If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Russia Today)   USDA to Farmers: Monsanto has won. Give up and get out   (rt.com) divider line 71
    More: Sad, Monsanto, USDA, Advisory Committee, public financing, Center for Food Safety, economic loss, NOC, farming  
•       •       •

6249 clicks; posted to Business » on 22 Nov 2012 at 1:36 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-22 01:00:58 AM
Why can't the farmers sue monsanto for contaminating their organic and non GM fields with crap the farmer did not want? I mean, to get all of that unwanted GM genes out of their fields should be monsanto's cross to bear. Pollution.

/this is stupid.
 
2012-11-22 01:47:50 AM

basemetal: Why can't the farmers sue monsanto


From TFA: ...thanks to a legal counsel that collects around $10 million a year just to take other farmers to court.

That's why. Small farmers don't have the resources to take them on.
 
2012-11-22 01:52:27 AM

basemetal: Why can't the farmers sue monsanto for contaminating their organic and non GM fields with crap the farmer did not want? I mean, to get all of that unwanted GM genes out of their fields should be monsanto's cross to bear. Pollution.

/this is stupid.


Oh no, my friend - it is most certainly not pollution. Well-paid legislators have spent years making sure that what you might consider a contaminant is actually a protected legal property.


Think of it this way: They just bought two laws; one of them makes it legal to drop anything on the ground you like, and a second law saying that once it hits the ground, it's considered litter and the property owner is instantly fined, plus he must return the litter to the original owner.

The US Chamber of Commerce is a wonderful thing. If you live in China.
 
2012-11-22 01:58:56 AM
Is this the thread where people who dont understand whats going on in this particular case come in and say the judge is wrong because they personally dont like Monsanto?

/ lets find out.
 
2012-11-22 02:21:52 AM

I sound fat: Is this the thread where people who dont understand whats going on in this particular case come in and say the judge is wrong because they personally dont like Monsanto?

/ lets find out.


No, because there is no case or judge. RTFA.
 
2012-11-22 02:23:59 AM
Thats some evil white man shiat right there going on
 
2012-11-22 02:27:45 AM

basemetal: I mean, to get all of that unwanted GM genes out of their fields should be monsanto's cross to bear


My understanding is that the crops you plant are fine. The problem arises when a neighboring field with a GM crop pollinates your field. You have to destroy the resulting seed because it is protected by patent.

So you are suddenly burdened with the cost of purchasing all new seed for each season. You also have to destroy any plants that sprout from cross-pollinated GM seed you may have missed. That gets expensive.

I recall reading that the threshold for the patent holders to sue a farmer is rather low. You don't need much GM seed in your field to be on the receiving end of a lawsuit. Which the patent holders love, because it is a huge incentive for farmers to just give in and convert to GM seed just to be safe.

Eventually the only way to be safe without going GM is to build acres and acres of greenhouses with filters on the air exchangers.
 
2012-11-22 02:44:53 AM

Dinjiin: basemetal: I mean, to get all of that unwanted GM genes out of their fields should be monsanto's cross to bear

My understanding is that the crops you plant are fine. The problem arises when a neighboring field with a GM crop pollinates your field. You have to destroy the resulting seed because it is protected by patent.

So you are suddenly burdened with the cost of purchasing all new seed for each season. You also have to destroy any plants that sprout from cross-pollinated GM seed you may have missed. That gets expensive.

I recall reading that the threshold for the patent holders to sue a farmer is rather low. You don't need much GM seed in your field to be on the receiving end of a lawsuit. Which the patent holders love, because it is a huge incentive for farmers to just give in and convert to GM seed just to be safe.

Eventually the only way to be safe without going GM is to build acres and acres of greenhouses with filters on the air exchangers.


but but but
how the fark is this happening?
I could care less about GM vs "organic", but wind blown pollination? How the fark are they losing those cases??

acts of god and all that ...
and once you find that you are getting sued, is your only proper defense to burn the fark out of your neighbors crops ?? LOL
 
2012-11-22 02:58:49 AM
Hats off to every American that works for Monsanto. Be proud and enjoy your paycheck.

