Skip to main content

View Diary: Greenpeace Convinces China to Ditch GE Rice (183 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  no need for sighs my dear (0+ / 0-)

    From wikipedia -
    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    "Now, at 70, I am involved with this fight with Monsanto. I stood up to them because a farmer should never give up the right to use his own seed. I felt very strongly about it because my grandparents came here from Europe in late 1890s and early 1900s to open this land, to be free, and to grow what they wanted to grow. Now we are going back to a feudal system that they left because they were not free—basically we are becoming serfs of the land." — Percy Schmeiser in an interview with Acres USA
     
    and
    "Schmeiser v. Monsanto

    On August 11, 1999, Schmeiser sued Monsanto for ten million dollars for "libel, trespass, and contamination of his fields with Roundup Ready Canola". However, that suit went nowhere[citation needed]. In 2005, more Roundup Ready Canola plants appeared in Schmeiser's fields. Schmeiser and his wife sent Monsanto a bill for $660 in cleanup costs. Monsanto offered to pay the costs with the stipulation that the Schmeisers sign a release stating they would not discuss the terms of the agreement; Percy described this release as a gag order. Schmeiser refused to sign, and filed a lawsuit in small claims court for the same amount. On March 19, 2008 Monsanto settled out of court, paying the $660 without stipulation.[2]"

    and I have now read about Dunning Kruger - very interesting idea.
    How do you know, mem from somerville that you do not suffer from this cognitive disorder?
    perhaps you are the one in denial.

    I guess we'll never know......

    cheers :)

    •  You know Schmeiser lost the larger case, right? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mem from somerville

      Schmeiser wasn't penalized for accidental contamination, which only affected a small portion of his crop.  He was penalized for this:

      The courts at all three levels noted that the case of accidental contamination beyond the farmer's control was not under consideration but rather that Mr. Schmeiser's action of having identified, isolated and saved the Roundup-resistant seed placed the case in a different category.
      Schmeiser didn't have to pay damages but he did have to turn all his 97/98 seed to Monsanto and pay his own court costs, which dwarfed the paltry $660 he got out of the company for cleanup.

      In other words, the exact opposite of what you claimed at the top of the thread.  Beware of taking Mercola at face value: you should see the stuff he's written on HIV/AIDS and vaccines.  

      Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

      by pico on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 06:23:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  yes, you are correct that (0+ / 0-)

        he lost the bigger case.

        Well, regarding the 97/98 seed and that lawsuit(which I didn't know about till I read the wikipedia link that I posted) my thought on that is that there is something just plain wrong about turning thousands of years - maybe hundreds of thousands of years of cultivation on its head by companies like Monsanto that maneuver to get control over nature's seeds by changing those seeds and patenting the change, thus, as Schmeiser said, turning farmers into serfs.

        The seeds gleaned from the sweat of farmers in the cultivation of our food should not belong to a corporation. Monsanto, Syngenta et all have played some dirty tricks here and a corrupted Congress has allowed it to happen.

        Big Ag was given a helping hand by Reagan as farmers were driven into bankruptcy and their land and farming equipment and livestock and homes were picked up at auction by Big Ag.

        Our food supply is far the worse for this. Using Bovine Growth Hormone to increase the "yield" of milk, for example, - with cows with swollen udders that get infected and getting antibiotics to keep the infection at bay is having a death wish as resistant bacteria become harder to fight in the medical area.

        Agriculture has taken a bad turn as a result of huge conglomerates turning farming and ranching into assembly lines with no standards except for increasing profits.

        It's become quite a nasty business.

        A similar disgrace is T Boone Pickens and Bechtel and others trying to buy up water rights to huge water sheds and ogalas and aquifers here at home and in other countries like Bolivia where Bechtel was finally driven out.

        It is an effort to achieve human slavery rather than self-sufficiency!

        So whether or not Percy Schmeiser broke a factual law, in the bigger picture, IMO,  he was trying to do what was right for the survival of farmers and good for him! He didn't have the law on his side because the laws have been written for Monsanto and the others like them.

        You are welcome to have your view on this but I think that going down this path leads to disaster.

        We've already seen some small evidence of that with the conventionally grown spinach contaminated by e-coli from the cattle shit that washed over it. And other "scares" in the factory farming litany of how non sustainable farming is so counterproductive to our health and well being while those who control it get super rich.. Even mad cow disease is from feeding cattle chopped up parts of animals in spite of the fact that cattle have evolved as herbivores.
        http://www.shepherds-rod-message.org/...

        So in the end, we have to ask - what the fuck are we doing here?

        •  Maybe you can explain this to me: (0+ / 0-)
          So whether or not Percy Schmeiser broke a factual law, in the bigger picture, IMO,  he was trying to do what was right for the survival of farmers and good for him!
          Schmeiser had no problem with genetically modified crops: he recognized they were superior to his own seed, cultivated them, and used them to plant his next year's crop.  How does this make him a hero for farming survival?  He was doing what other farmers do, but without paying for it.  He was not fighting for sustainability or organic produce.

          This conversations are always mish-mashes, because you're not distinguishing between 1. the biology of GMO, 2. human health, 3. business practices, and 4. patent law.  For you, they're all the same thing, so when the science-knowledgeable people come here to critique the ignorance about genes and modification (1), and about their impact on human health (2), they get accused of being on the Monsanto payroll (3).  That doesn't speak very highly of you, ya know?

