GMO Food Toxins Linked To Anemia And Other Blood Disorders

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
... increased lawauits seeing as Monsanto has rights to any GM food it has patents on, whether non Monsanto farmers planted it or not, ie from pollen drift, seed dispersal etc.

It may be helpful for you to give some evidence to back up this assertion, given that multiple court cases in recent times has provided evidence for the exact opposite.

And it was even more specifically pointed out by the Judge in the Percy Schmeiser case, that Monsanto has no rights to any awards from contamination.

Thus a farmer whose field contains seed or plants originating from seed spilled into them, or blown as seed, in swaths from a neighbour's land or even growing from germination by pollen carried into his field from elsewhere by insects, birds, or by the wind, may own the seed or plants on his land even if he did not set about to plant them.

reply to post by alfa1


These organic farmers just have to take Monsanto's ''reassurance'' that they wouldn't sue if some of their patented crops wound up in their fields, though only is it is less than 1% of their crop. Organic farmers should be suing Monsanto for contaminating their fields and crop more like. How at ease do you think these farmers are at this ''reassurance''? Let me tell you, not very! The fact they have to check for GM food at all in their organic crop is ridiculous, and if they found 1.2, 2%, any amount greater than 1% contaminated, they have to pay Monsanto for the 'privilege'. Also when the consumer buys Organic, the produce should be Organic, we know that not every grain is tested so essentially that breaches rules on GM food and Descriptions Acts. Non GMO labels should mean non GMO, Organic should mean 100% Organic.

www.reuters.com...

Reuters) - Monsanto Co. on Monday won another round in a legal battle with U.S. organic growers as an appeals court threw out the growers' efforts to stop the company from suing farmers if traces of its patented biotech genes are found in crops.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a previous ruling that found organic growers had no reason to try to block Monsanto from suing them as the company had pledged it would not take them to court if biotech crops accidentally mix in with organics.

Organic farmers and others have worried for years that they will be sued by Monsanto for patent infringement if their crops get contaminated with Monsanto biotech crops.

In its ruling Monday, the appellate court said the organic growers must rely on Monsanto assurances on the company's website that it will not sue them so long as the mix is very slight.

"Monsanto's binding representations remove any risk of suit against the appellants as users or sellers of trace amounts (less than one percent) of modified seed," the court stated in its ruling.

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
These organic farmers just have to take Monsanto's ''reassurance'' that they wouldn't sue if some of their patented crops wound up in their fields...

Now wait a second, you've just changed your argument.
Just ONE post ago, you said:

seeing as Monsanto has rights to any GM food it has patents on, whether non Monsanto farmers planted it or not, ie from pollen drift, seed dispersal etc

So I'm going to have to ask you to stand by your claim, or retract it.
Do Monsanto, or do they not, have "rights to any GM food" from pollen drift? ***
(because as I've stated before, this issue was specifically addressed in court, and rejected)

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
...and if they found 1.2, 2%, any amount greater than 1% contaminated, they have to pay Monsanto

I've linked the pdf's to the court case below, now I want to you to READ THEM and point out the "have to" part.
You'll find its not there.
You cant defend that argument.
It doesnt stand.
The reference to 1 percent was an upper limit that was called "contamination". Above that limit, the situation is undefined. There is no "have to" situation.

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
Organic farmers should be suing Monsanto for contaminating their fields and crop more like.

Very probably, but thats not the issue here.



P.S. this organic farmers court case is being discussed in this thread here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
And for background reading, the court decision is here, and the appeal decision is here, rather than relying on a journalists interpretation, you should read the original.

*** because with the Organic farmers case, the appeal, the Schmeiser case and the Bowman case, that makes FOUR times that I know of that your "pollen drift" claim has been addressed in court, and found to be untrue.

Originally posted by alfa1

So I'm going to have to ask you to stand by your claim, or retract it.
Do Monsanto, or do they not, have "rights to any GM food" from pollen drift? ***
(because as I've stated before, this issue was specifically addressed in court, and rejected)

Sadly your coming off as a Monsanto attorney. Your bully tactics will be
ignored, no one has to detract anything here. This is a discussion, not a courtroom.


If the contamination is a small amount, Monsanto has pledged not to come
after the contaminated farm.

Originally posted by alfa1

Thank you for agreeing with me, and all the judges who've looked at this in court.

Its kind of annoying because although every single factual account that can be seen says one thing, people like 'theabsolutetruth' still keep pushing the "wind blown pollen" story.
And its simply not true, and has never been true.

In no way am I agreeing with you. She is right! wind blown contamination happens all
of the time. It is true, and Monsanto is an unscrupulous corporation that will stop
at nothing it seems to carry out its mission: "no food shall be grown that we dont own".

reply to post by alfa1


Do not attack me personally nor ask me to ''stand by claims''.

Monsanto patents seeds then has the right to them, correct.

The fact that they 'said' they wouldn't sue on their WEBSITE doesn't mean they WOULD NOT nor CANNOT.

Monsanto practices are UNETHICAL. FACT.

Originally posted by burntheships
In no way am I agreeing with you.

So you've changed your argument then.
Because just earlier, you said...

If the contamination is a small amount, Monsanto has pledged not to come after the contaminated farm.

Which is a statement we both agree with.

