Monsanto announced plans to sue Maui, Hawaii after voteres passed a moratorium on GMO

a reply to: johnnyBgood
If you are really interested in the Schmeiser case you should read what actually happened instead of listening to a biased source. Here is part of the court's decision. If you are really interested you should read the whole thing because the judge goes into deep detail about the evidence presented and the reasons for the decision. Cross pollination was not an issue in the case. The issue was that Schmeiser replanted what he knew was RoundUp Ready canola. He tested it, he knew what it was, and he replanted it. He did not have to replant it, he did so intentionally because he liked the way it performed, but he didn't want to buy it. That is why he lost the case.

[125] That clearly is not Mr. Schmeiser's case in relation to his 1998 crop. I have found that he seeded that crop from seed saved in 1997 which he knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant, and samples of plants from that seed were found to contain the plaintiffs' patented claims for genes and cells. His infringement arises not simply from occasional or limited contamination of his Roundup susceptible canola by plants that are Roundup resistant. He planted his crop for 1998 with seed that he knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant.

[126] Other farmers who found volunteer Roundup tolerant plants in their fields, two of whom testified at trial, called Monsanto and the undesired plants were thereafter removed by Monsanto at its expense.

decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca...


If you are really interested in The Agricultural Appropriations bill you should actually read it instead of relying on a biased source to tell you what it was. The bill had nothing to do with health risks and it did not protect anyone from any lawsuits.

SEC. 735. In the event that a determination of non regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary’s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.

www.gpo.gov...

See the references to the Plant Protection Act? The Plant Protection act is about agriculture. In particular, section 411 is about the interstate transportation of "plant pests", weeds. It has nothing to do with health issues. Section 735 had no jurisdiction in health issues. To say that it prevented lawsuits over health issues is a complete fabrication. It is also a fabrication to claim that the bill prevented lawsuits against Monsanto over anything. The bill temporarily mandated that the Secretary of Agriculture would grant a temporary permit as long as that permit did not violate other provisions of the Plant Protection Act.
www.aphis.usda.gov...

I really resent the fact that you are making me scour the web just to prove things that are common knowledge to most.

If you are really interested in the facts I recommend going to the original sources rather than relying on someone else to provide a distorted, if not utterly false version for you. That way your scouring might provide some facts.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

That type of farming probably won't scale to the millions of acres devoted to corn, canola, and soy though.

Your so obsessed with Monsanto yet you know nothing about Aquaponic Food Farms, typical. Even when I mentioned it a couple times already, you still haven't bothered to educated yourself on the solution.

Again, between Aquaponic Food Farms & improving existing croplands, we could feed every single person around the world. No one will ever have to be hungry again.

focusing efforts to improve food systems on a few specific regions, crops and actions could make it possible to both meet the basic needs of 3 billion more people and decrease agriculture's environmental footprint.

How existing cropland could feed billions

a reply to: Sabiduria

Your so obsessed with Monsanto yet you know nothing about Aquaponic Food Farms, typical.

Actually, I do. But corn, soy and canola (which is what I was talking about, if you bothered to read what you quoted from me) are not good candidates for aquaponics.

Again, between Aquaponic Food Farms & improving existing croplands, we could feed every single person around the world.

Or better yet, people could feed themselves.

Nearly half of the potential gains are in Africa, with most of the rest represented by Asia and Eastern Europe.

There needs to be better crop yields in those regions. Notice it doesn't say that North America, South America, or Western Europe can do much to increase yields, though it does say efficiency could be increased.

It also says we have to eat less meat and throw less food away. We can also do a lot to slow or stop global warming. Will we?

a reply to: Phage

Yeah, and your source is unbiased because it supports your stance which just happens to be the same as the US gov and big corporate interests. The courts decision is just more evidence of corruption.

If you were interested in anything but promoting government and corporate interests your internet persona would cease to exist.

You are good at one thing only and that is towing the line and trying to convince the less informed among us that TPTB are on our side and don't lie about anything. Monsanto is working for the interest of the people and every one who says otherwise is uninformed or unintelligent.

