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.

 

March Against Monsanto Explodes Globally

page: 8
65
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: SubTruth

Why are TPTB fighting labeling so hard?
I answered earlier.


Do you trust the government agencies and labs to give us factual results?
Not always, but pretty much. Because government agencies and labs are not the only places that results come from so those results can be validated. That's one of the cool things about science.


Do you see a conflict of interests inside the government labs and agencies?
Possible.


Simple questions really...........
Which have nothing to do with claims about the dangers of GM crops.

edit on 5/25/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 25 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

So you would have to concede because of conflict of interests the people doing the testing cannot be trusted? I also think any lab that would be checking or have the capability to do the tests will most likely be controlled by TPTB.



Personally like I stated before I believe the entire system is rigged and for good reason. It gives the illusions that many people buy into and can point at and say look it is safe because it was tested.
edit on 25-5-2015 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-5-2015 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Metallicus, the OP, is right. I want to choose whether or not I eat things that are 'roundup ready' (meaning they cannot be killed by roundup pesticide and can kill bugs that try to eat it. I also want to be able to buy seeds and use them season after season to grow things, just like farmers should be able to. Corn and soy are huge crops in the US and farmers who did not buy Monsanto seed which cross pollinated, have been sued. That is insane. No one should be able to own a seed past the first sale to one person. I don't want fish dna in my tomato, because I do not know if it is good or bad. At this time, no studies have been personally delivered to me, so I want products labelled non-GMO or contains GMO. I want BOTH.



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: SubTruth

So you would have to concede because of conflict of interests the people doing the testing cannot be trusted?
No.


I also think any lab that would be checking or have the capability to do the tests will most likely be controlled by TPTB.
Of course you do.



Personally like I stated before I believe the entire system is rigged.
Miserable existance you must have. On the other hand, you can blame all your problems on "them" so I guess it works out.



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SubTruth

Why are TPTB fighting labeling so hard?
I answered earlier.


Do you trust the government agencies and labs to give us factual results?
Not always, but pretty much. Because government agencies and labs are not the only places that results come from so those results can be validated. That's one of the cool things about science.


Do you see a conflict of interests inside the government labs and agencies?
Possible.


Simple questions really...........
Which have nothing to do with claims about the dangers of GM crops.


I have to throw support to Phage's last comment......"which have nothing to do with the claims about the dangers of GM crops."



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Anger really this is how you solve this argument. Go after the message itself..........When it degrades to this point I know my argument is not only sound but it is correct.



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: wdkirk

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SubTruth

Why are TPTB fighting labeling so hard?
I answered earlier.


Do you trust the government agencies and labs to give us factual results?
Not always, but pretty much. Because government agencies and labs are not the only places that results come from so those results can be validated. That's one of the cool things about science.


Do you see a conflict of interests inside the government labs and agencies?
Possible.


Simple questions really...........
Which have nothing to do with claims about the dangers of GM crops.


I have to throw support to Phage's last comment......"which have nothing to do with the claims about the dangers of GM crops."





So you guys do not think the labs that do the testing have anything to do with the safety of the product?.....I just want to make it clear.
edit on 25-5-2015 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra


I want to choose whether or not I eat things that are 'roundup ready' (meaning they cannot be killed by roundup pesticide and can kill bugs that try to eat it.
You can. Just look for the "organic" or "non-gmo" lable.


I also want to be able to buy seeds and use them season after season to grow things, just like farmers should be able to.
You can.



Corn and soy are huge crops in the US and farmers who did not buy Monsanto seed which cross pollinated, have been sued.
Nope, no one has been sued over cross pollination. Do you actually know why they were sued? In one case it was because the farmer cultivated "volunteers" and sold the crops. No cross pollination and finders is not keepers.


No one should be able to own a seed past the first sale to one person.
So, copying software and selling it is ok too. Copying artwork and selling it is ok too.


