4 ms·

Not to be a Monsanto shill, but: > [forces patent compliance] even in situations where it is clear Monsanto crops contaminated someone else's field Can you pr

Not to be a Monsanto shill, but: > [forces patent compliance] even in situations where it is clear Monsanto crops contaminated someone else's field Can you provide any example of this? The only cases I'm aware of are the likes of Bowman. The supreme court finding in that case makes it pretty clear Monsanto was in the right: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf > we now have RR weeds, and that is a one way process No, it is not. This is the same nonsense as people touting antibiotics resistance as a dead-end street. It costs energy for these organisms to maintain resistance. Once you remove the antibiotic, or glyphosate, from the environment, the biologically ideal thing to do is to lose resistance, redirecting that energy to other things that actually serve a purpose. > I don't need to know the exact mechanism If you are going to be implying glyphosate causes autism, for some "extra fun" as you say, then you should perhaps reconsider this. Pointing out they've both followed the curve of modern industrial chemistry expansion and implying that correlation to be causative is irresponsible.

saalweachter 8y ago
Comparing glyphosate-resistant weeds to antibiotic-resistant bacteria is also just hilarious. Are there some really bad weeds out there you want to save the glyphosate for?
- bryanlarsen 8y ago
  Poison Ivy is one of the only approved uses for glyphosate in urban Ottawa, Canada.
DiabloD3 8y ago
The only cases I can find with a cursory Google search is where they have sued over seed saving, such as the story of Michael White. There are many farmers like him that Monsanto has trampled. As for antibiotics, it is interesting you bring that up because it is a good example: people do not take their antibiotics as per manufacturer's guidelines, and Doctors over-prescribe antibiotics. In people, antibiotic resistance kills patients, but we can limit the spread. In farming, RR resistant weeds can spread miles away, or to places that aren't farms (thus we aren't looking for them there). What these both share is misuse and overuse of the product, and the manufacturer complicit in this by continuing to sell the product in ways that allow (or even encourage) the misuse and overuse. HN has certainly gotten stories to the front page about antibiotic resistance being an ongoing issue, and how some antibiotics have fallen to the wayside due to people not strictly following the label (where, if everyone had followed the label, we'd still be using it). I have also seen stories on HN's front page about how bacteria has done horizontal gene transfer to trade antibiotic resistances. This, too, is similar to RR weed's existence.
- jakewins 8y ago
  > they have sued over seed saving, such as the story of Michael White. Here is the case with Mr. White: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-alnd-5_03-cv-02804/pdf/USCOURTS-alnd-5_03-cv-02804-0.pdf https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-alnd-5_03-cv-02804/pd... As you can see by reading it, it is not over seed saving for his own farm. It is over him intentionally growing 120 acres of roundup-ready crops for the purpose of producing his own RR seeds to sell commercially. "Yeah. I took advantage of it.", is a quote from Mr. White on page 7. The court found this in violation of the agreement he'd signed when he bought the seeds, and he lost the case. I think your example of Mr. White is illustrating exactly my point, that these cases have been misrepresented by anti-GMO groups to further their agenda. > What these both share is misuse and overuse of the product Yes. But this is not what you said or what I addressed. You said RR resistance was a "one way process". This is incorrect. I agree with the point that you are making here about misuse and manufacturers like Monsanto being complicit in that misuse.
alexandercrohde 8y ago
> If you are going to be implying glyphosate causes autism, for some "extra fun" as you say, then you should perhaps reconsider this. No. The burden of proof is on those defending a chemical. Even if there's a 1/1000 chance that glyphosate explains 5% of autism cases, then it should be banned. The world doesn't need more food, America throws away half its food. The world needs better health -- the sperm count in America has dropped 50% in the last 30 years, autism is at about 1/52
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > The world doesn't need more food Yes, it does. > America throws away half its food. Yes, global food delivery systems are inefficient with different sources of loss in different places (and, in the US, a big one is “people buy food and don't use it”.) In the absence of proven solutions to these inefficiencies, though, less food production means higher prices globally, which is particularly harmful for the poorest of the poor. Sure, solving the inefficiencies would reduce the needed production levels for any given price level, but the people fighting GMOs and/or products like glyphosate aren't solving the inefficiencies, they are just attacking production while diverting energy from solving the inefficiencies. “We don't need more food” is an attitude associated with the same privilege of wealth that leads to the US throwing away much of its food.
- fredch 8y ago
  Suicide is the purest expression of the precautionary principle. Think about it. Seriously, oxygen is a known carcinogen, responsible for the massive generation of free radicals in the body. Realize: look at how oxygen burns wood, it can even eat steel! And you're sucking this extremely hazardous and potent oxidizer into your body with every breath.
  - insensible 8y ago
    You are demonstrating your ignorance of the Precautionary Principle. Hint: it's about tail risks.

