Biotech Beets Banned

Beet ban will hurt farmers while strengthening massive seed monopolies

Last week, a federal district court judge in northern California issued an injunction against planting biotech sugar beets next year. Why? He accepted the activist argument that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) must issue a full environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act before permitting the improved sugar beets to be grown. An EIS is required when a federal government agency engages in actions that might be "significantly affecting the quality of the human environment."

So how are biotech sugar beets (already approved by the USDA, mind you) significantly affecting the human environment? Activists at the Center for Food Safety and the Sierra Club argued in federal court that sugar beets improved to resist the herbicide glyphosate might result in the development of superweeds or might interbreed with organic chard and regular beets.

Let’s consider a few background facts. Sugar beets are the source of half the sugar produced in the U.S. Biotech sugar beets were approved as safe for growing by the USDA five years ago. The frankenbeets at issue in this case are now so popular with farmers that they constitute 95 percent of the current crop. In fact, there may not be enough conventional seeds to replace biotech seeds for next year’s planting. 

Meanwhile, weeds treated with any herbicide tend to become resistant to those that are applied to them, this is not something peculiar to biotech plants. And most sugar beets are grown nowhere near organic chard or red beets and so will have no chance to interbreed with them. (Even if they did, sugar beets are typically harvested before they flower and so don’t get a chance to produce pollen in the first place.)

In the bigger picture, it might be fair to ask why regular farmers who are growing biotech crops are forced to worry about meeting unscientific process standards that organic farmers have imposed on themselves. If organic farmers insist on no cross pollination from biotech crops, they can pay local beet farmers to grow something else or look into other options besides an across the board ban. The U.S. government has also subsidized the production of sugar from beets and limits the import of sugar from cheaper foreign producers, so if anti-biotech activists really want to substantially cut the growing of biotech beets, opposition to sugar subsidies and sugar import tariffs might be a better place to start.

More worryingly, these unscientific attacks on agricultural biotechnology are producing another consequence that the same anti-biotech activists often decry—the increasing consolidation of the seed industry over the past two decades.

I regularly cover activist gatherings at which the biotech agriculture company Monsanto is denounced as the devil incarnate. Why? Because the St. Louis company is allegedly monopolizing seeds. Last year Dupont, which owns Pioneer Hybrid Seeds, a big competitor of Monsanto, claimed in filings with the U.S. Justice Department that 95 percent of all the soybeans and 60 percent of all the corn planted in the U.S. contained genes licensed from Monsanto. Monsanto responded that it actually sold a much lower percentage of seeds on the market, although the company admitted that most independent seed companies licensed and sold seeds using its herbicide and insect resistant traits. In fact, biotech crop varieties are so popular with American farmers that seeds for non-biotech corn, cotton, and soybeans constituted only about 13 percent of the varieties offered last year. 

Decades ago there were hundreds of seed companies competing for farmers’ business. Now the U.S. seed market is dominated by Monsanto, Dupont, and Syngenta, which sell more than 40 percent of seeds for all major crops in the U.S. In the 1990s, agricultural chemical companies began to integrate with seed companies, offering farmers very attractive packages of high quality seeds and the chemicals that would protect them from weeds. How attractive? As one California cotton farmer explained recently to Forbes magazine, his organic fields cost $500 per acre to weed by hand while killing weeds by spraying Monsanto’s glyphosate on his biotech herbicide resistant cotton fields costs only $30 an acre.

This process of consolidation is being substantially abetted by the growing web of regulations and litigation pushed by anti-biotech activists. Already biotech crops must pass muster through the USDA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration for health and environmental safety. The system is becoming almost as complicated and onerous as the gauntlet that pharmaceutical companies must run in order to get their products to patients. By treating crops like drugs, the government and activists make sure that getting them approved costs ever more. “The result is that only large firms, pursuing high-value commodity crops are willing to front the money to get a transgenic crop approved for commercial cultivation,” notes Gregory Conko, a Competitive Enterprise Institute policy analyst and co-author of The Frankenfood Myth: How Protest and Politics Threaten the Biotech Revolution. Conko adds, “The EIS requirement will, of course, add considerably to the time and expense of getting a crop through the regulatory apparatus.” Monsanto's shareholders will be the biggest beneficiaries.

Unlike drugs which can sell for beaucoup bucks, crops are commodities that sell for dollars per bushel. So only big companies can marshal the financial and legal resources required to get approval for crops that sell by millions of bushels and bales, corn, soybean, canola, and cotton. Meanwhile the biotech improvement of smaller niche crops, say tomatoes and green beans, that might benefit even backyard gardeners remains stymied.

Conko also points out, “The EIS requirement long ago ceased being just about a look at likely ecological impacts, and now must include any and all potential effects on the ‘human environment’. Courts interpret that to include economic effects, social effects, what have you.” Of course, new crop varieties will have economic and social effects—they’re supposed have economic and social effects, e.g., lower production and food costs. Clearly, the National Environmental Policy Act must be reined in, but in the meantime the USDA should pursue a comprehensive environmental impact statement that can scientifically demonstrate to meddlesome judges that new biotech crop plants do not significantly affect the human environment and therefore an individual impact statement is not required for each new variety.

Ultimately, biotech crops should not be subject to any more regulatory scrutiny than any other crop varieties. Making those changes would go a long way toward breaking up the nascent seed monopolies that the overregulation favored by anti-biotech activists has produced.

Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available from Prometheus Books.

Disclosure: I think I am still some kind of adjunct fellow at CEI. Many years ago I owned some Monsanto stock. I probably should have held on to it.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • D. Schrute||

    Beets naturally grown in the fertile soils of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, is far superior to any engineered, California variety.

  • -||

    Maybe so, but in the interests of those who have been traumatized by the beets, wouldn't it be less insensitive if the beet-growers grew their beets further away from Ground Beet?

  • ||

    Don't beat a dead beet.

  • T||

    How else am I to get beet paste but by beating beets?

  • ||

    Beet rue to your skewl.

  • ||

    Stop beeting off.

  • Debra||

    Eat to the beet!

  • T||

    Just beet it.

  • ||

    "Nice Fuckin' Model!"

    Honk! Honk!

  • ||

    I used to beat my beets until I started going blind.

  • MJ||

    I presume you mean red beets? The article is about sugar beets which, surprise! are used to make processed sugar. Humans don't eat the things directly.

  • ||

    Beet pulp is fed to livestock, so it does get into the food chain.

  • ||

    Beet livestock to a pulp so it DOES get into the food chain.

  • ||

    Nope.

    That was the primary vector of BSE.

  • creech||

    There's something to be said for that anthracite dust.

  • Almanian||

    Mmmm - sugar beets. They used to grow them in my hometown. We'd snag the ones that fell off the trailers - good eatin'.

    Of course, these were pre-biotech days, so no one grew two heads or had their arms fall off, which I understand could happen with these deadly biotech varieties grown in California.

    Wait - there's no evidence of that? Damn the evidence - loose the Luddites, De'il take the hindmost!

  • Armless two heads||

    I do not exist.

    Hear me roar!

  • ||

    Funny thing that, no biotech sugar beets grown in California...suppose it could be because of the possibility, no, probability, that the 9th Circuit would once again be a Lysenkoist?

  • ||

    No evidence, aside from the studies showing high cancer incidence in rats eating grain treated with herbicide?

  • ||

    a federal district court judge in northern California

    I think that explains it all.

  • ||

    Frankenfood bad! Low crop yields good!

  • ||

    Mass starvation is even better!

  • ||

    If only we could combine mass starvation with genetic engineering!

  • ||

    Margaret Sanger would be proud.

  • Organic Girl||

    I am not in favor of mass starvation. I am in favor of mass sterilization. If we stopped breeding for a few decades we could bring the Earth's population down to sustainable levels.

    Especially for teabaggers and people who watch FOX News. Those people should not be allowed to breed. They're turning the country into Idiocracy.

  • ||

    "I am not in favor of mass starvation. I am in favor of mass sterilization. If we stopped breeding for a few decades we could bring the Earth's population down to sustainable levels."
    Great idea....let's say 5 decades. That would mean 50 year olds breeding to re-populate the earth. That should do it.
    "Especially for teabaggers and people who watch FOX News. Those people should not be allowed to breed. They're turning the country into Idiocracy." Yeah MSNBC is much better.

  • Organic Girl||

    Yes, MSNBC IS much better. At least they don't report patent lies!

  • ||

    "At least they don't report patent lies!" And Obama has spread plenty.

  • ||

    Those people should not be allowed to breed. They're turning the country into Idiocracy.

    Oh, the irony!

  • dambrisco||

    I'm a liberal, myself, and I'd have to agree with that one. MSNBC is just as bad as FOX, and CNN is only remotely better.

    Extemists on either side are no better than the other. I'd say that anyone saying anyone else shouldn't be allowed to reproduce shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. (Of course, I realize this includes myself, but I'm not too bothered by that one.)

  • dambrisco||

    I'm a liberal, myself, and I'd have to agree with that one. MSNBC is just as bad as FOX, and CNN is only remotely better.

    Extemists on either side are no better than the other. I'd say that anyone saying anyone else shouldn't be allowed to reproduce shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. (Of course, I realize this includes myself, but I'm not too bothered by that one.)

  • ||

    In 40 years world population is projected to peak anyway.

    If all the organic people drowned themselves we could probably get there sooner.

  • JohnD||

    Too bad Organic Girls parents didn't beleive in abortion. What a moron.

  • kilroy||

    I don't whine about organic food. Why the fuck do these people care if I die from altered beets? Leave me and my food alone. I'll take the consequences of my decisions.

  • Organic Girl||

    Oh, and what happens when your altered beets infect my organic ones? Then I have to take the consequences of YOUR actions.

    I believe someone who posts around here named Chad, calls this an "externality".

  • ||

    Carbon-based young female,

    So, are you saying that nothing ever mutates through natural cross-pollination? If someone's sweet corn seed drifted into your fields and got crossed with your yellow corn, would you be pissed?

    Or in a more realistic scenario, would you be mad if your neighbor's hydroponic super-skunk week somehow pollinated with the schwag purple haze you are currently growing?

  • Organic Girl||

    GMO genes are much more likely to produce unpredicable, unknowable results when they cross over. Fish genes don't belong in strawberries, OR HEMP. I wouldn't want GMO hemp either.

  • ||

    Um, they can't cross over because they are harvested before that is possible. Also, the vast majority of weed out there has been modified from the original strains by smart hippies with spare bedrooms and heat lamps.

    Of course, the evil corporations creatimg the GM crops are different because they profit from saving the lives of millions annually while leaving the dipshit hippies to create their own skunk-week varieties. And, since these evil corporations are corporationy in their corporate offices.....you all get the picture.

    Organic Girl, you are a troll. That's the only explanation. There cannot be a human being out there that has enough brain power to find a website and read posts, yet be stupid enough to type out the dreck you do with such tenacity.

  • ||

    Right.

    And mutation by radiation - whether produced by ambient radiation or induced in the lab - ALWAYS produces predictable, benign results.

  • Organic Girl||

    I'd like to prohibit that too.

    And in case you're going to cite corn, modern corn is a plague. Our bodies weren't designed to digest it. Especially High Fructose Corn Syrup, which is the cause of the diabeties epidemic.

    We should go back to growing the kind of corn that the indigenous people from the southwest ate. Which is currently being wiped out be biotech contamination on Mexico!!

  • ||

    You want to ban ambient radiation? So now the sun isn't even safe from your rants?

    "Hey, look at me. I'm Organic Girl. I just loves me some nature. I need to find me a good sized tree root so I can consummate my reationship with Gaia."

    Ban the Sun. Jesus H. Christ.

  • ||

    sloopyinca

    Yeah, the stupidity is mind boggling.

    I was merely trying to point out that radiation of all types produces mutations in the genomes of all species.

    And ambient radiation also includes cosmic rays with energies up to 10^18 ev - vastly higher than anything we can produce even in the LHC - and background radiation from the isotopes occuring naturally in the soil and water. So she'd have to ban Gaia as well.

  • Organic Girl||

    Oh, don't you worry, Gaia is going to send us some killer mutations one of thewse days.

    And maybe humanity will be Her instrument for doing that.

  • ||

    Really, a capital H?

    In the immortal words of Kenny Bania, "That's comedy gold, Jerry."

    Priceless.

  • Pedantic Savant||

    the line is "that's gold Jerry, gold!"

  • ||

    Yeah I know, but I thought I could slip it past her.

    Wasn't that the "Roundtine" joke?

  • Sam Grove||

    Keep the button away from Organic Girl.

