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.

(Mother Jones)   If that anti-GMO crusader in your Facebook timeline just got a whole lot more violent, here's why   (motherjones.com) divider line 149
    More: Sick, GMOs, Nazis, nazi war criminals, evidence-based medicine, alternative medicines, mass suicide  
•       •       •

4841 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jul 2014 at 1:33 PM (7 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-25 12:19:49 PM
Monsanto is widely recognize as the most hated and most evil corporation on the planet.

Not so fast there, conspiracy boy. According to Consumerist's 2014 Worst Corporation in America award...

...Comcast narrowly edged out Monsanto in the finals with 51.5% of the vote.

Monsanto can't even take the first worst place award in the nationals not much chance of winning the global version of that.

http://consumerist.com/2014/04/08/congratulations-to-comcast-your-20 14 -worst-company-in-america/

Also... preview much?

The rambling post goes on to compare the agrochemical giant Monsanto to IG Farben,...

A Godwinner is you!
 
2014-07-25 12:29:36 PM
I did not know one could perpetrate violence over Facebook.  I may have to re-think my position as to joining.
 
2014-07-25 12:48:14 PM
Ooh, a GMO thread

img.fark.net
 
2014-07-25 01:36:39 PM
The human race cannot feed itself without genetically modified food.
 
2014-07-25 01:36:56 PM
I'm sure there will be lots of good science discussed here and certainly no false accusations of legal abuse.
 
2014-07-25 01:38:42 PM
The way they go on about this it's hard to see how they have any time to savor any of that delicious non-GMO food.
 
2014-07-25 01:39:40 PM
Oh for fark's sake... get me peer reviewed scientific evidence that GMOs are harmful. Until then, STFU.

GMOs have been very extensively studied for many years and to my knowledge no health concerns have been found. The only legitimate concern that I know of is the reduction in biodiversity that results from so many farmers using the same crop strains and the GMOs possibly outcompeting non-GMO varieties if they intermix. It leaves crops vulnerable if a new disease targeting them comes along.
 
2014-07-25 01:40:01 PM
So he's lika a mirror image of the Gateway Pundit. A negative, if you will.
 
2014-07-25 01:40:36 PM
Natural News has always been batshait crazy.  They're like Infowars for the alt-medicine crowd.
 
2014-07-25 01:41:06 PM
Also, Fark Monsanto
 
2014-07-25 01:42:33 PM
...brought to you by legendary corporate shills and right-wing firebrands...Mother Jones?
 
2014-07-25 01:43:46 PM
If that anti-GMO crusader in your Facebook timeline just got a whole lot more violent, it's probably something in the food he's eating.
 
2014-07-25 01:44:34 PM

patrick767: Oh for fark's sake... get me peer reviewed scientific evidence that GMOs are harmful. Until then, STFU.

GMOs have been very extensively studied for many years and to my knowledge no health concerns have been found. The only legitimate concern that I know of is the reduction in biodiversity that results from so many farmers using the same crop strains and the GMOs possibly outcompeting non-GMO varieties if they intermix. It leaves crops vulnerable if a new disease targeting them comes along.


It's also important to remember that reduction in biodiversity is an issue with large-scale agriculture in general, not with GMOs in particular.
 
2014-07-25 01:46:29 PM
Guess we're gonna need loads of these:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-07-25 01:47:50 PM
Have a coworker who is anti gmo and I called him an idiot because of it. Even after an apology he still holds a grudge years later.
 
2014-07-25 01:47:51 PM

CygnusDarius: Guess we're gonna need loads of these:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 817x568]


Do they come with them tiny bottles of heaven filled with Tabasco sauce?
 
2014-07-25 01:48:41 PM
When you see something as binary, you tend to have less of a problem with flipping switches.
 
2014-07-25 01:51:15 PM
My sister in law posts shiat like this. Every once in a while I ask her what a toxin is, for the lols.
 
2014-07-25 01:53:20 PM
Natural News is just downright strange.   If you're into homeopathy, crystal healing, and Fox News, it's probably for you.
 
2014-07-25 01:54:18 PM

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: CygnusDarius: Guess we're gonna need loads of these:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 817x568]

Do they come with them tiny bottles of heaven filled with Tabasco sauce?


Some do, and some have candy!
 
2014-07-25 01:55:08 PM

Fart_Machine: Natural News has always been batshait crazy.  They're like Infowars for the alt-medicine crowd.


I have, on very rare occasions, seen NN be right(see: broken clocks). I've never seen Infowars be right about anything.
 
2014-07-25 01:59:31 PM
I farking can't stand anti-GMO crusaders.  Usually overblown unscientific whackdoodles.

I also can't farking stand Monsanto for its heavy handed monopolistic business practices and abuse of our patent and copyright system combined with biological systems.  If nature has your plants cross pollinated with some of Monsanto's crops they shake you down for licenses or get out the lawyers.

I personally feel like if you create something that spreads and replicates on its own you shouldn't be able to punish people that receive it.  Also disallowing farmers to use the seeds the crops produce to replant without paying for a license is awful.  That's how plants work!
 
2014-07-25 02:00:44 PM

qorkfiend: patrick767: Oh for fark's sake... get me peer reviewed scientific evidence that GMOs are harmful. Until then, STFU.

GMOs have been very extensively studied for many years and to my knowledge no health concerns have been found. The only legitimate concern that I know of is the reduction in biodiversity that results from so many farmers using the same crop strains and the GMOs possibly outcompeting non-GMO varieties if they intermix. It leaves crops vulnerable if a new disease targeting them comes along.

It's also important to remember that reduction in biodiversity is an issue with large-scale agriculture in general, not with GMOs in particular.


I don't disagree, and I have no opposition to GMO plants in general. I am opposed to the use of things like "terminator genes" which can make our food supply extremely vulnerable to a crop disease which would take a few years to recover from. I'm also opposed to Monsanto's litigation of those who dare to use their existing seeds that they grew themselves without paying royalties. I'm opposed to the particular breeds of some crops that Monsanto grows that encourage use of even more pesticides, coincidentally manufactured by Monsanto.

But GMO's in general have the possibility of helping avoid a food crisis rather than perpetuating one, so I'm not opposed to them in general. It's just the business practices of the leaders of the industry that I find objectionable.
 
2014-07-25 02:02:18 PM

qorkfiend: The human race cannot feed itself without genetically modified food.


Well it certainly can't eat a completely homogenized and brand named diet from coast to coast without GMOs.  Synthetic fertilizers feed a lot more people than GMOs do.

The real potential of GMOs is mostly wasted making sure the market is supplied with generic processed shiat.  It could be used to remove *a lot* of pesticides and herbicides from food production, but the fact they can patent genes pretty much insures it will be used for the most profitbale applications.  That's why it's basically the Viagra of agriculture.
 
2014-07-25 02:02:35 PM
I don't understand how anybody can be anti-GTO

I mean, come on...


static.cargurus.com
 
2014-07-25 02:04:30 PM

Esc7: I farking can't stand anti-GMO crusaders.  Usually overblown unscientific whackdoodles.

I also can't farking stand Monsanto for its heavy handed monopolistic business practices and abuse of our patent and copyright system combined with biological systems.  If nature has your plants cross pollinated with some of Monsanto's crops they shake you down for licenses or get out the lawyers.

I personally feel like if you create something that spreads and replicates on its own you shouldn't be able to punish people that receive it.  Also disallowing farmers to use the seeds the crops produce to replant without paying for a license is awful.  That's how plants work!



Hold on now.  My retirement plan rests on being able to charge my children and grand children royalty fees for the genes they've acquired.
 
2014-07-25 02:09:46 PM
ox45tallboy:
I don't disagree, and I have no opposition to GMO plants in general. I am opposed to the use of things like "terminator genes" which can make our food supply extremely vulnerable to a crop disease which would take a few years to recover from. I'm also opposed to Monsanto's litigation of those who dare to use their existing seeds that they grew themselves without paying royalties. I'm opposed to the particular breeds of some crops that Monsanto grows that encourage use of even more pesticides, coincidentally manufactured by Monsanto.

But GMO's in general have the possibility of helping avoid a food crisis rather than perpetuating one, so I'm not opposed to them in general. It's just the business practices of the leaders of the industry that I find objectionable.


I think Monsanto's business practices suck, too. I just dislike the anti-science blathering of the anti-GMO crusaders. They need to bring some evidence to the table because right now many years of evidence indicate that they're wrong.
 
