Groundbreaking Investigation Reveals Monsanto Teamed Up With US Military; Targets Scientists,

reply to post by xuenchen

But IMO, some of the companies involved are concerned about WHO would be 'liable' in a lawsuit.

That is another one of the difficulties.

But the producers of the seed would have no reason to be held liable in a contamination situation. The seed producers are not involved in the food distribution/production process and that's where the problems are.

There is nothing illegal about selling GMO seed. Labeling would not change that but it would subject those who grow, manufacture, and sell the food products to lawsuits and fines. Those lawsuits and fines would not affect the seed growers.

Originally posted by xuenchen

But IMO, some of the companies involved are concerned about WHO would be 'liable' in a lawsuit.

That's what scares them the most.

Indeed Xue,

Not only that, it seems that the labeling perhaps could also bring on
the testing. Now that would put an end to Monsanto.

Afterall, how do we know what they are Genetically Engineering into these seeds,
and crops. For all we know, they could be making people sterile.

reply to post by Phage


I understand every word you've said, I just think it's an extremely poor argument on your part. If Monsanto already labels their products as GMO when they sell it to the farmers and producers, why are they so against them being labeled while on the store shelves?

Are they the ones who have to foot the bill for the labeling after they sell the seed? Are they the ones who pay for the packaging and shipment of the already grown crops to the grocer? If not, then why are they so worried about how it is labeled if they have already made their money? And why are they lobbying to have labeling bills shot down?

As you said, they already label it themselves before they sell it to the farmer, so why are they so against the farmers having to label it before they sell it to the grocers? They obviously care enough to spend millions lobbying against it.

If they are so confident that their seeds are just as good as organic seeds, they would have absolutely no issue with labeling them as GMO, yet for some reason they do.

reply to post by Phage

There is nothing illegal about selling GMO seed. Labeling would not change that but it would subject those who grow, manufacture, and sell the food products to lawsuits and fines. Those lawsuits and fines would not affect the seed growers.

So why is a seed manufacturer like Monsanto worried about labeling if the lawsuits wouldn't affect them in any way?

Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying here?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

If not, then why are they so worried about how it is labeled if they have already made their money?

I showed you one of their reasons.
Because they want to continue making money and if labeling creates the impression that there is something inherently dangerous about GMOs it could cut into their seed sales, especially with the anti-GMO crowd spouting their lies.

As you said, they already label it themselves before they sell it to the farmer, so why are they so against the farmers having to label it before they sell it to the grocers? They obviously care enough to spend millions lobbying against it.

So you disagree with the problems with the production and distribution network that I summarized. It isn't just Monsanto that is against current calls for labeling you know.

If they are so confident that their seeds are just as good as organic seeds, they would have absolutely no issue with labeling them as GMO, yet for some reason they do.

Because they are not confident that the arm waving and lies from the anti-GMO crowd would not have an effect on their sales.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by xuenchen

 

But IMO, some of the companies involved are concerned about WHO would be 'liable' in a lawsuit.

That is another one of the difficulties.

But the producers of the seed would have no reason to be held liable in a contamination situation. The seed producers are not involved in the food distribution/production process and that's where the problems are.

There is nothing illegal about selling GMO seed. Labeling would not change that but it would subject those who grow, manufacture, and sell the food products to lawsuits and fines. Those lawsuits and fines would not affect the seed growers.

I wonder how much labeling would affect the consumers though. Just because laws may deem transgenics illegal, there is a lag time of the law start date vs. existing transgenic crops in the mix. There is no magic solution to stop this at once.

If transgenic GMO crops were illegal, would farmers not use seed in inventory to plant for a final crop? Could modern farmers transition to "organic" farming while meeting the current demands for their commodity? (Would their existing monocropped soil be considered "organic") Won't the average person pay a higher monetary price for this?

Personally I am against transgenics, but like I said, I live in a fantasy world. In the real world, at this point in time with transgenics intertwined for about 20 years, how can humanity revert from that realistically?

I just don't see this train stopping anytime soon no matter the evidence, eat and drink wisely

reply to post by Philippines

Won't the average person pay a higher monetary price for this?

Yes. Ultimately it is the consumer who pays for all regulation of any product. That is a given. But given the basic principles of economics, it also results in reduced profits for the suppliers and manufacturers.

Originally posted by Phage
Claims of cyberattacks by Monsanto. No evidence that the attacks occurred or if they did what the source was. Ok.

What else?

These show: Monsanto wanted to put up a fight. Against activists who destroyed the fields. Against critics, who influenced the mood against the genetic modification company.

They want to protect their property, interests, and employees. Awful.