  • Sam Grove||

    Especially High Fructose Corn Syrup, which is the cause of the diabeties epidemic.

    Sunscreen, Vitamin D, diabetes, linked.

    Processed food, fiber gone, insulin surges, diabetes.

  • Organic Girl's Mom||

    If only I had been more of a hippie and seen that doctor to "fix" my mistake instead of taking responsibility for it...

  • Monsanto||

    We can't send you back in time, but we can genetically modify your next batch to ensure that it comes out less flawed then this one!

  • M. Simon||

    The whole Earth is contaminated with uranium. It is especially prevalent in sand.

    Go to the beach much?

    Don't do it. You will be in mortal peril. Unless you have faith in hormesis.

  • ||

    Fish genes don't belong in strawberries, OR HEMP.

    Organic Girl, you need to do just a tad of reading about genetics. I believe that an orange and a human being share roughly 60% of the same genes. So yes, strawberries and fish have the same genes, because nature made them that way.

    Don't you believe in evolution? If all of life evolved from a single organism it stands to reason that they would share many of the same genes.

  • dambrisco||

    Gotta say: You're both freaking crazy AND you clearly don't know a damned things about genetics or crops.

    Quick lesson, though: eating a cancerous plant won't give you cancer.

    If you can't take enough away from that, I can't help you.

  • ||

    Carbon-based young female,

    So, are you saying that nothing ever mutates through natural cross-pollination? If someone's sweet corn seed drifted into your fields and got crossed with your yellow corn, would you be pissed?

    Or in a more realistic scenario, would you be mad if your neighbor's hydroponic super-skunk week somehow pollinated with the schwag purple haze you are currently growing?

    Sorry, double post. I know it's a waste of Gaia's limited internets.

  • ||

    "Oh, and what happens when your altered beets infect my organic ones?"

    I didn't know that the other beets weren't also carbon-based as well. That may change my view. Since they aren't organic, what are the basic building block materials of these frankenbeets?

  • ||

    Do you even have the slightest idea of the botany of beta vulgaris? No pollen is release until the SECOND year of growth. Commercial sugar beets are harvested at the end of their FIRST season of growth.

  • ||

    Beta Vulgaris?

    I think I dated her once.

    I found out entirely too much about her botany.

    Took 5 trips to the clinic to get rid of it.

  • ||

    +1

  • ||

    At least you didn't marry her!

  • Organic Girl||

    And you can prove that no beets will survive into the second year? Yeah, right!

  • ||

    Is the concept of "harvest" unclear for you?

  • Organic Girl||

    Is the concept of "missed a spot" unclear to you?

  • ||

    Based on your stream-of-consciousness bullshit, nobody should ever plant anything near anything else then. That is, after all, how the different varieties of every plant known to man came about.

    How many types of apple are there?
    Pear?
    Corn? (Oh, forgot you already went into the evils of corn on here somewhere)
    Bean?
    Pea?
    Banana?
    let alone
    Cow?
    Pig (yummy)?
    Goat?
    Elephant?
    Human?
    Etc...

    There is such a thing as genetic modification without interference from humans, whom have dominion over the earth. As stewards of the earth, it is our right, nay RESPONSIBILITY, to genetically modify everything until it is perfect.

  • ||

    Do you think the 'missed spot' won't be farmed in another crop the next year? You presuppose no crop rotation, not good agronomy with root crops. The survivor beet must also be near enough to the edge of the field to shed pollen into a second year chard or beet field, for seed production. This is all a moot point, the gene will soon be in the female side of the beet, thus no pollen shed. WHAT will you complain about then?

  • ||

    "Oh, and what happens when your altered beets infect my organic ones? Then I have to take the consequences of YOUR actions."

    Probably the same thing that happened when my Altered Beast went into ancient Greece and rescued Athena from Neff.

    Assuming I got enough spirit balls (a concept you should understand, Organic Girl), I was able to power up and defeat all of the undead hordes, boss levels and then defeat Neff and rescue Athena and return her to Zeus.

    Man, I miss the old games the most...

  • ||

    "I don't whine about organic food. Why the fuck do these people care if I die from altered beets?"

    While it was a good Matthew Sweet album, I thought Altered Beets was overrated.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I find it absurdly hilarious that the terminally libertarded assert the correctness of AGW science, despite the fact that's it's anything but concrete, yet denounce the actual, observed science of biotech crops that actually works and can be repeated ad nauseum.

  • Levi Johnston||

    What?

  • Geotpf||

    Are we really going to bring global warming into this discussion? Fine.

    The science behind global warming is as valid as the science proving that biotech crops are safe. Discuss.

  • MNG||

    +1

    And why assume that those who find AGW convincing and those who object to genetically engineered food are the same people?

  • T||

    Because if you're an obnoxiously vocal dumbass about one topic, you're likely to be an onbnoxiously vocal dumbass about another? Just guessing, mind you, but I think my theory may have some merit. I will, of course, need a federal research grant to study the issue and see if I can turn my theory into stimulus jobs for the children's family values.

  • ||

    Are you hiring, by any chance?

  • ||

    Agreed, although I suspect the more extreme AGW activitists and Anti-GM activists show a large degree of overlap.

    OTOH, I would not be surprised to see a significant number of people who both completely deny AGW and oppose GM crops.

  • ||

    Aren't there farmers in the flyover states who've been sued by Monsanto for "patent infringement" because Monsanto's Frankenseed has blown onto their fields and germinated, and now there are traces of patented genes in their crops?

    Yeah. I betcha there are a few AGW scoffs who hate GMOs among that crowd.

  • ||

    Oh, probably.

    But a hell of a lot of those same farmers actually were cheating on their agreements with Monsanto.

  • ||

    You can be against unethical and perhaps illegal business practices and still support GMOs.

    There are plenty of executives and trade groups in Hollywood who are total dicks in regards to intellectual property rights. I Still like TV and movies.

  • ||

    In the case you are referring to, the crop was 99% GMO. The farmer selected for it by spraying the margins of his property with glyphosate, harvesting the survivors, and planting the seeds the next year.

  • ||

    You have got to be kidding.

  • ||

    The science behind global warming is as valid as the science proving that biotech crops are safe.

    not so fast

    We find that the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature. Furthermore, various model specifications that perform similarly at predicting temperature produce extremely different historical backcasts. Finally, the proxies seem unable to forecast the high levels of and sharp run-up in temperature in the 1990s either in-sample or from contiguous holdout blocks, thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena if in fact they occurred several hundred years ago.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.w.....r-2010.pdf

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/201.....more-23450

  • ||

  • Brett L||

    Exactly. It is sciencish not scientific.

  • ||

    You're full of shit! Prove me wrong.

  • Sam Grove||

    But what about the science behind Anthropogenic Global Warming Catastrophe?

    Most everyone accepts that the climate has warmed since the little ice age, so why are you bringing up "global warming"?

  • Rudan||

    I assert the correctness of both. Although I'm not libertarded so your statement stands.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Interesting article, Ron. Where'dja hear about it?

  • ||

    Somebody is fishing for a hat tip...

  • Lefty4Life||

    If cartoons have taught me anything, it is that you should only go fishing for boots.

  • ||

    BP: Let's see -- several biotech listservs to which I subscribe, several newsfeeds, some newspapers and, yes, YOU! :-)
    Most sincerely thanks.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Okay, fair enough. I thought I might not be the only source, which is why I was less obnoxious than usual.

  • ||

    And why assume that those who find AGW convincing and those who object to genetically engineered food are the same people?

    Because AGW and anti-GM both arise from the same quasi-religious ideology?

  • ||

    That's what I think. And I have a consensus among the rational.

  • ||

    All: In that regard, may I suggest my article "A Tale of Two Scientific Consensuses"?

  • kilroy||

    Thanks for linking back to that (and writing it in the first place).

  • ||

    This is a little bit different because you are saying that bio-tech food science has never made an mistake, can't make a mistake, and never will make an irreversible mistake, anywhere, ever.

  • ||

    IMO, the real reason they won't get go of the GMO issue is that it's such an incredible fundraiser.

    They probably get way more in donations out of "frankenfoods" scare stories than something as abstract as global warming and climate change.

    Food is immediate. Global warming is a distant theoretical thing.

  • ||

    "Food is immediate. Global warming is a money-making scam perpetrated by investors in climate exchanges to extort money from developed economies to third-world economies out of guilt for a small commission."

    Fixed!

  • MNG||

    Look RC, most people who support AGW do so like I because so many scientists say it is so. You may disagree but that is hardly quasi-religious...

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Yeah. There are definitely various experiments one can perform to show AGW as real.

    I'm merely suggesting that your average hippie/hipster/college ideologue = AGW is based on Science™, while the actual, infinitely repeatable and verifiable science of GMCs are denounced as being of Satan.

    I'd bet that if it were government who had released GMCs, they'd be good with it.

  • dambrisco||

    You mean, "...if it wasn't going to cost them any money or lifestyle cuts, they'd be good with it."

    I'm a selfish bastard, but I'd also like to live the rest of my life only worrying about earth's magnetic field deteriorating rather than both that AND the ozone being gone. We'll be lucky if the earth isn't fried in a hundred years if both hit at once.

  • ||

    So how much do I have to pay the carbon credit church in order atone for the sins of driving my car?

    I would not want god to punish me with a flood and the end of the world.

    I have recognized that man is born in environmental sin and has been cast out of the original pre-man ecological Eden. Please MNG guide me to a more humble sustainable life.

  • ||

    I promise not to eat swine or any meat and all food will be prepared organically in accordance to how earth wants it to be.

    I will not be tempted by the deniers and listen to their lies.

    We must protect our sacred commons and mother earth.

  • ||

    What about teh children?

  • MNG||

    They could use some genetic modification too imo...

  • dambrisco||

    +1

    I'll cite the Jersey Shore's ratings as my evidence and leave it at that.

  • emmajane||

    Please pass the HFCS........

  • Robert||

    So is the USDA now compelled to do make the EIS? Or could they simply drop the matter, and the sponsor's out of luck? Or can the sponsor make the EIS for USDA?

  • ||

    Some of you guys might think this whole thing is just a joke but personally, I'm terrified at the thought of somebody, anybody, interbreeding with organic chard.

  • Cyto||

    This is a good point. If they really wanted to protect the public, they'd be banning chard. Organic or otherwise, just ban that shit.

  • High School Dropout||

    U Mad, chard is f'ing delicious.

  • ||

    Ultimately, biotech crops should not be subject to any more regulatory scrutiny than any other crop varieties.

    What if the seed manufacturers engineered a hybrid crop whose goal was to cross-pollinate/germinate with non-proprietary crops until the entire population had been corrupted, causing them to become infertile so that you had to buy all your seeds from one company (and those seeds provide plants that will not re-germinate, so you have to buy them every year)?

    As above, but what if the biotech crop contained a DNA error that caused the extermination of an entire plant species?

    What if somebody secretly added nicotine to their seeds to make them addictive (aka "tomacco")?

    Or create your own worst-case-scenario speculative fiction scenarios (evil or well-intentioned) and tell me that not a single one of them would be deserving of scrutiny. That nothing bad could ever--ever--occur from biotech. That it's exactly the same risk (i.e., none) as taking naturally-occurring plants/seeds and simply replanting them on your own family land, year after year.

    I'm not even an organic/hippy/activist--all my food comes from corporate agribusiness--and two of my friends work at Monsanto. I've just read enough science fiction to be concerned. All I have to do is look out a window to see Kudzu and realize how impossible it is to undo something that seemed like a good idea at the time. [And Kudzu is 100% natural--imagine some kind of Ice-9 biotech version of Kudzu.]

    P.S. I heard Food, Inc. is good--it's available to watch instantly on Netflix. There is supposedly a story about a farmer who polishes seeds for his neighbors and a proprietary Monsanto seed got in his stock so they sued him and shut him down. Bankruptcy/injustice ensues, and so forth, which is obviously more an indictment of the gov't than Monsanto, except that the gov't didn't make Monsanto sue him.

  • ||

    Let me put it another way: I think nuclear power is safe, but I don't think we should regulate it at the same level as wind or solar power (or Gilligan on a bamboo bicycle) which are also safe.

  • ||

    "What if the seed manufacturers engineered a hybrid crop whose goal was to cross-pollinate/germinate with non-proprietary crops until the entire population had been corrupted, causing them to become infertile so that you had to buy all your seeds from one company (and those seeds provide plants that will not re-germinate, so you have to buy them every year)?"

