Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: GMOs are bad for biodiversity, bad for non-corporate farming, bad for the public's right to natural [View all]Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)86. How is anything so full of shit able to withstand without bursting? GMO is a legal calamity visited
on farming by rapacious monopolies.
You want a source? How about the Supreme Court of the United States:
Emphasizing the undisputed concentration of alfalfa seed farms, the District Court found that those farmers had established a reasonable probability that their organic and conventional alfalfa crops will be infected with the engineered gene if RRA is completely deregulated. App. to Pet. for Cert. 50a. A substantial risk of gene flow injures respondents in several ways. For example, respondents represent that, in order to continue marketing their product to consumers who wish to buy non-genetically-engineered alfalfa, respondents would have to conduct testing to find out whether and to what extent their crops have been contaminated. See, e.g., Record, Doc. 62, p. 5 (Declaration of Phillip Geertson in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment) (hereinafter Geertson Declaration) (Due to the high potential for contamination, I will need to test my crops for the presence of genetically engineered alfalfa seed. This testing will be a new cost to my seed business and we will have to raise our seed prices to cover these costs, making our prices less competitive); id., Doc. 57, p. 4 (Declaration of Patrick Trask in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment) (To ensure that my seeds are pure, I will need to test my crops and obtain certification that my seeds are free of genetically engineered alfalfa); see also Record, Doc. 55, p. 2 (There is zero tolerance for contaminated seed in the organic market). Respondents also allege that the risk of gene flow will cause them to take certain measures to minimize the likelihood of potential contamination and to ensure an adequate supply of non-genetically-engineered alfalfa. See, e.g., Geertson Declaration 3 (noting the increased cost of alfalfa breeding due to potential for genetic contamination); id., at 6 (Due to the threat of contamination, I have begun contracting with growers outside of the United States to ensure that I can supply genetically pure, conventional alfalfa seed. Finding new growers has already resulted in increased administrative costs at my seed business).Such harms, which respondents will suffer even if their crops are not actually infected with the Roundup ready gene, are sufficiently concrete to satisfy the injury-in-fact prong of the constitutional standing analysis.
Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 153-56, 130 S. Ct. 2743, 2754-56, 177 L. Ed. 2d 461 (2010)
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
246 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
GMOs are bad for biodiversity, bad for non-corporate farming, bad for the public's right to natural [View all]
Vote2016
Jun 2016
OP
This article has about 100 links to different peer-reviewed research papers at the end.
Dr Hobbitstein
Jun 2016
#2
Your article is about whether GMOs are safe. I'm not saying they are safe or unsafe. I'm saying that
Vote2016
Jun 2016
#8
If all a farmer cares about in his seedstock is germination, he's a piss-poor farmer
NickB79
Jun 2016
#177
the skeptical raptor - you have to be KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
womanofthehills
Jun 2016
#186
Would you be more comfortable with the label "Monsanto apologist"? It's a little more precise.
Vote2016
Jun 2016
#9
Would you be more comfortable with "charlatan". It's a little more precise.
Major Nikon
Jun 2016
#21
Agreed. The GMO problem is about Monsanto and others monopolizing agribusiness at the expense of
Attorney in Texas
Jun 2016
#6
Even more suspicious is the missing element of reality in the anti-GMO astroturf
Major Nikon
Jun 2016
#22
What does that even mean? Monsanto has a financial interest in creating an agribusiness monopoly and
Attorney in Texas
Jun 2016
#28
"Because some people who believe in A, also believe in B, A has no validity."
Major Nikon
Jun 2016
#167
How is anything so full of shit able to withstand without bursting? GMO is a legal calamity visited
Attorney in Texas
Jun 2016
#86
You might understand the law, but you don't understand the first thing about the scientific process.
