5 ms·
Why 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 vou
by penny500 14y ago
Why 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.
- penny500 14y agoScience and law are on my side. I'll take that over your pseudo-intellectual opinion.
- 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...