It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 5
89
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Sabiduria



Way to read my main post. *roll eyes* Your ignorance and choice to remain so, flabbergasts me for someone people say is so intelligent.


Oh, I read your OP. That's about a case which the SCOTUS did not hear. That is about a case that the SCOTUS did not hear because lower courts had already arrived at the same conclusions about the case. It had no merit.

Being intelligent means, among other things, going to the actual source rather than relying upon the distortions provided by "news" sources. Have you read the suit? Have you read the decisions?

1) Non of the complainants had been injured. They were attempting to sue for something that did not happen. There was nothing there.
2) The suit sought to deny Monsanto its intellectual property rights. A wonderful precedent to try to set.
3) The suit sought to preemptively prevent Monsanto from bringing lawsuits against farmers who's crops may be accidentally pollinated. Monsanto has never brought such a lawsuit.

edit on 11/16/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

People should have a choice. If they don't want GMO's for whatever the reason, it should not be forced upon them. Perhaps this "irrational fear" is a subconscious instinct.


Here's my issue.

Petroleum based farming, who's technology came in part form world wars, is breeding crops that are dependent on cheap oil.

Cheap oil may not be around forever.

Yes more volume of food is being produced, but at the expense of the diversity of crops.

Crops that have been programmed to focus more on yielding food, and less on competing with pests and diseases.

Resulting in fewer breeds of crops being planted.

I fear that they can only artificially pump up these crops with petroleum based "antibiotics" for so long, before the superbugs come along.


Nature > Corporatism

I don't want to see a global pestilence because, somebody, thought it was a good idea to semi-monopolize food production, because it was cheap, easy, and profitable.


Don't put all your eggs in Monsanto's basket.......



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: dusty1

People should have a choice. If they don't want GMO's for whatever the reason, it should not be forced upon them.
Farmers have a choice of what crops to plant. No one is forcing them to use GM plants.



Don't put all your eggs in Monsanto's basket
I agree with the sentiment but monocultural practices began long before Monsanto began selling GM seeds and it occurs in places where GM crops are prohibited.

edit on 11/16/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   


Farmers have a choice of what crops to plant. No one is forcing them to use GM plants.
a reply to: Phage


A farmer can read the label on the seed he is looking at buying, and make an informed decision.

A consumer should have the same ability that the farmer does.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: dusty1
I agree.

That's why I think voluntary "non-GM" labeling is far more effective way to inform a concerned consumer than a mandatory "may contain GM" label.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage





That's why I think voluntary "non-GM" labeling is far more effective way to inform a concerned consumer than a mandatory "may contain GM" label.



But then what if GMO was found in a "non GM" product?

That could be a huge lawsuit.

We would hope that there would be no corporate espionage.




posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: dusty1

But then what if GMO was found in a "non GM" product?
Yes. So anyone putting that label on their product should be very sure that there are no GM materials in it. How is that different from not putting a "may contain GM" label on something that may contain GM material? You'd better be really sure there are no GM materials in your product if there is mandatory labeling and you don't label it. You'll be worse than sued. So why bother? Just put the "may contain GM" label on it.


So, if mandatory labeling is required, it's much safer to just say "may contain GM" even if it doesn't. That doesn't really tell you anything, does it? But "non GM" means that someone is really working on making sure that it is non-GM. Right? Isn't that a better way to inform people who don't want to eat GM products?

Let's say I care about eating GM products. I go to the store and see three boxes of corn flakes:
1) A label which says "No GM" because the producers have tracked the ingredients from farm to factory to store.
2) A label that doesn't say anything about GM, as it is now.
3) A label which says "May Contain GM" whether or not it does. A label which you are going to see on just about every corn product with mandatory labeling rules in place.
Which label is more instructive?

Another way to look at it. There are a lot of people who don't want to eat non-organic produce. Do you see a lot of "non-organic" labels on produce or do you see "organic" labels? What's the difference between this and GM?



We would hope that there would be no corporate espionage.
You mean "planting" GM material? That could happen in either scenario.

edit on 11/16/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




But "non GM" means that someone is really working on making sure that it is non-GM. Right? Isn't that a better way to inform people who don't want to eat GM products?


Why should the responsibility be put on producers, who are doing things they way they have been done for thousands of years?

Why shouldn't the new kid on the block, Monsanto, label their relatively new product?

Some people believe that Monsanto does not want GMO labeled because Monsanto know's that the market will decide against its product.

Billions of dollars are on the line.

The Market decides what farmers plant, but the Market can be manipulated by Corporatism.



If global pestilence comes, it will probably be man made, and then people will be eating labels, not reading them.....



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: dusty1


Why shouldn't the new kid on the block, Monsanto, label their relatively new product?
Monsanto does label their product, as you pointed out. They sell seeds, not food. They sell seeds to farmers who want to buy them.

It is food producers and sellers who are subjected to labeling laws because they produce and sell food. Monsanto does not truck material from farm fields. Monsanto does not store food grain. Monsanto does not process grain. Monsanto does not sell corn flakes.

edit on 11/16/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage





Another way to look at it. There are a lot of people who don't want to eat non-organic produce. Do you see a lot of "non-organic" labels on produce or do you see "organic" labels? What's the difference between this and GM?



Organic is the way humans farmed for thousands of years.