    Where would the seed come from? If every member of that species was rendered infertile, wouldn't that just destroy the species? If the seeds can be "manufactured," wouldn't other people simply learn how to manufacture them? Anybody who did what you mentioned would face a big world of hurt. Nobody has any incentive to do what you are proposing.

    "What if somebody secretly added nicotine to their seeds to make them addictive (aka "tomacco")?"

    Technically, producers of anything consumed already have this option. They could easily add addictive drugs to their products without any genetic engineering necessary. Why don't they? People would find out sooner or later. They would probably get sued. They would probably lose customers. Tobacco consumption per capita has declined dramatically in the USA since the negative health effects of cigarette smoking have been widely publicized.

    You basically have no point. All that you can do is wave your arms around and scream about potential downsides. Yes, maybe GE crops deserve a little extra attention. However, that is not what is being proposed. Activists are essentially looking for ways to limit the production of ANY GE crops any way that they can.

  • ||

    If you want to invent fire, you have to risk being burned.

  • ||

    But I thought Soylent Green was people.....

  • Patriot Henry||

    "Activists are essentially looking for ways to limit the production of ANY GE crops any way that they can."

    Best ways to do that:

    Eliminate all subsidies for GMO crops, GMO crop customers, GMO crop manufacturers, etc.

    Eliminate all government agencies/dept protection of GMO crops and manufacturers.

    If GMO is so great - why can't it compete? Why the need for every single part of it's process to be subsidized?

  • ||

    Any trained chemist can go down to the local grocery store and buy materials that could be turned into deadly poisons or explosives.

    Based on your argument, every chemist should be subjected to scrutiny.

  • ||

    What if the seed manufacturers engineered a hybrid crop whose goal was to cross-pollinate/germinate with non-proprietary crops until the entire population had been corrupted, causing them to become infertile

    Are you retarded? Infertility genes cannot spread, for obvious reason that you would realize if you used your brain for three seconds.

    Now, when you realize why, please hit yourself over the head with a frying pan once or twice.

  • ||

    Are you retarded? Infertility genes cannot spread, for obvious reason that you would realize if you used your brain for three seconds.

    Isn't this post supposed to be in one of the gay marriage threads?

  • dambrisco||

    Someone destroys all the crops of a species, that company's getting their fucking nuts sued off of them.

    I'd call that a decent deterrent.

  • ||

    "Ultimately, biotech crops should not be subject to any more regulatory scrutiny than any other crop varieties."

    Reread the statement. If anybody introduces a damaging species into an environment, whether it is natural or not, they should be responsible for the results. If somebody engineers a plant for the expressed purpose of causing widespread damage, they should be held accountable. The regulatory environment should probably look out for the biggest risks like the ones you mentioned, but it should be streamlined and simple so that most GE crops can be approved quickly and cheaply. You worry about the worst case scenario so much that you want to shut down 90% of the good ideas.

  • ||

    I was responding to Jcalton

  • Organic Girl||

    You are missing the fact that if we put Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta our of businesses, the path will be cleared for organic seed producers to take over the market.

    We don't WANT a proliferation of small biotech seed companies. We want NO biotech seed companies.

  • ||

    Actually, you want 80% of the planet to starve to death, but that's not what's under discussion.

  • Organic Girl||

    There are alternatives to starvation. Stop making babies.

  • ||

    And how, pray tell, are we supposed to stop making babies?

  • ||

    I believe a German leader in the '30s & '40s answered your question regarding 'how, pray tell, are we supposed to stop making babies?'. Rid the earth of the unworthy...or at least sterilize them.

  • Edwin||

    the deep ugly unavoidable conclusions of liberalism

    LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!

  • ||

    She said for us to stop making them, not for us to stick them in easy-bake ovens.

  • ||

    You mean....organic girl????

  • ||

    "You mean....organic girl????"

    Yeah. She had the audacity to hope (snicker) that we'd just stop having babies so she and the rest of her Gaia-worshipping cult can enjoy the bounties of a free earth, where it rains soy milk and cows shit hemp bricks.

  • Organic Girl||

    Actually I think Gaia will take care of most of the cleansing if we don't.

    And the survivors won't be lard-assed morons watching fox news from their couches. They will be people who know how to live in harmony with the earth, growing food in a sustainable way, and using minimal resources.

    But I'm being humane by attempting to save at least some people before it gets too late.

    Take your pick, either we sterilize 80% of the population, or a mass plague wipes us out.

  • ||

    In the event of a great pandemic, I guarantee that it will not be the organic farmers who survive.

    It will be the most ruthless, meanest sons-of-bitches on the planet. And the absolute last thing that will be on their minds is the preservation of endangered species.

    Societal breakdown works that way.

  • ||

    OK, I pick starting the sterilization project with you. How about it?

  • Organic Girl||

    Fine with me, I've had my tubes tied the only babies we'll be having is baby organic beets!! Yum!

  • ||

    "I've had my tubes tied the only babies we'll be having is baby organic beets!!" It's a start.

  • ||

    Do you pick all of your talking points from the one Tom Clancy book, or are there several? Let's see...when are the next Olympic Games in Australia, so I know when we'll be miraculously saved?

    You sound like some currenttv whackaloon. Are they still in business, BTW?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    And the survivors won't be lard-assed morons watching fox news from their couches.

    Actually, they probably will be. They'll be the ones with the guns forcing all of you Kumbaya singers to do the work while you cry about being repressed and the violence inherent in the system.

  • Joe||

    And the survivors won't be lard-assed morons watching fox news from their couches. They will be people who know how to live in harmony with the earth, growing food in a sustainable way, and using minimal resources.

    Like most of the population of sub-Saharan Africa? Yeah, that's working out great.

  • ||

    I didn't know Margaret Sanger was German.

  • ||

    You mean germain.

  • ||

    Or even better yet...germane.

  • Jason||

    He also had the same ideas on big business:

    16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

    Emphasis added.

    If you read Oswald Mosley's speeches or Raven Thomson's works, you'll find the same sorts of ideas.

  • ||

    Organic Girl|8.17.10 @ 9:15PM|#
    There are alternatives to starvation. Stop making babies.

    I note that you DID NOT deny that you wanted to be rid of 80% of the world's population.

    One question: Who gets to choose? You? Me? Pol Pot the Second?

  • ||

    Justement! Very easy to be morally superior, when one has a full belly. Allowing third world countries access to biotech would RAISE standards of living, decreasing (not eliminating) birth rates. I love those who always assume that we're constantly in a zero-sum game.
    Or perhaps Organic Girl should become a subsistence farmer in the third world...it would certainly improve my mental image of her, living in a grass hut with no electricity (let alone high-speed internet), carrying disease-ridden water thousands of yards (sorry, meters) to boil her 'organic' corn.
    No? Prefer radicchio salad for brunch in an upscale West Coast 'organic' bistro to a short miserable life of undending hard physical labor? Then thank God you were blessed to be in the first society on earth where the poor are obese, rather than the rich, and most live decades longer than humans just 100 years ago.

  • Organic Girl||

    What makes you think i'm not already a subsistence farmer?

    I've got a goat out back and a half acre of organic garden. WHICH I hand weed.

    Maybe if I get around to it, I'll even drill a well.

  • ||

    Someone with an evil mind could have fun with this....goat.....hand....drill.

  • JBA||

    Maybe kill yourself, become compost for your veggies?

  • Patriot Henry||

    "Allowing third world countries access to biotech would RAISE standards of living, decreasing (not eliminating) birth rates."

    Why would biotech decrease birth rates? Wouldn't it really only increase the dependency of those people on foreign aid, foreign governments, and foreign corporations?

  • ||

    Preponderance of data shows in countries where farmer begin to producer more than required for home consumption (subsistence farming) the standard of living increases, and birth rates decline to a level which maintains the population. You assume that pricing is the same across countries, rather it is priced to maximize income, thus biotech cotton is as widely planted in India, as in the U.S. India is an ongoing case in point (albeit, there is still a lot screwed up there)

  • ||

    "There are alternatives to starvation. Stop making babies."

    That's much more of a long term solution. Even if we all "stopped making babies" today, it would take DECADES for the population to drop to a level that would make organic farming viable. It may even take the rest of the century, if not longer.

    Even if GE crops were unnecessary to prevent starvation, I'd still rather have high yield, low maintenance crops available so that we wouldn't need as many farmers in the economy.

  • dambrisco||

    Don't you see? She's saying starvation prevents starvation, too. When starving people die, there are less starving people.

    It's a perfect, organic circle.

    In the meantime, though, I'll be eating my GM corn and strawberries.

  • Patriot Henry||

    "Even if GE crops were unnecessary to prevent starvation, I'd still rather have high yield, low maintenance crops available so that we wouldn't need as many farmers in the economy."

    Great idea! Fewer farmers means they will be much easier for the state to control, and it means the state will gain even more control over the food supply and thus the people! That way we can insure we don't have to worry about those pesky free minds and free markets!!!

  • ||

    WOw, what a fucking moron. I'm not even sure what exactly you are trying to argue here. If people are efficient, that makes them easier to control?

  • dambrisco||

    There are alternatives to your alternatives, too. Namely GM.

    Know what? I'll even make a deal with you. You off yourself and 20 of your closest friends, I'll start preaching the downsides of GM.

  • JohnD||

    I'll say it again... We should have started with you.... moron.

  • ||

    You are missing the fact that if we put Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta our of businesses, the path will be cleared for organic seed producers to take over the market.

    Those companies produce varieties of crops that produce greater yields per acre then is achievable with traditional crops. High yields = less land and water used for crops = more land and water for the birds and bees and trees.

    Organic Foods require substantially greater land and water resources then genetically modified crops leaving less land and water for the birds and bees and trees.

    Why do you hate the birds and bees and trees Organic girl? Why?

    Think of the children you wish were never born.

    Note: To bad this pro-pot blog called reason does not have an overriding philosophy that would explain why legalizing drugs as well as legalizing GMOs is a good idea....if only such a political philosophy existed.

  • Patriot Henry||

    "Organic Foods require substantially greater land and water resources then genetically modified crops leaving less land and water for the birds and bees and trees."

    That is only true if you are comparing monocultures. Beyond organic polycultures are much more productive than petro-monocultures, and they not only use less land and water, they leave both in better shape.

    If you really give a damn about the birds and the bees and the trees you won't slaughter the land and the water.

  • ||

    "Beyond organic polycultures are much more productive than petro-monocultures, and they not only use less land and water, they leave both in better shape."

    If this is true, I say great! Bring it on, then. However, if GE crops could further enhance "beyond organic polycultures," I say bring that on too!. It's not like we have to do one or the other. We could do them all. That being said, I'm a little skeptical that "beyond organic polycultures" are as great as you say they are. There has to be a downside, or I'd think that they would be popping up all over the country and pushing other producers out of business.

  • Patriot Henry||

    "However, if GE crops could further enhance "beyond organic polycultures," I say bring that on too!."

    We could take the time to actually learn how GM works and what the unintended consequences and problems are before using it on a global scale.

    "It's not like we have to do one or the other. We could do them all. "

    No, actually we do have to do one or the other. The state supports GMO and opposes free (as in liberty) food, and it cheats. You can't have fascist food and free food systems in the same land - they are adversarial and inherently so.

    "That being said, I'm a little skeptical that "beyond organic polycultures" are as great as you say
    they are."

    Read up on Polyface Farm - compare it's profit margins versus fascist food - go down and taste it's products versus the taste of fascist food products - and then let me know what you think.

    " There has to be a downside, or I'd think that they would be popping up all over the country and pushing other producers out of business."

    Downsides: it takes time, money, hard work, intelligence, and worst of all - foresight. It also can't compete against fascist food because fascists cheat.

  • ||

    "Downsides: it takes time, money, hard work, intelligence, and worst of all - foresight. It also can't compete against fascist food because fascists cheat."

    All farmers receive subsidies, so seriously, you are a fucking moron. In your own statement you admit that organic farming is less efficient. That is how efficiency works, if something requires more work for the same output, it is LESS efficient. "Fascist food," what a fucking moron.

  • PantsFan||

    But is organic girl going on the reason cruise?

  • ||

    There is a reason cruise? Is there a brochure or mailing list I could get on to find out more?

  • ||

    Just keep checking H&R. They only put up a post about it 9 times per week.

  • ||

    She has a cute face but is 200lbs and 5 foot 4.

    Trust me you do not want her there.

  • dambrisco||

    That 200 lbs. is from all the "organic" food?

    Or you think she secretly binges on McDonald's?

  • ||

    Maybe they should stop this. We are all aware of the frankenberry debacle of the early seventies and how it still affects well-balanced breakfasts to this day.

