4 ms·

Stop the Monsanto Protection Act

33 points by X4 14y ago

jostmey 14y ago
People fear what they do not know or understand. Mansanto's businesses practices may be at times unethical, but is there any fault in genetically breeding superior crops and profiting from it? If there is one area of research that thrives on patent protection, this is it.
- D9u 14y ago
  And when that GMO crop pollinates adjacent non GMO crops, Monsanto can sue the adjacent farmer(s) for "stealing" Monsanto's GMO. This is an inherent flaw, and has already occurred. Sort of like the fox guarding the hen house.
  - aaron695 14y ago
    >And when that GMO crop pollinates adjacent non GMO crops, Monsanto can sue the adjacent farmer(s) for "stealing" Monsanto's GMO. >This an inherent flaw, and has already occurred. Pretty sure this is not true. Care to site. Only case I heard of was that was dodgy was a farmer who had seed contamination from trucks driving by which is totally different to what you are implying.
    - D9u 14y ago
      Cite? http://www.dailytech.com/Monsanto+Defeats+Small+Farmers+in+Critical+Bioethics+Class+Action+Suit/article24118.htm http://www.dailytech.com/Monsanto+Defeats+Small+Farmers+in+C...
      - jrs235 14y ago
        After reading some comments in the article his nought popped into my head. Biodiversity is like vaccinations. It is a natural mechanism to prevent catastrophic die offs. The ticking time bomb goes off when the non diverse crop collides with a pest we aren't aware of that will thrive off of the crop causing environment damage and fine as the entire no diverse crop gets decimated... Just like what happened to the Native Americans when they were introduced to smallpox. Why do we think we can control nature? Edit: writing comments on an iPad stinks. Sorry for the typos.
      - splawn 14y ago
        Here is a better link. That dailytech article says things such as "Monsanto won damages of $400000" which isn't true. It also didn't mention that the sued farmer knew what he was planting after it blew into his property, he claimed "property rights". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmei...
thatswrong0 14y ago
> the provision strips the rights of federal courts to halt the sale and planting of genetically engineered crops during the legal appeals process. Guilty until proven innocent? > This dangerous new House provision, which we're calling the Monsanto Protection Act, Ooh, editorializing. > would strip judges of their constitutional mandate to protect consumer rights and the environment, while opening up the floodgates for the planting of new untested genetically engineered crops, endangering farmers, consumers and the environment. I'm pretty sure the point of judges is to uphold the law, not to do what they think is protecting consumer rights or the environment. > Once again, Monsanto and the biotech industry are working behind closed doors to undermine your basic rights. Okay, I'll cut the crap. This is paranoid, fear-mongering drivel. Give me facts, not opinions and emotion. This does not belong on HN.
- danboarder 14y ago
  In general I agree. What would be more interesting is an in-depth look at past cases that have lead to the creation of this legislation.
- icambron 14y ago
  I'm certainly no enemy of GM foods and I generally find Food Democracy Now to be so, so lame, but I'm going to push back a bit here: > I'm pretty sure the point of judges is to uphold the law, not to do what they think is protecting consumer rights or the environment. That's almost the point. There are a bunch of laws that regulate the treatment consumers and the environment which judges are expected to apply in court. The snippet is complaining that judges will, under this act, have limited power to enforce those laws on Monsanto's products were they to be found guilty of breaking them. That's not an unreasonable complaint.
- toddh 14y ago
  > Okay, I'll cut the crap. This is paranoid, fear-mongering drivel. Give me facts, not opinions and emotion. This does not belong on HN. Excellent example of irony. Thank you.
  - thatswrong0 14y ago

33 points by X4 14y ago

People fear what they do not know or understand. Mansanto's businesses practices may be at times unethical, but is there any fault in genetically breeding superior crops and profiting from it? If there is one area of research that thrives on patent protection, this is it.

D9u 14y ago
And when that GMO crop pollinates adjacent non GMO crops, Monsanto can sue the adjacent farmer(s) for "stealing" Monsanto's GMO. This is an inherent flaw, and has already occurred. Sort of like the fox guarding the hen house.
- aaron695 14y ago
  >And when that GMO crop pollinates adjacent non GMO crops, Monsanto can sue the adjacent farmer(s) for "stealing" Monsanto's GMO. >This an inherent flaw, and has already occurred. Pretty sure this is not true. Care to site. Only case I heard of was that was dodgy was a farmer who had seed contamination from trucks driving by which is totally different to what you are implying.
  - D9u 14y ago
    Cite? http://www.dailytech.com/Monsanto+Defeats+Small+Farmers+in+Critical+Bioethics+Class+Action+Suit/article24118.htm http://www.dailytech.com/Monsanto+Defeats+Small+Farmers+in+C...
    - jrs235 14y ago
      After reading some comments in the article his nought popped into my head. Biodiversity is like vaccinations. It is a natural mechanism to prevent catastrophic die offs. The ticking time bomb goes off when the non diverse crop collides with a pest we aren't aware of that will thrive off of the crop causing environment damage and fine as the entire no diverse crop gets decimated... Just like what happened to the Native Americans when they were introduced to smallpox. Why do we think we can control nature? Edit: writing comments on an iPad stinks. Sorry for the typos.
    - splawn 14y ago
      Here is a better link. That dailytech article says things such as "Monsanto won damages of $400000" which isn't true. It also didn't mention that the sued farmer knew what he was planting after it blew into his property, he claimed "property rights". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmei...

thatswrong0 14y ago

> the provision strips the rights of federal courts to halt the sale and planting of genetically engineered crops during the legal appeals process. Guilty until proven innocent? > This dangerous new House provision, which we're calling the Monsanto Protection Act, Ooh, editorializing. > would strip judges of their constitutional mandate to protect consumer rights and the environment, while opening up the floodgates for the planting of new untested genetically engineered crops, endangering farmers, consumers and the environment. I'm pretty sure the point of judges is to uphold the law, not to do what they think is protecting consumer rights or the environment. > Once again, Monsanto and the biotech industry are working behind closed doors to undermine your basic rights. Okay, I'll cut the crap. This is paranoid, fear-mongering drivel. Give me facts, not opinions and emotion. This does not belong on HN.

danboarder 14y ago
In general I agree. What would be more interesting is an in-depth look at past cases that have lead to the creation of this legislation.
icambron 14y ago
I'm certainly no enemy of GM foods and I generally find Food Democracy Now to be so, so lame, but I'm going to push back a bit here: > I'm pretty sure the point of judges is to uphold the law, not to do what they think is protecting consumer rights or the environment. That's almost the point. There are a bunch of laws that regulate the treatment consumers and the environment which judges are expected to apply in court. The snippet is complaining that judges will, under this act, have limited power to enforce those laws on Monsanto's products were they to be found guilty of breaking them. That's not an unreasonable complaint.
toddh 14y ago
> Okay, I'll cut the crap. This is paranoid, fear-mongering drivel. Give me facts, not opinions and emotion. This does not belong on HN. Excellent example of irony. Thank you.
- thatswrong0 14y ago