We win one-Monsanto Looks to Sell Dairy Hormone Business!!

[nosmokes]

original-nytimes

Monsanto Looks to Sell Dairy Hormone Business


By ANDREW MARTIN and ANDREW POLLACK
Published: August 6, 2008

After struggling to gain consumer acceptance, Monsanto on Wednesday announced that it would try to sell its business of producing an artificial growth hormone for dairy cows. The company will focus instead on its thriving business of selling seeds and developing ways to improve crops.


The decision comes as more retailers, saying they are responding to consumer demand, are selling dairy products from cows not treated with the artificial hormone.

Wal-Mart, Kroger and Publix are among the retailers that now sell house-brand milk from untreated cows. Almost all of the fresh milk sold by Dean Foods, the nation’s largest milk bottler, also comes from cows that were not treated with the artificial hormone, a spokeswoman said.

Monsanto officials said the decision was not related to the retail trend and that business for the artificial hormone, sold under the brand name Posilac, remained brisk. Monsanto, which is based in St. Louis and is the only commercial manufacturer of the hormone, declined to provide sales numbers.

Selling Posilac “will allow Monsanto to focus on the growth of its core seeds and traits business while ensuring that loyal dairy farmers continue to receive the value of Posilac in their operations,” Carl Casale, Monsanto’s executive vice president for strategy and operations, said in a statement.

~snip~
.
.
.
complete article here

[mloutre]

1. Obviously, the mounting pressure from the anti-additive crowd finally had them cowed.

[SpiralHawk]

2. And the massive wave of early-onset puberty afflicting our children

Let's not forget the Real Consequences of messing with hormones.

As for Monsanto's thriving business in Genetically Mutant seed, I offer a plaintive 'buzz off' in support of the collapsing bee colonies around our world.

[NashVegas]

3. I'd Start Hoarding Seeds Right About Now

If I were the gardening type.

[SpiralHawk]

5. I'd start saving open-pollinated seeds if I liked to eat.

I do. And I am.

[JohnyCanuck]

4. And Indian farmers are telling them to take their GM cotton.........

and shove it where the sun don't shine (so to speak).

Indian farmers shun GM for organic solutions
Genetically modified cotton was to be the saviour of India's farmers, but ill-health and financial worries are fuelling a backlash

Sue Branford

SNIP

At first, cotton farmers did well. They got high yields and enjoyed a real increase in income. But then problems arose. The hybrid cotton proved susceptible to pests and diseases, and it was not uncommon for farmers to spray their fields up to 30 times in a single season. Production costs went through the roof and farmers got trapped in debt. They became desperate for a technical fix, and Bt cotton seemed to be the answer.

In its first year of sales, Mahyco-Monsanto sold its entire stock of Bt cotton. According to the company, the area in India under Bt cotton rose from 3.1m acres in 2005 to 14.4m acres in 2007. According to Sekhar Natarajan, regional leader of Monsanto India, Bt cotton yielded 700kg-900kg per acre, compared with 300kg-400kg an acre with conventional seeds.

However, some say that what has been happening on the ground has been very different from the official success story. Scientists Abdul Qayum and Kiran Sakhari assessed Bt cotton's performance in the first three years and found that, despite claims by the company, farmers were not achieving big yields. This perhaps was to be expected, because Bt cotton had been engineered to reduce pesticide use, not to increase yields. But, more surprisingly, they found that pesticide use was not falling either, because farmers were facing serious problems with secondary pests. They worked out that, on average, the income of non-Bt farmers was 60% higher than that of Bt farmers. Monsanto contests these numbers.

SNIP

Many farmers, like Sattemma, have not followed the debate around Bt cotton. She says it was practical considerations that led to the change in farming. "It was the 15 women in our village's self-help group who got things going," she says. "We were worried about the health of our children. We got the men on our side by showing them that they would save money." Sattemma points to a chart on the wall of a nearby house, on which, with the help of a non-governmental organisation, they have recorded side-by-side the expenses of growing cotton with and without pesticides. Non-pesticide management (NPM), as the system is called, is clearly more profitable, not because yields are higher but because expenditure is so much lower.

In Yenabavi, about 30 miles away, the farmers have gone further, becoming organic and declaring their village GMO-free. Their conversion also began with dissatisfaction with pesticides, this time because they didn't work. "Ten years ago, this field was covered with red-headed hairy caterpillars," says Malliah, the farmer who has led the change. "I kept applying more pesticides but I couldn't get rid of them." By chance, an organic agronomist was visiting. He showed Malliah how to set up solar-powered light traps and, to Malliah's delight, they worked. Since then, he and the other farmers have developed other natural pest controls.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/30/gmcrops.india

Lots more reading on the problems with GM cotton in India here:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GE-cotton.php