Is Monsanto evil?

imranpanji said:
So in essence...from the last few post:

1. We are legally absolved blame of any harmful effects of our products

2. We are against labeling of our products for what they are as people might not want them...although everyone else is meant to put their ingredients on products

3. If our patented crops contaminate your fields, that's your problem to sort out.....you can not regrow any of it because it's owned by us. And we are not responsible for the said contamination or the losses you might occur due to the destruction of your organic/non gmo product.

4. If the contamination that has occurred is above 1%...then we are going sue your asses unless you pay us money. It doesn't matter whether the contamination occurred due to weather patterns, cross pollination or any other reason...you are at fault
Click to expand...

Or,

1. We are legally protected from a flood of frivolous and/or misinformed and or malicious suits claiming damages from using our already tested and approved products.

2. We are against having to label our product as GMO when all competing products are in fact GMO.

3. Have seen no evidence that this is true.

4. Have seen evidence that the figure is closer to 98%.

One wonders, if cross contamination is so prevalent, how does the US justice system function given all the Monsanto suits for any contamination over 1%?
 
imranpanji said:
This reminds me of the Ricetec case where a US company essentially patented strains basmati rice in the US, based on parameters which have existed in the rice in India for hundreds of years, locking in the US market and ensuring that the original product from origin could not be sold there....this was challenged by activists and partially overturned.
Click to expand...
That would be a problem with the corrupt and widely abused US patent system.

maumau said:
I'd prefer not to buy GM foods, but, whatever blows your hair back.......
Click to expand...
You can't have many food options avoiding anything genetically modified by humans.
 
Nick333 said:
Or,

1. We are legally protected from a flood of frivolous and/or misinformed and or malicious suits claiming damages from using our already tested and approved products.

2. We are against having to label our product as GMO when all competing products are in fact GMO.

3. Have seen no evidence that this is true.

4. Have seen evidence that the figure is closer to 98%.

One wonders, if cross contamination is so prevalent, how does the US justice system function given all the Monsanto suits for any contamination over 1%?
Click to expand...

4. What evidence that figure is over 98%? You claim to have seen evidence, but are unable to post a link.

The 1% Is from a supreme court case. Read up on it before trying to make statements.

You seem not to have read any of the links posted, and your only source is the OP's source article.

3. There is plenty of evidence, if you bother to check

1. As for "protection against lawsuits" for food product, you argument is plain silly.....as a company can always sued for harmful product. To have a law drafted to protect you from your products is totally suspect, and shows you are unwilling to stand by it.


You have made many claims here, none of them even substantiated with a link. Actually, all you have done is spout your opinion. You also seem not to have followed any of the links I have provided. A small piece of advice : google is your friend
 
The only thing I really took from the OP, is that Verizon Wireless make a crap ton of money. I mean, a lot. No wonder Americans hate them.
 
imranpanji said:
4. What evidence that figure is over 98%? You claim to have seen evidence, but are unable to post a link.

The 1% Is from a supreme court case. Read up on it before trying to make statements.

You seem not to have read any of the links posted, and your only source is the OP's source article.

3. There is plenty of evidence, if you bother to check

1. As for "protection against lawsuits" for food product, you argument is plain silly.....as a company can always sued for harmful product. To have a law drafted to protect you from your products is totally suspect, and shows you are unwilling to stand by it.


You have made many claims here, none of them even substantiated with a link. Actually, all you have done is spout your opinion. You also seem not to have followed any of the links I have provided. A small piece of advice : google is your friend
Click to expand...

I said closer to 98% and my source is the OP and the wiki link you provided. The case you presented as key is a case of a farmer deliberately growing a crop grown from seeds aquired through contamination not as a direct result of contamination. If the crops in question were contaminated I'm sure the contamination would have been closer to 1% but the contaminent would have been something other than a Monsanto product because they were Monsanto crops. Further since the contamination was discovered when the farmer sprayed a portion of his crop with Roundup and found that some plants survived. He clearly intended to destroy the crop plants so he in fact aquired the Monsanto seeds at not cost to himself.
Remember this is the case you presented as key and my source is one you provided. Don't accuse me of not reading sources when you have clearly not read any of the source material in this thread.

As to your other links, the two dissertations represent the case as though Monsanto sued the farmer for selling crops that were contaminated by Monsanto seed(not true) and the others have nothing to do with the case.

I'm willing to check any sources you provide, I've checked the ones you have provided and presented the facts from them. The fact that they contradict your claims proves that if anyone is just spouting opinions it's certainly not me.
 
Nick333 said:
I
As to your other links, the two dissertations represent the case as though Monsanto sued the farmer for selling crops that were contaminated by Monsanto seed(not true) and the others have nothing to do with the case.

I'm willing to check any sources you provide, I've checked the ones you have provided and presented the facts from them. The fact that they contradict your claims proves that if anyone is just spouting opinions it's certainly not me.
Click to expand...

The 2 dissertations discuss the case by breaking down the different issues involved in the case and addressing them. Because it does not particularly agree with your opinion doesn't mean it has nothing to do with the GM debate.

Please advise where you have provided facts from any of them. There is not one quote or link presented by you at this stage apart from waffle.

And none of the "facts" that you have apparently presented actually contradict my list
 
imranpanji said:
The 2 dissertations discuss the case by breaking down the different issues involved in the case and addressing them. Because it does not particularly agree with your opinion doesn't mean it has nothing to do with the GM debate.

Please advise where you have provided facts from any of them. There is not one quote or link presented by you at this stage apart from waffle.

And none of the "facts" that you have apparently presented actually contradict my list
Click to expand...
Mate, the facts are in the wiki link you provided. The intros to those dissertations contradict those facts.

The facts:
As established in the original Federal Court
trial decision, Percy Schmeiser , a canola
breeder and grower in Bruno, Saskatchewan,
first discovered Roundup-resistant canola in
his crops in 1997. [4] He had used Roundup
herbicide to clear weeds around power poles
and in ditches adjacent to a public road
running beside one of his fields, and noticed
that some of the canola which had been
sprayed had survived. Schmeiser then
performed a test by applying Roundup to an
additional 3 acres (12,000 m 2 ) to 4 acres
(16,000 m 2) of the same field. He found that
60% of the canola plants survived. At harvest
time, Schmeiser instructed a farmhand to
harvest the test field. That seed was stored
separately from the rest of the harvest, and
used the next year to seed approximately
1,000 acres (4 km²) of canola.
Click to expand...

Source: the Wikipedia link you provided as a source for the claims that are contradicted by said source.

Note also that the contamination was 60%. Closer as I claimed to 98% than 1% by quite a significant margin.
 
Nick333 said:
.

Note also that the contamination was 60%. Closer as I claimed to 98% than 1% by quite a significant margin.
Click to expand...

I think you are confusing 1 court case with the company policy.

As i have said before, the 1% is from the supreme court judgement where Monsanto said they would not sue if the % of their product grown is below 1% of their total.

That is Monsanto's own measurement of 'trace elements' . If the amount is above 1% they reserve the right to sue, no matter how the contamination occurred.
 
imranpanji said:
I think you are confusing 1 court case with the company policy.

As i have said before, the 1% is from the supreme court judgement where Monsanto said they would not sue if the % of their product grown is below 1% of their total.

That is Monsanto's own measurement of 'trace elements' . If the amount is above 1% they reserve the right to sue, no matter how the contamination occurred.
Click to expand...
Source for Monsanto more than 1% policy please.
 
Where does the claim about suing if the contamination is more than 1% come from? Every case seems to involve far more than that. Certainly patent law is screwy enough as it is and patenting of genes in plants and animals creates problems with what is and is not infringement. But what percentage of farmers are really being sued and for what?
 
noxibox said:
Where does the claim about suing if the contamination is more than 1% come from? Every case seems to involve far more than that. Certainly patent law is screwy enough as it is and patenting of genes in plants and animals creates problems with what is and is not infringement. But what percentage of farmers are really being sued and for what?
Click to expand...
It's basically just a lie spread on activist sites which seem to have all the integrity of your average ancient aliens/conspiracy theory site.

It's basically a lie. The case that imran cited was one of 60% contamination and Monsanto sued for the growing of purely Monsanto crops not the selling of accidentally contaminated crops.
 
Nick333 said:
It's basically just a lie spread on activist sites which seem to have all the integrity of your average ancient aliens/conspiracy theory site.

It's basically a lie. The case that imran cited was one of 60% contamination and Monsanto sued for the growing of purely Monsanto crops not the selling of accidentally contaminated crops.
Click to expand...

No its not. There is evidence to prove that
 
imranpanji said:
I am referring to the 1%
Click to expand...
You could prove it either way by posting a credible source for your original claim. My own ,admittedly cursory, research didn't find any credible sources that Monsanto policy is to take action against any farmers whose crops are more than 1% contaminated by their product.
 
The more I read about Monsanto, the more dirty it seems

In 2005, the*US DOJ*filed a Deferred Prosecution Agreement[64]*in which Monsanto admitted to violations of the*Foreign Corrupt Practices Act(15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1) and making false entries into its books and records (15 U.S.C § 78m(b)(2) & (5)). Monsanto also agreed to pay a $1.5m fine. The case involved bribes paid to an Indonesian official.[65]*Monsanto admitted a senior manager at Monsanto directed an Indonesian consulting firm to give a $50,000 bribe to a high-level official in Indonesia's environment ministry in 2002 related to the agency's assessment on its genetically modified cotton. Monsanto told the company to disguise an invoice for the bribe as "consulting fees". Monsanto also has admitted to paying bribes to a number of other high-ranking Indonesian officials between 1997 and 2002.*

More here : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4153635.stm

That's one where they actually got busted. How many are there where they haven't been caught? How can you trust a company that is unwilling to stand by their product?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X