HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Jan. 10, 2010: Obama appo...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:43 PM

Jan. 10, 2010: Obama appoints Monsanto V.P. Michael Taylor as Food Safety Czar

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x749738

November, 2012: Obama's DOJ quietly and mysteriously closes a two-year investigation into Monsanto's possible (probable/almost certainly) antitrust activities.

signon.org petition: Tell Obama to Cease FDA Ties to Monsanto

66 replies, 4998 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 66 replies Author Time Post
Reply Jan. 10, 2010: Obama appoints Monsanto V.P. Michael Taylor as Food Safety Czar (Original post)
brentspeak Dec 2012 OP
2naSalit Dec 2012 #1
msanthrope Dec 2012 #2
brentspeak Dec 2012 #4
msanthrope Dec 2012 #5
brentspeak Dec 2012 #7
msanthrope Dec 2012 #18
brentspeak Dec 2012 #25
msanthrope Dec 2012 #31
brentspeak Dec 2012 #35
msanthrope Dec 2012 #38
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #41
msanthrope Dec 2012 #42
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #43
msanthrope Dec 2012 #46
brentspeak Dec 2012 #64
april Dec 2012 #27
msanthrope Dec 2012 #33
Initech Dec 2012 #3
msanthrope Dec 2012 #6
brentspeak Dec 2012 #8
msanthrope Dec 2012 #9
One of the 99 Dec 2012 #11
msanthrope Dec 2012 #20
brentspeak Dec 2012 #28
Overseas Dec 2012 #37
One of the 99 Dec 2012 #10
brentspeak Dec 2012 #29
robinlynne Dec 2012 #17
msanthrope Dec 2012 #19
robinlynne Dec 2012 #47
msanthrope Dec 2012 #50
robinlynne Dec 2012 #53
msanthrope Dec 2012 #54
robinlynne Dec 2012 #59
msanthrope Dec 2012 #60
robinlynne Dec 2012 #65
msanthrope Dec 2012 #66
dionysus Dec 2012 #12
Initech Dec 2012 #23
dionysus Dec 2012 #26
progressoid Dec 2012 #14
Berlum Dec 2012 #13
onestepforward Dec 2012 #15
obxhead Dec 2012 #16
bvar22 Dec 2012 #21
Overseas Dec 2012 #39
Captain Spaulding Dec 2012 #51
hrmjustin Dec 2012 #56
brentspeak Dec 2012 #58
LWolf Dec 2012 #48
bvar22 Dec 2012 #49
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #62
dionysus Dec 2012 #22
msanthrope Dec 2012 #32
bvar22 Dec 2012 #45
brentspeak Dec 2012 #52
bahrbearian Dec 2012 #24
airplaneman Dec 2012 #30
msanthrope Dec 2012 #34
TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #55
airplaneman Dec 2012 #57
msanthrope Dec 2012 #61
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2012 #36
Overseas Dec 2012 #40
great white snark Dec 2012 #44
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #63

Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:04 PM

1. Thus

the tentacles of Bain/R$ have been spirited quietly into the white house... we're screwed as far as having real food and the freedom to grow our own. Mark my words.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1912120

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:22 PM

2. Can you point to any actual evidence of antitrust activity by Montsanto?

I mean, I'm all for going against people who unfairly play the market, but I have yet to read a scrap of actual evidence against Montsanto.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to brentspeak (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:36 PM

5. I did. What would be the evidence of antitrust activity? Show me. Cut and paste, please. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:42 PM

7. "Monsanto traits end up in 98 percent of the GM soybeans"



According to Monsanto's rival, DuPont, Monsanto traits end up in 98 percent of the GM soybeans grown in the US and 79 percent of the corn—a claim Monsanto doesn't dispute. In a 2009 paper, Iowa State University economist GianCarlo Moschini reported that Monsanto traits are in 78.9 percent of the GM cotton grown here.

...

