Hugh Grant says GM-food Critics desire to keep the poor away from cheap food. - Polidicks

As bad as Monsanto is from a legal standpoint I don't get some of the criticism. If they won't let farmers plant second-generation seeds, why are farmers buying their seeds in the first place? If the actual output of the crop is so much better that it more than makes up for the cost of needing to buy new seeds next year, I really don't see what the huge deal is. The fact that farmers are buying and using Monsanto crops year after year in spite of the restrictions placed on them shows that they're clearly a competitive product that farmers [I]want[/I] to use. If being unable to re-plant were a crippling disadvantage, then they wouldn't be buying the stuff.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40796101]Seeds should be for profit. Farmers have been operating on a for-profit basis for a few thousand years (even subsistence farmers trade away some of their crop to get something).[/QUOTE] I'll give you this one, but Monsanto's monopoly is a far cry from simple "profit." (Which, no doubt, they are doing a lot of.)

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40796101] Because it's a pointless regulation which does nothing (The information is already in the nutrition bit). This is just anti-gm people shit-stirring.[/QUOTE] Yeah, because why do they have a right to know? Fuck them.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40796153]Yeah, because why do they have a right to know? Fuck them.[/QUOTE] You don't have a right to know the exact ingredients and composition of a product composed of natural ingredients, so why would having one ingredient be genetically altered suddenly guarantee a right to exact details?

[QUOTE=catbarf;40796174]You don't have a right to know the exact ingredients and composition of a product composed of natural ingredients, so why would having one ingredient be genetically altered suddenly guarantee a right to exact details?[/QUOTE] For the same reason someone would prefer 'Organic' over 'Heavily sprayed with pesticides'. Normatively we should be informed about what you mentioned as well, but GMO is at least a start.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;40796142]I'll give you this one, but Monsanto's monopoly is a far cry from simple "profit." (Which, no doubt, they are doing a lot of.)[/QUOTE] Okay, not to single you out, but you put it in the clearest terms so I'm curious. What exactly does Monsanto have a monopoly on? Because as far as 'production of crops' goes, nobody (to my knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong) is being [i]forced[/i] to use genetically altered crops. The natural alternatives are out there and are readily available. It seems to me like the issue is less Monsanto having a monopoly and more Monsanto being the only company widely providing extremely competitive genetically-altered crops with more output than natural ones, and so farmers overwhelmingly use the modified ones because they're straight-up superior, and it's scummy more because Monsanto has too much political clout and is thus preventing any legislation that might harm them or reduce profit in any way.

[QUOTE=catbarf;40796224]Okay, not to single you out, but you put it in the clearest terms so I'm curious. What exactly does Monsanto have a monopoly on? Because as far as 'production of crops' goes, nobody (to my knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong) is being [i]forced[/i] to use genetically altered crops. The natural alternatives are out there and are readily available. It seems to me like the issue is less Monsanto having a monopoly and more Monsanto being the only company widely providing extremely competitive genetically-altered crops with more output than natural ones, and so farmers overwhelmingly use the modified ones because they're straight-up superior, and it's scummy more because Monsanto has too much political clout and is thus preventing any legislation that might harm them or reduce profit in any way.[/QUOTE] Excellent! Somebody gets it!

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40796198]For the same reason someone would prefer 'Organic' over 'Heavily sprayed with pesticides'. Normatively we should be informed about what you mentioned as well, but GMO is at least a start.[/QUOTE] I don't see any problem with a little blurb saying 'Contains genetically-modified ingredients' but the actual proposed legislation was a little more serious than that. Exact ingredients are generally regarded as a trade secret. People seem to view genetically-modified crops as some kind of sci-fi boogeyman when in reality it's been done in crude fashion for millions of years. A banana you buy off the supermarket shelf today is [url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Inside_a_wild-type_banana.jpg]very different[/url] from a wild banana. It may not have been done with a test tube, but that fruit has been genetically modified through careful selective breeding for millennia. The methods have changed but the underlying principle is the same, and it seems a little extreme to me to be suddenly labeling and delineating products that have been modified in one specific way.

