3 ms·
The point is that its food - something everyone who eats it has an active interest in - but it's privately owned and therefore no one has the transparency or sa
by zenogais 12y ago
The point is that its food - something everyone who eats it has an active interest in - but it's privately owned and therefore no one has the transparency or say they'd like in how it is produced.
- abofh 12y agoBut, like all privately developed technology, buyers have the choice not to purchase it. Monsanto isn't saying that they own corn any more than Microsoft says they own OS's, or google claiming they own search. At the end of the day, you put up money to purchase something (or make a choice to use something) -- be it a product made of corn, the OS you use, or search engine - do you look at price, profitability and compatibility with your workflow, or "GMO free", "FOSS" and "Privacy Protecting"? You may answer the latter in all cases - and I can respect that, but there's a large number of people to whom added productivity/profitability is worth a commercial or financial commitment that may come with legal restrictions.
- zenogais 12y agoThis is one of those classical myths we tell ourselves - that buyers have an encyclopedic knowledge of the commodities they buy. In such a world oversight and protection wouldn't be needed. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world.