• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Most Exhaustive Compilation of GMO Studies Concludes... Safe... Duh

Ya, I have far more passion for topics that have / do hit close to home.

Some stupid NPR article written by someone who gets money directly or indirectly from Monsanto claiming that they are the good guys in all this doesn't change the fact that pollen blows in the wind and lands where it lands "infecting" areas with their "intellectual property".

The fact is that they have a strong armed approach against small farms... But they also got billions of dollars to spend on all sorts of advertisement to keep their image clean for people who have never seen farm equipment except in pictures.

When I got more time I'll go and dig up a few more cases of this happening, of course it will never be enough because the people that brought you agent orange could never do anything wrong.

Right. If the evidence is against you then it must be a grand conspiracy to subvert NPR correspondents! Good grief that is pathetic. You are repeating myths that have no basis in reality.
 
Right. If the evidence is against you then it must be a grand conspiracy to subvert NPR correspondents! Good grief that is pathetic. You are repeating myths that have no basis in reality.

Because some douche in a suit on tv, or some blog writer told you so?

They do have "basis in reality", and of course the numbers are down now because this has been going on for 20 or so years, and 80+% of north American food supply is either a product of GMO or infected with their "property"... So they don't have to go out in force as much as they did 10-15 years ago.
 
Right. If the evidence is against you then it must be a grand conspiracy to subvert NPR correspondents! Good grief that is pathetic. You are repeating myths that have no basis in reality.

I read your article:

Court To Monsanto: You Said You Won't Sue, So You Can't : The Salt : NPR

The organic farmers, however, partial victory, because the court's decision binds Monsanto to this promise. Up to now, it was just a on the company's website. Now, it's enshrined in the legal record.

In fact, according to the judges, since the decision to reject the organic farmers' claims relies explicitly on Monsanto's policy statements, "those representations are binding."

The reason is something called "judicial estoppel" — the common-law principle that someone can't use an argument to win one case and then turn around and argue the opposite in a different case.

Your article only seems to bind crops by Monsanto in the US. It also seems to address one of the issues for which Monsanto has sued farmers elsewhere. However, the global reality is a lot different. Monsanto is regularly entangled in federal courts around the world because of its aggressive intellectual rights practices against farmers.

Now, I'm the biggest defender of intellectual property rights - but even I found their tactics deplorable. What Monsanto does isn't like asking somebody to buy their music. It's like asking somebody to buy a CD, then charge them per listening session of that CD. It's downright evil and sets a dangerous precedent in other biotech businesses.

For example, say company X creates organs out of tissue. It then sells those organs to people. What is to stop a company from selling those organs and then charging rent on their usage (like the 2% Monsanto charges)? What's to stop them from repossessing those organs if rent isn't paid? It sets a dangerous precedent indeed. What Monsanto has done is basically set the precedent that creating something in the lab means the ability to charge rent for that product even after it has been purchased and is legally owned by the user.
 
Back
Top Bottom