I'd recommend you all watch this if you can since you all seem so keen on the subject. [video=youtube;cETcYgOIL54]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cETcYgOIL54[/video] [URL="http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Genetic_Chile/70144526?trkid=13005733"][Its on Netflix if you have it][/URL]

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40796153]Yeah, because why do they have a right to know? Fuck them.[/QUOTE] But its in the nutrition facts. I literally just checked the back of my tin of Argentine beef and it said that GM had been used in production.

Sorry Sobotnik, what are you talking about? Are you even familiar with this topic? You are aware of how Monsanto are fighting tooth and nail against legislation proposed by Bernie Sanders, which simply affirms that states have the right to decide whether or not to require labelling of GMO products? I honestly don't know how anyone with a shred of understanding or genuine consideration of this issue, encompassing Monsanto's historically foul behaviour and tactics, which includes paying off politicians with huge campaign donations through various PACs, could arrive at the conclusion, that they give a shit about the poor, or anyone else for that matter. Go fuck yourself cocksucker. [highlight](User was banned for this post (""Go fuck yourself cocksucker"" - Swebonny))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40796101] Because it's a pointless regulation which does nothing (The information is already in the nutrition bit). This is just anti-gm people shit-stirring.[/QUOTE] Thats stupid. If they thought it was pointless and would do nothing they wouldn't spend assloads of money preventing it.

As far as the seeds themselves, I seriously suggest you look through at least a few court cases of biological patenting from recent years, look at the precedents being set and ask yourself if the path the we're heading down is one that you want to travel.

Have you people read the actual proceedings? [quote] We already have policies and procedures, I would tell my colleagues, in place at the Food and Drug Administration to address labeling of foods that are derived from modern biotechnology. The U.S. standards ensure that all labels for all foods are truthful and are not misleading to the public. FDA has a scientifically based review process to evaluate all food products. The Food and Drug Administration states: FDA has no basis for concluding that bioengineered foods are different from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way, or that, as a class, foods developed by the new techniques present any or greater safety concern than foods developed by traditional plant breeding. The FDA reviews products and determines that they are safe. I think we need to trust the science of their review and allow this process to work.[/quote] [url]http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r113:1:./temp/~r1135F40Ln::[/url] [quote] Furthermore, a change in policy would place additional costs on farmers by potentially requiring them to segregate crops and change their equipment. It would also be very problematic for grain processing facilities. I know some fail to recognize--and I know many criticize--the importance of biotechnology or criticize the safety of the product. I just say, let science be the judge. Each product goes through extensive tests to ensure safety to both human health and the environment.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Fire Feure;40796303]I honestly don't know how anyone with a shred of understanding or genuine consideration of this issue, encompassing Monsanto's historically foul behaviour and tactics, which includes paying off politicians with huge campaign donations through various PACs, could arrive at the conclusion, that they give a shit about the poor, or anyone else for that matter.[/QUOTE] FWIW I think the point in the OP is valid. It's easy to criticize genetically-altered crops when you have the money to buy organic, but for a lot of people in this country affordable food is a matter of life or death. As for Monsanto, well, I have less of a problem with the company itself and more a problem with the corruption in government that allows them to abuse the system and keep themselves protected. Farmers buy their products because they work better than the alternatives, plain and simple, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but weaseling out of paying for Agent Orange reparations and similar abuses is awful.

You do understand that the FDA is bought and paid for? Right? Just putting that out there. I'll stay up all night and document it for you if you really need that help. Michael Taylor, Linda Fisher, Michael Kantor, etc. Revolving door, etc. Why do I have to explain this to you, etc?