          Just look at this thread: you've got the basic facts of this case all confused.  

          Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

          by pico on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 11:14:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I'm sure you'll never know (0+ / 0-)

      and I'm sure that Radical Def won't either.

      But the good news is that the levels of cluelessness exhibited on this topic mean that the actual science will go on, and none of you will understand it either--hence you'll be unable to interfere.

      Keep aiming at the wrong targets. That will actually be fine. Thanks for your help.

      “I apologise ...for not making myself clear. I should have said that this new age drivel is undermining the very fabric of our civilisation --@ProfBrianCox

      by mem from somerville on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 08:50:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  do you do the "science"? (0+ / 0-)

        thanks.

        •  I do the "science". (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          eve

          I have 3 degrees in the relevant biology, and years of professional practice. I have been a science activist combatting crankery here and elsewhere for many years.

          Would it really matter to you?

          Did you check Radical Def's credentials too?

          “I apologise ...for not making myself clear. I should have said that this new age drivel is undermining the very fabric of our civilisation --@ProfBrianCox

          by mem from somerville on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 11:23:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  no, you were the person who (0+ / 0-)

            brought up the science and so I asked you about it. :)

            I have a lot of respect for people who work in the sciences and envy too because it must be fascinating.

            And every now and then I'll read a book like Brian Greene's book "Fabric of the Cosmos" and David Quamman's book "Song of the Dodo". (I don't think David Quammen is a practicing scientist but he may have some training in science.)

            These books are written for the layman (laywoman?) and thus are "digestible". And I've enjoyed them.

            At the same time I have been fascinated by people like the Swedish scientist (I think he was Swedish and worked here on the H bomb) whose interview I watched when he was in his 80's.
            He said something to the effect that he spent 20 years studying, 20 years working as a scientist and 20 years  trying to make up for the outcome of his earlier life. (he might have referred to thirds of his life instead of 20 years each, but I distinctly remember this 80 year old scientist who was talking about his current work to get rid of nuclear bombs, etc.

            I suspect you have worked very hard and continue to work very hard. And I also expect that the environment in which you work would be very unfriendly towards anyone who had doubts about what the outcome of their work would be.

            I wish you the best of luck coping with all this.

            I'm not a scientist, as I've said, but I would imagine there must be some questions that arise from time to time about unintended consequences.
            We're only human and most of us try to do the best we can.
            Best of luck to you.

            •  This is not the way it works (0+ / 0-)
              And I also expect that the environment in which you work would be very unfriendly towards anyone who had doubts about what the outcome of their work would be.
              We challenge each other continuously. If you can't defend your own position, you'll make the lab look bad and all your colleagues look bad.

              That's why it's so horrifying to me to see libruls get sucked into the lies and frauds certain topics like this one. It makes this team weaker to be so gullible and wrong. And liars and the gullible make bad allies too.

              I can't stop people from lying. But I can contribute to correcting the story and maybe some people will see what the reality is.

              “I apologise ...for not making myself clear. I should have said that this new age drivel is undermining the very fabric of our civilisation --@ProfBrianCox

              by mem from somerville on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 03:01:48 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I'm also curious (0+ / 0-)

              When Michael Mann was here, did you ask him if that's why he's in the battle he is on climate?

              And I also expect that the environment in which you work would be very unfriendly towards anyone who had doubts about what the outcome of their work would be.
              Do you really think that's why climate scientists are behaving as they are?  And were you curious if he's going to feel bad in 20 years about what he's done?

              “I apologise ...for not making myself clear. I should have said that this new age drivel is undermining the very fabric of our civilisation --@ProfBrianCox

              by mem from somerville on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 04:57:54 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  who's Michael Mann? (0+ / 0-)

                I'm not familiar with him.....
                ........

                np

                I just googled Michael Mann and found out that he is a climate scientist who believes that if we don't reduce our carbon emissions we'll be getting into some trouble.

                The quote you use from my comment did not express what I meant to say very well.
                I did not mean that the experimental results of science would be arbitrarily rejected.
                I understand a little about the scientific method and peer review and all that.
                I am not questioning the results of honest science.

                I am saying that even though tests in a laboratory may prove  a particular cause and effect there may be unintended consequences that have not been proven or disproven for that matter.

                For example, one may prove in a laboratory that round up ready plants survive being planted in a round up doused field where other plants, like weeds cannot survive but the scientific test to prove this does not address the possibility that weeds or insects may evolve to develop immunity over time to the toxins in the round up, thus nullifying the "work" of the round up and leaving us in a mess.

                That would be an unintended consequence that has not been considered. Is it not?

                There are, it seems, always unintended consequences when actions are taken. - some "good" some "bad".

                My question is:
                does Monsanto et al develop "round up" type products  for the purpose of enhancing nutrition or to monopolize the seed stock?

                I have the impression that nutrition is definitely not the goal - although increased "yield" seems to be a "selling point". But that is a questionable selling point when the net result is poorer quality or poorer nutrition.
                We evolved along with the plants that provide nutrition.
                Not with Monsanto's vision to short circuit hundreds of millions of years of evolution
                So what is Monsanto really doing here with their science?

                 

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site