ok, a few things.


1. GMO crops do not produce round up. My big problem with roudup ready crops is that it has lead farmers to believe that they can damm near irrigate with roundup. This is now leading to roundup ready weeds. Which begs the question. If Monsanto had used natural selection to produce roundup ready soy, corn and wheat would folks be ok with that?

2. The stuff GMO's/Roundup have been around for a long time. So far, neither the GMO parts nor the Roundup are killing us. We do need to of course pay attention the the fact that the much higher crop yields have made wheat, corn and soy products amazingly available and obnoxiously cheap.

3. This leaves what is probably the most important part of the problem. Since Monsanto claims that the seeds are not able to reproduce then logically it could not be there seeds that are causing organic crops to start expressing Roundup ready genes. Of course if they are causing it then the Monsanto product is actually faulty and they are doing damage to the organic crops. They have essentially tried to claim that farmers who have had their crops tainted by Monsanto genes are stealing. Its actually the other way around, the Monsanto crops are vandalizing the crops around them. So, if anyone should be paying to fix the problem it should be Monsanto and their "sterile" seeds.

The problem with talking about food and food policy is that for us humans it is essentially above religion.

As for my views of the safety of GMO food.. I will use me as my test subject. I have spent a few years taking part, as a test subject in some long term diabetes studies. The result is that there is a lot of test data on me floating around out there. When I see the lab they don't take a vial or two of blood.. The last visit they too 15 tubes. Needless to say, a lot of very expensive testing has been getting done on me for a number of years now. During that time I have consumed a fairly large pile of Doritos and Cheetos. Both of which are pretty loaded with GMO corn. If the food was causing me trouble, it would have not only been noted in my charts but also the research docs would be interviewing me to find out whats going on to cause the change. So, far I have only had one time that a change caused a lot of questions. This was during the C-Peptide replacement drug test. The drug exceeded expectations and I recovered sensation in my left big toe. So, the interview was mostly just a "holy crap did you see your nerve conduction results!!" and "What else have you been doing? Tell us everything".. Ohh, and yes Nerve Conduction sounds like what it is. It involves electricity and your nerves and the time it takes to send a signal say down your leg..

Monsanto (Canada) won a similar case against Percy Schmeiser in 2004. Schmeiser was prosecuted for growing GM canola from seed saved from his own previous year's crop. Monsanto claimed he did not pay for using their Roundup resistant gene.

The case became a fight between property rights and patent rights. Property rights lost. The ruling was that the normal farm practice of saving and using seed (their own property) was overridden because the farmer does not "own" Monsanto's gene, meaning all future copies of it.
A very weak ruling IMHO.

I did not call you anything. Read again. My words were "Perhaps you should..." It was meant to point out the irony in your username vs. your opinion of “unbridled procreation” as you put it. I am sorry it came across that way. I should have worded it better.

I do not believe that Monsanto is saving billions. Their business practices and aggression towards Organic farmers are criminal IMO. I simply asserted the proven knowledge that we cannot feed the growing population of Planet Earth without GMOs. I then asked you how we do it without GMOs and your answer is death to humans and/or the suppression of procreation. I reject that as oppressive and ask you again how do we feed the growing population without GMOs? A blanket statement that we might find a way is not an answer…

No one is saying that Monsanto has good business practices. However, to agree with you means that one must accept that not only is Monsanto attempting to kill us all, but so is the government. This sort of general population control strikes at the established liberal voting public more than the conservative one. That is counterproductive to their purpose, but let’s says we believe what you say about GMOs, fluoride in water, etc. It would also require that thousands upon thousands of medical professionals all over the country have decided “to hell with the Hippocratic Oath, Let’s kill everyone.” That is not very believable. Your concerns about Monsanto have a basis in reality, but the conspiracy theory to kill us all does not.

How have they been stealing it? Did they infiltrate the fences of Monsanto's test farms to steal seeds? I suggest to you that when you release a life form into the wild, whether by accident or by intention, you forfeit your claim to it.

You can ignore Monsanto's ethics in your decision making process. I will not.

I don't agree with your way of thinking. You think Monsanto is saving billions, you eat the Monsanto GMO's; I will not.
Name calling because someone disagrees with you is not making a good argument.

What you want then is a world without evolution. All species evolve. There has never been nor does it make sense that there should be a tort against mixing of genes of plants. If you want genetically pure seeds then it is your burden to keep them that way not Monsanto's or someone else's.

Patent infringement is theft. Yes there have been numerous farmers who are stealing Monsanto and other people's intellectual property and they should be prosecuted for that theft.

GMO's versus Organics,come on; and you can do better than a flippant "why not?"

If I allowed "greed" to direct my life there would be no challenges to fight. Do you think greed comes only when connected to money?
define greed:
synonyms: gluttony · voracity · ravenousness · greediness · insatiability · hunger
Do you now understand why I used the word "greed". I hope you do expect to get paid for the work you do. That is not greed, that is getting paid to do your job. Greed comes in many forms. Now please read my post again, leave out money and allow yourself an open minded understanding of the fact behind a seed that fails to produce yields year after year. Please do not take this post as an attack, it is not, it is however to allow you to hear the word greed used about this topic as a truth to what is happening. Should they continue on their present path we all will be affected. If you do a thing and it causes harm, how long do you expect to prosper? History tells us that it will not. there will be an end, at what cost.

I'm against artificially propping up that which would not survive on it's own.
Look at "Feed the Children". They've been feeding starving 3rd world children since the 50's. Determined to end staring children. Have they? No. They have only ensured that those children grow up to have more starving children.
Had they spent that money to also sterilize them, they might end the cycle.
The problem is, these people live in an area where either the land cannot support them, or they have bad governments, etc.

What is more humane, watching 1 million children starve, or 5 million?
Mother nature takes care of over-population quite efficiently.
We are running out of resources. At what point do you say, there is no room for anymore.

I'm not against mankind. But there are limits you can put on the environment.
You can only grow so many tomato's per acre. At some point, you deplete the soil of nutrients faster than you can replenish it. Then the soil is useless for everyone.
I'm not against innovation to increase crop yield, But, that's a small part. You have to house these people. We can only go UP so high. The further OUT you spread for housing is land you give up for growing food on. Of course, Agenda-21 takes care of that - no private land ownership, we all live in government housing in a huge city.

I am surprised at your "... against mankind" comment".
Curious, how do rationalize that with "I swear by life..."
This topic goes directly to that. Very few of those 7 Billion will be producers, leaving a whole lot of moochers - right.
Where's the line between compassion/humane, and living for the sake of another.
That's a tough one - isn't.
In that sense, I would say, my previous post added value to the conversation. Just because you didn't like what I said, or how I said it, it's hardly worthy of 2 thumbs down.

I look forward to your reply.

Do yoiu deny, then, that several small farmers are the targets of lawsuits alleging patent infringement and nonpayment of fees for having one or two GM seedlings on their land? Do you deny that anyone would distinguish between the wild type and a recombinant type, whether you or anyone else hold that distinction valid or not?

The article is so full of nonsense. How are GMOs going to contaminate organics? What is an organic? Organic is about a process of growing foods, not about seeds. Why do these environmentalist complain about the process? If logic and reason had anything to do with the subject environmentalists would be for GMO plants because they require fewer pesticides.

I can assure that the people who wrote this article are not objectivists

Really, what about your car or your house or the software on your computer. These are all licensed. No one is forcing the farmers to buy the seeds, but if they do they come with restrictions. This is no different than buying a house that has covenants, which almost all houses in subdivisions do now days.

"Which also becomes an issue when the licensed item parasitically infects non-licensed items, thus creating an hybrid through no intent of the infected party." There is absolutely no evidence for this.

That is just propaganda. There is absolutely no evidence of this. The OSGATA attack on Monsanto was all based on what might happen and the courts correctly threw it out.

New studies coming out of late refute the claims of less pesticide, and fertilizer.
My point is, the jury is still out on GMO, and they need to stay in the lab, as a bio-hazard until proven differently.

Granted that abortion can be removing possible Hitlers as well as Ghandis. Maybe one day genetic analysis can help determine which of those is a possible outcome, but then there's the old nature/nurture debate about what creates sociopathic personalities (I suspect either are possible, as I have family with one single serial killer out of many who are kind and good-hearted people, and I suspect the murderer was inclined that way from birth, based on now well-known early behavioral indicators).

Touchy about "choice"? It's unfortunate that common sense rarely enters that discussion, as in concern for health of the mother, quality of life of the child based on genetic disabilities, and other justifiable reasons supporting abortion. When one side declares that late-term abortion bans are the start of a "slippery slope", and the other resists any attempt to justify the procedure under any circumstances, there's not much room for sensible compromise.

Oh, but it does matter. The gene sequence is patented. And seeds having this recombinant DNA have escaped into the wild. The company is using this to blame the small farmer onto whose field some of those seeds, or some of this pollen, have blown. That's a central legal point: just what control does anyone retain over intellectual property if he allows copies of it to blow away, literally, on the wind?

And how about the right some of the rest of us have, to eat grain, fruit, or vegetables containing only the wild type?

If it doesn't matter, then how can Monsanto or anyone else assert that it is superior?

The article is so full of nonsense. How are GMOs going to contaminate organics? What is an organic? Organic is about a process of growing foods, not about seeds. Why do these environmentalist complain about the process? If logic and reason had anything to do with the subject environmentalists would be for GMO plants because they require fewer pesticides.