[QUOTE=Fire Feure;40796464]You do understand that the FDA is bought and paid for? Right? Just putting that out there. I'll stay up all night and document it for you if you really need that help. Michael Taylor, Linda Fisher, Michael Kantor, etc. Revolving door, etc. Why do I have to explain this to you, etc?[/QUOTE] So suddenly the Federal Government is unreliable for the purposes of citing?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40795565]Well they only sued 11, and had about 150 cases settled outside of court.[/QUOTE] You realize "Cases settled out of court" means "give us most of your money or we'll sue you and take all of it" right

Well yeah. If you have a rudimentary understanding of how the Federal Government works, it's transparent that what they say has very little to do with the truth, and everything to do with bolstering industry and repaying favours to campaign financiers, which, if you bother to research any of the names I've just given you, you'll see is clearly the case.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;40795359]Hey so why doesn't Monsanto also require that farmers sell the harvest to them as well, so they can control both ends of the agriculture industry? That'd make them lots of money and be totally okay, right?[/QUOTE] Sure, why not? After all, there's nothing stopping a farmer from just saying 'Nah, I think I'll grow my own natural crops and sell them to whoever I like'. I mean, the farmers are signing contracts with these policies because they can grow enormous amounts of produce with the genetically modified crops. There's no monopoly here, they choose to sign on the dotted line. If farmers are choosing to buy Monsanto crops even though they have to buy proprietary pesticides and have to re-buy seeds every generation then clearly it's a very effective product. For all of Monsanto's issues I don't think you can really criticize the use of restrictive contracts when the farmers signing the contracts have every right to simply refuse.

Actually fuck it. Just let me see a nice video of Hugh Grant and his children sitting at home, eating his own delicious nutritious GMO corn. Facta, non verba, this niggas full of shit.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40795208] Monsanto doesn't produce sterile seeds though. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;40795481]You do realize that the seeds would have completely prevented contamination of the local environment if any seeds got out, and that farmers who had seeds blow onto their fields couldn't be sued because they were sterile?[/QUOTE] Okay, for a while I was going to stay out of trying to debate with you because I thought someone else would be able to, but nay, it has not occurred. Why Monsanto is bad You'll be a farmer forever with no escape buying expensive seed EVERY year thanks to that contract. Also if you're a neighboring farmer and that seed "ends" up in your crop you are sued (they have people who do this on purpose). Now lets break it down like this: The crops: They are bad for us directly and indirectly. Directly being that they cause Allergenicity which is a HUGE growing problem in the U.S. and is already a terrible side effect. Creating new allergies and making uncommon ones way more common. Also there are many unknown side effects to humans from GMO crop yet to be discovered. Indirectly the seeds cause huge environmental problems. All bugs and living little critters die due to toxins in B.T. toxin in GMO crop. All of them. Wind blows that pollen on something else and they die over there too. No bugs. Good for plant, bad for nature. So what do bugs do? Now they evolve and become resistant to the pesticide. Great. Now poor farmers trying to grow them fresh crop now have super-bugs to deal with. Other plants also become jealous of these super-crops so there is cross-breed of other plants. Bad plants. Super-weeds going all over the place making problems for everyone. Now that little ol' farmer has super-bugs and super-weeds spraying around 7x the amount of pesticide on his fresh crop rather what you would need on a GM crop. That's a lot of problems with just the crop itself. The Company: They are also bad. Very bad (Especially Monsanto). They have a bad economic impact on many farmers everywhere around the world. OK so lets say we have a new farmer. He's been farming for only a year and has a negative income due to all those previous problems to his crop. This year though he had some crop unharvested and planted some seed that he saved. They grew very well, but Monsanto found he was growing some of their crop! How is that possible? Well his neighbor's GMO crop pollinated all over his crop last season causing his new crop from his seeds to be GMO crop. He doesn't want to be sued he doesn't have any money to fight this either. How terrible. He decides to cave in. He signs the contract to pay them royalties and grow their crop. Well to start he has to buy their seed. It's expensive. He gets a loan to do it anyways. He makes his profit and will barely be able to make it next year. Maybe everything will work out Ok. He plants his saved seeds and buys some more seed. Monsanto finds out he's planting saved GMO seeds. Sued. Again. This time for good. This lil' ol' farmer is done. Not only is Monsanto have an iron fist on farmers, but they have a big cash flow in our governments too with their lobbies. That's the biggest no-no you can do. most GMO crops might be all cool science n stuff, but really there's somethings us humans shouldn't trade. Like nature for MORE FOOD(money). Sources for you people in denial. [url]http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php[/url] [url]http://www.salmone.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/qaim-cotton.pdf[/url]