---educate yourself on what companies you don't like make and sell then don't buy it. your dollar votes are the most extremely powerful votes in America. 'they' only understand profits and yes, you can ruin a monster if you cut off its food supply.
 
2012-11-22 02:59:12 AM
Okay. This is stupid. While we're at it, I'm going to go patent fire.

Then I'm going to go set a fire to a pile of hay on my personal property on a windy day.

If the wind carries it over to other people's property and starts burning things, those property owners are going to get sued for violating my copyrights and patents.

If they attempt to put the fire out, you're destroying my personal property and therefore will be sued for vandalism of copyrighted property.
 
2012-11-22 03:03:18 AM
I hate to say it, but this is old news. Monsanto now dominates many crops because of this.

And here's the real kicked. These genetically modified crops like wheat, corn, and canola essentially allow farmers to spray the herbicide round up on their planted crops. This is leading to an overuse of round up and severe consequences to the health of the soil. I mean severe. We're talking pathogens that travel in the food supply and increase abortions in cows and pigs severe.
 
2012-11-22 03:15:15 AM
I′ve said it before and I′ll say it again: despite a truly valiant effort by British Petroleum to dethrone them about 2½ years ago, Monsanto remains the single most evil corporation on the planet, in all of human history.
 
2012-11-22 03:43:57 AM

COMALite J: , in all of human history.


Ok, you had to have choked on that one a little bit.
 
2012-11-22 03:56:29 AM
Does anyone know how royally farked the world would be without genetically modified seeds? Do any of you actually know why Monsanto makes these seeds and farmers buy them?
 
2012-11-22 04:05:39 AM

keytronic: And here's the real kicked. These genetically modified crops like wheat, corn, and canola essentially allow farmers to spray the herbicide round up on their planted crops. This is leading to an overuse of round up and severe consequences to the health of the soil. I mean severe. We're talking pathogens that travel in the food supply and increase abortions in cows and pigs severe.


Not to mention the rapid growth of round-up resistant weeds.
 
2012-11-22 04:08:11 AM

COMALite J: I′ve said it before and I′ll say it again: despite a truly valiant effort by British Petroleum to dethrone them about 2½ years ago, Monsanto remains the single most evil corporation on the planet, in all of human history.


More evil than Abstergo?
 
2012-11-22 04:09:38 AM
Oh and before everyone runs to the defense of the "poor" ole farmer joe, many of these farmers are millionaires thanks to you and your tax dollars. Compounding this is the following:
www.cannontrading.com
 
2012-11-22 04:53:50 AM

namatad: Dinjiin: basemetal: I mean, to get all of that unwanted GM genes out of their fields should be monsanto's cross to bear

My understanding is that the crops you plant are fine. The problem arises when a neighboring field with a GM crop pollinates your field. You have to destroy the resulting seed because it is protected by patent.

So you are suddenly burdened with the cost of purchasing all new seed for each season. You also have to destroy any plants that sprout from cross-pollinated GM seed you may have missed. That gets expensive.

I recall reading that the threshold for the patent holders to sue a farmer is rather low. You don't need much GM seed in your field to be on the receiving end of a lawsuit. Which the patent holders love, because it is a huge incentive for farmers to just give in and convert to GM seed just to be safe.

Eventually the only way to be safe without going GM is to build acres and acres of greenhouses with filters on the air exchangers.

but but but
how the fark is this happening?
I could care less about GM vs "organic", but wind blown pollination? How the fark are they losing those cases??

acts of god and all that ...
and once you find that you are getting sued, is your only proper defense to burn the fark out of your neighbors crops ?? LOL


Yes.
 
2012-11-22 04:59:25 AM

tjfly: Does anyone know how royally farked the world would be without genetically modified seeds? Do any of you actually know why Monsanto makes these seeds and farmers buy them?


Yeah. So they can sell more chemicals. And they can be the sole provider of seed. Farmers buy them because they were lied to. Alot of farmers want out, but they are trapped. Their crops are overtaken by resistant weeds. And now they can't plant anything else without being sued out of business.
 
2012-11-22 05:24:47 AM

RedPhoenix122: COMALite J: I′ve said it before and I′ll say it again: despite a truly valiant effort by British Petroleum to dethrone them about 2½ years ago, Monsanto remains the single most evil corporation on the planet, in all of human history.

More evil than Abstergo?


Yup. By a long shot.
 
2012-11-22 05:26:27 AM

I sound fat: Is this the thread where people who dont understand whats going on in this particular case come in and say the judge is wrong because they personally dont like Monsanto?

/ lets find out.


It's wrong because it defies common logic.
 
2012-11-22 05:29:58 AM

matt_in_stl: Okay. This is stupid. While we're at it, I'm going to go patent fire.

Then I'm going to go set a fire to a pile of hay on my personal property on a windy day.

If the wind carries it over to other people's property and starts burning things, those property owners are going to get sued for violating my copyrights and patents.

If they attempt to put the fire out, you're destroying my personal property and therefore will be sued for vandalism of copyrighted property.


With enough money, that would work.

/awesome analogy!
 
2012-11-22 06:30:13 AM
So if I go park my car on my neighbor's yard, I can then go sue them for stealing my car?
 
2012-11-22 06:32:21 AM
If you ever have any delusions about our government and courts being filled with lying whores, think of Monsanto.
 
2012-11-22 06:44:11 AM

namatad: but but but
how the fark is this happening?
I could care less about GM vs "organic", but wind blown pollination? How the fark are they losing those cases??



Monsanto has more money to spend on lawyers than the small farmers.
 
2012-11-22 07:30:15 AM

tjfly: Does anyone know how royally farked the world would be without genetically modified seeds? Do any of you actually know why Monsanto makes these seeds and farmers buy them?


Because they control 90% of the market is why farmers buy. And they'll sue you into Oblivian if you don't buy next year.
 
2012-11-22 07:31:18 AM

I sound fat: Is this the thread where people who dont understand whats going on in this particular case come in and say the judge is wrong because they personally dont like Monsanto?

/ lets find out.


Yeah. And then some asshat troll defends them.
 
2012-11-22 07:53:46 AM

keytronic: I hate to say it, but this is old news. Monsanto now dominates many crops because of this.

And here's the real kicker. These genetically modified crops like wheat, corn, and canola essentially allow farmers to spray the herbicide round up on their planted crops. This is leading to an overuse of round up and severe consequences to the health of the soil. I mean severe. We're talking pathogens that travel in the food supply and increase abortions in cows and pigs severe.


*head turn*
What's the half-life of Round Up? Here's a handy journal article.

Have you investigated natural pesticides like artemisinin?
 
2012-11-22 08:10:52 AM

COMALite J: I′ve said it before and I′ll say it again: despite a truly valiant effort by British Petroleum to dethrone them about 2½ years ago, Monsanto remains the single most evil corporation on the planet, in all of human history.


I think the British East India Company holds that distinction - I mean, hell - they got the British government to go to war to force the Chinese to open their ports so they could sell opium. Don't think you can get more evil than that.
 
2012-11-22 08:14:03 AM
A virtual monopoly on the world's food supply is a great idea. Nothing could go wrong here!
 
2012-11-22 08:24:06 AM

tjfly: Does anyone know how royally farked the world would be without genetically modified seeds? Do any of you actually know why Monsanto makes these seeds and farmers buy them?


Amazingly enough, no one has claimed "GM seed is eeevil". What they have said is "Monsanto is acting in an unethical manner to encourage dependence on them."

These are two separate concepts.
 
2012-11-22 08:37:09 AM

Cowboy_Corruption: COMALite J: I′ve said it before and I′ll say it again: despite a truly valiant effort by British Petroleum to dethrone them about 2½ years ago, Monsanto remains the single most evil corporation on the planet, in all of human history.