Now you're saying the statement is that ..

wind blown contamination happens all of the time.

...which is rather ironic, because although its a completely different statement than the earlier one, its also something I agree with.

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
nor ask me to ''stand by claims''.

Really?
You're openly saying that you make claims that you dont stand by?

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
Monsanto patents seeds then has the right to them, correct.

Thats not the argument you presented earlier. You've just changed your argument.

Earlier, you were saying that:
- Monsanto own the rights to "wind blown pollen" contaminated plants
- Monsanto have declared that they own anything over 1 percent contamination.

...to which i pointed out that both of these claims have now been shown in court to be untrue.

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
The fact that they 'said' they wouldn't sue on their WEBSITE doesn't mean they WOULD NOT nor CANNOT.

Its not an issue of a website.
Its an issue of estoppel.
Something declared in (multiple) courts of law are the issue here. Not the website.

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
Monsanto practices are UNETHICAL. FACT.

While that is certainly true, I do wish people would put forward arguments based on this truth, and not completely different other things that have been found on multiple occasions to be not true.

reply to post by alfa1


My statements are not contradictions.
And again, your really appearing as if your in a courtroom working for Monsatan.

reply to post by alfa1


Clearly you cannot accept the facts.

Clearly you are looking for an argument as a means of attempted denial of these facts.

Clearly you are neither a judge nor an ATS judge, you clearly have NO RIGHT for any demands from me or any others here.

Here is the post I replied the previous time you tried this, READ it. The points made are VERY CLEAR and TRUE, now if you cannot understand them or are just attacking based on personal dislike, I suggest you read the report again, and try to understand that the case quoted Organic farmers weren't guaranteed the RIGHT for Monsanto NOT SUING them should their crop grow on their soil, they SAID, they wouldn't if it was less than 1%, they still could if they wanted to, and they might also if it was greater than 1%, the article states this clearly, my quote referenced the article.

Additionally do not reply to me as you are now ignored.

Do not attack me personally nor ask me to ''stand by claims''.

Monsanto patents seeds then has the right to them, correct.

The fact that they 'said' they wouldn't sue on their WEBSITE doesn't mean they WOULD NOT nor CANNOT.

Monsanto practices are UNETHICAL. FACT.

***ATTENTION***

The rude insults and ill-mannered behavior will end here. Further violations WILL result in a posting ban of no less than 72 hours while the staff reviews your account.

If you cannot discuss the topic without resorting to personal attacks and straw man arguments, than do not post at all.

No other warnings will be give, do not reply to this post.

~Tenth
ATS Mod

reply to post by alfa1


Its really no wonder at all that Monsanto has a poor reputation in the
eyes of the majority of people who want the choice to be able to identify and reject
GE organisms in their food.

Monsanto began as a chemical company in 1901. In the 1930s, it was responsible for some of the most damaging chemicals in our history - polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCB's, and dioxin. According to a Food & Water Watch corporate profile, a single Monsanto plant in Sauget, Illinois, produced 99 percent of PCB's until they were banned in 1976. PCBs are carcinogenic and harmful to multiple organs and systems. They are still illegally dumped into waterways, where they accumulate in plants and food crops, as well as fish and other aquatic organisms, which enter the human food supply. The Sauget plant is now the home of two Superfund sites.

Dioxin is the defoliant used in Vietnam known as Agent Orange. It is one of the most dangerous chemicals known, a highly toxic carcinogen linked to 50 illnesses and 20 birth defects. Between 1962 and 1971, 19 million gallons of Agent Orange were sprayed in Vietnam. A class action lawsuit filed by Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange was settled for $180 million. And a Monsanto plant that made dioxin in Times Beach, Missouri, poisoned the area so greatly that the town has been wiped from the map. Thousands of people had to be relocated and it is now also a superfund site. Consistent with their method of operation, Monsanto has denied responsibility for the harm these chemicals have caused.

Their biggest selling chemical worldwide is the herbicide glyphosate, sold under the name RoundUp. Monsanto markets it as a safe herbicide and has made a fortune from it. Sales of Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides accounted for 27 percent of Monsanto's total 2011 net sales. Monsanto engineers genetically modified seeds, branded as "Roundup Ready," to resist Roundup so that the herbicide is absolutely necessary for those who buy these seeds. Roundup Ready seeds have been Monsanto's most successful genetically modified product line and have made Roundup the most widely used herbicide in the history of the world.
www.truth-out.org...

reply to post by burntheships


And many more, such as DDT and Nuclear Bombs, lovely!

gmo-awareness.com...

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


Yes, we have Monsanto to blame for those too.
Poisions, well at least usually like those above need labels,
ones with skull and crossbones.

How ironic that is exactly the kind of label that Genetically Enigineered Foods
should have on them.

"If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it." - Norman Braksick, president of Asgrow Seed Co., a subsidiary of Monsanto, quoted in the Kansas City Star, March 7, 1994

It is no wonder that Monsanto and other GE biotech companies fight so hard to
keep labels and brand names off of the GE food.

Monsanto's website states:

"There is no need for, or value in testing the safety
of GM foods in humans."

Finally, with these independent tests, we are finding out just exactly why
Monsanto does not allow testing of its seed, nor do they allow any
published review of it unless they approve.