On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 1:31:24 PM UTC-5, Mayayana wrote:


Yes, you can't cross breed a sunflower with
a haddock, so I guess GMO is different in that
way. I'm not defending GMO and won't buy
GMO food, for 3 reasons:

1) health concerns
2) patentability
3) nature of the change

Make up your mind. You just told us that:

"There's a common misconception that GMO is inherently
toxic. GMO only means that a gene has been changed in
a laboratory rather than by cross breeding. "

Then you told us the real problem was the use of Roundup
on GMO crops, even though that article was specifically
about using Roundup on non-GMO crops only.




I'm concerned about the trend toward
turning the issue into a simple case of whether
or not GMO is healthy.

That would seem to be by far the most important issue. So
far, besides hysteria, I haven't seen anything that indicates
there is any health issue.


There are tomatoes now
that are altered to be deep red despite being
unripe and tasteless. It's a dumb and sleazy
idea, but not necessarily unhealthy.

Strawman. Let's look at the more realistic example.
There are tomatoes that are acceptable to consumers
that are being sold, but the color isn't great. With
GMO, they can produce a tomato that has a nice color
and has a longer shelf life, making it a better product
that consumers like more. Or maybe they have a
tomato that tastes great, has a good color, but poor
shelf life so it can't be distributed. With GMO,
they improve the shelf life so that it's a viable
product. Now the consumer has a better tasting, nice
looking tomato.



If it could
be proved that such tomatoes are healthy the
GMO supporters could make their case. But
what the general public is missing are the other
two issues: indefensible alterations and patentability.

They are defensible. Getting a good, tasty tomato
to me in winter is one example. Increasing crop yields,
producing more crops to feed the world, keeping market
prices low, is another. Won't someone think of the
starving children?


There's a problem with supporting deceptive
products. And there's a grave problem with
supporting patentability of life forms.

What exactly is this is deceptive or a "grave problem"? If you
don't want to plant GMO crops, you just buy seed from the many
available sources that are not GMO. And patents don't last
forever, they have a limited life. Some of the Monsanto
patents for example, have
already expired. There is no more "grave danger" here with
respect to patents than there is with any other patent.

And what you completly ignore is that crossbreeding via traditional
method plants are similarly protected by law. Just try taking
a new grass seed developed at Rutgers, reproduce it, sell it
and see what happens. Ruutgers will be after you just as fast
as Monsanto. It's not at all an issue exclusive
to GMO. Whether GMO or via traditional methods, the creators of
new varieties need protection just like someone who creates
a better battery. Why would anyone spend the money
to research, develop anything, if anyone can come along and
copy it?


Even if
companies cross-breed peaches they have motivation
to produce the exact same breed via GMO, because
that can then be patented.

They can receive similar protection if it's crossbred.


Monsanto has been
threatening to sue corn farmers for patent
infringement because Monsanto pollen from nearby
farms "might" infect their fields! It's a crazy claim,
but farmers can't afford to fight Monsanto so they
agree to settle by accepting Roundup Ready seeds
rather than go broke trying to fight patent infringement
lawsuits. With the Scalia cartel running the Supreme
Court there's not much hope for humane improvements
in laws like patentability of life forms. It's up to
the public to see through the strategy.

FYI, the SC doesn't make law. It's just another classic lib
misconception. Now let's look at the recent case that you
appear to be referencing and have totally misrepresented.
The issue is that through cross polination, it's
possible for some small amounts of Monsanto GMO to show up
accidentally on farm "A" which is not using Monsanto products
by being contaminated via a nearby farm "B" that is using legally bought
Monsanto GMO. The other way for Monsanto GMO to show up is if
the farm is regrowing Monsanto seed which is a clear violation
of their patents. One way is innocent and not material, the other
is illegal. So, a collection of farmers, seed producers, etc
brought suit, seeking to *preemptively* bar Monsanto from ever
suing farmer "A" regardless of how the crop got there.
The case made it's way through the courts,
with the Federal Appeals court ruling in Monsanto's favor. Part
of their reasoning:

"Yet the appeals panel also said the plaintiffs do not have standing to prohibit Monsanto from suing them should the company's genetic traits end up on their holdings "because Monsanto has made binding assurances that it will not 'take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes (because, for example, some transgenic seed or pollen blew onto the grower's land).'"

Further, Monsanto apparently never has sued anyone where their seed
was found inadvertantly:

"Monsanto never has and has committed it never will sue if our patented seed or traits are found in a farmer's field as a result of inadvertent means," said Kyle McClain, the Monsanto's chief litigation counsel, according to Reuters.

If you have an example of where they did, I'd be happy to see it.


So, what you have is a case where the plaintiff wants blanket protection,
barring Monsanto from ever suing them. The appeals court rejected that.
OK, so now it goes to the SC, where you want to make it into a conservative
versus liberal issue. But that falls apart too. The SC refused to hear the
case. It only takes 4 SC justices to vote affirmatively to take the case.
The fact that 4 votes couldn't be obtained, tells you that it's
clearly not conservatives alone that thought the case had no merit and
let the appeals ruling stand. The libs agreed.

Just the facts.