I think the British East India Company holds that distinction - I mean, hell - they got the British government to go to war to force the Chinese to open their ports so they could sell opium. Don't think you can get more evil than that.


Bah. You beat me to it. You forgot to mention enslaving a large majority of the Indian sub-continent.
 
2012-11-22 08:51:32 AM
I didn't know Monsanto invented AstroTurf......they really are evil.
 
2012-11-22 08:54:07 AM
Just another example of Big Money buying influence in the government. Nothing to see here, move along.

/ wonders why the farmers can't sue Monsanto for tresspassing on their property
 
2012-11-22 10:31:49 AM

Dinjiin: basemetal: I mean, to get all of that unwanted GM genes out of their fields should be monsanto's cross to bear

My understanding is that the crops you plant are fine. The problem arises when a neighboring field with a GM crop pollinates your field. You have to destroy the resulting seed because it is protected by patent.

So you are suddenly burdened with the cost of purchasing all new seed for each season. You also have to destroy any plants that sprout from cross-pollinated GM seed you may have missed. That gets expensive.

I recall reading that the threshold for the patent holders to sue a farmer is rather low. You don't need much GM seed in your field to be on the receiving end of a lawsuit. Which the patent holders love, because it is a huge incentive for farmers to just give in and convert to GM seed just to be safe.

Eventually the only way to be safe without going GM is to build acres and acres of greenhouses with filters on the air exchangers.


How is this not classified as an act of God?
 
2012-11-22 10:43:40 AM
came in for the Brawndo reference.

/leaving sad
//c'mon, its a perfect example!
 
2012-11-22 10:48:25 AM

LadyShiva: keytronic: I hate to say it, but this is old news. Monsanto now dominates many crops because of this.

And here's the real kicker. These genetically modified crops like wheat, corn, and canola essentially allow farmers to spray the herbicide round up on their planted crops. This is leading to an overuse of round up and severe consequences to the health of the soil. I mean severe. We're talking pathogens that travel in the food supply and increase abortions in cows and pigs severe.

*head turn*
What's the half-life of Round Up? Here's a handy journal article.

Have you investigated natural pesticides like artemisinin?


Speaking as a farmer I can present the following evidence;

Avocado trees in an area sprayed with Round-up take 6-7 years to reach production

Avocado Trees in an area that isn't sprayed take 4-5 years to reach production.

Round-Up sprayed trees are smaller, weaker and overall less productive. Having stopped using round up and switched to other methods of weed control, we have seen our production quadruple in the last decade. Round-Up removal isn't the only factor we've changed, but it is a major one. The only place we still use the stuff is along roads and ditches, where the shade from the avocado tree doesn't reach, and those trees are smaller. Trees in the next row over look twice the size in some instances.

Obviously in large, established blocks there is no need for any sort of intensive weed management due to the nature of the avocado tree, so I cannot claim to have done any sort of observations on fully developed trees. I would like to treat one set of trees for a series of years and in the same block leave a set untreated, and then measure the production result as I think that would reveal if Round-Up harmed both development of plants AND production when developed, or simply slowed development. All I can say right now is that young trees grow more slowly when treated with Round-Up (2-3 applications per year, as determined by need) when all other factors remain the same.

I'm not arguing with what you are saying, but I am trying to make it clear that there are long term effects of this product that aren't listed in any of the research I have come across, but I have personally observed in as controlled a study as I can make. So you know, there are 150 trees in the block I am referring to, and 15 of them require regular applications of Round-Up. Another row of them have required occasional (2 or 3 applications in 10 years... I'd have to check my pesticide reports to be entirely sure) applications in the past to no observable determent. Given this, I can observe a link between continual exposure and slowed development.

Happy Thanksgiving!
 
2012-11-22 11:00:21 AM

NightSteel: From TFA: ...thanks to a legal counsel that collects around $10 million a year just to take other farmers to court.


