Under the current system, RRW could be approved
for unconfined release
as early as 2004," Ritter said. "We had to move quickly, so we are
appealing to Monsanto
directly."
MONSANTO CANADA DECLINES TO WITHDRAW REGULATORY APPROVAL: The
May 28 edition of Agriline reported that Monsanto Canada will continue
to seek regulatory
approval for GMO wheat despite a request from the Canadian Wheat Board
(CWB) to withdraw
its application, but maintains it will not release any varieties until
GMO wheat is approved in the
U.S., Japan, and Canada. The article states that approval could come
as early as next year.

UNCLASSIFIED USDA Foreign Agricultural Service
MONSANTO URGES OTTAWA TO CONTINUE APPROVAL PROCESS: On June 12,
representatives from Monsanto appeared before the Canadian House of
Commons Standing
Committee on Agriculture. Kerry Preete, Monsanto VP of U.S. Markets,
testifying on the
importance of allowing Roundup Ready Wheat to proceed through the
Canadian regulatory
approval process, said, "We believe it is important to have regulatory
agencies in Canada, US
GAIN Report - CA3036 Page 3 of 7
and Japan review the food, feed and environmental safety of this
product. Successfully
completing the regulatory review process will send an important
message to our customers
around the world that this product has been comprehensively reviewed
and is deemed safe.
This review will help address questions and concerns raised during
customer acceptance
discussions." On the issue of market acceptance, Preete indicated that
Monsanto was
committed to working with the Canadian grain handling industry to
"establish an effective
segregation system" so that grain production could accommodate both GM
and non-GM
wheat varieties.
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD MULLS COURT ACTION TO STOP MONSANTO: According to
a June
19 article from the National Post, Adrian Measner, president and chief
executive of the
Canadian Wheat Board (CWB), was cited as telling Reuters on June 18
that the CWB may
consider legal action to stop Monsanto Co. from growing genetically
modified (GM) wheat in
Canada outside limited government-run trials, adding, "We've given
strong assurances to our
customers that we will make sure this situation is resolved in Canada
and we intend to take
whatever action necessary to do that." The story says it is the
strongest statement the CWB
has made to date on how far it will go to prevent GM wheat from being
grown in the near
future in Canada. Mr. Measner was further quoted as saying, "Having it
grown in Canada, it's
not an option. The costs are just too horrendous and it needs to be
addressed." The CWB
asked Monsanto to agree by tomorrow to withdraw its application.
Monsanto t has not yet
formally responded, he said. Monsanto has promised it will not
commercialize the wheat until
at least some customers accept it and until it can be dealt with
separately within the bulk
grain handling system.


Sustainable development is a high priority for many industry
associations. For example, the Canadian Standards
Association (CSA) developed a national sustainable forest management
certification program for Canada's forest
industry. Based on internationally agreed criteria and advice from
interested stakeholders, the standards verify that a
defined forest is being managed according to a sustainable forest
management system. Model forests have also
been established in many provinces to gain practical experience in
sustainable forest management techniques. Some
provinces, such as British Columbia and Alberta, have also launched
discrete sustainable forest management
initiatives.

Several major enterprises in Canada have adopted sustainable
development policies, for example Shell, Imperial Oil,
Ontario Hydro, TransAlta, Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, IBM, Alberta-Pacific
Forest Industries, and Daishowa-
Marubeni International.
Cooperation: Canada endorses the OECD Guidelines for Multinational
Enterprises as an important tool to support
sustainable behavior by Canadia n companies investing in the
developing world.
For more information on the Canada and the MNE guidelines visit:
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/tna-nac/ncppcn/
multinational-e.asp

Oh, dear, you are dreadfully and terminally naive. I fear there is no hope
for you.

And please, don't presume to group me into that group of "most of us".
Given a choice, I'd rather be grouped into that group considered by you of
subhuman intelligence, which foolishly presumes big chemical companies of
considering their bottom lines first and foremost. I delight in the name
you will thus choose to label me with.