2014-07-25 02:11:05 PM

qorkfiend: The human race cannot feed itself without genetically modified food.


What if humans ate other humans?
 
2014-07-25 02:14:10 PM

Esc7: If nature has your plants cross pollinated with some of Monsanto's crops they shake you down for licenses or get out the lawyers.


Primarily because if you've got so much as a dirt road or a fence between your crop and a GM crop then statistically the cross-pollination for the most common GM crops (corn, wheat) is statistically pretty much zero.  You can put your non-GM corn ten feet away from a GM strain downwind and even the adjacent row will hit maybe 5% evidence of the gene.  Staple crops aren't long-distance or insect-mediated pollinators, generally speaking the bulk of your crop by far is pollinated by something in the same field.

So... if 50% of your crop tests for the gene... you pretty much stole it, and by "pretty much" I mean unarguable, intentionally, 100% guaranteed you physically took actual seed with the gene in it and put it in your field with no license agreement.  The only reason it's as arguable as it's been, even, in the courts is that juries are scientifically illiterate and they can't even stay awake through the preliminary explanation of how cross-pollination is  quantified, much less understand the actual numbers.

No one is getting sued over the fraction of a percent that indicates you maybe unintentionally seeded something you shouldn't, much less the parts per  million contamination you can get from actual cross-pollination with a nearby field.
 
2014-07-25 02:14:52 PM

neversubmit: qorkfiend: The human race cannot feed itself without genetically modified food.

What if humans ate other humans?


Obligatory.  [XKCD]
 
2014-07-25 02:16:39 PM

patrick767: I think Monsanto's business practices suck, too. I just dislike the anti-science blathering of the anti-GMO crusaders. They need to bring some evidence to the table because right now many years of evidence indicate that they're wrong.


There's plenty of evidence that the business practices of Monsanto are harmful, and I think that's what most people are complaining about. Unfortunately, the loudest of these complainers are the minority whackadoodles who think that ALL GMO crops are bad. Monsanto exploits this by countering the bad science these people proclaim, and act as if they've countered the valid objections to their business practices.

If we culturally shifted to businesses having a model of most efficient production, with research and development of new products as a social need rather than a business need, we could do away with much of the abuses of the patent and copyright systems. But since businesses like Monsanto do not exist to further the goal of feeding the most people for the least amount of money, this goal will not be accomplished.
 
2014-07-25 02:18:22 PM

qorkfiend: patrick767: Oh for fark's sake... get me peer reviewed scientific evidence that GMOs are harmful. Until then, STFU.

GMOs have been very extensively studied for many years and to my knowledge no health concerns have been found. The only legitimate concern that I know of is the reduction in biodiversity that results from so many farmers using the same crop strains and the GMOs possibly outcompeting non-GMO varieties if they intermix. It leaves crops vulnerable if a new disease targeting them comes along.

It's also important to remember that reduction in biodiversity is an issue with large-scale agriculture in general, not with GMOs in particular.


True.  The fact the Gros Michel banana was non-GMO didn't stop it from being almost wiped out by panama disease, forcing most banana producers to switch to the cavandish.  Of course it turns out the canvanish isn't immune to all varieties of panama disease, and since all cavandish banana trees are genetically identical, the cavandish's days as the main banana crop are probably numbered.

There are efforts to either find (wild banana trees still grow in the jungles of southeast Asia) or create (via genetic engineering!) a resistant variety of banana, but long term we'll need to diversify banana production so the loss of any one variety is not devastating to the entire industry.
 
2014-07-25 02:20:49 PM
Man, so many groups of people are Nazis now you'd think they were the ones that won.
 
2014-07-25 02:28:30 PM

Jim_Callahan: Primarily because if you've got so much as a dirt road or a fence between your crop and a GM crop then statistically the cross-pollination for the most common GM crops (corn, wheat) is statistically pretty much zero.  You can put your non-GM corn ten feet away from a GM strain downwind and even the adjacent row will hit maybe 5% evidence of the gene.  Staple crops aren't long-distance or insect-mediated pollinators, generally speaking the bulk of your crop by far is pollinated by something in the same field.

