77 votes

Poland beekeepers kick Monsanto out of the hive, successfully ban bee-killing GM corn

(NaturalNews) A significant health freedom victory has taken place in the European nation of Poland, where all plantings of Monsanto's MON810, a genetically-modified (GM) variety of maize (corn) that produces its own built-in Bt insecticide in every kernel, have been officially banned.

The decision comes after thousands of protesters recently took to the streets in demonstration of the undeniable fact that both MON810 and the chemicals applied to it are at least partially responsible for causing Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), the worldwide phenomenon in which entire swarms of honey bees disappear or turn up dead.

"The decree is in the works. It introduces a complete ban on the MON810 strain of maize in Poland," said Polish Agriculture Minister Marek Sawicki, who also explained to the press that pollen from MON810 appears to be responsible for further devastating the already dwindling bee population throughout the country and elsewhere.

According to reports, Poland's decision to ban MON810 makes it the first nation to formally acknowledge that Monsanto's GM corn is definitively linked to CCD. It also affirms the findings of several earlier studies that have identified a link between Bt GM crops and bee deaths, including independent research conducted by Pennsylvania beekeeper John McDonald.

Continue:
http://www.naturalnews.com/036010_Poland_Monsanto_GM_corn.html



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

A "freedom victory"?

The few times I have read stories on "naturalnews", they have been alarmist propadanda pieces promoting an anti-freedom point of view. The articles are light on evidence and strong on advocacy.

Anyone on here celebrating a government "banning" a substance is a collectivist in my view. I don't want any centralized government to have that power.

If there are damages from a product, then the courts and the marketplace will take care of it. If a corporation is getting special treatment from a government, the solution is to take power away from that government, not give it more, as the people at "naturalnews" want to do.

State Sovereignty

You are apparently anti-State Sovereignty. If a corporation has a greater right than a State, you are as bad as the United Nations who wants to erase borders.
I suppose you are also anti-customs

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/vacation/kbyg/prohibited_r...

and believe that anyone should be able to bring anything they want into any country.

Have fun getting into Bali with your pound of marijuana and telling them that you have a 'right' to do so. If a State has no claim to sovereignty, then neither do you.

I'm also pretty stunned you side with Monsanto - one of the most evil corporations out there who works hand in hand with the UN/Big Pharma re: Codex Alimentaruis

Sue Monsanto? Good luck with that!
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/environment/la-me-gs-judge...

Maybe they would have won if they were in Canada
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/

I think you need to read up on Monsanto before you write any more comments. You sound to me like a corporatist.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Individual Sovereignity

I'm not taking Monsanto's side. I am against the power of a State to do these things.

Corporations get their power from the State. As legalizeliberty said that is fascism. Because of this, the power of the State must be minimized. Encouraging a State to "ban" anything is an invitation for the State to get even more power over our lives. That power will be used to favor one corporation over another, and to reduce individual choices.

The power you want to give the State for purposes you like is guaranteed to used for purposes you oppose.

Yes - it is quite hypocritical

that they complain the government can ban certain dairy products - but then cheer when it bans something else.

This is the heart of our fight right now - everyone thinks THEIR central planning is best - they need to learn that NO central planning is best.

The problem lies in the solution - small farmers would need to sue Monsanto for damages from bee destruction - but since our current legal system is a train wreck - they just cannot afford to fight such a large entity - so they take it up the ass and go on. Likewise - consumers would need to vote with their dollars and understand they by purchasing this corn they are part of the problem and are fueling it. But we know how stupid the average American is so that isn't going to happen either.

It's Poland...

Monsanto dominates agriculture here, by gaming the regulatory system, and terrorizing competitors with ruthless legal threat. Europe has been successful stopping them. Like Ron Paul, who says a constitutional argument is the weakest he can make to his colleagues in the Congress, a victory can be enjoyed, even if the world doesn't understand the better argument. If Obama was removed from office for embezzlement, I would still think he should have been impeached for invading Libya, but I would be glad anyway.

reedr3v's picture

I entirely agree. I have stopped using

Natural News as a source I'd pass along to anyone. Sometimes they list their source links at the bottom of articles, and those may offer more reliable, less sensationalized information.

there are more sources for this than . . .

natural news--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

I agree about "naturalnews" but

taking "rights" away from corporations is not the same as taking rights away from people. this is where the neocons get it so wrong. corporations are not persons and have no such rights.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

Monsanto good guys eh?

You say:

"Anyone on here celebrating a government "banning" a substance is a collectivist in my view. I don't want any centralized government to have that power."

