Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Do you have anything that doesn't come from websites with an obvious anti-GM bias? I'll look over those links, but in the future, just link me to the actual studies instead of the pages with an agenda to push.
It's not exactly easy to find a pro-GM website that's willing to spill the bad news about Monsanto. But here's the actual patent: http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/e...%2529&maxRec=1
If you use google scholar, it's pretty easy to find the studies that link colony collapse directly to monsanto's neocotinoid insecticides. For one example (among many): http://www.bulletinofinsectology.org...-099-106lu.pdf
This article states that Monsanto argues there is no single cause. At the risk of looking like I'm automatically siding with Monsanto (which you will no doubt assume, erroneously), they appear to be correct. I mentioned that 2008 IFPRI study in my previous reply.
There rarely are single causes to any single suicide. But Monsanto stands something to gain from mass suicides. The US already laid the groundwork to replace family farms with corporate ones, now the groundwork must be laid in India. The fact is, a family farm cannot afford to purchase the copy-righted seed every year. That alone can drive a small farm into bankruptcy, and that kind of financial loss is the leading cause of these suicides.
He didn't attempt to prosecute Monsanto for having their seeds on his land. Monsanto discovered that he was growing their seeds, approached him with a license agreement. When he refused - his reason being that they got there accidentally and since they're on his land, he can do what he wants with them - they sued for patent infringement. The court ruled that he did indeed violate Monsanto's patent by saving and planting their seeds, but he wasn't required to pay their legal bills or pay damages since he didn't make any profit off the seeds.
Now, this is different to the standard story anti-Monsanto groups like to tell, which is that if Monsanto discovers you have their seeds on your land (especially inadvertently, which the anti-Monsanto groups focus on), they'll sue you right off the bat. Monsanto says they do not and will not do that, and they certainly didn't do that in the Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser case.
If you want to attack Monsanto for legitimately trying to protect their patents (by legitimately I mean not suing for merely accidentally having their seeds on your land), go ahead, but you have to attack every other company that sues based on patent infringement as well. Your real issue is with patent law.
No, my issue is with patenting seeds and DNA. People should be allowed to save their own seeds. This enforcement of repurchasing seeds is the same type of planned obsolescence that holds our technology back and strangles the middles class by requiring them to continue repurchasing items more often than necessary. This tactic is an unfortunate consequence of Capitalism, but when it's protected by the government it becomes Fascist Corporatism.
Because it's not actually called the Monsanto Protection Act. Rag sites like Infowars were the ones that came up with the title. This "act" is just a provision in the annual Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, and it doesn't even protect Monsanto in the slightest way. On the contrary, it protects the farmers. The provision doesn't allow selling of untested seeds, or for Monsanto to ignore court orders to not sell GM seeds (or to ignore court orders at all, or for Monsanto to ignore health hazards.
Yes it does. It allows the Secretary of Agriculture to grant temporary deregulation status to anyone growing biotech crops whether or not there's been a legal challenge. This means precisely that farming corporations can start using whatever crops the FDA approves (and the FDA and Monsanto have a revolving door going) and can grow, harvest and sell those crops to the public even if it's proven that say, they cause intestinal damage, sterility or are a known allergen. The whole point of possible litigation in this case is to cause more scrutiny and more testing than simply what the FDA would OK (because the FDA is basically a subsidy of Monsanto) in order to prevent any possible health consequences. Even Snopes agrees with that interpretation.
You'll have to excuse me if I would rather attack someone (or something) based on their actual misdeeds rather than misdeeds conjured up by preexisting fear and misinformation.
It sounds like you're allowing a bias against some of the people that oppose Monsanto to turn you biased in favor of a company which, as I have shown you, has committed actual misdeeds. I thought you were a libertarian capitalist, you of all people should have a problem with revolving doors.
|
|
Bookmarks