Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 53 of 53

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

  1. #51
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

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

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    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.

  2. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    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.

  3. #53
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,018

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    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.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •