Don't Let Monsanto's GMOs Contaminate Organics!
Posted by gonzo309 10 years, 8 months ago to Legislation
No matter what Monsanto and the USDA say, GMOs contaminate organic crops - Now they want organic farmers to pay to protect themselves!
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
#1. GMO has never been proven to cause either short-term or long-term health effects in humans in studies recognized by the FDA. This was even acknowledged by activists in the recent lawsuit against GMO sugarbeets in California.
#2. Monsanto's policies forbidding the practice of growing seed are way too heavy-handed. Suing farmers that accidentally get GMO seed in a neighboring field is ridiculous.
#3. GMO corn, soybeans, sugarbeets, and others have the potential to wipe out hunger in Africa. New strains require less water to grow, are easier to farm, and more resistant to common diseases and insects that threaten crops.
#4. One of the main reasons Roundup-ready seed is popular is because it makes it so that beginning farmers can still get good yields from their crops because they don't have to be quite as precise in the application of herbicides for weed control.
#5. You may not know this, but nearly every processed product on the market contains an ingredient labeled "modified food starch". That comes from GMO corn and has been used in commercial application for decades.
Should Monsanto be more lenient in its contracts for seed? I would lean that way. Is GMO a danger to humans? I haven't seen any real science demonstrating such.
As per the ideas of the Gulch, I would leave the government out of the matter. Allow farmers to use the product or not as they see fit. Allow consumers to buy the products as they see fit. In the case of some mass effect due to GMO, I fully support a lawsuit against the maker.
Jury is still out on harm. We're getting super weeds now. New studies show, that GMO foods require just as much, or more weed killer, and fertilizer as the non-GMO crop.
Yes, Modified Corn Starch is everywhere, and it's expanding every day. As is Americans waist line, and our insulin dependence.
If you want GMO food, go for it. that's your choice (another Gulch Idea). Monsanto needs to be responsible for keeping their GMO from spreading. The non-GMO farmer has no chance of preventing Monsanto from pollenating his fields. It's a matter of who damaged who? As far as I'm concerned, Nature trumps science when it comes to "right-to-propagate'
I'm note sure 1.5 miles is adequate. Bees will go further. The wind, who knows. Animals.
That's the thing, this is issue is soooo charged, yet, Monsanto is getting all the protection.
One GMO effort that was monumental in its impact was the development of corn/maize from barely edible grasses. The explosive growth of the Mayan, and Mississippian cultures was brought about by the spread of this Native American food technology.
GMO paranoia is second only to climate change obsession, with fear and propaganda displacing logic, facts and science. The idea that falsified proclamations of calamity could be successful in court was established by one of the world's worst murderers, Rachel Carson. DDT, which is harmless to humans and higher animal species, has been banned as an insecticide based on falsified and misinterpreted anecdotal "evidence", with the result being over 100 million African and Asian deaths from malaria since the late 1960s, topping the score of even Hitler, Mao, and Stalin as killers of their fellow humans.
GMO's require gene splicing. They take genes from fish (in some cases) and splice them with a food crop DNA.
In the case of the fish gene's, it was/is an attempt to make some crops more cold hardy.
The difference is in taken one zipper with 5 teeth per inch and trying to zip it to one that has 7 teeth per inch. Get a big enough pair of pliers and you can force them.
Cross Pollination is like inter-racial marriage (Black dude,and a white chick)
and GMO is like inter-species (white dude, and a chicken).
DDT was a result of the over-use of it, as later determined.
GMO - DDT = Apple, and PC's.
GMO is dangerous because their is no way to 'recall' the crop once it's released to the wind.
What if, 5 years from now, we do determine a real health risk, from the Corn, let's say. How do stop it from propagating? You gonna set the entire worlds corn crop on fire?? That's the problem.
Remember when "margarine" was better than butter. Forever, we were told that. OOOPS, is uses hydrogenated fats - they aren't so good. It's easy to get rid of Margarine.
The latest discussions are about what I call "positive eugenics", or efforts to improve the human species. Children created from more than two parents, to eliminate inherited genetic disorders, as one example of what's being explored, and the temptation to make the species better physically, mentally, and immunologically will be too great to prevent further experimentation.
Genetic modification of human and other species to fit new environments like Mars or the Moon are probably in the future. Robot warriors will probably inhibit any attempt to create super-soldiers genetically, but I may be wrong on that.
GMOs are only one more form of invasive species, just artificially created. Efforts to control python population in Florida aren't going so well, and Asian carp and "snakeheads" are having an impact on native fish populations.
Technological change resistance is futile, as the Luddites discovered. The human species has the talent for adaptation, and it's far more effective to adjust to changes in the environment than to try to freeze everything in place.
Will some GMOs cause problems? Undoubtedly, but others will be of great benefit, like the "golden rice". You can try to stop a freight train by standing in front of it, but I don't think you'll have much luck.
We're from the government, and we're hear to help.
where long-lived people were paid to breed with selected others to produce a strain of very long-lived people.
If the other side of the example isn't good, please don't use the one side, no matter how warm and fuzzy and appealing it may be.
Touchy about "choice"? It's unfortunate that common sense rarely enters that discussion, as in concern for health of the mother, quality of life of the child based on genetic disabilities, and other justifiable reasons supporting abortion. When one side declares that late-term abortion bans are the start of a "slippery slope", and the other resists any attempt to justify the procedure under any circumstances, there's not much room for sensible compromise.
