The case was dismissed because there was nothing to litigate. The farmers were suing on a maybe, and there was nothing to suggest that Monsanto was interested in prosecuting on an error.
In both the US and Canada, yes, this is true, there was nothing to litigate. Why is that? Here the facts are simple; if a farmer wishes to grow and sell organic crops, he/she must have zero testable amounts of GMO content. Any content whatsoever, and the crop's resale value is destroyed as certainly as if it were consumed in fire or plague . . . or, more aptly, contamination more akin to vandalism.
Faced with contamination from GMOs, organic farmers have no recourse under the law. Why is that? Because, quite simply, Monsanto and all the others involved in patented crops have prevented a simple upgrade—a needed upgrade, given the situation faced by organic farmers—that would allow contamination suits to proceed.
The GMO manufacturers are preventing, in essence, anti-vandalism lawsuits by preventing an upgrade in the law—one the founders could never have predicted with 18th century farming technology—and all to protect a business model. Not a way of life, not a technology that could save the world: just a business model.
Europe does not suffer this nonsense simply because they do not regulate their food supply the same way. They have what's called a Precautionary Principal. Instead of running every new innovation by the FDA for a stamp of approval, the Precautionary Principal mandates that everyone do no harm with their innovations. If an innovation proves harmful, even in the very long run, the innovator gets to pay damages.
It's a better system, and the reason we cannot export our GMO crops to Europe.
(I am reminded of a very, very busy off-season at work on year. We were filling grain ships looong after harvest. Why? The grain had tested positive for GMO, and was rejected by Europe. That grain had to be carted by train all the way across the states and loaded on the West coast for Asian markets that have yet to find the brains to adopt the Precautionary Principal.)
aced with contamination from GMOs, organic farmers have no recourse under the law. Why is that? Because, quite simply, Monsanto and all the others involved in patented crops have prevented a simple upgrade—a needed upgrade, given the situation faced by organic farmers—that would allow contamination suits to proceed.
No, you're completely wrong on this. Organic farmers currently have no recourse because what they fear will happen hasn't happened. There's nothing to support the fear that Monsanto will sue for seeds blown onto their crops.
This isn't about "organic."
It's a better system, and the reason we cannot export our GMO crops to Europe.
We can't export our GMO crops to Europe because Europe has anti-scientific laws on the books banning genetically modified foods from being used in many of those nations. Not because of a precautionary principle, not because of Monsanto, but because of anti-scientific quackery.
There's nothing to support the fear that Monsanto will sue for seeds blown onto their crops.
Actually, there is. Not seeds, per se, but GMO content. It all starts with Percy Schmeiser (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted), a Canadian rapeseed seed farmer whom Monsanto sued. As you can plainly see from the very, very pro-GMO NPR piece, it may have been one of the only suits, but it does disprove your statement.
The details of this case not discussed are worthy of mention. As the piece notes,
This convinced the judge that Schmeiser intentionally planted Roundup Ready canola. Schmeiser appealed. The Canadian Supreme Court that Schmeiser had violated Monsanto's patent, but had obtained no benefit by doing so, so he didn't owe Monsanto any money.
What isn't mentioned? Schmeiser was an organic rapeseed seed grower. Though he was found to have "violated" Monsanto's patents by having patented GMO crops in his fields, and though he demonstrated that the content probably entered his field through pollen contamination, what the piece does not mention is that he was put out of business permanently. No one would buy seed that was supposed to be GMO-free.
The Canadian Supreme Court sympathized with him, which is why they mentioned that he "had obtained no benefit." That GMO contamination put him out of business, and since the laws were not up to date as to what constituted "contamination" in the farm business, they let him off. The Justices were quite clear that he had been screwed, and said so; they simply couldn't do anything about it.
Now, why would people say this thing about Monsanto's "lawsuits?" Getting back to the NPR pro-Monsanto, anti-balance piece:
So why is this a myth? It's certainly true that Monsanto has been going after farmers whom the company suspects of using GMO seeds without paying royalties. And there are plenty of cases — including Schmeiser's — in which the company has overreached, engaged in raw intimidation, and made accusations that turned out not to be backed up by evidence.
Bottom line, they don't have to. They have the monopoly on these seeds. If they suspect a farmer saved seeds to avoid feeding the Monsanto profit monster, they withhold seeds and other stuff (like the herbicide the seeds are designed to resist, RoundUp). They are a monopoly in this market and don't need to resort to the courts. They may have sued Schmeiser, in fact, just because Schmeiser was suing them for contaminating his farm and ruining his business; it was just a distraction to detract from the economic harm they had inflicted on him with their product.
As to Europe, you are completely mis-informed. Just sayin'. Start by looking up the Precautionary Principal.
No. The law states that if the GMO content is on the field, it must have been planted by the farmer. That is why Monsanto sued, based not on the other factors that could have placed the content but based only on the law. The law is insufficient in this case, in that it only recognizes planting as a way of introducing seed/content to a field.
Again, there was no intention on the part of the farmer to have that content. He was, and let me stress this, an organic rapeseed seed farmer. The business had been going for generations, and Monsanto's content destroyed that.
The law states that if the GMO content is on the field, it must have been planted by the farmer.
No, it doesn't. The law doesn't assume that, it's a civil issue. Monsanto assumes that if the seed exists, it was planted. That's why Monsanto doesn't sue for trace amounts, and that's why the case in the US was thrown out.
Again, there was no intention on the part of the farmer to have that content. He was, and let me stress this, an organic rapeseed seed farmer. The business had been going for generations, and Monsanto's content destroyed that.
No, it doesn't. The law doesn't assume that, it's a civil issue.
After some research, I stand corrected. Though there should be, there is no legal recourse to pollen or seed contamination, nothing to prevent a patent holder from going against someone who simply doesn't want to do business with the patent holder. It is coercion, purely and simply.
. . . that's why the case in the US was thrown out.
The Schmeiser case is Canadian. They have a whole different currency and everything! And for some revealing detail, why don't we revisit the Schmeiser case?
After the Canadian Supreme Court both dismissed their case and sympathized with their plight, the Schmeisers were forced to change business (http://www.rightlivelihood.org/schmeiser.html): "Since the first court case, the Schmeisers shifted their agricultural business from canola to wheat, mustard, peas and oats in order to avoid future problems."
Keep in mind their line of organic rapeseed seeds went back decades. They were forced to completely retool their business to avoid dealing with Monsanto contamination. Ah, but did they?
But soon they found genetically modified Monsanto canola plants on their land again. They called the company and demanded that they be removed. Monsanto conducted tests and confirmed that these were their Monsanto Roundup Ready plants. Monsanto agreed to remove them if the Schmeisers signed a document with a non-disclosure statement and an assurance that they would never take Monsanto to court. The Schmeisers did not sign this statement and again demanded from Monsanto to take these plants off of their land. When Monsanto did not react, they paid some workers to remove the plants and sent Monsanto the bill of $600. When Monsanto did not pay, the Schmeisers sued them in a provincial court. In March 2008, the Schmeisers settled their lawsuit with Monsanto in an out of court agreement, in which Monsanto agreed to pay all the clean-up costs of genetically modified canola that contaminated the Schmeisers' fields.
And when we dig a bit deeper, it turns out the NPR dick (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted) was wrong: Monsanto has sued farmers for copyright infringement of the life they own. Appendix A of this PDF (http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/cfsmonsantovsfarmerreport11305.pdf) lists hundreds of coercions and lawsuits, some of them garnering Monsanto millions. I knew that NPR guy was being way too pro-corporate. Sadly, too many of them are.
Dude, if you're libertarian, why the fuck do you care what people choose to eat? Seriously, it's one thing to state that no science available has found the flesh of a pig to be dangerous. It's another to shove a pork chop into a rabbi's mouth and bitch when he complains.
