5 ms·
This is exactly the reason why I strongly oppose GM food. It's not that I'm scared about the consequences (the jury's still out on that). But, do you really w
by CaptainZapp 14y ago
This is exactly the reason why I strongly oppose GM food.
It's not that I'm scared about the consequences (the jury's still out on that).
But, do you really want to hand the keys for our nutrition to the likes of Monsanto, Syngenta and their ilk?
- penny500 14y agoWhy not? Their seeds and their competitors' are shown to be perfectly safe by the FDA, and the National Academy of Sciences and American Medical Association vouch for their seeds.
- CaptainZapp 14y agoPlease reread what I wrote. My concerns are not about the safety, but about the patent ability of our food supply by private companies.
- penny500 14y agoYou're free to use non GM seeds (or GM from Monsanto's competitors). What's stopping you and other farmers (many of whom do not use GM)?
- voltagex_ 14y agoUntil they cross-pollinate with a patented GM crop...
- penny500 14y agoName one case in which Monsanto sued a farmer for unintentionally planting cross-pollinated seeds.
- CaptainZapp 14y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis... Edit to add: You can argue that this is a he said, she said. Since Mr. Schmeiser did not use Roundup I find his reasoning that he has no interest in the Monsanto seeds rather convincing.
- penny500 14y agoFrom your link: "the court only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's 1998 fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated and planted from his 1997 harvest"
- jayfuerstenberg 14y agoSo how much is Monsanto paying you penny500?
- penny500 14y agoHow much is the organic lobby paying you jayfuerstenberg?
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- jayfuerstenberg 14y agohttps://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque penny500
- penny500 14y agojayfuerstenberg, look up "ad hominem" attacks. Don't use logical fallacies if you don't want them used against you.
- stagas 14y agoHey penny500 how does it feel being Mr. Nobody? There's a Greek word for you. You're a "Φερέφωνο" or if you'd like the latinified version, a pherephon. Φέρε=Bring Φώνο=Voice. Translation: The one who mindlessly brings the voice of others for their behalf.
- marquis 14y agoIt's not about safety, it's about ownership. This quote from the Judge: "Why in the world would anybody spend any money to try to improve the seed if as soon as they sold the first one anybody could grow more and have as many of those seeds as they want?" - the part about "anyone could grow more and have as many seeds as they want" pretty much sums up farming as we've known it since agriculture began. Edit: yes, I'm aware of that most farmers don't actually store their own seed for next year for efficiency of another farmer/company providing high-quality seeds yearly for them, however this is not justifying Monsanto's methods. There must be limits on food patents. I simply don't believe Monsanto cannot recover costs on the first-sale of seeds.
- lazyjones 14y ago> Why in the world would anybody spend any money to try to improve the seed There was a time when some people actually invented things to make the world a better place, or even to further their academic career. With the help of such judges, this era has apparently come to an end. We will never beat famine, we'll just help the plagued 3rd world become 100% dependent on the likes of Monsanto.
- Blahah 14y agoPeople are still doing that. Thousands of people around the world in fact, just in the very specific domain of improving crop traits to improve nutrition and food security in developing countries. I see that as a separate endeavour to what companies generally do.
- belorn 14y agoOne do not need to look for altruistic motives. Investment into research happens as long it reduce cost and risk for businesses. Its true that a individual farmer might have a hard time to justify research investment, but those companies who is depended on grains as a form of resource has all the reasons in the world to invest in cheaper and more sustainable farming. Its the same business motive as why Microsoft sent in kernel patches as open source. No one doubt that the motive was for-profit.
- 14y ago
- stagas 14y agoAnd we all know how trustworthy and corruptless these organizations are. Their word is like gospel.
- penny500 14y agoSo you give more credibility to Food Inc. over a consensus of Stanford, Harvard, and MIT biotech scientists? Funny.
- stagas 14y agoPower corrupts, profit corrupts, how transparent are these "consensus" really? Because everything I see points to the other direction. Are you ignorant or are you deliberately trying to convince me that Monsanto is good for me? Am I nine or something?
