Monsanto puts all liability for GM seeds on farmers

bees ruled by queens
bees rule
bees
I like bees

...and don't feed the trolls

I LOVE your avatar!
The White Buffalo of the north, wisdom according to native tradition.
This is the time of the White Buffalo Calf Woman, when our Earth is cleansed and we are renewed.
Will it require an ice age to undo our damage?
Or will enough people catch on before it's too late to fix?
I guess that's still up to us.....

That's one of those "damned if the do, damned if they don't" things.

By making the GMO crops sterile, they are accused of exerting monopoly control, forcing farmers to buy new seedlings from them.

If they left the GMO crops fertile, they would be accused of recklessness, because the crops could cross-breed with other strains, and spread to other farms that did not want GMOs.

And in either case it is a proven truth. Some however refuse to see that truth.

What is a proven truth that anyone is refusing to see?

I pointed out the situation, with two options, and that no mater what they do, it will be considered the wrong thing to do.

I would think that making the crops sterile would be the preferred option, wouldn't you?

You are the one using Monsanto as the scapegoat to try to make people think GMOs are perfectly safe when you have never proven so simply because you think science is good and nature is bad. And it is not just Monsanto but BASF, Bayer and Syngenta to name a few of the companies that have been sued for contamination which is a reality regarding GMOs. And of course you would think making seeds sterile is a good option because it keeps "science" making money while killing nature. You do come off as someone with little knowledge about the ramifications of this. Again, it will not BE considered the wrong thing to do, it has already HARMED the environment, biodiversity, farmer's livelihoods and the health of animals and other species. When you can cite specific peer reviewed tests not funded by Monsanto or another biotech company proving irrefutably the safety of these organisms in all conditions and that they do not transfer horizontally then get back to us. Until then you are simply looking like someone who supports science even when it is irresponsible.

You say:
"You are the one using Monsanto as the scapegoat to try to make people think GMOs are perfectly safe when you have never proven so simply because you think science is good and nature is bad."

Jan, I never did any such thing.

I never claimed anything is perfectly safe, or that anything is perfectly anything ever.

I never said "nature is bad".

What I said is that genetic engineering is a scientific discipline with a huge potential, so it should not be judged by the actions of one company- or any companies.

You, however, are doing exactly what you falsely claim I am doing- you are using Monsanto as the scapegoat to try to make people think GMOs are ALWAYS bad when you have never proven so simply because you think nature is good and is science bad.

Jan, you can't even counter what I say when you don't even understand what I'm saying.

Instead, you are reacting emotionally, and launching insults and straw man attacks.

Please stop doing that.

You say:
"And of course you would think making seeds sterile is a good option because it keeps "science" making money while killing nature."

Yeah Jan, I am all for huge corporations destroying the environment.
Why are you demonstrating to everyone reading this how you simply attack anyone with a different opinion instead of addressing what they actually say?

You say:
"You do come off as someone with little knowledge about the ramifications of this."

LOL!!! No Jan, I come off as sone who understands science, and who realizes no human being knows the ramifications of anything- that's progress.

You say:
"When you can cite specific peer reviewed tests not funded by Monsanto or another biotech company proving irrefutably the safety of these organisms in all conditions and that they do not transfer horizontally then get back to us. Until then you are simply looking like someone who supports science even when it is irresponsible."

Jan, I want you to look at what you just wrote, and think about it.
Think about the words you used- you think anything without "irrefutably" is "irresponsible".

Can you think of ANYTHING that has ever been irrefutable?
Has any scientific advance ever met your criteria?

How about, instead of making some broad imposible requirements for scientific advancement, you accept that just maybe, just maybe, not all science is irresponsible?

How about this Jan- try responding to me without any insults at all, if you can.

If it does grow it grows all screwed up like.

Absolutely agree. They need to face justice all the way from their Agent Orange days that are still having an effect on succeeding generations.

We say No to them. There are more of us than them.

Their tactics have rendered simply saying no is not enough. Look at India and how farmers have been choked out by Monsanto. Your crop cannot survive next to someone spraying the equivalent of agent orange on their herbicide resistant crop.
Farmers are literally killing themselves due to this.

I know, but it is the farmers to a large degree who will determine the outcome of this. Are they willing to stand up for their land? This is why we need to bring this to light in the American media which has been silent about this stealth attack on our food system. This is why we need people willing to bring it out, and farmers willing to stand up to them here like they do in other countries. Short of pulling their profits out of the ground as a symbol of civil disobedience, these are things as well as boycotting in our grasp we can do.

You were not wrong- there is great benefit to be derived from genetic engineering of crops, and the actions of one evil corporation do not change those future benefits.

Don't confuse an entire scientific discipline with Monsanto; they are two completely different things.

There is great benefit to be derived from Nuclear Power Generation, but until we've handled and mitigated the potential harmful effects, it might be best left for more research in the laboratory. To date we've been very lucky.
GM crops need the same kind of oversight in light of the harm and devastation one multi-national corporation such as Monsanto has been responsible for, or even better, claims no responsibility for.
There is a great deal to learn researching and producing GM crops, but until there's more oversight and accountability, that learning may best be restricted to the laboratory.

Yes and no-

I'm all for government oversight of just about everything corporations do, no mater what technologies are involved or not involved.

Yes, there is a lot of research left to do in the laboratory, but a lot of the problems with GM are not about things we do not know, but the intent of the company doing the engineering.

Monsanto's goal is to produce crops that are resistant to their pesticide, Roundup.
They don't give a damn about anything else.

As far as I know, they were completely successful in their goal- the crops resist Roundup. Yes, that's like saying Creuella DeVille was successful in killing puppies to make a coat- but by their definition of success, they were a success.

The problem is that many anti-GMO activists don't realize genetic engineering can have many goals, thus many results; and we should applaud and encourage THOSE scientists to HAVE successes.

It is like the diference between a car, a plane, and a boat.
Three vehicles, three different goals, all engineered.

Anti-GMO activists complain because the car can't fly or go on water, when it was never intended to.

So, they attack all three vehicles- including the one that can go over water, the one that can fly, and even the one that can fly over water- just because all of those vehicles were engineered.

Some were engineered by big evil companies with evil goals, others engineered by big nice companies with nice goals, others engineered by small groups of nice people- all different, yet all of "engineering" gets attacked.

That is not a good thing.

It is just rampant anti-intellectualism, and paranoid fear of the unknown; the same things we on the left make fun of FOX News for using to promote their agenda.

Listen to Einstein:
"The discovery of nuclear chain reactions need not bring about the destruction of mankind any more than did the discovery of matches. We only must do everything in our power to safeguard against its abuse."
That advent of GM crops need not cause our food crops to become less diverse and as a result be more vulnerable to environmental changes. In the meantime I stress caution. Not Luddite or anti-science caution, but caution based on respect for unforeseen consequences and the valuable lessons being taught by an unfettered Monsanto.

Are you saying I am unintelligent? Is Vandana Shiva an anti- intellectual? Are the scientists being gagged about this? Stooping kind of low now aren't you?

I agree.

Why do you turn discussions into personal attacks, instead of actually addressing the points presented?

I said absolutely nothing about you or your intelligence, nor did I say anything about the intelligence of any other individual.

Will you address what I did actually write?

By turning what I said INTO a personal attack to avoid issues you are stooping kind of low.

"It is just rampant anti-intellectualism, and paranoid fear of the unknown;"
Explain it then.

Explain what? Anti-intellectualism does not mean stupidity. It means a belief that experts are "so-called experts", and that science are all clueless individuals who don't know what they are doing, and anyone with access to Google knows as much as someone with a Doctorate in Biology.

As for paranoid fear of the unknown, it's the concept that all future possibilities must be "irrefutable" or it would be "irresponsible".