- This topic has 135 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 8 months ago by
patientrenter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 9, 2009 at 11:55 AM #15258March 9, 2009 at 12:15 PM #362696
Enorah
ParticipantI just read about this elsewhere today, Breeze
March 9, 2009 at 12:15 PM #362988ParticipantI just read about this elsewhere today, Breeze
March 9, 2009 at 12:15 PM #363142ParticipantI just read about this elsewhere today, Breeze
March 9, 2009 at 12:15 PM #363181ParticipantI just read about this elsewhere today, Breeze
March 9, 2009 at 12:15 PM #363290ParticipantI just read about this elsewhere today, Breeze
March 9, 2009 at 12:42 PM #362725OnPoint
ParticipantI recently watched “The Future of Food” (Deborah Koons Garcia, 2004) via Netflix online.
It presented arguments I had not heard before. I previously viewed anti-GM food activists as Luddites. After all, we’ve been genetically modifying plants & animals for centuries, we just have better tools now. Right? Wrong.
The end goal does appear to be cornering the food market.
The power play here is that Monsanto & others have acheived patents on their life forms. This apparently is new territory. Then their seeds intermingle with family farm stocks (“oopsie”) and Monsanto goes after the farmers for patent royalties. The law seems upside down here. Seems to me the farmers should be able to sue Monsanto for alduterating their royalty free seed stock.
I better understand now the increased Internet advertising for “heirloom” seed collections.
Seems another example of big corporations bending legislators to make laws that are good for them and bad for everybody else. The film does raise the issue down the road that will come up: Suppose they are able to create replacement body parts (kidneys, whatever) with patented technology. They place the kidney inside you. Do they now own you? A part of you? Must you pay royalties for your remaining days of life?
March 9, 2009 at 12:42 PM #363019ParticipantI recently watched “The Future of Food” (Deborah Koons Garcia, 2004) via Netflix online.
It presented arguments I had not heard before. I previously viewed anti-GM food activists as Luddites. After all, we’ve been genetically modifying plants & animals for centuries, we just have better tools now. Right? Wrong.
The end goal does appear to be cornering the food market.
The power play here is that Monsanto & others have acheived patents on their life forms. This apparently is new territory. Then their seeds intermingle with family farm stocks (“oopsie”) and Monsanto goes after the farmers for patent royalties. The law seems upside down here. Seems to me the farmers should be able to sue Monsanto for alduterating their royalty free seed stock.
I better understand now the increased Internet advertising for “heirloom” seed collections.
Seems another example of big corporations bending legislators to make laws that are good for them and bad for everybody else. The film does raise the issue down the road that will come up: Suppose they are able to create replacement body parts (kidneys, whatever) with patented technology. They place the kidney inside you. Do they now own you? A part of you? Must you pay royalties for your remaining days of life?
March 9, 2009 at 12:42 PM #363173ParticipantI recently watched “The Future of Food” (Deborah Koons Garcia, 2004) via Netflix online.
It presented arguments I had not heard before. I previously viewed anti-GM food activists as Luddites. After all, we’ve been genetically modifying plants & animals for centuries, we just have better tools now. Right? Wrong.
The end goal does appear to be cornering the food market.
The power play here is that Monsanto & others have acheived patents on their life forms. This apparently is new territory. Then their seeds intermingle with family farm stocks (“oopsie”) and Monsanto goes after the farmers for patent royalties. The law seems upside down here. Seems to me the farmers should be able to sue Monsanto for alduterating their royalty free seed stock.
I better understand now the increased Internet advertising for “heirloom” seed collections.
Seems another example of big corporations bending legislators to make laws that are good for them and bad for everybody else. The film does raise the issue down the road that will come up: Suppose they are able to create replacement body parts (kidneys, whatever) with patented technology. They place the kidney inside you. Do they now own you? A part of you? Must you pay royalties for your remaining days of life?
March 9, 2009 at 12:42 PM #363211ParticipantI recently watched “The Future of Food” (Deborah Koons Garcia, 2004) via Netflix online.
It presented arguments I had not heard before. I previously viewed anti-GM food activists as Luddites. After all, we’ve been genetically modifying plants & animals for centuries, we just have better tools now. Right? Wrong.
The end goal does appear to be cornering the food market.
The power play here is that Monsanto & others have acheived patents on their life forms. This apparently is new territory. Then their seeds intermingle with family farm stocks (“oopsie”) and Monsanto goes after the farmers for patent royalties. The law seems upside down here. Seems to me the farmers should be able to sue Monsanto for alduterating their royalty free seed stock.
I better understand now the increased Internet advertising for “heirloom” seed collections.
Seems another example of big corporations bending legislators to make laws that are good for them and bad for everybody else. The film does raise the issue down the road that will come up: Suppose they are able to create replacement body parts (kidneys, whatever) with patented technology. They place the kidney inside you. Do they now own you? A part of you? Must you pay royalties for your remaining days of life?
March 9, 2009 at 12:42 PM #363320ParticipantI recently watched “The Future of Food” (Deborah Koons Garcia, 2004) via Netflix online.
It presented arguments I had not heard before. I previously viewed anti-GM food activists as Luddites. After all, we’ve been genetically modifying plants & animals for centuries, we just have better tools now. Right? Wrong.
The end goal does appear to be cornering the food market.
The power play here is that Monsanto & others have acheived patents on their life forms. This apparently is new territory. Then their seeds intermingle with family farm stocks (“oopsie”) and Monsanto goes after the farmers for patent royalties. The law seems upside down here. Seems to me the farmers should be able to sue Monsanto for alduterating their royalty free seed stock.
I better understand now the increased Internet advertising for “heirloom” seed collections.
Seems another example of big corporations bending legislators to make laws that are good for them and bad for everybody else. The film does raise the issue down the road that will come up: Suppose they are able to create replacement body parts (kidneys, whatever) with patented technology. They place the kidney inside you. Do they now own you? A part of you? Must you pay royalties for your remaining days of life?
March 9, 2009 at 12:59 PM #362750jpinpb
ParticipantMonsanto is evil.
March 9, 2009 at 12:59 PM #363044ParticipantMonsanto is evil.
March 9, 2009 at 12:59 PM #363198ParticipantMonsanto is evil.
March 9, 2009 at 12:59 PM #363236ParticipantMonsanto is evil.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.