[QUOTE=Tacosheller;40796505]You realize "Cases settled out of court" means "give us most of your money or we'll sue you and take all of it" right[/QUOTE] Source?

[QUOTE=catbarf;40796224]Okay, not to single you out, but you put it in the clearest terms so I'm curious. What exactly does Monsanto have a monopoly on? Because as far as 'production of crops' goes, nobody (to my knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong) is being [i]forced[/i] to use genetically altered crops. The natural alternatives are out there and are readily available. It seems to me like the issue is less Monsanto having a monopoly and more Monsanto being the only company widely providing extremely competitive genetically-altered crops with more output than natural ones, and so farmers overwhelmingly use the modified ones because they're straight-up superior, and it's scummy more because Monsanto has too much political clout and is thus preventing any legislation that might harm them or reduce profit in any way.[/QUOTE] Gee I dunno, the fact that they're the largest fucking seed supplier in the US and strongarm other suppliers into submission?

[QUOTE=choco cookie;40796595]You'll be a farmer forever with no escape buying expensive seed EVERY year thanks to that contract. Also if you're a neighboring farmer and that seed "ends" up in your crop you are sued (they have people who do this on purpose).[/quote] 11 court cases. 250,000 farmers. Yup. [quote]The crops: They are bad for us directly and indirectly. Directly being that they cause Allergenicity which is a HUGE growing problem in the U.S. and is already a terrible side effect.[/quote] Bullshit. Prove it. [quote]Creating new allergies and making uncommon ones way more common.[/quote] Above. [quote]Also there are many unknown side effects to humans from GMO crop yet to be discovered.[/quote] Like? [quote]Indirectly the seeds cause huge environmental problems. All bugs and living little critters die due to toxins in B.T. toxin in GMO crop. All of them.[/quote] I call bollocks. [quote]Wind blows that pollen on something else and they die over there too. No bugs. Good for plant, bad for nature. So what do bugs do? Now they evolve and become resistant to the pesticide. Great.[/quote] What? [quote]Now poor farmers trying to grow them fresh crop now have super-bugs to deal with. Other plants also become jealous of these super-crops so there is cross-breed of other plants. Bad plants. Super-weeds going all over the place making problems for everyone. Now that little ol' farmer has super-bugs and super-weeds spraying around 7x the amount of pesticide on his fresh crop rather what you would need on a GM crop. That's a lot of problems with just the crop itself.[/quote] You must have smoked some bad granola. Where do you keep getting this info? [quote]The Company: They are also bad. Very bad (Especially Monsanto). They have a bad economic impact on many farmers everywhere around the world. OK so lets say we have a new farmer. He's been farming for only a year and has a negative income due to all those previous problems to his crop. This year though he had some crop unharvested and planted some seed that he saved. They grew very well, but Monsanto found he was growing some of their crop! How is that possible? Well his neighbor's GMO crop pollinated all over his crop last season causing his new crop from his seeds to be GMO crop. He doesn't want to be sued he doesn't have any money to fight this either. How terrible. He decides to cave in. He signs the contract to pay them royalties and grow their crop. Well to start he has to buy their seed. It's expensive. He gets a loan to do it anyways. He makes his profit and will barely be able to make it next year. Maybe everything will work out Ok. He plants his saved seeds and buys some more seed. Monsanto finds out he's planting saved GMO seeds. Sued. Again. This time for good. This lil' ol' farmer is done.[/quote] How often has this actually happened, and how much is a farmers problem due to basic economics? [quote]most GMO crops might be all cool science n stuff, but really there's somethings us humans shouldn't trade. Like nature for MORE FOOD(money).[/quote] What do you even mean? [quote]Sources for you people in denial. [url]http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php[/url] [url]http://www.salmone.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/qaim-cotton.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] Can you select the specific parts to back up your arguments?

