View Full Version : Monsanto
I would like to learn more about Monsanto, I know there are people here on this forum that are up to date with the issues.
I'm just ignorant of
1) what Monsanto is
2)what's at play with the issues surrounding Monsanto
3) and anything else I should know
and it came up on another thread and I wanted to leech off your all's research to learn more.
I do see various Monsanto postings on DH's facebook, and I've never gone any further than to glance past it.
I have not yet read the links below, but wanted to get more input as I read them.
I didn't get permission from ApetheticNoMore to use the links below, so it might not be kosher to start a discussion this way. Please correct me if this is in bad form.
Links below copied from ApetheticNoMore's post on Visceral Reaction to Rush...
Monsanto and the FDA under Obama:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNEN1NDVO3.DTL
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...dZcQ_blog.html
USDA appointees also controversal:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/arti...icle_15573.cfm
monsanto GMO alfalfa approved
http://grist.org/business-technology...-monsantos-al/
GMO sugar beets approved also:
http://grist.org/food/2011-02-05-usd...m-sugar-beets/
why Anonymous represents you better than the Obama administration: (lesser of two evils anyway)
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches...-dairy-farmers
My objections to Monsanto:
- they are buying up lots of seed companies so they can own the market- this is bad for economics as well as genetic diversity.
- I think its horrible that they make Round up ready seed, so they can sell even more of the ghastly Roundup, and then they sue farmers when the Round Up ready plant pollinates neighboring fields for "patent infringement"
- GMO food. Its not the same as cross pollination in the field. They use viruses to break the integrity of the cell to introduce new protein sequences that don't exist in nature. Do you think its a coincidence that so many people now have food allergies? Our bodies don't know what to do with these new substances.
- they've been fighting the labeling of GMO food- its everywhere in our food supply and difficult to avoid since you don't know its there. I read that something like 80-90% of processed food contains some GMO ingredients (mostly soy and corn).
Is that enough to get started with? ;) I can think harder if you want, those were the ones on the top of my head.
Watching the documentary "Food, Inc." will give you some insight. Or "The World According to Monsanto". Or you could read the book "Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating" that spends a fair number of pages on Monsanto. Keep in mind all these sources are generally opposed to what Monsanto does. So am I, but there are some benefits to be considered as well before you completely make up your mind.
Monsanto's crimes have been well-publicized on the web. Definitely watch Food, Inc. But the other day I remember reading something interesting about Monsanto that made me think positively about them.....something they're doing or changing. If I can find it again, I'll post it here for a little balance.
Maybe when Alan is elected king he'll put up that sticky that we need for Monsanto (and Walmart) so that we can always find the thread to kick them.
Monsanto is a huge company with many research projects going in all kinds of agricultural nooks and crannies. I'm certain there is at least one that this crowd would approve of.
For me, this thread is an excellent reminder that I need to buy more Roundup concentrate, I've got about enough for one full weed spray here at home as well as one full on spray at my main garden. I will need more before the weekend is out.
Iris Lily
St. Louis, home to Monsanto corporate hdqtrs
Monsanto is a public company, and seems to largely be owned by index funds and mutual funds.
Faceless capital.
we elect kings? sweet.
Oh, king eh? Very nice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xd_zkMEgkI
Gingerella72
3-12-12, 10:40am
Not to mention that Monsanto states right on their website's FAQ page that there is no need for human testing to determine if GM food is safe or not. Um......that right there should send up red flags to anyone who is interested in staying healthy. Sorry, not interested in being a human guinea pig for this experiment in frankenfood.
Gingerella72
3-12-12, 10:42am
Another good documentary to watch is The Future Of Food. You can watch it here on Hulu for free: http://www.hulu.com/watch/67878/the-future-of-food
Gingerella72
3-12-12, 11:03am
And on Natural News this morning:
http://www.naturalnews.com/035221_Roundup_soil_health_food_supply.html
"As the USDA continues to sit back and allow Monsanto to threaten the environmental stability of the planet, it becomes more apparent that the USDA and Monsanto are gladly willing to exchange the future of the planet and its inhabitants for short term gain. In fact, the USDA has even given Monsanto's latest GMO crops speedier approval in order to secure the company's profits, ignoring the numerous known harmful effects of Monsanto's past creations, e.g. Agent Orange, Aspartame, DDT."
