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

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

but to start incorporating pesticides into the plants themselves like in GMO seems to me as just another short cut

The only pesticide that is incorporated in GM plants is Bt toxin. The same toxin that organic farmers use and I don't know that those varieties of plants are being grown on Maui, do you?

i do believe permaculture/aquaculture systems should be implemented,this would reduce a lot of reliance on pesticides and herbicides.....

I agree. You know that Monsanto is actively working in the organic market, right? I suppose people will see global domination and population control there too.
www.wired.com...

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

a reply to: Phage

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with reality. Or are you intentionally missing the point of why this is wrong from the very beginning. The voters said no. The suit is against the county for enforcing the will of the people so you are just splitting hairs. I can see that this will just devolve into a discussion on semantics which is what certain types always fall back on when there is no real ground for them to stand on so I will just elaborate a bit more and then retreat before my spinning head makes me too dizzy.

Private farmers having their crops contaminated (wihtout their knowledge or consent) with poisonous gmo pollen and then being sued by monsanto for copyright infringements after monsanto sends spies to trespass on private property and take samples does not sit well with any sane non evil person.

Not to mention that patenting any living thing is absurd and any sane non evil mind is aware of this but since monsanto makes the laws and pays to play sanity is disregarded.

I guess that law I was referring to has expired now but the point remains valid.

You can spew all of the propaganda based rationalizations you like now without any further interference from me. Enjoy your digestive problems.

www.nelsonfarm.net...

a reply to: johnnyBgood

The voters said no.

Voters said no to universal suffrage too. Voters say no to a lot of things that aren't actually legal. That's what the courts are for. That's what lawsuits are for, like the one the supporters of the moratorium brought against Maui county before those who oppose it.

Private farmers having their crops contaminated (wihtout their knowledge or consent) with poisonous gmo pollen and then being sued by monsanto for copyright infringements after monsanto sends spies to trespass on private property and take samples does not sit well with any sane non evil person.

I've asked others to provide a single case of that happening. No one has. Can you? Why is GMO pollen toxic?

I guess that law I was referring to has expired now but the point remains valid.

No, it doesn't. The law had nothing to do with lawsuits against Monsanto.

The case you linked has nothing to do with cross pollination.

a reply to: Phage

The only pesticide that is incorporated in GM plants is Bt toxin. The same toxin that organic farmers use

pretty big difference between spraying a plant and modifying it

I don't know that those varieties of plants are being grown on Maui, do you?

nope...i have been there once i remember lots of pineapples

You know that Monsanto is actively working in the organic market, right?

yes a previous conversation with you enlightened me of that fact

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

sadly i think you are right

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

pretty big difference between spraying a plant and modifying it

Yes. It means you don't have to spray.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

pretty big difference between spraying a plant and modifying it

Yes. It means you don't have to spray.

like i said another shortcut....it is not what i would call a proactive solution

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Yeah, well. The road to pesticide use started a long time ago. It will take a long time to find a fork in it that will fit the trench that has been dug.

(I tried to think of a couple more metaphors but gave up, is three enough?)

a reply to: Phage

please no more..your point is taken

a reply to: Phage

I don't understand you Phage...on many threads you seem to be cheering for the GMO...care to explain the necessity for it ?

Please..please don't say "to solve the world hunger problem"....because it's bull crap.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

I don't understand you Phage...on many threads you seem to be cheering for the GMO.

Lots of people on ATS make that mistake. It's that "either you're on my side or you're evil" mentality. See that a lot here.

I'm not cheering for GM crops. Have you seen me do that? I don't think GM crops will solve the world hunger problem. Have you seen me say that? What I am doing is pointing out the fallacies of many of the arguments against them. Note the motto of ATS.

I think that the farmers that grow them do so for their own good reasons. I also don't have any reason to think that GM crops are more harmful than any other form of large scale agriculture.

a reply to: Phage

I'm not cheering for GM crops. Have you seen me do that? I don't think GM crops will solve the world hunger problem. Have you seen me say that? What I am doing is pointing out the fallacies of many of the arguments against them. Note the motto of ATS.