[QUOTE=Protocol7;40796639]Gee I dunno, the fact that they're the largest fucking seed supplier in the US and strongarm other suppliers into submission?[/QUOTE] Is there anywhere in the US where Monsanto is the only supplier of seeds? Can you provide some relevant information?

[QUOTE=catbarf;40796694]Is there anywhere in the US where Monsanto is the only supplier of seeds? Can you provide some relevant information?[/QUOTE] I didn't say they were the only supplier. They've pushed quite a few other suppliers out of the market, effectively reducing the amount of choice available to farmers. If you don't see the problem with this then I don't know what to say.

[QUOTE=catbarf;40796694]Is there anywhere in the US where Monsanto is the only supplier of seeds? Can you provide some relevant information?[/QUOTE] No one makes GMO seeds that are competitive with Monsanto because Monsanto is one of the only companies to have the patents on those seeds IIRC. Normal seeds don't keep up with GM seeds so farmers who are in areas that are using GMO seeds can't not use them or risk going out of business.

[QUOTE=catbarf;40796562]Sure, why not? After all, there's nothing stopping a farmer from just saying 'Nah, I think I'll grow my own natural crops and sell them to whoever I like'. I mean, the farmers are signing contracts with these policies because they can grow enormous amounts of produce with the genetically modified crops. There's no monopoly here, they choose to sign on the dotted line. If farmers are choosing to buy Monsanto crops even though they have to buy proprietary pesticides and have to re-buy seeds every generation then clearly it's a very effective product. For all of Monsanto's issues I don't think you can really criticize the use of restrictive contracts when the farmers signing the contracts have every right to simply refuse.[/QUOTE] Well for one lets say you have Farmer A and Farmer B next to each other. Farmer A uses Monsanto Roundup-Ready Grain. Farmer B uses 'natural' seeds. Farmer A sprays Roundup on his crops, and the GMO resists the crops. Farmer B doesn't use roundup, but the spray affects his crops bordering with Farmer A. Farmer A gets a full crop of GMO. Farmer B gets a set of crops half killed by Roundup, and a part of the rest of them are contaminated with Roundup-Ready. This allows Monsanto to sue him. Farmer B is thereby basically pressured illegally into getting GMO or forfeit his farm/profit. Not to mention Roundup itself is fucking toxic and not fully OK'd as safe. It infects everything around it with the Roundup-Ready Genes. [quote]Farmers have found themselves stuck between Monsanto and a hard place. It has become increasingly difficult for farmers to grow non-genetically engineered crops, as contamination has become a big issue. Additionally, it is very difficult for a farmer to advertise that their products are organic, and as such using home-grown seeds might not be able to be as profitable as using genetically engineered seeds. In one case, a farmer used to growing his own canola was sued by Monsanto when his canola seeds became contaminated by their Roundup Ready genes. [/quote] [url=http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=seeds_tmln&seeds_legal_actions=seeds_legalMonsantoVSchmeiser"] The Case[/url] [url="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/25/roundup-health-study-idUSL2N0DC22F20130425"]Reuters[/url] [url="http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0057.htm"]EPA[/url] So please, stop acting like this is some amazing thing, GMO is bad, and Monsanto is Horrible. But what do I know? I just want to keep the poor away from cheap food.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40796659]11 court cases. 250,000 farmers. [/QUOTE] You do know with a company that has literally billions and billions of dollars that court really isn't the best proof to say those people are wrong right?