Yes!.....Cheerios to go non-GMO......

echelon1k1

echelon1k1

New Member
If you look at the use of gm foods and the rise in food allergies, labelling will in all probability become a reality based on, if nothing else the financial incentive for the manufacturer/producer to indemnify themselves and their products.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
tokeprep said:
Have some evidence of that?
Click to expand...
remind me who said this:
tokeprep said:
"Since 1997, we have only filed suit against farmers 145 times in the United States." Out of 145 suits, they claim there have only been 11 trials. They've never lost.
Click to expand...
WOOOOOPS!

you yourself proved doublejj right.

you have a habit of doing that lately, arguing one thing and ALSO the exact opposite other thing.

lullerskates.
 
T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
remind me who said this:

WOOOOOPS!

you yourself proved doublejj right.

you have a habit of doing that lately, arguing one thing and ALSO the exact opposite other thing.

lullerskates.
Click to expand...
I said Monsanto filed suit 145 times, with 11 trials. Original poster claimed that most of the cases are settled before Monsanto files suit, and thus are not included in the count of law suits. What I said has nothing to do with what he said.
 
doublejj

doublejj

Well-Known Member
Monsanto has huge legal & PR dept's to sweep up behind them, they leave very little evidence behind. Food labeling will lead to their demise....
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
doublejj said:
Monsanto has huge legal & PR dept's to sweep up behind them, they leave very little evidence behind. Food labeling will lead to their demise....
Click to expand...
i don't think it will lead to their demise, but i am interested to see if my wife's newfound allergies to wheat could have anything to do with the prevalence of GMO wheat products.
 
Canna Sylvan

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
tokeprep said:
Even if you took it to mean that his statement is still accurate. They sell seed to 250,000 farmers a year and there have only been 145 suits in 16 years. That's 250,000 sales each year with an average of 9.1 law suits.
Click to expand...
Doc knows how often ancient Sumerian slaves were allowed to take a shit, but only knows of ONE lawsuit. He's playing you, Limey.
 
Canna Sylvan

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
so it's not just GMO's you fear, but plastics, and petrochemical products too?

should we simply dismantle the industrial society that you rely on for everything you eat, wear and use and all become amish subsistence farmers?

Edit: and what do you propose you are proving with a ancient newspaper article from 1976?
Click to expand...
You trying to troll me?? PCBs are some of the most toxic substances we know of. Safe concentrations are measured in parts per trillion. They were banned for manufacture world wide in 1979. Their deadly effects were known since 1937 and the US used them in Vietnam as chemical weapons..
 
Winter Woman

Winter Woman

Well-Known Member
anyone who knows botany understands that the gmo is now out of pandora's box there will be no stopping it. We may well have a great famine once a monoculture has been established.

Edit: Independent monocultures spread across whatever food products they have played with. They knew this was a possibilities decades ago. In this case BIG business might very well kill millions.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
tokeprep said:
You obviously didn't bother to read the case you're talking about. The crop in question was 95-98% Monsanto product, from hundreds of acres of land. The initial seeds may have fallen off a truck somewhere on the farmer's land, but to obtain that level of genetic purity, the farmer must have acted intentionally. That's what every Canadian court that heard the case concluded. He realized there was Monsanto product growing on his land and he harvested and replanted the seeds, knowing exactly what it was.

If the farmer had merely harvested the crop growing on his land there would be no issue.
Click to expand...
I take no issue with the scotus case, it is clear he was stealing with Intent to gain advantage from the novel genetics, not so in the canadiN case.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
There is at least one case in Canada where a farmer was sued for cross pollination and or seeds off a truck. The farmer lost.


I am painting my house purple, in a high wind. My next door neighbor has a pure white house. Speckles of my purple paint have dotted his exterior. Now, can I sue my neighbor for using MY paint?

that is essentialy what Monsanto is doing. they are ruining the neighbor's house and charging him for using their paint to do it.
Click to expand...
If you actually read the details of the Canadian case, and understood those details, and were honest, and were unbiased then you would have to agree with the Canadian supreme court that the poor Canadian farmer was actually intentionally stealing Monsanto's intellectual property. It was a unanimous decision by the Canadian supreme court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top