animal-friendly wrote:
Grizzly Bear wrote:
"In the US, GMOs were secretly foisted on the public in the mid-1990s, and only now is the US Supreme Court addressing the scourge."
"The scourge"? What an incredibly biased statement. Is this article supposed to be journalism or punditry?
Punditry. Journalism requires that one be objective no matter what. Punditry has Sanskrit roots and means one who offers commentry on a particular subject on which they are knowledgable.
Merriam-Webster defines the word as one who gives opinions, in an authoratativer manner, through the mass media.
This information has come to you from a research organization. They ARE biased, but not without reason to be so. They base their assertions on fact. If you were a farmer, would you like to give the sweat of your labor to Barons as they did in the 16th Century? Would you think that being a serf was fair? You could work the land and then give your profits over? Would you be happy with that? If you are good with that, then so am I.
The "scourge" of the multinationals, such as Monsanto, did in fact leak into North American farms and farmaland without us knowing. Personally (if I may speak personally?), I was unaware of their activities until i learned about a Saskatchewan grain-farmer by the name of Piercy Schmeiser. He and his wife worked their farms for 50 years. Part of their farm activity was to save the seeds that they were themselves growing. Unfortunately for them, a Monsanto operation was up and running across the way, and some Monsanto seeds blew across and planted themselves in thier canola (also known as rape-seed). Although Peircy and his wife had been saving seed for as long as they had been farming, the fact that Monsanto seeds had blown into their farmland was enough for the Canadian court to decide that Piercy had `stolen the Monsanto genetic information`` - which was patented. As a result, Monsanto was legally able to take Piercy`s farm away. Legally, Monsanto is able to own every seed and plant that Piercy had planted, over 50 years of planting and farming, because one example of Monsanto seed had blown into his farm and infected or contaminated his 50 years of seed propogation. Peircy lost his farm to Monsanto .... because Monsanto genetic information flew with the wind into his farm. The multinational could sue him for intellectual property rights, but he could not sue the multinational for pollution of his natural seed propogation.
Grizzly, i get that you are a free spirit and that you are a Libertarian, free of government movements. i can understand why. You said in a previous post that you `hate organics`` My question is why you would hate a method of growing that provides a pesticide and herbicide free way of providing food which also eliminates carcinogens ... You also support such a multinational as Monsanto ...... why .... is my question.
I`m very curious. You don`t see Monanto as a scourge. i do. Indians do. Haiti does. Europe is notorious for it. I realize that you and i don`t agree on animal testing or on Proposition 2, .... but how does that opinion apply to this one ... or does it ...
My strawberries did come to harvest. They were naturally sweet and dense and organic .... Nothing like the grocery store! Imagine if I had to buy my strawbwerry seeds from Monsanto .... i cant imagine. Tell me how this makes sense to you. Should i not be able to replant my peas ... with the peas I have grown, for instance. Should I have to buy my seeds, every year, from a multinational corporation .... which would mean that I could not legally propogate my own seeds from my own garden ....
Do I want to be a serf, under the exploitative manipulations of a land-owner .. a baron .... a king. You don`t like big government, so why would you support multinationals. Same thing. Just wondering ..... Grizzly, do you know about Monsanto .... and their subsidieries ...
Show me.
Of course it's punditry. The question was rhetorical. I'm generally agnostic on the subject of GMO crops and whether they are good or bad. As usual with most issues, the truth probably lies somewhere in between, with the issue being gray rather than black and white. I can certainly see serious potential issues with them, but I can also see great potential benefits. Have you ever stopped to think that GMO technologies could get to the point where crops can be made to give higher yields while using less land and water and are more resistant to drought, disease, and pests? Have you ever thought that because of this potential, GMO technology could possibly have huge environmental benefits? Have you thought about how it could possibly help the world's hungry people? Do you ever think outside the box of your emotions and fears? Despite its appeal to the middle class granola crowd, it is a FACT that organic farming CANNOT feed the world. It simply does not produce enough yield. If we are to feed the world's growing population, some kind of technology is going to be needed. Like it or not, GMO has the potential to fill that void. Let me ask you, which of the following approaches to the GMO issue sounds more RATIONAL to you:
- We allow GMO research and use to continue under sound government regulation and control based on sound science to ensure its safety
OR
- We protest incessantly, burn GMO crops while trespassing on property that isn't ours, and in knee jerk fashion demand the governments ban GMO technology despite its potential to help humanity
Which approach is rational and which is irrational AF? The radical anti-GMO crowd reminds me a lot of the radical anti-nuclear energy crowd in that is a rabid knee jerk reaction rather than a rational cost/risk to benefit analysis based on the facts. The irrationality, hyper-emotionalism, and fear-mongering of a lot of people in the world today, which we see in a myriad of issues, is lot scarier than any GMO crop could ever be.
As far as the GMO crops not producing viable seeds for farmers to use, like it or not, it is Monsanto's right. What they are doing is a lot like what software developers do. If I write a program, it is my intellectual property. Not only do I have a right to sell it, I also have a right to do things like require a licensing key code, install cracking and copy protection, etc.. This protects my investment of time, labor, and money in my program by limiting the potential for it to be distributed without me being compensated. That is EXACTLY what Monsanto is doing by engineering these crops to not produce viable seeds. If it did produce viable seeds, those seeds could be distributed at will in a form of "seed piracy", so to speak, without Monsanto being duly compensated. Would you agree that Monsanto has a right to protect their patent and to be fairly compensated for their investment of time, labor, and money in the research and development required to produce these seeds? To claim that this measure to protect their investment is like making farmers "serfs" is the height of hyperbole, and it just doesn't wash. It comes across as nothing more than an empty attempt to make a "big, evil corporation" into a convenient whipping post. I am all for farmers, like anyone, ( including those big, evil corporations ) being duly compensated for their labor. But farmers are compensated based on their sellable, consumable yields of crops and livestock. Reaping viable seeds of patented genetically engineered crop technology for potential illegal re-distribution or re-use is NOT a part of that compensation.
P.S. You mentioned protests in Haiti and India. Isn't it ironic that impoverished nations such as these, with their staggering amount of hunger, have the most potential to benefit from GMO technology?
Login
Register
FAQ
