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)   Monsanto threatens to sue Vermont because requiring food to be labeled as genetically modified apparently is violating their free speech   (rt.com) divider line 132
    More: Interesting, Vermont, Monsanto, genetically modified crops, genetically modified organisms  
•       •       •

1104 clicks; posted to Business » on 03 Jun 2014 at 3:55 PM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-03 02:09:20 PM  
Monsanto would not have standing to sue as they do not sell food to consumers.
 
2014-06-03 02:25:55 PM  
I hope VT stands tough and follows through on passing the law.

More to the point, how can Monsanto sue VT?  Doesn't VT have soveriegn immunity under the 11th?
 
2014-06-03 02:35:34 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: I hope VT stands tough and follows through on passing the law.

More to the point, how can Monsanto sue VT?  Doesn't VT have soveriegn immunity under the 11th?


They probably do, but don't forget, "corporations are people too, my friend".  :(
 
2014-06-03 02:37:02 PM  
Well, requiring GMO foods to be labeled certainly isn't based on science.

It's the lefty version of climate change denial.
 
2014-06-03 02:38:08 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: I hope VT stands tough and follows through on passing the law.

More to the point, how can Monsanto sue VT?  Doesn't VT have soveriegn immunity under the 11th?


It's being sued to stop implementation of a regulation that Monsanto argues violates its rights.  That's perfectly kosher.
 
2014-06-03 02:42:05 PM  

haemaker: Monsanto would not have standing to sue as they do not sell food to consumers.


They already sued them and won once re hormones in the milk.  I'm not sure weed killer resistance in your all natural flakes of corn cereal is all that different...  And that makes me sad.
 
2014-06-03 02:58:24 PM  

dittybopper: Well, requiring GMO foods to be labeled certainly isn't based on science.

It's the lefty version of climate change denial.



Spread of Gene-Altered Pharmaceutical Corn Spurs $3 Million Fine


GMO crops that raise yields or allow for longer lasting food, not overly enthused but why not. GMO that creates 1 gen seeds, pesticide resistance strains, or medicine? Lets regulate the hell out of that, hell keep the medicine stuff in controlled labs for now. As for the need for pesticides use ladybugs, bees, and other natural methods instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater and creating poison resistant weeds and bugs
 
2014-06-03 03:00:22 PM  

haemaker: Monsanto would not have standing to sue as they do not sell food to consumers.


That was my first thought too, but I'm not a lawyer.  This article seems a bit hyperbolic to me.  What Monsanto could do is challenge it on constitutional grounds, but I don't see what angle would get a satisfactory result.
 
2014-06-03 03:10:54 PM  

zedster: dittybopper: Well, requiring GMO foods to be labeled certainly isn't based on science.

It's the lefty version of climate change denial.


Spread of Gene-Altered Pharmaceutical Corn Spurs $3 Million Fine


GMO crops that raise yields or allow for longer lasting food, not overly enthused but why not. GMO that creates 1 gen seeds, pesticide resistance strains, or medicine? Lets regulate the hell out of that, hell keep the medicine stuff in controlled labs for now. As for the need for pesticides use ladybugs, bees, and other natural methods instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater and creating poison resistant weeds and bugs


None of which would be affected by labeling food as GMO.

This is a law about labeling the foods on the shelves so that science deniers feel they can safely shop at stores other than WholePaycheck.
 
2014-06-03 03:13:30 PM  

dittybopper: WholePaycheck.


At least in St. Louis, WholeFoods is only barely more expensive than Dierbergs or Schnucks.  Sure, they're always higher than Wal-Mart, but if it's not boxed mac-n-cheese, I assume that it fell off the back of the WalMart truck before being put on the shelf.
 
2014-06-03 03:26:52 PM  
They should be selling GMO as a feature.
The kick ass, sci-fi, cyberpunk food of the future!
 
2014-06-03 03:34:46 PM  

Rev. Skarekroe: They should be selling GMO as a feature.
The kick ass, sci-fi, cyberpunk food of the future!


"It probably won't give you cancer!" would be the perfect tag line for the ads.
 
2014-06-03 03:36:31 PM  

dittybopper: Well, requiring GMO foods to be labeled certainly isn't based on science.

It's the lefty version of climate change denial.


GMO foods may be perfectly safe, I happen to agree that they are, but that doesn't mean people don't have the right to know that they're eating them.

Plus, if it hurts Monsanto's business, that's icing on the cake.
 
2014-06-03 03:39:56 PM  
I propose ditching the GMO label in favour of a MONSANTO label, as in:

WARNING: CONTAINS PRODUCTS OF MONSANTO

 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-06-03 03:55:23 PM  
dittybopper:

None of which would be affected by labeling food as GMO.

This is a law about labeling the foods on the shelves so that science deniers feel they can safely shop at stores other than WholePaycheck.


Yeah, we need to stop labeling things that contain pork or shellfish too because that might allow Jewish or Muslim science deniers to avoid eating things that they don't want to eat.  Obviously they don't have a good enough reason for wanting to know what they are buying so they shouldn't be allowed to have that information.
 
2014-06-03 03:57:22 PM  

Uncle Tractor: I propose ditching the GMO label in favour of a MONSANTO label, as in:

WARNING: CONTAINS PRODUCTS OF MONSANTO


Oooh, this sounds like a good Photoshop contest...  BRB.
 
2014-06-03 04:02:04 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: This article seems a bit hyperbolic to me.


It's Russia Today, hyperbole goes with their state-controlled jobs. When they aren't busy slobbing Putin's micro-knob, they're busy yelling from the rooftops about how bad they think America is. I don't even click RT links anymore because who knows what kind of malware gets past the vodka-swilling sysadmins for that site.
 
2014-06-03 04:02:30 PM  

dittybopper: Well, requiring GMO foods to be labeled certainly isn't based on science.

It's the lefty version of climate change denial.


Conservatives: keeping the public uninformed since... pretty much forever.
 
2014-06-03 04:05:52 PM  

dittybopper: zedster: dittybopper: Well, requiring GMO foods to be labeled certainly isn't based on science.

It's the lefty version of climate change denial.


Spread of Gene-Altered Pharmaceutical Corn Spurs $3 Million Fine


GMO crops that raise yields or allow for longer lasting food, not overly enthused but why not. GMO that creates 1 gen seeds, pesticide resistance strains, or medicine? Lets regulate the hell out of that, hell keep the medicine stuff in controlled labs for now. As for the need for pesticides use ladybugs, bees, and other natural methods instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater and creating poison resistant weeds and bugs

None of which would be affected by labeling food as GMO.

This is a law about labeling the foods on the shelves so that science deniers feel they can safely shop at stores other than WholePaycheck.


By this logic, nutrition information and ingredient lists on food is unconstitutional.
 
2014-06-03 04:09:53 PM  
They may be suing Vermont, but their real target is Ben & Jerry's, based in South Burlington.

They're going to be completely GMO-free soon, and if that works well for them, their parent company, Unilever, is sure to follow.

This is what happens when 2 assholish companies go to war. At least 1 assholish company is trying to do the right thing.
 
2014-06-03 04:10:14 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: dittybopper: Well, requiring GMO foods to be labeled certainly isn't based on science.

It's the lefty version of climate change denial.

Conservatives: keeping the public uninformed since... pretty much forever.


He is right, though. There is no evidence that GMO foods are bad or anything (other than Monsanto's not so good business practices). Labeling them is unnecessary and will just fear-monger.

Let's also label everything that contains any chemical whatsoever, particularly dihydrogen monoxide!
 
2014-06-03 04:10:36 PM  

dittybopper: Well, requiring GMO foods to be labeled certainly isn't based on science.

It's the lefty version of climate change denial.


Even if GMO labeling is mostly pointless (or mostly political, which is kinda the same thing), I don't see how it's ground for a lawsuit.
 
2014-06-03 04:16:48 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: I hope VT stands tough and follows through on passing the law.

More to the point, how can Monsanto sue VT?  Doesn't VT have soveriegn immunity under the 11th?


Vermont already passed it.
Monsanto can do what ever the fark it wants to do with its feet.
~to paraphrase Sheriff Posner.

What will happen is companies wont want to admit they put GMOs in their food, and they will try not to go along with it. Or they can sue because they don't want to comply. Bottom line, (and Really, that is what matters) is Vermonters don't want to eat food that they don't know the origins of. They grow a LOT of local food, and Grow a LOT of their own food. They are a picky lot of shoppers. They voted to know what is in their food. If some company or corporation wants to pitch a beotch about it, fine, Vermonters will not purchase their shiat-on-a-stick products.
They will loose a tiny share of their market with one state.
Other states may or may not follow suit.
But We here in the state of Vermont don't like Frankenfood.

You want to eat it? Buy it.
Voting with our laws and our wallets up north.
 
2014-06-03 04:18:38 PM  
I don't get how requiring someone to say just how the ingredients in their food were produced violates free speech.
 
2014-06-03 04:19:21 PM  

zarberg: I don't get how requiring someone to say just how the ingredients in their food were produced violates free speech.


Because they can make up any argument and their bought and paid for federal judge will buy it.
 
2014-06-03 04:22:03 PM  
Shouldn't this thread be merged with the "See, liberals/Democrats can be anti-science too" thread down below?

There is no safety difference between GMO food and non-GMO food.  Using terms like "frankenfood" puts you in the same category as global warming deniers and anti-vaxxers.
 
2014-06-03 04:22:39 PM  
Oh wait, that thread was in the Politics tab (where this one belongs).
 
2014-06-03 04:23:23 PM  

zarberg: I don't get how requiring someone to say just how the ingredients in their food were produced violates free speech.


The same why my girlfriend asking me who's panties are on my bedroom floor violates the trust of our relationship.
 
2014-06-03 04:24:30 PM  

Geotpf: Shouldn't this thread be merged with the "See, liberals/Democrats can be anti-science too" thread down below?

There is no safety difference between GMO food and non-GMO food.  Using terms like "frankenfood" puts you in the same category as global warming deniers and anti-vaxxers.


But its a states rights issue, so conservatards should be for it, right?

Except they're probably not, because reasons.
 
2014-06-03 04:25:19 PM  

Arkanaut: Even if GMO labeling is mostly pointless (or mostly political, which is kinda the same thing), I don't see how it's ground for a lawsuit.


Far from a constitutional scholar, but I'd like to think there's some protection against being compelled by the government to "warn" people about your product in such a manner even though there is no science to back such labeling.

/Fark Monsanto.
 
2014-06-03 04:26:05 PM  
Maybe they can put yellow stars and pink triangles on the food boxes.
 
2014-06-03 04:27:41 PM  

vpb: dittybopper:

None of which would be affected by labeling food as GMO.

This is a law about labeling the foods on the shelves so that science deniers feel they can safely shop at stores other than WholePaycheck.

Yeah, we need to stop labeling things that contain pork or shellfish too because that might allow Jewish or Muslim science deniers to avoid eating things that they don't want to eat.  Obviously they don't have a good enough reason for wanting to know what they are buying so they shouldn't be allowed to have that information.


It states right on the box. Contains:  Corn Meal.......... Soybean Oil .......   There you know what is in your food.
 
2014-06-03 04:29:26 PM  

machoprogrammer: Let's also label everything that contains any chemical whatsoever, particularly dihydrogen monoxide!


We do that already: FDA's general labeling guidance, net quantity of contents, ingredient lists, and nutrition labeling.

Have you never purchased prepackaged food from a US establishment? They have similar rules in the EU and Israel (and, I assume, many other countries/locales) as well, so maybe you're just a rugged survivalist?

// they have an ingredient list on bottles of Evian
// pity they aren't "hydrogen" and "oxygen", but "pure spring water" works just as well for the FDA
// farking government...
 
2014-06-03 04:29:44 PM  

GoldSpider: Arkanaut: Even if GMO labeling is mostly pointless (or mostly political, which is kinda the same thing), I don't see how it's ground for a lawsuit.

Far from a constitutional scholar, but I'd like to think there's some protection against being compelled by the government to "warn" people about your product in such a manner even though there is no science to back such labeling.


Yeah, I can see a constitutional free speech argument.  The government would have to prove there is a strong compelling interest for the warning, which they won't be able to since there's absolutely no danger in GMO foods.  Since this is a constitutional (first amendment) issue, it trumps state's rights arguments as well.
 
2014-06-03 04:30:39 PM  

Geotpf: Using terms like "frankenfood" puts you in the same category as global warming deniers and anti-vaxxers.


Except anti-vaxxers and global warming deniers cant be sued by Monsanto if they have a small farm and are tying to see their product and Monsanto decides their air and wind born spores or pollen have by all rights, made your blood, sweat, and tears, and toil suddenly become their property because it was tainted by their patented product.

Fark them all to hell, and you take that Genetically modified horse cock out of your mouth, too.
 
2014-06-03 04:32:25 PM  

vpb: dittybopper:

None of which would be affected by labeling food as GMO.

This is a law about labeling the foods on the shelves so that science deniers feel they can safely shop at stores other than WholePaycheck.

Yeah, we need to stop labeling things that contain pork or shellfish too because that might allow Jewish or Muslim science deniers to avoid eating things that they don't want to eat.  Obviously they don't have a good enough reason for wanting to know what they are buying so they shouldn't be allowed to have that information.


But religious beliefs are also protected by the first amendment.  Being scared of boogeymen GMOs is not a first amendment issue.
 
2014-06-03 04:34:08 PM  

vudukungfu: Geotpf: Using terms like "frankenfood" puts you in the same category as global warming deniers and anti-vaxxers.

Except anti-vaxxers and global warming deniers cant be sued by Monsanto if they have a small farm and are tying to see their product and Monsanto decides their air and wind born spores or pollen have by all rights, made your blood, sweat, and tears, and toil suddenly become their property because it was tainted by their patented product.

Fark them all to hell, and you take that Genetically modified horse cock out of your mouth, too.


I need a cite on Monsanto sueing over a simple crosspolination issue and not a blatent attempt to utilize their IP out of license.
 
2014-06-03 04:34:14 PM  

Saiga410: vpb: dittybopper:

None of which would be affected by labeling food as GMO.

This is a law about labeling the foods on the shelves so that science deniers feel they can safely shop at stores other than WholePaycheck.

Yeah, we need to stop labeling things that contain pork or shellfish too because that might allow Jewish or Muslim science deniers to avoid eating things that they don't want to eat.  Obviously they don't have a good enough reason for wanting to know what they are buying so they shouldn't be allowed to have that information.

It states right on the box. Contains:  Corn Meal.......... Soybean Oil .......   There you know what is in your food.


That does nothing for me if I care about how it was produced.
 
2014-06-03 04:35:14 PM  

vudukungfu: Geotpf: Using terms like "frankenfood" puts you in the same category as global warming deniers and anti-vaxxers.

Except anti-vaxxers and global warming deniers cant be sued by Monsanto if they have a small farm and are tying to see their product and Monsanto decides their air and wind born spores or pollen have by all rights, made your blood, sweat, and tears, and toil suddenly become their property because it was tainted by their patented product.

Fark them all to hell, and you take that Genetically modified horse cock out of your mouth, too.


That is a completely different issue than whether or not GMO foods are safe to eat and therefore require warning labels.  Plus, methinks you are exaggerating the issue a wee bit (although I know what you are referring to and won't defend Monsanto in that type of case).
 
2014-06-03 04:36:36 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: Saiga410: vpb: dittybopper:

None of which would be affected by labeling food as GMO.

This is a law about labeling the foods on the shelves so that science deniers feel they can safely shop at stores other than WholePaycheck.

Yeah, we need to stop labeling things that contain pork or shellfish too because that might allow Jewish or Muslim science deniers to avoid eating things that they don't want to eat.  Obviously they don't have a good enough reason for wanting to know what they are buying so they shouldn't be allowed to have that information.

It states right on the box. Contains:  Corn Meal.......... Soybean Oil .......   There you know what is in your food.

That does nothing for me if I care about how it was produced.


Oh so when a mommy corn plant loves daddy corn plant....
 
2014-06-03 04:37:26 PM  

dittybopper: Well, requiring GMO foods to be labeled certainly isn't based on science.


That's either stupid or a brilliant troll.
 
2014-06-03 04:39:45 PM  

Geotpf: strong compelling interest for the warning, which they won't be able to since there's absolutely no danger in GMO foods.


Strong compelling interest does not imply that the reason there is a law is because there is a fear of danger.
The Law is there because there is a need to and a right to know how the product is produced.
Is this an Heirloom tomato?
Good.
Is this a regular tomato?
What makes it "regular'?
Is it a clone tomato?
Is it one I can plant the seeds from?
Is it one that tastes like crap?
Or has no taste at all?
It Monsanto produced it, probably has no taste.
Looks like a piece of waxed fruit, but has no taste.
Took a lot of chemicals to produce, and a lot of water.
Picked by a Mexican.
Driven her by a union trucker.

Tell me about the car you drive, do you know where is was assembled?
Your Iphone. Where the conflict materials came from?
Do you know or care?
 
2014-06-03 04:39:58 PM  

yakmans_dad: That's either stupid or a brilliant troll.


Your rebuttal is compelling.
 
2014-06-03 04:45:55 PM  

vudukungfu: Tell me about the car you drive, do you know where is was assembled?
Your Iphone. Where the conflict materials came from?
Do you know or care?


