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

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40796659] Can you select the specific parts to back up your arguments?[/QUOTE] Could you please do your own reading? You can share with the class once you are done.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40796757]Could you please do your own reading? You can share with the class once you are done.[/QUOTE] not to argue with you but the burden of proof is on the claimant

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40796766]not to argue with you but the burden of proof is on the claimant[/QUOTE] Yeah, but if he doesnt read anything we give him and wants some Sound-byte answer, then he is being inconsistent with our onus of proof. it was in response to his response to [quote][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]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40796735]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?[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/Settling-the-Matter-Part-5.aspx[/url] [quote]Since 1997, Monsanto has gone to trial over seed patents only nine times. This number is emphasized even more if you add the fact that only 145 lawsuits have been filed in 15 years of patent enforcement, and almost 700 matters have been settled out-of-court. “Most of the cases are never filed,” Scott Baucum, Monsanto trait stewardship lead, said. “Most of the time we find that we’ll go knock on the farmer’s door and he’ll say, ‘Yeah, you caught me. Let’s get it behind us.’ And we just settle it with them.” Baucum said it makes more financial sense for growers to simply settle the matter out-of-court, instead of paying costly lawyer and trial fees. As shown by the statistics, Monsanto also prefers to settle out-of-court, and usually sends representatives to work things out with the grower in person. And although some say the company is trying to bankrupt its own customers by enforcing these patents, investigators and company representatives disagree. “Our goal has never been to put anybody out of business,” Chris Reat, a Monsanto representative who often negotiates settlements with farmers, said. “The terms of the settlement have been extended through years to have time to let the grower to try to fit that settlement into his farming operation.” Even though Monsanto’s policy of enforcing patents might seem strict, almost every other seed company marketing biotechnology-enhanced seeds enforce their patents. “Monsanto is not the only seed company that enforces its intellectual property rights,” Baucum said. “Pioneer, Agripro, Syngenta, all these companies have engaged in enforcement actions against other people who had violated their rights in seed and seed products they’re creating.” Baucum also said people should weigh the small number of lawsuits against the “hundreds of thousands of people” to whom the company has licensed seed to over the past ten years.[/quote] Honestly, if you have hundreds of thousands of clients, and only a few of them take you to court, you are either omnipotent and omniscient, or the clients are happy with the product. [editline]27th May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;40796783]Yeah, but if he doesnt read anything we give him and wants some Sound-byte answer, then he is being inconsistent with our onus of proof.[/QUOTE] I work with evidence, not magic books.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40796791][url]http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/Settling-the-Matter-Part-5.aspx[/url] Honestly, if you have hundreds of thousands of clients, and only a few of them take you to court, you are either omnipotent and omniscient, or the clients are happy with the product. [editline]27th May 2013[/editline] I work with evidence, not magic books.[/QUOTE] Uh You didn't get it. With that much money YOU DON'T NEED TO DEAL WITH THINGS IN COURT AND CAN AVOID THAT SYSTEM ENTIRELY.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;40796717]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] My question is if they actually have a monopoly, which is what you originally stated. The only way they could have a monopoly would be if farmers didn't have access to any seeds other than Monsanto's. No need to get combative, I'm just looking for information. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;40796726]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. [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] Like I said before, that kind of behavior is indefensible, I just don't think that the signing of contracts or preventing re-planting as part of a contract is draconian. Forcing someone into using a product is absolutely wrong, but giving someone the option of signing a contract, even if some of its restrictions are heavy, seems alright, as long as they have the option to say no.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40796791] I work with evidence, not books.[/QUOTE] Fix'd

[quote=choco cookie]Also there are many unknown side effects to humans from GMO crop yet to be discovered. [/quote] This whole sentence is so loaded it's fucking hilarious. Let's actually rephrase it so it makes sense. [quote]As of the moment, genetically modified crops are not known to have anyform of side effects to humans, and any side effects that [B]might exist[/B], have yet to be discovered.[/quote] What you are doing is rephrasing words(as I'm doing myself) to point in which direction we show bias. On the otherhand though, I'm not bias'ing it. I'm simply stating what is known, and not doing some sort of psuedo-science related to paranormal side effects. [quote=choco cookie]Like nature for MORE FOOD(money).[/quote] It is for more food you fucking numnut. We swtich to purely organic farming we'll only have enough food for roughly four billion people. Three billion would either have to die, or such harsh rationing would have to occur, and selective removal(genocide) of certain groups would also have to occur.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40796801]Uh You didn't get it. With that much money YOU DON'T NEED TO DEAL WITH THINGS IN COURT AND CAN AVOID THAT SYSTEM ENTIRELY.[/QUOTE] It's worth noting that although Monsanto is typically portrayed as the super-wealthy bad guy bossing around helpless organic farmers, in dollar terms the organic food industry is much bigger than the GM seed industry by a factor of five. Monsanto's total revenue in 2011 was slightly less than $12 billion and worldwide GM seed sales in the same year were $13.3 billion, while worldwide organic food sales in 2010 were slightly less than $60 billion. [editline]27th May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;40796806]Fix'd[/QUOTE] The belief in the malevolent meddling of the company in all areas of science and politics is so strong that it is used as an escape hatch — a variation on the shill gambit.

