Support for Prop 37 dropping

[Hauldren Collider]

What the hell is wrong with that? Do you actually have a reason that they shouldn't do that other than some "eww it's unnatural" kind of crap?

[Elok]

Well, Monsanto had basically jack **** to do with producing the crop beyond contributing the initial genetic material. The farmer grew the crop, in keeping with his whole line of business; the seeds are his property, and he should be entitled to do whatever he damn well pleases with them. Yes, Monsanto sells them "under license," giving themselves an unreasonable degree of control over their customers' actions. That's nonsense. If Monsanto doesn't like customers actually planting seeds they grew themselves, they should go ahead and GM some crops that produce sterile seeds.

[Hauldren Collider]

Well, Monsanto had basically jack **** to do with producing the crop beyond contributing the initial genetic material. The farmer grew the crop, in keeping with his whole line of business; the seeds are his property, and he should be entitled to do whatever he damn well pleases with them.

Really now? Why is that? Do you have a good reason for this?

Yes, Monsanto sells them "under license," giving themselves an unreasonable degree of control over their customers' actions.

If you think it's unreasonable, then you should use normal seeds.

That's nonsense. If Monsanto doesn't like customers actually planting seeds they grew themselves, they should go ahead and GM some crops that produce sterile seeds.

No, what you are saying is nonsense. Monsanto has every right to place conditions on the use of its product.

[kentonio]

That's nonsense. If Monsanto doesn't like customers actually planting seeds they grew themselves, they should go ahead and GM some crops that produce sterile seeds.

Guess what they were planning to use until people kicked up a huge fuss?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Terminator_seeds

[kentonio]

Really now? Why is that? Do you have a good reason for this? If you think it's unreasonable, then you should use normal seeds. No, what you are saying is nonsense. Monsato has every right to place conditions on use if its product.

Dude, stop being a corporate shill. If they can make an awesome GM product which beats the existing market then yay awesome! This doesn't mean it's ok to make an awesome product which people basically have to use to stay competitive but then use that market advantage to try and screw the **** out of everyone and force everyone into manipulative business relationships.

[Elok]

Furthermore, there are serious problems with allowing a company to own, in perpetuity, the means to produce food. This isn't like Disney owning the rights to Steamboat Willie until the end of time; we can stop watching that charming display of animal torture any time we please. We can't stop eating food, farmers can't stop growing crops, and to force them into a dependent position in the name of encouraging corporate innovation is wrong.

[Elok]

Guess what they were planning to use until people kicked up a huge fuss?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Terminator_seeds

...and then, according to the article, they said "never mind" and continued their legal policy which amounts to the same damn thing but gives more money to lawyers. Go figure.

[Elok]

Actually, even in cold business-logic this doesn't make sense; allowing Monsanto to essentially own modern agribusiness discourages innovation. They invent a pesticide-resistant crop once and can sit back and enjoy profit basically forever, because demand for their product can only go up and they have complete control over supply. If they had to accept that a farmer who bought their seed was allowed to plant some of his own damn harvest, they would eventually saturate the market and be forced to spend more money on R&D to keep the cash flowing.

[Aeson]

The patents expire. I don't blame Monsanto for trying to protect it's IP according to the laws we've set. I do agree that our patent system is seriously messed up though, and there are better ways to promote innovation.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, what you are saying is nonsense. Monsanto has every right to place conditions on the use of its product.

Wow, HC, you really don't have any understanding of farming. Farmers keep seeds for the same reason you keep a positive balance on your bank account.

[giblets]

Farmers make payments with seeds??????

[Elok]

Yeah, patents expire...eventually. Takes a damn long time, though. Etch-a-sketch is still patented AFAIK, and that was old-school when I first got one. Really, the whole patent system is a fustercluck and Monsanto is just the beginning. Actually, make that our whole intellectual property...no, wait, our whole legal system, why not.

[Fake Boris]

Creating a mutation in a lab is picking the mutation you want. Often that mutation is simply to use the same genes from plants which already have the desirable traits.

No. You are making the mutation, you're not selecting, by tying together DNA that could never cross-breed, either naturally or through selection.

Monsanto has done a great thing in reducing the area needed to get a given yield, and reducing the need for pesticide sprays on their crops. This means less of an impact on the environment, and less use of dangerous chemicals.

1) There are better ways to achieve this impact
2) Empirical studies suggest that farmers tend to use more roundup, since their plants are resistant to it

If they're the same genetic mutation there is absolutely no difference. While GM crops can be created that never have existed in nature (as far as we know), we can't yet do things with DNA that random mutations could not.

No. The effect of BT is the same whether naturally occurring or artificial. That effect is roughly 0 on mammals as well. The same (lack of harm to mammals) cannot be claimed by the other chemical sprays it makes unnecessary.

Wrong again! That's the whole point. Substances that are only moderately harmful become extremely toxic when combined with artificial mutations, scientists are not sure why, and Monsanto is actively preventing independent research being done on this.

The FDA and EPA has approved BT crops from Monsanto, as well as their herbicide resistant crops. The FDA and EPA does their own studies. Not to mention that BT is well known to be safe for mammals (far safer than the chemicals it makes unnecessary).

You ****ing twit, the FDA is Monsanto.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Fake Boris]

Monsanto literally bought the entire Clinton admin in the early 1990s, at a critical time when the first GM stuff was entering the market. Here's a partial chart (there are more cases than this):

[Kuciwalker]

Monsanto literally bought the entire Clinton admin in the early 1990s

No, on multiple levels.