Comments on: Monsanto’s Business Practices Affect The Food You Eat

By: amlorusso

amlorusso — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 02:17:28 +0000

You’re all worrying about a monopoly of prices, but when I read “With Monsanto’s patented genes being inserted into roughly 95 percent of all soybeans and 80 percent of all corn grown in the U.S.” I’m worried about an agricultural monoculture which invites disaster from a biological perspective.

By: Glenn E.

Glenn E. — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:27:21 +0000

We need to return to LIMITED PATENTS, in terms of how long any commercial entity has to exploit is exclusive use. Monsanto is hardly a struggling business, that needs decades of agro patent protection to stay profitable. And we’re talking the food supply here. Not some damn song or movie. I think the genetic patents ought to expire into public domain (or whatever) just as soon as patent drugs do. If not much sooner.

But of course when big money talks, law makers listen. So I suspect Monsanto will be allowed to skirt all anti-monopoly, and anti-trust protection laws. Making them the De Beers of seeds. If they’re not already!

By: zzzzzz

zzzzzz — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 05:51:12 +0000

#24 because of money and they got the hook up in white house.. People had tried.

By: zzzzzz

zzzzzz — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 05:41:54 +0000

I only eat Roundup ready foods, when they start spraying the world with roundup I know I’ll be only one who alive!!!!!!!!!!

By: GetSmart

GetSmart — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:21:29 +0000

Monsanto, the Darth Vader of biotech.

By: sargasso

sargasso — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:15:03 +0000

Actually, these dinosaurs are not going to be around for very much longer, and they know it. Outsourcing has distributed their technology and globalisation has diluted their lobbying power. They have failed in and have exited many foreign countries and are struggling to maintain market dominance in their own homeland, against foreign producers.

By: Animby

Animby — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:37:34 +0000

So, farmers raise their crops the old fashioned ways get seeds blown in from neighboring farms using Monsanto genes. Then Monsanto sues the legacy farmers for using the modified seeds.

Why oh why hasn’t some smart lawfirm sued Monsanto for trespassing or invasion or some such defense?

Not that I would support that case. I am – in general – in favor of genetically modified foods. I am NOT in favor of patenting life. I believe Monsanto should be allowed to patent their techniques for modifying the genetic makeup but not the resulting genome. That strikes me as patenting “4″ as the answer to “2 + 2 =” simply because I designed the circuit board in the calculator.

By: bbjester

bbjester — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:20:18 +0000

@ #17,

It was called Starlink Corn. It happened sometime during the latter half of the Clinton administration.

By: Shubee

Shubee — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:05:19 +0000

Monsanto is evil.

By: Dale

Dale — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:33:11 +0000

[quote="Uncle Dave"]This has long been a No Agenda topic for John and Adam which the Main Stream Media is just now getting around to.[/quote]
Just the standard courtesy press delay so Monsanto can get it’s ducks in a row.

By: electrohead

electrohead — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:17:49 +0000

Anniston Alabama: Pollution, Contamination, and Betrayal. I have worked in Anniston and have seen for myself the valley of the living dead. We promise this to the food gods of monsanto. (We Will Defeat You.)

By: User7

User7 — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:28:49 +0000

I second #8 everyone who eats, buys food, or votes in the United States should watch this movie. I bought two copies just to loan out to friends.

By: arpie

arpie — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:37:00 +0000

> # 2 said: There used to be a thing called Anti-Trust and the government would use it to break up monopolies.

Personally, I agree that GM Foods and especially Monstanto are bad (look up how they got their seeds smuggled ilegally into Brazil, who had anti-GMO laws then got some farmers dependent on them to change the laws). However, how do you, at the same time, argue for “smaller government” and “more rules and control”?

If you need to regulate and verify that people and companies are obeying the regulations, it’s gonna cost money and make government bigger. Frankly, I’d rather have safe food, water, energy, etc. and a bigger government, but there’s a price to pay.

It’s a schism. Often the same “conservative” or “libertarian” folks who claim “small government”+”the market” are a panacea that will make everything a paradise also support more rules and regulations on some areas (e.g. abortion, immigration)… Frankly, I think, because in reality there are many issues who cannot be kept in check unless there’s government involved: general safety, highways, free speech, health care, etc. So they end up just running in circles repeating “it can’t be!”… “small government!”… ad nauseam while things are on a downward spiral.

By: Guyver

Guyver — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:11:13 +0000

16, Genetically engineered products are not simply “organisms”. Under the law they have IP rights no different than other engineered products.

Yes, GM foods have been a problem in the past. Cross contamination resulted in Taco Bell using corn that was meant for livestock. The corn was not digestible by humans and Taco Bell was forced to do a massive recall. I don’t recall the year this happened.

By: spsffan

spsffan — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:52:36 +0000

First of all, they have to stop issuing patents to living organisms, and they have to revoke to ones already issued. I mean the very idea is just silly, unless your name is Frankenstein.

Next, they have to go after Monsanto’s business practices, which are very similar to those that Microsoft was busted for.

Third, I still don’t understand the hoopla about GM food. Has there been any instances of it actually being a problem ? (I mean physically, not politically).