and then there's libertarian anti-capitalists who claim they are only "anti-corporate", you know, like anti-Jews who claim they're just anti-Zionist.Originally Posted by angelatc
Since no one is going to answer me, let me just explain: I am not arguing against anything you posted, Natural Citizen. I just noticed one little issue and wanted to clear up or discuss that one narrow point. The point is this:
A poster claimed that bad science is "criminal." If taken literally, that means people who do "bad science" (whatever that is) are guilty of a crime and ought to be punished by force -- thrown in prison, fined, executed, whatever. They ought to be forced to recompense the victims. Whatever your theory is of what should be done to criminals who commit crimes, that thing should be done to them.
I disagree.
I think that all science -- good, bad, indifferent -- should be unrestricted. We all should be at perfect liberty to do whatever science we choose, at whatever quality level we choose. There should be no "science police" regulating and restricting and controlling science. I think that actually there likely is no disagreement among us here on this matter. Everyone on this thread would probably be perfectly happy to let everyone do whatever science they want -- from the PhD with the million-dollar lab complex to the herbalist down by the river doing experiments in his basement.
I just wanted to point that all out. Bad science is not criminal, any more than bad dancing. Let us all fight for free and open science! And that means: Separation of Science and State!
Sure, we should allow scientific exploration and discovery, absolutely.... in a closed, self contained environment if it has the potential to destroy the ecosystem at large.
The criminal part comes in when it is forced upon us all, as a population, with us as a giant lab rat experiment, with no due process for safety other than self validation and a government rubber stamping their buddies work .... that is criminal. That is "bad" science. Self validating, hiding the facts, pushing agendas with favoritism.
And when you combine that with the desire of the company peddling this crap to secure fees at every annual growth cycle to prevent even the option of providing basic food to survive, as their product takes over the indigenous species through pollination .... that is criminal. That is "bad" science.
That is not good science that is trying to better mankind, that is "greedy control at whatever cost" science. Trying to do something with good intent is good science, even if it turns out badly. Trying to deceive and control and harm people in the mean time is not good, and is not bad, it is criminal.
So, the BLM claims to be saving the desert tortoise, or collect unpaid grazing fees, or whatever their story de jour is... So is that a good motive? Should they be allowed to do that? Or does the land owner still have rights that were in place before the BLM even existed? If the ulterior motives of Reid or whomever is behind the push come to light and are proven, does it now make it criminal for what the BLM tried to do? If it is for a solar project, does that make it OK, because more people will benefit from clean energy? Is it OK for Monsanto to do whatever it takes to push their food supply control with quite possibly unsafe food because it will feed more people (a lie BTW, just like the desert tortoise), but not OK for the BLM to try and take over land for solar projects, or mineral rights, or?
"Bad dancing" only bothers the viewers, and only temporarily while they have to view it. Bad science in the case of modifying the entire food supply can destroy the human species, or tax the species with the fee required to even grow your own food to survive. Not quite on the same level as a bad rendition of "dirty dancing" is it?
So, do you think it is OK for a company to push their self-validated, "ex director now working in the FDA of the government" approved science on the masses as a big lab experiment, when pushing it out is virtually irreversible to the food supply and makes them the gatekeeper to basic survival of the species, let alone if the products do not cause harm the species in the mean time.... Is that "bad" science? Is that "criminal", or A-OK? It appears as though you are OK with that no matter the end goals or costs to the human species... So having this same argument with you over and over still proves to be futile.
And I doubt it is just that "one narrow point."
I have seen through it all... the system is against us. ALL OF IT.
Yep. That was all I was saying.
I do understand that was likely what was meant. That's why I clarified that my point only applied if taking the statement literally. That is not how the statement was meant, I know.The criminal part comes in when it is forced upon us all, as a population, with us as a giant lab rat experiment, with no due process for safety other than self validation and a government rubber stamping their buddies work .... that is criminal. That is "bad" science. Self validating, hiding the facts, pushing agendas with favoritism.
Pollination could be criminal. Voluntary exchange of good and services (paying a fee to use someone else's property -- his seeds in this case) is not criminal.And when you combine that with the desire of the company peddling this crap to secure fees at every annual growth cycle to prevent even the option of providing basic food to survive, as their product takes over the indigenous species through pollination .... that is criminal. That is "bad" science.