    For those of you unaware, the "Frankenberry Episode" was a low point in the early stages of GM foods. The strawberries used in the initial experiment died horrible, painful deaths and were modified into pitiful dried-out shells of the once proud race. The eponymous leader of the project was summarily booted from the board, only to resurface in a later hostile takeover with the Booberry contingent. The net result is still on the market today in a decades-old plan to recoup the initial R&D investment that nearly bankrupted the company.

    As an aside, Project Chocula made great strides at the same time in the advancement of GM chocomarshmallows, earning the Romanian lead scientist, Count Vasily Chocula, a Nobel nomination.

  • Ron L||

    sloopyinca|8.17.10 @ 10:15PM|#
    "Maybe they should stop this. We are all aware of the frankenberry debacle of the early seventies and how it still affects well-balanced breakfasts to this day."

    Not to mention those seeds blown off the truck near Percy Schmeiser's farm that planted themselves in even rows! I mean, those things are *dangerous*!
    And George Bush and the storms on Neptune?! Why, horrible!

  • ||

    Ah, yes. The canola wars. A tragic time in Canadian history.

  • Yoda||

    begun, the canola wars have

  • ||

    Canola is still rape to me.

  • Chad||

    Hey, Ron. Just wanted to say that I agree with you today. Go go BioTech!

  • Organic Girl||

    Not the real Chad!!!

  • ||

    I think that might be the real chad.

    Chad can at times be a utilitarian communist. The externalities to which you speak he simply writes off as small change compared to GMO crop yields.

    I write em off as the organic farmer will simply walks over to the GMO farmer and asks for a check. 99% of the time the GMO farmer will simply give the guy a few hundred bucks and call it a day. Pollen drift in the real world from field to field is actually fairly small.

    Most externalities are really really easy to solve. No need for putting whole industries out of business and defacto-forced sterilizations.

  • ||

    Not the real Chad!!!

    Oh, bummer! I was thinking earlier today that "organic girl" mentioning "Chad" was probably an indication that Chony/MNG has spawned a new, female, persona. This persona knows that the first Chad was a spoof, because she IS Chad/Tony/MNG.

  • shorter organicgirl||

    derp

  • Cyto||

    That actually made me laugh out loud. I have no excuse, but that was my reaction. thanks for the laugh.

  • ||

    Personally I favor unfettered competition between the GM beets and sugar cane. Remove the subsidies and tariffs that keep our sweetner prices high and let's see what happens. I'd prefer foreign sugar or frankensugar in my Mountain Dew to corn syrup any day.

  • shorter organicgirl||

    you shouldn't be eating sugar anyway. it makes you horny and want to breed.

  • dambrisco||

    You don't know a whole lot about corn syrup, do you?

  • ||

    I'm aware that it in soft drinks, it coats the palate and leaves an aftertaste. Compare conventional Mountain Dew (with corn syrup) to throwback Mountain Dew (with cane sugar). The throwback drink tastes better to me and doesn't leave an aftertaste.

    Nutritionally speaking, they're identical. It's just a matter of taste (literally).

  • PantsFan||

    Organic Girl|8.17.10 @ 11:11PM|#

    Fine with me, I've had my tubes tied the only babies we'll be having is baby organic beets!! Yum!

    Does that mean we can F@$K like rabbits? Come hither, my freaky little dirty hippy. I will agree with everything you say when my peener is enjoying your bounty.

  • publius||

    "Oh, and what happens when your altered beets infect my organic ones?"

    How about:

    "I DON'T GIVE A FUCK!"?

  • Dwight Shrute||

    Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica.

    What type of bear is best? False…black bear. Fact: Bears eat beets.

  • Basterd||

  • ||

    Do you even do research before you publish? The vast majority of the GMO beet, organic beet, and Swiss Chard seed crops for the US are grown in the same valley. These are all wind pollinated plants. The ORGANIC farmers are trying to protect there crops from GMO genes getting into there stocks. Do you even know who the other plaintiffs are in this case? Or did you just leave them off because they are businesses trying to conduct lawful business without interference and that doesn't fit with you agenda?

  • ||

    'The vast majority...are grown in the same valley.' Mighta been so last year, but don't think so any more. Get outta the 9th Circuit!

  • ||

    I drive an SUV because the rainforest craves my CO2.

    I prefer GMO foods over organic because the money I spend on it helps fund R&D for the types of crops that can actually survive and grow in high enough yields in the 3rd world so that less people die of starvation.

    I avoid "organic" food because it takes up space that could be used to grow food poor people in America can actually afford.

    I question everything people tell me, but most importantly, I question myself. Sometimes it really sucks to be wrong, but I can't lie to myself forever. If I had questioned myself more in college, I could have used the time I spent making hemp jewelry and whining about all of the processed food in the cafe to more productive use.

  • Patriot Henry||

    "I prefer GMO foods over organic because the money I spend on it helps fund R&D for the types of crops that can actually survive and grow in high enough yields in the 3rd world so that less people die of starvation."

    Really? GMO foods are not designed to grow in the 3rd world. They are designed to grow in a lab. Moreover, even if they do actually increase yields that only means that more people can starve. What evidence is there that people won't increase to the absolute maximum number possible for any given food supply?

  • Ron L||

    Patriot Henry|8.18.10 @ 11:49AM|#
    "GMO foods are not designed to grow in the 3rd world. They are designed to grow in a lab."

    Yep, those labs are wonderful customers for just *ounces* of our new seeds.'
    Henry, the tin-foil hats are on aisle #6.

  • Patriot Henry||

    "Yep, those labs are wonderful customers for just *ounces* of our new seeds.'
    Henry, the tin-foil hats are on aisle #6."

    There's a world of difference between tin-foil hat material and common sense. GMO crops are not adapted for the entire world. They aren't adapted for nature. Monsanto's defense to people's fear of gene pollution is that modifying the plants makes them weaker. This is what you are planning on using throughout the world to feed the starving masses? A weaker less well adapted costlier food supply? Is it really worth sacrificing genetic security, variety, quality, productivity (the crop yields are not always as promised - not by a long shot), etc just so you can have the latest designer plants?

    Those who insist on putting all of mankinds eggs into one basket just to be able to purchase a brand name product are insane.

  • Ron L||

    Oh, and by the way:
    "What evidence is there that people won't increase to the absolute maximum number possible for any given food supply?"
    WIH is this supposed to mean?

  • Patriot Henry||

    "WIH is this supposed to mean?"

    Increasing the supply of food increases the supply of people. It doesn't necessarily decrease the number of starving people. If in the form of foreign aid and subsidies, the effect is to subsidize and increase the number of starving people.

  • ||

    Oh, a note to anyone who wants people to stop breeding: People like to fuck so much that the first cave drawings were primitive pornos.

    You can't prevent people from breeding any more than can you stop the sun from being hot. And the second someone tries to prevent me from breeding consensually I will not hesitate to shoot them with my constitutionally protected firearm.

  • DesigNate||

    A couple things:
    1st - I don't have a problem with GMO's or companies like Monsanto, Dupont, etc., as long as they don't get sue happy and start going after people whose crops DO get cross pollinated. I do think it's a little fucked up that they can hold patents on genes and seeds. And I definitely think its fucked up that there isn't any real competition in the GMO field.

    2nd - Gene modification of food has been going on for years. Surprisingly, people all over the world are still dying of starvation. I don't think you can really use the starving Ethiopian excuse to defend GMO's. (As an aside, many countries deny the importation of any seed or foods that have been genetically modified so this actually hurts our farmers.)

  • ||

    As an aside, many countries deny the importation of any seed or foods that have been genetically modified so this actually hurts our farmers.

    So, as long as the US has repressive, stupid drug laws, the rest of the world should not consider reforming theirs?

  • ||

    "Gene modification of food has been going on for years. Surprisingly, people all over the world are still dying of starvation. I don't think you can really use the starving Ethiopian excuse to defend GMO's."

    This is the dumbest argument ever. We have just scratched the surface of genetic engineering. We couldn't even database an entire human genome until just ten years ago. Yes, it might take decades to develop the food of the future, but that doesn't mean that GE agriculture is a failure.

  • Ron L||

    DesigNate|8.18.10 @ 10:51AM|#
    "2nd - Gene modification of food has been going on for years. Surprisingly, people all over the world are still dying of starvation. I don't think you can really use the starving Ethiopian excuse to defend GMO's."
    They're starving in much smaller numbers. Did you think GMOs are some sort of magic wand that we can wave and make starvation disappear?

    " (As an aside, many countries deny the importation of any seed or foods that have been genetically modified so this actually hurts our farmers.)"
    Didn't get your automatic straw-grasper for Christmas last year?

  • Patriot Henry||

    "They're starving in much smaller numbers."

    Evidence please.

  • Ron L||

    Your kidding, right?
    "Despite massive population growth, from 3 billion to more than 6 billion people since 1950, the global malnutrition rate decreased in that period from 38 percent to 18 percent. India and China, two of the world's most populous and rapidly industrializing countries, have quadrupled their grain production."
    http://www.agbioworld.org/biot.....lions.html

  • ||

    There is also a form of rice which has vitamin A. It's use could prevent blindness in 500,000 African children annually.

    Obviously, if the lilly-livered goose stepper is more important than human beings we might reconsider, but they aren't.

  • Ron L||

    I'm quite fed up with those who are willing to starve black and brown folk just to claim *their* cow-poop-soaked tomato supposedly tastes better than what some "evil business" offers for sale.
    Hey, Henry! Stuff it up your butt!

  • Patriot Henry||

    "I'm quite fed up with those who are willing to starve black and brown folk just to claim *their* cow-poop-soaked tomato supposedly tastes better than what some "evil business" offers for sale."

    It makes no sense for people, starving or well fed, to pay a much higher price for seeds that can't reproduce and that produce inferior quality and inferior quantity. Any company that sells such a shitty product to people in a desperate situation, such as the cotton farmers in India, is indeed an evil business.

  • ||

    The seeds can reproduce, whether or not a given farmer can replant that seed depends on the stewardship agreement in that country. As to quality & quantity, I assure you, farmers wouldn't plant a seed that didn't have 1)same or higher commercial quality as non-biotech crop; 2)higher yields. Trust me, its a simple marginal analysis, even for an Indian cotton farmer.

  • Patriot Henry||

    Your source says that the number of starving people is about the same. A reduction in the starvation rate is not the same as a reduction in the numbers of starving people.

  • RC not the cola||

    +1

  • Patriot Henry||

    "Biotech sugar beets were approved as safe for growing by the USDA five years ago."

    And that means they are safe? After all, the USDA has a perfect track record of safety, and of being pro-free markets and pro-free minds. Yessiree.

  • Ron L||

    And you have evidence otherwise? Didn't think so.

  • Patriot Henry||

    "And you have evidence otherwise? Didn't think so."

    Common sense. The state fucks shit up in a bad way. Again, again, and yet again. Food, agriculture, transportation, defense, education, etc etc etc etc etc.

    Y'all complain about things like the police state as you lap up the treats the very same police state hands you, and you regurgitate it's propaganda, and you turn your back on the means of liberty as you celebrate the growing dependency on the state and it's corporate subsidiaries.

  • ||

    Dumbass. We dont even need the USDA or the FDA to tell us what is good and what is bad. There is no profit motive to sell shit that is bad (and most people arn't total assholes). End of story. Accidents happen regardless of whether or not there is some Rube Goldbergian bureaucracy "verifying" my food and drugs are safe.

    If you want to know if something is good or bad for you. do your own research, or go to someone you trust who knows how to do the research. We need more independent groups doing research so that the government doesnt have a monopoly on quality assurance.

  • ||

    Aside from all the other crap, how much of any altered gene will be found in refined sugar...NONE. Even a bit of basic science tells you refined sugar is entirely 100% carbohydrates. The amount of heat used in refining sugar destroys any proteins found in the 'syrup'.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    The organic industry is fucking full of itself. Insisting that other crops can't cross pollinate with theirs is an unreasonable demand in conflict with biology. Grow your shit in a greenhouse or shut the fuck up. The courts shouldn't be ruling in such a way that is impossible for farmers to comply with.

  • ||

    It's like the organic food people believe that if ONE organic farm exists, no GE farm should be allowed to exist for miles around it. That seems a little unreasonable for a farm that produces a good whose benefit exists entirely within the heads of its customers.