- penny500 14y ago"Power corrupts, profit corrupts" Prove that the National Academy of Sciences were paid for their conclusions. "deliberately trying to convince me that Monsanto is good for me? Am I nine or something?" No one is trying to convince you of anything. The National Academy of Sciences, the FDA, the World Health Organization, and the American Medical Association are on my side. Are you saying they're all paid and corrupted? If so, prove it.
- jayfuerstenberg 14y agoThe FDA and Monsanto run a revolving door system. Just about everybody knows this. http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/monsanto.html http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/monsanto.html http://rense.com/general33/fd.htm http://rense.com/general33/fd.htm The tests the FDA conducts have come under criticism for not being long enough for any bad effects to be noticed, among other flaws. http://rense.com/general59/cchm.htm http://rense.com/general59/cchm.htm
- penny500 14y agoYou're seriously are trying to pass those off as objective studies? Get real.
- jayfuerstenberg 14y agoNo. I expect people to do their own research into the matter. The data contained within can be verified/corroborated by other sources. Sorry I didn't do your homework for you. It won't happen again.
- penny500 14y agoActually, the first Google result with "National Academy of Sciences and Monsanto" is your link, so I'm not sure if you did your research thoroughly. Point me specifically to the source with the text you're referring to. The burden of proof is on you since you made the claim.
- jayfuerstenberg 14y agoSince you're too lazy and/or too biased to find such a peer-reviewed scientific paper I guess I have to... http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/ncmh/BGER/pdf/Volume%2021/BGER21-13.pdf http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/ncmh/BGER/pdf/Volume%2021/BGER21... It's a 2004 report but it puts to rest the myth that GM crops are tested well enough by the FDA. The fact is it's not in Monsanto's best interest to waste money on thorough testing. All publicly held corporations in America (Monsanto is no exception) are legally charged with creating profit for the shareholders, even if it means screwing over consumers and the environment. Monsanto has had this down to an art since the 1950s.
- jrs235 14y agoLogical flaw and conclusion. I believe you mean the FDA hasn't found any studies to show they are not safe. My statement and your statement are very very different.
- penny500 14y agoThe better way of saying it is GMO meets the same safety requirements as non-GMO. http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/Biotechnology/ucm346030.htm http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/Biotechnology/uc...
- the_gipsy 14y agoThe problem is not GM food, it's patenting DNA.
- DigitalJack 14y agoSeems very analogous to software, excepting that DNA is naturally occuring organizing in addition to man made organization.
- Blahah 14y agoThis is misinformed. Firstly, Monsanto, Syngenta, and their ilk have dominated the world seed market since the 1950s. GM food is completely independent of them. Monsanto may be the largest US producer of GM seed today, but the next generation of GM plants that are being worked on are designed to solve a wide range of humanitarian problems. Please, don't make your mind up about a technology with myriad potentially life-saving uses based on one company's commercial implementation. They don't define plant science. Secondly, the jury is emphatically not still out on the consequences. As with climat change, in the independent scientific literature there is an overwhelming consensus that the technology itself is fundamentally safe, that each new implementation must be assessed separately, and that the risks in general are lower than those for conventionally bred crops.
- michaelbuddy 14y ago"Solve a wide range of humanitarian problems..." which also has the side effect of them monopolizing developing countries. Don't kid yourself. Their unethical corporate behavior is well documented. It's companies like them that if they start losing money to organics, then they worm their way in to change the meaning of organic on food labels. It's pathetic and they deserve all the criticism they get.
- Blahah 14y agoMonsanto won't own the next generation of tech - it's being produced by governments, especially in Asia, and by academic and charitable organisations. Most that I know of are working towards free licensing arrangements, whereby they patent the tech and allow free use for individuals and small companies. I'm not defending Monsanto - I'm saying GM is not Monsanto.
- CaptainZapp 14y agoIf Monsanto doesn't own the next generation of such tech I can assure you that they will sue the living bejeezus out of anybody who owns it, or uses it. It's part of their corporate DNA.