Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, February 25, 2013

The Supreme Court appeared likely Tuesday to side with Monsanto in its claim that an Indiana farmer violated the company's patents on soybean seeds that are resistant to its weed-killer. None of the justices in arguments at the high court seemed ready to endorse farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman's argument that cheap soybeans he bought from a grain elevator are not covered by the Monsanto patents, even though most of them also were genetically modified to resist the company's Roundup herbicide.

Advertisement

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

Corky

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Chief Justice John Roberts wondered "why in the world would anybody" invest time and money on seeds if it was so easy to evade patent protection.

To protect its investment in their development, Monsanto has a policy that prohibits farmers from saving or reusing the seeds once the crop is grown. Farmers must buy new seeds every year.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you have comments about site moderation, contact the site publisher in email.

Several Nonprofits Weigh in on Monsanto Seed Patents Case

www.nonprofitquarterly.org

Monsanto is one of the largest criminal organizations in the world, and the Obama admin is wrong to support them in this case.

www.google.com

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-24 12:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Anybody know where Monsanto billboards are located? I have a full can of gasoline I don't know what to do with.

#2 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-24 12:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

Launching a lawsuit against the very company that is responsible for a farmer suicide every 30 minutes, 5 million farmers are now suing Monsanto for as much as 6.2 billion euros (around 7.7 billion US dollars).

The reason? As with many other cases, such as the ones that led certain farming regions to be known as the ‘suicide belt', Monsanto has been reportedly taxing the farmers to financial shambles with ridiculous royalty charges.

The farmers state that Monsanto has been unfairly gathering exorbitant profits each year on a global scale from "renewal" seed harvests, which are crops planted using seed from the previous year's harvest.

The practice of using renewal seeds dates back to ancient times, but Monsanto seeks to collect massive royalties and put an end to the practice.

Why? Because Monsanto owns the very patent to the genetically modified seed, and is charging the farmers not only for the original crops, but the later harvests as well. Eventually, the royalties compound and many farmers begin to struggle with even keeping their farm afloat. It is for this reason that India slammed Monsanto with groundbreaking ‘biopiracy' charges in an effort to stop Monsanto from ‘patenting life'.

Jane Berwanger, a lawyer for the farmers who went on record regarding the case, told the Associted Press:

"Monsanto gets paid when it sell the seeds. The law gives producers the right to multiply the seeds they buy and nowhere in the world is there a requirement to pay (again). Producers are in effect paying a private tax on production."

more

growtest.org

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-24 12:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

What's crap is that many farmers don't even "save" the seed. They buy it from a retailer who has acquired the seed.

What I would like to see is more country elevators and the farmers who own them should just keep on replanting the seed. This farmer can write this check, likely. More should quietly band together and pool some $$$ to pay when they lose.

#4 | Posted by eberly at 2013-02-24 01:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Monsanto is one of the largest criminal organizations in the world, and the Obama admin is wrong to support them in this case.

www.google.com

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-24 12:35 PM | Reply

www.youtube.com

#5 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02-24 01:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Monsanto is the most evil corporation in the world. It's insane to allow the commodification and privatization of nature, but that's what capitalism does.

#6 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-24 01:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

I agree will Nulli...Can I cuss yet?

#7 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-02-24 01:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Con­trol oil and you con­trol nations; con­trol food and you con­trol the peo­ple."
–Henry Kissinger

That's why my garden has mostly heirloom varities.

#8 | Posted by Whizzo at 2013-02-24 02:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

The seeds are Monsatans property. If you don't want to use them, don't buy them.

I have to agree with Evil on this one.

#9 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2013-02-24 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The seeds are Monsatans property. "

Actually, they are the property of nature, slightly altered, and it's obscene that they are able to patent any form of life.

#10 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-24 02:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Monsanto files patent for new invention: the pig

www.greenpeace.org

#11 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-24 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you don't want to use them, don't buy them.

They are seeds. And they were apparently bought fairly. How can Monsanto then control how they are used?

#12 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-02-24 02:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Seeds
the media industry
Apple
Next in line is....

#13 | Posted by KBM at 2013-02-24 03:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Seeds give rise to new seeds. And Monsanto objects when the seeds are kept and replanted.

But if the seeds produced by patented seeds are still Monsanto's intellectual property, it seems they could make a case for infringement when the seeds their seeds produced are converted into food. Because Monsanto still owns the underlying property regardless of how it's been modified.

If I take a patented product and use it to build a new product, that doesn't invalidate the underlying patent.

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2013-02-24 06:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

F@#k the farmers. We don't need them at all.

Sincerely,

Those who determine your future.

#15 | Posted by coyote at 2013-02-24 07:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

corporations are people my friend.

#16 | Posted by klifferd at 2013-02-24 07:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Snoof,

True but since seeds producing new seeds is a natural process shouldn't monsanto be suing nature not the farmer?

The farmer didn't duplicate their IP nature did.

#17 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2013-02-24 08:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

#13 | Posted by KBM

What's your point? Your Republican party loves Monsanto as much as the Dems do.

#18 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-24 08:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's a sad day when they try this farmer rather than the company that sold him the seeds. They were the ones who failed to observe commercial law, not the farmer.
But picking on the little guy is the way to really intimidate.

#19 | Posted by Diablo at 2013-02-24 09:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

But picking on the little guy is the way to really intimidate.

#19 | Posted by Diablo at 2013-02-24 09:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

He can't afford the good lawyers, so he's an easier target.

Monsato is horrible.

#20 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2013-02-24 09:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think the legal system is more horrible, Alexandrite.

#21 | Posted by Diablo at 2013-02-24 10:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

True but since seeds producing new seeds is a natural process shouldn't monsanto be suing nature not the farmer?

Good point. They patent applies to a product that when used as intended makes copies of the patented intellectual property. But it's still their patent.

This is a lot like we've seen with computer software, where you don't buy the software, you buy a license to use it. It's a way to avoid that pesky Doctrine of First Sale.

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2013-02-25 01:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

I missed this thread until now, because I was downloading Spartacus and Family Guy from torrent sites. So what's it about again?

#23 | Posted by uglyblinddate at 2013-02-25 01:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's about using your government enforced monopoly to get rich.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2013-02-25 05:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

"He can't afford the good lawyers, so he's an easier target."

He has excellent lawyers this time around. Working pro bono. Not that its really going to make that much difference.

#25 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2013-02-25 08:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

Obama's agricultural policy is pretty much written by Monsanto.

www.naturalnews.com

#26 | Posted by Sully at 2013-02-25 09:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

From Sully's link:

"(NaturalNews) During his 2008 campaign for president, Barack Obama transmitted signals that he understood the GMO issue. Several key anti-GMO activists were impressed. They thought Obama, once in the White House, would listen to their concerns and act on them."

How many times have we heard stories like this? Civil libertarians thought Obama was "one of them" as well. Instead he was just the opposite.

articles.latimes.com

#27 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-25 09:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I missed this thread until now, because I was downloading Spartacus and Family Guy from torrent sites. So what's it about again?

#23 | Posted by uglyblinddate

Funny flag for RubeisRight.

#28 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-25 10:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

They are seeds. And they were apparently bought fairly. How can Monsanto then control how they are used?

#12 | Posted by donnerboy

Its part of the contract. Seriously if you don't want to use thier seeds then don't. But the fact is Monsanto has increased yields, and that supports the people with cheaper prices.

Monsanto has been unfairly called out because processors can't process the yields that BTCotton et al. have produced. But once the processors catch up, everyone wins.

Nulli is against growth, as noted in previous threads. Nulli doesn't want higher yields, it would go against his ego invesment that the world can't sustain more people.

But the fact is higher yields are possible through technology.

Is it any wonder Nulli doesn't like Monsanto, hint its got nothing to do with Monsanto....

#29 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2013-02-25 10:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

Anyone care to guess how quickly the SCOTUS rules in favor of Monsanto?

#30 | Posted by 726 at 2013-02-25 10:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Its part of the contract. Seriously if you don't want to use thier seeds then don't."