Though there should be, there is no legal recourse to pollen or seed contamination, nothing to prevent a patent holder from going against someone who simply doesn't want to do business with the patent holder.
There doesn't need to be a law, no. And there is recourse due to that Supreme Court case, which pretty much said that Monsanto's words on the matter (that they wouldn't pursue blown seeds) constituted a material act (my words, not theirs) and that future suits would likely be dismissed because of it.
That's likely all we'll get in the short term, and all we should!
Monsanto has sued farmers for copyright infringement of the life they own. Appendix A of this PDF lists hundreds of coercions and lawsuits, some of them garnering Monsanto millions. I knew that NPR guy was being way too pro-corporate. Sadly, too many of them are.
They own the life, but they're violating agreements. The agreements of using Monsanto seed is to not replant the seeds. To replant the seeds is a violation of the contract.
Dude, if you're libertarian, why the fuck do you care what people choose to eat?
I don't! What I don't like is people using the power of the state to lessen my choices, either by outright bans or misleading, state-sponsored coercion.
The agreements of using Monsanto seed is to not replant the seeds. To replant the seeds is a violation of the contract.
As Clay Jenkinson, historian and Thomas Jefferson re-enactor, has said quite emphatically, the act of replanting seed is what farmers do. It has been what farmers have done for literally thousands of years. It is, and I do not say this lightly, the very definition of capitalism.
For Monsanto to insert a legal penalty for the act of farming—up to and including reserving acts of harassment (short, as you note, of lawsuit)—is for Monsanto to attempt to re-define the act of farming itself, by trying to become the rentier of the seed just as a landowner is the rentier of the farmer.*
I suppose Monsanto's little scheme of cornering a seed market would have been just fine and dandy, were it not for those pesky genes and their tendency to propagate where they can, rather than where they were intended.
What I don't like is people using the power of the state to lessen my choices. . . .
Okay. I may not agree with the Talmudic and Salal prohibitions on swine flesh, but I absolutely agree with their right to live kosher; and the only way to do that, short of becoming your own farmer for all food consumed, is labeling. Why is Monsanto and the rest of the Gene Splicing For Profit gang using the power of the state to lessen my choice about which foods are labeled and which are not?
When the power of the state, as you call it, can be bought, in my opinion it loses any legitimacy in this kind of argument. When "state-sponsored" is corporate funded, it's corporate first and state second.
*Fun fact: the term "farmer" refers to someone contracted to do a deed. Only over many years of landowners farming out the job of growing food on their land has the term become equivalent with a practitioner of agriculture.
As Clay Jenkinson, historian and Thomas Jefferson re-enactor, has said quite emphatically, the act of replanting seed is what farmers do. It has been what farmers have done for literally thousands of years. It is, and I do not say this lightly, the very definition of capitalism.
That's great. Farming has changed. Those who do not want to use Monsanto seeds are free to do so.
Why is Monsanto and the rest of the Gene Splicing For Profit gang using the power of the state to lessen my choice about which foods are labeled and which are not?
What information does a GMO label provide that's of relevance. "It's genetically modified" is not an answer, as the existence of genetic modification alone is not anything a consumer needs to be concerned about, unlike calorie counts or whether something is Kosher. It's a "nice to have" label.
When the power of the state, as you call it, can be bought, in my opinion it loses any legitimacy in this kind of argument. When "state-sponsored" is corporate funded, it's corporate first and state second.
What information does a GMO label provide that's of relevance. "It's genetically modified" is not an answer, as the existence of genetic modification alone is not anything a consumer needs to be concerned about, unlike calorie counts or whether something is Kosher. It's a "nice to have" label.
Never mind losing it, here's where you're missing the plot entirely. Except for the allergic, there is nothing in pork or shrimp or cheeseburgers or Leviticus-prohibited whatever that should be objectionable as food. These have been tested again and again by the same scientists who give GMO crops a clean bill of health.