At this time, no studies have been personally delivered to me,
What studies have been personally delivered to you?


so I want products labelled non-GMO or contains GMO. I want BOTH.
If it doesn't have a "non-gm" lable or an "organic" lable, chances are it is GM. Problem solved.

edit on 5/25/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/25/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: Phage

So you would have to concede because of conflict of interests the people doing the testing cannot be trusted? I also think any lab that would be checking or have the capability to do the tests will most likely be controlled by TPTB.



Personally like I stated before I believe the entire system is rigged and for good reason. It gives the illusions that many people buy into and can point at and say look it is safe because it was tested.
You are right. I know it is rigged. It is rigged and paid OFF and paid FOR. So many things handled by government agencies, which all have a poor track record, especially the between 18 and 21 intelligence agencies...when the USDA says "There is nothing to see here" you should LOOK.



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: Phage

So you would have to concede because of conflict of interests the people doing the testing cannot be trusted? I also think any lab that would be checking or have the capability to do the tests will most likely be controlled by TPTB.



Personally like I stated before I believe the entire system is rigged and for good reason. It gives the illusions that many people buy into and can point at and say look it is safe because it was tested.
You are right. I know it is rigged. It is rigged and paid OFF and paid FOR. So many things handled by government agencies, which all have a poor track record, especially the between 18 and 21 intelligence agencies...when the USDA says "There is nothing to see here" you should LOOK.




They have lied in the past and that is a fact not a truth. If the system is rigged how on earth can we know it is safe and just because the people selling the product say it is does not mean we should trust them.


These labs and agencies have zero credibility anymore and many of the people doing the testing are paid off or have ties into the corporations running this country. We currently live under a corporate oligarchy.
edit on 25-5-2015 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: SubTruth

Anger really this is how you solve this argument.
I'm not angry.



So you guys do not think the labs that do the testing have anything to do with the safety of the product?
So you guys think that every lab everywhere is in on it.

Like I said, miserable way to live but it does help absolve you of personal responsibility. Nothing is your fault, it's all "them."
edit on 5/25/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SubTruth

Anger really this is how you solve this argument.
I'm not angry.



So you guys do not think the labs that do the testing have anything to do with the safety of the product?
So you guys think that every lab everywhere is in on it.

Like I said, miserable way to live but it does help absolve you of personal responsibility. Nothing is your fault, it's all "them."




Context is so hard in the written word so if I jumped to conclusions.....You did however make assumptions about my stands on this and me personally by saying of course you do and you must have a miserable existence.



Are all labs in on it.....Hmm tough question that I think is best answered this way. The labs capable of doing the testing most likely get government or corporate money at some level to keep afloat. So my answer would be YES I believe the labs doing the testing are corrupted at varying levels.



And just to add I am not the one making personal statements....... It does come off as anger and could be a sign of weakness in an argument.
edit on 25-5-2015 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-5-2015 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-5-2015 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: SubTruth

Are all labs in on it.....Hmm tough question that I think is best answered this way. The labs capable of doing the testing most likely get government or corporate money at some level to keep afloat. So my answer would be YES I believe the labs doing the testing are corrupted at varying levels.


So the talk about "not enough testing" is pointless. Right? It's a red herring.

The fact is, no amount of testing would be enough to satisfy you. That's pretty much what I get from the anti-GM crowd. No real reason to be afraid of it but...it's scary because...it is scary.

Like I said, a miserable way to exist.
edit on 5/25/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SubTruth

Are all labs in on it.....Hmm tough question that I think is best answered this way. The labs capable of doing the testing most likely get government or corporate money at some level to keep afloat. So my answer would be YES I believe the labs doing the testing are corrupted at varying levels.


So the talk about "not enough testing" is pointless. Right? It's a red herring.

The fact is, no amount of testing would be enough to satisfy you. That's pretty much what I get from the anti-GM crowd. No real reason to be afraid of it but...it's scary because...it is scary.

Like I said, a miserable way to exist.





Boy is this how you argue in real life........No that is not what I am saying. The people doing the testing should not receive corporate or government subsidies and also we should have a watch dog group making sure conflict of interests are not happening. Employees floating back and forth is a sure sign something is up.



My reasoning is sound and truth be told right on the money.
edit on 25-5-2015 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
CROSS POLLINATION:
Cross Pollination, etc,
CASE LAW ANALYSIS

The most famous of all the Monsanto patent infringement cases involves Canadian canola farmer Percy Schmeiser.73 Monsanto’s genetically engineered canola was found on Schmeiser’s land, but it is undisputed that he neither purchased nor planted the company’s seed.

For seven years Schmeiser fought to prove that the seed arrived on his land through genetic drift or from trucks carrying seed to grain elevators. Unfortunately, the lower courts were not concerned as to how the seed wound up on the land, only that
Schmeiser knew he possessed Monsanto’s intellectual property and had not paid for it.74 As Schmeiser’s attorney Terry Zakreski, explained: “Monsanto has a problem. It’s trying to own a piece of Mother Nature that naturally spreads itself around.”75 Even the vice president for Monsanto Canada, Ray Mowling, concurs: “[Monsanto] acknowledges that some cross-pollination occurs, and acknowledges the awkwardness of prosecuting farmers who may be inadvertently growing Monsanto seed through cross-pollination or via innocent trades with patent-violating neighbors.”76 The Supreme Court of Canada heard Schmeiser’s appeal of the lower courts’ decisions on January 20, 2004, and on May 21, 2004 publicly announced its decision. Schmeiser was found guilty of patent infringement yet not
liable to pay Monsanto any damages.77
We can assume that Schmeiser is just one of many farmers who has been targeted for possessing a technology he neither bought nor planted.



This is some scary stuff:

So, throughout the 1980’s and early 1990’s, Monsanto actively built its genetic engineering capacity and was careful to patent its newly discovered techniques and products along the way.

Specifically, the agreement reads: “To allow Monsanto to examine and copy any records and receipts that could be relevant to Grower’s
performance of this Agreement”17 (emphasis added). The breadth of this provision allows the company to obtain documents that are not necessarily directly related to a farmer’s seed or chemical purchase, permitting Monsanto to assess a grower’s financial state.
The Technology Use Guide also has provisions that allow for property investigations. For example, the following provision is directly aimed at cotton farmers:
If Monsanto reasonably believes that a grower has planted saved cottonseed containing a Monsanto genetic trait, Monsanto will request invoices or otherwise confirm that fields in question have been planted with newly purchased seed. If this information is not provided within 30 days, Monsanto may inspect and test all of the grower’s fields to determine if saved cottonseed has been planted.18

Monsanto’s Technology Use Guide recognizes that genetically engineered crops are, by nature, transportable from a user’s farm onto another farm by pollen flow or through seed movement via animals or equipment: “Since corn is a naturally cross-pollinated crop, a minimal amount of pollen movement (some of which can carry genetically improved traits) between neighboring fields is a well known and normal occurrence in corn seed or grain production.”22
Such pollen flow and seed movement presents a direct economic threat to farmers growing non-genetically engineered crops. Nonetheless, the Technology Use Guide implicitly provides that growers using genetically engineered seeds are under no obligation to prevent the spread of patented genetic traits to other neighboring farms. The Technology Use Guide states that growers of non-genetically engineered crops that certify their crops for specific markets “…assume the responsibility and receive the benefit for ensuring that their crop meets…specifications for purity


**see page 24, page 26, bottom p 27, top page 28. ..especially chilling. ****

"The company went so far as to purchase an empty lot across the street to aid in its surveillance, and investigators watched patrons of Scruggs’ store from just 500 feet away. Investigators also harassed these customers by following several of them home and warning them not to do business with Scruggs."


P. 37...cross contaminated land...

Monsanto acknowledges these events, stating: “In cases of unintended appearance of our proprietary varieties in a farmer’s fields, we will surely work with the farmer to resolve the matter to the satisfaction of both the farmer and Monsanto.”70 This suspect promise is used by Monsanto to alleviate farmers’ fears associated with the company’s technology. Nevertheless, cases involving the unintended presence of Monsanto’s patented traits in plants have yet to end in a farmer’s favor.
Given the insistent nature of Monsanto’s legal pursuits, it is not surprising that farmers have been sued for unknowingly possessing or selling
the company’s patented technology. A North Dakota farmer, Tom Wiley, explained it this way: “Farmers are being sued for having GMOs on their property that they did not buy, do not want, will not use and cannot sell.”71
Until courts recognize intent as a factor in these patent infringement cases, farmers and their lawyers face an uphill battle in cases involving the unwanted presence of Monsanto’s patented traits in crops.

edit on 25-5-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-5-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-5-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)


IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others
edit on Mon May 25 2015 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)

edit on Thu May 28 2015 by DontTreadOnMe because: fixed formatting.....added ex tags



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

This Monsanto thing and the several companies that do the same thing is no longer a conspiracy theory. It is a conspiracy.

A secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal

: the act of secretly planning to do something that is harmful or illegal

I think most have knocked this off their lists of just a theory.

TY Metallicus
I know a lot more than I even knew before about this topic.
edit on 25-5-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: HalfLeaf

Well, that was something. Get it all out. But I think Phage helped push more digging on this. The more he pushed the more I researched. For very important topics, I think it is how it works here. There is someone on a couple other topics today I found to be racist, and that has no place here. But Phage keeps us on our toes, I think. I was surely jumping around lol.
edit on 25-5-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)
I give you a star anyway, because he can sound arrogant and you told people how you feel.
edit on 25-5-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

CROSS POLLINATION:

Yes. That's the case I was referring to. No cross pollination. Like I said, "volunteers".

Instead of reading a slanted version of what happened, why not read the actual decision.
Here are some bits:


Here the defendants grew canola in 1998 in nine fields, from seed saved from their 1997 crop, which seed Mr. Schmeiser knew or can be taken to have known was Roundup tolerant. That seed was grown and ultimately the crop was harvested and sold. In my opinion, whether or not that crop was sprayed with Roundup during its growing period is not important. Growth of the seed, reproducing the patented gene and cell, and sale of the harvested crop constitutes taking the essence of the plaintiffs' invention, using it, without permission. In so doing the defendants infringed upon the patent interests of the plaintiffs.



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...

You think it's ok to copy someone's artwork they "find" and sell it? How is this different? I don't think you find much precedent in favor of finder's keeper's, much less finder's seller's.

BTW, Schmeiser "should have known" that his crop was Roundup Ready because by his own testimony, he tested it!
edit on 5/25/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: reldra

CROSS POLLINATION:

Yes. That's the case I was referring to. No cross pollination. Like I said, "volunteers".

Instead of reading a slanted version of what happened, why not read the actual decision.
Here are some bits:


Here the defendants grew canola in 1998 in nine fields, from seed saved from their 1997 crop, which seed Mr. Schmeiser knew or can be taken to have known was Roundup tolerant. That seed was grown and ultimately the crop was harvested and sold. In my opinion, whether or not that crop was sprayed with Roundup during its growing period is not important. Growth of the seed, reproducing the patented gene and cell, and sale of the harvested crop constitutes taking the essence of the plaintiffs' invention, using it, without permission. In so doing the defendants infringed upon the patent interests of the plaintiffs.



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...

You think it's ok to copy someone's artwork and sell it? How is this different?
I gave you the case law. I don't need anything else. He never bought it from anyone. So, it was on his farm, he owns it. The court found against him, but for no money damages. I don't agree with the court. The decision was narrow...on one issue. That is why no money damages. Would you give up while you are only half behind? What do you mean volunteers? It wasn;t proven how it got there.
edit on 25-5-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join