My source is biased according to you because it proves you wrong. There is a word for people like you but I will refrain from using it because it has become taboo in places like this.

And no mention from you of the so called monsanto protection act that did indeed protect biotech corps against lawsuits which you denied to be true. Spin, spin spin away all you like. You can distort the truth but you cannot change it.

a reply to: johnnyBgood

Yeah, and your source is unbiased because it supports your stance which just happens to be the same as the US gov and big corporate interests. The courts decision is just more evidence of corruption.

My sources are the original sources. Not second hand, not third hand, not filtered for your consumption. You didn't read them did you?

My source is biased according to you because it proves you wrong.

No. Your sources lie about the court case and the law. Read both of them, the original sources. Read what they say.

There is a word for people like you but I will refrain from using it because it has become taboo in places like this.

O go ahead, say it. It's right there in my sig.

There's a name for what you suffer from. I won't refrain from using it.
Confirmation bias

Rather than actually learn something you would rather just look at things from your stilted side of the world. Close your eyes and ears to things that contradict you. Don't look at the original source, listen to what someone tells you it says because what they tell you is what you want to believe. You don't care that your sources make stuff up as long as they back you up.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

* Motive to profit is not motive to malice

That's very "out of touch with reality" of you...

If you require further clarification on this...than my first sentence stands confirmed.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: johnnyBgood

Yeah, and your source is unbiased because it supports your stance which just happens to be the same as the US gov and big corporate interests. The courts decision is just more evidence of corruption.

My sources are the original sources. Not second hand, not third hand, not filtered for your consumption. You didn't read them did you?

My source is biased according to you because it proves you wrong.

No. Your source lies about the court case and the law. Read both of them. Read what they say.

There is a word for people like you but I will refrain from using it because it has become taboo in places like this.

O go ahead, say it. It's right there in my sig.

There's a name for what you suffer from. I won't refrain from using it.
Confirmation bias

Rather than actually learn something you would rather just look at things from your stilted side of the world. Close your eyes and ears to things that contradict you. Don't look at the original source, listen to what someone tells you it says because what they tell you is what you want to believe. You don't care that your sources make stuff up as long as they back you up.

Says the pot to something other than the kettle.

I understand that the the push for gmos is only about profit and corporate control of the food supply as I am sure you do too. I'm with Putin, no more games.

a reply to: johnnyBgood

Says the pot to something other than the kettle.

No, the "pot" has read both the original sources and the distortions by other sources. The kettle, apparently, has not.

Or have you? Tell me then, where in the bill, does it remove the ability for anyone to sue Monsanto for anything?
Tell me then, where in the court case does it come up that Schmeiser's crops were cross pollinated? Where in the court case, does Schmeiser use that as a defense? Where in the court case does Schmeiser's counterclaim of damages by Monsanto arise?

I'm with Putin, no more games.

Off to Moscow then?

a reply to: Sabiduria

Monsanto just won contracts with DoD to begin churning out ant-viral vaccines. Ya know the never-before-seen strain of ebola Tekmira bioweapons lab in Sierra Leonne just unleashed earlier this year? Used to combat ebola LOL....
Cue creepy music....Now.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

* Motive to profit is not motive to malice

That's very "out of touch with reality" of you...

If you require further clarification on this...than my first sentence stands confirmed.

I assume the quoted bit is what you're taking issue with when you mount your insult here. I'm sorry to disappoint, but hand waving and snide remarks are no substitute for competent argument. Let me help you to understand.

Bill Gates once had a motive to profit. He was a ruthless business person, but not totally without ethics. Microsoft engaged in the sorts of acquisitions you make only to kill off a product you fear may disrupt your potentially inferior competing product. They worked every angle -- legal trickery, media distortion, anti-competitive practices -- to squeeze the market even after they had an undisputed monopoly.

These all came from motive to profit. Not pretty, not pretty at all.