Well apparently the plants that grow from their seeds aren't aware of their contractual obligations because they keep producing new seeds.

#31 | Posted by Sully at 2013-02-25 10:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

" Nulli doesn't want higher yields, it would go against his ego invesment that the world can't sustain more people."

Spare me the psych exam, Dr. Mackris. Go ahead, breed like rabbits, it just means the inevitable Malthusian correction will be that much more traumatic. The bigger the balloon, the largely the pop. I won't be around to witness the preventable nightmare created by denialists, pollyannas and cornucopians.

#32 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-25 10:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

"But the fact is higher yields are possible through technology."

Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done. There are tradeoffs. I would think a technologist like yourself would have figured that out by now.

The World According to Monsanto
www.youtube.com

#33 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-25 10:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

"And they were apparently bought fairly. How can Monsanto then control how they are used?"

that is what this is about.

Primarily, Monsanto wants the farmer who bought the seed, grew it, harvested it and sell the crop for cash and keep none of it. Then go buy the seed again prior to planting.

I understand that but it gets more complicated......a farmer can sell the crop for cash but then the farmer has no control over what the elevator/storage business does with that seed. That seed can be sold, bought, sold, and bought through different parties....and then end up in a bag that a farmer buys from someone other than Monsanto.

The question is.....how far does Monsanto's arms reach? I mean, once the seed changes hands (several times in fact) then what expectation should Monsanto have with regards to that harvested seed being replanted?

#34 | Posted by eberly at 2013-02-25 11:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

"The question is.....how far does Monsanto's arms reach?"

Right up the back of the President's jacket and onto the lever that controls his mouth.

#35 | Posted by Sully at 2013-02-25 11:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done. There are tradeoffs."

this is no defense of Monsanto, but who do you expect to stand up and say "we can't produce this much food. It isn't healthy for the environment. Yes, I know 8 billion are trying to eat better and many are trying to avoid starvation, but we simply can't produce this much food anymore. Again, the environment is more important"...?

#36 | Posted by eberly at 2013-02-25 11:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

Eb, Monsanto's arms have great reach. They have sued and won against farmers in IA that have had pollen blown from Monsanto planted fields across property lines and fertilized their heirloom seeds.

www.divinecaroline.com

from the article "The fact that Monsanto's seeds are so far-reaching is bad news for heirloom crops in another way, as well. Remember that heirlooms are pollinated by wind, insects, and rain, which also carry pollen from other sources. The problem is that you can't fully control what other sources invade your crops. Since Monsanto has crops all over the country (and world), it's increasingly difficult to keep heirloom (and organic) crops from getting contaminated. What's worse, if Monsanto finds out that any of their patented materials landed in non-authorized fields, even if it's by an act of nature, they can sue. In fact, that's one of the company's primary means of success -- bullying competing farmers into submission with threats to sue, or bankrupting them by making good on the threat."

#37 | Posted by mattm at 2013-02-25 11:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

#37

thanks

very NW

#38 | Posted by eberly at 2013-02-25 11:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

""we can't produce this much food. It isn't healthy for the environment. "

It also isn't healthy for the quality of life of future generations and ultimately it will result in extinction. Humans are no smarter than rabbits. They will overgraze and over-exploit their environment causing a temporary population explosion, and it will be followed by a mass die-off. History is replete with examples of human societies destroying their landbase and becoming instinct. Easter Island, anyone?

#39 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-25 11:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

""we can't produce this much food. It isn't healthy for the environment. "
It also isn't healthy for the quality of life of future generations and ultimately it will result in extinction. Humans are no smarter than rabbits. They will overgraze and over-exploit their environment causing a temporary population explosion, and it will be followed by a mass die-off. History is replete with examples of human societies destroying their landbase and becoming instinct. Easter Island, anyone?
#39 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-25 11:33 AM

My English Spot was an extremely intelligent house rabbit. He hit the mark more often than my human roommates and smelled better in general.:]

Destroying their crops by fire isn't always necessary, since correctly modified pests or triggering the seed "failsafe" early are also options. That should take little effort to discover.