It has to be marketed to combat the petroleum based corporate farming techniques that took over in recent years.


I'm not against GMO's for fuel or to make polymers.

There is no reason in our society that we need to eat it.

If companies have truly improved on nature they should shout it from the rooftops.



When companies come up with a new and improved product they are proud of it and advertise it to the masses.

Why don't companies want to do this with GMO's?



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: dusty1

If companies have truly improved on nature they should shout it from the rooftops.
Why? When their market is farmers? Monsanto, and other seed producers, sell their products to farmers. They advertise to farmers.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   


Monsanto does label their product, as you pointed out. They sell seeds, not food. They sell seeds to farmers who want to buy them.
a reply to: Phage


So all of Monsanto's patents are only on the seed that they produce?



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: dusty1
I thought we were talking about GMOs.
No, they have other patents for products which they market as they deem appropriate, but mostly to farmers.


edit on 11/16/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Ignore Phage, he's exactly what his name is a Phage in this thread. Distracting people from the main focus of the article.

Yes Monsanto is evil and it wouldn't surprise me if killing humans was an added bonus of their product, if not one of the top.

How can they not be evil when they are knowingly producing products that mess with the RNA of plants, animals and humans? Knowingly produce products that have caused a spike in gastro problems like leaky gut, Crohn's, IBS, etc.

This is a company that refuses to do long term tests to see if their products are actually harmful and will only run short term tests. Gee, I wonder why.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft





First - this is irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Second - it is inflamatory propogada from whomever you source for this graphic is.

Here is a link to the actual text of EO 13603:

www.whitehouse.gov...

People can make up their own minds about this particular Executive Order.

And some information on the above EO from FactCheck.org:




Granger, the Texas congresswoman, made false claims about an executive order that Obama actually signed in March. Writing in a constituent newsletter, Granger claimed that Obama’s “National Defense Resources Preparedness” order amounted to martial law, adding that it was “unprecedented” and “above the law” and lacked congressional oversight.
The order was none of those things — and Granger said as much in a subsequent statement. Since the Korean War, Congress has granted the president the authority to ensure that national resources — such as the food supply and various industries — will be available to meet national security needs in times of war and other emergencies. That power is granted under the Defense Production Act, a law that dates to 1950 and must be reauthorized by Congress every few years. (The act expires in 2014.)
Like presidents before him, Obama issued an order updating the resources covered under that act, which allows presidents to delegate authority to various federal departments and agencies. For example, Obama’s order authorizes the secretaries of Defense and the Interior “to encourage the exploration, development, and mining of strategic and critical materials and other materials.”
President Bill Clinton issued a similar executive order in 1994. Some people misunderstood that order as well, prompting the Congressional Research Service to write that Clinton’s order “has nothing whatever to do with declarations of martial law. It has no effect at all on continued powers of Congress or the federal courts during periods of war or other national emergencies.”


Now can we get back to an IMPORTANT DISCUSSION. Thank you.

edit on 16-11-2014 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-11-2014 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Monsanto makes Round Up and crops started to die because of the pesticide. Monsanto had to make genetically modified foods that are Round Up resistant. Wonder what alterations they had to do....they had to mess with the RNA. You can still have your RNA messed with if the cow your hamburger is from was fed GMO products.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




edit on 16-11-2014 by dusty1 because: 2



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Sabiduria

Monsanto makes Round Up and crops started to die because of the pesticide.
Sort of. Only crops that were sprayed with Roundup. Not surprising since Roundup is a herbicide.


Monsanto had to make genetically modified foods that are Round Up resistant.
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.


Wonder what alterations they had to do....they had to mess with the RNA.
No. They "messed with" the DNA.


You can still have your RNA messed with if the cow your hamburger is from was fed GMO products.
Not really.

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




edit on 11/16/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Sabiduria

This is THEM wieldng the TPP:


The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) has the potential to become the biggest regional Free Trade Agreement in history. . . .

The chief agricultural negotiator for the US is the former Monsanto lobbyist, Islam Siddique.  If ratified the TPP would impose punishing regulations that give multinational corporations unprecedented right to demand taxpayer compensation for policies that corporations deem a barrier to their profits.

. . . They are carefully crafting the TPP to insure that citizens of the involved countries have no control over food safety, what they will be eating, where it is grown, the conditions under which food is grown and the use of herbicides and pesticides.


Putting Profits Before Populations
Monsanto, the TPP and Global Food Dominance


Welcome to the machine...


This is the key. So-called free trade agreements trump National/State/Local law giving international conglomerates the right to sue and effectively override local laws and regulation. In fact - they may sue for 'loss of assumed profit' and all this in secret.

This particular suit (along with Vermont's) is in a US court and it will be interesting to see how the courts handle them.




edit on 16-11-2014 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Sabiduria

I don't understand how Monsanto has the right to sue Maui. If they do not want GMO there they should have a right to say no and not be challenged. Just because the feds allow it doesn't mean that every state or county has to allow it. The rights of the states are supposed to supersede the Feds on an issue like this. If a county wants to ban the import of any unnatural invasive species they should be allowed to do so. Since Monsanto's products disrupt the environment by cross pollination, they are an invasive species


Howdy - corporations do have the right - it is what these 'free trade' agreements are all about. Look into NAFTA.



new topics

top topics



 
89
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join