What Fruits and Vegetables SHOULD Look Like: Researchers Show How Dramatically We’ve Changed Them R

[Wyld Kard]

But beyond that, all I can say is WTF? Are you for real?

Endlessly declaring victory and evading the point does not impress.

Let's once more return to that point that you're evading so skillfully. Can you name a single area anywhere where farmers are forced to buy seeds from Monsanto?

No? You can't? Then your conspiracy theory is has major flaws.

Why is Monsanto big? It sells a product that farmers want to buy. You don't see the farmers screaming about the evil Monsanto, except for the ones who tried to use Monsanto seed illegally and got caught. You see farmers, who have a choice of products to buy, willingly buying Monsanto's product, because it makes them more money.

Does Monsanto sue people? Yes. If you use their seed illegally, you get sued. That covers people who signed a contract and saved seed, or people who never signed a contract and tried to secretly use Monsanto seed. Given that Monsanto has won all such suits they've filed, it's clear they're not filing such suits frivelously, and that they're on solid legal ground. Again, if you don't want Monsanto to sue you, all you have to do is not use their seed illegally. And if you don't want to buy from Monsanto, you just have to buy from someone else.

Now, if someone would like to intelligently talk about whether anti-trust laws should be invoked, that's a good topic. But as anti-trust laws as a whole in the USA have been gutted and are almost never invoked in any industry, the topic is really whether anti-trust laws as a whole should be strengthened.

And there's also an issue of whether selling a product that's too good needs to be regulated. That is, farmers get bigger crop yields with Monsanto seeds. That increases yields on the whole and drives prices down. If a farmer doesn't also use the Monsanto seeds to get bigger yields, that farmer goes out of business. So should Monsanto be penalized for making a product that's just too damn good?

So should Monsanto be penalized for making a product that's just too damn good?

Nothing Monsanto puts out is good.

But thanks again for proving what a clueless dumbass you really are if you believe they do.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

But beyond that, all I can say is WTF? Are you for real?

Endlessly declaring victory and evading the point does not impress.

Let's once more return to that point that you're evading so skillfully. Can you name a single area anywhere where farmers are forced to buy seeds from Monsanto?

No? You can't? Then your conspiracy theory is has major flaws.

Why is Monsanto big? It sells a product that farmers want to buy. You don't see the farmers screaming about the evil Monsanto, except for the ones who tried to use Monsanto seed illegally and got caught. You see farmers, who have a choice of products to buy, willingly buying Monsanto's product, because it makes them more money.

Does Monsanto sue people? Yes. If you use their seed illegally, you get sued. That covers people who signed a contract and saved seed, or people who never signed a contract and tried to secretly use Monsanto seed. Given that Monsanto has won all such suits they've filed, it's clear they're not filing such suits frivelously, and that they're on solid legal ground. Again, if you don't want Monsanto to sue you, all you have to do is not use their seed illegally. And if you don't want to buy from Monsanto, you just have to buy from someone else.

Now, if someone would like to intelligently talk about whether anti-trust laws should be invoked, that's a good topic. But as anti-trust laws as a whole in the USA have been gutted and are almost never invoked in any industry, the topic is really whether anti-trust laws as a whole should be strengthened.

And there's also an issue of whether selling a product that's too good needs to be regulated. That is, farmers get bigger crop yields with Monsanto seeds. That increases yields on the whole and drives prices down. If a farmer doesn't also use the Monsanto seeds to get bigger yields, that farmer goes out of business. So should Monsanto be penalized for making a product that's just too damn good?