Once the obvious genetic development inhibitors make a generation of disabled Americans perhaps the insurance agencies will file their own suits? Probably not on our behalf. Anyhow, I envision facilitation of thousands of Monsanto workforce suits against all shareholders simultaneously could also be a way to change the MSM meme for a week.

Why can't we have a SuperPAC for sane and ethical food production to fight against Monsanto?

A war butterfly isn't too far off the mark.

Also, just surreptitiously spray each others crops in the night - done.

#40 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2013-02-25 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

we can't produce this much food. It isn't healthy for the environment. Yes, I know 8 billion are trying to eat better and many are trying to avoid starvation, but we simply can't produce this much food anymore. Again, the environment is more important"...?
#36 EBERLY

www.google.com
These corporations are trying to lock down food and feed supplies.
They don't have much interest in feeding people, just owning them.

#41 | Posted by Whizzo at 2013-02-25 01:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Since Monsanto has crops all over the country (and world), it's increasingly difficult to keep heirloom (and organic) crops from getting contaminated.

Wait till Monsanto tells you that you cannot plant those apple seeds or those corn seeds like they have done to the indigenous corn farmers whose corn ends up getting modified through no fault of their own. Then you will get it but then it will be too late for you too..

#42 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-02-25 02:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Monsanto has been unfairly called out because processors can't process the yields that BTCotton et al. have produced. But once the processors catch up, everyone wins.

Nulli is against growth, as noted in previous threads. Nulli doesn't want higher yields, it would go against his ego invesment that the world can't sustain more people.

But the fact is higher yields are possible through technology.

Monsanto is not in business for the betterment of Mankind. They are in business for the profits. It is this relentless drive for profit in the genetically modified food industry that will actually will hurt Mankind in the end. Just as it is doing now in the Oil Industry.

#43 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-02-25 03:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Monsanto has increased yields, and that supports the people with cheaper prices.

Supports the people? What are you, some kind of hippie?
Businesses don't support people. They reward shareholders.
And take a look around you. Do Americans need more cheap food?

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2013-02-25 03:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

but who do you expect to stand up and say "we can't produce this much food. It isn't healthy for the environment. Yes, I know 8 billion are trying to eat better and many are trying to avoid starvation, but we simply can't produce this much food anymore. Again, the environment is more important"...?

Crocodile tears aside, we certainly don't need to produce this much food.
We have so much food that we convert no small portion of it to ethanol.

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2013-02-25 03:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Do Americans need more cheap food?"

no.....but millions of folks around the world do.

#46 | Posted by eberly at 2013-02-25 03:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

"no.....but millions of folks around the world do."

Millions of folks were able to feed themselves before capitalist corporations invaded their countries and stole genetic material and destroyed their agricultural systems.

#47 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-25 03:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

www.farms.com

a lot of hungry folks out there.

don't misunderstand, I'm justifying our exporting of ag commodities......not these actions of Monsanto.

#48 | Posted by eberly at 2013-02-25 03:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

"a lot of hungry folks out there."

That's unfortunate, but no reason to continue insane and unsustainable policies that will make the inevitable crash worse. The Amazon rainforest is being destroyed for cattle grazing to provide beef to feed people, and more importantly, to keep the McDonald's 99 cent menu in place. It's suicidal. It's like burning your furniture to heat your home.

#49 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-25 03:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Farmers in Brazil have found that the yields are actually better with non-GMO seed. Unfortunately, they can't get that seed any more. Monsanto requires that they buy 4 times as much GMO seed as non-GMO seed. Otherwise, non-GMO seed is simply not available.

Non-GMO seed is often not available for U.S. farmers, either.

#50 | Posted by tvdog at 2013-02-25 04:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Millions of folks were able to feed themselves before capitalist corporations invaded their countries and stole genetic material and destroyed their agricultural systems.

#47 | Posted by nullifidian

Monsanto is not interested in feeding the starving masses. They are interested in making sure the starving masses are completely dependent on Monsanto.

#51 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-02-25 04:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Would this be a different story had the farmer used the seeds without using the Roundup herbicide the seeds are modified to work with, seems he got the benefit of the modification without paying for it, maybe Monsanto could charge more for the herbicide since that is the only reason for the seed modification. OH and as evil as Monsanto has become I still have a soft spot in my heart for them for the only free ride in Disneyland when I was a child the one where they shrink you down into a snowflake.

#52 | Posted by THomewood at 2013-02-25 05:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Monsanto is not in business for the betterment of Mankind. They are in business for the profits. It is this relentless drive for profit in the genetically modified food industry that will actually will hurt Mankind in the end. Just as it is doing now in the Oil Industry.
#43 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

I was reading the arguments against the Malthusian Catastrphe theory (as provided by NULLI above) and this is the exact variable that I don't think they consider - corporate interest in shareholder profit. The main argument against the Malthusian Catastrophe theory (MCT) is that technological progress will keep up with population increases.

My retort (and yours if I'm reading your post correctly) is that the suggested technological progression arguments by MCT critics are constricted by the main corporate interest in profits. SCOTUS ruling on Monsanto case has far reaching implications regarding the exact technological progress MCT critics tout as the mitigating factor in MCT. Should SCOTUS rule in favor of Monsanto, MCT critics' argument regarding technological progress is severely diminished, IMO.

#53 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2013-02-25 07:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

#48 | POSTED BY EBERLY

In researching the Malthusian catastrophe theory (MCT), I read that many of the UN studies and research indicate that such a catastrophe will indeed be avoided. But even so, there will still be untold millions who will remain hungry.

IOW, such a catastrophe will be avoided, but current/future technological progress will not have as significant of an impact on global food supplies as the technological innovations of the past.

#54 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2013-02-25 07:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I read that many of the UN studies and research indicate that such a catastrophe will indeed be avoided."

Unfortunately all those pollyannas and panglossians will be dead when their "research" is debunked by reality. 200,000+ people were born today. And will be born tomorrow. And the next day. And the next. Think about it.

#55 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-25 07:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

The problem solves itself because as cultures get richer the women find better ways to spend their time than squiring out babies.

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2013-02-25 07:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I read that many of the UN studies and research indicate that such a catastrophe will indeed be avoided."

Unfortunately all those pollyannas and panglossians will be dead when their "research" is debunked by reality. 200,000+ people were born today. And will be born tomorrow. And the next day. And the next. Think about it.

I thought about that exact variable, which is why I emailed Dr. Bartlett about this story and his opinion on the Malthusian catastrophe theory. I believe MCT has significant potential of being proven true because the technological progress arguments offered by MCT critics (like ANDREAMACKRIS above) do not consider the significant interest corporations implementing said technology have in shareholder profit. These entities are nothing like Dr. Jonas Salk and eschew nothing close to the philanthropic attitude Dr. Salk offered when he gave the patent-less polio vaccine to the world.

It's my opinion that said interest in shareholder profit could be significant enough to mitigate the benefits offered by technological progress, causing this progress to eventually lag behind population increases, thereby completely undermining the technological progress argument against MCT.

I hope Dr. Bartlett responds soon so that I can provide you with his opinion here on the thread.

#57 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2013-02-25 08:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

The problem solves itself because as cultures get richer the women find better ways to spend their time than squiring out babies.

Global capitalism will not allow monetary equality, leaving many countries in the dust of the Dark Ages. There will be plenty of woman who will only find benefit in producing numerous offspring, as evidenced by many cultures currently.

#58 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2013-02-25 08:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I hope Dr. Bartlett responds soon"

For those who don't know who Rusty is referring to:

www.youtube.com

#59 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-25 08:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

If one windblown seed finds your property Monsanto detectives can find it without a warrant and then they own you. The present legal precident is that since they own you, you cannot use and must destroy all seeds that are not Monsanto patent seed. Similarly, genetic engineering companies own patents on people with unique DNA sequences. The person with the sequence has no rights to it. When our patent system was originally developed, life was explicitly not included. Big money in the Courts has changed all that. SCOTUS has bought into this nonsense for a long time. They recently took it apon themselves a case likely to expand on Citizens United. Unless one of the Conservative Justices retires or croaks an outcome consistent with humanitarian and constitutional principals is not going to happen.

#60 | Posted by nutcase at 2013-02-25 09:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

If the US Amy would surprise Monsanto labs across the planet with more of their famous Anthrax "outbreaks".. [sigh]

#61 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2013-02-26 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Or, just anthrax SCOTUS? Would that do much good? I mean, sure they represent the pentultimate legal jurisprudence, but don't they also breathe the same air, drink the same water? No? Oh, well then.. carry on, klangers.

#62 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2013-02-26 02:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

even if it's by an act of nature, they can sue. In fact, that's one of the company's primary means of success -- bullying competing farmers into submission with threats to sue, or bankrupting them by making good on the threat."

#37 | Posted by mattm

This is where I have a big problem with the way defendants are responding. Why are they not sueing Monsanto for poluting their herloom seed stock? If someone panted normal seed, and Monsanto found their plants growing there, whey is it not polution and invation of property rather than theft?

Some initial cases in Canada were such that the farmer had been planting from saved seeds for generations. Monsanto found some of their material on that very large farm and sued for theft. Why not sue back for poluting your pristine non GMO plants with their genetically modified version?

#63 | Posted by Marty at 2013-02-26 02:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

One Nation, Under Monsanto (Controlled by Rockefeller Trust)

In the United States everything is polluted.

Democracy is polluted with special interests and corrupt politicians.
Accountability is polluted with executive branch exemptions from law and the Constitution and with special legal privileges for corporations, such as the Supreme Court given right to corporations to purchase American elections.

The Constitution is polluted with corrupt legal interpretations from the Bush and Obama regimes that have turned constitutional prohibitions into executive branch rights, transforming law from a shield of the people into a weapon in the hands of government.

Waters are polluted with toxic waste spills, oil spills, chemical fertilizer run-off with resulting red tides and dead zones, acid discharges from mining with resulting destructive algae such as prymnesium parvum, from toxic chemicals used in fracking and with methane that fracking releases into wells and aquifers, resulting in warnings to homeowners near to fracking operations to open their windows when showering.

The soil is polluted with an endless array of toxic substances and now with glyphosate, the main element in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide with which GMO crops are sprayed. Glyphosate now shows up in wells, streams and in rain.

Glyphosate is a powerful biocide. It harms beneficial soil organisms, altering the natural balance in the soil and reducing the disease resistance of crops, thus unleashing diseases that devastate corn, soybean, and wheat crops, and giving rise to a new pathogen associated with premature animal aging and infertility. These developments, Purdue Professor Huber told the Agriculture Secretary, "are threatening the economic viability of both crop and animal producers."

Monsanto is not only sufficiently powerful to prevent any research other than that which it purchases with its funding, but also Monsanto succeeded last year in blocking with money and propaganda the GMO labeling law in California. You should be careful what you eat as it can make you ill and infertile, but you can't even find out what you are eating.

#64 | Posted by nutcase at 2013-02-26 10:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

The soil is polluted with an endless array of toxic substances and now with glyphosate, the main element in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide with which GMO crops are sprayed. Glyphosate now shows up in wells, streams and in rain.

Our best hope is the autism freaks decide it's not Thimerosal but GMO crops that are the culprit.

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2013-02-26 10:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Thimerosal gave me a grave case of eye inflammation, after years of use without any symptoms. when I changed contact lens solution the problem went away.

#66 | Posted by nutcase at 2013-02-26 11:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

The problem is not genetic engineering, its the poison associated with the genetic engineering program.

#67 | Posted by nutcase at 2013-02-26 11:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

USSC, bought and paid for by the highest bidder.

Is anyone truly surprised?

#68 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2013-02-27 12:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

They have sued and won against farmers in IA that have had pollen blown from Monsanto planted fields across property lines and fertilized their heirloom seeds.

Shouldn't Monsanto be sued for "pollution" and ordered to clean up their "mess"?

#69 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2013-02-27 11:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2013 World Readable

 

Advertisement