I've watched most of the various documentaries that have been mentioned and have pretty much determined that Monsanto operates in a margin of unethical tactics. But it is hard to ignore the fact that most farmers love their GMOs. Monsanto would not be such a huge corporation without making products with a high consumer demand. In my mind it is sort of a three legged stool, with the manufacturer, the consumer, and the regulating agencies all holding up the platform where you place your rear end.
i say, step out and attempt to support small, local farmers using heritage seeds as much as you can, then.
in addition, fight it as much as you can at the governmental level -- we are still working here in NZ to keep GMO out of the country (and get any out who are in) and returning to heritage seed. luckily, we buy mostly NZ produce and mostly from heritage seed and/or through NZ developed seeds (developed in traditional methods).
it's a big deal here. hoping that the food bill gets changed, so that there is no gmo! went to a huge rally/protest about it a few weeks ago.
ApatheticNoMore
3-14-12, 12:22am
Monsanto would not be such a huge corporation without making products with a high consumer demand.
If you are talking about the end consumer they don't even know probably.
In my mind it is sort of a three legged stool, with the manufacturer, the consumer, and the regulating agencies all holding up the platform where you place your rear end.
But it seems the regulatory agencies not only don't require labels on GMO foods (even though this labeling has widespread public support) but actually forbid labeling on GMO free foods:
http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/09/19/fda-bans-gm-free-labeling/
So I don't buy the argument "but consumers want it" Yea in a marketplace where consumers aren't EVEN ALLOWED to be informed what they are buying they want it, call that asymetric information (a problem to some degree with all anonymous markets. But what we have here is actually much more, it is radical government intervention in favor of Monsanto). If consumers were informed would they want it?
agreed there. i thought of the consumer in this instance as the farmer/producer, not the end-consumer who would consume the product.
i say, step out and attempt to support small, local farmers using heritage seeds as much as you can, then.
Done and done. Difficult, at times, but we sure try.
ApatheticNoMore
3-14-12, 3:24am
Oh the end consumer should avoid GMO when they can (how? really only two ways in the U.S.: buy organic, or know the farmer so well you know they don't use GMO.). But many do not know about the issue (due to the lack of labeling etc.), so the power differential between Monsanto and Joe Schmoe shopping at the supermarket is pretty big.
I need to buy more Roundup concentrate
You might want to reconsider. It is not as benign as Monsanto would have us believe.
If you are talking about the end consumer they don't even know probably.
So I don't buy the argument "but consumers want it" Yea in a marketplace where consumers aren't EVEN ALLOWED to be informed what they are buying they want it, call that asymetric information (a problem to some degree with all anonymous markets. But what we have here is actually much more, it is radical government intervention in favor of Monsanto). If consumers were informed would they want it?
I was actually referring to the farmer as the consumer of the Monsanto GMO seed. They know good and well that their seeds are GMO. I consider them only slightly less responsible than Monsanto and the regulating agencies.
I was actually referring to the farmer as the consumer of the Monsanto GMO seed. They know good and well that their seeds are GMO. I consider them only slightly less responsible than Monsanto and the regulating agencies.
I'm not sure you have an accurate picture of modern agriculture. I know lots of farmers. I don't know any that would not rather have an economically viable option to plant a variety of crops and use far less agrochemicals, GMOs, etc. Yes, GM seeds are easy to grow. Plant them, spray them, water them (if even necessary), harvest them. What's not to like if you're a farmer, right? Well, farmers know that monocropping and heavy chemical usage kills the soil. It renders soil useless without all those chemicals and that 'special' seed that are sold by the companies with whom most of those farmers have to contract. I say "have" to contract with because for a very large group of farmers those contracts mean the difference between farming and bankruptcy. Does being backed into a corner where the only way out is to buy chemicals from the company store that destroy your largest asset seem like a sound business practice to you? Doesn't to them, either.
BTW, farmers are MORE responsible than Monsanto, et al. Its in the contract (http://morphcity.com/home/94-monsanto-shifts-all-liability-to-farmers).
ApatheticNoMore
3-14-12, 12:49pm
Was reading about parts of Italy where they have been farming the same land for thousands of years. Now *that* is sustainability (and coeexisting with agriculture too). In the U.S. that land wouldn't last a few centuries, maybe a few decades. And we wonder why so many countries resist GMOs.
Just for the record ANM, GM plants aren't what depletes the land. Planting the same crop year after year, GM or not, quickly uses up the available supply of certain nutrients. The present day 'solution' is to replace those nutrients with chemical fertilizers. Corn, for example, uses a great deal of nitrogen from the soil. The traditional methods of replacing it included adding organic matter, essentially compost, or alternating the corn with crops that affix nitrogen to the soil such as many beans. That's why so many cultures from the southwestern US down through South America have a tradition of both corn and beans in their diet. The Italians have different crops, but the traditional methods there involve many of the same ideas. Our modern method of replacing the nitrogen in a corn field is to apply Anhydrous Ammonia. You need a chemical handlers permit to do that around here because the fumes can be deadly if you're not careful with it. Needless to say it is also deadly to most microorganisms in the soil. And if that doesn't get them the pesticides or herbicides (did I hear Round-Up?) will.
Speaking of Round-Up, it will still kill the mighty oak in your front yard if you're not careful, but it won't kill everything (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/attack-of-the-superweed-09082011.html).
I'm not sure you have an accurate picture of modern agriculture. I know lots of farmers. I don't know any that would not rather have an economically viable option to plant a variety of crops and use far less agrochemicals, GMOs, etc. Yes, GM seeds are easy to grow. Plant them, spray them, water them (if even necessary), harvest them. What's not to like if you're a farmer, right? Well, farmers know that monocropping and heavy chemical usage kills the soil. It renders soil useless without all those chemicals and that 'special' seed that are sold by the companies with whom most of those farmers have to contract. I say "have" to contract with because for a very large group of farmers those contracts mean the difference between farming and bankruptcy. Does being backed into a corner where the only way out is to buy chemicals from the company store that destroy your largest asset seem like a sound business practice to you? Doesn't to them, either.
BTW, farmers are MORE responsible than Monsanto, et al. Its in the contract (http://morphcity.com/home/94-monsanto-shifts-all-liability-to-farmers).
Greg, Monsanto has no doubt been involved in some shady business transactions. I totally understand what you are saying, but from a free market standpoint I see Monsanto as recognizing a product that would improve farmer's productivity and profits and taking that product to market. When it comes down to placing any blame for the spreading use of GMOs, I see some under-the-table urging by Monsanto but they are basically making a product for which there is a market. Is Monsanto any more to blame for wanting to make a profit than the farmer wanting the same thing? If it were a totally different company or companies than Monsanto who had developed the various GMOs, and assuming they had good, but more ethical marketing, would we not still be seeing widespread planting of a crop that is so fitting for the farmers pockets?
If it were a totally different company or companies than Monsanto who had developed the various GMOs, and assuming they had good, but more ethical marketing, would we not still be seeing widespread planting of a crop that is so fitting for the farmers pockets?
A fair question Rogar. I'm not necessarily trying to defend farmers beyond saying they are not the ones that create products for markets, or arguably, markets for products.
Regarding those profits, if a farmer can produce 250 bushels per acre with a GM corn seed and only 175 with an unaltered variety and have less work invested in the GM field, it would be unfair to expect them to do otherwise. It would be different if there was a higher demand for the unmodified crop and the farmer could expect a premium price from consumers for that, but every kernel he sells is going to bring the same price regardless of provenance.
If you want my gloomy opinion I just can't see how consumer demand for an unmodified product will ever be what reverses the trend. Speaking practically I think it will either be government intervention or a physical system crash (probably farm ground so saturated with chemicals that nothing beyond resistant weeds will grow regardless of modifications) that will turn the train around. Government intervention would have to be a global treaty among all the largest producers to be effective. Not something that happens often.
It's worth remembering that not all aspects of genetic modification are negative. Induced hybrids have been around for thousands of years. The Incas crossed a tall corn plant that bore multiple ears with a short, stout plant to get a variety that had several ears of corn on one stalk, but was stout and low so the wind wouldn't blow it over. It's a trait such as seed sterility that could, or WILL, contaminate other varieties combined with the need for ever more toxic chemicals due to immunity developed by natural competitors that is problematic.
