Talk-Polywell.org

Would somebody tell me what makes Monsanto so much more evil than other companies. Is it because they have never kissed the feet of Rachell Carson in forgiveness? Where were the police in this? Monsanto should be able to open if they like. I will tell you one thing, if I wanted to be at work I would go to work and I don't care who blocks the driveway. :

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/myles-boi ... 55040.html

Monsanto has peeps saying they lie.

I dunno.

Just saying, the GMO issue is complex and convoluted. Its a big deal.

I am generally in favor of genetic engineering and do not have any ethical concerns about it per se. However, Monsanto has done a few things that I do not like.
First of all, they claim copyright on their seeds. The problem is that you can not prevent them from spreading and "naturally copying" themselves. Then they blow over to a neightbours field and grow there. Try keeping them apart from regular ones. Try sifting through them. Now, I do not see any health concerns about this, but I am concerned with Monsantos claim that they can sue farmers growing their gmo crops without a license from Monsanto. Now how do you prevent that from happening, even if you wanted to? Monsanto has sued farmers over this in the past. I say that sucks.

I think the terminator seed technology they have is a huge problem. they say it can not cross to regular crops but then they sue people and win because they did just that. (terminator seeds = seed that the parent plant is sterile and can not produce viable seed to replant next year)
Not to mention they are trying to keep quite the link between GMO corn and the loss of monarch butterfly.

There is precedent for not being able to patent copyright stuff. Some of that here:
http://blog.ted.com/2010/05/25/lessons_from_fa/

Someone needs to get some lawyers together and make a similar argument--genes can't be patentable because of practicality issues. There is prior work to build on, and it would make the world a better place.

Biggest threat to the US is corporations. They are amoral and they are taking over your politics and your economy.

Stubby, you are clearly oblivious to the threat presented by unrestrained government, or how little corporations can do to us without government cooperation.

Clearly you don't know what I think.
You must have missed all those posts supporting the 2nd, and the 1st and the 4th among others.

Corporations own your government. Functionally there is no difference. They own the staffers, they own the Representatives and they own the Senators. They own each party. Which explains why regardless of which party is in power, they economy will stay geared towards the 1%.

They have all the money they will ever need, but not all the money they could ever want and they is going to drive your economy and mine and the world's in to a very deep hole to get that new yacht.

Stubby wrote:Corporations own your government. Functionally there is no difference. They own the staffers, they own the Representatives and they own the Senators. They own each party.

Geesss. . .such gooffy and crazy stuff. . .

The issue with Monsanto is that they create most of the GMO's in the world, and people are justified in expecting adequate testing to see there are no health issues concerned. The argument that their GMO corn modified to resist pests will blow onto farm lands so should not be protectable by patent is an argument made from ignorance. The facts of the matter are that farmers almost NEVER save their own seed but instead purchase it every year. What refusing patents for the Monsanto seed would do, is make the entire GMO process unavailable because those who invest in this kind of food science would not be able to recover their costs. That's what the patent debate is all about--disabling the entire GMO market and it's being pushed by ignorants who don't understand and are afraid of all GMO's. (I have several friends who feel this way despite having had the issues explained to them.)

So the argument that the seed should not be patentable is obviously wrong start to finish. The argument that corps like Monsanto have to have adequate testing is a good one, but that is an argument with the effectiveness of the FDA, not against Stubby's imaginary evil empire. There is lots of evidence of people moving back and forth from Monsanto and the FDA but they're both working in the same industry--food science. I have not seen any evidence of actual collusion, which is what one needs to make the case against Monsanto.

GIThruster wrote: The facts of the matter are that farmers almost NEVER save their own seed but instead purchase it every year.

I don't know enough about this controversy. However, the reliance on "terminator seeds" and farmers buying all seed each year from a large, single source, make me nervous in a SHTF scenerio.

This appears unwise.

Edit: fixed quote citation

It is "unwise" but farmers buy seed because it is more economical and time effective to buy from a supplier than test and produce your own. I do not thing there is maybe a hundred family farms left in the US that do this and more likely as a hobby or 4H project
Saving single cross seed in not a good idea because of second generation traits that show up. Lower yield and crop knockdown being the two major traits that show up. As a youth on the farm I sold seed corn for Decalb and Kaltenburg. There were probably 200 seed company's back then. Now I thing there is 6 at best.
Where the problem has arisen is the fact that accidental cross pollination is butting undesirable traits into seed that would not normally have. Per example growing rape seed in Canada the farmers heirloom seed was rendered un-viable because of cross pollination. Monsanto then sued and won (later overturned) because the farmer down wind allowed this to happen! (there is a lot more to this case but I suggest you read it yourself)

I'm not familiar with every case, but I will note that those farmers who had joined forces arguing that once buying Monsanto's seed they should be able to reuse it for every planting, were making this argument from crops seeding nearby well before Monsanto had ever raised such a case. The legal debacle that followed was not Monsanto at fault--it was the farmers who wanted something for nothing.

Monsanto's pest resistant corn holds out the opportunity to save huge amounts of money because it does not require the pesticides normally used to make the crop viable, so the cost of the chemicals and the labor to distribute them is all saved, as is the possible costs of pesticide run-off, etc. It's a big step forward so long as it's safe for consumption. It is answering that question that is so expensive. Creating a GMO requires micro-biologists and geneticists working in teams for years, but the real expense of a GMO is in the meticulous testing that needs to be done to clearly demonstrate the crop is safe for human consumption. And this is where the FDA comes in--they need to require such testing and it's not always the case that we see sufficient testing before such crops come to market.

So there is certainly lots of room to pass around blame, but in general, these GMO's hold out such promise to feed people that they deserve all the protection the law can provide so that those who invest hundreds of millions of dollars in them, generate an acceptable ROI. Otherwise we won't see these kinds of technological breakthroughs in the future. And just noting, it is the idiotic generalizations like those stubby is passing around in this thread, that put the breaks on adult contemplation of this issue. It is the adolescent demonization of corporations just because they have money, that short-circuits adult consideration of and conversation about these very detailed and important issues.

Correct, and I believe Monsanto does have the right to protect their seed line. But the promised benefits are not materializing as promised. My farmer friends say they are using as much chemical as before as the weeds are adapting.
but the one thing you said is definable true. There are many sides to this issue and its not clear cut at all.
GMO has a place but we need to make sure the desired effects are achieved without bad side effect.
I personally try and grow my own food in the garden as much as I can. But this is because of pesticides and there use by third world country and not so much as afraid of GMO .

Stubby wrote:Corporations own your government. ...

How's that work with the popular vote and their critics not only uncensored but getting more favorable press than they do?

...

unless the voters in majority are idiots?

paperburn1 wrote:But the promised benefits are not materializing as promised. My farmer friends say they are using as much chemical as before as the weeds are adapting.

Herbicide resistance and pest resistance are two different issues. IIRC, "Bt Corn" is the one with the pest resistance built in, and it did prove to be far less resistant to second generation pests than was hoped, but it is still used all over the globe because it works to some degree. Herbicide resistance is a different issue and I know less about that. The primary contention here is about "Roundup Ready" crops, or crops that have been engineered to accept higher levels of herbicide. So in this case yes, you not only still use herbicide, you use more of it, and yet the crop survives and thrives, generating a far healthier crop because it has far fewer contestants for nutrients (weeds).

There's a ton of stuff about this online and even on wiki if you get an itch. One thing is certain: farmers want these products and they want them for free. I think they should have access to them once they're properly tested, but they need to pay a fair market price or we won't see genetic manipulation continue the way it has, and the proper testing paid for. The testing is very expensive and needs to be done for years, both before and after it goes to market.

The GMO industry was just dealt a heavy blow last election cycle when Californians required GMO's to be marked as such. Lots of people are going to avoid foods that include GMO's out of ignorance and fear. This kind of knee-jerk reaction hurts everyone while providing the ignorant the pretense of being educated shoppers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneticall ... troversies