Fraud can certainly be criminal. It is not always criminal, but it can be. We all try to control each other to an extent. Those who try to a lesser extent tend to be libertarians, and also tend to be easier to get along with. As far as harm, some is criminal and some is not.That is not good science that is trying to better mankind, that is "greedy control at whatever cost" science. Trying to do something with good intent is good science, even if it turns out badly. Trying to deceive and control and harm people in the mean time is not good, and is not bad, it is criminal.
What is and is not OK for people to do is entirely defined, in my opinion, by private property rights. Property draws the boundary lines between our interactions with each other. Private property is the key to liberty.So, the BLM claims to be saving the desert tortoise, or collect unpaid grazing fees, or whatever their story de jour is... So is that a good motive? Should they be allowed to do that? Or does the land owner still have rights that were in place before the BLM even existed? If the ulterior motives of Reid or whomever is behind the push come to light and are proven, does it now make it criminal for what the BLM tried to do? If it is for a solar project, does that make it OK, because more people will benefit from clean energy? Is it OK for Monsanto to do whatever it takes to push their food supply control with quite possibly unsafe food because it will feed more people (a lie BTW, just like the desert tortoise), but not OK for the BLM to try and take over land for solar projects, or mineral rights, or?
No, it is not. You are right. Science is powerful. In my view, power should be decentralized. Every individual should have an equal right to do science. Even though its dangerous."Bad dancing" only bothers the viewers, and only temporarily while they have to view it. Bad science in the case of modifying the entire food supply can destroy the human species, or tax the species with the fee required to even grow your own food to survive. Not quite on the same level as a bad rendition of "dirty dancing" is it?
I am for complete separation of science and state, as I already said. I would have thought that statement would make my opinion on such matters clear. But I guess not. So let me clarify and answer you: I am opposed to the very existence of the FDA. I am opposed to the cozy marriage between agribusiness and the federal government. I am opposed to all the powerful forces working to keep the food market from being free and open.So, do you think it is OK for a company to push their self-validated, "ex director now working in the FDA of the government" approved science on the masses as a big lab experiment, when pushing it out is virtually irreversible to the food supply and makes them the gatekeeper to basic survival of the species, let alone if the products do not cause harm the species in the mean time.... Is that "bad" science? Is that "criminal", or A-OK?
So glad you know everything about me!It appears as though you are OK with that no matter the end goals or costs to the human species... So having this same argument with you over and over still proves to be futile.
Obviously it was. How could I have been any clearer? I asked one question, over and over (never answered) and then explained exactly why I was asking. I don't know how I could be more transparent. Unless you just assume I am a liar. And perhaps that I'm "One of Them!" Perhaps these are just more aspects of your all-encompassing knowledge about who I am.And I doubt it is just that "one narrow point."
In the United States, all food labeled organic must be non-GMO.
7 CFR § 205.105:To be sold or labeled as “100 percent organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)),” the product must
be produced and handled without the use of: (e) Excluded methods ....
Excluded Methods: A variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes and are not considered compatible with organic production. Such methods include cell fusion, microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the positions of genes when achieved by recombinant DNA technology).
Such methods do not include the use of traditional breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or tissue culture'
Thanks, sorry for my ignorance, I'm glad we have government forcing us to use a word a certain way. We can't possibly trust people to look out for themselves.
Yes. Now the same people are clamoring for the government to define "Natural" for them, too.
I'd march against their patent monopoly, but nothing more...but that's really a larger/broader issue that doesn't apply to just Monsanto.
there's an inherent patent abuse problem going on, not just with food and pharma, so patent reform would be the best way to address this, since it doesn't isolate Monsanto, and it doesn't leave others who are victims of patent abuse hanging.
Let's slide the slippery slope! next they'll ask government to define money, and rights! OMFG, these are the same people who want the government to tell us what we can eat and what we can drug ourselves with!!!!!!
Precisely---very well stated.
What patent monopoly? Seed patent law was established in the '30's, and it's the same for Monsanto as it is for the people who breed championship roses. The patents last 12 years....their RR soy is off patent this year.
Well.... as was mentioned previously here, substantial equivalence flew right out the window when it came to protecting licensing and usage fees for the same products under patent law. So...next....
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 04-18-2014 at 06:45 PM.
can't they may a small change and either refile or renew?
so their RR soy is now fair game for everybody?