Something's wrong here. This number is too small. There are something like 2 million farms in the US. If each one kicked in $20 they could pound the Monsanto legal team into the dirt. If the number is right at most Monsanto is filing 1,000 lawsuits a year which is a lot in absolute terms but nothing in a percentage(a twentieth of 1%). It's possible Monsanto is trying to just terrorize farmers into compliance in which case they're bluffing and it's time to take a kick at their house of cards.
 
2012-11-22 11:02:29 AM

tjfly: Does anyone know how royally farked the world would be without genetically modified seeds? Do any of you actually know why Monsanto makes these seeds and farmers buy them?


Oh gee, you mean like how the world was "royally farked" before they existed?

You do realize that seeds made with recombinant genetic engineering are pretty new? The very first one was created in a lab in 1982, and it wasn't allowed out to field trials until 1986, and that wasn't even for a food crop, that was for a strain of tobacco!

The very first commercial cultivation of a GMO crop was in 1996 for fark's sake, that was only 16 years ago, when Clinton was being re-elected, the PlayStation was coming out, it wasn't the stone age!

In only a little over a decade, Monsanto basically managed to get a copyright and patent on Food, and then tell everybody that we'd all be starving if it wasn't for their technology!

We didn't starve without them, we did just fine without them.
 
2012-11-22 11:07:07 AM

Dughan: LadyShiva: keytronic: I hate to say it, but this is old news. Monsanto now dominates many crops because of this.

And here's the real kicker. These genetically modified crops like wheat, corn, and canola essentially allow farmers to spray the herbicide round up on their planted crops. This is leading to an overuse of round up and severe consequences to the health of the soil. I mean severe. We're talking pathogens that travel in the food supply and increase abortions in cows and pigs severe.

*head turn*
What's the half-life of Round Up? Here's a handy journal article.

Have you investigated natural pesticides like artemisinin?

Speaking as a farmer I can present the following evidence;

Avocado trees in an area sprayed with Round-up take 6-7 years to reach production

Avocado Trees in an area that isn't sprayed take 4-5 years to reach production.

Round-Up sprayed trees are smaller, weaker and overall less productive. Having stopped using round up and switched to other methods of weed control, we have seen our production quadruple in the last decade. Round-Up removal isn't the only factor we've changed, but it is a major one. The only place we still use the stuff is along roads and ditches, where the shade from the avocado tree doesn't reach, and those trees are smaller. Trees in the next row over look twice the size in some instances.

Obviously in large, established blocks there is no need for any sort of intensive weed management due to the nature of the avocado tree, so I cannot claim to have done any sort of observations on fully developed trees. I would like to treat one set of trees for a series of years and in the same block leave a set untreated, and then measure the production result as I think that would reveal if Round-Up harmed both development of plants AND production when developed, or simply slowed development. All I can say right now is that young trees grow more slowly when treated with Round-Up (2-3 applications per year, as determined by ...


This is an interesting, thoughtful, and well-written piece. So here's my question for you: as an avocado farmer, have you considered inventing a pre-guacamoled avocado? One that's ready to dip or apply to tacos as soon as the user opens it? Or maybe it could have a little ripcord on the side that you'd pull to initiate the guacamoling process--that would make it kind of fun for the user. You've got to innovate to stay ahead in the avocado business, right? And you'd be rich!

Unless Monsanto reads this thread--which they almost certainly are--and steals the idea. Better get on this!
 
2012-11-22 11:19:22 AM
Hey wouldnt it be great if our company controlled ALL of the seed stock in the world? All of the Fruit, Vegetables and Animal Feed? WOW we'd be RICH! And we could GM the seeds for single generation production to be sure we increase sales every year! And ensure that ONLY our herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers will work with our product. We'll make a mint!
And of course we will have to be publicly traded on the open market. Thats where the REAL money is. Then we will be supercharged with the input from the financial sector. Bought, sold and traded with the big boys. It's the American dream!

What could possibly go wrong?