  • ||

    Let's take part of what Patriot Henry is saying at face value. Yes, I believe that property owners have a right to be protected from interference. However, I believe in originalism. If the GE farm is there first, the organic farm has no room to complain whatsoever. If the organic farm appears first, and a GE farm pops up next to it, I'd argue that the organic farm should have to prove in court that

    A) The genes from the GE farm are interacting with the crops on the organic farmers land. This must be proven.

    B) The organic farmer should have to prove that those genes are somehow making their plants less safe, less tasty, or less sturdy. And this has to be proven using SCIENCE. Not just arguing that organic is inherently healthier, because it is more "natural." You cannot, for example, seek damages for radio wave transmissions from your neighbors land. You have to prove that you neighbor is harming your ability to utilize your land in some way. Simply because genes enter your property from your neighbors property, that doesn't mean that you can seek damages. The organic farmers can only argue that those genes are making their crops "less organic." That all depends on a legal definition of the word "organic."

    To me, the word Organic is more about what the farmers are doing to the food they grow on their land, not the genetic make up of each crop. Farmers have been, genetically, giving mother nature a helping hand for centuries.

  • Patriot Henry||

    Fuck "organic". It's a government word that means little to nothing of value.

    How about we stop robbing people to pay for GMO crops? Oh no we can't have that - it'll displease all of the "libertarians" on this site who are insistent that they and everyone else sell out their liberty for the promise of a (almost) free lunch.

  • ||

    "t'll displease all of the "libertarians" on this site who are insistent that they and everyone else sell out their liberty for the promise of a (almost) free lunch."

    Almost everyone here is all for the ending of government subsidy for everything. As it currently stands, organic, GM, and traditional farming all receive subsidies. You just rant and scream like a fucking baby.

  • ||

    I think I'll listen to my wife with her agronomy degree and plenty of genetic and in-the-field experience and applaud the court's decision instead of follow Bailey's flawed reasonings as expounded here from whatever urban cubicle he's writing from. He probalby has no idea how most things are grow or what the field plants even look like.

    What is in error here, besides the genetics of the cross-pollination creating genetic defects that will cause allegedly pesticide-resistant plants to become sterile (terminator seeds, which creates a seed monopoly by Monsanto and really creates a seed shortage, not the other way around as Bailey gets wrong) and open the door to pest mutations around the GMO, thus devastating the crop completely, is the issue of property rights. A GMO farmer infringes upon the oragnic farmer when they allow their GMO lab-food mutations to drift into organic crops, thus contaminating them and destroying the organic farmer's property. The other way doesn't happen.

    Bottom line is this: GMO crops are not scientifically proven to be safe. FDA/USDA approval is not based in science but in politics and money--old news. Organic and sustainable agriculture does produce crop yields at the same level as covnentional petrochemical-fertilized monocropping, without the soil nutrient depletion, and at better nutrition and teaste levels--also old news. The attempt to destroy organic and sustainable agriculture is not based in anything by monopoly tendencies, junk science, and corporate greed--not about actually feeding quality foods to people. If it were about the latter, then why do they have to enrich conventional flour?

    One of these days junk science guys like Bailey will actually learn something from those that actually live and work in those fields instead of relying on corporate spin and no experience.

    BTW, my organic tomatoes are having a bumper crop this year based on nothing more than water and backyard compost and good old sunlight. And they taste like a tomato, too, not tastelss junk fund in stores.

  • Ron L||

    Tannim|8.18.10 @ 3:52PM|#
    "Bottom line is this: GMO crops are not scientifically proven to be safe."

    I think I'll listen to someone with an inkling of the process of science. That wouldn't be you.

  • Patriot Henry||

    "I think I'll listen to someone with an inkling of the process of science. That wouldn't be you"

    Science, real science that is, produces reproducible results that can and will be subjected to rigorous independent testing. GMO isn't allowed to be independently tested. If you knew a damn thing about science, corporations/the state, or the nature of people and power - you'd be very concerned and asking questions instead of defending this fraudulent version of science.

    If GMO is so fucking great - why won't Monsanto etc allow independent scientific testing to be conducted or published? If it's so fucking great - why must it be protected from scrutiny?

  • ||

    "What is in error here, besides the genetics of the cross-pollination creating genetic defects that will cause allegedly pesticide-resistant plants to become sterile (terminator seeds, which creates a seed monopoly by Monsanto and really creates a seed shortage..."

    Links pls?

    "A GMO farmer infringes upon the oragnic farmer when they allow their GMO lab-food mutations to drift into organic crops, thus contaminating them and destroying the organic farmer's property."

    Destroys the organic farmer's property? Does it make the food harder to grow? Does it make the organic farmer's crop taste different? Does it make the organic farmer's crop look different? These are the pertinent questions in a debate about property rights. You can't seek damages for radio waves entering your property. You have to prove some real damage has been caused. If the answer to the above questions is "yes," then you have an argument. There is nothing about property rights that says you get to live in a bubble protected from everything.

    "FDA/USDA approval is not based in science but in politics and money--old news."

    Ah, the old, "we can't trust the government so let's all give the government more power argument." I'm sorry, but decisions at the government level will always be influenced by "politics and money." Politics is about the right of competing voices to express their views, and money is representative of valuable resources. I'm not seeing the evil here.

    "Organic and sustainable agriculture does produce crop yields at the same level as covnentional petrochemical-fertilized monocropping, without the soil nutrient depletion, and at better nutrition and teaste levels--also old news."

    Wow, another unprovable statement that you are calling "old news." I assume that "teaste" was supposed to be "taste." I'm sorry, but I've tasted both, and there is no freaking difference. I hate that argument so much! Organic food advocates act like organic food will make you cum in your pants while "normal" food tastes like rubbery shit. I CAN'T TASTE ANY DIFFERENCE! If the crop yields are so great, then why does it cost so much more? You'd think that if organic farming were so kickass, you'd see it completely replace "petrochemical monoculture."

    "And they taste like a tomato, too, not tastelss junk fund in stores."

    I've grown my own food too! It tastes the fucking same! GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!! Keep living your fucking delusion.

  • dambrisco||

    Actually, GM radio waves are a serious concern.

    What will we do if concrete-resistant radio waves start breeding with organic radio waves? Pretty soon, radios, cell phones, and tons of other equipment would be able to pass right through walls! We don't want that, do we?!

  • Ron L||

    Tannim|8.18.10 @ 3:52PM|#
    "...BTW, my organic tomatoes are having a bumper crop this year based on nothing more than water and backyard compost and good old sunlight. And they taste like a tomato, too, not tastelss junk fund in stores."
    I'm quite fed up with those who are willing to starve black and brown folk just to claim *their* cow-poop-soaked tomato supposedly tastes better than what some "evil business" offers for sale.
    Hey, Tannim! Stuff it up your butt!

  • Patriot Henry||

    "I'm quite fed up with those who are willing to starve black and brown folk just to claim *their* cow-poop-soaked tomato supposedly tastes better than what some "evil business" offers for sale."

    Right, it's much better for the hungry people of the world to pay upwards of four times more for lower yields. That will keep them from starving!

  • ||

    What are you fucking talking about? Organic farming requires more resources and effort. That is why it is MORE expensive. Why don't you understand this?

  • ||

    BTW, I read Bailey's bio. He has no background in plant genetics, soil science, or anything resembling field agriculture. He's a career talking head, not anything resembling a scientist or farmer or grower.

  • ||

    You don't have a bio but do you have a professional background in critiquing journalists professional background?

  • Patriot Henry||

    "He's a career talking head, not anything resembling a scientist or farmer or grower."

    Nor does he resemble a journalist. He does remind me of some of the "journalists" employed by the Nazi's though.

  • ||

    Nor does he resemble a journalist. He does remind me of some of the "journalists" employed by the Nazi's though.

    You are a fucking imbecile. Apparently, you don't know much about the Nazis, or anything else. While I disagree with Mr. Bailey on some things, I don't see anything like propaganda. I guess you think anything you don't believe must be a lie?

    Note to self, ignore the idiot poster "Patriot Henry" he is a fucking retard.

  • ||

    "Really? GMO foods are not designed to grow in the 3rd world. They are designed to grow in a lab. Moreover, even if they do actually increase yields that only means that more people can starve. What evidence is there that people won't increase to the absolute maximum number possible for any given food supply?"

    They dont grow in the third world because crazy luddite morons keep telling the leaders of the third world that GMO seeds will bring about the end of times. They dont grow in the third worl because of silly non-scientific lawsuits from the Sierra club are making it impossible for companies to do business.

    "What evidence is there that people won't increase to the absolute maximum number possible for any given food supply?"

    This is the way of the world please read my second blog concerning humanities proclivity to mate like jack rabbits. Every decade some luddite moron comes along and proclaims the end times are upon us and over population is the problem. Well if that is really happening, wouldnt it be nice to be able to feed as many of those extra people as possible?

    Also, more people, doesnt mean more problems. More people means more imaginations, more contributions to the pool of ideas, more innovations. The population of the planet goes up each year, yet each year, we become more capable of feeding the population, more civilized and more technologically advanced. Which civilization has the best odds of learning and discovering more about the world around us. The one with the fewest minds and therefore the least ideas, or the one with the most minds and most ideas. The problem is not capitalism though people who espuse socialism want you to think otherwise, the problem is the lack of freedom. The third world is still the third world because well intentioned green idiots wont let them use their natural resources (usually coal or oil) to produce energy, they frown upon using GMO crops and they insist on making them use green energy and products. Listen, I am a gainfully employed American and I cannot afford to put solar panels on my house, do you think that making Africans use solar energy is going to help them get out of the mire even if its heavily subsidized with my tax dollars? Solar and wind are whats commonly known in the energy business as secondary sources. They are backups for coal, oil and natural gas. Even if you had a solar panel that collected solar energy with 100% efficiency, there is only so much solar energy per square inch of land. How much energy is produced by the equivelent volume of coal, oil, gas and nuclear?

    It is really nice to sit down at the local organic Bistro and eat a sandwich that is priced out of budget for half the planet (but it probably tastes better no doubt) and prattle on about evil corporations putting the squeeze on poor third world countries, but the fact is Monsanto has done more than most to make life in the third world better, a shit load more than half the organic hippies I have met thats for sure.

    A carrot is just a carrot. The carrot you eat today is not genetically the same as a carrots of yore because farmers found ways of making them more robust.

    Furthermore, this fear of genetic mutation is totally retarded. If someone can make the damn plant into some kind of monster, A: why the hell would they? B: Someone else can use the same genes to do just the opposite. C: what if the monster turns out to be something useful? I am sure cave people didnt much think the ferocious wildlife around them was particularly useful. . . that is until they figured out how to cook them.

    We cant all share an equal standard of life on this planet, but we shure as hell better try. Communism and socialism failed. Capitalism has not. GMO is cappitalism. Itr is survival of the best and brightest crops. It is finding a need (or a market if you wish) and finding any and all ways to capture it. The third world wants to be a market, because they want what we have and the more of it we sell, the cheeper it gets and the better off we both become.

    The problem as I see it is that too many people view capitalism as some sort of economic theory as if it were a system designed by man. It is not a designed system, it is an expression of reality (supply and demand). Communism and socialism on the other hand are designed system. Taming supply and demand is a bit like taming a wild river. You can dam it up, but the water is just going to find its way around and through your silly damn calls socialism.

  • Patriot Henry||

    "GMO is cappitalism. "

    Wrong - GMO is fascism. It's the ill begotten offspring of the unholy alliance between corporations, academia, and the state.

    "Itr is survival of the best and brightest crops."

    Yet one of the main selling points of GMO is that it can't survive.

    "Furthermore, this fear of genetic mutation is totally retarded"

    That's not my main concern - crop failure is. GMO pushes monoculture to a new extreme. While it is good and great to develop the latest and greatest gee whiz technology, it isn't wise to put billions of lives on the line in order to conduct alpha testing. A routine "bug" in the programming could have some very bad consequences.

  • ||

    "Wrong - GMO is fascism. It's the ill begotten offspring of the unholy alliance between corporations, academia, and the state."

    GMO has a value. It's value is in it's ability to produce more FOOD at less cost. FOOD is in demand ALWAYS. GMO is a response to that demand. Please let me know how this relationship is anything but capitalistic. Also, and I'm just going by news articles I have read (scroll up) but there seems to be no desire by the current "state" to promote GMO.

  • Patriot Henry||

    "GMO has a value. It's value is in it's ability to produce more FOOD at less cost."

    The real value of GMO is that it temporarily increases production which creates the illusion that the problems of fascist food have been solved.

    "FOOD is in demand ALWAYS. GMO is a response to that demand. "

    GMO is a response to the demand for CYA for the corporations and the state whose fascist food system is in rapid decline.

    "Please let me know how this relationship is anything but capitalistic."

    GMO is paid for by subsidies, including for the end product, but also for the development, and for the "education"/training of its manufacturers, and for it's customers.

    "Also, and I'm just going by news articles I have read (scroll up) but there seems to be no desire by the current "state" to promote GMO."

    If that is the case why do fascist/"public-private" federal government subsidiaries such as the National Academy of Sciences keep producing propaganda promoting GMO's?

  • ||

    "If that is the case why do fascist/"public-private" federal government subsidiaries such as the National Academy of Sciences keep producing propaganda promoting GMO's?"

    The fact that government subsidises it doesnt make it any less a result of market demand. Unfortunatly, the USA has a fetish for subsidising things, but just because something is subsidized it doesnt necessarily make it bad, it just screws up its market. If you dropped the subsidies and the FDA/USDA regulations (you need to do both because the subsidies help offset the wasted time and money these organizations cause) then GMO would be even more popular than it already is and there might actually be competition from smaller companies.

  • ||

    "That's not my main concern - crop failure is. GMO pushes monoculture to a new extreme. While it is good and great to develop the latest and greatest gee whiz technology, it isn't wise to put billions of lives on the line in order to conduct alpha testing. A routine "bug" in the programming could have some very bad consequences."

    All of nature was at some point "one bad bug" it's called mutation and it is supposed to happen. And as for your fear of crop failure, just how does that work? Let's see, crop "A" fails so we all die??? We have more than one strain of food to grow and knowing how to manipulate the genetic code to make it grow means we can always try again with a different "program".

    If a crop of corn fails, does that mean wheat is fucked too??? Will there be a watermelon blight if there is an "error" in the GM cabbage patch?

    Shit man crops failed like crazy for all of recorded history. There are only two ways to prevent crop failure:

    1. Don't plant crops. This option has obvious drawbacks.

    2. Keep on trying to program the perfect crop. I don't know if a "perfect" crop is achievable, but I bet we could get really close.

    Anyway, you can't stop people from fiddling with genetics, but at least if you allow as many brilliant minds as possible COMPETE to write the best "program" you will have plenty of other resilient crops to choose from when the occasional Dr. Evil let's loose his army of killer tomatoes.

  • Patriot Henry||

    "All of nature was at some point "one bad bug" it's called mutation and it is supposed to happen."

    Nature has a few principles of mutation - interspecies/interKINGDOM genetic cut & paste operations used to create international monocultures ain't one of them. That ain't supposed to happen. Nature ain't that stupid. Only people can be so stupid as to think you can do that and get away with it forever.

    " And as for your fear of crop failure, just how does that work? "

    It's actually a matter of it not working - an example would be from South Africa where the Monsanto GMO corn FAILED.

    "Let's see, crop "A" fails so we all die???"

    If crop "A" is GMO corn - and the failure isn't relegated to an African nation where our press and you can ignore it- but is on a larger scale - it's gonna have major consequences, especially if it's in conjunction with other problems (other crop failures, the collapse of the economy or fiat money, collapse of governments, etc)

    " We have more than one strain of food to grow and knowing how to manipulate the genetic code to make it grow means we can always try again with a different "program"."

    Unless we run out of food because we screwed up the old program, or run out of other resources.

    "Shit man crops failed like crazy for all of recorded history."

    Historically crop failures have been limited to the scale of a field or a country - expanding the scale is a stupid idea.

    "There are only two ways to prevent crop failure:"

    False dictomy. The only two choices are not starvation or dependency on the state/corporations. Your statement reveals how dim and small your mind is on this issue.

    Another much better option - plant many different crops and many different types of crops.

    "Anyway, you can't stop people from fiddling with genetics, but at least if you allow as many brilliant minds as possible COMPETE to write the best "program" you will have plenty of other resilient crops to choose from when the occasional Dr. Evil let's loose his army of killer tomatoes."

    Y'all have watched far too much television and way too many movies.

    Exactly how is it that the most brilliant minds are competing when the state uses every protectionist means available to keep them from competing? I'd compete with GMO corn but it's a prison sentence if I get caught - and not a short one. That's "competition"?

  • ||

    "Another much better option - plant many different crops and many different types of crops."

    This is basically my point... More variety of crops GMO or otherwise will ensure a robust food supply.

    "False dictomy. The only two choices are not starvation or dependency on the state/corporations. Your statement reveals how dim and small your mind is on this issue."

    A: I was being cheeky
    B: I was trying to illustrate that biology can and will fail, it is not something we have any control over.

    "Exactly how is it that the most brilliant minds are competing when the state uses every protectionist means available to keep them from competing? I'd compete with GMO corn but it's a prison sentence if I get caught - and not a short one. That's "competition"?"

    The only reason why the "STATE" is involved is because there are far too many dipshit politicians who on one hand want to dole out my tax money to corporations as subsidies on one hand and make rediculous rules and bureaucracies on the other. Get rid of the USDA, the FDA and the US Congress and we might be able to have a regular field of competition.

  • Patriot Henry||

    "The only reason why the "STATE" is involved is because there are far too many dipshit politicians who on one hand want to dole out my tax money to corporations as subsidies on one hand and make rediculous rules and bureaucracies on the other."

    Ya, but it is for a grand purpose - control of the people, destruction of the rule of law, the end of liberty, etc.

    "Get rid of the USDA, the FDA and the US Congress and we might be able to have a regular field of competition."

    Yep - and when that happens those people who spend lots of money to develop a weaker and poorer quality product are gonna find there isn't so much of a demand for their garbage.

  • ||

    Food is always in demand. Get the USDA & FDA out and food is cheaper, but GMO is still going to be an important part of the food supply.

    Liberals constantly complain that the population is growing beyond the food supply, but their only solution is population control, which is a nice way of saying any of the following:

    Government is gonna have to sterilize you.
    Government is gonna have to take your baby.
    Government is gonna subsidize abortion and encourage doctors to push them as an alternative to pregnancy.
    Government is gonna tax each additional child you make.

    Let's see which is worse???
    Mass starvation already in progress.
    "population control"
    Or
    High yield GMO crops.

  • ||

    "Nature has a few principles of mutation - interspecies/interKINGDOM genetic cut & paste operations used to create international monocultures ain't one of them. That ain't supposed to happen. Nature ain't that stupid. Only people can be so stupid as to think you can do that and get away with it forever."

    Does anyone remember the good ole days when corn was grown in the wild? No! because people figured out a long long long time ago that this method of gathering food was not good for the general health of their community.

    The following things do not occur in nature. Please let me know which ones we should ban.
    - Penecillin (the derived antibiotic, not the fungus)
    - Neatly arranged, uniformly irrigated and fertilized rows of food crops.
    - Microprocessors (if you want to ban this one, please drop that mouse!)
    - condoms (if you want to ban this one, your gonna have a hard time controling the population so that it doesnt grow beyond its effective food supply)
    -Sewers (lets see what happens when we go back to dumping our shit in the streets)
    - Fire (lets ban this one, fire kills trees. . . oh wait, that is supposed to happen)
    - Choo-Choo trains (take a look in your kitchen, which foods came in on trains???)
    - light bulbs (we could always go back to lamp oil, but fucking Greenpeace has a flotilla on constant vigil to save whales)
    - Cars (i'm sure everyone lives in the center of the city so there should be no issue getting to work in the morning)

    I am probably repeating myself, but these things are the result of innovation. Innovation comes from our imagination and is driven by our will to live and preserve life. Innovation and technology cannot be banned indefinitly. Sure, you can make GMO illegal, but POT is illegal and it doesnt seem to have any effect (except the neverending "war on drugs". People will find a way to modify the gene to suit their needs and this is not a bad thing if people are able to do so in a free environment. It is when you make it into a black market that things get ugly. Push GMO out and someone will make a black market for it and then we will have the "war on biotech" or some such bullshit.

    Keep your government out of my FOOD. Keep your government out of my SCIENCE. Keep your government out of my COMMERCE.

  • Patriot Henry||

    "Push GMO out and someone will make a black market for it and then we will have the "war on biotech" or some such bullshit.

    Keep your government out of my FOOD. Keep your government out of my SCIENCE. Keep your government out of my COMMERCE."

    I agree. There is a very simple way to push BAD biotech out of the market - get rid of state support for it. No more subsidies, not for GMO crops, not for GMO crop farmers, not for GMO crop consumers, not for the universities, not for the corporations.

    I'm not against GMO as a concept - but looting the people in order to fund a (not even) half assed mad cap dash to develop high powered technology and market it before the side affects and consequences are discovered while using the courts to prevent any attempt to discover these negative costs before they cost huge sums of money and life - that's wrong and just plain stupid.

  • Ron L||

    Patriot Henry|8.18.10 @ 10:23PM|#
    "GMO is cappitalism. "
    Wrong - GMO is fascism."
    Henry is an ignoramus who has no idea of what the terms "capitalism" or "fascism" means. Let me repeat: Henry, you're an ignoramus, got that, Henry?

    "Yet one of the main selling points of GMO is that it can't survive."
    Let me repeat: Henry, you're an ignoramus, got that, Henry?

    "That's not my main concern - crop failure is. GMO pushes monoculture to a new extreme. While it is good and great to develop the latest and greatest gee whiz technology, it isn't wise to put billions of lives on the line in order to conduct alpha testing. A routine "bug" in the programming could have some very bad consequences."
    Let me repeat: Henry, you're an ignoramus, got that, Henry?
    Just in case it's not clear, Henry, you're an ignoramus. Got that?

  • Patriot Henry||

    "
    Henry is an ignoramus who has no idea of what the terms "capitalism" or "fascism" means. Let me repeat: Henry, you're an ignoramus, got that, Henry?"

    GMO is made by corporations, the creation of the state. It is made using state trained academics, state funded subsidies, it is protected by state controlled courts and agencies. GMO empowers the state and it's corporate subsidaries while weakening the liberty of the people.

    Your food is fascist. It's only made possible by the illegal acts of the state. Without all of the protectionist policies GMO can't compete and it can't survive.

    "Let me repeat: Henry, you're an ignoramus, got that, Henry?"

    Right, the one who points out that making the food supply weaker in order to make it stronger is the one who is the ignoramus. Yep. That makes sense. War is peace, ignorance is strength, criticism is ignorance?

    "Just in case it's not clear, Henry, you're an ignoramus. Got that?"

    My opposition to power tripping fascist technocrats and their mad mad mad schemes to "save the world" (i.e. war for peace) is not evidence of ignorance.

  • Ron L||

    "My opposition to power tripping fascist technocrats and their mad mad mad schemes to "save the world" (i.e. war for peace) is not evidence of ignorance."
    I was wrong. You're a *self-righteous* ignoramus.

  • Patriot Henry||

    "I was wrong. You're a *self-righteous* ignoramus."

    I sure don't see that but maybe it's from a lack of perspective - but even if that is an accurate characterization, it's better in my opinion to be a self-righteous ignoramus than it is to be a boot licking tool of the state.

  • ||

    "GMO is made by corporations, the creation of the state. It is made using state trained academics, state funded subsidies, it is protected by state controlled courts and agencies. GMO empowers the state and it's corporate subsidaries while weakening the liberty of the people."

    Corporations exist outside of the "state". Its only the dumbass state that keeps proing up the ones that cant survive on their own that I cant stand. Take the "state" out of the equation and people will still work towards satisfying market demand on their own, its a self assembling machine and it only works well when people stop throwing their fucking shoes into it.

  • Patriot Henry||

    "Corporations exist outside of the "state"."

    That depends on the definition of "corporation" - the state defined "person" definition doesn't exist outside of the state's realm.

    "Its only the dumbass state that keeps proing up the ones that cant survive on their own that I cant stand. "

    Ya, like the agricultural/biotech companies/universities?

    "Take the "state" out of the equation and people will still work towards satisfying market demand on their own, its a self assembling machine and it only works well when people stop throwing their fucking shoes into it."

    I agree, which is why I'm so pissed that the state keeps taking my shoe budget and giving it to GMO companies.

  • ||

    In no way is a corporation defined as "a person." A corporation is simply the amalgamation of private property and private property owner's decisions.

  • ||

    "I agree, which is why I'm so pissed that the state keeps taking my shoe budget and giving it to GMO companies."

    The government subsidizes all kinds of farming. You picking out GMO, just because you don't like it, is what makes you sound like a huge dumbass. If you removed all subsidies, GMO would probably win out. You have yet to successfully argue otherwise.

