Not having a degree in biology or medicine, I will not comment on the substance of the discussion, but I would like to point out my objection to your apparent obsession with (or, presumably, against) "greed." I am getting an impression from your comments that this "greed" is a great evil that companies, Monsanto in particular, unleash on the world. I do not know what is your profession, but I am sure that you do your work everyday strictly altruistically, for the benefit of the world and do not get paid for it. I am sure that it couldn't be otherwise, for you would never allow "greed" to direct your life. I, of course, side with the "greedy" capitalists because I, too, everyday do what I do primarily because I expect, greedily, to get paid for it.

It is not your seed, you have a license to those seeds.

Every cultivated plant in the world is a GMO.

Interesting site to refer to, FFA... did you look at the home page, http://www.rense.com/ , too?

It looks to me like 'rense' has collected just about every catastrophic conspiracy theory on the web in one place... SUCH a reliable primary resource... not.

Deal with facts not propaganda. Any objective look at the facts shows a propaganda campaign by anti-reason, anti-human, environmentalists.

Monsanto may not be perfectly innocent here, but this is clearly an environmentalist, anti-free market campaign by people who are not interested in the truth.

Like many environmental claims, they overwhelm the debate while ignoring the facts.

The issue is not settled, yet you appear to conclude that it is.
All the studies opposing Monsanto's GMO are not lies. Are they the whole truth? Perhaps not, but you appear to be willing to accept Monsanto's arguments (by rejecting others as lies) in spite of monsanto's proven immoral acts. Are you capable of examining the science as Dagny was regarding Rearden Metal? If so, please enlighten us. If not, then stop covering for Monsanto by criticising the studies as lies.
(I understand you have studied the patent law, but that is not the issue that your comment criticises. Happy to continue the discussion with you;^)

If you eat carcinogens, they affect your cells to multiply in an unintended way. Whether that is technically speaking a modification of the DNA or not, the result is quite the same.

Balanced?
The 3 people that offer the 'balanced' support for Monsanto against the study are:
1) Bradford, a consutant for monsanto
2) Hoofnagle, a surgeon with no scientific background and a believer in Global Warming who runs a website denailism.com to embarrass scientists opposing GW
3) Lynas, an expert supporter of Global Warming, but with little background whatsoever in GMO crops, but praised as a reformed anti-GMO expert.

I point this out because I agree with you that its near impossible to find unbiased reports on GMOs.
However, Monsanto's actions speak louder than their advertising. Monsanto has proven they cannot be trusted.

Agree completely about DDT. The patent on DDT had expired and it was not a good cash cow any more. It was in the financial interest of the manufacturer to ban it so they could provide an inferior product at a much higher profit. Malaria was almost wiped out, but the removal of DDT from the market allowed it to return as a killer of millions. The ban of DDT was a travesty and a disservice to mankind. See Kicking the Sacred Cow by James Hogan.

Based upon what scientific study?
Monsanto's studies are designed to promote their products and to ignore the possibility of long term effects... biased and inconclusive.
Add to that monsanto's immoral corruption of laws to protect them from lawsuit and the vested interest of Monsanto to lie about it, and the scales indicate that the critical studies and reports must be seriously examined and rationally considered.
This is not a bull5h|t computer model like global warming from looters trying to tax everyone; its a genuine concern that one powerful company is inflicting a poisonous product on the food supply and that threatens our health.
Monsanto must be held responsible.
Rearden and Dagny were willing to be responsible for the effects of their actions on others. Monsanto has shown that they are not willing to take responsibility.

How am *I* the one making the claim in the fourth round of replies to you? Sounds like you have no proof, so wish to shift the burden...

A lot of that goes down to Monsanto taking what COULD be beneficial in small doses and spraying the living hell out of it, just like DDT, and just like Roundup. Clearly one would assume that eventually a company would HAVE to finally Get It that perhaps this isn't the wisest choice, and I submit that they already have Got It, yet choose to continue on this destructive and clearly harmful path. Monsanto is clearly acting like it's beyond the reach of Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand", and is also just as clearly a Bad Actor.

The last URL is A) wrong fucking war and B) personally insulting to me, as I HAVE a mild case of GWS. It has nothing at all to do with any Monsanto products, unless Monsanto now claims that Kuwati oilfields are Monsanto products, or unless Monsanto is now admitting that the WMD in Iraq were actually provided to Iraq by Monsanto in violation of US and International laws (interesting aside, the WMD+oil fires = GWS is why Powell was so easy to convince of WMDs in Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo, it was common knowledge that we FOUND chemical weapons in '92, and some of them burned in the well fires, and probably a few of them were helped there by well-meaning US Troops, thinking that destroyed was destroyed)

And Monsanto's bulls4!t is even more biased. The fact is that studies are showing that Monsanto's GMOs combined with the use of Roundup on the crops (the only supposed reason to use the Monsanto GMOs) are being shown to damage the health of the animals and people who consume the food made with Monsanto GMO crops, and it is increasing in the crops over time as the glyphosate increases in the soil. (Studies are also showing that the glyphosates are not biodegradeable as claimed by the incomplete BIASED Monsanto studies claim.)
(I don't dispute db's study of the specific case you both cited.)