Individuals with freedom of choice... usually ok.
I usually recommend people watching Genetic Roulette: The Gamble Of Our Lives at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbACx-DqB...
Your lack of scientific knowledge is typical of folks who believe all the anti-GMO crap on the internet but have not taken any good biology, chemistry or general science courses... or passed them.
The shit about mice dying from being stuffed full of GMO seeds is also Bad Science. Those are SEEDS used to grow cash crop plants. You don't eat them any more than you go to the grocery store and buy a bag of SEED CORN for your next soup.
THAT kind of rational thinking is completely missing from your 'arguments.' It's just a real shame that so many people can't handle the thought processes needed to refute the stupid Bad Science claims of the Anti-GMO Zealots.
Actually genetic modification has been going on for centuries, but not by chemists.
Here's a start to becoming informed on GMO harm:
http://www.rense.com/general80/haz.htm
Are organics the best? Certainly, and if one can afford the higher cost of organics, by all means knock yourself out. I am sure you and your family will be better off for it.
What really grinds my gears is that people like you crusade against the use of GMOs completely ignoring the fact that most scientists agree we have no chance of feeding the 7.02+ billion and growing people on this Spaceship Earth without GMOs. You would condemn BILLIONS of people to starvation and death without concern, or any other solution.
Am I saying that Monsanto is great? No, I do not have a lot of confidence in them, mostly due to their treatment of organic farmers and their closed lipped methods of operation. However GMOs are here to stay, and necessary at this point.
As for feeding the 7 billion with GMO food, based on the recent reports and studies of the harm done by using GMO seed and Roundup the result is the opposite. Growing more food that poisons the people eating it is not a solution. BTW, I don't necessarily oppose technology, but GMOs from Monsanto were never tested thoroughly enough before being released in the wild. Billions of people who eat Monsanto crops will be condemned to painful death by disease and starvation. If the point is to reduce the population quicker through disease then Monsanto's GMO products are a solution, but unfortunately the 'solution' is uncontrollable as it genetically poisons the existing seed stock and the use of Roundup may destroy the farmland itself for generations.
I know that you are a rational person, Will, but you should open your mind and read the research done by those with no vested interests in the success or failure of Monsanto's products.
You will find that all the criticism isn't coming from a bunch of irrational, green weirdos.
Name calling because someone disagrees with you is not making a good argument.
I do not believe that Monsanto is saving billions. Their business practices and aggression towards Organic farmers are criminal IMO. I simply asserted the proven knowledge that we cannot feed the growing population of Planet Earth without GMOs. I then asked you how we do it without GMOs and your answer is death to humans and/or the suppression of procreation. I reject that as oppressive and ask you again how do we feed the growing population without GMOs? A blanket statement that we might find a way is not an answer…
For those that want to blame climate change on man, and our use of fossil fuels.
The problem is there are too damn many people. Especially, useless people.
this is why Obama wants to give free birth control to women. Not for their health.
I'll bet, all your GMO corn, will be the cause of fertility problems in the US.
Connect the dots.
Chilling. You are against mankind. That's evil
Look at "Feed the Children". They've been feeding starving 3rd world children since the 50's. Determined to end staring children. Have they? No. They have only ensured that those children grow up to have more starving children.
Had they spent that money to also sterilize them, they might end the cycle.
The problem is, these people live in an area where either the land cannot support them, or they have bad governments, etc.
What is more humane, watching 1 million children starve, or 5 million?
Mother nature takes care of over-population quite efficiently.
We are running out of resources. At what point do you say, there is no room for anymore.
I'm not against mankind. But there are limits you can put on the environment.
You can only grow so many tomato's per acre. At some point, you deplete the soil of nutrients faster than you can replenish it. Then the soil is useless for everyone.
I'm not against innovation to increase crop yield, But, that's a small part. You have to house these people. We can only go UP so high. The further OUT you spread for housing is land you give up for growing food on. Of course, Agenda-21 takes care of that - no private land ownership, we all live in government housing in a huge city.
I am surprised at your "... against mankind" comment".
Curious, how do rationalize that with "I swear by life..."
This topic goes directly to that. Very few of those 7 Billion will be producers, leaving a whole lot of moochers - right.
Where's the line between compassion/humane, and living for the sake of another.
That's a tough one - isn't.
In that sense, I would say, my previous post added value to the conversation. Just because you didn't like what I said, or how I said it, it's hardly worthy of 2 thumbs down.
I look forward to your reply.
I 'm against artificially propping up that which would not survive on it's own.
What do you do with their waste? where do park their car? Where do you plant their food? You need 700 sq.ft./person to grow food. That assumes you got good yield. That also didn't include the sq.ft. needed to grow meat - got to deal with animal waste as well.
Where do you put those factories to make their goods, like clothes? You didn't add in the road ways to get people around, without grid lock.
What is the real sq.ft. cost for a human.
Physical space is one thing. Not every location is habitable. Nor is everyplace capable of growing food. Potable water IS the absolute limiting factor. Get the highest potential yield you want/acre. It doesn't mean jack if you can't water it.
You may have a right to life, but you do not have a right to bring a life into the world you can not provide for.
