Apparently, it is now illegal to sue Monsanto.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Leggett rocks.

[Lamplighter]

Washington Post
Brady Dennis
10/18/13

A new method against genetically modified salmon:
Get retailers to refuse to sell it

Consumer and environmental activists, facing likely defeat in their bid to block
government approval of the first genetically engineered salmon,
are trying a different tack to keep the fish off America’s dinner plates:
Getting retailers not to sell it. And they’re making headway.

Some of the nation’s most recognizable chains
— including Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s and Target —
have agreed in recent months to steer clear of the fish.
A spokeswoman for Safeway, the nation’s second-largest grocery chain,
said the chain doesn’t have “any plans to carry GE salmon.”
Activists are pressing Kroger, the country’s largest grocer, to make a similar commitment.
<snip>

Massachusetts-based AquaBounty Technologies first applied for
permission to sell its genetically altered salmon in 1995.
Its AquAdvantage salmon consists of an Atlantic salmon containing a growth hormone
from a Chinook salmon and a gene from the ocean pout, an eel-like fish.
The result: A fish that grows to market size in about half the time as a traditional salmon.

For years, opponents have argued there’s not enough data to prove the salmon is safe to eat.
They have also warned there could be devastating environmental consequences
if the fish were to escape confinement and breed with wild salmon.

Of course, people could refuse to buy it.

.

[Lamplighter]

This couldn't happen to a better company.

Monsanto Weedkiller Is  ‘ Probably Carcinogenic,’ WHO Says
Bloomberg News - Jack Kaskey - 3/20/15

Monsanto Co.’s best-selling weedkiller Roundup probably causes cancer,
the World Health Organization said in a report that’s at odds with prior findings.

Roundup is the market name for the chemical glyphosate.
A report published by the WHO in the journal Lancet Oncology said Friday there is
“limited evidence” that the weedkiller can cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and lung cancer
and “convincing evidence” it can cause cancer in lab animals.

The report was posted on the website of the International Agency for Research on Cancer,
or IARC, the Lyon, France-based arm of the WHO
<snip>

Even if it is not the case, I hope this article scares the bejesus out of farmers and the public
...enough to break this litigious corporation in it's march towards monopoly over food crops.

[xoxoxoBruce]

And Monsanto says... besides fuck you...

[tw]

From The Economist of 15 Sept 2015:

IN THE early 1970s Asia’s rice farmers faced ruin. The brown planthopper, an insect up till then found mostly in Japan, began to appear across the region. It fed on young plants and transmitted grassy stunt virus, causing crops to shrivel and brown. As it swept through Asia’s paddy fields, yields crashed. By the end of the decade it had caused damage costing over $300m—more than $1 billion in today’s money.

Scientists raced to find a solution. They screened over 6,000 samples of rice and its wild relatives until they found a unique sample from central India of a wild species called Oryza nivara that was resistant to the virus. By crossing it with domesticated rice strains, plant-breeders transferred the resistant genes into a new variety. Today, millions of farmers across Asia grow rice derived from such crosses.

Also called genetically modified. Today, most every food we eat is genetically modified.

Today's tools do same faster. But it is still doing same. Nothing but fear says GM foods are dangerous. Genetic modified foods were once called hybrids. That was not as emotionally fearful as the expression Genetic Modified. So people once did not fear technology.

We can also discuss Hilary's e-mails if conspiracy is the purpose of life.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

We can also discuss Hilary's e-mails if conspiracy is the purpose of life.

The know ones that contained classified info which weren't protected or the ones she deleted?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by tw

Genetic modified foods were once called hybrids. That was not as emotionally fearful as the expression Genetic Modified. So people once did not fear technology.

Monsanto has spent a lot of money arguing otherwise in court so they can argue that they own the genes in the pollen in the air.

http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/impact.html

There is nothing inherently wrong with the tech. The problems with overuse of Roundup and the ownership issues where a giant multi-national reaps the benefit of ownership without the responsibility of same are real issues apparently not discussed in your no link. This conflict does include some anti-science folks but it also includes anyone with a concern about monopolistic practices.

[classicman]

well said, Griff.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Griff

There is nothing inherently wrong with the tech. The problems with overuse of Roundup and the ownership issues where a giant multi-national reaps the benefit of ownership without the responsibility of same are real issues apparently not discussed in your no link.

Use of pesticides is completely different from GM foods. Yes, glyphosate problems are noted due to overuse. Both in quantities (similar to fertilizer overuse) and in creating glyphosate resistance plants. If I remember, 25% of farms in America has identified glyphosate resistant plants.

Even Monstanto understood this long ago. Has been moving to new variations so that one need not continue using glyphosate. Those solutions are in development. That ongoing change is why Monstanto recently purchased another company (name forgotten) so as to diversify how we raise crops.

GM crops and excessive use or constant use of glyphosate are separate issues.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by tw

GM crops and excessive use or constant use of glyphosate are separate issues.

Roundup resistance was introduced through genetic modification.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Griff

Roundup resistance was introduced through genetic modification.

Plants (ie weeds), that have no genetic modification, have become resistant to glyphosate. That was found in farms that did not rotate their weed killers in three or less years. Unfortunately, those other killers require greater care and are not as effective as glyphosate.

This concern is not just found on farms. Homeowners should also take same care using Roundup. Some glyphosate resistance has also been reported in residential venues. Same reason - which has nothing to do with genetically modified crops.

Genetically modified crops did nothing to make other plants - especially weeds - glyphosate resistant. Some reports implied these weeds were so resistant as to require physical removal.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I wish the bees would develop a resistance.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by tw

Plants (ie weeds), that have no genetic modification, have become resistant to glyphosate. That was found in farms that did not rotate their weed killers in three or less years. Unfortunately, those other killers require greater care and are not as effective as glyphosate.

This concern is not just found on farms. Homeowners should also take same care using Roundup. Some glyphosate resistance has also been reported in residential venues. Same reason - which has nothing to do with genetically modified crops.

Genetically modified crops did nothing to make other plants - especially weeds - glyphosate resistant. Some reports implied these weeds were so resistant as to require physical removal.

Just keep in mind that agriculture's overuse was made possible by the genetic manipulation of Roundup Ready crops. Those crops were sprayed heavily forcing the weeds to evolve. Whether or not Monsanto encouraged misuse is an open question.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Griff

Whether or not Monsanto encouraged misuse is an open question.

Same question exists with fertilizer (ie potash) companies.

[BigV]

Not to mention the fact that Monsanto's position is that the LABELING of foods as GMO is anathema to them. They're allergic to the prospect of being required to offer to the consumers information on the label of the products they have a part in producing. That's just preemptive defensiveness. Whether or not it is healthful or productive or profitable or otherwise is a separate point. They strenuously argue that such labeling should NOT be required, though they do accept other regulatory requirements, including labeling requirements.

They're just trying to pre-empt any ... anything. "NO!" "Keep your rules off my body (of intellectual property)!"