According to their own statements, Monsanto was conducting business with TIS at the time and not with Blackwater. It is without doubt that Monsanto received reports from TIS about the activities of critics.

Well, yes. That's what they hired them for, investigating threats against the company.

The targets of these attacks are scientists, such as the Australian Judy Carman. Among other things, she has made a name for herself with studies of genetically modified plants. Her publications were questioned by the same professors which also attacked the the studies of other Monsanto critics.

Well yes, "attacking" bad science is a good thing to do. Her "studies" are not science.


Funny. There isn't anything new here or particularly revealing but there sure is a lot of arm waving.

sustainablepulse.com...

edit on 8/2/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Are you seriously defending Monsanto? They have destroyed lives all over India. There is a difference between wanting to make sure your assets are protected and getting your buddies in the government to make sure that legislation makes you bullet proof. Please defend the Monsanto Protection Act so that I can disregard anything else you ever say.

reply to post by fenson76

Are you seriously defending Monsanto?

No.

They have destroyed lives all over India

Are you talking about the suicide rate and the claim that it has something to do with GMOs? Another lie.
India had a high rate of suicide among farmers (and others) before the introduction of GMOs and the rate of increase declined after they were introduced in 2002.

“The issue of farmer suicides is not just entirely a farmer issue, or rural issue, or a village issue — it is a much more broader political-economic problem,” said Raju Das, a developmental studies professor at York University.

While the spotlight is on farmers, forgotten is a suicide crisis among Indians where the suicide rate is twice as high for the general population and even higher for young females.

The issue of farmer suicides first gained media attention in 1995 as the southern state of Maharashtra began reporting a significant rise in farmers killing themselves.

But in 2008, the International Food Policy Research Institute, an alliance of 64 governments, private foundations, and international and regional organizations that aims to end hunger in the developing world, reached an entirely different conclusion.

“It is not only inaccurate, but simply wrong to blame the use of Bt cotton as the primary cause of farmer suicides in India,” said the report, stating that the introduction of Bt cotton in India had actually been effective in producing higher yields and decreasing pesticide usage by nearly 40%.

news.nationalpost.com...

Please defend the Monsanto Protection Act so that I can disregard anything else you ever say.

I didn't defend it. I pointed out what it actually is about. But don't let facts get in your way.

reply to post by Phage


I don't see how consumers paying for "all regulation" and higher prices for products exactly equals less profits for Monsanto. If the consumers are paying the full price for regulation plus higher prices for the food, I would expect their profits NOT to take a hit.

That's pretty basic math, because the higher cost of produce covers the regulations and the profit would stay virtually the same.

reply to post by Phage


So basically what you're saying is that Monsanto does not want the customer to have a choice in what they eat and they should not be able to make that choice based on their own informed opinion.

Sounds pretty shady if you ask me. With the way they've been buying out other seed producers here lately and their policy on labeling, you'd think they were trying to monopolize the seed industry.

Noooo... they wouldn't want to do that, that would mean they would take ALL of the profit for themselves.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I don't see how consumers paying for "all regulation" and higher prices for products exactly equals less profits for Monsanto.

Then you don't understand one of the most basic relationships in economics. You really do have a simple view of the world.

Higher consumer prices leads to less demand leads to less sales leads to less profit.


If tortillas get more expensive fewer people will buy them. If fewer people buy them farmers will sell less corn. If farmers sell less corn Monsanto will sell less seed.

And it works another way. In order to try to sell more seed Monsanto would lower their price which would reduce their profits.

reply to post by Phage


I understand supply and demand. People will continue to buy food no matter the price, because it is needed in order to live. Raising prices by a few cents hasn't hurt the oil industry yet, in fact they are richer today than ever before, so I don't see how it would be any different for a necessary commodity such as food crops.

Like I have said before, you are making excuses for what they are doing.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by fenson76

 

Are you seriously defending Monsanto?

No.

 

They have destroyed lives all over India

Are you talking about the suicide rate and the claim that it has something to do with GMOs? Another lie.
India had a high rate of suicide among farmers (and others) before the introduction of GMOs and the rate of increase declined after they were introduced in 2002.

“The issue of farmer suicides is not just entirely a farmer issue, or rural issue, or a village issue — it is a much more broader political-economic problem,” said Raju Das, a developmental studies professor at York University.

While the spotlight is on farmers, forgotten is a suicide crisis among Indians where the suicide rate is twice as high for the general population and even higher for young females.

The issue of farmer suicides first gained media attention in 1995 as the southern state of Maharashtra began reporting a significant rise in farmers killing themselves.

But in 2008, the International Food Policy Research Institute, an alliance of 64 governments, private foundations, and international and regional organizations that aims to end hunger in the developing world, reached an entirely different conclusion.