Once Bill Gates amassed enough money that his empire was without question, he began aggressively involving himself in programs to help with devastating disease in the 3rd world, support education, and generally make the world a better place. If motive to profit and move to malice were interchangeable, don't you suppose he'd be in his self-sustaining space station right now, trying to decide whether it's wiser to bring about humanity's extinction or try to enslave us?

Food for thought.

a reply to: Phage

I really don't get your argument. Your links just further prove that i am right. The farmers crops were contaminated with out the farmers knowledge, somehow monsanto found out and sued them. This is what I have claimed and you said was false.

My source says the same thing as your source except in greater detail so what gives?

The defendants do not deny the presence of Roundup Ready canola in their fields in 1998, but they urged at trial that neither Mr. Schmeiser nor Schmeiser Enterprises Ltd. have ever deliberately planted, or caused to be planted, any seeds licensed by the plaintiffs containing the patented gene.

souce

originally posted by: johnnyBgood
a reply to: Phage

I really don't get your argument. Your links just further prove that i am right. The farmers crops were contaminated with out the farmers knowledge, somehow monsanto found out and sued them. This is what I have claimed and you said was false.

My source says the same thing as your source except in greater detail so what gives?

The defendants do not deny the presence of Roundup Ready canola in their fields in 1998, but they urged at trial that neither Mr. Schmeiser nor Schmeiser Enterprises Ltd. have ever deliberately planted, or caused to be planted, any seeds licensed by the plaintiffs containing the patented gene.

souce

Did you study the findings? From your source:

[119] Yet the source of the Roundup resistant canola in the defendants' 1997 crop is really not significant for the resolution of the issue of infringement which relates to the 1998 crop. It is clear from Mr. Schmeiser himself that he retained seed grown in 1996 in field number 1 to be his seed for the 1997 crop. In 1997 he was aware that the crop in field number 2 showed a very high level of tolerance to Roundup herbicide and seed from that field was harvested, and retained for seed for 1998.

[120] I find that in 1998 Mr. Schmeiser planted canola seed saved from his 1997 crop in his field number 2 which seed he knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant, and that seed was the primary source for seeding and for the defendants' crops in all nine fields of canola in 1998.

a reply to: slatesteam
Interesting.

Ebola is 100% an orchestrated event & it's accomplishing a couple goals with this one event.

I know Monsanto wants to patent a strain of cannabis & my bet is that it will be like the rest of Monsanto's products, poison & will cause more harm than good.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: johnnyBgood

Says the pot to something other than the kettle.

No, the "pot" has read both the original sources and the distortions by other sources. The kettle, apparently, has not.

Or have you? Tell me then, where in the bill, does it remove the ability for anyone to sue Monsanto for anything?
Tell me then, where in the court case does it come up that Schmeiser's crops were cross pollinated? Where in the court case, does Schmeiser use that as a defense? Where in the court case does Schmeiser's counterclaim of damages by Monsanto arise?

I'm with Putin, no more games.

Off to Moscow then?

OK I've dissected the text of the bill and I hate to say it but I don't see anything limiting litigation of any kind. What it does is give temporary deregulation status to plants (crops) that have for whatever reason lost that status until a determination can be made.

My basic summary is as follows:

In the event that nonregulated status is invalidated, SOA shall upon request of the farmer immediately grant temporary permits or temporary deregulation in part Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status

I am no legal expert but I just don't see in the text anything like what has been represented. It does still protect biotech, but only until a final determination can be made.

Interesting indeed.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Just some food for thought: Bill Gates is being held accountable for his vaccine crimes in India by the Supreme Court. To me, getting parents who don't speak English to sign a contract written in English after telling them it's consent for their child to get a vitamin shot but in reality the children are given a vaccine test, is malicious. Especially when the children can sometimes be held prisoners at school until they get the vaccine shot


Bill Gates is a wealthy corrupt ass hole who deceives you into thinking he does good

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: johnnyBgood
a reply to: Phage

I really don't get your argument. Your links just further prove that i am right. The farmers crops were contaminated with out the farmers knowledge, somehow monsanto found out and sued them. This is what I have claimed and you said was false.