So "curiosity" creates a compelling need for regulation?
 
2014-06-03 04:46:08 PM  

Dr Dreidel: machoprogrammer: Let's also label everything that contains any chemical whatsoever, particularly dihydrogen monoxide!

We do that already: FDA's general labeling guidance, net quantity of contents, ingredient lists, and nutrition labeling.

Have you never purchased prepackaged food from a US establishment? They have similar rules in the EU and Israel (and, I assume, many other countries/locales) as well, so maybe you're just a rugged survivalist?

// they have an ingredient list on bottles of Evian
// pity they aren't "hydrogen" and "oxygen", but "pure spring water" works just as well for the FDA
// farking government...


Right, but it doesn't say "CHEMICALS IN THIS PRODUCT" like it will say "GMOS IN THIS PRODUCT".

There is no science whatsoever that says GMO food is unsafe.
 
2014-06-03 04:46:31 PM  

vudukungfu: Geotpf: strong compelling interest for the warning, which they won't be able to since there's absolutely no danger in GMO foods.

Strong compelling interest does not imply that the reason there is a law is because there is a fear of danger.
The Law is there because there is a need to and a right to know how the product is produced.
Is this an Heirloom tomato?
Good.
Is this a regular tomato?
What makes it "regular'?
Is it a clone tomato?
Is it one I can plant the seeds from?
Is it one that tastes like crap?
Or has no taste at all?
It Monsanto produced it, probably has no taste.
Looks like a piece of waxed fruit, but has no taste.
Took a lot of chemicals to produce, and a lot of water.
Picked by a Mexican.
Driven her by a union trucker.

Tell me about the car you drive, do you know where is was assembled?
Your Iphone. Where the conflict materials came from?
Do you know or care?


The actual term is "Strict Scrutiny".  And, in First Amendment cases, the government needs to prove such exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

To force a food company who uses GMO foods to display a warning label of such, the government must:

It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest, that is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately.


Since nobody is allergic to GMO foods, nobody has any religious restrictions to consuming them, and there are not, in fact, any dangers or hazards whatsoever in consuming them, I suspect such a labeling requirement will fail this test.
 
2014-06-03 04:48:30 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: GMO foods may be perfectly safe, I happen to agree that they are, but that doesn't mean people don't have the right to know that they're eating them.


People are too goddamn stupid to rationally judge things like this.  We have been enjoying the fruits (har dee har) of GMO's for a long ass time, nearly the start of civilization depending on how you define it.  10,000 years ago they just randomly tried to cross breed plants.  100 years ago we tried blasting different seeds with xrays and planted the resulting seeds to "see what would happen".  With the discovery of genetics, and the tools to directly alter these genes we began to play with a bit more precision and control, but still, we were only rearranging sequences, not creating something scary and new.  People have been depending on GMO's far longer than any of us have graced the earth, and now suddenly because famine isn't a major concern, we are up in arms at the thought of this unknown scary foreign technology.  Well guess farking what; the GMO crops are going to be needed to feed this hungry planet.  They aren't for Vermonters to enjoy creamier cheese, its for the starving people who need drought resistant crops in sub-saharan africa and the like.


vudukungfu: Except anti-vaxxers and global warming deniers cant be sued by Monsanto if they have a small farm and are tying to see their product and Monsanto decides their air and wind born spores or pollen have by all rights, made your blood, sweat, and tears, and toil suddenly become their property because it was tainted by their patented product.


Please prove me wrong, but this is the same old sob story that has been bandied about for a long time by the anti-GMO crowd.  I believe that there was a single isolated incident where a farmer tried to take advantage of a pilot program they agreed to participate in, where they were expressly forbidden from using any of the resulting seeds to continue to plant.  They didn't go after any adjacent farms, only those who had agreed to the rules and then chosen to ignore them.
 
2014-06-03 04:52:03 PM  
Oh, also, we are almost 50 comments in in an RT thread and no Putin jokes?  Basically everything on RT will be anti-American propaganda in one form or another.
 
2014-06-03 04:53:23 PM  
Do they make roundup ready bees?
 
2014-06-03 04:54:00 PM  
My guess is that the NON GMO label will just get watered down at some point down the road where food items containing < 50% GMO ingredients can still get approval for the NON GMO label. Similar to how 0g hydrogenated oils actually means < 0.5g hydrogenated oils on the nutrition label.
 
Displayed 50 of 132 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report