Yet people object. They furthermore have every right to object, even though their objections are based on pre- and often anti-scientific mumblings, faiths and prejudices every bit as superstitious and shallow as those who prefer to eat foods modified only by cross-breeding.
The GMO label is therefore exactly analogous to the Kosher label, no matter how vociferously you insist on denying this. Furthermore, this has always been the point.
To deny this very simple fact outs you as either diabolical or (more likely) riddled with the ill-ease of cognitive dissonance.
Except for the allergic, there is nothing in pork or shrimp or cheeseburgers or Leviticus-prohibited whatever that should be objectionable as food. These have been tested again and again by the same scientists who give GMO crops a clean bill of health.
I don't disagree. However, the information is relevant in these situations, which is not the case for GMO. They object for relevant, clear, reasonable reasons.
The GMO label is therefore exactly analogous to the Kosher label, no matter how vociferously you insist on denying this. Furthermore, this has always been the point.
The Kosher label is because of religious dietary restrictions. What religious dietary situation exists for genetic modifications? Will we then label seedless watermelons?
However, the information is relevant in these situations, which is not the case for GMO.
No, no, no. The US Constitution has no religious test: based on this, the secular regulatory arm has no authority to consider one religious text and its prohibitions as carrying more weight than another.
What religious dietary situation exists for genetic modifications?
Should someone object to GMO because it's treyf, then unlabeled food is treyf, and they can move to label non-GMO (similar to the little circled U and K on rabbinically inspected and approved foods). The FDA has no authority to judge one religious tenet over the other.
Will we then label seedless watermelons?
You or I could grow seedless watermelons in our back yards without a zillion dollars in lab equipment and advanced degrees. These, as I noted elsewhere, are simply sterile mule melons, no jellyfish genome material required.
Oh, and to complete the total and complete failure of your cinderblock-ish argument, the last time I checked, seedless melons were labeled. It's a selling point, not having to spit seeds all over the picnic table!
No, no, no. The US Constitution has no religious test: based on this, the secular regulatory arm has no authority to consider one religious text and its prohibitions as carrying more weight than another.
And Kosher labeling is not required. Not should it be.
You or I could grow seedless watermelons in our back yards without a zillion dollars in lab equipment and advanced degrees.
Scary!
Oh, and to complete the total and complete failure of your cinderblock-ish argument, the last time I checked, seedless melons were labeled. It's a selling point, not having to spit seeds all over the picnic table!
They're not labeled as GMO. That's the point, nor should they be, nor should any GMO food.
And. . . . Jeff has left the building. The Logic Building, where the reasonable discuss things reasonably. Why is that?
Because Jeff has missed the necessary element of a patent. A patent, to be issued, must be on a form or variant that is not obvious to those in the arts. Growing sterile hybrids? Grafting? Been done for thousands of years. You and I could grow it, yes; but it would never be given patent protection. It is therefore not GMO, not in terms that have any relevance to the discussion of GMOs.
GMO = patented life forms.
Ah, but you know that. You're smart enough to know that. What you aren't smart enough to do is know when to quit trolling an argument with specious obfuscation. You get, apparently, so wrapped up in your Trolling Dance and hopping about like an electrocuted monkey that you make silly, silly statements that have no bearing whatsoever on the argument.
Once again, GMO = patented life forms. The modifications are unique enough both to science and to the patent office that they have been granted the patent protection that enables Monsanto and others to go tear-assing around the world making life very different and likely more and more miserable to those who actually grow the seed into food.
When you wish to discuss this, get back to us. Meanwhile, Troll Monkey, I leave you to your spastic Troll Monkey Dance.
That's great. Farming has changed. Those who do not want to use Monsanto seeds are free to do so.
