Government to outlaw family farms?

[TheBreeze]

So maybe this is how we get to partypup’s nightmare scenario where the grocery stores run out of food:

HR 875, was introduced by Rosa DeLauro whose husband Stanley Greenburg works for Monsanto.

The bill is monstrous on level after level – the power it would give to Monsanto, the criminalization of seed banking, the prison terms and confiscatory fines for farmers, the 24 hours GPS tracking of their animals, the easements on their property to allow for warrantless government entry, the stripping away of their property rights, the imposition by the filthy, greedy industrial side of anti-farming international “industrial” standards to independent farms – the only part of our food system that still works, the planned elimination of farmers through all these means.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Monsanto-s-dream-bill-HR-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090309-337.html

There’s some more info here:

http://shepardpolitics.blogspot.com/2009/03/hr-875-would-essentially-outlaw-family.html

[Enorah]

I just read about this elsewhere today, Breeze

[Enorah]

I just read about this elsewhere today, Breeze

[Enorah]

I just read about this elsewhere today, Breeze

[Enorah]

I just read about this elsewhere today, Breeze

[Enorah]

I just read about this elsewhere today, Breeze

[OnPoint]

I 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?

[OnPoint]

I 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?

[OnPoint]

I 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?

[OnPoint]

I 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?

[OnPoint]

I 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?

[jpinpb]

Monsanto is evil.

[jpinpb]

Monsanto is evil.

[jpinpb]

Monsanto is evil.

[jpinpb]

Monsanto is evil.

[Author]

Posts