Holy Eff! Monsanto really crossed the line!!

so you will inspect their mask of deception? and you admit that you invest in their ability to patent food? and you agree with this?

 

Well said!

 

Of course they should be able to reap the reward for their investment. Take that away and you kill the economy. But, in your opinion, should they do that by any means necessary? Or should there be ethical/legal restrictions on how they reap?

Please explain about the guvmint being the biggest polluter. Not disagreeing, just intrigued and would like to know more.

Small/med sized businesses, local economies, and empowered local guvmints is what I support. Big corp + big guvmint? No thanks.

 

Thank MIS. +1 for the Dune reference. My fav writer of all time.

 

Thanks goose.

 

You didn't read what I posted. It even mentions that guy, and linked this all back to what happens in the software world. People are only sensitive to this because it involves food.

 

But you are believing a picture painted by activist groups. There are two sides to every story. Every human makes mistakes, and companies are run by humans. Just because a company does one questionable thing, does not mean the company is evil all together.

 

Most of their actions, that can be proven, are well within the boundaries of state and federal laws. When they mess up, they end up paying for it. When you sell your seeds with a contract that says one time use only, then a farmer decides to ignore this and keep replanting, it is your right to take action against the offender. Let's all stop make references to utopian ideals. This is the real world. Cash Rules Everything Around Me! Without bioengineering and genetic modification, we are not going to be able to feed the billions of people in this world. The easiest solution is to stop breeding, but too many people are sensitive to that. You want to keep popping out children, you are going to have to accept some unnatural ideas. This isn't really a defense of Mansanto. I don't care about them, because they can afford to hire a proper PR agency, yet they continue to make pitiful attempts at soothing the public opinion. My main point is in defense of the concept of GMO (a vague label for many different techniques).

 

So, scientists have found a use for the 'junk' DNA which doesn't code for proteins but does alter timing of protein synthesis. Moving genes around without regard for this bigger picture presents a danger we cant see yet. the idea of altering our environment to our needs is the definition of intelligence, but to do it without full knowledge and testing is foolhardy. also, making GMO foods of identical genotypes makes them susceptible to being wiped out by a disease, not a very secure food source.

Arguments against are logical and sound, however they get lumped together with and drowned out by fanatics and chicharonnes'

 

BE:Most of their actions, that can be proven, are well within the boundaries of state and federal laws. When they mess up, they end up paying for it.

Me: Are we talking Monsanto specifically or corporations in general? I don't know enough of the specifics of what Monsanto does/has done and will refrain from commenting on that. Like you, I would have to go do my own research, listen to both sides, and form my own conclusions but that isn't going to happen on my lunch "hour", so I will refrain...

If we are talking in general, I disagree. IMO, when "they" mess up, "they" rarely "pay for it".

BE: When you sell your seeds with a contract that says one time use only, then a farmer decides to ignore this and keep replanting, it is your right to take action against the offender.

Me: I agree in principal, a contract is a contract. Since this is apparently about Monsanto, I can't comment on the specifics. I do wonder (because I honestly don't know), why would anyone sign a contract like that? Did it make business sense to them at the time? Or was that the only game in town?

BE: Let's all stop make references to utopian ideals.

Me: Not sure what you are referring to but if its my comment about supporting local governments and economies then I don't think that is a utopian ideal. If you are saying it unrealistic because of the current state of affairs then I agree 100%.

BE: This is the real world. Cash Rules Everything Around Me!

Me: Agree 100%.

BE: Without bioengineering and genetic modification, we are not going to be able to feed the billions of people in this world. The easiest solution is to stop breeding, but too many people are sensitive to that. You want to keep popping out children, you are going to have to accept some unnatural ideas. This isn't really a defense of Mansanto. I don't care about them, because they can afford to hire a proper PR agency, yet they continue to make pitiful attempts at soothing the public opinion. My main point is in defense of the concept of GMO (a vague label for many different techniques).

Me: Again, I haven't delved deeply into GMOs, Monsanto, or how to feed the world. So I will defer to your opinion and leave it up to some more informed and eloquent posters if they wish to dispute that.

Regards,
Tlok

 

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of studies on different types of GMO. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonenti...-safe-to-eat-and-environmentally-sustainable/

Again, step away from the popular opinion. This subject is far from untested and unstudied.

 

Why does El Sevier have a biotech quality control position who vets or denies papers? and he was a former Monsanto exec?

you cant get funding to actually look at long term effects, it is you who seem to be toeing the popular mainstream line

and BE, was the bhopal india incident 'legal'? the only reason they follow the law is becasue they kinda have too, they pay lobbies to try and change the laws for their benefit

 

CREAM get the Money dolla dolla bill yall!

[video=youtube;WrsfJHLx5YA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrsfJHLx5YA[/video]

sorry I couldnt help it

 

They all end up paying, usually in monetary forms. If you mean they don't really pay (ie sums of cash that will hurt them or jail time), then I can agree with that.

Despite what the activists will tell you, GMO seeds are very effective and assist in profitability of larger farms. In return for signing the contract, the farmers have seeds that are almost guaranteed to grow without many issues that plague typical crops. One could say that farmers are sort of backed into a corner where they must do business with the larger companies, and I wouldn't disagree with that. Just remember, many of these large farms are in it for the money as well. Their cut just seems to be miniscule in comparison to the mega-corporations.

I am talking about the current state of the world. Of the global situation. Small farms and old school agricultural methods cannot support the billions of people in this world. I love small farms, and I buy mostly local foods to support them. But this is a luxury item, since the food costs more. Small organic farming isn't cheap, and it is not going to feed the world at our current growth rate.

It is a world full of a lot of science, but also clouded with opinion and scare tactics from both sides. My problem with general demonization of GMO, is that even hybrid plants are considered GMO. Honestly, we need to stop lumping it all together as a bad thing. In reality, much of it is positive for the world. There are some questionable forms of GMO, and they seem to give the rest a bad name.

 

follows FCT's appointment of Richard E. Goodman, a former Monsanto scientist and an affiliate of the GMO industry-funded group, the International Life Sciences Institute, to the specially created post of associate editor for biotechnology at the journal."

from a biased article with legit links(some in French): http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/ne...i-study-is-illicit-unscientific-and-unethical

 

The popular thing to do is black label all GMO (which is funny, because my hybrid organic peppers are technically GMO). Also, you can pick and chose single incidents with any company. That isn't proof that they are all evil. You can get funding to look at long term effects, but you are just using opinion as fact.

 

Industry's Hand on Science

Rather than instilling trust that any given set of scientific findings is definitive, the debacle over statin guidelines, the banning of trans fats, the GMO animal study retraction, and a range of other controversies unmask this dilemma: People must respect science while also maintaining a healthy skepticism.

In fact, the spirit of scientific inquiry requires us to distinguish between valid scientific consensus (which exists for climate change, and the health dangers of trans fats and high-fructose corn syrup) and arenas where scientific questions continue to emerge -- despite attempts of vested science to close the door on legitimate concerns.

John Abramson adds:

The American people deserve to have important medical guidelines developed by doctors and scientists on whom they can confidently rely to make judgments free from influence, conscious or unconscious, by the industries that stand to gain or lose.

And the same holds true for other areas of scientific controversy. When medical journal publishers such as Elsevier attempt to suppress or discredit legitimate research (like Séralini's), "it will decrease public trust in science," predict the ENSSER scientists. "And it will not succeed in eliminating critical independent science from public view and scrutiny. Such days and times are definitively over."

from huffpo...I know I know, sorry for the source, but the words stand on their own
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aliso...about-scientific-controversies_b_4385741.html

 

Really? then why isnt there more conclusive data disproving the French study? odds are if you put this to the test it will fall flat.