The farmers that we need to be worried about are not the ones who sign a contract with Monsanto promising not to re-plant their seed. The ones we need to be worried about are the ones who find their non-Monsanto crops cross-contaminated, and know their crops are cross-contaminated, and find themselves suddenly with seed they had intended to re-plant but find themselves under threat of legal suit if they do so.
The case you've cited, above, explicitly does not include any such "knowing" farmers (trace levels of contamination or not). They remain fully vulnerable to suit, given the outcome of that case.
No, it doesn't. The law doesn't assume that, it's a civil issue. Monsanto assumes that if the seed exists, it was planted. That's why Monsanto doesn't sue for trace amounts, and that's why the case in the US was thrown out.
Jeff, the underlying legal claims and analysis are complicated, and you clearly don't understand them.
The case was "thrown out" because Monsanto made a non-binding statement that it wouldn't sue farmers for engaging in a relatively de minimis amount of "unintentional" infringement, which statement the court in question declared to be binding by virtue of the court's own decision to dismiss the case as being too speculative to litigate - a baldly circular argument that has next-to-nothing to do with your own portrayal of the decision, to say nothing of your decision to run with only a vague reiteration of your already off-base misunderstanding of the legal theory.
You have spun yourself so completely out of sync with reality, I'm truly baffled. Your only counter-evidence against the claim that Monsanto is abusing its patents in an anti-competitive manner is a mischaracterization of a misunderstanding of a case whose protective scope, even if accepted at its face value, is far narrower than your argument allows.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2014-07-29 11:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-29 07:59 pm (UTC)Faced with contamination from GMOs, organic farmers have no recourse under the law. Why is that? Because, quite simply, Monsanto and all the others involved in patented crops have prevented a simple upgrade—a needed upgrade, given the situation faced by organic farmers—that would allow contamination suits to proceed.
The GMO manufacturers are preventing, in essence, anti-vandalism lawsuits by preventing an upgrade in the law—one the founders could never have predicted with 18th century farming technology—and all to protect a business model. Not a way of life, not a technology that could save the world: just a business model.
Europe does not suffer this nonsense simply because they do not regulate their food supply the same way. They have what's called a Precautionary Principal. Instead of running every new innovation by the FDA for a stamp of approval, the Precautionary Principal mandates that everyone do no harm with their innovations. If an innovation proves harmful, even in the very long run, the innovator gets to pay damages.
It's a better system, and the reason we cannot export our GMO crops to Europe.
(I am reminded of a very, very busy off-season at work on year. We were filling grain ships looong after harvest. Why? The grain had tested positive for GMO, and was rejected by Europe. That grain had to be carted by train all the way across the states and loaded on the West coast for Asian markets that have yet to find the brains to adopt the Precautionary Principal.)
no subject
Date: 2014-07-29 08:02 pm (UTC)No, you're completely wrong on this. Organic farmers currently have no recourse because what they fear will happen hasn't happened. There's nothing to support the fear that Monsanto will sue for seeds blown onto their crops.
This isn't about "organic."
It's a better system, and the reason we cannot export our GMO crops to Europe.
We can't export our GMO crops to Europe because Europe has anti-scientific laws on the books banning genetically modified foods from being used in many of those nations. Not because of a precautionary principle, not because of Monsanto, but because of anti-scientific quackery.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-29 08:57 pm (UTC)Actually, there is. Not seeds, per se, but GMO content. It all starts with Percy Schmeiser (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted), a Canadian rapeseed seed farmer whom Monsanto sued. As you can plainly see from the very, very pro-GMO NPR piece, it may have been one of the only suits, but it does disprove your statement.
The details of this case not discussed are worthy of mention. As the piece notes,
What isn't mentioned? Schmeiser was an organic rapeseed seed grower. Though he was found to have "violated" Monsanto's patents by having patented GMO crops in his fields, and though he demonstrated that the content probably entered his field through pollen contamination, what the piece does not mention is that he was put out of business permanently. No one would buy seed that was supposed to be GMO-free.