So... if 50% of your crop tests for the gene... you pretty much stole it, and by "pretty much" I mean unarguable, intentionally, 100% guaranteed you physically took actual seed with the gene in it and put it in your field with no license agreement.  The only reason it's as arguable as it's been, even, in the courts is that juries are scientifically illiterate and they can't even stay awake through the preliminary explanation of how cross-pollination is  quantified, much less understand the actual numbers.

No one is getting sued over the fraction of a percent that indicates you maybe unintentionally seeded something you shouldn't, much less the parts per  million contamination you can get from actual cross-pollination with a nearby field


I think, though, that this is a valid objection - why should it be up to me to prove that I did not purposefully cross-pollinate my crops? Why should Monsanto have the right to come into my field and take my property away for DNA testing? Why should Monsanto be able to prohibit me from planting a seed on my property that grew from my crop, that I own, last year?

Why are their corporate profits more important than my individual liberty to plant the seeds that I grew, or to pollinate my crops on one side of my field with crops from the other side of my field, all of which I purchased? Why am I not allowed to do my own genetic modification through selective breeding with their crops? They didn't invent the stuff they genetically modified, they just took genes from one organism and put them into another.
 
2014-07-25 02:38:02 PM
I don't really care if producers and consumers prefer GMO food.  What I do support is mandatory labeling of GMO products so consumers at least have an opportunity to make an informed choice.  Of course agribusiness spends millions fighting any effort to support mandatory labeling, so it probably will never happen.
 
2014-07-25 02:40:59 PM

qorkfiend: The human race cannot feed itself without genetically modified food.


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-07-25 02:45:42 PM
Natural news is left wing science denialism.  I accept that people who believe their bullshiat agree with me on more than a few things.

It hurts, but all I can do is attempt to help people who fall into the trap.
 
2014-07-25 02:50:29 PM

kkinnison: Have a coworker who is anti gmo and I called him an idiot because of it. Even after an apology he still holds a grudge years later.


Tell him to take a chill pill
img.fark.net
 
2014-07-25 02:51:09 PM

AteMyBrain: I don't understand how anybody can be anti-GTO

I mean, come on...


[static.cargurus.com image 850x637]


Because I'm a Mopar boy all the way.
 
2014-07-25 02:53:19 PM
I remain suspicious of GMO, even though I eat the stuff.   Mostly because of its newness and I haven't yet read many stories about its safety.   It may be difficult for studies to happen without fear of lawsuits.  Monsanto has a lot of lawyers, I would guess even more than scientology.
 
2014-07-25 02:55:17 PM

Jim_Callahan: So... if 50% of your crop tests for the gene... you pretty much stole it, and by "pretty much" I mean unarguable, intentionally, 100% guaranteed you physically took actual seed with the gene in it and put it in your field with no license agreement. The only reason it's as arguable as it's been, even, in the courts is that juries are scientifically illiterate and they can't even stay awake through the preliminary explanation of how cross-pollination is quantified, much less understand the actual numbers.


This is where you lost all credibility.
 
2014-07-25 02:57:37 PM

dstrick44: So he's lika a mirror image of the Gateway Pundit. A negative, if you will.


Negative?

padresteve.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-07-25 03:03:35 PM

SpectroBoy: qorkfiend: The human race cannot feed itself without genetically modified food.

[24.media.tumblr.com image 400x400]


Really? You need a citation on that?
 
2014-07-25 03:07:57 PM

rev. dave: Mostly because of its newness and I haven't yet read many stories about its safety.


Are you also afraid of cell phones, the Internet, and many medicines?

Esc7: I personally feel like if you create something that spreads and replicates on its own you shouldn't be able to punish people that receive it. Also disallowing farmers to use the seeds the crops produce to replant without paying for a license is awful. That's how plants work!


Only, (from what I understand, which may be false) farmers generally do not harvest their own seeds, since it is time and labor intensive to do so, and generally buy new seed every year from seed banks. That is, unless the seeds are Monsanto seeds, in which case the licensing makes it cheaper to take the time and effort to harvest seeds than re-buy every year.

This is Monsanto's argument, that farmers aren't just doing what farmers do and happen to harvest and replant Monsanto seeds, but rather that farmers consciously make the decision to change their business practice specifically in order to avoid paying Monsanto's licensing fees.
 