Yes. Generic Generation 1 RR soy seeds can be produced by any other seed manufacturer, and farmers can now save the seeds from season to season. 2015 will be the first season they can plant seeds they've saved.
http://seedworld.com/index.php?optio...=71&Itemid=274
However, they make a newer version that is still in protection.
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pa...xpiration.aspx
Obviously, farmers and the market will have to decide which product best suits their specific needs. Which is as it should be.
Seriously - every single thing that comes out of the anti-Monsanto / anti-GMO movement is either a lie or a huge exaggeration. (Monsanto got fined for making unapproved claims in a commercial. Seriously? Who cares? )
Start fact checking them. That's what I did, and that's why I became alarmed at the fact that the noise was being posted with absolutely no challenges as to the veracity.
Rule of thumb: if Natural News or Russia Today is the source, it's simply not accurate.
Last edited by angelatc; 04-18-2014 at 07:52 PM.
You use far too many words to say nothing. Like I said, seed patent law was established in the '30's. RR soy - the first RR product brought to market - is off patent this year. Other manufacturers can now make generic versions, and farmers can now save seeds.Well.... as was mentioned previously here, substantial equivalence flew right out the window when it came to protecting licensing and usage fees for the same products under patent law. So...next....
Last edited by angelatc; 04-18-2014 at 07:53 PM.
Yeah, whatever. Hey, what do you think about what India and Brazil and that lot are up to?
Monsanto in US Foreign Policy
Obama Issues Threats To Russia And NATO
This is that storm I was telling you about. Looks like it's finally starting to brew up.
Also, a new official report confirms that one fifth of Chinese farmland is polluted from the overuse of farm chemicals and whatnot. The study released by the Chinese government was originally labeled as a state secret. Scwewy timing to release it now.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 04-18-2014 at 07:58 PM.
Yeah, right. Russia invaded Ukraine because Monsanto.
The Chinese used to dump straight up arsenic on their crops. More GMO - less / less harsh chemicals. That's why they're developing it. Seriously - glyphosate is less toxic than aspirin or nicotine. And it's far less toxic than the stuff that was being used in the 20's and 30's.
Last edited by angelatc; 04-18-2014 at 08:06 PM.
Did Russia invade Ukraine? I must have missed that one.
Yes, I see what you did there, comrade.
Last edited by angelatc; 04-18-2014 at 08:11 PM.
Ah, well. I'm going to go read some news on the other threads for a few. Have a good evening, angela.
While I'm thinking of it, though, here is a timeline, still (and will continue to be) continuously updated, that goes as far back as February 18, 2014 15:03 and all the way up to today, April 18, 2014 18:01. Live ground reports by the minute, essentially, with live video and photography.
Ukraine turmoil LIVE UPDATES
And another, updated similarly with live content, regarding Kiev.
Kiev military op in eastern Ukraine LIVE UPDATES
If you'd like to debate any of the happenings or legitimacy of events contained in the on ground reporting, I'll be in the neigborhood. Heck, I'm a stickler for a good debate.
And, of course, there around 8,000 or so comments on those pages as well if you aren't up for a debate on the legitimacy of the reporting here.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 04-18-2014 at 08:59 PM.
Wait, so you mean to tell me we can finally hear about people NOT suing Monsanto for pollution, and/or Monsanto NOT suing alleged theives for having their seeds?
I'm a little confused on why Monsanto is evil, is it because they're forcing us to eat their stuff or because they're suing people who have their stuff? are their products in demand or poison?However, they make a newer version that is still in protection.
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pa...xpiration.aspx
Obviously, farmers and the market will have to decide which product best suits their specific needs. Which is as it should be.
Seriously - every single thing that comes out of the anti-Monsanto / anti-GMO movement is either a lie or a huge exaggeration. (Monsanto got fined for making unapproved claims in a commercial. Seriously? Who cares? )
Start fact checking them. That's what I did, and that's why I became alarmed at the fact that the noise was being posted with absolutely no challenges as to the veracity.
How much are you paid to say that?Rule of thumb: if Natural News or Russia Today is the source, it's simply not accurate.
A little entertainment on the subject:
I have seen through it all... the system is against us. ALL OF IT.
I'm guessing we probably will not stop hearing those things, because the talking points are far more important than the truth to ideologues.
