penny500

Yes, really. It's a patented seed. It's a "special" seed. It needed billions of dollars in scientific research to engineer. It's not your seed. You're not free to use it because you didn't develop it and you didn't purchase a license to use it. You're free to use other seeds however, if you have the rights to it.

Monsanto doesn't have competitors, now? It has a monopoly on GM seeds and can charge whatever it wants without a hit to its bottom line? Really?

This is funny. Anyone who sides with science on this matter is considered corrupted, evil, and paid. Anyone who believes in due process is a paid lobbyist.

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.

jayfuerstenberg, that "book" is not recognized by any serious scientific body. I can't even find the authors' resumes through Google or any of their qualifications or the methodologies they used to prove their case.

Soybean seeds aren't finite like fossil fuels. They're specially grown. If you don't want to use patented seed, don't use it. Use organic seeds if you want (and many farmers do). Otherwise, pay the IP holder. Monsanto isn't a monopoly, and you have several other GM competitors to choose from.

We've already beat famine. Aside rebel-controlled areas, can you name the last famine?

jayfuerstenberg, look up "ad hominem" attacks. Don't use logical fallacies if you don't want them used against you.

I love the claims for calling this company "evil" with absolutely no scientific proof given. I thought we were supposed to be believers in science and due process.

You have to be kidding if you think your link passes the "peer reviewed" test. I can't even find the publication of your PDF.

Who reviewed it?

If you get it contaminated unintentionally, you won't.

How exactly are they making "naturally abundant plant life" scarce?

I suggest you read actual peer-review scientific journal articles on the matter instead of relying on a documentary you saw on NetFlix.

Yes, you do. You made a claim. Prove it or quit making unjustified claims.

Get real. People can still grow food naturally as they always have. They can't use patented technology that took billions to develop and use it for free without approval of the patent holder.

How much is the organic lobby paying you jayfuerstenberg?

From your link:

"the court only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's 1998 fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated and planted from his 1997 harvest"

This is completely misinformed.

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.

Can I claim that you're an organic food marketing troll?

No, they are not. GM seeds are not "naturally abundant".

"Power corrupts, profit corrupts"

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.

Actually, the first Google result with "National Academy of Sciences and Monsanto" is your link, so I'm not sure if you did your research thoroughly. Point me specifically to the source with the text you're referring to. The burden of proof is on you since you made the claim.

Name one case in which Monsanto sued a farmer for unintentionally planting cross-pollinated seeds.

1) If I sell you a CD, does that give you a legal right to make as many copies as you like?

2) You're free to plant non-Monsanto soybean seeds.

So you give more credibility to Food Inc. over a consensus of Stanford, Harvard, and MIT biotech scientists? Funny.

You're seriously are trying to pass those off as objective studies? Get real.

You're free to use non GM seeds (or GM from Monsanto's competitors). What's stopping you and other farmers (many of whom do not use GM)?

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.

Helping farmers increase their yield, which makes food cheaper for the poor, is "pure evil"?

This is downright embarrassing economic analysis. I hope you're just joking.

California's base sales tax is 7.25%, but CA's municipalities can bring that up to 9.25%. I believe ~8.5% is the average for the Bay Area.