I ask again, is that not the very statement the Gulch is about??
The most efficient use of land will occur with a free-market system. All else will be sub-optimal.
The rest of your screed is just a waste of time.
Free-market, fine. Free-market also means the government doesn't pick winners and losers. In the case of Monsanto, the gov't clearly is siding with them. Let the free-market determine if they want GMO or not, as opposed to having it forced on us. Why is Monsanto so resistant to labeling their GMO products???
IF we could trust the FDA, I might side with you. the fact is, we can't. the FDA is loaded with industry executives pushing their goods, fudging data. Releasing GMO into the environment is like releasing a super-virus on the world. There's no going back once it's out.
Maybe, that means too many people for a region of the world - and the population needs to be dispersed.
Who says that an individual will not invent/create something new that calls for labor?
Your arguments are sophomoric at best. There is plenty of land area for mankind to populate the earth several times over the current population. Our ingenuity and inventiveness continue to increase the productivity of the food produced and the energy that we need to continue to live at the level that we have created. The evidence is that, absent a nuclear, chemical, or biological catastrophe, that will continue for the foreseeable future.
We are creating an environment that deincentivizes work, personal achievement, or responsibility. This leads to other BIG issue, How much of a capable, productive population does it require to support the useless masses?
If the population of low-skilled workers was less (at lot less) then McD's might actually have to pay a higher wage for the burger flipper. Supply and demand.
It all feeds back onto itself. If people that can't afford to feed themselves, didn't have children, then the population would be regulated. But, we don't discourage them from that, We actually encourage them to replicate.
this is straying pretty far from the original topic.
To try to bring it back to that, if we spay/neutered that bottom 20% of this country, we wouldn't need GMO, unemployment would be near zero, we wouldn't worry about climate change, the debt/deficit wouldn't be an issue, wages would be higher, the cost of living would be less, and it's very likely Zippy wouldn't be in the White House.
Just because we can feed and house 7 billion+ people - should we? As the population increases, the quality of life for everyone decreases. I'm not looking for a philosophical discussion as to who determines who's worthy or not.
I don't know about you, but I do not want to have to live in Alaska because the government says that's the only place with room for me to live.
Also, we should not ever remove ourselves so far from the land, that we rely on industry for our very existence. Just incase something really bad happens, and we need to resort to those old-ways of living.
It looks to me like 'rense' has collected just about every catastrophic conspiracy theory on the web in one place... SUCH a reliable primary resource... not.
Your opinion about that source does not make the article invalid.
Open your mind and do your own research, or just take the blue pill.
And I am ALL too accustomed to bloggers and commenters on nearly every site for whom "my data is trustworthy and yours is anecdotal."
As one of my 'Laws' puts it, "Stereotypes don't come from nowhere..." A site like rense.com with a flood of conspiracy theory links does little but decrease its credibility for me...
But for other folks, that's all they need... agreement with their views. Enjoy some of the Laws and 'Lessons" on my site, plusaf dot com.
Cheers!
The truth is sometimes difficult to discern.
Best to you as well!
"The real kinds show GMOs produce "massive changes in the natural functioning of (a) plant's DNA. Native genes can be mutated, deleted, permanently turned off or on....the inserted gene can become truncated, fragmented, mixed with other genes, inverted or multiplied, and the GM protein it produces may have unintended characteristics" that may be harmful."
and
"Smith notes still another problem relating to inserted genes. Assuming they're destroyed by our digestive system, as industry claims, is false. In fact, they may move from food into gut bacteria or internal organs"
The first statement is true of genetically modified in the lab, as well as randomly mutated in nature. The only difference is that one is intentionally created, the other is random.
The second seems to indicate that these genetic changes are somehow more susceptible to being transferred due to them being done in the lab vs. naturally. I suspect that this transfer is very difficult in any case (if even possible at all), and is no different from genetic modifications done in a lab or naturally.
Neither of those makes sense. Why would the location of the change affect anything differently?
There may be harm created by the specific genetic modification made - but the fact that it is done in a lab or done via random mutation, should not be an issue. I would be open to arguments about WHAT specifically the modifications are, not HOW they are done.
I love the monarchs; I would not support actions that would or could lead to their extinction. But the decisions and economics for your example just don't fit a 'Monsanto and the goodness of their heart' discussion.
Companies exist to make profits. If there were a 'profit in saving the milkweed plants,' Monsanto might look into it.
If you want to save the Monarch Butterflies, you must convince developers (and their clients) that Monarchs are more "something they should want to protect" than whatever their reasons for building or buying a home in 'milkweed territory.'
Are the Monarchs on a par with the famous Snail Darters? I think so, but...
:)
One does not have to start the digestion process via the mouth.
Kids are giving themselves vodka enema to get drunk (who in the hell ever thought of that)
anyway, yes, that requires a viral delivery mechanism, I know, but, that is technically what a virus does, it delivers a genetic bundle to the cells which then incorporate them into your DNA. Most make us sick, and white blood cells take care of it, but not always.
Unlike bacteria, Virus's can not reproduce. They need someone to do that.
Their little genetic package is delivered to the host, the host sews (splices) that package into your dna, and it's now being copied by your RNA. It may likely be genetic non-sense, but your body is copying it. the trick is, that virus has to look the right way, in order for it to be incorporated.