The Canadian Supreme Court sympathized with him, which is why they mentioned that he "had obtained no benefit." That GMO contamination put him out of business, and since the laws were not up to date as to what constituted "contamination" in the farm business, they let him off. The Justices were quite clear that he had been screwed, and said so; they simply couldn't do anything about it.
Now, why would people say this thing about Monsanto's "lawsuits?" Getting back to the NPR pro-Monsanto, anti-balance piece:
Bottom line, they don't have to. They have the monopoly on these seeds. If they suspect a farmer saved seeds to avoid feeding the Monsanto profit monster, they withhold seeds and other stuff (like the herbicide the seeds are designed to resist, RoundUp). They are a monopoly in this market and don't need to resort to the courts. They may have sued Schmeiser, in fact, just because Schmeiser was suing them for contaminating his farm and ruining his business; it was just a distraction to detract from the economic harm they had inflicted on him with their product.
As to Europe, you are completely mis-informed. Just sayin'. Start by looking up the Precautionary Principal.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-29 08:58 pm (UTC)Listen to yourself.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-29 09:50 pm (UTC)Again, there was no intention on the part of the farmer to have that content. He was, and let me stress this, an organic rapeseed seed farmer. The business had been going for generations, and Monsanto's content destroyed that.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-30 12:52 am (UTC)No, it doesn't. The law doesn't assume that, it's a civil issue. Monsanto assumes that if the seed exists, it was planted. That's why Monsanto doesn't sue for trace amounts, and that's why the case in the US was thrown out.
Again, there was no intention on the part of the farmer to have that content. He was, and let me stress this, an organic rapeseed seed farmer. The business had been going for generations, and Monsanto's content destroyed that.
This is his claim, yes.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-30 04:48 am (UTC)After some research, I stand corrected. Though there should be, there is no legal recourse to pollen or seed contamination, nothing to prevent a patent holder from going against someone who simply doesn't want to do business with the patent holder. It is coercion, purely and simply.
. . . that's why the case in the US was thrown out.
The Schmeiser case is Canadian. They have a whole different currency and everything! And for some revealing detail, why don't we revisit the Schmeiser case?
After the Canadian Supreme Court both dismissed their case and sympathized with their plight, the Schmeisers were forced to change business (http://www.rightlivelihood.org/schmeiser.html): "Since the first court case, the Schmeisers shifted their agricultural business from canola to wheat, mustard, peas and oats in order to avoid future problems."
Keep in mind their line of organic rapeseed seeds went back decades. They were forced to completely retool their business to avoid dealing with Monsanto contamination. Ah, but did they?
And when we dig a bit deeper, it turns out the NPR dick (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted) was wrong: Monsanto has sued farmers for copyright infringement of the life they own. Appendix A of this PDF (http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/cfsmonsantovsfarmerreport11305.pdf) lists hundreds of coercions and lawsuits, some of them garnering Monsanto millions. I knew that NPR guy was being way too pro-corporate. Sadly, too many of them are.
Dude, if you're libertarian, why the fuck do you care what people choose to eat? Seriously, it's one thing to state that no science available has found the flesh of a pig to be dangerous. It's another to shove a pork chop into a rabbi's mouth and bitch when he complains.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-30 11:39 am (UTC)There doesn't need to be a law, no. And there is recourse due to that Supreme Court case, which pretty much said that Monsanto's words on the matter (that they wouldn't pursue blown seeds) constituted a material act (my words, not theirs) and that future suits would likely be dismissed because of it.
That's likely all we'll get in the short term, and all we should!
Monsanto has sued farmers for copyright infringement of the life they own. Appendix A of this PDF lists hundreds of coercions and lawsuits, some of them garnering Monsanto millions. I knew that NPR guy was being way too pro-corporate. Sadly, too many of them are.
They own the life, but they're violating agreements. The agreements of using Monsanto seed is to not replant the seeds. To replant the seeds is a violation of the contract.