I have seen you shot down those that are against GMO...so that in turn makes you more of a GMO cheerleader than not.

I think that the farmers that grow them do so for their own good reasons. I also don't have any reason to think that GM crops are more harmful than any other form of large scale agriculture.

You don't ??

huh...well...I guess that's excusable since you're in the universe called United States...back here in EU...things are not all that heartwarming for the GMO proponents. Multiple studies done in EU have already snowballed the public opinion and GMO is not welcome here. At least not on a large scale like in the US. And Monsanto is not welcome too. A wolf in sheep's clothing...

They might eventually break through because they will buy out anything that needs to be bought. But there lies the problem. Monsanto is not about producing food or helping ending world hunger. It's a money making corporation, and GMO is a tool for making money...and ultimately control.

Well that's my take on it anyway...

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

I have seen you shot down those that are against GMO...so that in turn makes you more of a GMO cheerleader than not.

Like I said: It's that "either you're on my side or you're evil" mentality.

It's a money making corporation,

Yes. And making money is evil, of course.

Well that's my take on it anyway...

Thank you for clarifying your opinion. I never would have guessed.

Phage has got a point. Quite a few of them, really. I went into this subject with a very open mind and I came out with a few core observations that guide my thinking on the issue:

* Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to malice that which can be adequately by stupidity
* Motive to profit is not motive to malice
* For fears about Monsanto's products to be founded, the narrative requires not just an evil mustache-twirling genius, but an improbably large number of them in collusion-- I suspect there's a good joke about herding evil geniuses to be had here

I've read through the entire thread and the only case cited I've found so far having to do with Monsanto's alleged predatory lawsuits is the one involving a farmer who knowingly and admittedly tried to circumvent the licensing system. That's not cross-pollination, that's getting a copy of Windows from your buddy and crying foul if Microsoft catches you.

Nothing would please me more than to hear a sensibly voiced, reasonable argument with citations showing the gaps in my knowledge that demonstrate the clear harms of GMOs. Similarly, I would love to hear a strong argument that Monsanto's business practices are any more vile than most similarly sized multinational corporations. So far I hear a lot of:

* Ad hominem attacks suggesting that Phage's arguments don't require attention because he's clearly a GMO shill
* Hand-waving with the suggestion that it's "all out there for you to find" if you only but look in response to requests for particular citations
* Embarrassing scare tactics that seem to be trying to develop a grand narrative that implies Monsanto's putting Mustard Gas in everything

Since this forum has more than a tint of conspiracy theory underpinning it, I would submit to you this: what if Monsanto's PR team is terribly clever and has stoked the fire around these crying-wolf fears knowing that it would ultimately discredit the opinions of their decriers. It would be useful political capital to have in your back pocket if you ever did make a serious mistake... and when you're a corporation that large dealing with subject matter that complicated, you're bound to make a mistake sooner or later.

Oh, and no offense to the author of this suggestion, but if in the context of a debate a judge was exhorted to go watch a documentary to find support for the assertions of a speaker, that would be an epic fail. Citations should be as precise, concise, and neutral as possible. I doubt Food Inc. meets any of those criterion.

a reply to: wayforward

Corporations don't have the same rights as individuals.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

www.digitaljournal.com...

www.gmwatch.org...

That links us to some alarming information. I have a difficult time believing the Monsanto has pure intentions with hiring black-operatives.

It is apparent that Monsanto has a strong lobby group and has major influence on the legislators in the US.
hubpages.com...

Monsanto, a multinational agricultural biotech corporation, started as a small business in 1901 in St. Louis, Missouri, but it has transformed into a monopolizing mega monster. It's been an easy takeover because ever since the first Bush Administration, our presidents have been appointing ex-Monsanto lawyers, consultants, directors, chairmen, and CEOs to highly important positions in the FDA and EPA. So, what's the problem, you ask?

[

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: johnnyBgood

The voters said no.

Voters said no to universal suffrage too. Voters say no to a lot of things that aren't actually legal. That's what the courts are for. That's what lawsuits are for, like the one the supporters of the moratorium brought against Maui county before those who oppose it.

Private farmers having their crops contaminated (wihtout their knowledge or consent) with poisonous gmo pollen and then being sued by monsanto for copyright infringements after monsanto sends spies to trespass on private property and take samples does not sit well with any sane non evil person.

I've asked others to provide a single case of that happening. No one has. Can you? Why is GMO pollen toxic?

I guess that law I was referring to has expired now but the point remains valid.

No, it doesn't. The law had nothing to do with lawsuits against Monsanto.

The case you linked has nothing to do with cross pollination.

In 1998, two years after the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Canada, the Schmeisers received a lawsuit notice from Monsanto which said that they were growing Roundup Ready canola without a licence from Monsanto and that this was a patent infringement. Monsanto had a patent on a gene to make GM canola resistant to the glyphosate herbicide in its formulation Roundup. This came as a complete surprise to the Schmeisers who immediately realised that all their research and development on canola over the past fifty years had been contaminated by Monsanto’s GMOs. They felt that they had a case against Monsanto for liability and the damages possibly caused to them, and that was the beginning of [1] Schmeiser’s Battle for the Seed (SiS 19). And 10 years on, the Schmeisers have been invited to London to tell their full story [2].

thegranddisillusion.wordpress.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> thegranddisillusion.wordpress.com...

Slipped into the Agricultural Appropriations Bill, which passed through Congress last week, was a small provision that’s a big deal for Monsanto and its opponents. The provision protects genetically modified seeds from litigation in the face of health risks and has thus been dubbed the “Monsanto Protection Act” by activists who oppose the biotech giant. President Barack Obama signed the spending bill, including the provision, into law on Tuesday

www.salon.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.salon.com...

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

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

www.digitaljournal.com...

www.gmwatch.org...

That links us to some alarming information. I have a difficult time believing the Monsanto has pure intentions with hiring black-operatives.

Would you mind summarizing in your own words what you think your sources mean and then including citations to support your interpretation? I mean no offense, but I think that's the point of dialog and argumentation -- I can of course follow links people tell me lead to scary facts any day, particularly on ATS.

It is apparent that Monsanto has a strong lobby group and has major influence on the legislators in the US.
hubpages.com...

Monsanto, a multinational agricultural biotech corporation, started as a small business in 1901 in St. Louis, Missouri, but it has transformed into a monopolizing mega monster. It's been an easy takeover because ever since the first Bush Administration, our presidents have been appointing ex-Monsanto lawyers, consultants, directors, chairmen, and CEOs to highly important positions in the FDA and EPA. So, what's the problem, you ask?

Of course they do. So do AIPAC, Apple, Facebook, et al. Depressingly, this is the state of the art for US politics. I fail to see how this uniquely indicts Monsanto. It's not that I'm a fan of most corporations (or Monsanto), mind you, but one must discriminate between expected byproducts of a broken system and the system that gave rise to them.

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

You shouldn't be resentful. In a formal debate, the subject of debate is always an affirmative statement because negatives are unprovable. In the context of the debate occurring in this thread, the affirming statement would be something like:

"Monsanto is an inherently nefarious and harmful corporation which is introducing poisons in the human food supply."

(It's hard to be precise here because different individuals make different claims while generally support a common cause.)

Accepting for a moment that this is the affirmative statement, the party or parties who make this proposal have a burden of proof to demonstrate support for their statements by clearly stating what they think the facts support and clearly referencing the facts they believe support their interpretation. Those in opposition have a responsibility to demonstrate, either with introduction of new facts, or by identifying compelling inconsistencies with the presented facts, that the affirmative position is weak.

Just the way it goes.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Of course you are right, I shouldn't feel resentful however I do not like being asked to provide proof that the sky is blue. Maybe it's a character defect on my part. I understand that this monsanto stuff may not be common knowledge to everyone but it really should be by now.

I sometimes think that people are arguing just for the sake of argument but again maybe this is just a character defect on my part.

Thank you for setting me straight.