I think Monsanto is probably a corporate bully, like every other mega-corporation out there. But they have never sued anybody who did not intentionally plant their seeds with the specific intention of not paying their royalties. (This usually generates a shriek , but nobody has ever produced a case to show me I'm wrong, so I'm sticking with it.)I'm a little confused on why Monsanto is evil, is it because they're forcing us to eat their stuff or because they're suing people who have their stuff? are their products in demand or poison?
Nothing. Consider it a public service.How much are you paid to say that?
http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/
List of dates and places in North America and world wide - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...=sharing#gid=0
Consider attending a march near you or organizing one of your own.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 04-24-2014 at 05:07 AM.
Vermont poised to enact toughest US GMO-labeling law yet
Vermont lawmakers have passed legislation that requires food made with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, to be labeled as such. The law, the first of its kind in the US, must now get approval from Gov. Peter Shumlin, who has supported the bill.
The state House of Representatives approved the bill on Wednesday by a vote of 114-30. The state Senate passed the legislation last week by a vote of 28-2.
Continued - Vermont poised to enact toughest US GMO-labeling law yetThe bill would require any foods containing GMOs sold at retail outlets to be labeled as having been produced or partially produced with “genetic engineering.” The law would go into effect on July 1, 2016.
Gov. Shumlin must now sign the bill to cap the process. He again expressed support for the measure on Wednesday.
I am proud of Vermont for being the first state in the nation to ensure that Vermonters will know what is in their food. The Legislature has spoken loud and clear through its passage of this bill," Shumlin said. "I wholeheartedly agree with them and look forward to signing this bill into law.”
Anticipating lawsuits from industry, legislators established a fund of up to $1.5 million to help the state pay for defense against any legal action. People can contribute voluntarily to the fund, and settlements won in other court cases can be added to the fund by the state attorney general, the Burlington Free Press reported.
Powerful food industry and biotechnology players are currently banding together on many fronts to protect their investment in GMO technology despite national and international pushback. Their main effort in the US is seen in federal legislation that would block states from passing mandatory GMO labeling measures like Vermont’s despite the “right to know” movement’s rising popularity.
The claim that genetically-engineered food poses no risk to human and environmental health is far from settled, despite the industry's assertions.
In October, 93 international scientists said there was a lack of empirical and scientific evidence to support what they called false claims made by the biotech industry about a so-called “consensus” on GMO safety. They said more independent research is needed, as existing studies that say GMOs are safe are overwhelmingly funded and supported by biotech companies.
The US Department of Agriculture recently voiced concerns over the potentially devastating environmental effects of GMOs.
A recent study found that global classification of GMO foods is fundamentally flawed and “has failed miserably”at protecting public health.
The bill also makes it illegal to call any food that contains GMO ingredients “natural” or “all natural.”
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 04-24-2014 at 03:39 AM.
The 12 year patent is the monopoly in and of itself; Monsanto isn't the only one utilizing it of course; anyone who holds a seed patent, at all, has their own government-enforced monopoly.
The Constitution promises patent rights, although I will admit that seems to be a popular place for the libertarians to get off the train.
More misuse of the regulatory system. And here you are, cheering on the actions of the most socialist state in the union.
It's pretty funny to see them do this, when they lost a court battle to do the same thing with milk back in the '90s when the courts overturned Vermont's law that required labeling of rBST treated milk. This will end up the same way - they will lose in court after spending millions of dollars fighting a aw that any first year aw student could make a case against. The law was settled back then, right or wrong. It only took a year, so this will probably go down in flames even faster.
What is doubly funny about that it was some dairy association that challenged the law and won, and even though they were villians at the time, they now make a ton of money charging a premium for "organic, rBST free milk" even though there is absolutely no way to tell if milk is from a treated versus an untreated cow. So the stupid people pay a higher price for being stupid - as it should be.
I have no problem with fools being parted from their money, but I certainly wish they'd keep their filthy hands off of my food supply. Prices are high enough, thank you.
Vermont’s GMO Labeling Bill Similar to rBST of Oldn 1995 it mandated the labeling of any dairy products containing milk from cows treated with rBST (recombinant bovine Somatotropin). And now, it’s poised to require labeling of any retail food product that contains genetically engineered materials.
It only took a year for courts to overturn the mandatory rBST labeling law as the courts held that the right of producers not to divulge information on its production methods should be equal to the consumers’ right to know the production methods.
Last edited by angelatc; 04-24-2014 at 04:06 PM.
Well, it purports to grant Congress the authority to grant patents. The Constitution does not, however, require that Congress exercise that authority.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us