With Regard to Genetically-Modified Foods...

[Bill Mattocks]

Thought it best to spin this into a new thread. I found this article. It's topical and I thought it tied directly into a recent discussion...

http://www.bworldonline.com/main/content.php?id=8975

Posted on 08:39 PM, April 14, 2010

BY CAREY GILLAM, Reuters
Are US regulators dropping the ball when it comes to biocrops?
...
Biotech crop supporters say there is a wealth of evidence that the crops on the market are safe, but critics argue that after only 14 years of commercialized GMOs, it is still unclear whether or not the technology has long-term adverse effects.

Whatever the point of view on the crops themselves, there are many people on both sides of the debate who say that the current US regulatory apparatus is ill-equipped to adequately address the concerns. Indeed, many experts say the US government does more to promote global acceptance of biotech crops than to protect the public from possible harmful consequences.

"We don’t have a robust enough regulatory system to be able to give us a definitive answer about whether these crops are safe or not. We simply aren’t doing the kinds of tests we need to do to have confidence in the safety of these crops," said Doug Gurian-Sherman, a scientist who served on an FDA biotech advisory subcommittee from 2002 to 2005.

"The US response [to questions about biotech crop safety] has been an extremely patronizing one. They say, ’We know best, trust us,’" added Mr. Gurian-Sherman, now a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit environmental group.

...

A common complaint is that the US government conducts no independent testing of these biotech crops before they are approved, and does little to track their consequences after.

The developers of these crop technologies, including Monsanto and its chief rival DuPont, tightly curtail independent scientists from conducting their own studies. Because the companies patent their genetic alterations, outsiders are barred from testing the biotech seeds without company approvals.

Unlike several other countries, including France, Japan and Germany, the US has never passed a law for regulating genetically modified crop technologies. Rather, the government has tried to incorporate regulation into laws already in existence before biotech crops were developed.

And even if you think GM modified food is a good thing, how about labeling? We require labeling with regard to ingredients and content of certain vitamins and chemicals such as salt, fat, sugar, and so on. We do not require labeling of genetically-modified foods at all. Why not?

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/04/us-versus-world-over-gm-food-labels/

Since Bill Clinton was President, the United States has favored a voluntary labeling strategy. Labeling of GM food would be required only if important end characteristics required it, such as the potential for allergies or nutritional changes.

Mandatory labeling for GM foods is favored by the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. The impasse has left Canada mediating between the camps and hosting a lot of meetings on the issue.

 

[Malleus]

Nearly all of the concerns above relate to the procedures regulating GM crops, rather than the actual theory behind it. With testing and labelling measures such as those currently being employed in Europe and Japan, would you be more amenable to the idea?

There's also the worries of long term effects of GM food consumption. It's been 14 years and so far nothing. I think you can reasonably extrapolate the potential problems from observing the genes inserted into the foodstuffs and monitoring to make sure there are no unwanted products being produced. Both of which are part of any competent testing procedure.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Nearly all of the concerns above relate to the procedures regulating GM crops, rather than the actual theory behind it. With testing and labelling measures such as those currently being employed in Europe and Japan, would you be more amenable to the idea?

Sure, I'm not against genetic manipulation of food. I've changed my basic stance of a libertarian 'hands off' with regard to government regulation over the years, and food and product safety are several of the areas where I now believe government regulation is beneficial to our society.

I'm not stating that such foods are inherently dangerous, either; rather that we don't know, and the manufacturers have no vested interest in finding out and/or telling us themselves. With regard to the potential for damage that could be devastating and not show up for decades, I'd want to err on the side of caution.

Even if they were dangerous, I'm still not against them; but consumers should be able to choose not to eat such foods if they wish; labeling would accommodate that.

There's also the worries of long term effects of GM food consumption. It's been 14 years and so far nothing. I think you can reasonably extrapolate the potential problems from observing the genes inserted into the foodstuffs and monitoring to make sure there are no unwanted products being produced. Both of which are part of any competent testing procedure.