  • dambrisco||

    I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I'm just hoping we find a GM rust-resistant wheat before the African wheat-plague-horror-monster hits the Middle East.

    Everyone's f--ked if it gets that far.

  • Ron L||

    dambrisco|8.18.10 @ 6:39PM|#
    "...Everyone's f--ked if it gets that far."
    Well, having lived through all the horrible disasters predicted for the last 50 years, I have a certain amount of confidence this one won't kill us either.
    Doggone humans just keep figuring out ways to live.

  • ||

    The ignorant just don't understand that this is human-caused evolution, in reaction to evolving crop pest, and finite resources. Getting more from less is ALWAYS the end game, whether you're a farmer, business, etc....
    End all government subsidies for farming, you will see a HUGH increase in demand for GMO crops. The most highly subsidized portion of US agriculture currently is ORGANIC! Just dig up all the incentives in the 2008 Farm Bill, you'll find breaks for organic certification, aid to creat farmers markets...ad infinitum, ad naseum. Per capita, organic farmers in the US are the most heavily subsidized.

  • fendi||

    Maybe so, but in the interests of those who have been traumatized by the beets, wouldn't it be less insensitive if the beet-growers grew their beets further away from Ground Beet?

  • ||

    Can we just lock all of the neo-hippie Luddites in a giant biosphere so they can plant their organic food without worry that an uberbeet might try to rape their delicate flower via a gentle breeze?

    I'm sure the federal government can cut a check for that sort of thing. After all, it is a shovel ready project.

  • wholesale mbt shoes||

    hello kugoo

  • Patriot Henry||

    Mr. Ron Bailey says this:

    "In fact, there may not be enough conventional seeds to replace biotech seeds for next year’s planting. "

    Ah, right. And what happens when the biotech seeds all fail like the biotech corn failed in South Africa?

  • ||

    The offical story sounds good, unlike the green conspiracy theory: http://www.monsantoblog.com/20.....corn-crop/

  • Patriot Henry||

    Yes, the official story sounds good, so long as one doesn't question it, think about it, or otherwise scrutinize it. Don't investigate, don't research, don't doubt, and don't ask any questions and the "official story" aka propaganda looks real good.

  • Ron L||

    There's a difference between being open-minded and empty-headed; you've crossed that line.

  • Patriot Henry||

    "There's a difference between being open-minded and empty-headed; you've crossed that line."

    I'm critical minded. You are apparently open minded, and someone (Monsanto and other branches of the state) has filled it with a bunch of bullshit, just as they have filled your stomach with bullshit.

    Of course, that is insulting to bullshit, which is a necessary and useful part of the world, unlike the poisonous ideas and products created by the state.

  • Ron L||

    Patriot Henry|8.19.10 @ 4:41PM|#
    "I'm critical minded...."

    You're empty-headed.

  • Patriot Henry||

    "You're empty-headed."

    And your data for that dissertation would be my refusal to believe the hype, the marketing claims, the propaganda?

  • ||

    They're out to get you Patriot Henry...

  • Ron L||

    Patriot Henry|8.19.10 @ 11:55AM|#
    "Ah, right. And what happens when the biotech seeds all fail like the biotech corn failed in South Africa?"

    Uh, we use other ones? Your luddite ignorance is amusing.

  • Patriot Henry||

    "Uh, we use other ones? Your luddite ignorance is amusing."

    Right. We'll just switch out the world's main food crops after they fail. Yep that will work. We'll also just have to tweak the firmware so that the seasons don't change on us, and since we are putting all this work in why don't we add a nice little subroutine to control the weather?

    Oh yeah - because it's all impossible and is obviously so except to those whose ignorance is exceeded by their hubris.

    Another troublesome point only sometimes addressed by GMO advocates, and then only by propaganda promising the agricultural equivalent of the perpetual energy machine - what about the erosion and death of the soil? Even if GMO never directly causes any major problem - the state run system of monocultures will continue to destroy the life supporting capacity of the land. The best case scenario will only push back the mass famine that is headed our way. This is a "solution"?

  • Ron L||

    Patriot Henry|8.19.10 @ 4:36PM|#
    "Uh, we use other ones? Your luddite ignorance is amusing."

    Right. We'll just switch out the world's main food crops after they fail."

    Your ignorance is truly breathtaking.

  • Patriot Henry||

    "The U.S. government has also subsidized the production of sugar from beets and limits the import of sugar from cheaper foreign producers, so if anti-biotech activists really want to substantially cut the growing of biotech beets, opposition to sugar subsidies and sugar import tariffs might be a better place to start."

    Mr Bailey, why don't you oppose subsidized GMO beets? Oh yeah - you are a HYPOCRITE and a TECHNOCRAT and a FASCIST!!!

  • Ron L||

    YOUR CAPS LOCK MIGHT SUGGEST YOU'RE, WELL, NUTS

  • Patriot Henry||

    "YOUR CAPS LOCK MIGHT SUGGEST YOU'RE, WELL, NUTS"

    Y'all are the ones claiming to be in favor of "free markets and free minds" as you blindly defend the state's agricultural market using a sick combo of it's propaganda and your own gullibility. You can call me a nut - but you are the one who is engaging in a massive and fundamental act of hypocrisy and self betrayal.

  • Ron L||

    Patriot Henry|8.19.10 @ 4:39PM|#
    "Y'all are the ones claiming to be in favor of "free markets and free minds" as you blindly defend the state's agricultural market using a sick combo of it's propaganda and your own gullibility. You can call me a nut - "
    Y'all a conspiracy-theory nut.

  • Patriot Henry||

    "Y'all a conspiracy-theory nut."

    The fascists don't bother to hide anymore. The collusion between corporations, academia, and the state is very well documented in the public domain. Denial is a defense mechanism that provides no defense against the fascist state and it's stranglehold on our food supply. There are many decades of documentation about the state and our food supply - so very many books, government reports, academic reports, journals, news articles, etc. It's a pretty sickening history. The state is an ugly beast and when it comes to the way it deals with food and agriculture it's real nature is very evident - if you can see it for what it is.

  • ||

    Oh my fucking god! You have yet to make any real points whatsoever. You just keep screaming about "fascism." Fucking die already. All you do is call anything you don't like propaganda.

  • ||

    Where the hell did all the schizo hippies come from all of a sudden? Does some green nazi shit on all of Bailey's posts in their blog?

  • Patriot Henry||

    "In fact, biotech crop varieties are so popular with American farmers that seeds for non-biotech corn, cotton, and soybeans constituted only about 13 percent of the varieties offered last year. "

    What percentage of government mandated crops are GMO? What percentage of non-subsidized crops are GMO?

  • Ron L||

    Patriot Henry|8.19.10 @ 12:11PM|#
    "What percentage of government mandated crops are GMO? What percentage of non-subsidized crops are GMO?"

    Instead of offering tin-foil-hat innuendo, why don't you tell us?
    Could it be because you don't have a clue?

  • Patriot Henry||

    "Instead of offering tin-foil-hat innuendo, why don't you tell us?
    Could it be because you don't have a clue?"

    I don't know the numbers - but it's pretty damn obvious if you understand how the system works that the recipients of government subsidies are far more likely to use GMO crops and far less likely to grow heirloom species.

    Why must you attempt to marginalize me as "tin hat"? Makes it easier for you to believe the heap of bullshit that the state's darling corporations feed to you? Of course, the one who is questioning the state created and protected corporations or the state created and protected food system is crazy! Classic means of discrediting those who dare to dissent from the state created and protected insanity.

  • Ron L||

    Patriot Henry|8.19.10 @ 4:31PM|#
    "Instead of offering tin-foil-hat innuendo, why don't you tell us?
    Could it be because you don't have a clue?"
    I don't know the numbers"

    So, you don't have a clue. Now your an admitted ignoramus.

  • Patriot Henry||

    "So, you don't have a clue. Now your an admitted ignoramus."

    Meanwhile the soil continues to die, in part because of GMO, in part because of you.

    GMO is an invention of the state. The concept is thoroughly fascist - a centrally planned and controlled system of universities, corporations, and government departments bureaus and agencies will control a perfect uniform system of life with all of the undesirable elements removed by one poison or another.

  • Ron L||

    Patriot Henry|8.19.10 @ 6:58PM|#
    "Meanwhile the soil continues to die, in part because of GMO, in part because of you...."

    OK, a self-admitted ignoramus who bleeves every bit of luddite crap with zero data.
    Are we getting closer?

  • Patriot Henry||

    "OK, a self-admitted ignoramus who bleeves every bit of luddite crap with zero data."

    In consideration of my advocacy of advanced technology in agriculture, the "luddite crap" makes no sense. Luddites don't use or advocate using microcontrollers and other advanced pieces of technology. Nor do they use the Internet and Web.

    You keep saying "zero data" - but the quantity of topsoil is known data, and the trend is well documented. The real place there is zero data is the "studies" about the efficiency and safety and reliability of GMO crops.

  • Ron L||

    Just for fun:
    "...the soil continues to die..."
    This should be good. Tell us of the life-cycle of soil and how it is born, matures and dies.

    "...GMO is an invention of the state...."
    Really? Please tell us which government agency holds the patents.

    "government departments bureaus and agencies will control a perfect uniform system of life with all of the undesirable elements removed by one poison or another."
    Uh, was that you on the street corner with the sandwich board?

  • Patriot Henry||

    "This should be good. Tell us of the life-cycle of soil and how it is born, matures and dies."

    Try reading Sir Albert Howard's "An Agricultural Testement" or his other works. Or maybe you have some witty excuse as to why you don't need to read or think about the source of your means of life?

    "Really? Please tell us which government agency holds the patents."

    Clever, but when one is clever in order to miss the point, then one is being a smart ass ignoramus, and when one does so in defense of GMO, then one is also being a tool of the state. Congrats - you are a "useful idiot" repeating the official state propaganda, eating up the poison they serve, and telling everyone "this bullshit tastes great!"

    "Uh, was that you on the street corner with the sandwich board?"

    Funny yet you again ignore the fact that you are defending the state, fascism, subsidies/taxation, and the destruction of the earth. You do realize you'll be needing that topsoil in the future right? You do realize I'm no hippy, progressive, liberal (at least not in the modern sense), green, or other ecofreak, but simply someone who has the common sense to say "hey our food needs to topsoil and even with GMO no top soil in just a few short decades is insanely stupid"?

    Of course not. Why listen to the dissenters when you can feel so strong by attaching yourself to the all powerful state?

  • Patriot Henry||

    "This should be good. Tell us of the life-cycle of soil and how it is born, matures and dies."

    Try reading Sir Albert Howard's "An Agricultural Testement" or his other works. Or maybe you have some witty excuse as to why you don't need to read or think about the source of your means of life?

    "Really? Please tell us which government agency holds the patents."

    Clever, but when one is clever in order to miss the point, then one is being a smart ass ignoramus, and when one does so in defense of GMO, then one is also being a tool of the state. Congrats - you are a "useful idiot" repeating the official state propaganda, eating up the poison they serve, and telling everyone "this bullshit tastes great!"

    "Uh, was that you on the street corner with the sandwich board?"

    Funny yet you again ignore the fact that you are defending the state, fascism, subsidies/taxation, and the destruction of the earth. You do realize you'll be needing that topsoil in the future right? You do realize I'm no hippy, progressive, liberal (at least not in the modern sense), green, or other ecofreak, but simply someone who has the common sense to say "hey our food needs to topsoil and even with GMO no top soil in just a few short decades is insanely stupid"?

    Of course not. Why listen to the dissenters when you can feel so strong by attaching yourself to the all powerful state?

  • ||

    Demand for GMO is driven purely by profit motive...for commercial farmers (not trust-fund baby dirt scratchers)the decision is long-term health of the farm, including financial AND our sons and daughters continuing our operation. We could go back to 'the good ole days', but there aren't very many willing to accept the standard of living from the 'good ole days'

  • ||

    Monsanto is putting alien DNA in our granola! We will soon all be talking Klingon and nuking the Muslims!! Kill the scientists, stop technology before it destroys the Earth!!! Mass suicide is the only solution!!!!

  • ||

    Then its good I bought that Klingon dictionary... help make me more marketable when it comes time to send out my CV.

  • Brunt||

    Remember that problem with tryptophan that got it banned a few years back? The problem was a genetically-engineered ingredient that produced an unexpected protein. The studies on GMO food safety are small and cursory. We're all taking part in one of the biggest mass experiements in history.

  • Ron L||

    Brunt|8.19.10 @ 2:06PM|#
    "Remember that problem with tryptophan that got it banned a few years back? The problem was a genetically-engineered ingredient that produced an unexpected protein."
    Cite required

    "The studies on GMO food safety are small and cursory."
    Bullshit. Given luddites like you and that ignoramus above, they have been quite complete.