People of Poland did rise up to effect this change!

You are a fascist/communist(its the same)!
Corporatism is about to die and then you will have to re-learn what Liberty is all about.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Upside down world

So, I'm guessing that you don't realize the irony of calling me a fascist/communist when I'm the one advocating for less government.

I also guess you don't get that we can disagree without you calling me names.

"People of Poland did rise up to effect this change!" Well, now liberty is equal to democracy? Democracy is an enemey of liberty. I oppose all kinds of tyranny, even the tyranny of the majority.

I f** democracy colonialism corporatism...

Restoration of the REPUBLIC.
That is the cause I fought for the last 5 years.

To me a supporter of Monsanto is a fascist pig - there I said it.
For when you have a corporation in the same bed as the makers of the law you have fascism.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

a big win

for the rest of the world, america NEEDS TO STOP WATCHing talent shows on tv and wake the hell up from their hypnosis !!!

"He's this eccentric Ghandi-Like figure that you cant touch with the normal bribes that people respond to."
the man Doug Wead on DR. RON PAUL

Nope

You can vote me down all you want on this, but the proper recourse would be a civil action against Monsanto (or Polish equivalent). The use of government force is not legitimate and is improper.

As to your comments re: "against fraud perpetrated by Monsanto," many on the left make the same claim about global warming deniers - that they're wrecking the planet for the rest of us.

Be careful with your slippery slope - you may fall down it.

Do governments have just

authority regarding imports? Could they properly take action against an invasive species, for instance? Monsanto gets monopoly protection from our government, which promotes GE food as national policy, and the company strategically targets the agricultural policies of other nations, so they have extreme advantage, by working through governments. In my opinion, that makes it a perfectly legitimate arena to fight them, in the name of free markets, transparency and a level playing field. Vermont legislators were recently intimidated by Monsanto legal threats, and backed down from requiring labeling. Californians are taking it up with a ballot initiative. Should the fight for labeling be dropped, because it is not a legitimate function of government? With a goal of such purity in government, foreign and domestic, how would we know what we're eating?

use government force "in the name of free markets"?

Government force is antithetical to the notion of free markets. Employing government force "in the name of free markets" is like G.W. Bush saying we had to abandon capitalism to save it.

Regarding the goings-on in Vermont, yes, Government should NOT mandate labeling - this is more government force. More on that here: http://www.dailypaul.com/224781/monsanto-threatens-to-sue-ve...

You'd know what you're eating because you would use the free-market to demand the supplier provide you with a list. If you're not satisfied with the answer, you go elsewhere.

Well, Monsanto is using government

force to game the market and avoid transparency. Like the fed, their monopoly support has to be removed.

I'm all for eliminating government

If Monsanto is using government force to game the market, as you suggest, I'm all for eliminating such exertion of force. But I'm not about to climb on board the ban-it-because-it-could-be-harmful train.

You make good points

and I agree with you on a role of government level, but in my opinion, GE foods, and Monsanto corp., in particular, is a different category of battle. If a company can release a living organism, created in a lab, that will reproduce and spread it's "engineered" genetic code into the environment, that's not even a petrochemical kind of experiment. How would one even assess damages in a civil court? Your corn plant has wiped out Monarch butterflies. Do I have standing in court to sue your company, before your ex-CEO sitting supreme court judge? Talk about upside down world. I think the analogy is Vonnegut's ice-nine. There's no legal framework to handle the potential catastrophe.

"different category of battle"

I agree that this is a difficult issue, but please recognize that this kind of language - "different category of battle" - is used by the neo-cons to facilitate a ban on drugs. See, for example, Justice Scalia's concurring opinion in Gonzalez v. Raich, where Scalia sided with the liberal wing of the Court to justify a federal ban on cannabis. Despite the opinions of the other "conservative" justices arguing that the federal government had no such authority under the Commerce Clause, Scalia wrote:

"I thus agree with the Court that, however the class of regulated activities is subdivided, Congress could reasonably conclude that its objective of prohibiting marijuana from the interstate market "could be undercut" if those activities were excepted from its general scheme of regulation."

FYI - courts can deal with these situations. See for example: http://www.no-tillfarmer.com/pages/News---Minnesota-Court-Pe...

