Why not? Their seeds and their competitors' are shown to be perfectly safe by the FDA, and the National Academy of Sciences and American Medical Association vouch for their seeds.
Edit: yes, I'm aware of that most farmers don't actually store their own seed for next year for efficiency of another farmer/company providing high-quality seeds yearly for them, however this is not justifying Monsanto's methods. There must be limits on food patents. I simply don't believe Monsanto cannot recover costs on the first-sale of seeds.
That's been the case since the early 20th century, and licensed GM seed continues the same practise of breeder-farmer relationship with licenses.
There was a time when some people actually invented things to make the world a better place, or even to further their academic career. With the help of such judges, this era has apparently come to an end. We will never beat famine, we'll just help the plagued 3rd world become 100% dependent on the likes of Monsanto.
I see that as a separate endeavour to what companies generally do.
Not including Somolia in 2011 (which the UN did declare a famine), "... famines have been declared previously in southern areas of Sudan in 2008; in Gode in the Somali region of Ethiopia in 2000; in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) in 1996; in Somalia in 1991-1992, and Ethiopia in 1984-1985." [1]
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=39113#.UWW2dKtA...
2) You're free to plant non-Monsanto soybean seeds.
Taking anything that is naturally abundant and making it artificially scarce is perverse and evil.
Update: So why would I Bother inventing and patenting said robot! To prevent others from creating and using said robot for commercial purposes. I'd then find a business model or revenue stream elsewhere. Said patent would be to protect my other revenue model. I just wouldn't sell any of my robots. Ad a non practicing entity is formed...
I said "plant life" was.
Mixed seeds are still partially owned by Monsanto.
This is why we should never be able to patent life.
http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/monsanto.html
http://rense.com/general33/fd.htm
The tests the FDA conducts have come under criticism for not being long enough for any bad effects to be noticed, among other flaws.
The data contained within can be verified/corroborated by other sources.
Sorry I didn't do your homework for you. It won't happen again.
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/ncmh/BGER/pdf/Volume%2021/BGER21...
It's a 2004 report but it puts to rest the myth that GM crops are tested well enough by the FDA.
The fact is it's not in Monsanto's best interest to waste money on thorough testing.
All publicly held corporations in America (Monsanto is no exception) are legally charged with creating profit for the shareholders, even if it means screwing over consumers and the environment.
Monsanto has had this down to an art since the 1950s.
I actually agree that the regulatory testing doesn't really operate as openly as it should. But there is a huge amount of independent testing done which is open, and it all (so far) supports the same conclusions as the regulatory testing. See for example the list of independently-funded studies at biofortified: http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/indepe...
The paper was submitted as part of a book, yes. http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/ncmh/BGER/volume-21.html
As for the actual individuals who did the peer-review you'll have to ask William Freese and David Schubert. The university only mentions that the papers were reviewed.
You could perform this on me if you wish, I don't really care... https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
Even if I did call these guys up and inquire about the reviewers you'd no doubt move the goal posts and say "well those reviewers aren't accredited and don't have much experience yada yada..."
In any case the past record for Monsanto isn't a glowing one (Agent Orange, DDT) and there is no reason to assume it cares to change its ways any time soon.
I feel confident I'm on the right side of history.
Who reviewed it?
My concerns are not about the safety, but about the patent ability of our food supply by private companies.
Edit to add: You can argue that this is a he said, she said. Since Mr. Schmeiser did not use Roundup I find his reasoning that he has no interest in the Monsanto seeds rather convincing.
"the court only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's 1998 fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated and planted from his 1997 harvest"
What is relevant is the products you choose to buy. If you choosing products raised from Monsanto GM seed, then you are giving incentive to the farmer to buy more seed from Monsanto and its licensees. You are defining the market, the farmer has to fulfill your demands.
On my farm, we stopped growing GM soybeans completely because people in several Asian countries have specifically asked us to fulfill non-GM products, and it is our business to comply. Assuming you do not come from one of the aforementioned Asian countries, and have not made market requests for non-GM products, why not? What is holding you back from defining a non-GM market in your country of origin?
As farmers we have to provide exactly what you, the consumer, are asking for, or we quickly go out of business. If GM crops remain in rotation, it is because people are asking farmers to grow it. Ask for something else, and they will quickly disappear. But are you willing to do that?
Prove that the National Academy of Sciences were paid for their conclusions.
"deliberately trying to convince me that Monsanto is good for me? Am I nine or something?"
No one is trying to convince you of anything. The National Academy of Sciences, the FDA, the World Health Organization, and the American Medical Association are on my side. Are you saying they're all paid and corrupted? If so, prove it.
You seem to have a lot of pro-GM and pro-Monsanto information and came here ready to confront anyone and as it seems the vast majority do not share your opinion. You talk about your sources but don't provide any citation, instead you end all arguments with "prove I am wrong!". You use the phrasing "on my side" which implies involvement. When you're operating in the billion and trillion dollar scale you can buy yourself through anything and have any desired outcome, this is obvious, yet you want me to provide proof about how power and money corrupts.
I'm sorry you'll lose your job as a GM pherephon since you don't seem to be doing quite well right now. If you have any self-appreciation it's best that you admit your fault and ask for forgiveness.
1) You made a claim. You have no evidence. You have no case. Courts would laugh at you. Don't make claims if you have no evidence.
2) I'm actually a Silicon Valley engineer. Paul Graham is welcome to trace my account's IP to identify who I am. Go ask him if you want. Keep believing I'm in the GM industry if it makes you sleep at night, however.
Instead of watching King Corn and relying on bunk science, maybe you should converse with Harvard, MIT, Stanford, and scientists from any other top biotechnology school. And even better, talk to IP lawyers. If I can't convince you, maybe they will.
I do enjoy your ad hominem insults however.
"Η φύσις μηδέν μήτε ατελές ποιεί μήτε μάτην." -- Αριστοτέλης
"Nature produces nothing imperfect nor in vain." -- Aristotle
http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/Biotechnology/uc...