There's also evidence that farmers lack access to lower-priced seeds. In 2010, University of Illinois researcher Michael Gray surveyed farmers in seven agriculture-intensive counties of Illinois. He asked them if they had access to high-quality corn seeds that weren't genetically modified to contain Monsanto's Bt insecticide trait. In all seven counties, at least 32 percent of farmers said "no." In one county, 46.6 percent of farmers reporting having no access to high-quality non-Bt seed. For them, apparently, they had little choice but to pay Monsanto's high prices for Bt seeds, whether they needed them or not.


Hope that helps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:17 PM

18. Okay--but you haven't identified how any of that is antitrust.

Without going into the irony of you using DuPont as a source***, market share alone does not make an antitrust argument. You've failed to identify monopoly/market power. Without it, there's no antitrust claim.

The paper you cited--did you read it? I suggest you do for some answers to the DOJ's decision.





***
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-11-30/dupont-fraud-in-monsanto-seed-case-unsealed-by-judge

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:48 PM

25. When you're done embarrasing yourself

Both the paper and the article identified all that for you, already.

You're probably the only one here incapable of actually comprehending that the article and the paper both make a strong argument that Monsanto does indeed have monopoly/market power and has abused it.



So did DOJ make a reasonable decision in dropping its investigation of Monsanto and the broader seed market? It's impossible to say, given that it refuses to release any details.

But there is evidence of potential market power in the industry. For example, one sign of an uncompetitive industry is the ability to raise prices at will, unimpeded by price pressure from rivals. It's impossible to say, without more information, if the GMO giants have done that—but prices have risen briskly over the past decade. In her above-mentioned 2009 paper, the American Antitrust Institute's Moss points out that in truly competitive markets, "technologies that enjoy widespread and rapid adoption"—like GM seeds—"typically experience precipitous declines" in price. But between 2000 and 2008, Moss writes, "real seed costs increased by an average annual rate of five percent for corn, almost 11 percent for cotton, and seven percent for soybeans." And for most of those years, she adds, growth in the price farmers were receiving for their crops didn't match growth in the price they were paying for their seeds—suggesting a possible squeeze on farmers by the seed industry. Figures supplied me by the Center for Food Safety's Bill Freese (from USDA data) show that price increases have continued in the years since Moss' study.

There's also evidence that farmers lack access to lower-priced seeds. In 2010, University of Illinois researcher Michael Gray surveyed farmers in seven agriculture-intensive counties of Illinois. He asked them if they had access to high-quality corn seeds that weren't genetically modified to contain Monsanto's Bt insecticide trait. In all seven counties, at least 32 percent of farmers said "no." In one county, 46.6 percent of farmers reporting having no access to high-quality non-Bt seed. For them, apparently, they had little choice but to pay Monsanto's high prices for Bt seeds, whether they needed them or not.

Finally, a competitive market might be expected to be characterized by a high level of innovation—especially a market as high tech as GM seeds. But as the Center for Food Safety's Freese pointed out to me, the main GM traits we see in the field today are the same as those we saw in the 1990s, when GMOs were rolled out: herbicide resistance and Bt. The industry's much-heralded next big products—corn and soy engineered to withstand more toxic herbicides than Monsanto's Roundup—is really just more of the same, intensified: herbicide resistance on steroids. Monsanto did roll out a "drought-resistant" corn variety last December—but the USDA itself, citing Monsanto's own data, found it to be rather underwhelming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #25)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:11 PM

31. Price increase does not mean you have antitrust activity. It can be a result of antitrust activity,

but you have to point to price manipulation. How is Monsanto doing that, taking into account their licensure agreements and patent issues?