Sorry, you are barking up the wrong tree. If you read my posts here you will see no complaining about pesticides. On the contrary, you will see suggestion to read James Hogan's Kicking the Sacred Cow, to see the truth behind some of the biggest frauds in science, including DDT.
As for feeding the 7 billion with GMO food, based on the recent reports and studies of the harm done by using GMO seed and Roundup the result is the opposite. Growing more food that poisons the people eating it is not a solution. BTW, I don't necessarily oppose technology, but GMOs from Monsanto were never tested thoroughly enough before being released in the wild. Billions of people who eat Monsanto crops will be condemned to painful death by disease and starvation. If the point is to reduce the population quicker through disease then Monsanto's GMO products are a solution, but unfortunately the 'solution' is uncontrollable as it genetically poisons the existing seed stock and the use of Roundup may destroy the farmland itself for generations.
I know that you are a rational person, Will, but you should open your mind and read the research done by those with no vested interests in the success or failure of Monsanto's products.
You will find that all the criticism isn't coming from a bunch of irrational, green weirdos.

Actually even that is a myth.

Bowman v. Monsanto involves a farmer who figured out how to get Monsanto’s patented seeds cheaper from a grain elevator than from the company.

The farmers do not want to use or sell transgenic seed incorporating Monsanto’s technologies. They also oppose the use of glyphosate and do not use it on their crops. So what is the problem then? If they don’t want to infringe and don’t plan on infringing Monsanto patents how could they possibly support a declaratory judgment action against Monsanto? They say they were concerned that if they do indeed become contaminated by transgenic seed Monsanto may come knocking and assert claims of infringement despite the fact that they have done nothing affirmative, unlike farmer Bowman, to infringe the Monsanto patents.

But the farmers must have had some theory, right? Well, I suppose you could say they had something up their sleeves. In order to fabricate a case or controversy where clearly none existed, the farmers — AFTER filing the declaratory judgment action — sent Monsanto a letter, which asked Monsanto to expressly waive any claim for patent infringement they may ever have against the farmers and memorialize that waiver by providing a written covenant not to sue. The farmers explained that without such a covenant, they would at risk.

Repeating lies is not the same thing as showing the truth. See the DDT debate, Anthropomorphic Global Warming, Nuclear Power, etc, etc. This is nothing more than another environmental scare monger story, with the usual disregard for the fact

Here are the facts.

Bowman v. Monsanto involves a farmer who figured out how to get Monsanto’s patented seeds cheaper from a grain elevator than from the company.

The farmers do not want to use or sell transgenic seed incorporating Monsanto’s technologies. They also oppose the use of glyphosate and do not use it on their crops. So what is the problem then? If they don’t want to infringe and don’t plan on infringing Monsanto patents how could they possibly support a declaratory judgment action against Monsanto? They say they were concerned that if they do indeed become contaminated by transgenic seed Monsanto may come knocking and assert claims of infringement despite the fact that they have done nothing affirmative, unlike farmer Bowman, to infringe the Monsanto patents.

But the farmers must have had some theory, right? Well, I suppose you could say they had something up their sleeves. In order to fabricate a case or controversy where clearly none existed, the farmers — AFTER filing the declaratory judgment action — sent Monsanto a letter, which asked Monsanto to expressly waive any claim for patent infringement they may ever have against the farmers and memorialize that waiver by providing a written covenant not to sue. The farmers explained that without such a covenant, they would at risk.

The reality is that farmers want to steal other people's technology. There is absolutely no facts to support the assertion Monsanto has sued or will sue farmers who have not purposely violated their property rights.

May I comment? The insanity is not going away. Monsanto has evolved into the major seed company world wide. Their greed is so blind they actually are not willing to admit they have made serious mistakes. That their seeds will eventually cease to produce. This is fact not speculation. If you plant their seed you must use their other products or your seed will not provide a profitable harvest. They know that year after year their GMO seeds fail to bring forth a harvest worth the cost of planting. They have so mutilated the seeds that they loose the ability to produce from seed harvested for the next season. That is far worse than the harmful side affects that is already revealing itself. Just look at the number of sick children. Look at the number of birth defects. Look at the rate of cancer. Unless you are growing your own, you are in the ship with every other human being that has chosen to live off the processed foods made from the harvest of GMO's. Once they totally contaminate all heirloom and organic seed, which is done without them lifting a finger, the wind does it free of charge, eventually all seeds that produce the food that feeds the world, will fail. Go away, I do not think so. Their greed is too great. Funny how many of them buy organic isn't it? Try finding a seed company that is not owned by Monsanto in one form or another. It is more difficult than the majority knows.

I wasn't commenting on Roundup. I was commenting on the DDT "Scare". I don't think anything should be used indiscriminately. Anything can be damaging if over used. That doesn't mean it needs to be banned like DDT.

The SCOTUS decision does precisely what I used it for, proves that Monsanto WILL litigate unlicensed crops, as far as they can, making people that are the subject of a C&D letter extremely compliant if they can't see themselves litigating something through a Supreme Court with a former Monsanto attorney (Thomas) on it: extortion works best when the threat is something to be avoided at all costs.