Dude, if you're libertarian, why the fuck do you care what people choose to eat?
I don't! What I don't like is people using the power of the state to lessen my choices, either by outright bans or misleading, state-sponsored coercion.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-30 05:50 pm (UTC)As Clay Jenkinson, historian and Thomas Jefferson re-enactor, has said quite emphatically, the act of replanting seed is what farmers do. It has been what farmers have done for literally thousands of years. It is, and I do not say this lightly, the very definition of capitalism.
For Monsanto to insert a legal penalty for the act of farming—up to and including reserving acts of harassment (short, as you note, of lawsuit)—is for Monsanto to attempt to re-define the act of farming itself, by trying to become the rentier of the seed just as a landowner is the rentier of the farmer.*
I suppose Monsanto's little scheme of cornering a seed market would have been just fine and dandy, were it not for those pesky genes and their tendency to propagate where they can, rather than where they were intended.
What I don't like is people using the power of the state to lessen my choices. . . .
Okay. I may not agree with the Talmudic and Salal prohibitions on swine flesh, but I absolutely agree with their right to live kosher; and the only way to do that, short of becoming your own farmer for all food consumed, is labeling. Why is Monsanto and the rest of the Gene Splicing For Profit gang using the power of the state to lessen my choice about which foods are labeled and which are not?
When the power of the state, as you call it, can be bought, in my opinion it loses any legitimacy in this kind of argument. When "state-sponsored" is corporate funded, it's corporate first and state second.
*Fun fact: the term "farmer" refers to someone contracted to do a deed. Only over many years of landowners farming out the job of growing food on their land has the term become equivalent with a practitioner of agriculture.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-30 06:07 pm (UTC)That's great. Farming has changed. Those who do not want to use Monsanto seeds are free to do so.
Why is Monsanto and the rest of the Gene Splicing For Profit gang using the power of the state to lessen my choice about which foods are labeled and which are not?
What information does a GMO label provide that's of relevance. "It's genetically modified" is not an answer, as the existence of genetic modification alone is not anything a consumer needs to be concerned about, unlike calorie counts or whether something is Kosher. It's a "nice to have" label.
When the power of the state, as you call it, can be bought, in my opinion it loses any legitimacy in this kind of argument. When "state-sponsored" is corporate funded, it's corporate first and state second.
And you're losing the plot again.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-31 01:44 am (UTC)Never mind losing it, here's where you're missing the plot entirely. Except for the allergic, there is nothing in pork or shrimp or cheeseburgers or Leviticus-prohibited whatever that should be objectionable as food. These have been tested again and again by the same scientists who give GMO crops a clean bill of health.
Yet people object. They furthermore have every right to object, even though their objections are based on pre- and often anti-scientific mumblings, faiths and prejudices every bit as superstitious and shallow as those who prefer to eat foods modified only by cross-breeding.
The GMO label is therefore exactly analogous to the Kosher label, no matter how vociferously you insist on denying this. Furthermore, this has always been the point.
To deny this very simple fact outs you as either diabolical or (more likely) riddled with the ill-ease of cognitive dissonance.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-31 11:47 am (UTC)I don't disagree. However, the information is relevant in these situations, which is not the case for GMO. They object for relevant, clear, reasonable reasons.
The GMO label is therefore exactly analogous to the Kosher label, no matter how vociferously you insist on denying this. Furthermore, this has always been the point.
The Kosher label is because of religious dietary restrictions. What religious dietary situation exists for genetic modifications? Will we then label seedless watermelons?
no subject
Date: 2014-07-31 07:13 pm (UTC)You mean beyond the fact that they're called seedless watermelons and not watermelons?
no subject
Date: 2014-07-31 07:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-31 07:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-31 07:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-31 07:58 pm (UTC)Plants are made by manipulating cuttings and selective breeding aren't GMO.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2014-07-31 10:50 pm (UTC)No, no, no. The US Constitution has no religious test: based on this, the secular regulatory arm has no authority to consider one religious text and its prohibitions as carrying more weight than another.