ApatheticNoMore
3-14-12, 6:30pm
It would be different if there was a higher demand for the unmodified crop and the farmer could expect a premium price from consumers for that, but every kernel he sells is going to bring the same price regardless of provenance.
but organic does fetch a premium, for crops that are maybe not organic but just not GMO, well again GMO labeling .... organic is afterall labeled.
If you want my gloomy opinion I just can't see how consumer demand for an unmodified product will ever be what reverses the trend.
It's never been tried ... like I said many end consumer's don't even know. Labeling .... and what do you know there's an attempt at a state ballot measure for labeling here.
Speaking practically I think it will either be government intervention or a physical system crash (probably farm ground so saturated with chemicals that nothing beyond resistant weeds will grow regardless of modifications) that will turn the train around.
By government intervention you mean state labeling laws? :) Really I don't see much else on the horizon right now when the Federal government is in bed with Monsanto.
Government intervention would have to be a global treaty among all the largest producers to be effective. Not something that happens often.
Actually aren't there a bunch of "free" trade treaties that require the acceptance of the importing countries of GMOs, even though the poeple in those countries may be overwhelmingly opposed to GMOs? So I think treaties currently actively work to impose GMO.
Really it's true Americans might buy GMOs even with 100% labeling if they were cheaper, I'm not sure this isn't being pushed on the rest of the world quite beyond their wishes though.
Gingerella72
3-15-12, 10:10am
It's worth remembering that not all aspects of genetic modification are negative. Induced hybrids have been around for thousands of years. The Incas crossed a tall corn plant that bore multiple ears with a short, stout plant to get a variety that had several ears of corn on one stalk, but was stout and low so the wind wouldn't blow it over. It's a trait such as seed sterility that could, or WILL, contaminate other varieties combined with the need for ever more toxic chemicals due to immunity developed by natural competitors that is problematic.
But producing hybrids is NOT the same as the genetic modification biotech companies are doing. Taking one species of plant and crossing it with another one in the same species classification or one that is very similar has been done by farmers for millenia, and can even happen without human intervention in nature.
However, putting the DNA of one species into another species that bears absolutely no similarity to one another is NOT natural. For example, take Monsanto's failed experiment with the "flavor saver" tomato where they tried to put fish DNA into a tomato to make it resistant to frost. Now, perhaps in some strange alternate universe it's possible that a fish might naturally mate with a tomato plant or vice versa, but in this reality it just ain't happening.
The same goes for what they're doing to corn, soybeans, et al. They're inserting foreign proteins into their DNA that do not occur naturally in these plant species to make them resistant to pesticides. Without any safety testing whatsoever. This is not simply crossing one species of corn with another species of corn to make a stronger plant.
However, putting the DNA of one species into another species that bears absolutely no similarity to one another is NOT natural.
Actually, it is.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/hgt-bacteria-1031.html
but organic does fetch a premium, for crops that are maybe not organic but just not GMO, well again GMO labeling .... organic is afterall labeled.
Yes, organic produce does fetch a premium. But what we're talking about is crops like corn, it isn't the tomatoes (or for that matter the sweet corn) at the farmer's market. Billions and billions of bushels of grain that is an industrial raw material, not a boutique food stuff. A comparison of corn to iron ore or crude oil would be much more accurate than one to said tomatoes.
It's never been tried ... like I said many end consumer's don't even know. Labeling .... and what do you know there's an attempt at a state ballot measure for labeling here.
Unfortunately consumers do not step up to the plate whether healthier products are labeled or not. There are thousands of examples of products that have come and gone or existed in the fringes while the market for mainstream, mass produced, chemically treated, GMO filled, CHEAP products continues to expand. Note the emphasis, in the end that is what matters to the bulk of consumers.
By government intervention you mean state labeling laws? :)
No. I mean an outright international ban with severe penalties such as extremely heavy fines and jail sentences. It's not that I'm an advocate for such a level of intervention, but IMO nothing short of that is going to stop the proliferation of GMOs. Printing something on a label will accomplish nothing. Ask Phillip Morris.
Actually aren't there a bunch of "free" trade treaties that require the acceptance of the importing countries of GMOs, even though the poeple in those countries may be overwhelmingly opposed to GMOs? So I think treaties currently actively work to impose GMO.
Unless you specifically seek it out the odds that your 'free trade' coffee is organic, free of GM or otherwise completely sustainable is zero. Trade barriers could help limit GMO proliferation, but it would still be treating the symptom, not the disease.
Really it's true Americans might buy GMOs even with 100% labeling if they were cheaper, I'm not sure this isn't being pushed on the rest of the world quite beyond their wishes though.
Consumers, not limited to Americans, look at one label on a product: the price tag. Most would buy eye drops with battery acid if they were cheap enough. There is no quick way to change a few billion people into conscientious consumers unless someone can unlock the puzzle and make it cheaper at the check stand.
I do dig the comparison of corn to crude oil and similar. the same can be said of soy bean. it's essentially an industrial product. and that's interesting to think about.
that's quite different from GMO food products, though.
I might be ok with GMO corn used to make plastics or some such, but not so much about it being in the food supply.
And, i'm also concerned about it's impact on nature in general (same with things like digging for oil, fracking, etc).
But I like that comparison. Good point, Gregg.
I might be ok with GMO corn used to make plastics or some such, but not so much about it being in the food supply.
There aren't a lot of things that strike me as absolutes, but GMOs might be one. What to do with them is a really tough call because there are definite benefits in addition to the downside. It just seems like a real case of Pandora's box because the modified crops will, at some point, replicate and cross pollinate with non-modified plants. There are too many variables to predict what might happen then, but its certain we won't be able to put it back in the box if we don't like the results.
The industrial production methods associated with GMO crops are as big a concern as the crops themselves. Several GMO crop strains were developed to be resistant to Round-Up so a farmer could simply spray a field and kill everything except his crop. Brutal, but very efficient. It was really only a matter of time until some weed, somewhere survived the Round-Up assault and began to reproduce. When we hear stories about 2,4-D, dichlorophenoxyacetic acid - a common herbicide, being reformulated because weeds developed resistance to Round-Up (itself pretty nasty stuff) we should all pause and try to get a handle on the situation.
I was raised when and where 2,4-D was thought to be the greatest thing since canned beer for farmers because it does a great job of killing broad leaf plants like most of the weeds in a corn field...or plants in a jungle. For perspective, it is also one of the primary components in Agent Orange. (Round-Up came later, but prior to widespread GMO crop seeds you had to be really careful with it because it killed everything.) A study (http://journals.lww.com/epidem/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=1990&issue=09000&article=00004&type=abstract) 25 years ago here in Nebraska linked 2,4-D usage to significantly increased incidents of Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Even if the GMOs were totally benign (they're not), the level of chemical application in conjunction with their use is mind boggling and quite scary.
@Apathetic: there's a movement to get the FDA to require GMO labeling.
http://justlabelit.org/
gregg,
right, it is a far broader and more complex issue than one might even suspect.
for me, the terminator gene was really shocking. there is some evidence that it has 'jumped' to other seed groups, and that the seed will not propagate.
this, to me, is quite scary.
for me, the terminator gene was really shocking. there is some evidence that it has 'jumped' to other seed groups, and that the seed will not propagate.
this, to me, is quite scary.
Incredibly so. We've all heard the urban myth about birds carrying GM corn seed with the 'terminator technology' from point A to some point in southern Mexico (I always heard the story with Oaxaca) and the subsequent destruction of the native gene pool there. I suspect that story is just a myth for now, but the possibility of a somewhat similar scenario playing out does appear to exist. Just about anything that can happen eventually will.
ApatheticNoMore
3-19-12, 2:10pm
Consumers, not limited to Americans, look at one label on a product: the price tag. Most would buy eye drops with battery acid if they were cheap enough.
I really don't buy this conception of human nature. I don't think everyone is exclusively money motivated, it's actually pretty foreign to me as a motivation (not that I don't work and spend and all that, of course I do). I believe that people are maybe (arguably but I pretty much accept it) self-interest motivated. But to think this means exclusively money and stuff motivated is distortion through our very twisted cultural prism. The ONLY INFORMATION people have now is often price, they often are not at all aware of GMO issues.
I will concede that if GMO crops must be stopped entirely that kind of absolute won't be acheived by somewhat market mechanisms like labeling - markets just don't by nature tend to that sort of absoluteness (although .... if the courts weren't captured it could perhaps be acheived through the courts, organic farmers are suing Monsanto now for pollution of their fields). GMO absolutely relies on ignorance to sustain itself, it's why they don't want labeling but even with total knowledge some people might still buy GMOs. This level of acceptance relies on ignorance but total rejection perhaps requires banning (i.e. stop at least approving new GMO crops!). And if the people of say Europe had their way by majority vote, they would ban it. This stuff is being forced on them through trade treaties. The problem with the U.S. is widespread ignorance and well also our government is near entirely captured by corporate interests. The solution to the control by corporate interests ... oh boy ... need to get rid of corporate personhood :), and for particular issues only overwhelming people power could ever hope to counteract corporate influence.
There is a labeling initiative they hope to get on the ballot in California.
I really don't buy this conception of human nature. I don't think everyone is exclusively money motivated, it's actually pretty foreign to me as a motivation (not that I don't work and spend and all that, of course I do). I believe that people are maybe (arguably but I pretty much accept it) self-interest motivated. But to think this means exclusively money and stuff motivated is distortion through our very twisted cultural prism. The ONLY INFORMATION people have now is often price, they often are not at all aware of GMO issues.
What I was talking about was product selections when shopping for food and other necessities of life that potentially contain GMOs. The selections a person makes can, but do not necessarily reflect their values. To bring up what would or wouldn't motivate an individual, rather than a culture, will send the conversation in a hundred different directions. If you want to learn about our societal buying habits all you have to do is go to the grocery store. In my neighborhood our mega-mart grocery outlet is quite literally 50x the square footage of the local natural foods store. In our town there are 3 natural foods stores and 18 grocery stores (not even counting Super Target and Super Wal-Mart, etc.) so its quite easy to see what consumers will support. The grocery stores are big businesses that spend a great deal of money and resources figuring out how to get people into their stores. Just like everywhere else they do it by gathering a huge amount of data on consumers and their buying habits then designing promotions to fit those habits. Price is obviously what drives consumers decisions above all other considerations in almost every case because there are new sales every single week. That in no way indicates that the shoppers are good or bad, only that they care alot about the cost of what they are buying.
I could not agree more that the consumer is usually quite ignorant regarding what is in their food, where it comes from, how it is produced, etc. I don't think European consumers, or any other, are any more enlightened than US consumers. GMO restrictions in Europe did not originate from any kind of grass roots consumer movement. They, so far as I know, all began with government sponsored scientists and several trade groups concerned with the purity of products, not for environmental reasons, but for marketing (think of DOCG, etc.). I just don't think simply labeling food stocks will accomplish anything. Think about what's already on the labels. If people actually read what was in their mac & cheese or their can of soup do you think they would want to eat it? What difference would it make to the average consumer if you add "genetically modified celery" to a list of 15 ingredients they can can't pronounce that are already there?
In the extreme, look at cigarettes. The label basically tells consumers that if they smoke the contents they will die of cancer. What would you say on a label about GMOs that is more graphic than that? Beyond that, I don't know any smokers who do not acknowledge they could die from using cigarettes. The ignorance excuse is off the table because of labeling laws and other media programs, smoking is even banned inside almost any public building almost everywhere in the country and still the number of smokers has increased in the past couple years. Unfortunately there is no indication whatsoever that labeling or almost any other kind of education regarding negative impacts causes people to make "wiser" choices.
Well, here is my think on the labeling -- it's good to know, and for people who want to avoid it, they'll be able to avoid it.
We have been spending our money in this way for years -- much to the confusion of our families, who choose on brand and price point. My ILs are all about price pt, my family is loyal to brands.
My cousin has gotten my sister into couponing, and we were all skyping about it the other day.
What was weird -- and I do mean weird -- is that they didn't get why i wasn't doing it. "BUt we got several gallons of free milk, and we put the stuff we won't use right away in our freezer!" That's great, except that we don't buy that milk, and there are no coupons for the milk-share.
They don't get why we are in the milk share when you can get "free milk." For me, you might as well call it "free, over processed, industrial product sourced from the mammary ducts of cows." It's not really "milk."
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.