Kansas farmer sues Monsanto because of Oregon GMO wheat discovery
40 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;40907702]that controls literally one of the most important industries in the world, which has forced farmers to have no other option, [i]because[/i] there's no other option?[/QUOTE]
No other option? What about non-modified, non-Monsanto crops? As long as a farmer has the option to buy natural seeds and grow natural crops the way people have been doing for decades before genetic engineering, what Monsanto has can not be called a monopoly on food production. They offer an extremely effective product but that alone does not constitute a monopoly.
This is like saying Ford held a monopoly on car production because the Model T was better than other cars so lots of people bought it. That's not what a monopoly is.
Fuck Monsanto. Shit corporation, hope they burn.
[QUOTE=catbarf;40915085]No other option? What about non-modified, non-Monsanto crops? As long as a farmer has the option to buy natural seeds and grow natural crops the way people have been doing for decades before genetic engineering, what Monsanto has can not be called a monopoly on food production. They offer an extremely effective product but that alone does not constitute a monopoly.
This is like saying Ford held a monopoly on car production because the Model T was better than other cars so lots of people bought it. That's not what a monopoly is.[/QUOTE]
It isnt that easy, actually. First of all, the monsanto genes have spread out and there are few strains left that haven't cross bred. Additionally, you need to remember that the commonly used pesticides KILL ALL OTHER CROP than the GMO ones. This leads to a situation where it's egtting harder and harder, and keeping in mind that monsanto basically owns copyright over every vegetable with one of their genes in it.... you see where this is going.
For anyone who wants to know what it's like to be a natural farmer competing against GMO crops, you should watch this. (Hint: It's shitty)
[video=youtube;gJ_QchB7iLg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ_QchB7iLg[/video]
When Oregon legalizes marijuana, that will be the only good news I will ever see come out of my home state.
People should just eat less, and eat simpler.
I just thought i'd bring an issue to light, how we all usually hit on the 'free market', and all that.
Well, the issue is, patents, especially ones such as these, do not fit into the scope of a 'genuine' free market.
A better way to go about these things would be talking about the sheer amount of corruption within the government which has allowed this to happen.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40909279]Wow, it's like I don't understand how markets operate when regulations are set high and the only people able to manage to get past them are large entities with a lot of financial resources.[/QUOTE]
i hope you're not suggesting we cut regulations on food production
that doesn't seem like a very good idea.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;40933962]It isnt that easy, actually. First of all, the monsanto genes have spread out and there are few strains left that haven't cross bred. Additionally, you need to remember that the commonly used pesticides KILL ALL OTHER CROP than the GMO ones. This leads to a situation where it's egtting harder and harder, and keeping in mind that monsanto basically owns copyright over every vegetable with one of their genes in it.... you see where this is going.[/QUOTE]
No, it's not getting harder and harder at all to grow non-modified crops. A farmer today can grow just as many crops as a farmer a hundred years ago using all-natural and cheaply available seeds and equipment. But it is getting harder and harder to use non-modified crops and stay financially competitive in a technologically advancing world, simply because you [i]make more money[/i] with modified crops.
It's just as easy to plant natural crops and carefully use minimal pesticides as it was fifty years ago. It's just as easy to plant natural crops and use no pesticides as it was a hundred years ago. Monsanto is not making it somehow impossible to [i]not[/i] use their products, every farmer still has that choice.
What Monsanto is doing is releasing genetically modified crops that are resistant to pesticides, pretty much a first in history, and consequently a lot easier to grow. They're better, and a farmer that uses them has an economic edge over one who doesn't. Technology marches on. Whitney did not have a monopoly on textiles because the cotton gin was more efficient than hand-weaving. Ford did not have a monopoly on transportation because the Model T was more efficient than horses. These inventions rendered their predecessors eventually obsolete through sheer competition, but they didn't make the predecessors suddenly not work, they only offered more effective alternatives that people switched to by choice and for the better.
Again, you and others keep misusing 'monopoly'. Selling a product that is better than the competition's cannot be a monopoly [i]by definition[/i] because a monopoly requires that there are [i]no[/i] competitors at all. If every farmer were required to buy Monsanto crops to be able to stay in business it might be leaning towards a monopoly, but that isn't the case. The fact that there are successful farmers who proudly state that none of their crops are genetically modified shows that it's doable.
If using Monsanto's products was harmful to farmers, they wouldn't be buying Monsanto crops in the first place. There are [b]plenty[/b] of legitimate reasons to hate Monsanto (and they are a [i]fuckawful[/i] company) but designing crops that have drastically improved our production of food, allowing us to actually sustain our exploding population, isn't one of them. If it weren't for modified crops we'd only be able to feed a fraction of what we currently can.
[QUOTE=joes33431;40935620]i hope you're not suggesting we cut regulations on food production
that doesn't seem like a very good idea.[/QUOTE]
Then you have a dilemma.
Either have a small number of financially powerful companies be the only ones powerful enough to create new GM food varieties, or to reduce regulations to have it on a more open market, at the risk of more problems due to less stringent regulation.
There has to be a way, and GM food is going to be the main source of food this century, so you better work out something.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.