I have absolutely no sympathy or fondness for Monsanto, but he has a point. People in the US have the privilege of choosing their food, and if GM foods are shut down, millions of people will eventually starve as a result. Organic farming alone can't feed billions of poor people. If rich Americans don't want to eat GM food then fine, nobody is making them. But shitloads of other people in this world would be very happy to have it.

It's not GM foods we hate, it's scumbag practices.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40796659] Can you select the specific parts to back up your arguments?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Allergenicity Many children in the US and Europe have developed life-threatening allergies to peanuts and other foods. There is a possibility that introducing a gene into a plant may create a new allergen or cause an allergic reaction in susceptible individuals. A proposal to incorporate a gene from Brazil nuts into soybeans was abandoned because of the fear of causing unexpected allergic reactions31. Extensive testing of GM foods may be required to avoid the possibility of harm to consumers with food allergies.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Another concern is that crop plants engineered for herbicide tolerance and weeds will cross-breed, resulting in the transfer of the herbicide resistance genes from the crops into the weeds. These "superweeds" would then be herbicide tolerant as well. Other introduced genes may cross over into non-modified crops planted next to GM crops.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Just as some populations of mosquitoes developed resistance to the now-banned pesticide DDT, many people are concerned that insects will become resistant to B.t. or other crops that have been genetically-modified to produce their own pesticides.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Last year a laboratory study was published in Nature showing that pollen from B.t. corn caused high mortality rates in monarch butterfly caterpillars. Monarch caterpillars consume milkweed plants, not corn, but the fear is that if pollen from B.t. corn is blown by the wind onto milkweed plants in neighboring fields, the caterpillars could eat the pollen and perish.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Unfortunately, B.t. toxins kill many species of insect larvae indiscriminately; it is not possible to design a B.t. toxin that would only kill crop-damaging pests and remain harmless to all other insects. This study is being reexamined by the USDA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other non-government research groups, and preliminary data from new studies suggests that the original study may have been flawed.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The possibility of interbreeding is shown by the defense of farmers against lawsuits filed by Monsanto. The company has filed patent infringement lawsuits against farmers who may have harvested GM crops. Monsanto claims that the farmers obtained Monsanto-licensed GM seeds from an unknown source and did not pay royalties to Monsanto. The farmers claim that their unmodified crops were cross-pollinated from someone else's GM crops planted a field or two away.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Bringing a GM food to market is a lengthy and costly process, and of course agri-biotech companies wish to ensure a profitable return on their investment. Many new plant genetic engineering technologies and GM plants have been patented, and patent infringement is a big concern of agribusiness. Yet consumer advocates are worried that patenting these new plant varieties will raise the price of seeds so high that small farmers and third world countries will not be able to afford seeds for GM crops, thus widening the gap between the wealthy and the poor.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]These plants would be viable for only one growing season and would produce sterile seeds that do not germinate. Farmers would need to buy a fresh supply of seeds each year. However, this would be financially disastrous for farmers in third world countries who cannot afford to buy seed each year and traditionally set aside a portion of their harvest to plant in the next growing season.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;40796814]This whole sentence is so loaded it's fucking hilarious. Let's actually rephrase it so it makes sense. What you are doing is rephrasing words(as I'm doing myself) to point in which direction we show bias. On the otherhand though, I'm not bias'ing it. I'm simply stating what is known, and not doing some sort of psuedo-science related to paranormal side effects. It is for more food you fucking numnut. We swtich to purely organic farming we'll only have enough food for roughly four billion people. Three billion would either have to die, or such harsh rationing would have to occur, and selective removal(genocide) of certain groups would also have to occur.[/QUOTE] Sorry, I'm tired, but in my last statement I said most GMO crops not all. There are beneficial GMO crops/plants, but when you make them leak toxins then that's kind of bad.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40796822]It's worth noting that although Monsanto is typically portrayed as the super-wealthy bad guy bossing around helpless organic farmers, in dollar terms the organic food industry is much bigger than the GM seed industry by a factor of five. Monsanto's total revenue in 2011 was slightly less than $12 billion and worldwide GM seed sales in the same year were $13.3 billion, while worldwide organic food sales in 2010 were slightly less than $60 billion. [editline]27th May 2013[/editline] The belief in the malevolent meddling of the company in all areas of science and politics is so strong that it is used as an escape hatch — a variation on the shill gambit.[/QUOTE] Yes please tell me again how poor someone is with a yearly revenue of 13 billion dollars. Not to mention they are an old company that has existed for a long time and have done really well for themselves in the past no doubt earning them the place of one of the most powerful companies in the world. [editline]26th May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;40796856]I have absolutely no sympathy or fondness for Monsanto, but he has a point. People in the US have the privilege of choosing their food, and if GM foods are shut down, millions of people will eventually starve as a result. Organic farming alone can't feed billions of poor people. If rich Americans don't want to eat GM food then fine, nobody is making them. But shitloads of other people in this world would be very happy to have it.[/QUOTE] GM food is required and it's a good thing. The business practices that exist currently are not.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40796822] The belief in the malevolent meddling of the company in all areas of science and politics is so strong that it is used as an escape hatch — a variation on the shill gambit.[/QUOTE] So, without me even calling you some sort of 'Agent' (As a shill gambit entails), you jump to that? What about your strawmanning? Also how does this have anything to do with the actual topic of why I posted that which is: You don't seem to take into consideration anything the otherside posts as proof/evidence. Things you haven't addressed: -Roundup infecting non GMO crops. -The notion of a Multi-Billion Dollar corporation being able to pressure farmers into settlements. -How GMOs, specifically Monsanto, is killing off the bee population -How the pesticides create resistant super-weeds. -How Allergenicity is increased How yields are not increased in standard conditions. [quote="http://www.salmone.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/qaim-cotton.pdf"]Almost all GM crop technologies were initiated by commercial firms in the industrialized world, targeting the needs of farmers who are able to pay for them. Some varieties were transferred to the commercial sectors of Latin America and China, where agroecological conditions and pesticide application rates are similar. In all cases, yield effects have been low to medium, although there have been sizeable gains from pesticide substitution[/quote] (That last quote was a freebie because I know you don't like to actually read sources) [quote=Sobotnik]Can you select the specific parts to back up your arguments?[/quote]

