Wooo-hooo, more off topic ranting! You should have taken this to another topic but you didn’t so I’m going to do this with my reply.
Firstly, you’re using “poison” arbitrarily and Monsanto should sue you for defamation, and secondly your statement is void of both evidence and common sense. Here’s one example of how the real world works (example from the EU):
Liability of the seller resulted from its failure to comply with its obligation to deliver conforming goods; it made no difference whether the defect was the fault of the seller or its supplier.
And the same thing (about the relationship between the buyer and his supplier’s supplier) said differently (example from the US):
Due to the fact that a material supplier is not the agent of the owner, a material supplier’s supplier is not entitled to a statutory lien.
Chipotle: wonderful - healthy but poisonous!
You’d sue the polluting neighbor, not Monsanto, just as I said.
The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment toxicology review in 2013 found that “the available data is contradictory and far from being convincing”
You remind me of those Californian socialists who want to sue gun manufacturers because a guy shot another guy.
Monsanto shouldn’t be allowed to manufacture herbicide because if poured into someone’s coffee, it could kill them.
It wasn’t a big deal. A lot of damage happened because of the unions’ pressure on the Obama administration at the time, to prevent foreign specialized boats from containing the leak while at the same time there were no similar ships handy so the leak went on for a long while.
In conclusion, you’ve made 0 valid arguments as far as I can tell. The only verified “poison” in this story is food from the organic polluter Chipotle.
A human being might not be a plant but it lives in a symbiotic relationship WITH plants. And since your gut flora has a huge impact on your immune system its obvious how consuming food tainted with a herbicide would affect human health. Or at least it should be. Apparently we needed massive amounts of studies to tell us what should have been obvious from the get go: Don’t eat poison that will kill the flora in your gut!
People aren’t trying to sue Monsanto because they bought GMO tomatoes at the grocery store or prevent a resteraunt from buying GMO food to sell. Stop being obtuse. They want to sue Monsanto for contaminating organic farmers, for producing an unsafe product in the first place and for poisoning the environment at large. Monsanto touts it’s product is safe. But it isn’t safe and there’s plenty of evidence to back that up.
If I didn’t want GMO or conventional produce I’d buy organic. The real problem is when you have Monsanto employees sitting on the FDA or supreme court. I’d say that’s a distinct conflict of interest.
Fair enough and that’s what many organic farmers do. What do you think happens when a case like this goes to court? Monsanto backs the GMO farmer because if GMO farmers stop buying their product they lose money. And the more organic farmers that win against GMO the more precident is set against GMO farmers. In point of fact that’s already been done.
Actually I’m pro-gun and in favor of gun rights. But go on.
Interesting metaphor, and in point of fact it could. But the thing is Monsanto is the one doing the pouring of herbicide into people’s cups of coffee then shipping them round the world to proverbial coffee shops. So yes they are liable for combining the food with the poison.
Okay I’m not too fond of unions or corporations but why is this even the state’s problem. It was BP that caused the spill. Why isn’t it obvious they are responsible for cleaning it up? And shouldn’t an environmental disaster trump whiny unions, just as that same disaster trumps corporate profits? If you’re going to be president then make a decision and take responsibility. Clean up the oil spill and sort out the squabbling children later. You don’t argue about whose fire hydrant to attatch the hose to when a house is on fire.
A lawsuit can’t be about anything “at large”, it’s about specific claims.
In your earlier posts you also proposed a ban on Monsanto products, which is even worse - a completely arbitrary limitation on one’s use of private property.
To get a court to decide in your favor you need to prove they are unsafe. Presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Scientific studies: just as you can find some that attempt to show it’s bad for you, you can also find those that can’t find any problem with it.
But again, whether one sprays his veggies with cocaine or feces, I couldn’t care less and I sure as hell don’t think I should be able to 'vote" to create legal constraints on such activity (I’d rather take the risk in order to be able to ensure noone can restrict my activity using the same approach).
Claims for damages are property-based. If underground water flows or wind make poison or GMO seeds trespass onto your property, or if the seller sells you (the baker) GMO-based four, that’s when you can sue the person you did business with.
Don’t confuse the inability of consumers to tell whether some snack contains GMO or not for the inability of the market to sort that out without government involvement.
A hilarious detail in one of the articles you linked:
Glyphosate use has been increasing exponentially. From 2001 to 2007, glyphosate use doubled, reaching 180 to 185 million pounds in the U.S. in 2007.[x] One reason for the increase in herbicide use is the increase in corn acreage to produce the ethanol that is added to gasoline.
SJWs, the likes of Al Gore, Bush, Obama, and thugs from the Congress did an admirable job.
When you add to that the fact that Monsanto’s last patent on that herbicide expired in 2000, they’re not even a factor in all this. There are probably dozens of producers and Monsanto doesn’t make any money from that. (I haven’t looked, primarily because it doesn’t really matter - they’re not the ones applying the herbicide).
Similar to say banning people from collecting rainwater or growing their own food on their own property perhaps? You’re right it is a limitation on the use of private property however when the majority of the population do not want to have any GMOs in the country and deal with things like cross contamination or poisoning of the environment then that’s how it ends up. If you’re the one GMO farmer among 99 organic farmers you don’t tend to get your way. Either switch to organic or get out. I suppose one could argue that one could make an exception if one agreed to grow GMOs under a dome or something and was only growing for oneself but seriously. The problem is one can’t grow, eat or trade GMOs without contaminating the whole food chain. That’s WHY they end up banning it. Because even if you grow it extremely carefully and don’t contaminate your organic neighbour the moment it hits someone else’s plate it’s entering the food chain. Which means it’s affecting health and well being. And then there’s the issue of labeling. Are these transgenic foods being properly labeled as such? And Monsanto is known for political corruption on top of this. It’s not a company people want to be associated with. AND there’s the political aspect as well. All of the U.S. politics and BigAg is tied up with Monsanto because of said corruption. If Monsanto falls then the U.S. takes an economic hit, or at least has to restructure it’s whole system. Right now the U.S. is the big pusher for GMOs. Which is another reason Russia just banned GMOs, in order to oppose ISIS and the states which back it. It’s economic warfare. If the states restructure to grow organically it will mean the individual will regain control of their food growing capabiliies. You can’t have food security or independence with patented seeds.
You speak of controlling what people can do with their own property but that’s precisely what Monsanto attempts to do via patent laws. They attempt to control the flow of food: who can grow it, who can buy it and how much it’ll cost. If people switch to organic Monsanto loses control. It’s just like Microsoft vs Linux and open source software. If you use proprietary closed source software then you don’t have control and the corporation has you by the balls. If your software is free and open source then you remain in control of your own property. I find it ironic you’d be advocating for GMOs and Monsanto on the grounds of controlling one’s own property. Seems rather backward to me as that’s exactly what they wish to take away. It’s organic and heritage seeds that give one control of one’s own property, that and urban gardening to grow one’s own food.
Independent scientific studies that are not funded by Monsanto? Show me idependent peer reviewed studies that are not funded by or have financial ties to Monsanto or the biotech industry. It’s very difficult to do proper science when your paycheque depends on coming up with a specific set of data.
Let me see if I understand this properly. Your whole argument seems to be based on the free market. That Monsanto shouldn’t be banned because that would be a regulation of the market. Okay I can get my head around that. I’m against the drug war. People buy and consume stupid stuff that isn’t good for them every day. But then I would counter that if that’s the case that Monsanto should get out of politics. It has several of it’s people in key positions of government and the legal system. I would also counter that this is even more reason to label GMOs as that would allow customers to make a more informed choice. After all we label organic food so why not label GMO food? Seems totally reasonable.
If we were to equate the “War on GMOs” to the “War on Drugs” then what are the equivilant solutions? Proper study of the health affects for one. Production would be contained. Ratings, reviews and testing of quality. And of course most importantly proper labeling and customer choice. Right now going to the grocery store is like going to a rave and getting unnamed party favors in some unmarked vial. Who the hell knows what’s in it or what it does but you’re just expected to down it and hope for the best. It’s insane. I mean my god they make strawberry flavoring out of beaver colons for crying out loud. Even if food isn’t strictly GM you may not want to eat it. And as I said it’s all mixed together hap hazardly, the beaver colon flavoring, the pus and hormone laden milk, mixed with GMO fruit cocktail of some random description and they throw it in a plastic box that’ll leech more chemicals into it and call it “Wildberry Icecream Product” Or something totally obnoxious like that. I mean seriously if anyone puts “product” at the end of a food name that’s a dead give away not to eat it. My point is people would never, at least any rational person, would never take drugs the way they shop for food. If there was no regulation then labeling would become mandatory out of nessesity because companies that didn’t label their produce thoughoughly would become suspect. What if the food product contained an ingredient that sent a customer into anaphaleptic shock? We had a guest over this Christmas who was allergic to carrots, do you know how much stuff contains carrots? What if you made some bread using nut flour but didn’t list that as an ingredient?
