The latest in ‘why the RI Tea Party confuses me:’
This extensive list was included in a blast-email today from Marina Peterson of the East Bay Patriots. In the same breath where she urges consumers to organize against Monsanto to “put them out of business or at least try,” she announces the upcoming meeting on “Agenda 21.”
Some background on Agenda 21 from this article on Tennessee tea party groups:
Chattanooga has a direct connection with Agenda 21. Dave Crockett, director of the city’s Office of Sustainability, said Friday he attended the 1992 U.N. meeting in Rio De Janeiro as a local businessman. He said the idea of Agenda 21 was simply a way for governments to look at how they could do things better and think of how things could be “greener” in the process.
Examples include putting energy-efficient light bulbs in street lamps, trying to promote consuming food grown within 100 miles and also community issues such as crime or poverty, Crockett said.
Agenda 21′s goal is to get measurable goals to make human life better.
Go figure.
If this is a conspiracy theory thing, then it should be ignored, just like all the whacko liberal groups who think the Koch Brothers and Rush Limbaugh are behind every tea party rally and George Bush is behind every rise in gas prices.
But “Buy Local” programs are not sustainable development. They are completely unsustainable and inefficient. Mass production and shipping are the most efficient and eco-friendly means of growing and distributing food. All the world’s poorest countries are leading the pack in “grow local” – along with doing pretty much everything else “local.” Trade is and always has been the path to wealth, while protectionism and self-reliance are and always have been the trappings of poverty.
Yeah, I saw that list on the Facebook via some Occupy people. Everybody looked at it and said: Monsanto owns both Coke AND Pepsi!?! What’s up with that?
In truth, it’s probably a list of companies in which Monsanto has a substantial “institutional investment” and might sit on the board. At least the Occupiers have the good sense to take it with a grain of salt.
On Agenda 21, two things. First, I have to ask – are the EBPs for or against it? We all know that using compact fluorescents is almost EXACTLY THE SAME as ceding our national sovereignty to the UN’s Light Blue Army. So I’m guessing they’re agin it.
Also…dude from Tennessee named Davy Crockett? C’mon, really?
Libby,
Monsanto probably actually doesn’t actually own any of those companies. There’s a readily available list of their subsidiaries and joint ventures at www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=208.
The fear of Monsanto, the fear of sustainable development conspiracies and all the many other basically uninformed fears and propaganda of extremist groups of all persuasions is really pretty amazing. Folks should try to actually learn a little more before they get themselves so wrapped up in the latest propaganda efforts.
For what it is worth, Monsanto completely transformed itself from a chemical company to now being basically a biology company in order to do exactly what all the environmentalists were very loudly in favor of in the 1970′s – use biological pest controls to minimize the use of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals in agriculture. They have been wildly successful in reducing the amount of nasty stuff that gets sprayed on our food. For that effort, they have now been branded as evil…….. No good deed goes unpunished.
Fred Unger
Fred, seriously? Monsanto are the good guys?
For starters, recognize that RoundUp is almost certainly their most widely-used product. I defy you to find any information on the dangers of using RoundUp on the Monsanto website. Seriously, find the label.
So, minimizing nasty spray…? Not so much. Full disclosure? Yeah, no.
Most of their seed “innovations” focus on creating RoundUp Ready® seeds that can tolerate RoundUp without dying. ‘Cuz RoundUp is made entirely out of sunshine and unicorn tails. And unicorn tails are really toxic.
In order to enforce their IP licenses, they have a 1-800 number where farmers can call and rat on other farmers that commit the crime of saving seed and planting it again. To be clear, the “traits” that Monsanto patents supersede the produce that farmers, you know, produce. So, even though they bought seeds, grew plant and harvested them, that produce does not belong to the farmers to the point that they can do with it what they want. Because it includes “traits” that Monsanto has patented, farmers’ own product does not belong to them.
Interestingly, their licensing info and their “transformation” all dates to 1998 – the year US Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, aka the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. Haven’t found the smoking gun yet, but I’m still digging.
Monsanto claims to own life itself. This moronic list created by Maude knows whom for whatever reason, circulated in good sooth by the RI Tea Party and posted in good fun by Ms. Kimzey notwithstanding, I can’t put Monsanto in the good guys column.
Aren’t Nestle and Hershey two separate companies?
But, seriously, a guy from Tennessee named Dave Crockett?
Also, FWIW, Monsanto no doubt is (or will be) aware of this blog post and discussion. It’s not uncommon for companies to monitor discussions of their brand. Monsanto, though, they take a special interest…
Frymaster –
If the real options for feeding the world were Roundup or no modern agricultural pest control, as most starry eyed advocates of organic agriculture fantasize about, I would agree with you fully. Unfortunately most people would starve under that fantasy.
Ideas like adding bacillus thuringiensis properties to crops so they naturally resist some insect pests seems like a pretty good solution to me compared to spraying highly toxic poisin on them.
And the reality is that those kinds of biological controls and low till agriculture have dramatically reduced the amount of highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals used in agriculture as well as dramatically reducing soli erosion.
I am not extremely knowledgable on the subject, but my understanding is that the active ingredient in Roundup gets bound up in soil and becomes generally inactive when it hits the ground and that it is eventually broken down by bacteria in the soil. I am not suggesting this stuff is wonderful or completely safe, just that it appears to be better than most realistic and credible alternatives and definitely better than the poisons it replaced.
I am not sure Monsanto goes in the Good Guys Column. But not sure it goes in the Bad Guys Column either.
The challenge most idealists don’t seem to understand is that realistic choices for challenges like feeding seven billion people don’t include their idealized fantasies of a perfect world.
Fred
I just saw this whole conversation! Usually I get emails when comments are added to my post, so when I didn’t, I didn’t even bother to check.
I don’t have anything to add, it was just one of those emails that made me go “huh?” and so I thought I’d share. Happy Monday, all.
We would say, to anyone who thinks that we can’t feed the world without genetically modified crops or massive petro-chemical inputs into our food system, that we do not have a production problem, we have a waste problem. In the United States, nearly half, by weight, of the edible food that is grown or raised is thrown out at some point along the supply chain. But don’t take our word for it, read “American Wasteland” by Jonathan Bloom, or contact Timothy Jones, Ph.D. for more thoroughly disturbing information.
Our waste and over-consumption is solely due to the forced underconsumption of a vast swath of the world’s population. While we, as a race, have defined the lowest possible limits of consumption for survival, we have failed to set a ceiling on where consumption begins to affect others. For the most part, resources are finite. If one person is using too many/much, another person goes without.