Occupy give Monsanto employees a day off

[Stubby]

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?

47% of Americans believe in a literal interpretation of the bible i.e Genesis, Noah to answer your second question. That sure gives you a head start to a majority.

As for the first question, it is done in many ways not least of which are campaign contributions but mostly through cultivation of staffers.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7387331n

@3:22

[Skipjack]

So why is the "seed termination" was working as advertised, does Monsanto have to sue farmers that are downwind from GMO farms (not to mention that there are other means of natural transportation for seeds). Or how did those seeds end up on other farms?
Generally patenting and copyrighting a natural product is a stupid idea. Natural products will procreate one way or another. Innocent people will get into the line of fire and that will only cause more anger and opposition.

[paperburn1]

So why is the "seed termination" was working as advertised, does Monsanto have to sue farmers that are downwind from GMO farms (not to mention that there are other means of natural transportation for seeds). Or how did those seeds end up on other farms?
Generally patenting and copyrighting a natural product is a stupid idea. Natural products will procreate one way or another. Innocent people will get into the line of fire and that will only cause more anger and opposition.

I guess I did not make a very readable post , the GMO transfer case was about roundup resistant seed and the pollen transferred those properties to a neighboring farm that sold heirloom seed. The farmer then got sued by monsanto for allowing his plants to be pollinated and his subsequent selling of his seed.
My fear/worry was that now with terminator seed technology the same type of genome transfer could occur and make the heirloom seed types become sterile. This would create/ enforce a lack of biodiversity that is already a problem that seems to be growing world wide. Its like the old adage, just because you can do something does not mean you should do something. Monsanto need to be cognizant of the fact thier responsibility does not stop at a property line.

[Maui]

A significant portion of the movie "Food, Inc." was dedicated to the Monsanto seed issue. According to the movie, the problem is as a small-time farmer, how do you get the resources to take on Monsanto's legal team?

Certainly the movie cherry-picked anecdotes and interviews, but the basic idea that Monsanto can come after you for seed that blew over from a neighbor's farm is outrageous to me.

I can see Monsanto's side of the issue, but there has to be a middle-ground here somewhere. I don't agree with giving copyright protection for DNA without some caveats, at least.

[Jccarlton]

While this is no surprise to me, it seems that most of what we "know" about Monsanto is myth:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/1 ... eds-busted
Which still leavces the question, why Monsanto?

[paperburn1]

While this is no surprise to me, it seems that most of what we "know" about Monsanto is myth:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/1 ... eds-busted
Which still leavces the question, why Monsanto?

The short answer is they are the most aggressive about their patents and protecting them.
Short version is they started to contribute a large amount to NPR and they get stories swayed to their point of view. How quickly we forget! NPR ran a story on Glyphosate (herbicide) resistant GMO soybeans. Monsanto said it was highly unlikely that this could lead to the creation of herbicide resistant weeds. According to the NPR story, over twenty Glyphosate resistant invasive species have been identified so far. Much in that story counters what was previously published by NPR
Additionally the fact that someone eating Roundup resistant grains and so on is in fact consuming trace amounts of Roundup.
How long did it take them do figure out DDT was unsafe to use in proximity to humans and wildlife, how long did it take them to figure out that smoking causes the damage it does? Technology in and of itself is not the problem, application without understanding is the problem. We must be deliberate and careful, but not to the point if inaction, and not in such a way that we cede entire areas of study and advancement.
Here's a CBS report refuting that Monsanto doesn't sue farmers
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-4048288.html
It is true that GMO pollen will not make your crop uncertified, but "organic" is not a USDA construct, it's the construct of a grass roots movement and the grass roots say crops contaminated with GMO genes are not organic despite the USDA's not regulating it thus. The real problem with this article though is that it singles out only the negative myths about GMOs for debunking. What about the positive GMO truths?
That's why this is propaganda rather than journalism. In just five simple minutes of surfing I found numerous stories refuting the claims made in these articles. and how monsanto agents lied and used political pressure to protect thier patent even to the point of breaking the law.

[Diogenes]

How long did it take them do figure out DDT was unsafe to use in proximity to humans and wildlife, how long did it take them to figure out that smoking causes the damage it does? Technology in and of itself is not the problem, application without understanding is the problem.

To my knowledge, DDT has NEVER been proven unsafe to use in proximity to humans and wildlife. It's banning is simply the case of Liberal Idiot propaganda, and no actual science behind it.




Rachel Carson wrote a book called "Silent Spring" in which she alleged that DDT caused weak egg shells in bird eggs or something, (all made up) and as a result of that book's popularity, DDT was banned.





To put things in perspective, this stupid book has indirectly caused the deaths of many millions of people, because DDT was the most effective means of killing the malarial mosquito.




Liberals always cause death. Sometimes sooner, often times later.

[GIThruster]

I'm sorry but your intel on DDT is incorrect. It did in fact weaken the shells of almost all bird eggs and almost wiped out hundreds of species of birds. When I was growing up and backpacking all along the East coast, there were no raptors in the skies. I've always had an interest in them and never seen one until I was in my twenties and living in Oregon. When I moved back to NJ 12 years later it was a completely different matter. Bald and Golden Eagles, Osprey, Red-Tail Hawks, Peregrin Falcons, Goshawk, various owls have all returned to the lands where they were once completely missing, all because yes indeed, DDT does cause a fantastically high mortality rate in all birds by weakening their shells. If those birds hadn't been able to find sanctuary in Canada, they would all have been exterminated.

It's encouraging we learn from our mistakes. We caught the DDT problem in time and nature is very resilient.

Most people who are concerned about the environment fail to appreciate what an achievement it is, that less than 30 years from the beginning of the chemical revolution at the end of WWII, we had already learned to stop dumping crap into water tables, rivers, and skies and Reagan formed the Superfund to clean up America. We really are on the cutting edge of protecting the planet. I wouldn't expect the Chinese to catch up for 30 years and they know better than we did.

[paperburn1]

The main problem with DDT was the fact it did not show any toxicity to humans. What was happening to the birds and some sea life was that it was breaking down into DDE though metabolic process. DDE is harmful to sea life and the eggs of birds as well. DDT was not very harmful but when present in large quantities in the fats and oils of their bodies it released enough DDE to poison and disrupt life cycles. as DDTs persistence was up to twenty years in the right conditions it was accumulating in the food chain to the point those animals were affected.
DDT is not banned outright and is still listed as an agent for vector control by WHO
"Today, DDT remains on the WHO's list of insecticides recommended for IRS. Since the appointment of Arata Kochi as head of its anti-malaria division, WHO's policy has shifted from recommending IRS only in areas of seasonal or episodic transmission of malaria, to also advocating it in areas of continuous, intense transmission.[96] The WHO has reaffirmed its commitment to eventually phasing out DDT, aiming "to achieve a 30% cut in the application of DDT world-wide by 2014 and its total phase-out by the early 2020s if not sooner" while simultaneously combating malaria. The WHO plans to implement alternatives to DDT to achieve this goal."
So bottom line if we had treated DDT with a little respect it would still be around for the common user.
Old farm boy with a certified pesticide application licence from the state of ILLINOIS ,that how I know.

[Diogenes]

I'm sorry but your intel on DDT is incorrect. It did in fact weaken the shells of almost all bird eggs and almost wiped out hundreds of species of birds. When I was growing up and backpacking all along the East coast, there were no raptors in the skies. I've always had an interest in them and never seen one until I was in my twenties and living in Oregon. When I moved back to NJ 12 years later it was a completely different matter. Bald and Golden Eagles, Osprey, Red-Tail Hawks, Peregrin Falcons, Goshawk, various owls have all returned to the lands where they were once completely missing, all because yes indeed, DDT does cause a fantastically high mortality rate in all birds by weakening their shells. If those birds hadn't been able to find sanctuary in Canada, they would all have been exterminated.

I will move it into the "disputed" column. I'll look for links on it when I have more time. I had read countless times that Rachel Carson's claims were baseless.

[paperburn1]

I will move it into the "disputed" column. I'll look for links on it when I have more time. I had read countless times that Rachel Carson's claims were baseless.

Reference is often made to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring even though she never pushed for a ban on DDT. John Quiggin and Tim Lambert wrote, "the most striking feature of the claim against Carson is the ease with which it can be refuted."[Carson actually devoted a page of her book to considering the relationship between DDT and malaria, warning of the evolution of DDT resistance in mosquitoes and concluding:

It is more sensible in some cases to take a small amount of damage in preference to having none for a time but paying for it in the long run by losing the very means of fighting . Practical advice should be "Spray as little as you possibly can" rather than "Spray to the limit of your capacity."]

So her stance was don't use DDT so much. Politics of the time put DDT on the do not use list. It was others that took up the cry and used her book for the Ban of DDT something she did not advocate.