I am not 'declaring victory' Why? Because I don't really think there is one on either side and for many reasons. Nor am I trying to evade your questions. Up until now you haven't been very clear in your questions or demands for answers. To me, they have continually changed. Mainly because of your continual use of 'conspiracy theories' and snarky comments. Now that we have that out of the way, perhaps we can discuss this.
I admit there are many 'theories', but I don't subscribe to them, and I have tried throughout this whole discourse to base any information provided on whatever facts are available to back up my opinions on Monsanto & GMO's.
A few years ago I was first made aware of these subjects and I too was at first skeptical and never took anyone else's word for or against. I did my own research to whatever information was available & only then did I form any opinion. I think consumers need to know about what is in their food, where it comes from & how it gets from field to table because most people don't know or understand even the differences between hybrids, GMO's and heirlooms. Once they become more aware, they are then able to make an 'informed' decision of what & how they choose to eat. If they still want to eat gmo's, that's fine but atleast now they know more about what they put in their bodies.
I've already said that as much as I disagree & dislike Monsanto & gmo's, I still buy into them, because they are so prevalent in the food supply. Not just the fresh produce, but in most of other foods, ingredients, etc nearly everything. But I also know this and when shopping I try to make the better choice either in the product or where/who I buy from.
The whole subject of GMO's, both good & bad is another kettle of fish & I had thought the reason for this thread, and if I'm wrong so be it. I have already apologized to the OP and won't go there now, because it's not been a part of most of your questions. Seems to me you have centered more on Monsanto.

Now, to actually address your questions.....

Can Monsanto force farmers to buy their seeds???

When you get right down to it NO they can't, YES they can get seed from elsewhere. But this also depends on what is written in those contracts. You know, that 'fine line'. If like ARCO with it's gas stations, then yes they can force farmers to buy only from Monsanto. And no I don't want to get into that argument. This one is big enough.
But my argument against M isn't where they get seeds, it's the fact that because M owns the patent to GMO's, farmers are then 'forced' to buy new seed each season. Thus giving M the profit & not so much the farmer. They can't save it because of patent infringement. Before GMO's it was more profitable, sustainable and common practice for farmers to save seed from year to year. Another problem in this is that small farmers are being bought up by big Ag business's in the US, possibly elsewhere, and they will buy GMO seeds from M or DuPont or Syngenta, who by the way is HQ in Switzerland & also the makers of the gases used during the Holocaust. I don't want to get into this either. If you want to know more, check it out for yourself. Yes there are even other seed suppliers that are on a more smaller scale, but if you're big Ag you usually buy from big suppliers.

Monopoly or Anti-Trust?

Of course not, it's illegal and has been used against Microsoft & another big company if I remember, I think it was cable or some form of telecommunication? not too many years ago. M is too smart for that, they stay within limits, but continue to push those limits. Yes this is opinion because there is obviously no information available otherwise, that I am aware of. Short of Monsanto publically admitting it, and we all know that's not going to happen.

So I ask you, have I still evaded your questions? I don't believe I have. Although I wonder about your 'comments', questions & demands for answers in the manner you've presented them, and your motivation behind it. Do you work for or have any 'personal' interest in Monsanto?

 

[JustAnotherNut]

and absent hybridization, there would be no broccoli.

the question is, is it a good thing or a bad thing?

That's not entirely true, broccoli has been cultivated since the 6th century BC.

 

[mamooth]

But my argument against M isn't where they get seeds, it's the fact that because M owns the patent to GMO's, farmers are then 'forced' to buy new seed each season. Thus giving M the profit & not so much the farmer. They can't save it because of patent infringement. Before GMO's it was more profitable, sustainable and common practice for farmers to save seed from year to year.

Yet farmers enter into those contracts voluntarily. I don't see free market behavior as bad.

Another problem in this is that small farmers are being bought up by big Ag business's in the US, possibly elsewhere, and they will buy GMO seeds from M or DuPont or Syngenta,

Which is a separate issue. Small farms were failing and being absorbed by big farms long before GM came on the scene.

who by the way is HQ in Switzerland & also the makers of the gases used during the Holocaust.

Yeah, and Monsanto made Agent Orange. Those are sleazy insinuations that have nothing to do with the issues.

So I ask you, have I still evaded your questions? I don't believe I have.

You haven't explained why farmers voluntarily enter into contracts that are supposedly bad for them.

I have an explanation. The contracts are actually good for them, and they make more money by doing business with Monsanto.

Although I wonder about your 'comments', questions & demands for answers in the manner you've presented them,

Being that I'm not insinuating people are Nazis or company shills, my behavior here is much more polite and rational than yours.

and your motivation behind it. Do you work for or have any 'personal' interest in Monsanto?

More conspiracy thinking, sleaze unworthy of a response. It makes me wonder if you're on the payroll of Perdue or one of the other multibillion dollar organic megacorporatoins. (See how that works? Do you like it when your sleaze tactics are tossed back at you?)

 

[JustAnotherNut]

But my argument against M isn't where they get seeds, it's the fact that because M owns the patent to GMO's, farmers are then 'forced' to buy new seed each season. Thus giving M the profit & not so much the farmer. They can't save it because of patent infringement. Before GMO's it was more profitable, sustainable and common practice for farmers to save seed from year to year.

Yet farmers enter into those contracts voluntarily. I don't see free market behavior as bad.

Another problem in this is that small farmers are being bought up by big Ag business's in the US, possibly elsewhere, and they will buy GMO seeds from M or DuPont or Syngenta,

Which is a separate issue. Small farms were failing and being absorbed by big farms long before GM came on the scene.

who by the way is HQ in Switzerland & also the makers of the gases used during the Holocaust.

Yeah, and Monsanto made Agent Orange. Those are sleazy insinuations that have nothing to do with the issues.

So I ask you, have I still evaded your questions? I don't believe I have.

You haven't explained why farmers voluntarily enter into contracts that are supposedly bad for them.

I have an explanation. The contracts are actually good for them, and they make more money by doing business with Monsanto.

Although I wonder about your 'comments', questions & demands for answers in the manner you've presented them,

Being that I'm not insinuating people are Nazis or company shills, my behavior here is much more polite and rational than yours.

and your motivation behind it. Do you work for or have any 'personal' interest in Monsanto?

More conspiracy thinking, sleaze unworthy of a response. It makes me wonder if you're on the payroll of Perdue or one of the other multibillion dollar organic megacorporatoins. (See how that works? Do you like it when your sleaze tactics are tossed back at you?)

Yet farmers enter into those contracts voluntarily. I don't see free market behavior as bad.

Which is a separate issue. Small farms were failing and being absorbed by big farms long before GM came on the scene

Yeah ok, I'll agree with these statements. In that farmers enter contracts voluntarily and free market isn't a bad thing. And yes it is a separate issue & small farms have been failing & absorbed. I'll go with it.

You haven't explained why farmers voluntarily enter into contracts that are supposedly bad for them.

This was never a part of any of your questions until now. There really is no explanation for it by anyone other than the farmers themselves why they do what they do.

I have an explanation. The contracts are actually good for them, and they make more money by doing business with Monsanto.

I don't see it as an explanation, but as speculation on your part. But I guess if you're happy with it, so be it.

Being that I'm not insinuating people are Nazis or company shills

I never once said they were Nazis nor insinuated they were. I only said they made the gases used. That's it and nothing more. Excuse me if I thought it was an interesting fact about Syngenta to bring it up, but because they made the gases doesn't mean they are Nazis.

my behavior here is much more polite and rational than yours.

interesting because my post (#62) was being reasonable since your previous post (#57) was being reasonable. You get what you give. When you play nice, you'll get nice in return.

sleazy insinuations

conspiracy thinking, sleaze unworthy of a response

your sleaze tactics

Sorry, but I don't see anything here as being polite or rational.

Now, if you still want to discuss this like adults, without personal judgments from either of us and drop the 'conspiracy' stuff, then fine. I'm more than willing to discuss it. I might learn something new that I hadn't previously and/or likewise, you might learn something new. But until you can keep to the same subject or question from one post to the next, WITHOUT name calling or personal attacks, I'm done here. I'm tired of fighting & would rather discuss it calmly.

(ps, just in case you can't see it for what it is....I'm not pissed, I'm not trying to 'one-up', I am just trying to have a decent conversation here. All gloves are off, in this corner anyway and I'm not trying to insinuate any lack of intelligence either. This is a limited capacity environment vs in person)

 

[longknife]

This thread had turned into a bunch of

 

[JustAnotherNut]

This thread had turned into a bunch of

Believe it or not, I agree...even with my own involvement for going this far.