"Dave Gower" wrote in message
...

wrote

1. is roundup safe?
2. probably not, it is made by Monsanto who does not put consumers
first,
monsanto,
you know, the people made PCBs since 1930

Most of us are not that stupid. We know that an issue from another time,
about another chemical, when the company was run by different managers,
faced different laws, was operating with different scientific knowledge,
cannot be used to answer a question about a garden chemical sold in 2003.

You bunch are obviously abysmally ignorant of how corporations work (and
of
course you would be if you relied on 60 Minutes for your information).
Monsanto and other primary producers do not normally sell directly to the
public. They sell to other companies; wholesalers, manufacturers,
exporters,
processors. As such they are dealing with hard-nosed and often very savvy
purchasing managers and agents. Such professionals ask tough and precise
scientific questions about the safety and other characteristics of the
materials they purchase. This is especially true of wholesalers, whose
employers directly face legal consequences for selling harmful substances.

Another elementary bit of information. Companies cannot "lie", or indeed
make utterances of any type. Only people can do that. The fact that you
anthropomorphise an abstract legal entity in such a way shows how
infantile
your delusions are. But even using your words, any company that "lied" to
professional purchasers would be dead in a year.

"Dave Gower" expounded:


"Ann" wrote

the major point is....we can't and shouldn't
believe what Monsanto says. About anything. Roundup or PCBs.

As I said in another post, no corporation "says" anything. People do. To
talk that way reveals your infantile delusion.

Ah, the last bastion of a loser......calling people names.

Yes, people do say things. Stupid things. And you are a gleaming
example. Go right ahead and believe your Monsanto gods. :::shaking
head:::: I really don't see why people defend Monsanto so
ferverently. Monsanto doesn't give a sh*t about you, they'll mow you
over to make a profit. And you'll defend them until they do.
--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
********************************

"Salty Thumb" wrote

Newsgroup cop says "What the hell does this have to do with gardening?"

I'm glad to see that at least one eco-loony agrees with me that discussions
of corporate behaviour are off-topic for this newsgroup. I'll respect that
if all you do.

Invited what? Baseless attacks from people who don't know where I stand on
issues, don't read threads of dicussion completely, and engage in ad hominem
attacks as well as attempting to dictate my online behavior? No, I didn't
invite any of those things Dave.

Dave

"Dave Gower" wrote in message
...

"David J Bockman" wrote

The fact that Roundup is safe if used as directed and the fact that
Monsanto
appears to have destoyed the ecosystem of a small town are not mutually
exclusive.

And completely off-topic to this newsgroup. However if I unfairly lumped
you
in with Ratgirl I do apologize, but you have to admit you invited it.

now who is being naive? I can just imagine Steins asking if the products are safe.
LOL. As long as they have somebody else to point the product liability finger at
they are going to resell anything that makes them a profit. I dont see any
corporation sharing their secret internal memos with an outside company.
But the corporate CEOs, who represent the company certainly can and do lie for the
company. Interestingly, corporations can be sued.
http://howstuffworks.lycoszone.com/stock3.htm
"A corporation is different, and it is a pretty interesting concept. A corporation
is a "virtual person." That is, a corporation is registered with the government, it
has a social security number (known as a federal tax ID number), it can own
property, it can go to court to sue people, it can be sued and it can make
contracts. By definition, a corporation has stock that can be bought and sold, and
all of the owners of the corporation hold shares of stock in the corporation to
represent their ownership. One incredibly interesting characteristic of this "virtual
person" is that it has an indefinite and potentially infinite life span."
Now CEO's may come and go, even boards come and go, but since they dont go all at
once (well unless they belly up and close their doors) the prevailing mentality of a
corporation is propagated ad infinitum, ad nauseum. So Monsanto is not going to turn
into a Ben and Jerry's. Ingrid


"Dave Gower" wrote:
Such professionals ask tough and precise
scientific questions about the safety and other characteristics of the
materials they purchase. This is especially true of wholesalers, whose
employers directly face legal consequences for selling harmful substances.

Another elementary bit of information. Companies cannot "lie",


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.