2014-07-25 03:12:01 PM

nmrsnr: the Internet


In fairness, sometimes the internet can be fking terrifying.
 
2014-07-25 03:13:40 PM
Anyone who claims to understand science and disregards the precautionary principle is missing a key chromosome.

http://www.sehn.org/ppfaqs.html
 
2014-07-25 03:23:19 PM

quatchi: Monsanto is widely recognize as the most hated and most evil corporation on the planet.

Not so fast there, conspiracy boy. According to Consumerist's 2014 Worst Corporation in America award...

...Comcast narrowly edged out Monsanto in the finals with 51.5% of the vote.

Monsanto can't even take the first worst place award in the nationals not much chance of winning the global version of that.

http://consumerist.com/2014/04/08/congratulations-to-comcast-your-20 14 -worst-company-in-america/

Also... preview much?

The rambling post goes on to compare the agrochemical giant Monsanto to IG Farben,...

A Godwinner is you!


So your genius debunking of that claim was that Monsanto is only really close to the most hated company in America, 2nd to one whos international presence is not much, so therefore Monsanto can not be the most hated multinational in the world? Friggin GENIUS!
When countries start banning Comcast from operating within their borders, you might have a point.
 
2014-07-25 03:23:24 PM

nmrsnr: rev. dave: Mostly because of its newness and I haven't yet read many stories about its safety.

Are you also afraid of cell phones, the Internet, and many medicines?

Esc7: I personally feel like if you create something that spreads and replicates on its own you shouldn't be able to punish people that receive it. Also disallowing farmers to use the seeds the crops produce to replant without paying for a license is awful. That's how plants work!

Only, (from what I understand, which may be false) farmers generally do not harvest their own seeds, since it is time and labor intensive to do so, and generally buy new seed every year from seed banks. That is, unless the seeds are Monsanto seeds, in which case the licensing makes it cheaper to take the time and effort to harvest seeds than re-buy every year.

This is Monsanto's argument, that farmers aren't just doing what farmers do and happen to harvest and replant Monsanto seeds, but rather that farmers consciously make the decision to change their business practice specifically in order to avoid paying Monsanto's licensing fees.


It is like this the two big crops are Field Corn (Corn for non-human consumption,   which is called Sweet Corn and usually grown through contracts by vegetable companies or farmers kids to sell along the roadside) and Soybeans.

Field-Corn is hybridized for different traits and has been since the early 1900's.   These are supplied by seed companies such as Monsanto, or Dupont.  You buy this seed every year from them because successive generations do not produce very well.

Corn Cross pollinates so in theory traits from another field could get into these seeds but the companies don't care because these new seeds will produce very little.

Beans are not hybridized so they produce very well successive generations which is why seed companies make you sign a contract saying you will not re-plant these seeds,  Seed companies have been doing this for decades even before Monsanto and Dupont were even in the seed or genetics business.

Beans also self pollinate so traits from other fields will not get in to successive generations,  it is also why they can't be hybridized.

Monsanto and other seed companies sue the farmers and co-ops who break licensing agreements.
 
2014-07-25 03:23:48 PM

SpectroBoy: qorkfiend: The human race cannot feed itself without genetically modified food.

[Citation needed]


No farking kidding. My favorite pro-corporate talking point yet.
 
2014-07-25 03:24:08 PM

nmrsnr: Only, (from what I understand, which may be false) farmers generally do not harvest their own seeds, since it is time and labor intensive to do so, and generally buy new seed every year from seed banks. That is, unless the seeds are Monsanto seeds, in which case the licensing makes it cheaper to take the time and effort to harvest seeds than re-buy every year.

This is Monsanto's argument, that farmers aren't just doing what farmers do and happen to harvest and replant Monsanto seeds, but rather that farmers consciously make the decision to change their business practice specifically in order to avoid paying Monsanto's licensing fees.


To me, that says that their business model is flawed. If you require changes to the law to allow your technicians to access someone's private field to conduct DNA tests to ensure that they aren't using a subsequent generation of seed originally purchased from your company, then perhaps you need to re-think things.

Maybe they should compare the amount of money they spend on enforcement of their patents to the price they are charging. If they lowered the price to make it less cost-effective for the farmers to re-use the seed, they might not have to spend as much on enforcement.
 
Displayed 50 of 149 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 »






Report