-
Do you need help identifying a 🌶?
Is your plant suffering from an unknown issue? 🤧
Then ask in Identification and Diagnosis.
seeds Why organic seed?
- Thread starter AJ Drew
- Start date
queequeg152 said:
It's one thing to disagree with others' opinions; it's quite another to lie about it. Monsanto has sued independent farmers, repeatedly, around the world. The monopolies are created by natural occurrences; once the GMO crops cross-pollinate non-GMO crops in nearby fields, the resultant seeds will carry some of the GMO traits, many of which are actually patented, and Monsanto has sued over this.
In regards to the labeling, how does the regulation of printed ingredients (a practice which has already existed for quite some time) murder an industry? Do you know anything about the state of the indstry? Do you know about the sales trends that have occurred for producers who have voluntarily added GMO info to their packaging? Do you really think that customers don't have the right to know what they are buying and, subsequently, ingesting? The rights of secrecy and profit for the companies producing the foodstuffs supercedes the rights of the consumers to make an informed decision? Are you even serious?
If, as you say, GMOs are not harmful, then why not dive right in there and label it? Maybe even promote GMO content as a selling-point? "Oatie-Ohs!!! Now with wholesome bacteria DNA and other GMO wizardry!" If GMOs are so awesome, why is all of this money being spent to keep'm a secret?
I think there's probably some comfortable middle-ground between an outright ban on GMOs on the one hand and a total lack of transparency and regulation on the use of GMOs on the other. I don't see how any honest person or corporation could fear or oppose the concept of well-informed consumers. Let's label this shit, and let's end Monsanto et al's ability to patent crop species that have existed for untold centuries. Let's end the drive to prevent indie farmers from saving seeds, as they have done for countless generations. Let's do whatever we can to stop the legislation that seeks to curtail what private citizens can grow in their own backyards.
Listen, I'm sorry if you were upset that I took a polite and moderate tone in my post. My goal is not to change anyone's mind in a forum like this. I actually like But, seriously, you really ought to stop lying. And cussing ppl out, needlessly. It does nothing to bolster your argument, which is weak to begin with. Once you start piling on the abuse and telling demonstrably false stories, the whole thing falls apart. Surely, you can do better than this.
Bicycle808 said:
did you bother to research this? or did you just take, at face value... what you read on natural news?
They have NEVER sued farmers for just pollenation. they sued like 5 people for BLATENT patent infringment. Do you believe in intellectual property or not?
GMO is not an ingredient? it has 0 health implications? it has 0 allergy implications?
why force a MANDITORY label if it does absolutly nothing for the consumer?its just an ideological assertion, not one based in science.
if you want non gmo, buy organic food.
regarding, "muh right to know!!"
you have exactly 0 "right" to know jack shit, when it violated 0 laws, complies with all FDA, USDA regulations.
you are more than welcome to try and get a manufacturer to VOLUNTARILY label shit as GMO/non GMO... but you absolutly have 0 "right".
should i have the "right" to know if my cabbage was furrow plowed or plastic mulched? do you realize how idiotic that is?
how do you even define a GMO?
do you think we should label plant hybrids created by chemical mutagenisis? ionizing radiation induced mutagenisis? these are currently NOT GMO, and have even been bred into alot of "organic" cereals.
should we have the same label for a "gmo" with a trans genetic trait inserted from a bacteria, as we would for a plant with a simple gene silencing?
are you serioudly asking this? why the fuck do you think they dont want it labeled?
at this point, gmo activism has basically contaminated the term GMO so badly that its synonymous bad shit. seriously, this isnt hard to understand.
labeling your cereal as containing GMO ingrediants is like a refugee camp calling it self a concentration camp. the germ has so much negativitiy ( unearned in the case of GMO's)
god you are completely clueless regarding IP rights and agriculture in general...
listen. NOBODY IS FORCING FARMERS TO BUY MONSANTO TRAIT SEEDS.
NOBODY IS STOPPING FARMERS FROM USING EXISTING CULTIVARS.
they buy their seeds because they are BETTER. they cost less, and yield more per unit of capital input. its that simple.
people have been patenting F1 hybrids for over 100 years. how do you propose we sustain a biotechnology industry when you are not allowed to patent what you develop? do you realize how moronic that is?
as far as me lying? fuck right off sir. show me one lie. just one.
did you even bother researchign what i asserted prior to calling me a liar?
demonstrably false stories?
ill wait patiently for an apology. if you are as open minded as you claim to be, im sure you can cast out in an objective manner and see what im saying.