No, I can't quite make that leap. It's been 14 years of since introduction, but the slope of the increase has only been towards the pervasive in years since about 2002:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/September07/Findings/USFarmers.htm

So that's more like 8 years. And be that as it may, the types of genetic modification have been changed, as well as the number of alterations per crop, year on year, trending upwards.

I do not have the data for the trend of patent applications relating to GM plants in the USA, but a simple patent application search for the years 2001-present show 47,636 patents applied for with the terms 'genetic' and 'plant' in their descriptions. I think we can safely presume, however, that like most technology, each year shows successive increases.

With regard to potential danger, I don't imagine for a moment that changes being introduced today would necessarily show up instantly; and there is no reason to suppose that changes previously made that were indeed safe indicate that changes made tomorrow will also be safe. If it were simply the same change being made over and over, then I'd agree with you that time would be a valid indicator of relative safety.

 

[Empty Hands]

Once again, the regulators have been bought by the companies they are supposed to be regulating. Monsanto gets away with an outrageous amount, and they have even managed to get laws passed and judgments made specifically endorsing their practices. Like successfully suing farmers who get Monsanto crops in their fields by accident. By successfully suing seed savers who service non-Monsanto growing farmers because the very existence of seed saving, even with non-Monsanto crops, apparently causes all kinds of criminality. It's actually illegal to question the safety of food products in some places. So much for free speech, eh? Someone with more money bought yours.

All of the potential problems with GMO crops could easily be accounted for and regulated, if our government officials weren't already bought by the companies in question.

 

[Makalakumu]

Once again, the regulators have been bought by the companies they are supposed to be regulating. Monsanto gets away with an outrageous amount, and they have even managed to get laws passed and judgments made specifically endorsing their practices. Like successfully suing farmers who get Monsanto crops in their fields by accident. By successfully suing seed savers who service non-Monsanto growing farmers because the very existence of seed saving, even with non-Monsanto crops, apparently causes all kinds of criminality. It's actually illegal to question the safety of food products in some places. So much for free speech, eh? Someone with more money bought yours.

All of the potential problems with GMO crops could easily be accounted for and regulated, if our government officials weren't already bought by the companies in question.

Bravo. This corruption is destroying our society and our trust in our institutions.

Here is a good documentary about Monsanto.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...uSqjLLYeYqAPtjdmaAw&q=Food+Documentary&hl=en#

 

[Gordon Nore]

Also, GM crops are not grown on the space station -- in isolation. They're grown here. As I understand it, there's no separating a GM crop from a non-GM crop neighbouring it. For good of for ill, whatever is being grown gets into the ecosystem.

Hadn't been aware of Monsanto's involvement. They were the subject of some controversy years ago in East St Louis, IL, where chemicals from their plant literally ran downhill from their plant into the low-income community. I'll dig back to see what I can find, but I recall it was an ugly little affair.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Also, GM crops are not grown on the space station -- in isolation. They're grown here. As I understand it, there's no separating a GM crop from a non-GM crop neighbouring it. For good of for ill, whatever is being grown gets into the ecosystem.

Hadn't been aware of Monsanto's involvement. They were the subject of some controversy years ago in East St Louis, IL, where chemicals from their plant literally ran downhill from their plant into the low-income community. I'll dig back to see what I can find, but I recall it was an ugly little affair.

Oh yeah, Monsanto *is* GM foods in the USA.

http://www.monsanto.com/biotech-gmo/asp/default.asp

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=3912&context=va

Gene insertion was done using a gene gun (particle bombardment). Kirk, who has an undergraduate degree in biochemistry, understood this to be “a kind of barbaric and messy method of genetic engineering, where you use a gun-like apparatus to bombard the plant tissue with genes that are wrapped around tiny gold particles.” He knew that particle bombardment can cause unpredictable changes and mutations in the DNA, which might result in new types of proteins.
The scientist dismissed these newly created proteins in the cotton plant as unimportant background noise, but Kirk wasn’t convinced. Proteins can have allergenic or toxic properties, but no one at Monsanto had done a safety assessment on them. “I was afraid at that time that some of these proteins may be toxic.” He was particularly concerned that the rogue proteins “might possibly lead to mad cow or some other prion-type diseases.”
Kirk had just been studying mad cow disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) and its human counterpart, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD). These fatal diseases had been tracked to a class of proteins called prions. Short for “proteinaceous infectious particles,” prions are improperly folded proteins, which cause other healthy proteins to also become misfolded. Over time, they cause holes in the brain, severe dysfunction and death. Prions survive cooking and are believed to be transmittable to humans who eat meat from infected “mad” cows. The disease may incubate undetected for about 2 to 8 years in cows and up to 30 years in humans.
When Kirk tried to share his concerns with the scientist, he realized, “He had no idea what I was talking about; he had not even heard of prions. And this was at a time when Europe had a great concern about mad cow disease and it was just before the Nobel prize was won by Stanley Prusiner for his discovery of prion proteins.” Kirk said “These Monsanto scientists are very knowledge about traditional products, like chemicals, herbicides and pesticides, but they don’t understand the possible harmful outcomes of genetic engineering, such as pathophysiology or prion proteins. So I am explaining to him about the potential untoward effects of these foreign proteins, but he just did not understand.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63C2AJ20100414?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Kremer's lab is housed at the University of Missouri and is literally in the shadow of Monsanto Auditorium, named after the $11.8 billion-a-year agricultural giant Monsanto Co. Based in Creve Coeur, Missouri, the company has accumulated vast wealth and power creating chemicals and genetically altered seeds for farmers worldwide.
But recent findings by Kremer and other agricultural scientists are raising fresh concerns about Monsanto's products and the Washington agencies that oversee them. The same seeds and chemicals spread across millions of acres of U.S. farmland could be creating unforeseen problems in the plants and soil, this body of research shows.
Kremer, who works for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service (ARS), is among a group of scientists who are turning up potential problems with glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup and the most widely used weed-killer in the world.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/270101

South African farmers suffered millions of dollars in lost income when 82,000 hectares of genetically-manipulated corn (maize) failed to produce hardly any seeds.The plants look lush and healthy from the outside. Monsanto has offered compensation.
Monsanto blames the failure of the three varieties of corn planted on these farms, in three South African provinces,on alleged 'underfertilisation processes in the laboratory". Some 280 of the 1,000 farmers who planted the three varieties of Monsanto corn this year, have reported extensive seedless corn problems. Urgent investigation demanded However environmental activitist Marian Mayet, director of the Africa-centre for biosecurity in Johannesburg, demands an urgent government investigation and an immediate ban on all GM-foods, blaming the crop failure on Monsanto's genetically-manipulated technology.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto#Notable_quotes

"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.'s job" - Philip Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Playing God in the Garden" New York Times Magazine, October 25, 1998.
"Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety" — FDA, "Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties" (GMO Policy), Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 104 (1992), p. 229

"What you are seeing is not just a consolidation of seed companies, it’s really a consolidation of the entire food chain" - Robert Fraley, co-president of Monsanto's agricultural sector 1996, in the Farm Journal. Quoted in: Flint J. (1998) Agricultural industry giants moving towards genetic monopolism. Telepolis, Heise.
"People will have Roundup Ready soya whether they like it or not" - Ann Foster, spokesperson for Monsanto in Britian, as quoted in The Nation magazine from article "The Politics of Food" [53] by Maria Margaronis December 27, 1999 issue.

"What I saw generically on the pro-biotech side was the attitude that the technology was good and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn't good because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you're against it, you're Luddites, you're stupid. There was rhetoric like that even here in this department. You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view on some of the issues being raised. So I pretty much spouted the rhetoric that everybody else around here spouted; it was written into my speeches" - Dan Glickman, United States Secretary of Agriculture from 1995 until 2001

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0711/S00366.htm

Currently, all the GM seeds commercially sown in the world are controlled by Monsanto (about 90%), Syngenta, Dupont, Bayer, Dow and BASF. At the same time the top three, Monsanto, Syngenta and Dupont, together own 44 per cent of the sales of patented seeds worldwide. If they manage to consolidate new sales niches "needing" their patented seeds, they will increase their profits and their control of seed - key to the whole human and animal food chain - with a venture into another key sector : fuels.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/12/b...l-s-remarks-on-hormones.html?sec=health&spon=

Monsanto Sues Dairy in Maine Over Label's Remarks on Hormones
By DAVID BARBOZA
Published: July 12, 2003
CHICAGO, July 11— In another sign of how contentious food labeling issues have become in recent years, the Monsanto Company has sued a small milk producer in Portland, Me., over the labeling of its dairy products.

Monsanto has accused Oakhurst Dairy Inc. of engaging in misleading and deceptive marketing practices by carrying labels that seem to disparage the use of artificial growth hormones in cows.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-01-13-biotech-pirates_x.htm
Posted 1/13/2005 6:51 PM

Enforcing single-season seeds, Monsanto sues farmers
By Paul Elias, Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO — Monsanto's "seed police" snared soy farmer Homan McFarling in 1999, and the company is demanding he pay it hundreds of thousands of dollars for alleged technology piracy.

McFarling's sin? He saved seed from one harvest and replanted it the following season, a revered and ancient agricultural practice.

"My daddy saved seed. I saved seed," said McFarling, 62, who still grows soy on the 5,000 acre family farm in Shannon, Miss. and is fighting the agribusiness giant in court.

Saving Monsanto's seeds, genetically engineered to kill bugs and resist weed sprays, violates provisions of the company's contracts with farmers. (Related story: Bumper harvest comes amid mounting discord)

Since 1997, Monsanto has filed similar lawsuits 90 times in 25 states including North Dakota against 147 farmers and 39 agriculture companies, according to a report issued Thursday by The Center for Food Safety, a biotechnology foe.

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we...page=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

St. Paul Pioneer Press (MN) - February 19, 1994 - 4A Main

MONSANTO SUES DAIRY CO-OP
Monsanto Co. has sued an eastern Iowa dairy cooperative that is refusing to buy milk from farmers who treat their cows with a new hormone that stimulates milk production.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-76698842.html

Ordinarily, when an industry pollutes the environment, the victims go to court and sue for damages. So, in 1998, when pollen from a field of Monsanto's genetically engineered (GE) canola seeds drifted over neighboring fields and infected a patch of canola being grown by Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser, a lawsuit quickly followed.

But this lawsuit was different: It was the St. Louis-based multinational that sued the 70-year-old farmer. Monsanto claimed that Schmeiser had misappropriated the company's patented property -- i.e., its genetically engineered pollen.

Schmeiser was both indignant and dumbfounded. "If I would go to St. Louis and contaminate their plots -- destroy what they have worked on for 40 years -- I think I would be put in jail," he said.

On March 29, 2001, Federal Judge W. Andrew MacKay ruled that Schmeiser's canola plants had violated Monsanto's patent rights.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicago...n+suing+farmers,+food+group+says&pqatl=google

Study: Biotech firm a bully ; Monsanto 'ruthless' in suing farmers, food group says
[Chicago Final Edition]
Chicago Tribune - Chicago, Ill.
Author: Andrew Martin, Washington Bureau
Date: Jan 14, 2005
The heart of the problem, the study said, is a "technology agreement" that farmers must sign each year when they buy Monsanto's biotech seeds. By doing so, the farmers give Monsanto access to their personal financial records and property, the study said.

http://www.rherald.com/news/2006-01-05/Columns/col03.html

At Butterworks we are working to bring seed corn back to Vermont. This year we made a significant investment of time, labor and money to plant a specific organic seed corn crop.

If our crop was contaminated by our neighbor's GMO crops, our investment would be lost. We would have had no legal protection. Under current law we would have to sue our neighbor for damages, something we would never want to do.

The labeling issue is important, but we are really concerned about possible GMO contamination among local crops. There is no doubt GMO pollen drifts and contaminates the crops of non-GMO farmers. Crop testing confirms it. Monsanto's GMO seed contract admits pollen drift between fields is a "well known" occurrence and they have sued farmers over it. When contamination happens it costs farmers money and markets.

Monsanto has started dozens of lawsuits and hundreds of investigations of farmers they say have GMO crops growing in their fields though the farmers did not buy or plant them.

A conventional soybean farmer in North Dakota lost his contract with a Japanese soy sauce maker when his crop tested positive for GMOs.

Grain companies specializing in non-GMO grains regularly find grain from non-GMO farms contaminated with GMOs.A Wisconsin farmer lost his contract to sell organic corn when his crop was contaminated.

In Australia, GMO canola genes were found in non-GMO crops even though there is a GMO ban covering half of the country. Anheuser Busch threatened to boycott Missouri rice until a biotech company agreed to grow GMO rice far from the non-GMO rice fields the beer maker uses.

In Vermont one of 12 non-GMO farms tested positive for GMO contamination. There are a lot of other examples.

 

[Makalakumu]

Monsanto is the perfect example of the evil powers that free people are going to fight in the coming years.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Monsanto is the perfect example of the evil powers that free people are going to fight in the coming years.

I don't think of Monsanto as 'evil'. I think of them as an example of a corporation doing what for-profit public corporations are intended to do - generate maximum returns for their shareholders. They are taking advantage of the laxness of regulatory and oversight processes that apparently exist, and they are using their size and wealthy to ensure that the political process continues to exclude their industry from such regulations and oversight. I would expect that. I would also expect the government to ignore such attempts at manipulation and to regulate this industry anyway.

It's not personal; Monsanto is a corporation that has achieved enviable success. However, the arenas in which they function are rife with danger to the public well-being, and as such, the government has an obligation to the public to regulate. Government must create the laws, Monsanto and others like them must comply with them. In the absence of such laws, even when Monsanto has been active in ensuring they don't exist, one can hardly call Monsanto 'evil' for taking advantage of such laxness.

 

[Makalakumu]

I don't think of Monsanto as 'evil'. I think of them as an example of a corporation doing what for-profit public corporations are intended to do - generate maximum returns for their shareholders. They are taking advantage of the laxness of regulatory and oversight processes that apparently exist, and they are using their size and wealthy to ensure that the political process continues to exclude their industry from such regulations and oversight. I would expect that. I would also expect the government to ignore such attempts at manipulation and to regulate this industry anyway.

It's not personal; Monsanto is a corporation that has achieved enviable success. However, the arenas in which they function are rife with danger to the public well-being, and as such, the government has an obligation to the public to regulate. Government must create the laws, Monsanto and others like them must comply with them. In the absence of such laws, even when Monsanto has been active in ensuring they don't exist, one can hardly call Monsanto 'evil' for taking advantage of such laxness.

Yeah, but we are talking about people like you and I. When I think about some of the things that Monsanto does, I think that I'm strong enough morally, that I couldn't do that to someone. I imagine myself as Monsanto and my neighbors as everybody else. What would my neighbors think of my behavior if I did this on a local level?

I have a very relative view of "good" and "evil" however, when abuses are so egregious and premeditated, I feel the need to call a spade a spade. With Monsanto, we have an avaricious, predatory, and rapacious multi-corporation that will do whatever it takes to pad it's bottom line.

An old definition of evil, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law," really seems to fit in this case.

Monsanto isn't the only corporation that fits that bill, BTW, IMO.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

With Monsanto, we have an avaricious, predatory, and rapacious multi-corporation that will do whatever it takes to pad it's bottom line.

If you insert the word 'legally' between "it takes" and "to" in the sentence above, that is every for-profit corporation, or it should be. The corporation has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to return maximum return on their investment. Greed, as Gordon Gekko said, is good.

An old definition of evil, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law," really seems to fit in this case.

That's not the definition of evil. That is the personal quote of one Aleister Crowley, often dubbed the 'Wickedest Man in the World,' but actually hardly more than a side-show Satanist. It is also the one and only commandment of the Church of Satan, another side-show act.

Monsanto isn't the only corporation that fits that bill, BTW, IMO.

I think ascribing emotions such as 'greedy' or 'evil' to a corporation is a weak argument for describing what might really be wrong with it. I have no problem with greed. Sod corporations who operate for-profit but choose to screw over their investors to play all nicey-nice with public opinion, unless it is to maximize return on investment (like the current hoopla over being 'green').

 

[Makalakumu]

If you insert the word 'legally' between "it takes" and "to" in the sentence above, that is every for-profit corporation, or it should be. The corporation has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to return maximum return on their investment. Greed, as Gordon Gekko said, is good.

At what cost though? Lots of things are legal, but are, in fact, very harmful to a large amount of people. Where do you draw the line?

That's not the definition of evil. That is the personal quote of one Aleister Crowley, often dubbed the 'Wickedest Man in the World,' but actually hardly more than a side-show Satanist. It is also the one and only commandment of the Church of Satan, another side-show act.

Hey, I liked it, simplistic as it is. Of course it's more complicated.

I think ascribing emotions such as 'greedy' or 'evil' to a corporation is a weak argument for describing what might really be wrong with it. I have no problem with greed. Sod corporations who operate for-profit but choose to screw over their investors to play all nicey-nice with public opinion, unless it is to maximize return on investment (like the current hoopla over being 'green').

With some things, there is no need to intentionally muddy the waters. I'm sure if we sat down and chatted we could come up with a list of things that are clearly unethical/immoral. As a society, that's what we do on a larger scale anyway.

Monsanto gets away with what they do because they manipulate public opinion through misinformation, lies and public ignorance/apathy. When you delve into the details, however, people in my neck of the woods will nearly all agree that it's wrong to do that.

When you have time, check out the documentary I posted above. It pretty much explains why many GMO foods and other Monsanto business practices are hated and banned in countries around the world.

The bottom line is that I don't ascribe to any absolute universal definition of "good" or "evil" but I am willing to make personal decisions based on my background and the relevant information. Monsanto has shown that will do some very unethical/immoral things in order form a monopoly and pad its bottom line.

That's not going to change until enough of us start pointing a finger and say, "Hey, buddy, that some evil **** you're doing."

It's just a label.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

With corporations, I draw the line at 'legal' and 'illegal' and not 'moral' and 'immoral'. For-profit corporations in a capitalist society have no morality, nor should they. They have an obligation to shareholders and to obey the law and NOTHING MORE.

If Monsanto is behaving in a way that we find unethical and therefore wrong (and I'd agree they are), then it is incumbent upon the government to regulate that behavior and upon the people to ensure they do it. Corporations are going to behave in the best interests of their shareholders, period, end of story. Arguments about their 'moral obligations' don't wash with me, I'm a capitalist pig. If we don't like what they're doing, we can regulate it. If we fail to do that and they ram it in deep, it's our fault.

 

[Makalakumu]

If we fail to do that and they ram it in deep, it's our fault.

Isn't that like saying a woman who dresses sexy and gets raped is really at fault for her rape?

Monsanto has been caught red handed doing illegal things and slapped on the wrist because they own the regulators in the government. Also, they change the laws to make things that were formally illegal legal so they can make even more money. This occurs because these corporations own the government, the media, and the judicial system through the massive amounts of money the can dump into it. The system is quickly reaching a point of total corruption.

When do we stop giving the people who built this system a pass? When are they held accountable for using the power of their organization to hurt a lot of people? I believe that the people involved in this corporation share the responsibility for what the organization does. The leaders of the corporation have a moral responsibility just like the leaders of our country are morally responsible for what they do.

I won't give Bush or Obama a pass for continuing useless wars at the behest of their corporate/financier bosses. Nor will I give Monsanto a pass for what they do, even if society is too dumbed down, numbed, infotained, distracted and drugged to care.

I don't think we should excuse other for treating people like that.

 

[Blade96]

GMF's? Ewww. I even read some people were trying to create pigs with a mouse gene. apparently because the droppings are easier on the environment so i read.

I can picture it: Would you like some mouse - er, bacon with your eggs and hash browns?

like i said. eww.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Isn't that like saying a woman who dresses sexy and gets raped is really at fault for her rape?

No, because rape is illegal. Being 'evil' is not illegal.

Monsanto has been caught red handed doing illegal things and slapped on the wrist because they own the regulators in the government.