That's the 5 cent lesson.
That's why we can cure Bacterial infections with anti-biotics. Bacteria has to eat. We can poison them.
Virus don't eat, they don't have sex, we inoculate (infect) ourselves against them to develop immunity so that white blood cells can detect, and clean up the trash.
Can GMO DNA survive your gut? I don't see why not. Do you want to trust the governments research.. that's sponsored by Monsanto.
Now there are things called retroviruses that scientists have engineered to attempt to intentionally alter the DNA of living cells by using viral bodies to implant modified genes into the host cells, but the retroviruses themselves die in the process - they don't replicate on their own nor do the modified host cells then produce more retroviruses.
Monsanto KNOWS they are harmful, KNOWS they infiltrate non GMO crops because they designed them to do exactly that.
and, pray tell, if GMOs 'infiltrate' non-GMO crops, where is the business case that would explain why Monsanto would even want to DO that? They want to keep their seeds proprietary. If they easily cross-bred with non-GMO crops, their profits would be diminished. Your logic, please, if possible?
Monsanto sues farmers for growing GMO crops without buying GMO seeds when the crops have been genetically contaminated by nearby crops using GMO seed. They want to force farmers out of business or force them to use GMO seeds to expand their business. Their hoped-for-monopoly is being protected by looters in goverment.
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/08/mons...
Monsanto are evil bastards that make Ayn Rand's villains look like choirboys in comparison.
The court assumes that Monsanto's science is perfect until innocent farmers spend a fortune on lawyers, and even then the court gives the advantage to Monsanto. This is about bad science and corruption interfering with justice.
Harmfulness:
Fears grow as study shows genetically modified crops 'can cause liver and kidney damage'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) shown to cause organ damage in new study
http://www.examiner.com/article/genetica...
New Studies Suggest Link Between GMO Foods and Serious Organ Damage
http://www.undergroundhealth.com/gmo-foo...
Argentina—A Poster Child for the Health Hazards of GMO Crops
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articl...
Argentina: The Bad Seeds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxATngnqg...
How GMO Foods Damage Human DNA
http://www.ecopedia.com/health/how-gmo-d...
Here are the facts:
1. Monsanto cannot force a farmer to buy their seeds. Farmers entered willingly into contracts with stipulations. Some farmers do not want to adhere to those stipulations.
2. Monsanto insidiously did get Congress to insert a law into an unrelated Bill that makes them teflon from farmers taking them to court. That is immoral and most likely your senators and representatives voted for it.
3. everything you're eating has been genetically modified. Years of research, FDA trials and approval have gone into the science. I can't take the time to go through these studies one by one and point out the bias-but I have done so many other times in this site.
(I don't dispute db's study of the specific case you both cited.)
The farmers do not want to use or sell transgenic seed incorporating Monsanto’s technologies. They also oppose the use of glyphosate and do not use it on their crops. So what is the problem then? If they don’t want to infringe and don’t plan on infringing Monsanto patents how could they possibly support a declaratory judgment action against Monsanto? They say they were concerned that if they do indeed become contaminated by transgenic seed Monsanto may come knocking and assert claims of infringement despite the fact that they have done nothing affirmative, unlike farmer Bowman, to infringe the Monsanto patents.
But the farmers must have had some theory, right? Well, I suppose you could say they had something up their sleeves. In order to fabricate a case or controversy where clearly none existed, the farmers — AFTER filing the declaratory judgment action — sent Monsanto a letter, which asked Monsanto to expressly waive any claim for patent infringement they may ever have against the farmers and memorialize that waiver by providing a written covenant not to sue. The farmers explained that without such a covenant, they would at risk.
My husband has looked at this issue extensively (he is a patent atty) and there is no evidence that Monsanto is forcing people who did not buy their seeds, but somehow the seeds blew into their fields, to now they have to license from Monsanto. There is only one case even remotely close and in that case the farmer went out of his way to harvest seeds that were in a drainage ditch-not on his land. He did it specifically because he wanted those seeds.
quit being obnoxious and stick to the argument
The SCOTUS decision is not what you are conjecturing
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/06/st...
The largest factor in the validation of these types of studies seems to be the contractural agreements with those who purchase the seeds to not scientifically study them. This is due to the concern of reverse engineering. Companies spend billions in R&D and they want to protect their products. Overall, how is it in Monsanto's interest to put products on the market that overwhelmingly harm people?
The 3 people that offer the 'balanced' support for Monsanto against the study are:
1) Bradford, a consutant for monsanto
2) Hoofnagle, a surgeon with no scientific background and a believer in Global Warming who runs a website denailism.com to embarrass scientists opposing GW
3) Lynas, an expert supporter of Global Warming, but with little background whatsoever in GMO crops, but praised as a reformed anti-GMO expert.
I point this out because I agree with you that its near impossible to find unbiased reports on GMOs.
However, Monsanto's actions speak louder than their advertising. Monsanto has proven they cannot be trusted.
Keep your Strawman.
While I'm no zealot on anti-GMO, I do find that those who desire to maintain non-modified plants are subject to "contamination" by means that they cannot prevent nor control. They should have the right to maintain their property in the way that they choose, for whatever reason that they choose. But cross pollination does not allow that.
While I don't give much credence to those that fear GMO's, I respect the right of those who do to be able to observe their beliefs - so long as it does not harm me. The converse should be true. They should not be harmed (their plants contaminated with unnaturally created DNA) either. So far, the law has seen fit to protect the engineered product, not the natural product.
Take your reasoning and apply it to noise. You have a neighbor who chooses to blast their 1000 watt speakers 24 hours a day. Would you say that it is your responsibility to spend your money to sound proof your house? Why should you be required to expend resources because of someone else's actions?
Your are confusing reality. I control my speakers. However, this does not mean that you have a right to complain about any noise I make. Cross pollination happens, if you plant anything you are going to be contaminating by your definition your neighbors plants. This is legal and moral nonsense. What is your harm? Cite facts not propaganda
When have I said that I wanted to prevent evolution?
The only thing that I have advocated is that private property rights need to be observed. There is a real concern that genetically modification may be harmful (it also may not be, I tend to come down on this side but respect the right of others to come to other conclusions, I'm not competent in the genetics to be able to render a viable conclusion).
As for the speakers - I do have a right to demand that shared resources be used in a manner that recognizes the rights of all. If you are infringing on my rights, then we have a conflict that needs adjudication.
As for facts, that's all that I have been dealing with - that and rational thinking processes. Why the hostility?
You have mentioned the law, you want to be able to sue people whose crops cross pollinate with your crops. How are you going to prove that? Perhaps Monsanto should be able to sue you for your crops cross pollinating with their crops.
What you want is a law against evolution.
"shared resources" - exactly you are not for property rights, you are clearly a collectivist, environmentalist who thinks technology is bad.
seriously, on an Objectivist website you are going to bring up DDT?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/20...
http://www.wintersoldier.com/staticpages...
http://www.aspeninstitute.org/policy-wor...
http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/20...
http://www.johntreed.com/agentorange.htm...
http://www.cato.org/publications/comment...
The last URL is A) wrong fucking war and B) personally insulting to me, as I HAVE a mild case of GWS. It has nothing at all to do with any Monsanto products, unless Monsanto now claims that Kuwati oilfields are Monsanto products, or unless Monsanto is now admitting that the WMD in Iraq were actually provided to Iraq by Monsanto in violation of US and International laws (interesting aside, the WMD+oil fires = GWS is why Powell was so easy to convince of WMDs in Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo, it was common knowledge that we FOUND chemical weapons in '92, and some of them burned in the well fires, and probably a few of them were helped there by well-meaning US Troops, thinking that destroyed was destroyed)
Monsanto's studies are designed to promote their products and to ignore the possibility of long term effects... biased and inconclusive.
Add to that monsanto's immoral corruption of laws to protect them from lawsuit and the vested interest of Monsanto to lie about it, and the scales indicate that the critical studies and reports must be seriously examined and rationally considered.
This is not a bull5h|t computer model like global warming from looters trying to tax everyone; its a genuine concern that one powerful company is inflicting a poisonous product on the food supply and that threatens our health.
Monsanto must be held responsible.
Rearden and Dagny were willing to be responsible for the effects of their actions on others. Monsanto has shown that they are not willing to take responsibility.
Doctors are too busy with patients and Obamacare to have time to investigate the side effects of long term exposure to fluoride.
It is true that most doctors are busy with Obamacare, but Obamacare is not old enough to explain them having “missed this” totally over the last 20 years. Obamacare has also not stopped medical research or the writings of publications of medical journals.
All the studies opposing Monsanto's GMO are not lies. Are they the whole truth? Perhaps not, but you appear to be willing to accept Monsanto's arguments (by rejecting others as lies) in spite of monsanto's proven immoral acts. Are you capable of examining the science as Dagny was regarding Rearden Metal? If so, please enlighten us. If not, then stop covering for Monsanto by criticising the studies as lies.
(I understand you have studied the patent law, but that is not the issue that your comment criticises. Happy to continue the discussion with you;^)
Monsanto may not be perfectly innocent here, but this is clearly an environmentalist, anti-free market campaign by people who are not interested in the truth.
Like many environmental claims, they overwhelm the debate while ignoring the facts.
Monsanto is not interested in free market solutions, yet you call their detractors anti-free market.
Unless there is more reliable data I will have to disagree on the rational conclusions based on the evidence.
Discussing this with you is a waste of my time and I won't reply again.
Stop assuming that my opposition to Monsanto's Roundup GMOs indicates opposition to all new technology.
I sell new chemical technology (but not directly related to food production.)
In the real world, I see corporate corruption on a nearly daily basis that prevents acceptance of new technology (combined with corporate disincentives to employees taking any risk on new technology.)
Ayn Rand's praise for private business must be tempered by a recognition that in real life power corrupts in nearly every case. In real life no one in a position of power is as good as Rearden or Rourke. Discussions here all too often naively assume that just because it appears to be capitalism that it must be defended to the death. While I will defend the concept of free markets til the cows come home, I recognize that in real life people in positions of power are almost never the heroic figures that Rand's novels portray them to be, and that limiting competition (by any means including bribes) is more important to corporations than creating better products. That said, I still believe that free markets have the potential to deliver the best results for mankind and new technology is hope for the future.
Sorry for rambling off topic.
Being horrible killer is at best overblown.
2) Does a company have the right to purchase other assets so long as that is done legally?
3) Does a legal entity have the right to trade?
4) If you have evidence that congressmen have been paid off or otherwise illegally influenced, it is your responsibility as a citizen to present such evidence to a federal attorney so that that illegal activity can be properly adjudicated.
5) If you believe that the law(s) are illegal, then you have the right (and I would say responsibility) to challenge that law in federal court.
Since I doubt that you can refute the first 3, nor are willing to ante up to the 2nd 2, you have little to add to the discussion as far as I can tell. If you do, I'd appreciate hearing it.
I cannot force people to open their eyes, ignore their media programming, use a rational process of thought on the available data. Nor do I have a fortune or unlimited time to waste on lawyers in a justice system that fails to deliver justice.
American media frequently criticize governments overseas for their corruption while rarely using the word in reference to the US federal system. Experience outside the influence of US media has the potential to give one freedom of thought. Once I heard the corruption in 'banana republics' described in a unique way: it is 'equal opportunity corruption', everyone has access and can afford a bit. In the US system corruption is unspoken, nearly invisible and for the elite insiders only (including corporate looters who game the system.)
imo, only the naive think that your points 4 and 5 are productive actions in the current US feudal system.
To me the recent rash of suicides among bankers is very suspicious. Perhaps to you its just a coincidence.
Sorry to ramble. We may just have to agree to disagree. With respect.
The seed companies (not Monsanto), engineer their seeds to be sterile so that they only grow one season of crops and cannot propagate. Otherwise, farmers would just hold some in reserve and plant them the next year - as was done before seed companies came into existence.
I'm not actually sure if the sterile aspect is true. I know a number of law suits on farmers from Monsanto has been specifically because the farm planted a second crop from GMO seed, and didn't pay Monsanto for that privilege.
I had heard that one-season seed was also a goal.
In college, I worked for the university bookstore. At the end of everysemester, publishers demanded you return excess stock. Because it was expensive to ship books, the requirement was slice off the book cover and destroy the book.People were fired for not following that rule and keeping books slated to be destroyed. IT was difficult to do, I must say! Especially one afternoon when it happened to be a bunch of copies of the Fountainhead!! aaagggghhhhh!a
However, into the incinerator they went, freshly sliced covers, mailed back to the publisher for the bookstore's credit.
Monsanto has copyright on that DNA. The courts granted them that. When you buy a sack of GMO corn, you are licensed to spread THAT seed, not its offspring (on the label is an end user license agreement: by opening this sack you agree to the terms and use...)
Which then raises the next question. If Company XYZ creates a human gene to give you some extra whatever, do they own the copyrights on that gene? and therefore own your offspring? the precedent has already been established.
"Which also becomes an issue when the licensed item parasitically infects non-licensed items, thus creating an hybrid through no intent of the infected party." There is absolutely no evidence for this.
Yep, sure want YOU on that team.... [not.]
To date, it is the only success story. However, it was not modified to the same extent as corn, beets, soy, etc. Rice already contained beta-carotene. The just upped it's production in the rice.
The results of those studies are still some what debated. Many say that the rice had nothing to do blindness reduction. They cite, economic improvements probably contributed to improved diet, as one possible explanation.
It's a complicated issue, and this one is not a left or right one either.
The problem is, once this genie is out of the bottle, it doesn't come back.
Don't pat mankind on the back too quick for his ingenuity.
I don't think Monsanto should be given the legal right to spit on my food, and then turn around and charge me for it.
One of the interesting byproducts of GMO crops seems to be the frequent reduction in the use of pesticides on crops (a good thing, no?) AND phenomenally increased yields of many crops, kind of making even more of a fool of Malthus every year (is that a good thing?)
My point is, the jury is still out on GMO, and they need to stay in the lab, as a bio-hazard until proven differently.
How can anyone know or make that decision? Have you ever heard of the J-Curve? Some dangerous substances, in SMALL concentrations are actually beneficial to the 'victim.' They're only toxic at very LOW OR HIGH levels.
There was an old joke that Aspirin, taken by humans over a span of twenty generations, produces 100% sterility in all offspring. Can't prove it's not true, y'know... Shall we make aspirin illegal?
If your goal is 100% safety, you're going to keep a LOT of good things 'off the market' because you'll never allow the 'testing' to be "complete."
You want 100% safety and predictability? I think you may have landed on the wrong planet... or in the wrong universe.
Humans have not survived even as well as we have by being "safe." We've survived by being ADAPTABLE TO CHANGES in our environment.
You're essentially trying to bring change down to zero in the name of 'safety.'
There will be opposition. :)
This is genetic. Once it's released to the outdoors, it's free to propagate, uncontrolled.
A perfect example of science gone wrong.. The African "Killer" honey Bee.
OOOPS! Can't recall that, and it's creating huge problems.
Correct, you can't prove a negative. But, 10 years is not always sufficient to determine the safety of something. GMO food could be one. First, we do not fully understand genetics, or nutrition, so , we're effectively guessing. It might take a generation of people eating this food to determine the impacts of it. I don't think it's wise to convert ALL our crops to GMO and hope they got it right.
these are the same people that told us, Butter, and eggs were bad for us, and now they say, Margarine is worse than butter, and eggs might actually be healthy.
"small concentrations..." that's the basis for homeopathy, "like cures like". It's also how vaccinations work to some extent.
I'm not against the potential good of GMO. My problem is, I don't trust the FDA, I don't trust Monsanto, and we're releasing a man-made genetic modification on the world when we know very little of the science.
As I said, Adaptability (and flexibility) is what tends to keep humans successful as a species, and no, we're not all being killed by Killer Bees, either.
EVERYTHING is, at some time or some degree or level, 'dangerous' or 'deadly' to humans.
That's one of the bases of My First Law: "The whole world is a tradeoff."
And your 'free to propagate, uncontrolled,' is something I refer to as 'the catastrophization of information in America.'.... just as you imply ALL foods will 'go GM'. Many might. Some might not. Who chooses? You?
define greed:
synonyms: gluttony · voracity · ravenousness · greediness · insatiability · hunger
Do you now understand why I used the word "greed". I hope you do expect to get paid for the work you do. That is not greed, that is getting paid to do your job. Greed comes in many forms. Now please read my post again, leave out money and allow yourself an open minded understanding of the fact behind a seed that fails to produce yields year after year. Please do not take this post as an attack, it is not, it is however to allow you to hear the word greed used about this topic as a truth to what is happening. Should they continue on their present path we all will be affected. If you do a thing and it causes harm, how long do you expect to prosper? History tells us that it will not. there will be an end, at what cost.
Monsanto is protecting its investment by making a seed that cannot reproduce (after one time). Farmers that buy it know that. What is wrong with that approach? Now, I am aware of the strong-arm tactics that Monsanto uses and the lobbying efforts that are immoral and illegal, but the problem is in the fact that we have a government system that enables this to happen, not in the natural desire of any human to gain an advantage.
The harsh reality is that the wind is carrying the pollen from the GMO's which is affecting natural seeds. All will eventually fail.
http://www.producer.com/daily/u-s-gmo-cr... This quote taken from that article:
>But while insecticide use has gone down, herbicide use on GMO corn is rising, the report states. Herbicide use on GMO corn increased from around 1.5 pounds per planted acre in 2001 to more than 2.0 pounds per planted acre in 2010. Herbicide use on non-GMO corn has remained relatively level during that same time frame, the ERS said.
And the over reliance on glyphosate has translated to an increase in weed resistance, which makes crop production much harder. Glyphosate is the chief ingredient in Roundup herbicide sold by Monsanto, and its use has translated to the glyphosate resistance seen in 14 weed species and biotypes in the United States, according to ERS.<
So the seeds cost more, more herbicide is used than previously, the yields are reduced and the weeds are now herbicide resistant so labor goes up because workers have to go through the fields with machetes to cut down the resistant weeds before harvest. I'm just talking about the economic lie that the seed producers keep telling. I won't even get into the increased toxicological effect the increased levels of glyphosate creates.
You are a little late to this party so I want to point out a great video with oodles of info to back up our case provided by Danno at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_AHLDXF5... Thanks for the update!
Best to you,
Mona Lisa
Thank you again,
Mona Lisa
This has also led me to become knowledgeable in the environment and nutrition once I found out that the powers that be are purposefully handicapping us using pharmaceuticals, airborne poisons (chemtrails), water-borne poisons (fluoride), vaccines and GMOs (discussed in this post topic) to shorten our lives or making us docile so they can control us. The list goes on and on as you obviously are aware of. I watched another video last night that gives you a picture of how the government and powers that be are behind the false flag attacks, like 9-11, Boston bombing, Oklahoma City bombing, etc. in order to change policy. The video is called State Of Mind: The Psychology of Control. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ_yVu1NT...
I'm also a Christian believer who is fascinated by what's hidden in the Bible and enjoy moderating home Bible studies. I've probably bored you to tears so I'll quit and give you a break. 8-)
Bowman v. Monsanto involves a farmer who figured out how to get Monsanto’s patented seeds cheaper from a grain elevator than from the company.
The farmers do not want to use or sell transgenic seed incorporating Monsanto’s technologies. They also oppose the use of glyphosate and do not use it on their crops. So what is the problem then? If they don’t want to infringe and don’t plan on infringing Monsanto patents how could they possibly support a declaratory judgment action against Monsanto? They say they were concerned that if they do indeed become contaminated by transgenic seed Monsanto may come knocking and assert claims of infringement despite the fact that they have done nothing affirmative, unlike farmer Bowman, to infringe the Monsanto patents.
But the farmers must have had some theory, right? Well, I suppose you could say they had something up their sleeves. In order to fabricate a case or controversy where clearly none existed, the farmers — AFTER filing the declaratory judgment action — sent Monsanto a letter, which asked Monsanto to expressly waive any claim for patent infringement they may ever have against the farmers and memorialize that waiver by providing a written covenant not to sue. The farmers explained that without such a covenant, they would at risk.
The reality is that farmers want to steal other people's technology. There is absolutely no facts to support the assertion Monsanto has sued or will sue farmers who have not purposely violated their property rights.
More to the point: seeds from these midified crops have broken out into the wild. There is the source of the contamination of which the article complains.
Part of being a good student of Objectivism is recognizing objective reality when it stares you in the face.
And how about the right some of the rest of us have, to eat grain, fruit, or vegetables containing only the wild type?
If it doesn't matter, then how can Monsanto or anyone else assert that it is superior?