saalweachter 8y ago

Comparing glyphosate-resistant weeds to antibiotic-resistant bacteria is also just hilarious. Are there some really bad weeds out there you want to save the glyphosate for?

bryanlarsen 8y ago
Poison Ivy is one of the only approved uses for glyphosate in urban Ottawa, Canada.

DiabloD3 8y ago

The only cases I can find with a cursory Google search is where they have sued over seed saving, such as the story of Michael White. There are many farmers like him that Monsanto has trampled. As for antibiotics, it is interesting you bring that up because it is a good example: people do not take their antibiotics as per manufacturer's guidelines, and Doctors over-prescribe antibiotics. In people, antibiotic resistance kills patients, but we can limit the spread. In farming, RR resistant weeds can spread miles away, or to places that aren't farms (thus we aren't looking for them there). What these both share is misuse and overuse of the product, and the manufacturer complicit in this by continuing to sell the product in ways that allow (or even encourage) the misuse and overuse. HN has certainly gotten stories to the front page about antibiotic resistance being an ongoing issue, and how some antibiotics have fallen to the wayside due to people not strictly following the label (where, if everyone had followed the label, we'd still be using it). I have also seen stories on HN's front page about how bacteria has done horizontal gene transfer to trade antibiotic resistances. This, too, is similar to RR weed's existence.

jakewins 8y ago
> they have sued over seed saving, such as the story of Michael White. Here is the case with Mr. White: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-alnd-5_03-cv-02804/pdf/USCOURTS-alnd-5_03-cv-02804-0.pdf https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-alnd-5_03-cv-02804/pd... As you can see by reading it, it is not over seed saving for his own farm. It is over him intentionally growing 120 acres of roundup-ready crops for the purpose of producing his own RR seeds to sell commercially. "Yeah. I took advantage of it.", is a quote from Mr. White on page 7. The court found this in violation of the agreement he'd signed when he bought the seeds, and he lost the case. I think your example of Mr. White is illustrating exactly my point, that these cases have been misrepresented by anti-GMO groups to further their agenda. > What these both share is misuse and overuse of the product Yes. But this is not what you said or what I addressed. You said RR resistance was a "one way process". This is incorrect. I agree with the point that you are making here about misuse and manufacturers like Monsanto being complicit in that misuse.

alexandercrohde 8y ago

> If you are going to be implying glyphosate causes autism, for some "extra fun" as you say, then you should perhaps reconsider this. No. The burden of proof is on those defending a chemical. Even if there's a 1/1000 chance that glyphosate explains 5% of autism cases, then it should be banned. The world doesn't need more food, America throws away half its food. The world needs better health -- the sperm count in America has dropped 50% in the last 30 years, autism is at about 1/52

dragonwriter 8y ago
> The world doesn't need more food Yes, it does. > America throws away half its food. Yes, global food delivery systems are inefficient with different sources of loss in different places (and, in the US, a big one is “people buy food and don't use it”.) In the absence of proven solutions to these inefficiencies, though, less food production means higher prices globally, which is particularly harmful for the poorest of the poor. Sure, solving the inefficiencies would reduce the needed production levels for any given price level, but the people fighting GMOs and/or products like glyphosate aren't solving the inefficiencies, they are just attacking production while diverting energy from solving the inefficiencies. “We don't need more food” is an attitude associated with the same privilege of wealth that leads to the US throwing away much of its food.
fredch 8y ago
Suicide is the purest expression of the precautionary principle. Think about it. Seriously, oxygen is a known carcinogen, responsible for the massive generation of free radicals in the body. Realize: look at how oxygen burns wood, it can even eat steel! And you're sucking this extremely hazardous and potent oxidizer into your body with every breath.
- insensible 8y ago
  You are demonstrating your ignorance of the Precautionary Principle. Hint: it's about tail risks.