Today I asked in a reddit thread why people hate Monsanto and I got at least three replies accusing Monsanto of being terrorists, one even called for the murder of Monsanto employees. [editline]27th May 2013[/editline] Like it or not patenting organic material is nothing new, companies have been doing it with DNA for years.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40796822]It's worth noting that although Monsanto is typically portrayed as the super-wealthy bad guy bossing around helpless organic farmers, in dollar terms the organic food industry is much bigger than the GM seed industry by a factor of five. Monsanto's total revenue in 2011 was slightly less than $12 billion and worldwide GM seed sales in the same year were $13.3 billion, while worldwide organic food sales in 2010 were slightly less than $60 billion. [/QUOTE] um, what? that's completely irrelevant. if all the organic farmers/corporations were this massive $60billion megacorp then it might be relevant but it's not. by your numbers un that post monsanto is over 90% of the ENTIRE GM seed industry and is 20% of the size of the ENTIRE organic food industry. those numbers prove nothing except that monsanto is fucking massive, which we all fucking know [editline]27th May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;40797805]Today I asked in a reddit thread why people hate Monsanto and I got at least three replies accusing Monsanto of being terrorists, one even called for the murder of Monsanto employees.[/QUOTE] ah yes reddit, the bastion of reasoned, informed debate with mature individuals. i'm sure this represents everyone who dislikes monsanto and completely absolves the company of any wrongdoing [editline]27th May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;40797805] Like it or not patenting organic material is nothing new, companies have been doing it with DNA for years.[/QUOTE] ok? just because it happens in the world today doesn't make it objectively and indisputably right

What makes it wrong?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40796791]Honestly, if you have hundreds of thousands of clients, and only a few of them take you to court, you are either omnipotent and omniscient, or the clients are happy with the product.[/QUOTE] Independent farmers taking on a company worth many billions of dollars in court? Oh but the justice system is fair for everyone all of the time, right?

[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] It also doesn't help that we are contributing to our own oppression when we buy food at the supermarket. You have to reject their food. If you don't want to eat poison fucking chemicals or GMO's then you should learn some human skills.

[QUOTE=Otsegolation;40798061]It also doesn't help that we are contributing to our own oppression when we buy food at the supermarket. You have to reject their food. If you don't want to eat poison fucking chemicals or GMO's then you should learn some human skills.[/QUOTE] "Harry Potter conspiracy theorist"

[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;40797906]What makes it wrong?[/QUOTE] You don't see the issues with giving companies ownerships of genes?

[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;40798110]You don't see the issues with giving companies ownerships of genes?[/QUOTE] Depends on the genes. It's intellectual property. Somebody made it.

[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;40797906]What makes it wrong?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Generic Monk;40795059]A dangerous precedent in two ways; one that's already happening, one that's a tad more sci-fi but could become relevant. One; the patents allow them to strongarm and coerce farmers into using their products and their products only, this has already lead to an effective monopoly in the US which only benefits monsanto. Secondly; the patenting of the genetic material of living organisms is morally questionable at best and is also very difficult to define due to the huge amount of variations and diversity in the gene pool (this was the case held by the US government until the 80s where a case was won to have an oil slick eating bacterium patented, setting the precedent). Also I can't believe I have to explain this, but it's frankly retarded to allow these genetic patents to be used to enforce a monopoly on a business as big as the world agricultural industry, and downright lunacy to enforce genetic homogeneity the world over for the sake of one company's profit. This is where this kind of deregulation gets you. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40798123]Depends on the genes. It's intellectual property. Somebody made it.[/QUOTE] Well no, they didn't make it, they only put it in a specific order (or transferred it from another source) If I copy a gene from one plant to another, why on earth should I be able to patent that?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40798083]"Harry Potter conspiracy theorist"[/QUOTE] "AUTISMAL FEDORA WEARING MASSIVE RUNNING JOKE - PRAY CROHN'S DISEASE KILLS ME" So is this all WE should look at when reading YOUR posts? And never read past the AUTISMAL FEDORA WEARING MASSIVE RUNNING JOKE - PRAY CROHN'S DISEASE KILLS ME? [highlight](User was banned for this post ("""AUTISMAL FEDORA WEARING MASSIVE RUNNING JOKE - PRAY CROHN'S DISEASE KILLS ME"" yeah that's not a nice thing to say. Either ignore, or come up with a better point." - Swebonny))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Otsegolation;40798205]"AUTISMAL FEDORA WEARING MASSIVE RUNNING JOKE - PRAY CROHN'S DISEASE KILLS ME" So is this all WE should look at when reading YOUR posts? And never read past the AUTISMAL FEDORA WEARING MASSIVE RUNNING JOKE - PRAY CROHN'S DISEASE KILLS ME?[/QUOTE] Clearly so.

[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;40798178]Well no, they didn't make it, they only put it in a specific order (or transferred it from another source) If I copy a gene from one plant to another, why on earth should I be able to patent that?[/QUOTE] Because you created that and it's recognized by law. [editline]27th May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Otsegolation;40798061]It also doesn't help that we are contributing to our own oppression when we buy food at the supermarket. You have to reject their food. If you don't want to eat poison fucking chemicals or GMO's then you should learn some human skills.[/QUOTE] I'm also not sure how buying supermarket food "contributes to oppression" and how it is poison chemicals and GMOs. I eat GM food all the time.

[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;40798178]Well no, they didn't make it, they only put it in a specific order (or transferred it from another source) If I copy a gene from one plant to another, why on earth should I be able to patent that?[/QUOTE] Couldn't you say the same about computer data? You didn't make the hard drive, you just put magnetized regions in a specific order? Yet we still call that specific order a program or a song or a novel or whatever, and allow them to be patented because of what they represent- a novel creation requiring work and ingenuity to produce. I think the same applies to gene sequencing. The patent is supposed to protect intellectual property that took work to produce. It takes a lot of work to extract one specific gene from a species and successfully transplant it into another. The research costs alone are enormous, if it can't be patented then it becomes nigh-impossible to make a profit from it.

[QUOTE=catbarf;40798360]Couldn't you say the same about computer data? You didn't make the hard drive, you just put magnetized regions in a specific order? Yet we still call that specific order a program or a song or a novel or whatever, and allow them to be patented because of what they represent- a novel creation requiring work and ingenuity to produce. I think the same applies to gene sequencing. The patent is supposed to protect intellectual property that took work to produce. It takes a lot of work to extract one specific gene from a species and successfully transplant it into another. The research costs alone are enormous, if it can't be patented then it becomes nigh-impossible to make a profit from it.[/QUOTE] I'm going to have to agree on this point. No sane person or company would pour billions of dollars into researching a GM crop without the assurance that it will pay off in the end. It's insane how so many people expect scientists to work basically for free, or at a loss.

[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;40797906]What makes it wrong?[/QUOTE] First off, you went to reddit. That never ends well.