    "We're all taking part in one of the biggest mass experiements in history."
    Yep, happens every day.
    So.......................
    what?

  • Patriot Henry||

    "Bullshit. Given luddites like you and that ignoramus above, they have been quite complete."

    So you claim. So the academics claim. So the corporatists claim. So the bureaucrats claim. Yet upon examination there are no independent studies. There are no complete studies.

    "Yep, happens every day.
    So.......................
    what?"

    It's immoral and illegal to conduct research experiments on people without their informed consent. It is mighty conspicuous that the readers of the "free minds and free markets" magazine have no problem and in fact actively support the state and it's corporate subsidiaries lying in order to get useful idiots to support the destruction of the free market. The free market doesn't involve huge state created and protected monopolies controlling humanities food supply. Free minds also don't have that as a requirement. In fact they tend to be exclusive. Free minds/free markets don't tolerate state run monopolies, and the state and it's monopolies tolerate free minds/free markets even less than that.

  • Ron L||

    Patriot Henry|8.19.10 @ 4:27PM|#
    "So you claim. So the academics claim. So the corporatists claim. So the bureaucrats claim. Yet upon "examination there are no independent studies. There are no complete studies."
    Bullshit.
    Were you born this stupid, or did it take long years of effort to un-educate yourself.

    It's immoral and illegal to conduct research experiments on people without their informed consent.

  • Ron L||

    Ooops.
    "It's immoral and illegal to conduct research experiments on people without their informed consent."
    Yep, why they move foods in *trucks*, and that hasn't been proven safe, right, henry?

  • ||

    GMO crops saved more lives from starvation than trucks have killed in traffic accidents.

    Thats a fact I just made up, but it is probably true.

  • Patriot Henry||

    "Thats a fact I just made up, but it is probably true."

    Perhaps you can get work as a spokesman for a biotech corporation or one of the fascist entities that promote biotech corporations.

  • ||

    Chill Out Man.

  • Ron L||

    Perhaps you can find an IQ in two digits.
    Naaah.

  • Ron L||

    Uh, not you, El D...
    That gas-bag henry.

  • ||

    "Perhaps you can find an IQ in two digits."

    Only at the zoo. . .

  • Patriot Henry||

    "Yep, why they move foods in *trucks*, and that hasn't been proven safe, right, henry?"

    That is not analogous to feeding the masses a science experiment. GMO and commodity food are acts of reckless disregard for ethics, the rule of law, and common sense. GMO is an attempt to solve the problems created by commodity food using the same means - state sponsored academia and corporations working together to produce fancy gee whiz technology that is so advanced it bypasses reality and the actual requirements for success.

  • Patriot Henry||

    "Bullshit.
    Were you born this stupid, or did it take long years of effort to un-educate yourself."

    I never did well in the state schools and I never went far with the official psychological conditioning and behavioral training.

    I've read various reports from Monsanto, other biotech companies, American govt components, "public-private alliances" or fascist public opinion manipulation outfits, etc. There isn't anything critical or scientific about the research done so far. With the predetermined conclusion being "GMO is the greatest thing since sliced bread!" the scientific basis is rather weak at best. The weakness of GMO "science" would be already under a great deal of scientific scrutiny but the state and it's corporate subsidiaries refuse to permit that. Instead it will have to be failure in the field that shows that GMO is another state led scientific fraud.

  • Patriot Henry||

    "Bullshit.
    Were you born this stupid, or did it take long years of effort to un-educate yourself."

    I never did well in the state schools and I never went far with the official psychological conditioning and behavioral training.

    I've read various reports from Monsanto, other biotech companies, American govt components, "public-private alliances" or fascist public opinion manipulation outfits, etc. There isn't anything critical or scientific about the research done so far. With the predetermined conclusion being "GMO is the greatest thing since sliced bread!" the scientific basis is rather weak at best. The weakness of GMO "science" would be already under a great deal of scientific scrutiny but the state and it's corporate subsidiaries refuse to permit that. Instead it will have to be failure in the field that shows that GMO is another state led scientific fraud.

  • Ron L||

    Patriot Henry|8.19.10 @ 7:20PM|#
    "I never did well in the state schools and I never went far with the official psychological conditioning and behavioral training....(and more trite, conspiracy-theory bullshit)"

    Henry, I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you, but you aren't doing well here, either.
    Every time you're asked to back what you claim to be an 'argument', you admit you don't have any data at all, just some stupid emotional appeal.
    Brain-dead, tin-foil-hat, wooism isn't convincing to those who don't share your luddite fantasies.
    Here's a suggestion: Mosey on over to Daily Kos or some such 'progressive' site; they'll love your ignorance and applaud you for it. You can all fantasize about the time when 'nature' was 'pure', and man licked lichen off of rocks for dinner. And lived to, oh, 25 years of age or so.
    Or, you could learn something. But I doubt it.....

  • Patriot Henry||

    "Every time you're asked to back what you claim to be an 'argument', you admit you don't have any data at all, just some stupid emotional appeal."

    The data is readily available. Your refusal to combine a search engine and your own brain to inform yourself is not a failure on my part.

    GMO is not scientifically tested, and there is a state sponsored protection scheme to prevent any scientific testing of GMO. This isn't obscure information.

    GMO is bad science which ignores the fundamental problems of agriculture. Read Wendell Berry for detailed explainations. There's your desired dataset - the collected writings of Wendell Berry. Are you going to seek them out and read them, or are you going to go eat some GMO junk food?

    "Brain-dead, tin-foil-hat, wooism isn't convincing to those who don't share your luddite fantasies."

    More bullshit attempting to discredit those who dare to dissent? Your beloved GMO companies are liars who don't know shit about science. Your whole defense is worthless because of the absolute perfect lack of independent scientific research. The last "independent" research cited by Mr. Ron Bailey turned out to be a study of studies done by Monsanto and their industry brethren.

    "
    Here's a suggestion: Mosey on over to Daily Kos or some such 'progressive' site; they'll love your ignorance and applaud you for it. You can all fantasize about the time when 'nature' was 'pure', and man licked lichen off of rocks for dinner. And lived to, oh, 25 years of age or so."

    See, at least there you are attempting another discrediting technique other than "you're nuts!". If you compare my posts versus those of the "progressive" groups - you'll find that my concerns are the rampant statism, the system of subsidies, the destruction of the health of the earth, and the substitution of mad science for science, all of which are vastly different things than any sort of neo-primitivism.

    "Or, you could learn something. But I doubt it....."

    I could learn something? Indeed, that's why I'm reading another Wendell Berry book. What are you reading, television commercials from Monsanto? Or perhaps you are taking a state sponsored class that tells of how wonderful the world is and will be under the rule of your beloved technocrats?

  • ||

    "I'm not against GMO as a concept - but looting the people in order to fund a (not even) half assed mad cap dash to develop high powered technology and market it before the side affects and consequences are discovered while using the courts to prevent any attempt to discover these negative costs before they cost huge sums of money and life - that's wrong and just plain stupid."

    I partially agree with your sentiments. Government funding does not do anything to improve the market forces that would otherwise keep the industry in check and can easily promote development of less than ideal products.

    I am not so sure the science is all that poor. The crops work as promised (for most part) and the crops are very beneficial to the third world. My main point about GMO science (and science in general) is that it is a process that necessarily involves risk. You cannot "know" fire until you touch it, that said, you can probably understand as much as possible without touching it first, but at some point, someone will have to take that leap either by accident or on purpose. If there is some sort of catastrophy in a GMO crop, it is not going to be unrecoverable. The planet has a remarkable and sometimes scary way of correcting mistakes regardless of who caused them, in otherwords, the planets biosphere is incredibly diverse and robust it is just like my example of daming up the river and it just goes around your dam (Its somewhere in one of my rants about communism). Anyway, the same principle applies here. Nature is a self correcting system. It would be really terrible if the results of a "self correction" effected a large population, but right now, there are actual issues effecting actual populations and food shortage is a major issue. I would think that most people in the third world would be more than willing to take the risk than go hungry.

    From a statistical stand point any catastrophic event is an extreme outlier event, if they werent then they would happen all the time.

    for example:
    9/11 was terrible, but it only happened once in recorded history.
    Chernoyble was terrible, but it only happened once in history.

    Other simmilar events to these have occured in history, but to lesser degrees of severity and they did not happen very often. (three mile island & Oklahoma City are good examples).

    Statistically speaking, if there is a biotech event caused by GMO, it will more than likely be localized and recoverable. Will people suffer? Yes they probably will, but people are already suffering.

    If we can just get government to leave their hands out of the lab, we might have market conditions that make it more difficult for some of these companies to get away with shenanigans and sloppy science. I seriously doubt the FDA or USDA will have any impact on shenanigans or sloppy science. The majority of the people working for the FDA and USDA are pencil pushers who follow check lists they dont know what to look for. And the few people with actual degrees in something remotely related to biotech are too busy to get into all of the details all the time.

  • ||

    OOPS, I meant to comment on Patriot Henry's actual post (the one quoted at the top) and not do a new post. I would fix it, but I want to go home and I dont have three hours to find the post again. . .

  • ||

    I wouldn't be bothered by GMO's if it weren't for the fact that Monsanto and other companies have successfully sued farmers for royalties when those farmers' crops were accidentally cross-pollinated with their patented crops. This means that farmers adjacent to GMO crops can no longer save seeds from their own crops without paying a fee to Monsanto -- even if they NEVER planted a Monsanto seed. This is equivalent to having a genetically modified male dog roam the neighborhood, inseminate a female dog that's kept in your yard, and then you getting a a bill in the mail for the service because you violated their patent.

    Genes WILL escape. It might be a few beets falling off of the truck,a few errant seeds planted somewhere else, or pollen from Monsantos fields, but these genes WILL escape and get mixed into the gene pool. Bees, wind, and even vehicles carry pollen for miles and miles. This isn't about GMOs as much as Monsanto's desire to corner the seed market through shady legal practices.

  • ||

    If they had any serious competition in the market, they would not be able to get away with these shenanigans.

    I personally have no issue with the concept of companies or individuals holding patents on specific genetic sequences (that they have purposfully created and not just any old sequence), but if there were more competition, there would be more people vying to create the next best sequence and this would make those copyrights less valuable as there are probably more useful genetic combinations than there are useful musical combinations. Plus, sooner or later these companies will sue the wrong motherfucker and they will find themselves on the other end of the whip. If done right, a good lawyer might be able to argue that farmers have a "fair use" right to seeds that blow in or plants that cross polinate. Besides, it is impractical for farmers to spend time and money extracting seeds from their crops when they can just buy them in bulk from the corporation it is not a total loss situation if a farmer somehow manages to get a modified crop in his field despite not having paid for the seed.

    Like you said, genes WILL escape if they continue to abuse their customers, they will eventually lose them to their competition. . . that is if the US Govt. ever allows the competition to thrive by getting their hands out of the cookie jar.

  • ||

    Horseshit! Adventitous presence, is not the reason any grower has been sued by the intellectual property rights owner of a GM or PVP. It was because of concerted effort to gain the benefits of a given GM or variety, without compensating those who developed the trait(s). I love botanical ignorance, such as beets falling off a truck transmitting pollen...
    I supposed you're opposed to cloning as well? Yes, well don't ever eat ANY potato, as even the organo-freaks plant clones!

  • ||

    I agree with you, but if, by some unintentional way I become the beneficiary of the patented traits, I think that the companies who developed the traits should be very careful about prosecuting these cases. If a company does begin to throw its weight around too much then people should be able to move their business to a competitor. The government is making it more difficult for people to take their money elsewhere and this makes it easier for the developer of the trait to abuse their own customers.

    To be clear, I think that these companies have the right to sue anyone who benefits from their product without paying them fair compensation, but that said, it is not always good business to sue. if there is a monopoly in the market, then the company that controls the market does not necessarily have to worry about the consequences of some of their own bad business practices.

  • ||

    the canada goose outlet online shop will give you so much discount for canada goose parka.and agricultural biotechnology will make the economy better.the consequences of some of their own bad business practices is very important.

  • Scarpe Nike||

    is good

  • Bryce Mcminn, Meriden||

    Ultimately, biotech crops should not be subject to any more regulatory scrutiny than any other crop varieties. Making those changes would go a long way toward breaking up the nascent seed monopolies that the overregulation favored by anti-biotech activists has produced.

    Bryce McMinn, Meriden

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement