Bigfatbillsfan Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I normally don't like to post blogs to start a topic. Though this is my fist OP on these boards. But this one caught my eye and I thought it would be a good topic for us to discuss. As far as I am concernd, more power to them. The more variety we have in food selection the better. The idea of Monsanto having a monopoly on what we are allowed to eat is a little disturbing. Wouldn't you agree? http://www.growswitch.com/blog/2011/07/270000-organic-farmers-sue-monsanto/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I normally don't like to post blogs to start a topic. Though this is my fist OP on these boards. But this one caught my eye and I thought it would be a good topic for us to discuss. As far as I am concernd, more power to them. The more variety we have in food selection the better. The idea of Monsanto having a monopoly on what we are allowed to eat is a little disturbing. Wouldn't you agree? http://www.growswitch.com/blog/2011/07/270000-organic-farmers-sue-monsanto/ I guess you don't know that corporations are (always) good. It's disturbing on many levels--making farmers seed-dependent, destruction of the seed diversity, creation of a monopoly (what happened to anti-trust?), etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I guess you don't know that corporations are (always) good. I'm not sure anyone has ever said that. Of course, you liberals like to put every ounce of your faith and energy into the largest corporation in the history of the world - so you're a bunch of hypocrites. It's disturbing on many levels--making farmers seed-dependent, destruction of the seed diversity, creation of a monopoly (what happened to anti-trust?), etc. At least Monsanto is basically politically neutral. 52% contributed to Republicans, 48% to Democrats. Just another example of how the 2 party system really works. Keep voting the way you vote, eventually it'll work out. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I'm not sure anyone has ever said that. Of course, you liberals like to put every ounce of your faith and energy into the largest corporation in the history of the world - so you're a bunch of hypocrites. At least Monsanto is basically politically neutral. 52% contributed to Republicans, 48% to Democrats. Just another example of how the 2 party system really works. Keep voting the way you vote, eventually it'll work out. Right? So you're saying I should stop voting for alternative party candidates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I normally don't like to post blogs to start a topic. Though this is my fist OP on these boards. But this one caught my eye and I thought it would be a good topic for us to discuss. As far as I am concernd, more power to them. The more variety we have in food selection the better. The idea of Monsanto having a monopoly on what we are allowed to eat is a little disturbing. Wouldn't you agree? http://www.growswitch.com/blog/2011/07/270000-organic-farmers-sue-monsanto/ Organic crops aren't cleaned and end up with bird poop, cow poop and lots of other types of poop on them. No thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 So you're saying I should stop voting for alternative party candidates? That wasn't pointed directly at you. Those people know who they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 (edited) I have not looked into this story (nor do I care to) but a few things struck me. (1) What are they suing for? Is this a declaratory judgment action? From the article, it sounds like they are suing to insure they don't get sued by Monsanto, which is a DJ action. That is odd. (2) The article is retarded and chock-full of hyped inaccuracies. Edited December 30, 2011 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I don't think anyone needs to shed tears for Monsanto. As I understand it, Monsanto has been very effective in forcing farmers to use their seeds as these seeds are now considered licensed property. You don't just simply buy Monsanto seeds, you have a service agreement with Monsanto whereby you must purchase new seeds every planting season rather harvesting seeds from last years crop. Doesn't sound like a big deal, but these terms have enabled Monsanto to sue farmers whose land happens to be inhabited by crops grown from Monsanto seeds. So if your neighbor has an agreement with Monsanto, and through the powers of wind, water, animals, etc. his seed takes hold on your land and proliferates, as Monsanto's genetically engineered seeds tend to do, you can now be sued for some kind of seed piracy and forced to pay for their product. How can you decide to switch to another seed provider when your liable for whatever Monsanto plant may thrive on your land. At least that's what I recall from Food Inc, or some other documentary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I don't think anyone needs to shed tears for Monsanto. As I understand it, Monsanto has been very effective in forcing farmers to use their seeds as these seeds are now considered licensed property. You don't just simply buy Monsanto seeds, you have a service agreement with Monsanto whereby you must purchase new seeds every planting season rather harvesting seeds from last years crop. Doesn't sound like a big deal, but these terms have enabled Monsanto to sue farmers whose land happens to be inhabited by crops grown from Monsanto seeds. So if your neighbor has an agreement with Monsanto, and through the powers of wind, water, animals, etc. his seed takes hold on your land and proliferates, as Monsanto's genetically engineered seeds tend to do, you can now be sued for some kind of seed piracy and forced to pay for their product. How can you decide to switch to another seed provider when