An interesting article about Monosanto.

Well said.

this is 100% true. if anyone or any company has endangered your safety then you need to take them to court and prove your case. once your case has been proven then they should be required to compensate you for your lose.

I believe Monsanto did in fact take cases to court when they felt that there patents were being infringed upon.

I have no desires to give Monsanto special treatment. I also don't wish to give you special treatment.

__________________
Greg

nope. when where you forced to buy a product from Monsanto? if you have been wronged I urge you to file suit. you have every right to defend yourself.

__________________
Greg

I actually favor labeling products. I do not favor the federal government forcing labeling. business will provide products people want and are willing to buy. use your buying choices to determine what is provided. start a facebook group to encourage others to join you. call and write letters to companies. there are a ton of things you can do that do not involve the federal government.
ask any farmer here and they will tell you that they will grow what they can sell at a profit.
I do not have a right to tell farmerdale what to grow or how to grow it. I have every right to decide if I wish to purchase what he grows or not. if enough people do that then he will change what he grows or how he grows it.

famerdale I hope you don't mind me using you as an example. I am not picking on you nor do I know what you grow or how you grow it. your name just stuck in my mind on this topic

__________________
Greg

Economically, it could certainly hurt someone who is in the organic business. And the jury is indeed out about the long term safety of many of Monsantos products.
Believe me, if I felt I needed to take on Monsanto in court, I would.

And I can tell you that although I dont purchase Monsanto GMO products, I can guarantee you that contaminated pollen will end up on my land, on my OWN crops that I do eat. So whether I have agreed to purchase anything from them is not relevant. Their product is in the food we eat, the air we breathe, and the water we drink.

Also, I will support any and all 'truth in labeling' petitions that I can find. Sorry, but I don't trust for-profit companies to have my best interests in mind when they concoct their schemes to make money.

Regulating interstate commerce is indeed the domain of the federal government. And if the people want labels, and many do, then they have every right to petition the government for such a regulation. The chemical companies fight GMO labeling tooth and nail, because they KNOW an educated consumer is more likely to choose a non-GMO product.

I don't trust for profit companies to have my best interest in mind either, nor do I trust the government to have my best interest in mind. my best interest for me lies solely on me.
I would suggest you have your seed tested for gmo traces that way when your seed becomes infected with the gmo pollen you can sue for just compensation for the damage done to your crops. they do not have the right to harm you just as you don't have a right to harm them.

__________________
Greg

What do you want rapeseed for?
Industrial oil?

There are MANY non gmo varieties of CANOLA out there, though few farmers choose them as they require WAY more amounts of herbicide, and WAY more potent, soil applied herbicides to grow them effectively. I have grown non GMO canola many times, and I have no problem getting hundreds of acres of pure seed in the midst of millions of acres of gm production. Sounds like too many are depending on the lies in food inc.!

Well here is an interesting labeling case where Monsanto invented a growth hormone named rbGH (commomly called BGH or bovine growth hormone) which causes cows to produce higher volumes of milk. The FDA tested the product and ruled that there was essentially no difference in composition of milk produced with the hormone or without the hormone. But many dairymen disagreed and decided to produce rbGH free milk and labeled it "rbGH free". What followed was a Monsanto $ backed objection from rfGH producers who felt their FDA approved safe product was being unfairly discriminated against by rbGH free producers!!!! So rbGH producers from many states went to court over the labeling issue and were winning .... but when the issue went to court in Ohio a judge ruled in favor of the rbGH free labeling and also proved that rbGH produced milk was potentially harmful.

But in the end, Monsanto fought back and now a disclaimer is required on all "rbGH free" milk.

.... So I just went to the refrigerator and am reading the label of a milk container

"TURNER'S milk is produced fresh by local family dairy farms who pledge NOT to use rbGH growth hormone on their cows.

(then follows this disclaimer)

"FDA says no significant difference in milk from cows treated with rbGH"


..... which just shows how much Monsanto has influenced the FDA !!!!!

http://news.change.org/stories/feder...ree-milk-label

http://www.foodpolitics.com/2010/10/...ilk-rbgh-free/

ok so whats your point here? just that Monsanto has deep pockets and influence with the FDA? if that is the case then I agree. I am not defending Monsanto.
I am against what I orginally posted about in this thread. a consumer has no right to force an entity to do a certain thing. they do have the right to purchase/ not purchase the goods or services though.

in the above example then you have your label so I don't see what the problem is.

__________________
Greg

.... intent is to illustrate how devious the gov (FDA) and big biz (MONSANTO) can be...

sorry if I wondered off topic a bit.

johnny I agree completely with the above.

__________________
Greg

I don't either. That is what so many people simply cannot realize is that's it not simply genetic engineering; it's a loss of liberty and a threat to life itself.