What religious dietary situation exists for genetic modifications?
Should someone object to GMO because it's treyf, then unlabeled food is treyf, and they can move to label non-GMO (similar to the little circled U and K on rabbinically inspected and approved foods). The FDA has no authority to judge one religious tenet over the other.
Will we then label seedless watermelons?
You or I could grow seedless watermelons in our back yards without a zillion dollars in lab equipment and advanced degrees. These, as I noted elsewhere, are simply sterile mule melons, no jellyfish genome material required.
Oh, and to complete the total and complete failure of your cinderblock-ish argument, the last time I checked, seedless melons were labeled. It's a selling point, not having to spit seeds all over the picnic table!
no subject
Date: 2014-08-01 11:29 am (UTC)And Kosher labeling is not required. Not should it be.
You or I could grow seedless watermelons in our back yards without a zillion dollars in lab equipment and advanced degrees.
Scary!
Oh, and to complete the total and complete failure of your cinderblock-ish argument, the last time I checked, seedless melons were labeled. It's a selling point, not having to spit seeds all over the picnic table!
They're not labeled as GMO. That's the point, nor should they be, nor should any GMO food.
no subject
Date: 2014-08-01 10:03 pm (UTC)Because Jeff has missed the necessary element of a patent. A patent, to be issued, must be on a form or variant that is not obvious to those in the arts. Growing sterile hybrids? Grafting? Been done for thousands of years. You and I could grow it, yes; but it would never be given patent protection. It is therefore not GMO, not in terms that have any relevance to the discussion of GMOs.
GMO = patented life forms.
Ah, but you know that. You're smart enough to know that. What you aren't smart enough to do is know when to quit trolling an argument with specious obfuscation. You get, apparently, so wrapped up in your Trolling Dance and hopping about like an electrocuted monkey that you make silly, silly statements that have no bearing whatsoever on the argument.
Once again, GMO = patented life forms. The modifications are unique enough both to science and to the patent office that they have been granted the patent protection that enables Monsanto and others to go tear-assing around the world making life very different and likely more and more miserable to those who actually grow the seed into food.
When you wish to discuss this, get back to us. Meanwhile, Troll Monkey, I leave you to your spastic Troll Monkey Dance.
no subject
Date: 2014-08-01 10:05 pm (UTC)This is an entirely novel argument to me regarding labeling, that it involves a patent.
no subject
Date: 2014-08-02 06:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2014-07-31 04:50 am (UTC)The farmers that we need to be worried about are not the ones who sign a contract with Monsanto promising not to re-plant their seed. The ones we need to be worried about are the ones who find their non-Monsanto crops cross-contaminated, and know their crops are cross-contaminated, and find themselves suddenly with seed they had intended to re-plant but find themselves under threat of legal suit if they do so.
The case you've cited, above, explicitly does not include any such "knowing" farmers (trace levels of contamination or not). They remain fully vulnerable to suit, given the outcome of that case.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-31 04:45 am (UTC)Jeff, the underlying legal claims and analysis are complicated, and you clearly don't understand them.
The case was "thrown out" because Monsanto made a non-binding statement that it wouldn't sue farmers for engaging in a relatively de minimis amount of "unintentional" infringement, which statement the court in question declared to be binding by virtue of the court's own decision to dismiss the case as being too speculative to litigate - a baldly circular argument that has next-to-nothing to do with your own portrayal of the decision, to say nothing of your decision to run with only a vague reiteration of your already off-base misunderstanding of the legal theory.
You have spun yourself so completely out of sync with reality, I'm truly baffled. Your only counter-evidence against the claim that Monsanto is abusing its patents in an anti-competitive manner is a mischaracterization of a misunderstanding of a case whose protective scope, even if accepted at its face value, is far narrower than your argument allows.