HuckleB
Jun 2016
#128
HuckleB's "scientific process" links always written by MONSANTO SHILLS
womanofthehills
Jun 2016
#135
You mean from "skeptics" who have never seen a corporate press release worth "questioning?"
villager
Jun 2016
#226
Monsanto doesn't farm anything, so zero market share hardly makes a monopoly
Major Nikon
Jun 2016
#182
They made and patented dioxin, actually and their GMO product has harmed many many farmers
larkrake
Jun 2016
#183
Grandma can't patent a DNA sequence unless she has a PCR machine in the basement.
lagomorph777
Jun 2016
#70
Plant patent is not a DNA patent per se, for the reason you yourself admit.
lagomorph777
Jun 2016
#73
Sure, we should just go back to using methods far less precice and more ambiguous
Major Nikon
Jun 2016
#77
If Monsanto didn't think DNA is powerful, they wouldn't spend billions on shuffling it.
lagomorph777
Jun 2016
#78
Off to the ignore-bin. It's cruel to fight with an unarmed opponent and I won't do it any more.
lagomorph777
Jun 2016
#87
You could make the same argument about any private monopoly. Often people need the product which a
Attorney in Texas
Jun 2016
#14
What's with all the pro-GMO stuff? You'd think this was CorporateMonopolist Underground.
Attorney in Texas
Jun 2016
#29
Science is good but the tobacco companies misled with a false veneer of science just as you mislead
Attorney in Texas
Jun 2016
#88
You are wrong and you know you are wrong. My anti-GMO views are based on the ill effect it has on
Attorney in Texas
Jun 2016
#93
You keep posting arguments that GMOs are "safe." I'm not saying GMOs are unsafe. GMOs illegally
Attorney in Texas
Jun 2016
#97
Compare the markets that ban GMOs with the markets that ban non-GMO patented seeds. Oh, wait, there
Attorney in Texas
Jun 2016
#99
So you compare tobacco to GMO, then freely admit the issues are completely different
Major Nikon
Jun 2016
#156
Marc Brazeau is a life-long progressive and labor activist who cares about science.
HuckleB
Jun 2016
#241
Sure, you just promote crank magnets like Michel Chossudovsky and Mae-Wan Ho
Major Nikon
Jun 2016
#199
Ignore the evidence base, because people who go with scientific consensus are "curious."
HuckleB
Jun 2016
#44
Actually the courts have overthrown the BS attacks on Seralini. He was right.
Scientific
Jun 2016
#101
I get that someone who believes in homeoquackery doesn't have much use for things like facts
Major Nikon
Jun 2016
#238
I'm not debating the science. It is an intellectual property scam, and the labelling issue is a
Vote2016
Jun 2016
#64
It almost seems that way, but why would anyone not being paid respond so swiftly defending Monsanto
Vote2016
Jun 2016
#59
Cool website. It's on the internet. It does not excuse the genetic piracy from pollen drift or
Vote2016
Jun 2016
#66
Author of your above link on organic farming - Pamela Ronald - "SCIENTIFIC" research questioned
womanofthehills
Jun 2016
#194
Sure, because they are the ones channeling Mike Adams, Mercola, Food Babe, ...
Major Nikon
Jun 2016
#75
Your refusal to provide any relevant examples of your assertion is telling all on it's own
Major Nikon
Jun 2016
#162
The problem is that the focus of the anti-gmo people is very broad...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#90
Can you link to any one of those studies? In addition, the WHO may end up reversing its decision...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#111
The first link didn't attempt to separate out whether it was glyphosate...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#114
I said none of those things, you are just making things up, for what reason I don't know...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#123
What spin? I literally pointed out a shortcoming of the first paper that was pointed out...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#157
Good point, but it appears this poster isn't interested in honest discussion.
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#118
You do understand the difference between individual, cherry picked studies, and consensus, right?
HuckleB
Jun 2016
#116
So okay then, what do we do about the other thousand or so conglomerates that run the planet?
Rex
Jun 2016
#95
Your view is "we've been abused by Goldman Sachs and Haliburton so why complain about Monsanto?"
Vote2016
Jun 2016
#131
But they make some rich people richer and that's the most important thing in the world.
valerief
Jun 2016
#103
No surprise that the last link doesn't even mention how GMO's saved the papya crops in Hawaii
progressoid
Jun 2016
#105