7 ms·

> Companies like Monsanto have already shown they are prepared to fight hard to keep control their GM monopolies: An analogy: If Microsoft sues someone for sel

• jussij 13y ago
  The big difference is the former is just some crappy software, while the latter is about control of the world's food supply. Given the choice of a world fed on GMO seeds, controlled by multi-nationals, rammed down our throats by governments with their own secret agendas, or the good old fashion natural seeds, I'll take the later any day.
  • pvnick 13y ago
    Fine, then don't buy them. But don't be a hypocrite and restrict their access from others who may be too poor to buy organic.
    • jussij 13y ago
      > Fine, then don't buy them If they have a monopoly you no longer have that choice. The 'big four' biotech seed companies—Monsanto, DuPont/Pioneer Hi-Bred, Syngenta and Dow AgroSciences own 80% of the US corn market and 70% of the soybean business. They are looking to achieve similar results in the rest of thw world. The US government went after Microsoft because it was seen as a monopoly in the PC market. Why doesn't the US government step in to stop this GOM monopoly?
      • spc476 13y ago
        The US government has always realized that monopolies can come to be "naturally" (that is, through normal market forces) in an industry. The US government over goes after a monopolist when they attempt to enter or influence a different market by exploiting their monopoly. The US government didn't go against Standard Oil because they owned 90% of the refineries in the US, they went after Standard Oil because Standard Oil was using their 90% oil refinery market share to control the rail shipping industry. The US government didn't go against Microsoft because they owned 90% of the PC operating system market, they went after Microsoft because Microsoft was using their 90% operating system market to control the web browser market (along with some other sub-computer markets). Why isn't the US government going against Monsanto (for instance?) Because they aren't trying to gain control of another industry outside agriculture (or better lobbyists, take your pick).
  • threeseed 13y ago
    Give us all a break. It's so easy to make that choice when you and your family aren't literally starving to death.
    • pvnick 13y ago
      Why is this simple piece of logic so difficult for anti-GMO extremists to understand? These technologies literally have the potential, without even being hyperbolic, to save Billions of lives. And these clowns are worried about the providers making an extra buck.
      • dragonwriter 13y ago
        > Why is this simple piece of logic so difficult for anti-GMO extremists to understand? These technologies literally have the potential, without even being hyperbolic, to save Billions of lives. Any description of technology "saving" lives is hyperbolic. Technology can extend lives, or make more lives possible to start, but we haven't yet found any technologies that will actually save lives.
        • Volpe 13y ago
          ... what are you talking about? Are you arguing the semantics of "save"? Bullet proof vests save lives... Polio vaccines save lives... Or is that just "extending": "He was suppose to die with a bullet to the chest, so by stopping it, we extended his life"
      • bjourne 13y ago
        There arent billions of starving people around. Those who do starve, do so not because of a lack of food, but because those who have excess of it would rather destroy it than sell it below market price. GMO wont do jack against an artificial constructed scarcity.
      • tomp 13y ago
        > to save Billions of lives But not in Europe.
• arg01 13y ago
  The expanded analogy, can Microsoft create a virus that installs MS PowerPoint then sue those who purposefully don't install an antivirus in the hopes of catching MS Powerpoint.
  • mortehu 13y ago
    What's your source for this claim against Monsanto? Usually when a farmer claims something like this, it turns out they're as guilty as a 3 dollar bill.