your liable for whatever Monsanto plant may thrive on your land. At least that's what I recall from Food Inc, or some other documentary. What was happening is that the modified seeds took root in the neighbor's property and Monsanto sued, alleging that the neighbor was using the seeds without a license. The allegation was not that the neighbor just sat still and seeds blew onto his property--but that the neighbor got hold of seeds illegally and used them. It sucks because if the neighbor did nothing, there's no way he can defend the lawsuit (not enough $$). And I guess that's the DJ case, if that's what the 270,000 are suing Monsanto for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 What was happening is that the modified seeds took root in the neighbor's property and Monsanto sued, alleging that the neighbor was using the seeds without a license. The allegation was not that the neighbor just sat still and seeds blew onto his property--but that the neighbor got hold of seeds illegally and used them. It sucks because if the neighbor did nothing, there's no way he can defend the lawsuit (not enough $$). And I guess that's the DJ case, if that's what the 270,000 are suing Monsanto for. Then why are only the organic loons involved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Then why are only the organic loons involved? organic loons are good eating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted December 30, 2011 Author Share Posted December 30, 2011 I have not looked into this story (nor do I care to) but a few things struck me. (1) What are they suing for? Is this a declaratory judgment action? From the article, it sounds like they are suing to insure they don't get sued by Monsanto, which is a DJ action. That is odd. (2) The article is retarded and chock-full of hyped inaccuracies. Hence the reason that I don't like to start threads with a blog. In the end this is just the opinion of the writer. But it's close enough to my own opinion that I thought it was worth using. Organic crops aren't cleaned and end up with bird poop, cow poop and lots of other types of poop on them. No thanks. You could always clean them yourself before you eat them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 (edited) You could always clean them yourself before you eat them. Sure. And I could build a fire to heat my house every night too. Technology like chemicals were invented so people don't have to go cleaning bird crap off there fruits and vegetables. The organic loons want us to all live in caves and draw pictures of antelope on the wall. Edited December 31, 2011 by ieatcrayonz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Sure. And I could build a fire to heat my house every night too. Technology like chemicals were invented so people don't have to go cleaning bird crap off there fruits and vegetables. The organic loons want us to all live in caves and draw pictures of antelope on the wall. I'm confused. Is this thread about organically fed loons, Canadian money or the person starting this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 I'm confused. Is this thread about organically fed loons, Canadian money or the person starting this thread? Fatty is secretly an organically fed unit of Canadian currency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Fatty is secretly an organically fed unit of Canadian currency. And to think for years, I've thought of Fatty as genetically altered... Hmmmmmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 What was happening is that the modified seeds took root in the neighbor's property and Monsanto sued, alleging that the neighbor was using the seeds without a license. The allegation was not that the neighbor just sat still and seeds blew onto his property--but that the neighbor got hold of seeds illegally and used them. It sucks because if the neighbor did nothing, there's no way he can defend the lawsuit (not enough $$). And I guess that's the DJ case, if that's what the 270,000 are suing Monsanto for. Isn't that exactly what I was inferring? That's the problem with Monsanto. Whether the seeds were intentionally stolen and planted or happened to grow through natural means makes no difference in Monsanto's ability to sue a farmer and force them to pay for use of Monsanto's product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted December 31, 2011 Author Share Posted December 31, 2011 Fatty is secretly an organically fed unit of Canadian currency. Wrong again Koko!!! I'm Batman!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 I guess you don't know that corporations are (always) good. It's disturbing on many levels--making farmers seed-dependent, destruction of the seed diversity, creation of a monopoly (what happened to anti-trust?), etc. That's a good question. Really. It seems to me that there are lots of areas where anti-trust needs to be at least investigated, if not enforced. But, the government is probably still butthurt from losing to Microsoft so badly. Certainly we need to look at banking, if not forcibly break up all of the banks into smaller entities and force foreign banks to do the same if they want to work with us. However, why would the government enforce antitrust today, when they are currently in the trust-creating business? Or hypothetically: what would have happened to a private company if they had been able to eat Solyndra's lunch and was in danger of competing them out of business? Yeah, I'm so sure they wouldn't have been audited, harassed, investigated, etc. Another hypothetical: what would happen to a new American car manufacturer if they were to start killing GM? You can't be in the anti-trust business, and, the "picking winners and losers" business, at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts