lets send them into the middle east so they can real commit genocide.

I had a discussion recently with an Indiana farmer on vacation and she said the opposite. She said workers have gotten sick and more application p/h is needed ten years later. She said she is going organic slowly.

Eh. Just tells me I need to check my premises ;)

You have put it quite succinctly.

Jan

Yes, the 'real' solution is taking the power away from the looters to restrict the free market and limit competition. Your suggestion is a start toward a free market. In the long run everyone benefits but in the short run shareholders suffer and CEO's get blamed. It isn't likely to happen unless Monsanto is reading this;^)

They are crony. They got passed through a bill that they could no longer be sued for the seed distribution issues. pure cronyism.

No worries, blarman. I should have seen it ;^)

OK. My warped sense of humor prefers the former path. Monsanto would say, "OK. We have lots of money. We won't sell to anyone who doesn't want us. Oh, did we tell you about our newest developments in [enter half dozen terrific improvements in agri-tech]?

I do not think this will happen, but I think that it would be the best thing in the long run: Refuse to pay the fines and accept that your markets for improved agritech will be legally diminished until the countries dump the restrictions (as Uganda has apparently done per db's GMO article).

Many years ago, insurance companies had the policy of 'caving' and negotiating settlements even when they knew they could win the case - because litigation is expensive. About 15-20 years ago, they woke up to the fact that they had created an ecology of litigation, and they began fighting even the small cases (though a net financial loss to do so, even when they won). (I was a witness at such a case.) The number of suits diminished, because they were no longer 'cows' to be milked by ambulance-chaser lawyers.

This is what Monsanto needs to do.

Jan

One of the benefits of genetically-engineered crops (like corn and soy beans) is that the need to use chemical pesticides and herbicides is reduced, thus reducing the chemical impact on your precious environment. Without these technologies, reliance will once again have to be placed on increased use of chemicals. The alternative to using neither option would, of course, be reduced crop yields, because all those weeds and pests that compete for soil nutrients and eat crops really don't give a crap about the UN or the Hague. I suppose there is another alternative: we could just create more land. Oops, can't do that either. In fact, as human settlement encroaches on farm and ranch land, agriculturally productive land decreases, and yes, there are more people all the time. Another UN-style solution would be less people. Genocide, anyone? If the government wants less people, they better not start with me - I'm heavily armed and will defend myself.

Summary judgement and no access to the markets represented by the court?
Much easier to bribe the court by agreeing to pay big fines and provide free vacation homes for the judges.
Its a 'protection racket' similar to the mafia.
Not that Monsanto is an innocent either.

Sorry if it was a bit obscure. I was referring to kangaroo courts. Anything dealing with the UN is predetermined and anti-liberty IMO.

Good analogy.

Thats what happens when the inmates control the asylum and none of the sane stand up for themselves.

What a bunch of environmentalist clap trap. The people who should be on trial are the environmentalists who spread this BS.

ENVIRONMENTALIST ARE EVIL

I think I have missed your point, blarman. Please enlighten me?

So. What if Monsanto just ignores them?

Jan, strongly on the side of Monsanto

My memory is hazy about a class action lawsuit some firm of lawyers asked me with a letter to participate in during the early 90's.
I sent back an OK, though I cannot now even remember who the defendant was.
I did not not feel victimized or anything.
What I do recall was being tightly strapped for paying child support at the time.
Yes, a financial hardship rendered me shamelessly greedy.
Months later I received a letter that proclaimed a courtroom victory and a settlement check for six dollars and something cents.
I recall staring at the check and thinking, "I bet the lawyers received a lot more than this."

As with any class action, lawyers will get rich while the "injured" will get a t-shirt.

Hindsight is amazing, the committing of crimes no one knew existed. Most of what Monsanto did was probably legal at the time, The Constitution remarks on ex post facto laws, or after the fact. How many people did not starve because of the genetic engineered plants. On the other hand over 900 M people have died of malaria because DDT was banned, all based on a very suspect research and a political operative. I doubt few will speak or be allowed to speak on Monsanto's behalf; that would not suit the political agenda!

It's like something happening in an American city and Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson shows up. Immediately I become suspicious of who is going to grease their palms.

Boing. Boing. Boing.

The kangaroos are out in force. Time to see if any actually have boxing gloves.

The inventor of the wheel tortured on the wheel he invented. Let Monsanto pay if they have actually harmed the environment. The greatest problem in my mind is that the biggest outcry and actions have come from Eco-Zealots whose religious-like devotion to their cause speaks to me of hidden agendas. Monsanto, guilty or not -- I don't trust the accusers.