No apology coming; you've repeated the same lie again. Monsanto has averaged 16 chickenshit lawsuits per YEAR since 2000. They've bullied and settled out with many others. Your ignorance runs deep, and i haven't the time to go back'n'forth with a dishonest person who seems incapable of making relevant distinctions.
Good luck.
Good luck.
put up or shut up.
what law suits? show me.
from wiki.
what say you?
are you so morally bankrupt with regard to IP rights, that you find no fault in what this man did?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser
what law suits? show me.
from wiki.
what say you?
are you so morally bankrupt with regard to IP rights, that you find no fault in what this man did?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser
queequeg152 said:
Now don't jump all over me...I have no horse in this race. ... You made no stipulation about the lawsuits...Why Does Monsanto Sue Farmers Who Save Seeds?
Directly from Monsanto's website:
Sometimes however, we are forced to resort to lawsuits. This is a relatively rare circumstance, with 147 lawsuits filed since 1997 in the United States. This averages about 8 per year for the past 18 years. To date, only 9 cases have gone through full trial. In every one of these instances, the jury or court decided in our favor.
NECM
The_NorthEast_ChileMan said:
did you read the earlier posts?
its clear what im talking about.
i even included a link to the schmizer lawsuit, clearly im not saying they sue 0 people...
lol this same shit happened in that other GMO thread.
Yes I did....queequeg152 said:
queequeg152 said:
Maybe not?queequeg152 said:
`
Good afternoon Solid7.....
To be quite honest I stayed out of this as I have no opinion one way or the other on GMO's. I only see a vague connection between Organic seeds (Which is the original reason for this thread.) and GMO's so why it turned into a pissn' match about them I haven't a clue. But when someone asks for something twice I decided to post the facts.
Oh, and I am a believer in vaccinations but respect your choice..... Now that I'm 65 I have been looking at the shingles thing as I almost assuredly had chicken pox as a child and now have the herpes zoster.
To be quite honest I stayed out of this as I have no opinion one way or the other on GMO's. I only see a vague connection between Organic seeds (Which is the original reason for this thread.) and GMO's so why it turned into a pissn' match about them I haven't a clue. But when someone asks for something twice I decided to post the facts.
Oh, and I am a believer in vaccinations but respect your choice..... Now that I'm 65 I have been looking at the shingles thing as I almost assuredly had chicken pox as a child and now have the herpes zoster.
solid7 said:
The_NorthEast_ChileMan said:
GMO content is the main factor that could make a difference between Cert'd Organic seeds and "conventional" seeds. Cert'd Organic is, by definition, no-GMO. Conventional seeds may or may not be GMO. Personally, i don't worry about it, but i have a few friends with gardens who insist on organic seeds, and GMO is the reason why. The pissn' match? I think there's a few ppl on this thread who ar looking for a good pissn' match anywhere they can find one.
I'd say that the most obvious answer to the OP's question, "why organic seed?", is that some folks are looking to avoid GMOs and that's the sure-shot way to do that. I guess a seconday reason would be, if you support the organic movement, you would be "voting with your dollars" in buying that organic seeds.
The questions about Monsanto lawsuits? Yeah, that's way off-topic, which is why i basically left that part of the discussion. Anyone who is really interested can google that shit themselves, i s'pose. No sense in getting into it with a GMO fanboy who already knows about it but pretends to deny it to keep the argument going....
i dont get it? so you think i asserted that there were no lawsuits despite me linking one?The_NorthEast_ChileMan said:
or you think i asserted that there were ONLY 5?
lol what is with this absurd pedantry? do you think fixating on the absolute number somehow invalidates my point?
yes or no, do you grant that these lawsuits are not what bicycle is asserting that they are? IE capricious in nature?
Bicycle808 said:
lol so correcting well known bullshti is a pissing match?
let me tell you. there is no match. you are wrong period. everyone here can look this shit up, its clear that you are lieing.
regarding certified organic seeds... what most people dont understand is that MOST vegetables have never been modified and made commercially available in the first place.
ironically these same people who insist on organic, will gleefully accept cultivars bred from radiation mutagenisis or chemical mutagenisis.
regarding me "denying", lol again... anyone here can do a little research them selves. the irony of your position is stunning.
Queefkeg - you have no problem with accepting GMO, because you clearly know that your rage (and I suspect alcoholism) will get you long before a modified DNA strand.
If I were that type of person, this would be the part where I'd sympathetically tell you that I'll pray for you. (but to be clear, I won't. Because I don't)
If I were that type of person, this would be the part where I'd sympathetically tell you that I'll pray for you. (but to be clear, I won't. Because I don't)
queequeg152 said:
Dunno, you tell me, how many did you assert?queequeg152 said:
I think if you can't get the facts correct, Monsanto's asserting almost 150 and you posting 5, then how can we think your point has any validity?queequeg152 said:
Yawn... I tire of this.... Nite-Nite!
is english not you primary language? like seriously im asking, there is nothing wrong with first generation immigrants... they are some of the very best americans imo.
i ask because "like 5", is coloquial for, "around", or "ish". put another way, "like 5" = somewhere around 5.
it was an off the cuff remark on my part because i did not care to look it up... its something i read about long ago when iwas first confronted with this bullshit about Monsanto.
the actual number i 9 trials, not 5, 9 trials.
all 9 trials were ruled in monsantos favor. why? because they do not capriciously sue people. it makes no sense to do so.
IDK where the fuck you got 150... maby 150 SETTLED lawsuits, but nowhere near that number has gone to trial.
Lol, are you done fixating on a comment made in passing? Do you feel better pointing out 9 does not equal 5?
when are you going to start correcting my spelling? grammar?
im still waiting for you to adress my points though.
yes or no, do you grant that these lawsuits are not what bicycle is asserting that they are? IE capricious in nature?
i ask because "like 5", is coloquial for, "around", or "ish". put another way, "like 5" = somewhere around 5.
it was an off the cuff remark on my part because i did not care to look it up... its something i read about long ago when iwas first confronted with this bullshit about Monsanto.
the actual number i 9 trials, not 5, 9 trials.
all 9 trials were ruled in monsantos favor. why? because they do not capriciously sue people. it makes no sense to do so.
IDK where the fuck you got 150... maby 150 SETTLED lawsuits, but nowhere near that number has gone to trial.
Lol, are you done fixating on a comment made in passing? Do you feel better pointing out 9 does not equal 5?
when are you going to start correcting my spelling? grammar?
im still waiting for you to adress my points though.
yes or no, do you grant that these lawsuits are not what bicycle is asserting that they are? IE capricious in nature?
queequeg152 said:
Definition of sue:queequeg152 said:
verb (so͞o)
institute legal proceedings against (a person or institution), typically for redress.
Definition of lawsuit:queequeg152 said:
noun (lôˌso͞ot)
a claim or dispute brought to a court of law for adjudication.
Why Does Monsanto Sue Farmers Who Save Seeds?
A very small percentage of farmers do not honor this agreement. Monsanto does become aware, through our own actions or through third-parties, of individuals who are suspected of violating our patents and agreements. Where we do find violations, we are able to settle most of these cases without ever going to trial. In many cases, these farmers remain our customers. Sometimes however, we are forced to resort to lawsuits. This is a relatively rare circumstance, with 147 lawsuits filed since 1997 in the United States. This averages about 8 per year for the past 18 years. To date, only 9 cases have gone through full trial. In every one of these instances, the jury or court decided in our favor.
We haven't settled this point. Your first two posts on Saturday I'm quoting above, and the reason for my first post in this thread, never mentioned trial until it became convenient to CYA about my posting.queequeg152 said:
this is hilarious. what point do you think you are even making? oh im not counting the out of court settlements, so all my points are invalid?The_NorthEast_ChileMan said:
why do you think all 9 trials were ruled in their favor? presumably the trials that go all the way are the strongest cases no? why then are they all ruled in monsantos favor? especially given their bad reputation?
im just going to assume that like most anti gmo people... you have no real points to make here, just more flailing?
rofl...even if you take all the out of court settlements, attribute them to these non existant capricious cross pollination cases, and not to cases of outright fraud... 18 people year is exactly jack shit lol... hardly a "chilling" effect on farmers.
tell me though, how does that number vary from say... starbucks? how many lawsuits to they file annually.