I have no doubt at all the market could sort itself out but the result would be the same. People could not afford to be apathetic about their food in a deregulated market because to do so could get you killed. As you pointed out there are nutcases out there who would put sewage and cocaine on their crops as seasoning. (Actually in point of fact human urine is very high in nitrates and works as a great fertilizer but one would want to dilute it first, probably at a 4:1 solution at least, to avoid burning the leaves of most plants. Also humanure can be used safely if composted correctly, takes about a year to do tho.) If you were apathetic you’d end up buying something just because it was pretty or cheap and might just get you killed by consuming it.
Then again in a free market prostitution would be legal, drugs would be legal, including canabis, raw milk would be legal, growing, buying and selling anything would be legal.
Okay wtf is an SJW?
No they just make money on the Roundup Ready crops that are resistant to said herbicide. And thus promoting the sale of GMOs is in their best interest. Because if people stop buying GMO seed they stop making money. So what if the patent for glyphosate ran out? Farmers are still buying it to spray their fields. Which means they’re still buying Roundup Ready seed in order to do so. Same difference.
You know it doesn’t quite make sense to me that an organic farmer needs a special liscense and certification but a GMO farmer does not. Shouldn’t it be the other way round?
And if they refuse to give you the information? What if the seller is the only game in town and there is no alternative? In essence what if there is a GMO monopoly situation? How does one exercise one’s right to choose then?
Now you’re on board with those who support democracy.
It’s a matter of principle. If it’s okay to ban GMO’s because the majority feels like it, then everything else can be banned the same way (drugs, rainwater collection, etc.).
Democracy not only can’t protect you from these things, but in virtually guarantees that you’ll be forced to consume unlabeled GMOs because the majority (of bribed politicians) agrees.
Which is exactly what’s happening in the US and the EU.
Why is it difficult to understand that your proposal is the main cause of tyranny?
Do you realize how ridiculous these arguments are? What if I ask you to give me the private key to the address where you keep MAID? It’s your choice.
Does anyone force you to buy anything from a supplier who treats you like crap?
Don’t do business with them!
But you’re arguing against Monsanto’s right to sell GMOs, not against patents in general.
Apparently that’s not enough in your opinion. You want to use force to prevent them from using their property.
And independent scientific studies are not funded by SJW and various SJW parasites? Give me a break.
There’s only one way to do that, and that is to remove the ability to profit from being in a position to profit from governing. Imagine if the FDA and EPA didn’t exist, for example.
You’d be on your own. Then you could regularly ask your supplier to testify on record where he gets his stuff from. If at any point you discover he lied, he’d be liable for damages and lawsuits from just a handful of customers could destroy his business.
Unfortunately governments aren’t established with the idea to help people, but to exploit them. So you may as well skip the idea of removing the possibility to profit from working for the government and go for destroying the government. That’s guaranteed to work, but it’s also hard.
Yes. You wouldn’t have to buy any of that and you could always sue anyone whose buying (use) of harmful products impacted your property (which sometimes works today as well, like in that case of GMO trespassing to another farmer’s property).
Monsanto should be stripped of its ability to sue anyone or threaten to sue anyone. I’d like to see its patent portfolio declared void and handed into the public domain. Let that start in the US (it usual market of abuse- it has a harder deficating in its own back yard.) We need to be able to declare firms corporate criminals. Lets start with stripping this firm of its charter in the US and demanding extradition of its execs hopefully we can find evidence for crimes against humanity. We need to at least find ways on top of all to this to single out firms and make their actions aggregated when they they engage in wrong doing for profit, that should increase the penalties civil and criminal by 10x.
Of all the corporate criminals this one is about at the top of the list. You’d have to go to AG Farbin to do better, and they are surely relatives. The damage this company has done in the world. It should be barred from every market in the world and its share holders assets in the company forfeit.
Now you’re just being riduculous and failing economics. If 9 out of 10 of your consumers switches away from your product how does that affect your revenue stream? You don’t NEED democracy for the principle of having the vast majority of the populace to affect sales to work. But when you have a corporation influencing laws, corrupting the EPA and the justice department you’ve got a political situation no just an economic one.
So your point is not so much that GMOs are good but that the majority should not just up and tell people what they can and cannot buy or sell because that would ultimately infringe on one’s inherent freedoms regardless of what was being traded. In short it might be stupid for people to consume GMOs but it’s better to let people be stupid than it is to relinquish the freedom to buy, sell, trade and produce whatever you want. Okay I can get behind that from that angle. It still doesn’t mean that a country needs to buy GMOs and let them into the country, similar to how a househould wouldn’t buy them or let them into the house. Let’s equate say Russia for example to that of a house. Russia wants to keep it’s house fully organic and GMO free. It is under no obligation to go to the store and buy GMO seed or GMO food for it’s family members. It is also under no obligation to allow GMO products inside it’s house.
Now you’re arguement is that one of the individuals within that GMO free house wants to grow GMOs and should be free to do so. Or perhaps he just wants to buy/sell them, same problem. But he cannot buy them directly from the states nor can he gain access to them without them coming inside the house and endangering others. Therefore those controlling the border to a country in essence become the middleman to any exchange of physical goods.
You are arguing GMOs should not be banned. That banning products is bad. Okay. Go buy some plutonium and see how far you get. Or what about some cocaine? Or a bazooka? What about a big ol’ pile of child porn. Yeah there’s lots of banned stuff out there. And I agree in a truly free market none of this stuff would be banned. None of it. Not GMOs, not drugs, not weapons, not any variation of sexual material, not anything. But then there wouldn’t be any government in that case either because that’s the function of government: to govern, to control, to restrict the actions of the people. And that too I could get behind, no government, awesome. But saying the government has the right to ban buying a chaingun but doesn’t have the right to ban GMOs is ludicrous. Or conversely making GMOs available but to ban raw milk is also ludicrous. Either you believe the gov’t has the right to ban something or you don’t. Either one has the right to a free market or one doesn’t. So sure I’d be willing to let Monsanto sell their GMOs on the premise you can buy and sell whatever you want but I want raw milk, organic home made soap and automatic weapons on the market as well along with everything else.
My survival does not depend on my owning MAID or having internet. I could lose my computer and function perfectly fine without it. But let’s run with your theory. Let’s say you’re being tortured (being treated like crap by your supplier) and you want to buy your freedom but the only way to do that is to give up a vital bit of information, let’s say so they can set off a nuke and kill millions of people. Now you have a choice: Continue being tortured or give up the information. Is it your choice? Yes. Are the results dire either way yes. So either way you’re screwed.
Facing a monopoly on power isn’t a choice. If someone points a gun at your head and tells you to say “Heil Hitler,” or they’ll shoot you you’ll damn well salute the Nazi bastard. If maidsafe is the only game in town offering safecoin, or maidsafecoin, and they start abusing people then people have a choice they can either surrender and stop using the service or they can put up with the abuse. If your only source of food is a single company or vender your choice is to buy from them or starve.
Your attitudes of “Does anyone force you to buy anything from a supplier who treats you like crap?” is incredibly naive and simplistic thinking because it utterly ignores circumstance. Read my post. What if the only food vendor in town does not label their GMOs and THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE! Therefore one can’t simply just “Not buy from them.” Because to not buy from them is to not eat and to eventually die from starvation. We’re talking about food not altcoins here.
Frankly I’m not too fond of patents in general either but that’s a whole new topic in and of itself. In this case it’s how the patent is being used to control people’s food and right to grow.
No. I want them to stop from trying to prevent others from using THEIR property. Let me break this down for you. I don’t care if Monsanto grows a GMO tomato, corn, soy, whatever. My issue is when they sell seed to a farmer and then tamper with the DNA so it’s sterile and won’t reproduce the next year and so the farmer has to buy new seed every year. On top of this the GMO seed is patented and more expensive than heirloom seed. And on top of THIS all changes are closed source so no one can examine what exactly Monsanto is doing to all this genetic software in the first place.
Yeah GMO food is bad for you. Yeah the glyphosate and bt toxin is genetically written right into the plants so you can’t wash it off. But that’s not nearly as bad as how farmers are bankrupted being patent law.
The problem is Monsanto is selling LIFE FORMS not merely merchandise. They are selling living beings which interact with our entire ecosystems. Bees, birds, countless insect species, and other plants that interact and cross breed with them are affected. It’s not like buying a piece of software or buying a tractor or something. It’s more like a slave market or at very best a pet store where your newly purchased life form starts breeding with the natives, or killing them off, and produces all kinds of complications.
Do you think the only people willing to fund independent science would be those advocating for social justice? What about medical professionals, those in the food industry, actual scientists and other academic types, environmentalists, economists and any number of other professions. As for the GMO issue everyone eats. It’s a fairly broad spectrum of people and so having an independently funded non partisan team of scientists studying the issue seems rather important. Also if it was funded by just one particular group it wouldn’t be independent now would it? Such an independent group would need to be crowdfunded by multiple sources to maintain their neutrality.
Yay! You’ve got my support there. They’re utterly corrupt and useless anyway.
How can you have lawsuits without law or government?
I agree but also worth it.
Also I don’t see campaigning against GMOs as a social justice issue. It’s more of a health, environmentalism and economic freedom issue as GMOs are a danger to one’s food security, health and freedom.