You may not be aware of this, but one of the side effects of the Robert's Court is an amazing amount of jurisprudence in antitrust over the last 5 years. Keeping the most recent SCOTUS cases in mind, how you propose the DOJ pursue this? What is the violation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #31)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:16 PM

35. Are you presently applying for a legal job with Monsanto?

I don't think your posts here arguing on their behalf are persuasive enough for you to get the gig.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #35)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:27 PM

38. Ah--with no evidence, you switch to the ad hominem. Kindly tell us all your theory of antitrust

as it pertains to the case at hand. What constitutes evidence of antitrust activity on Monsanto's part?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #31)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:54 PM

41. Is this similar to Microsoft and Apple, who together own almost 100% of software in the U.S.?

I've long thought Microsoft had a monopoly. If yu have a business, yu pretty much have to be running Microsoft software, to interact with others. In some industries, though, you have to have Mac.

That sounds like antitrust to me.

Also, in my city, there are just a few cable providers. In my house, I have no choice in cable provider or landline provider. To have a choice, I have to leave cable and landlines behind.

Antitrust is complicated. I think the U S has made a decision that antitrust is okay, since we are now run by big corporations. (The insurance industry IMO is in violation of antitrust statutes. Is there really a competitive market out there? Doesn't look like it.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #41)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 04:04 PM

42. Well, the problem is really the Robert's court--you have a series of decisions over the last 5 years

Last edited Sun Dec 2, 2012, 05:33 PM - Edit history (1)

that have changed the nature of antitrust prosecutions and civil claims. Of course, these decisions have hamstrung the DOJ--there's plenty of stuff going on that would have been prosecuted 10 years ago, but now, woudl be fruitless to pursue. And it's not as if this Congress is going to fix those decisions through legislation.

Monsanto has a permissive licensing regime, and patents that are about to expire, which makes this a very different case than Microsoft/Apple. There may be something nefarious going on--but you need evidence of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #42)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 04:16 PM

43. I see. But it IS suspicious that the DOJ didn't issue a statement and reasoning...

for ending the investigation. As the article says, that's unusual.

It's like that old justice statement about pornography: I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it.

This Monsanto thing, coinciding as it does with Monsanto being chosen to head the FDA?, stinks to high heaven. I don't know how to define corruption for every type of instance, but I know it when I see it.

Yep. That's what has happened here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #43)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 05:31 PM

46. Monsanto and DuPont have ongoing litigation-we're talking a billion $ judgment against DuPont. It's

entirely possible the DOJ does not wish to wade into further controversy regarding Roundup, since the unsealing of the documents indicates DuPont was playing dirty pool---


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-11-30/dupont-fraud-in-monsanto-seed-case-unsealed-by-judge


Corruption? You think President Obama is corrupt for appointing a person who used to work for the FDA to the FDA? Granted, he last worked for Monsanto a decade ago, but that, in and of itself, is evidence of nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #42)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:40 PM

64. Ok, cite chapter and verse how

the Roberts court decisions have "hamstrung" the DOJ in regard to antitrust investigations, and especially in regard to investigating Monsanto.

If you need time to fabricate some B.S., please take as much time as you feel you need.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:03 PM

27. read . nothing but bad about the M

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to april (Reply #27)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:13 PM

33. I have no doubt. But we have a little thing our courts require: evidence. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:26 PM

3. WTF!!! That'd be like appointing Insane Clown Posse as education czar!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Initech (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:41 PM

6. Well, he had also worked for the USDA*** before Monsanto--although I think this highlights

Last edited Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:28 PM - Edit history (1)

a very important issue in Washington culture---

You have lots and lots of people who bounce from government positions to the private sector, and then back again. Arguably, they have experience that is good and necessary, but how do you balance that with potential conflicts of interest?


***As Brentspeak notes, it was the FDA that Mr. Taylor worked for, before Monsanto, not the USDA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:46 PM

8. Wrong. Taylor worked for Monsanto before joining the FDA and USDA

Michael Taylor timeline

1) Monsanto attorney
2) FDA "advisor"; later, a USDA administrator
3) Back to Monsanto, this time as VP and chief lobbyist
4) Returns to the FDA, again as an "advisor", and now, today, as "food safety czar"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:49 PM

9. I meant FDA--which was his first job after passing the bar. Thank you for correcting me. Your time

Last edited Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:29 PM - Edit history (1)

line seems incorrect, however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:54 PM

11. You omitted the 10 year gap between 3 and 4 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to One of the 99 (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:26 PM

20. His work at a non-profit, or on behalf of African agriculture doesn't fit within the narrative. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to One of the 99 (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:05 PM

28. I did fail to mention Taylor's acting as a go-between

between Monsanto and the U.S. government to help open up the GM and agrochemical market in Africa. Also, his role as Monsanto's point-man in industry-funded think tanks.



http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/08/14/monsanto-s-man-in-the-obama-administration/

Yet what has slipped under everyone’s radar screen is Taylor’s involvement in setting U.S. policy on agricultural assistance in Africa. In collusion with the Rockefeller and Bill and Melinda Gates foundations, Taylor is once again the go-between man for Monsanto and the U.S. government, this time with the goal to open up African markets for genetically-modified (GM) seed and agrochemicals.

...

The “penultimate draft” of Taylor’s 2002 paper was reviewed by Dr. Robert Horsch, a Monsanto executive for more than 25 years, who left in 2006 to work at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It states, “The ultimate concern of this report is how innovative seed technology derived from patented tools of biotechnology can be developed and disseminated for the benefit of small-scale and subsistence African farmers.”

Taylor’s 2005 paper “Investing in Africa’s Future: U.S. Agricultural Development Assistance for Sub-Saharan Africa,” was co-authored by the executive director of the Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa (PCHPA). Founded in 2000 and based in D.C., PCHPA is a consortium of public-private interests (Gates is one of its primary funders) that includes, among many others, Halliburton, several African heads of state, administrators from several U.S. land grant universities, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and Monsanto. According to its web site, Taylor and Horsch both sit on PCHPA’s advisory committee. Horsch continues to be listed as Vice President for Product and Technology Cooperation for Monsanto, and a member of PCHPA’s working group for Capacity Building for Science and Technology.




http://farmwars.info/?p=594

These days, we find that Taylor has morphed from Monsanto’s VP into a “research professor” at George Washington University School of Public Heath and Health Services. He also spends his time writing policy at a number of industry-funded think tanks, including Resources for the Future, Resolve Inc, the Food Safety Research Consortium, and the Alliance to End Hunger.

Those who are concerned about what the Organic Consumers Association calls the real Monsanto bill, The Global Food Security Act (SB 384), can see Taylor’s contribution to that piece of legislation by reviewing a report he wrote for a think tank called the Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa. The report, “Beating Africa’s Poverty By Investing in Africa’s Infrastructure,”(7) supports the expansive agenda of biotech firms. The organization is funded in part by the Rockefeller and Gates foundations, and Taylor’s work product provides the rational for SB 384.(8) According the organization’s website, it aims to “implement Partnership activities to strengthen agricultural and rural enterprises and to facilitate their integration into regional, national and global markets” by bringing together “core representatives from U.S. and Africa-based private and public organizations who have experience with Africa’s agriculture and trade-related issues.” To give him credit, Taylor is relentless and prolific. If only his work sought to empower rather than enslave.

Since shedding the title of Vice President of Monsanto, Taylor has been busy promoting the concept of “risk assessment” as a means to deal with food-borne illness as an alternative to urging regulatory agencies to actually enforce laws already on the books and to adequately fund them so they could do so. Like “substantial equivalence,” the risk assessment conceit offers a great opportunity to change the system to benefit corporate interests. Taylor has spent years churning out the necessary conceptual building blocks in cross-pollinating think tanks and foundations to create the intellectual framework for legislative proposals like these food “safety” bills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #28)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:25 PM

37. Sadly fits right in with promoting Monsanto's interests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:53 PM

10. It should be noted that he left Monsanto in 2000

Over ten years ago. In the interim he worked for Resources for the Future (a non-profit environmental group), the University of Maryland and George Washington University. Odd how none of the articles or posts point this out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to One of the 99 (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:06 PM

29. Here's your ten years of Taylor's innocuous-sounding non-profit activites:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:13 PM

17. potential? This conflicts directly with our basic rights. Al Gore should be appointed, not a person

from Monsanto!!! The rest of the world is outlawing what Monsanto does one country at a time. Obama put the fox in charge of the hen house? again? After this election, and what it was supposed to mean?