What about frivolous patents claimed in order to hamstring competition, as Apple is wont to do (usually after stealing an idea from someone else)?
This issue is critical. You do realize, I trust, that we are rehearsing a jury deliberation.
Another huge problem with GMO is that most genetically altered seeds from bio-tech companies like Monsanto, is that their seeds are what we refer to as "terminator seeds"; that is, they will grow a mature plant and fruit or flowers, but will not produce viable seed for next year. The gardener or farmer or rancher must buy new seed stock every year. These companies are causing massive damage to the agricultural infrastructure in the country, and if we starve, they will carry much of the blame.
I know several people in agriculture, and I work in horticulture, so this is something I know about first hand.
If you run for office, let me know and I'll vote for you! 8-)
I can assure that the people who wrote this article are not objectivists
Instead they make enemies of farmers who could be customers.
All the animosity they have caused when they could have been creating good will.
(Assuming, of course, that the product is safe.)
I think there is a lot of unneccessary disagreement here because all GMO plants are not flawed the way that Monsanto's roundup GMO plants are flawed. I do not oppose all GMO plants or the technology, but I do think all need much more extensive long term testing and that the companies with the IP should be held completely responsible for the results. As it is, Monsanto gets the rewards but is not held legally responsible for some of the results.
The case became a fight between property rights and patent rights. Property rights lost. The ruling was that the normal farm practice of saving and using seed (their own property) was overridden because the farmer does not "own" Monsanto's gene, meaning all future copies of it.
A very weak ruling IMHO.
1. GMO crops do not produce round up. My big problem with roudup ready crops is that it has lead farmers to believe that they can damm near irrigate with roundup. This is now leading to roundup ready weeds. Which begs the question. If Monsanto had used natural selection to produce roundup ready soy, corn and wheat would folks be ok with that?
2. The stuff GMO's/Roundup have been around for a long time. So far, neither the GMO parts nor the Roundup are killing us. We do need to of course pay attention the the fact that the much higher crop yields have made wheat, corn and soy products amazingly available and obnoxiously cheap.
3. This leaves what is probably the most important part of the problem. Since Monsanto claims that the seeds are not able to reproduce then logically it could not be there seeds that are causing organic crops to start expressing Roundup ready genes. Of course if they are causing it then the Monsanto product is actually faulty and they are doing damage to the organic crops. They have essentially tried to claim that farmers who have had their crops tainted by Monsanto genes are stealing. Its actually the other way around, the Monsanto crops are vandalizing the crops around them. So, if anyone should be paying to fix the problem it should be Monsanto and their "sterile" seeds.
The problem with talking about food and food policy is that for us humans it is essentially above religion.
As for my views of the safety of GMO food.. I will use me as my test subject. I have spent a few years taking part, as a test subject in some long term diabetes studies. The result is that there is a lot of test data on me floating around out there. When I see the lab they don't take a vial or two of blood.. The last visit they too 15 tubes. Needless to say, a lot of very expensive testing has been getting done on me for a number of years now. During that time I have consumed a fairly large pile of Doritos and Cheetos. Both of which are pretty loaded with GMO corn. If the food was causing me trouble, it would have not only been noted in my charts but also the research docs would be interviewing me to find out whats going on to cause the change. So, far I have only had one time that a change caused a lot of questions. This was during the C-Peptide replacement drug test. The drug exceeded expectations and I recovered sensation in my left big toe. So, the interview was mostly just a "holy crap did you see your nerve conduction results!!" and "What else have you been doing? Tell us everything".. Ohh, and yes Nerve Conduction sounds like what it is. It involves electricity and your nerves and the time it takes to send a signal say down your leg..
I too am a Christian. I know there are many hidden things in the Word. I have been talking to others about starting a study group. I love the fact we are kindred spirits. Too few these days can be found.
I meant to say in the previous post that I like to get to "know" others not get to others.. Goodness I need to slow down sometimes.
If you watch Netflix there are great documentaries about what is going on with farming and GMO's. I have known for a long time how this government has been working behind our backs to cause more harm than good. Have you searched about Walmart and the RHID scanner? It is a scanner set up by Obama of course. It has to do with O care. Well why do you need to have an implant in your right hand for that? It is on youtube check it out.
Thanks for the information you have been giving me. I really do appreciate it.
Have you seen Farmageddon yet? The death of small farms is happening before our eyes. I'm jealous of your pond and small mouth! I used to have a bass boat but sold it many years ago. Now I couldn't go fishing if I wanted to with one functioning hand (stroke). I'll just have to enjoy through others. 8-)
Sorry to hear about your stroke. Too bad you do not have a fishing partner that help you. Have you ever thought about inventing a reel that you could operate at the push of a button? They have one for deep sea fishing. It is pretty neat. you can use it one handed. I will try to find out who makes it. I believe it could be adapted for fresh water.
Thank you for the link.
This study would normally be done over 6 weeks hence 6 sessions of ~one hour per week. The studies I have are the slides and soundtracks, which are less costly than in a DVD format. You can find these on YouTube but they're broken up into 10-15 minute segments.
Here is one of those few topics where all the comments weren't preaching to the Choir.
Is GMO good or Bad?
Is GMO innovation that benefits mankind, or is it government involvement.
A great discussion with great input