“It is not only inaccurate, but simply wrong to blame the use of Bt cotton as the primary cause of farmer suicides in India,” said the report, stating that the introduction of Bt cotton in India had actually been effective in producing higher yields and decreasing pesticide usage by nearly 40%.

news.nationalpost.com...

 

Please defend the Monsanto Protection Act so that I can disregard anything else you ever say.

I didn't defend it. I pointed out what it actually is about. But don't let facts get in your way.

edit on 8/4/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

What scares me is that you don't understand what the word "defend" means. So, by making a sarcastic response, you are not defending, just joking? I would really like to understand what you think "defend" means? You answered each question like a snarky lawyer.

No, not just the suicides. It's bankrupting people.

It's not my fault you refuse to read all the studies (before you complain about me not citing them, I don't work for you and it's not that hard to "google". Look them up yourself, plenty of them.)

reply to post by fenson76

What scares me is that you don;t understand what the word "defend" means.

Yes I do. I am not defending Monsanto. I am pointing the lies and distortions of the anti-GMO crowd.

No, not just the suicides. It's bankrupting people.

While there may be some who are going bankrupt it's pretty hard to lay the blame on Monsanto or GMOs. Wouldn't the weather have something to do with the sucess and failure of crops?

It is not only inaccurate, but simply wrong to blame the use of Bt cotton as the primary cause of farmer suicides in India,” said the report, stating that the introduction of Bt cotton in India had actually been effective in producing higher yields and decreasing pesticide usage by nearly 40%.

www.ifpri.org...
Do you think an increase in yields leads to bankruptcy?

Look them up yourself, plenty of them.

Yeah. I know. Quantity does not equal quality.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So basically what you're saying is that Monsanto does not want the customer to have a choice in what they eat and they should not be able to make that choice based on their own informed opinion.

No.
I'm saying that Monsanto says that because of the lies and distortions of the anti-GMO crowd and the way current labeling proposals are constructed, it could lead to the impression among the public that GMOs are dangerous or not as high quality as non-GMO products.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I understand supply and demand.

Really? Then I guess I misunderstood when you said this:

If the consumers are paying the full price for regulation plus higher prices for the food, I would expect their profits NOT to take a hit.

You seemed to be ignoring supply and demand.

Raising prices by a few cents hasn't hurt the oil industry yet, in fact they are richer today than ever before, so I don't see how it would be any different for a necessary commodity such as food crops.

I didn't say it would eliminate their profits. You're right, not much different from oil. And there will always be a "built in" level of demand. But do you really think oil prices have no effect on oil profits? Nice simple world you've got there.
www.americanprogress.org...

Like I have said before, you are making excuses for what they are doing.

No. I am pointing out the lies and distortions of the anti-GMO crowd.

reply to post by Phage


That's basically what it boils down to if you look at it from a logical standpoint. Monsanto buys legislation off and refuses the unknowing consumer a choice based on an informed opinion. There's really no other reason for them to fight labeling besides wanting to keep the consumer ignorant to what they're buying.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

That's basically what it boils down to if you look at it from a logical standpoint. Monsanto buys legislation off and refuses the unknowing consumer a choice based on an informed opinion.

That's what it may boil down to in your simplistic view of the world but it doesn't work out that way when that "informed opinion" is fed by lies and distortions.

But if you're concerned about being "informed". I don't see non-organic labels being required and there are many who consider them to be "poison". Maybe you should be out demanding that too.

Do you have a problem with those who want to sell non-GMO products labeling and marketing them as such? Why not just assume anything that doesn't have that label has GMOs? Seems to work well for the organic product market. Seems like a good way to increase sales among that "informed" public.

Should all non-GMO hybrids be labeled? There are some who consider them to be, if not poison, of less value than other varieties. How much labeling do you want? Or is it just GMOs? Why? Or is that labeling really isn't the issue?

There's really no other reason for them to fight labeling besides wanting to keep the consumer ignorant to what they're buying.

I agree that GMOs should be labeled if enough people want them to be, not because I think there is something wrong with GMOs.

I disagree on you simplistic view of the opposition.

reply to post by Phage


I was working under the assumption that consumers would continue to buy food no matter its price, especially if it was only raised by a few cents.

The graph you provided shows profits staying steady or even increasing with the rise of oil prices, so if the food market mirrors the oil market, Monsanto fighting legislation because of cost of expenditure can't exactly be the reason they're lobbying against these bills can it?

They'd rather keep their profit than risk consumers having a choice in the matter. That's pretty shady in my opinion. If they're willing to keep the consumer in the dark about their food being GMO, what makes you think they wouldn't keep them in the dark about the risks of GMO?