My source says the same thing as your source except in greater detail so what gives?

The defendants do not deny the presence of Roundup Ready canola in their fields in 1998, but they urged at trial that neither Mr. Schmeiser nor Schmeiser Enterprises Ltd. have ever deliberately planted, or caused to be planted, any seeds licensed by the plaintiffs containing the patented gene.

souce

Did you study the findings? From your source:

[119] Yet the source of the Roundup resistant canola in the defendants' 1997 crop is really not significant for the resolution of the issue of infringement which relates to the 1998 crop. It is clear from Mr. Schmeiser himself that he retained seed grown in 1996 in field number 1 to be his seed for the 1997 crop. In 1997 he was aware that the crop in field number 2 showed a very high level of tolerance to Roundup herbicide and seed from that field was harvested, and retained for seed for 1998.

[120] I find that in 1998 Mr. Schmeiser planted canola seed saved from his 1997 crop in his field number 2 which seed he knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant, and that seed was the primary source for seeding and for the defendants' crops in all nine fields of canola in 1998.

The findings are irrelevent to my point. My original point was that farms are being contaminated with gmo pollen and then the farmers are being sued which is a fact.

Monsantos poison crops are ruining natural crops and heirloom seeds and instead of Monsanto being held liable they are actively being rewarded via our backwards and corrupt fascist legal system.

Monsanto should be forced to take measures to protect the surrounding area from contamination or cease to operate. At the very least they should not be able to successfully sue people for damages that they (monsanto) caused in the first place.

This is just an attempt by large biotech corps backed by the US gov to put all non gmo farms out of business so the entire food supply can be patented and controlled. This is evil 101, control the food, control the world.

a reply to: johnnyBgood

Don't bother wasting your time, there are people who will never see what we see about Monsanto.

They will ignore facts you have said and twist other things around.

Any product that messes with your RNA is bad for you and any company who produces products that mess with your RNA & deny it are evil. That's the bottom line.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Sabiduria

Sort of. Only crops that were sprayed with Roundup. Not surprising since Roundup is a herbicide.

You don't sort of make crops that are resistant to Round Up, you either do or you don't. Monsanto DID make crops that are resistant to Round Up.

No. Monsanto didn't have have to make glyphosate resistant plants. But because they did, RoundUp can be used on those crops and it will only kill weeds, not the crops.

Again, yes they did. Do you have any evidence to back this? Of course you don't because this is actually what they did. They did have to invent a crop that won't die because of Round Up.

No. They "messed with" the DNA.

Yes it does mess with your RNA, not just your DNA. Again I will prove this and you post any evidence you have against it. Oh and you will love this site because you can't trash it & say "it's invalid because of the site it is on"
Exogenous plant MIR168a specifically targets mammalian LDLRAP1: evidence of cross-kingdom regulation by microRNA

Not really.[q/quote] Again, yes really. See the above article about how GMO messes with your RNA.

So, you made four claims. Three of which are completely wrong and one which was sort of right.
Congratulations.

I made four claims and all of them are true. Just because you are ignorant about the information doesn't mean it is wrong information.

Good luck on trying to discredit this

((Something you haven't touched with a 10ft pole any time I mentioned it before))

originally posted by: snypwsd
a reply to: Sabiduria

So whats the point of having democracy if corporations will just overturn your vote...
F monsanto!

Interesting. The no gay marriage people said the same thing about having their votes overturned.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: johnnyBgood

Says the pot to something other than the kettle.

No, the "pot" has read both the original sources and the distortions by other sources. The kettle, apparently, has not.

Or have you? Tell me then, where in the bill, does it remove the ability for anyone to sue Monsanto for anything?
Tell me then, where in the court case does it come up that Schmeiser's crops were cross pollinated? Where in the court case, does Schmeiser use that as a defense? Where in the court case does Schmeiser's counterclaim of damages by Monsanto arise?

I'm with Putin, no more games.

Off to Moscow then?

Oh now, there you go with your facts again, Phage. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good hysterical reaction.