Yes, and this is what I have said needs to be changed. We, the people, are responsible for making sure that gets done.

Also, they change the laws to make things that were formally illegal legal so they can make even more money. This occurs because these corporations own the government, the media, and the judicial system through the massive amounts of money the can dump into it. The system is quickly reaching a point of total corruption.

Be that as it may, the people still have the power of the ballot box, and can change the game entirely at will. We don't, which means we must be OK with it; or uninformed; or apathetic.

When do we stop giving the people who built this system a pass? When are they held accountable for using the power of their organization to hurt a lot of people?

It's up to us, the voters. If we don't stop letting them do these things, we are responsible. I don't believe in our current culture of victimhood, where bad things just happen to poor innocent us. The price of freedom, as they say, is eternal vigilance. If we're asleep at the switch, that's our fault.

I believe that the people involved in this corporation share the responsibility for what the organization does. The leaders of the corporation have a moral responsibility just like the leaders of our country are morally responsible for what they do.

I don't. Their only responsibilities are to obey the law and maximize return for their shareholders. Nothing more.

I won't give Bush or Obama a pass for continuing useless wars at the behest of their corporate/financier bosses. Nor will I give Monsanto a pass for what they do, even if society is too dumbed down, numbed, infotained, distracted and drugged to care.

Now we're off in the weeds.

I don't think we should excuse other for treating people like that.

You can't prosecute people for breaking laws that don't exist, or for not being nice to each other, us, or the environment. We live in a system of laws, not a system of being nice to each other or else.

With regard to Monsanto, it is clear that we need stronger regulations with some real teeth to them. There is a way to make that happen, and that is for the electorate to make it clear to our elected officials that we care about it.

So I agree with you that something should be done, and that Monsanto and companies like them represent a threat to our health and safety as long as they're allowed to essentially run rampant with the genetic splicing, etc, and no safeguards in place.

I do not agree with you that 'the government' needs to do something. It's counter-productive and useless, demanding that someone else make our problem all better, and blaming everyone but ourselves. It's government's fault for being in the pocket of the corporations. It's the corporation's fault for being big and greedy and evil. It's everybody's fault but ours, eh? No, sir, it is our fault. Ours.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

GMF's? Ewww. I even read some people were trying to create pigs with a mouse gene. apparently because the droppings are easier on the environment so i read.

I can picture it: Would you like some mouse - er, bacon with your eggs and hash browns?

like i said. eww.

DNA is DNA. It's all the same at that level, so really there is no difference between mouse DNA and pig DNA other than the order in which it is assembled. And since every living thing on this planet originally came from the same single-celled organism (they say), it was all once part of the same thing anyway.

So I have no moral objection to the concept of gene-splicing or the use of recombinant DNA to create hybrids which result in desired outcomes, whatever those might be. My objection is to uncontrolled genetic manipulation making it into the public food supply with very little or no scientific study or government regulation or oversight.

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2001/05/43447

 

[Blade96]

can't disagree with that one, Bill.

 

[Makalakumu]

Now we're off in the weeds.

.
That's where you find the good stuff, Bill.

You can't prosecute people for breaking laws that don't exist, or for not being nice to each other, us, or the environment. We live in a system of laws, not a system of being nice to each other or else.

Crimes against humanity. The precedent was set by the Nuremberg trials and the Hague. Things can be legal and still can be wrong. Imagine if we applied that standard to corporations and made it retroactive.

I agree, people are responsible for getting screwed. They need to stand up and stop it. And the people who make decisions to do something terrible to their fellow man, like kill them, give them diseases, steal their property, lie to them about risks, etc, need to be held accountable.

As long as we persist with the idea that corporations only responsible for generating profits for the shareholders, we are going to continue to see abuses. These people are responsible for society and for the damage that they do. No matter what kind of laws that they pass, no matter how they slice it to rationalize, they are responsible for the pain and suffering that they cause.

It's this higher standard of behavior that people have to strive for before we really get any kind of social action. MLK strove after a higher standard in order to achieve some measure of equality for African Americans in our country. It was legal for our country to do that stuff to a particular group of citizens and it was wrong.

See what I mean?