Tasty GM crops, or insecticides... you decide

canndo said:
Ok, then how is it that Monsanto is suing and winning for patent infringement on farmers who have unitentionnaly bred their corn with Monsanto corn? It may still be biologicaly "corn" but it is not legaly the same thing any longer.
Click to expand...

Monsanto is not suing anybody for "unintentionally" cross breeding with their patented corn. They only sue the ones who do it intentionally. The thieves recognize the value of Monsanto's seeds but they don't want to pay for them.
 
canndo said:
How does one get a patent on maize?
Click to expand...

You put in a glow gene and patent glowing maize. Really, I am surprise at you sometimes. :)

The patent isn't on Zea mays. In this very same way, I cannot patent automobile tires.
But, I can get a patent on my formulation for glowing auto tires....maybe, if someone didn't beat me to it.

This is a patent on Roundup Ready Zea mays.....gee, I would have thought you knew that.
 
canndo said:
still missing the point here! IF, the company that made the corn so different that they asked for and were issued a patent things it is so different than corn that it deserves a patent, then it is ... wait for it.... NOT CORN. It is something else, something that is patentable, if it were simply corn, even simply corn with an unusual ability to resist herbicides, then it would not be patentable. If I breed any crop without actually directly modifying the dna, I cannot patent it.
Click to expand...

They made special corn, but it's still corn. It still looks like corn, it still tastes like corn, and it still has EVERY OTHER GENETIC TRAIT CORN DOES that makes it corn. They spliced in a gene to make it resistant to roundup. They created corn with a resistance, not some new species of plant. It's patentable because it's novel due to genetic modification, but how does that not make it corn?
 
canndo said:
Ok, then how is it that Monsanto is suing and winning for patent infringement on farmers who have unitentionnaly bred their corn with Monsanto corn? It may still be biologicaly "corn" but it is not legaly the same thing any longer.
Click to expand...

No, it's legally still corn.
 
desert dude said:
Monsanto is not suing anybody for "unintentionally" cross breeding with their patented corn. They only sue the ones who do it intentionally. The thieves recognize the value of Monsanto's seeds but they don't want to pay for them.
Click to expand...
since Monsanto can't tell who is doing it intentionally or not......they sue them all.....Monsanto has plenty of money for lawyers, the small farmers don't, and they know it.....
 
doublejj said:
since Monsanto can't tell who is doing it intentionally or not......they sue them all.....Monsanto has plenty of money for lawyers, the small farmers don't, and they know it.....
Click to expand...

I would think it's pretty easy to tell who did it on purpose; just find the guys spraying roundup on their crops.
 
kpmarine said:
They made special corn, but it's still corn. It still looks like corn, it still tastes like corn, and it still has EVERY OTHER GENETIC TRAIT CORN DOES that makes it corn. They spliced in a gene to make it resistant to roundup. They created corn with a resistance, not some new species of plant. It's patentable because it's novel due to genetic modification, but how does that not make it corn?
Click to expand...

You shouldn't be able to patent life. It's wrong and immoral. If Monsanto and company weren't allowed to patent life, no one would create "food" GMO.

The solution to GMO is to ban genetic patents.
 
Canna Sylvan said:
I tried. Ok...

If B then GM feed. Not B. Therefore, not GM feed.
Click to expand...

B should have been (bold) died.
So allow me to ask again. Are you aware of any significant mortality of animals attributed to GM feed and not preterm slaughter? Keep in mind that the Seralini "study" has been shown more politics than science, and yet it's the favorite of the eco-bloggers. cn
 
cannabineer said:
B should have been (bold) died.
So allow me to ask again. Are you aware of any significant mortality of animals attributed to GM feed and not preterm slaughter? Keep in mind that the Seralini "study" has been shown more politics than science, and yet it's the favorite of the eco-bloggers. cn
Click to expand...

I thought you were challenging me to a battle of logic. My bad. Here let me make it easier.

"If the study is right" (B) then "GM feed is bad." "The study is right" is false (not B). Therefore, "GM feed is bad" is false (Not GM feed).

That's called denying the antecedent. It's a false argument.

Monsanto and company deny the pigs aren't "healthy." They claim eco-nuts are using a false criteria for their definition of healthy. Monsanto's definition is, "the pigs have lots of meat and are of a nice weight." Is that how you define a healthy pig? But even if the study is wrong, that doesn't mean my opinion is wrong. It means the jury is still out.
 
Canna Sylvan said:
I thought you were challenging me to a battle of logic. My bad. Here let me make it easier.

"If the study is right" (B) then "GM feed is bad." "The study is right" is false (not B). Therefore, "GM feed is bad" is false (Not GM feed).

That's called denying the antecedent. It's a false argument.

Monsanto and company deny the pigs aren't "healthy." They claim eco-nuts are using a false criteria for their definition of healthy. Monsanto's definition is, "the pigs have lots of meat and are of a nice weight." Is that how you define a healthy pig? But even if the study is wrong, that doesn't mean my opinion is wrong. It means the jury is still out.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that since the pigs were slaughtered for meat at 6 months and were dry-fed for efficiency and not health, there's really no way to say.
My question stands though, and it isn't hostile or loaded. I am curious to know if there are any real instances of animal mortality genuinely attributable to GM feed. That would make me sit up straight. cn
 
cannabineer said:
I'm saying that since the pigs were slaughtered for meat at 6 months and were dry-fed for efficiency and not health, there's really no way to say.
My question stands though, and it isn't hostile or loaded. I am curious to know if there are any real instances of animal mortality genuinely attributable to GM feed. That would make me sit up straight. cn
Click to expand...

I first found out about this garbage from this documentary. In it there's a farmer who lost all his pigs, so he says, to GMO feed. I think it's funny as a vegan. But that's besides the point. Even if this documentary is false, Monsanto trying to claim pigs are an invention is laughable if it wasn't trying to do so. GMO is to make money. It's not to save the world as DesertDude wants us to believe. If Monsanto and company weren't able to patent DNA, we wouldn't be having this discussion. GM would only be used for government research and then it'd be potentially saving us. I don't trust someone "improving" DNA whose goal is only money.

[video=youtube;4-ouf_gmA5o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-ouf_gmA5o[/video]
 
Canna Sylvan said:
I first found out about this garbage from this documentary. In it there's a farmer who lost all his pigs, so he says, to GMO feed. I think it's funny as a vegan. But that's besides the point. Even if this documentary is false, Monsanto trying to claim pigs are an invention is laughable if it wasn't trying to do so. GMO is to make money. It's not to save the world as DesertDude wants us to believe. If Monsanto and company weren't able to patent DNA, we wouldn't be having this discussion. GM would only be used for government research and then it'd be potentially saving us. I don't trust someone "improving" DNA whose goal is only money.

[video=youtube;4-ouf_gmA5o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-ouf_gmA5o[/video]
Click to expand...

GMO is to make money - of course it is, food less susceptible to disease will obviously make more money. Why are you against this? Oh, you think GM foods carry with them shit that'll give you cancer, well, that's simply retarded, and you believe that because you don't understand the science that goes into creating GM foods. It is as simple as that, you're doing what Jenny McCarthy does with vaccines.

People with no training in science probably shouldn't speak about it, and definitely shouldn't be taken seriously

[youtube]vUzVm-zpyR8[/youtube]
 
canndo said:
Ok, then how is it that Monsanto is suing and winning for patent infringement on farmers who have unitentionnaly bred their corn with Monsanto corn? It may still be biologicaly "corn" but it is not legaly the same thing any longer.
Click to expand...

Cite the cases please.

This a royalty contract and you are talking thru your hat like a carpetbagger. The carpetbaggers here are the hippie lawyers that are out screwing these farmers into going against the contract.

Show me one case of accidentally crossing. There are none that I can find. You can't have a law suit on Accidently.

NO INTENT. For Fuck Sake, canndo, that is the very basis of Western Law.

I thought you were interested in Law, not Carpetbagging.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jafro daweedhound
“Terminator Seeds” - can they be very far off in the LP business plans ?
Replies
14
Views
1K
chex1111
chex1111
vostok
Monsanto’s GMO Seeds Contributing to Farmer Suicides Every 30 Minutes
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Vnsmkr
Vnsmkr
vostok
Chinese farmers are illegally growing GMO corn: Greenpeace
Replies
4
Views
389
Singlemalt
Singlemalt
vostok
Monsanto Exposed as Source for White Phosphorus Used in Gaza Massacre
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
oldtimer54
oldtimer54
I
Prop 37!
Replies
1
Views
870
Perfextionist420
Perfextionist420
Back
Top