Support NeoGAF

[daxy]

Monsanto are evil as shit. This is just another drop in the their basin of fuckery.

 

[KHarvey16]

Did you not even read the damn thread you're posting in?

If you're actually pro-GMO (which I am) you should be anti-Monsanto. They are completely destroying the public's trust in science by constantly doing shady shit. I lived in Hawaii for a bit and their land practices there are atrocious. Their experimental pesticides get carried downstream and destroy other people's farms and they don't give a fuck because nobody dares challenge them in court.

You either work for them or are some sort of corporate zealot because you are in every thread about them like a fly on shit.

I read it just fine. Did you?

And like the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, I see you completely skipping over content to ask questions about motivations and go "hmmm." That's the last refuge of people who have no facts to stand on.

 

[Trokil]

Well I guess the problem is, that this a lawsuit by farmers. If I am not wrong, the studies usually come to conclusion, that within the allowed parameters it does not cause cancer, so they use this result as the prove that it is not carcinogenic.

Farmers however are probably exposed to higher amounts and then there is the problem, that it does cause cancer, as the IARC concluded for example. So this could be a problem for them and specifically them, which does make the whole thing a lot more complicated.

But I have not read everything about this case.

 

[CrocMother]

I read it just fine. Did you?

And like the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, I see you completely skipping over content to ask questions about motivations and go "hmmm." That's the last refuge of people who have no facts to stand on.

Tell me, if you lived next to 15,000 acres of land where a biotech company grew experimental GMOs, and sprayed 18 tons of pesticides, do any of these guidelines seem reasonable?

1) Buffer zones between chemical fields and schools, parks, beaches and hospitals.

2) Disclosure of GMO crops (until now, they have largely remained a secret).

3) Public notification before chemical spraying so that concerned citizens can leave the area and limit their exposure.

4) A county-level environmental assessment of the potentially hazardous effects of the toxic chemicals being sprayed on agricultural crops.

5) Full disclosure of the exact pesticides and herbicides being sprayed, as well as location details of where spraying is taking place.

Because those were the restrictions passed by the city council on the island of Kauai, until Monsanto took them to federal court and of course beat them.

It comes across as evil. And because of that, people look sideways at GMO crops.

But go ahead and keep carrying that water up the hill for them.

 

[Kid Ying]

While i was studying chemistry at the university, the general opinion was that monsanto was the Devil on earth.

And the News that usually arise with them don't help things.

 

[KHarvey16]

Tell me, if you lived next to 15,000 acres of land where a biotech company grew experimental GMOs, and sprayed 18 tons of pesticides, do any of these guidelines seem reasonable?



Because those were the restrictions passed by the city council on the island of Kauai, until Monsanto took them to federal court and of course beat them.

It comes across as evil. And because of that, people look sideways at GMO crops.

But go ahead and keep carrying that water up the hill for them.

And why did they win? Did they pay the judge or did they have the better legal argument? I am not surprised to see you don't address, even for a second, whether or not they should have won. If those guidelines were based on anti-science nonsense they shouldn't stand. Do all farms have to abide by those kinds of rules on the island? GMO isn't the only crops that use pesticides, obviously, and often other crops require actually poisonous stuff. Are those part of the notification?

I also see a constant moving of the goalposts. Oh you always defend them, what about this? Well ok never mind that, what about this? Oh well I see, but what about this?

 

[Wensih]

The issue is when that distrust of Monsanto is based entirely on myths like suing farmers for seeds that blow in the wind or farmers who commit suicide or terminator seeds and on and on.

But what about the distrust in corporations where they don't follow the advice of their scientific advisory board and tell farmers they can plant up to 95% genetically modified crops expressing the by-toxin as opposed to the recommended 50%, and cause pests to build up a resistance to these bt-expressing crops?

There is a belief that runs through these threads that an attack on a corporation is an attack on the foundation of science. However, a corporation that sells bio-tech can obfuscate or disregard recommendations based in science for shortcut profits.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...ch-companies-promise-new-insect-killing-genes

 

[RedToad64]

I always try to stay out of these Monsanto discussions since people will criticize you if you say one little bad thing about the company. You can't have a conversation on here regarding them without being attacked. It is quite puzzling and doesn't help their image if posters are actually attempting to do so.

 

[Principate]

And why did they win? Did they pay the judge or did they have the better legal argument? I am not surprised to see you don't address, even for a second, whether or not they should have won. If those guidelines were based on anti-science nonsense they shouldn't stand. Do all farms have to abide by those kinds of rules on the island? GMO isn't the only crops that use pesticides, obviously, and often other crops require actually poisonous stuff. Are those part of the notification?

I also see a constant moving of the goalposts. Oh you always defend them, what about this? Well ok never mind that, what about this? Oh well I see, but what about this?

Tell me what practices of Monsanto do you disagree with? There's nothing wrong dislike some practices of a company almost all of them have some sort of shady underbelly it's a merely a question of how much. If you seriously can't one aspect you disagree with then you should have serious self reflection about why that is.

Since when have for profit companies been saints.

 

[kamspy]

So they only faked papers this one time though right?

 

[jellies_two]

Absolutely no surprise
Look at Exxon squashing climate change with Astro turf and fake emails to avoid any blame.

Now consider this is with an EPA that was supposedly working for people, not for industry. what we have now is an EPA that faces two giant budget cuts and is being stocked with climate deniers and people who think regulation is all red-tape no benenfit.

The worst part is we won't see what happens from this new libertarian hell for another decade. By which time the people who benefit the most will have made their profits.