Asian farmers flocking to Monsanto and Chinese GM crops. Total acreage of biotech has trebled since - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Loriborn;40791864]except it did happen[/QUOTE] Yes, and BP was financially crippled as a result.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40791831]Except if this did happen, Monsanto would be in as much trouble as BP was when the rig blew, even with the influence of large corporations.[/QUOTE] lol what the fuck kind of trouble is that? The cable news machine gets on their case for three months and they have to pay a pittance in fines and lose small portion of their stock value? I lived near the coast That oil spill ruined thousands of peoples livelihoods. Certain areas of the gulf coast that depend on tourism all but shut down. BP sure as hell isn't suffering that badly. [editline]26th May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40791869]i am reasonably sure that the bad effects of bringing a dangerous product to market would still cripple the company regardless of that bit of legislation. they operate in many countries, for one thing, and they would very rapidly lose market share to competitors.[/QUOTE] Reminder that Union Carbide was responsible for a gas leak in Bhopal India that [B]killed 10,000 people[/B] and, after shutting down the specific subsidiary that managed the plant that caused the accident, have more or less entirely gotten away with it. "Operating in many countries" is a defensive measure. A foreign national is not allowed to press charges against an American company in an American court for something that did not happen on American soil. Since Union Carbide is a subsidiary of the American Dow Chemical Company any victim of the disaster's only legal recourse for compensation would be through the Indian legal system. Oh, wait, [quote]In June 2010, seven ex-employees, including the former UCIL chairman, were convicted in Bhopal of causing death by negligence and sentenced to two years imprisonment and a fine of about $2,000 each, the maximum punishment allowed by Indian law. [/quote] Wow, we sure got those fuckers, and it only took 26 years, too

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;40791909]lol what the fuck kind of trouble is that? The cable news machine gets on their case for three months and they have to pay a pittance in fines and lose small portion of their stock value? I lived near the coast That oil spill ruined thousands of peoples livelihoods. Certain areas of the gulf coast that depend on tourism all but shut down. BP sure as hell isn't suffering that badly.[/QUOTE] Lol what? Don't be silly you, it was taken seriously. [quote]The company pled guilty to 11 counts of felony manslaughter, two misdemeanors, and one felony count of lying to Congress and agreed to pay more than US$4.5 billion in fines and penalties, the largest criminal resolution in US history.[/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bp[/url]

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;40791909]lose small portion of their stock value?[/QUOTE] "a small portion"? their stock fucking [I]halved[/I] in value, and it still hasn't got remotely near it's pre deepwater-horizon levels

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;40791909]The maximum punishment allowed by Indian law.[/QUOTE] It's difficult to find a person capable of reading these days.

Its great production wise but farmers will become dependent on these seeds that can't reproduce on their own. Its dangerous and will harm farmers. A prime example of the great question of industrialization and modernization.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40791961]It's difficult to find a person capable of reading these days.[/QUOTE] Why do you think the penalties for corporate negligence are so low?

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;40791997]Its great production wise but farmers will become dependent on these seeds that can't reproduce on their own. Its dangerous and will harm farmers. A prime example of the great question of industrialization and modernization.[/QUOTE] The reason they don't do this is partly because they keep introducing new seed types and have patented them. Plus patents expire.

The litigation against BP is still ongoing, they could face something like $17b in legal penalties. Plus the $42b they've already spent paying out damages. [editline]26th May 2013[/editline] They've also been [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/business/energy-environment/united-states-suspends-bp-from-new-contracts.html?_r=0]banned from bidding for any new federal contracts.[/url]

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40791959]"a small portion"? their stock fucking [I]halved[/I] in value, and it still hasn't got remotely near it's pre deepwater-horizon levels[/QUOTE] Thbbbt. They're still an international oil giant. So long as they're careful and make sure only to spill vast quantities of oil onto third world countries instead of first world countries where white people live, they'll be fine give or take 10 years.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;40792056]Thbbbt. They're still an international oil giant. So long as they're careful and make sure only to spill vast quantities of oil onto third world countries instead of first world countries where white people live, they'll be fine give or take 10 years.[/QUOTE] why do they want to spill vast quantities of oil generally they want to sell it, they can't do that if it's on the ocean surface

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;40792056]Thbbbt. They're still an international oil giant. So long as they're careful and make sure only to spill vast quantities of oil onto third world countries instead of first world countries where white people live, they'll be fine give or take 10 years.[/QUOTE] tbh I don't think spilling oil is in any oil companies best interest, whatever the location.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;40792001]Why do you think the penalties for corporate negligence are so low?[/QUOTE] Mainly because it's difficult to find who to actually prosecute in the cases. If a oil rig blows, who do you blame? The engineers? The executives? The inspectors? Did the engineers tell their superiors that it was unsafe? Did they take this into account? Usually the people who blame are the ones who deliberately refuse to do something beneficial or ignore something, or do not treat their post properly. If a rig blew, you don't blame the CEO unless his actions actually influenced the event. [editline]26th May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;40792056]Thbbbt. They're still an international oil giant. So long as they're careful and make sure only to spill vast quantities of oil onto third world countries instead of first world countries where white people live, they'll be fine give or take 10 years.[/QUOTE] Only in the crackpot world of broken psuedoeconomics would this ever make any sense. Why in the hell would a company go "lol lets leak our oil in brown people countries"?

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40792074]why do they want to spill vast quantities of oil generally they want to sell it, they can't do that if it's on the ocean surface[/QUOTE] I like how you ignored the fact that another company which was responsible for [b]killing 10,000 people[/b] 30 years ago is not merely still operational, but used as a stock price benchmark for measuring success and have instead decided to nitpick a joke I made.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;40792237]I like how you ignored the fact that another company which was responsible for [b]killing 10,000 people[/b] 30 years ago is not merely still operational, but used as a stock price benchmark for measuring success and have instead decided to nitpick a joke I made.[/QUOTE] Thbbbbt. The stock of BP halved and they underwent a massive investigation. Deny it, scream at your computer screen and thump your chest in primal ape-like anger, but BP did very badly from the oil spill.

comparing the BP oil spill to something silly that Monsanto might do is kind of odd an oil spill is not desired by anyone and is generally avoided putting a potentially-dangerous product on the market, however, is a different story. if a profit can be made off of it before the effects are effectively made publicized, versus the expense of researching and creating a better one, then it is desirable to be released. there have even been cases in which Monsanto has actively suppressed reports on the adverse health effects of their products. furthermore, many of the health organizations in the United States that test these kinds of products are funded by the companies that produced said product. the FDA is writhe with corruption in this vein.

[QUOTE=joes33431;40792569]Monsanto has actively suppressed reports on the adverse health effects of their products.[/quote] Source? [quote]furthermore, many of the health organizations in the United States that test these kinds of products are funded by the companies that produced said product. the FDA is writhe with corruption in this vein.[/QUOTE] And how closely scrutinized are organic foods?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40788716]If they are going to Monsanto instead of using their own seeds, does this not suggest they are generating a larger profit? I would like explanation to to why this is considered "wrong". Can't you clearly use non-Monsanto seeds? Or is it that, despite their shortcoming, somehow are more productive?[/QUOTE] More business doesn't necessarily mean more profit. It does mean more revenue which is a good thing.

[QUOTE=Fenderson;40792688]More business doesn't necessarily mean more profit. It does mean more revenue which is a good thing.[/QUOTE] So what's so bad?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40792597]Source?[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;eZkDikRLQrw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw[/video] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;40792597]And how closely scrutinized are organic foods?[/QUOTE] i'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

[QUOTE=joes33431;40793733][video=youtube;eZkDikRLQrw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw[/video] Oh wow, a conspiracy about news corporations, what a surprise.[/quote] [quote]i'm not sure what point you're trying to make.[/QUOTE] Organic food has barely any regulation compared to GM foods.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40788716]If they are going to Monsanto instead of using their own seeds, does this not suggest they are generating a larger profit? I would like explanation to to why this is considered "wrong". Can't you clearly use non-Monsanto seeds? Or is it that, despite their shortcoming, somehow are more productive?[/QUOTE] For some reason you never get this any time you argue for Monsanto. Monsanto offers the best product. They charge a lot for the best product and they do this very often. If farmers in an area don't use these crops they're at a serious disadvantage compared to other farmers and will not be competitive just due to not being able to get the right seeds, which are also, extremely expensive.. For someone who is so pro capitalism you have a serious lack of understanding of the idea of a partial or full monopoly, or even the concept of competition. In short, no. They don't make more money. They spend more to stay in the same place, and often go down. You know pitifully little of the plight of the average farmer.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40794238]For some reason you never get this any time you argue for Monsanto. Monsanto offers the best product. They charge a lot for the best product and they do this very often. If farmers in an area don't use these crops they're at a serious disadvantage compared to other farmers and will not be competitive just due to not being able to get the right seeds, which are also, extremely expensive.. For someone who is so pro capitalism you have a serious lack of understanding of the idea of a partial or full monopoly, or even the concept of competition. In short, no. They don't make more money. They spend more to stay in the same place, and often go down. You know pitifully little of the plight of the average farmer.[/QUOTE] You'll find that's the case a lot with him.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40794238]Monsanto offers the best product. They charge a lot for the best product and they do this very often. If farmers in an area don't use these crops they're at a serious disadvantage compared to other farmers and will not be competitive just due to not being able to get the right seeds, which are also, extremely expensive.. For someone who is so pro capitalism you have a serious lack of understanding of the idea of a partial or full monopoly, or even the concept of competition.[/quote] I fully understand this. You don't need to spoonfeed me about how it works. [quote]In short, no. They don't make more money. They spend more to stay in the same place, and often go down.[/quote] Of course they don't make more money, they keep competing with each other whilst the price of food declines. [quote]You know pitifully little of the plight of the average farmer.[/QUOTE] Actually they should do what Europeans did in the 19th century. Stop farming, because too many people are involved in agriculture.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40794068]Oh wow, a conspiracy about news corporations, what a surprise.[/QUOTE] This isn't really a conspiracy. Monsanto threatened to undertake legal action against Fox for their report, and Fox caved in, with good reason. Nobody wants to get sued. The reporters refused to edit the report for moral reasons, and they got fired. That's just kind of how it works in the world today. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;40794068]Organic food has barely any regulation compared to GM foods.[/QUOTE] In order for a food to be labeled organic in the United States, it has to undergo regular inspection by the USDA to ensure that the farm isn't using inorganic fertilizers or pesticides, and for meat to be labeled in the same way, the animals have to be raised free range, without artificial growth hormones. Things might be different in the United Kingdom. Either way, if there's a lack of regulation in that sector, there should be more.

[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;40794248]You'll find that's the case a lot with him.[/QUOTE] Can you even argue or do you just make vague anti-capitalist remarks without having ever bothered to read a single Socialist piece of writing?

[QUOTE]Can you even argue or do you just make vague mushy middle remarks [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40788886]Ah yes, the country which pulls down houses when they get in the way of motorways.[/QUOTE] They've done that in the United States before [editline]26th May 2013[/editline] They might do it in other places as well then...

If Google or a similar company was in control of GMO stuff, I believe things would be way better off. Monsanto is just a terrible company, they're like the EA of the farming world.

[QUOTE=Smoot;40795098]If Google or a similar company was in control of GMO stuff, I'm positive there would be a much more positive control on the stuff. Monsanto is just a terrible company, they're like the EA of the farming world.[/QUOTE] let's not go down that road, it leads to analogy hell