(not ranting at you, msanthrope.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:24 PM

19. Well, he left Monsanto over a decade ago to join a non-profit. And Al Gore? His money came from

tobacco, let's not forget--both his personal, family wealth, and campaign contributions.

People are complex, you know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #19)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 05:36 PM

47. Al Gore's policies are Democratic. Al Gore's policies are correct. as per food, and environment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #47)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:20 PM

50. Indeed, but they evolved. At one time, Senator Gore's stance on tobacco

was detrimental to public health.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #50)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:48 PM

53. monsanto....tobacco.....not even close.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #53)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:00 PM

54. Indeed. When you stack up the deaths due to tobacco, I

suspect Monsanto hardly touches it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #54)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 08:05 PM

59. backwards baby. very backwards. Smoking is like eating at McDonald's,a choice.

Monsanto is not. Are you even counting the suicides all over the 3rd world, once Monsanto gets ahold of their agriculture?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #59)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 09:44 PM

60. Seconhand smoke recipients made that choice? Yeah. You might wanna

quit that argument....

Look, Al Gore's Chief of Staff went to work for Monsanto. Shall we just drop this line of inquiry?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #60)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:10 AM

65. no. In fact second hand smoke has never caused cancer. Monsanto has.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #65)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:55 AM

66. All righty then!!! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Initech (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:55 PM

12. you have a problem with juggalos in a position of power?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:39 PM

23. Fucking magnets - how do they work!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Initech (Reply #23)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:53 PM

26. just keep them away from the soup (bloop)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Initech (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:05 PM

14. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:57 PM

13. done

k and r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:07 PM

15. Done. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:12 PM

16. I'm not the least bit surprised.

2012 will look exactly like 2008 did for appointments, a sad disappointing thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:28 PM

21. Monsanto has tentacles deep into the Obama White House.

Google: "Tom Vilsack & Monsanto"
Tom Vilsack was appointed to head the US Department of Agriculture in 2009.

Michael Taylor, former Vice-President and Lawyer for Monsanto
appointed to head of FDA. (mentioned above)

...and that is only the tip of the iceberg.

White House refuses to reveal ties with Monsanto
http://rt.com/usa/news/white-house-monsanto-peer-991/


4 of Obama's Worst Food and Ag Wimp-Outs
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/07/4-egregious-recent-obama-administration-wimpouts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:37 PM

39. Thank you. I wish the ties with Monsanto were not so strong. Privatizing the very seeds we use to

grow our food by creating patentable versions, is taking privatization too far.

Especially when Monsanto has tried to sue farmers whose crops were polluted by GMOs they did not want to use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Overseas (Reply #39)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:31 PM

51. Myth 2: Monsanto will sue you for growing their patented GMOs if traces of those GMOs entered your f

According to NPR:
"This is the idea that I see most often. A group of organic farmers, in fact, recently sued Monsanto, asserting that GMOs might contaminate their crops and then Monsanto might accuse them of patent infringement. The farmers couldn't cite a single instance in which this had happened, though, and the judge dismissed the case"

[link:http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Captain Spaulding (Reply #51)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:07 PM

56. Welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Captain Spaulding (Reply #51)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:33 PM

58. Reader comments correctly identified the NPR article as pro-Monsanto propaganda

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 05:42 PM

48. Yes.

This has been a problem since he appointed Vilsack, imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #48)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 05:59 PM

49. The appointment of "Mr Monsanto" ....

...from the Monsanto GM Corn Monocrop Capital of the World was a slap in the face to Environmental Groups and the Organic, Sustainable, and Healthy foods advocates.
I know of no one from these groups appointed to the Dept of Ag to counterbalance the Man from Monsanto.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 10:03 PM

62. Bill Gates (a Dem funder) also has deep ties to Monsanto. So there is a complex of interests

 

here, a constellation of capitalists behind the throne.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:31 PM

22. election loss hit ya hard, huh brent...

you better believe it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:12 PM

32. You Better Believe It!! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 04:52 PM

45. If the re-election means that Monsanto continues to..

.. have the White House support and approval to spread their poisons and their privatized, patented Global Corporatized Genetically Modified seeds across not just the United States, but the World,
than we have ALL lost.

I sometimes wish I were blind & ignorant enough to be comforted by
the bliss that accompanies the blind faith, simplistic belief that if the BLUE Team WINS, then it must ALL be good!

"Where never is heard
a discouraging word,
and the skies are not cloudy all day!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:44 PM

52. Not really, since I voted for Obama

So the insult falls flat.

For DUer's reference, this is the most useful post to refer to when confronted with above poster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:42 PM

24. Signed K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:06 PM

30. Monsanto is an evil company.

Personally I think it is immoral for a company or individual to have a patent on a plant or a human gene. Patents in the USA is all about money and protection a very select few. The whole concept of hybrid plants is also immoral - having a plant that you cannot plant the seeds and have a usable crop next year. Some day somewhere there wont be more seeds from Monsanto available and it will have disastrous consequences. In California there was a ballot initiative just to say yes or no this can contains GM corn (or other plant). Monsanto implied in commercials it was going to cost each and every consumers $400.00 per year to have it on the label. The truth is they were afraid that someone might not buy their product if they knew. We need to wake up as a society and learn about renewable, sustainable, and ecologically friendly crops and growing practices.
-Airplane

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to airplaneman (Reply #30)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:15 PM

34. I have no doubt some of their business practices are unethical--but do they rise to

the level of illegality? I don't know, and I'd love to see some evidence that suggests that the DOJ has a case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #34)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:06 PM

55. It becomes difficult to do anything illegal when your lobbyist and lawyers write the laws

and your insiders enforce them, isn't?

When you you cannot accept that the game is (or in some cases believe it cannot be) significantly rigged then there can be no evidence that convinces that observation of outcomes and cash flow misses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #34)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:29 PM

57. as a liberal I think we need to fight for laws that are fair to society as a whole.

And not shrug a law that protect the rich or the few jut because it isn't illegal. There are so many examples of unfair laws protecting the few. Did you see the movie FOOD INC. They talk about how Monsanto Lawyers put soybean farmers out of business not because they violate their copyright but because the wind blows and some of the Monsanto seeds land on the farmers property and germinate. Well guess what the court system backs Monsanto and puts the independent farmer out of business. Well this was legal right? Do we really want the powerful Monsanto to get its way because they are big and have a monopoly. I am sure they have enough laws on their side and enough money to get whatever they want. Its up to groups like the one that is pushing for GM labeling (by the way the group is optimistic it will make progress regardless of the California loss - FDA lawsuit is coming up) and us voters to wake up and insist on some fair regulation that will put an end to a company like Monsanto.
-Airplane

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to airplaneman (Reply #57)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 10:01 PM

61. I agree completely. The Robert's Court has changed antitrust litigation, and not for the better.

I think that's why it's important to change the composition of SCOTUS, and get a Congress in 2014 that will pass laws that help the consumer.

What I don't find particularly helpful are OPs that kneejerk blame the Executive branch for failing to act by fiat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:18 PM

36. Kinda like appointing Tony Soprano Secretary of the Treasury.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:40 PM

40. Thanks for posting. I have signed with hope that thousands more will too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 04:27 PM

44. Impeach him!

I'm sure you have Issa's number on speed dial, better relay this info.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 10:07 PM

63. Taylor's ties to monsanto go way back. Within years of his graduation he was working for

 

a law firm that represented them and so far as i can tell, he's been working for them ever since, regardless of what position he held in the public or private sector -- it was always connected to monsanto's interests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread