Printable View
--Is this saturday! Who's going?
March Against Monsanto
Food is personal. Millions enjoy and willfully eat junk food. So I don't think a march against GMO seeds because they aren't healthy will be all that popular in America.
But I think every American can identify with the insanity of farmers (or anyone) not being able to save their own damn seeds!
You'd be surprised, Monsanto is of the most hated corporations on the planet.
lol! I hope so!
Today at work I told one of my co-workers "I'm gonna march against monsanto on saturday!" and she looked at me confused and said "who's monsanto?"
Sigh
Educate.Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
Norman Borlaug rolls in his grave when self-righteous food patriots pull stunts like these.
Well there you have itQuote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Just another great example of how ignorant people are about Monsanto. Just another reason to go
Not quite ignorant, just scornful of people who are proudly misinformed about GM food. I don't know why, out of all the possible misdeeds Monsanto is responsible for, you guys decide to attack something out of the handful of things it makes absolutely no sense to hate them for.Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
Also, did I say food patriots? I meant food Nazis.
Whether or not GMOs is a great food product there are a lot of issues regarding GMOs (which might be more specific to the US)Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
One, we don't have GMO food labeling in the states. People have a right to know what they are eating and also the right to choose what to eat. From what I understand, Europe has this labeling.
Two, GMOs can't be controlled. Whether its pollen carried in the wind or bees cross-pollinating fields, GMOs end up in organic nonGMO fields by completely natural processes. They also end up in the wild. The problem here is once a seed has those genetically modified monsanto genes - its now the intellectual property of monsanto.
Over night a farmer - who did not purchase monsanto seeds- suddenly has a field that's copyrighted to monsanto.
Heirloom seeds that mix with monsantos seeds - by natural processes - are also copyrighted to monsanto. Both farmers and seed banks have had to close up shop because of legal pressure by monsanto.
Monsanto has shown that they aren't just interested in soy or corn. They have their eyes on 100's or even 1000's of species. Considering how they have treated farmers, this is extremely concerning for food security.
In short, its impossible to separate Monsantos GMOs with their business practice. That said, there is a lot of scientific data out there showing that GMOs are not the miracle product Monsanto promised.
No, you're ignorant.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
You realize that Monsanto is trying to copy-right natural DNA sequences, not just genetically altered ones. They have bribed congress into making them untouchable so they can do whatever they want without getting sued. They have sued farmers because wind has carried their seeds and infected other peoples farms, which they call theft. They have caused some extraordinary amount of farmers in India to commit suicide because Monsanto makes it too expensive for the average family farm (due to having to rebuy seeds every year) their pesticides have been directly linked to driving bees to extinction (meaning they're threatening the whole fucking ecosphere), and they've been buying the studies and burying them for decades, so they've known this to be true. They've known they're driving people to commit suicide, and trying to disrupt the ecosystem, and they've given zero fucks. They shouldn't just be penalized, their entire board should be lined up and shot. You can call me a food nazi for saying that, but I haven't mentioned one word about GMOs being bad for you.
Source? I can't find anything specific to Monsanto about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Are you referring to a specific piece of legislation, such as the so-called "Monsanto Protection Act?"Quote:
They have bribed congress into making them untouchable so they can do whatever they want without getting sued.
They don't, actually, and have made it clear that doing so isn't their policy. They sued a farmer in Canada who, while he claimed some of their seeds had been inadvertently transferred to his field, had actually knowingly planted Monsanto's seeds. The court ruled it a patent infringement.Quote:
They have sued farmers because wind has carried their seeds and infected other peoples farms, which they call theft.
The only thing I see about Indian farmer suicides relates to the introduction of Bt cotton in ~2002, but an IFPRI study (2008) showed no causal link between the introduction of Bt cotton and suicide rates.Quote:
They have caused some extraordinary amount of farmers in India to commit suicide because Monsanto makes it too expensive for the average family farm (due to having to rebuy seeds every year) their pesticides have been directly linked to driving bees to extinction (meaning they're threatening the whole fucking ecosphere), and they've been buying the studies and burying them for decades, so they've known this to be true. They've known they're driving people to commit suicide, and trying to disrupt the ecosystem, and they've given zero fucks.
Nor should you, since they're just as safe as so-called "conventional" food. To me, a food nazi is somebody who rails against GM foods under the false impression that they're filled with "nasty chemicals" or that they're toxic/unhealthy (just visit Infowars or Natural News to see the garbage they come up with). Being concerned with Monsanto's legal practices or even patent law is an entirely different matter.Quote:
You can call me a food nazi for saying that, but I haven't mentioned one word about GMOs being bad for you.
Monsanto to copy-right natural DNA:
Monsanto files patent for new invention: the pig | Greenpeace International
Monsanto's Bt cotton linked to farmer suicides in India:
Monsanto and India’s “Suicide Economy” | The Media Freedom Foundation
Monsanto linked to hive collapse:
Pesticides Definitively Linked to Bee Colony Collapse | The Alliance for Natural Health USA
And this is the first I've heard that the so called culprit knowingly planted those seeds. A claim like that requires evidence. If he knowingly planted the seeds, why is it that he attempted to prosecute Monsanto originally for infecting his land?
And why do you call it the so-called Monsanto Protection Act? That's what it's called. Your apologism for this criminal company is obvious and nauseating.
Here's something terrifying: Monsanto hires infamous mercenary firm Blackwater to track activists around the world
And the best part is, we wont be able to take them to court!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
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.Quote:
Monsanto's Bt cotton linked to farmer suicides in India:
Monsanto and India’s “Suicide Economy” | The Media Freedom Foundation
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.Quote:
And this is the first I've heard that the so called culprit knowingly planted those seeds. A claim like that requires evidence. If he knowingly planted the seeds, why is it that he attempted to prosecute Monsanto originally for infecting his land?
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.
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.Quote:
And why do you call it the so-called Monsanto Protection Act? That's what it's called.
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.Quote:
Your apologism for this criminal company is obvious and nauseating.
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=1Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
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
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Spoiler for Monsanto, our Government: