Makes you wonder why Monsanto aren't considered the Worst Company in the United States. For my money, I find BP and oil companies as well as the banks incompetent but with a bit of malice.
Monsanto, on the other hand, are pure evil.
Monsanto, on the other hand, are pure evil.
http://bestmeal.info/monsanto/company-history.shtml
The results for GMOs is mixed but is not looking good for Monsanto at the moment.
We don't need to fix the food system, it wasn't broken to begin with.
2) Ask the thousands of Indian farmers who committed suicide because their crops failed how helpful Monsanto was.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genoc...
"When crops failed in the past, farmers could still save seeds and replant them the following year.
But with GM seeds they cannot do this. That's because GM seeds contain so- called 'terminator technology', meaning that they have been genetically modified so that the resulting crops do not produce viable seeds of their own.
As a result, farmers have to buy new seeds each year at the same punitive prices. For some, that means the difference between life and death."
3) Monsant's entire argument rests on taking farmers' rights away. From TFA:
"Monsanto contends that the patent violation is Bowman's fault because he took the grains and used them to create new versions of Monsanto's patented soybeans that Monsanto, the patent holder, hadn't sold him."
Monsanto wants planting a seed to be patent violation. They want to stop you buying something and putting it into the ground.
Fuck Monsanto and everything that they stand for.
a) False. "However, a 2008 report by the International Food Policy Research Institute showed that there was no evidence for an increased suicide rate following the 2002 introduction of Bt cotton, but instead that the rate had been consistent since 1997."
b) If a farmer buys seeds with the condition that they not replant those seeds, what happens if they do replant? Aren't they violating the terms of their purchase? It's like me buying a software license for 1-year, and not renewing but continuing to use the software beyond the expiration.
c) If someone knowingly uses a patented product without paying the patent holder, you're saying that they're not liable?
"Fuck Monsanto and everything that they stand for."
Edgy.
Get real, food has grown and can grow naturally and there are natural ways to have healthy crops that don't need dangerous pesticides. Nature has been working in a balance since ever and they are messing with it. It's MY nature they are messing with. All they're doing is maximizing profits at the expense of everything and everybody else.
The reality is that, from a farmer's point of view, nothing changed. You still go to the same vendors, who supply seed same as they always did, and you plant them just like any other. It is not a practical issue, and never would have seen major use if it was.
The RR1 patent expires next year. That means we've been growing the stuff for almost 20 years now. The only problem I have heard of come as the result of the patent in all that time is the guy who got in trouble for spraying roundup on his "naturally occurring" roundup ready crop.
It most certainly can, but it hasn't for tens of thousands of years. People have been genetically modifying food and growing it in non-natural ways for as long as we have had agriculture.
If we could somehow turn to clocks back to a pre-agriculture food supply, do you feel that it would be viable to keep the current human population alive? Keep in mind that the crops we grow today didn't even exist back then, and only came to exist through thousands of years of genetic modifications.
Have you seen a goat or sheep eating its way through a field of weed? They eat and poop at the same time as they move around. That's an example of a natural fertilizer, cleansing and ploughing tool.
It's the obsession of first-world countries wanting meat every day on the table. That is unnatural. That is disturbing harmony and that is why we need chemical pesticides and genetic modifications and that is why these countries have an excess rate of cancer in comparison to those that still grow food in their yards naturally.
So stop calling natural agriculture genetic modification. That's an argument Monsanto and the likes brought to the table to mess with your mind and justify their cause and is completely invalid.
If you answer no, at what point did agriculture lose that love, if more than 100 years ago?
> Have you seen a goat or sheep eating its way through a field of weed?
I have never seen a field of weed with or without animals in it. Such a field would be illegal in my country. (Sorry, I couldn't resist)