/ People gotta eat
// Unlimited growth of capitol by limiting growth of production?
/// The inevitable consequences of Capitalism
 
kab
2012-11-22 11:20:47 AM
Capitalism at its finest.
 
kab
2012-11-22 11:24:45 AM

tjfly: Do any of you actually know why Monsanto makes these seeds and farmers buy them?


Because new seeds need to be purchased every season, thus making Monsanto rich? Because the farmers are essentially forced to thanks to the success the company has in the courtroom?

What do I win?
 
2012-11-22 11:44:04 AM

Silverstaff: We didn't starve without them, we did just fine without them.


To be fair, we would all now be starving if it weren't for GE foods. There are simply too many people, and too little farmland. We couldn't keep up using only natural methods.
 
2012-11-22 12:03:56 PM

midigod: Silverstaff: We didn't starve without them, we did just fine without them.

To be fair, we would all now be starving if it weren't for GE foods. There are simply too many people, and too little farmland. We couldn't keep up using only natural methods.


Citation needed.
 
2012-11-22 12:17:41 PM
I have found an answer for this, microfarming. Screw Mansanto and big Ag. I feed myself all year on 1/4 acre.
 
2012-11-22 12:20:33 PM

daveinsurgent: midigod: Silverstaff: We didn't starve without them, we did just fine without them.

To be fair, we would all now be starving if it weren't for GE foods. There are simply too many people, and too little farmland. We couldn't keep up using only natural methods.

Citation needed.


Seriously. Citation Needed

How have things changed so much since the late 1990's that it's impossible to feed people without GM crops?

Do you realize how much food gets wasted every day in the US? How much food gets thrown out?

I'm not talking about organic farming, I'm just talking about no GMOs. It can't be that freaking hard to do, they didn't even exist 20 years ago, they barely existed 15 years ago.

It's not like we were on the precipice of starvation beforehand.
 
2012-11-22 12:25:06 PM
corporatists up against the wall
 
2012-11-22 12:35:43 PM

midigod: Silverstaff: We didn't starve without them, we did just fine without them.

To be fair, we would all now be starving if it weren't for GE foods. There are simply too many people, and too little farmland. We couldn't keep up using only natural methods.


This line about "too little farmland" has me laughing the more I think about it.

Realize how absurd that is. We have entire states that are mostly farmland.

The only reason growing corn is even profitable is heavy Federal subsidies, otherwise there would be too much corn on the market, and the price would be too low for farmers to make any profit.

We have way, way more farmland than we need to feed people even without GMO crops, especially if we stop farm subsidies that encourage farmers to grow far more crops than we need.

According to the USDA, 19.4% of all land in the US is cropland, that's 442 MILLION acres, Link

That's around 1.3 acres of land for every man, woman and child in the US, and that's not even touching grazing land for crops.

You think you can't grow enough crops on 1.3 acres to feed yourself over a year? As Spare Me just noted, he can feed himself on a quarter acre. My grandmother had a half-acre she grew vegetables on that kept a family of four stocked on veggies and some fruits (grapes and tomatoes) year-round.

We've got cropland to spare, GMOs aren't saving us from starvation.
 
2012-11-22 01:21:50 PM

Silverstaff: You think you can't grow enough crops on 1.3 acres to feed yourself over a year? As Spare Me just noted, he can feed himself on a quarter acre. My grandmother had a half-acre she grew vegetables on that kept a family of four stocked on veggies and some fruits (grapes and tomatoes) year-round.


Actually, it's a little deeper than that. If people actually look at microfarming, one person can do it on 900 sq feet with good sunshine. On my 1/4 acre, I can up a lot for the winter until next season but I also go a little nuts with lemon cucumbers which I sell to local grocery stores. I make around 10k extra cash a year doing that. They are delicious and have a short shelf life so big ag doesn't really get into that. By the time some big farm processes and ships, they go to mush in a matter of about a week. It's a bit of a specialty from my microfarm. I live in burbs of SW Portland.
 
Displayed 50 of 71 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report