So long term, if I understand Scalia,

if one was successful using the regulatory system to bring accountability to Monsanto, the regulation "could be undercut" if the general scheme were changed. In other words, regulations are not law(?). Agreeing with your premise that private actions by individuals through courts against GE harm is the proper way for free people to regulate commerce, I still hold that waging war against a corrupt multinational intent on controlling populations through food monopoly using the regulatory system is justified if that system is the means used to extend their unwarranted influence over the free market. Percy Schmeiser won against them. David vs. Goliath. But it took years, and it didn't slow Monsanto down at all. They have 70% of American corn and 90% of American soy, because they are subverting the free market.

Our founders never intended corporations to enjoy human rights

Civil action? Are you joking? Do you think that maybe a lone RURAL FARMER might just be at a wee bit of a disadvantage against a GLOBAL CORPORATION with in-house legal staff comprised of experts in every law specialty a court case might touch upon, e.g., intellectual property litigation, chemical intellectual property litigation, commercial law, admiralty and maritime law, etc., etc., etc. It used to be acknowledged (during the first half of this country's history) that a corporation was not created by GOD but a state; that it was (therefore) not GOD but the state that granted a corporation its rights - AND could rescind them, such as if it was deemed that the corporation was not acting in the best interest OF THE PEOPLE. It's thanks to a misguided U.S. Supreme Court chief justice that set a bad precedent that now makes such action akin to capital punishment! (Instead, now we're the ones to be killed via toxins.) To his credit, Eliot Spitzer was able to get a corporation's NY State charter revoked; a local community of Californians did the same. Those are the only two cases I know of from the past century. Something to look into...

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

this is besides the point

While I agree that Monsanto may have an advantage in litigation, that doesn't justify calling for a government ban on whatever activity some group (or even majority) desires to prevent.

I'm willing to consider reforms to the legal system, but we're not talking about revoking Monsanto's status as a corporation. We're talking about using government force to criminalize activity - something most liberty minded folk abhor.

So that fact that DDT

was decimating avian populations, should not have been important enough to ban it? Thalidimide? What are armless children compared to the free market?

Do we even need a ban on Thalidimide?

Would anyone actually use it today?

Heroin is harmful, too. Should government ban it?

Thalidamide is not banned

It is no longer used for morning sickness but it is being used to prevent angiogenesis. To prevent blindness, it used to be banned and people were fighting to get it! It is good for what it does and should not be used when pregnant. Heroine is good for cancer patients should the dying have to suffer so they don't get addicted? Really? The problem is Monsanto is in bed with government and the courts are corrupt. We have forgotten that the original Boston tea party was a protest against the British Crown and the East India Tea Company. Corporations were once limited by charter.

There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want because you think it would be good for him. – Robert Heinlein

Delia@dlopezforcongress.com

Stupid argument

Yes, I wrote stupid.
People will have no choice when it comes to growing and eating GM crops.
You do have the choice to do or not to do herion.
Unless there's some new government reg saying everyone must do heroin just as the government would then be saying everyone must grow/eat GM food if they did not stop Monsanto. That pollen mixes with every plant around and then Monsanto sues the farmers who have Monsanto's GM properties in their produce because the pollen from its crops corrupted the farmers crop.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

no choice? hardly

People have a great deal of choice in what they eat. Farmers also have a great deal of choice in what seed they sow. As a small farmer myself, I can tell you there is serious demand for "natural" alternatives.

Should Monsanto be able to win in a lawsuit against an organic crop farmer for accidental cross-pollination? It seems to me the answer is clearly 'no.' But one injustice does not justify another. Please recognize that you are advocating government force over free market principles.

and you think you are safe?

You're a farmer, and you think you can protect yourself against Monsanto?

Yes, many of us are active gardeners, if not farmers, who are clearly concerned about this--

Monsanto already HAS won in lawsuits against organic crop farmers--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Thanks anon

for making the freedom argument. I found it pretty curious that so many people are fighting against you. Banning any activity, no matter how well-intentioned, is an act of force and should be avoided. There is no reason to say that a government banning a choice is an act of freedom even if that freedom can be dangerous.

With Monsanto so involved with government as it is, I wouldn't have put it past them to be the ones who actually wrote this ban, and now they will find ways to gain special permits to monopolize the market.

"We don't need a Department of Energy; we need a Department of Freedom" - RP
"We need to defend liberty.. and liberty!" - RP

by your arguments . . .

no government should be able to defend its 'nation' (if there is an innocent nation/government anywhere) against any kind of hostility--

having a defensive military would be against a 'free market'?

America has done NOTHING to stop Monsanto, and small farmers have been destroyed. I am surprised that more don't realize this. Monsanto is an act of war--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--