Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 05:54 PM Dec 2015

Breaking News: Monsanto to Be Put to Trial in Hague for Crimes Against Humanity

...

The Monsanto Company enjoys what can only be described as a cozy relationship with the American mainstream press, in large part because it’s an America-based company that is heavily involved in lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill.

But overseas, the company and its contemporaries in the agrochemical business world are largely shunned and/or banned due to transgressions against both health and the environment.

Monsanto also has a penchant for suing farmers, another item that often goes unreported. But now the multinational company many describe as a legal bully will be placed on trial – this time in international court for Crimes Against Humanity, according to a new report from the website Sustainable Pulse.
...
The Monsanto Tribunal, which will be held in The Hague from October 12 to 16, 2016, aims to assess these allegations made against Monsanto, and to evaluate the damages caused by this transnational company. The Tribunal will rely on the “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” adopted at the UN in 2011. It will also assess potential criminal liability on the basis of the Rome Statue that created the International Criminal Court in The Hague in 2002, and it will consider whether a reform of international criminal law is warranted to include crimes against the environment, or ecocide, as a prosecutable criminal offense.


...
http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/breaking-news-monsanto-to-put-to-trial-in-the-hague-for-crimes-against-humanity/
367 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Breaking News: Monsanto to Be Put to Trial in Hague for Crimes Against Humanity (Original Post) darkangel218 Dec 2015 OP
Heck, this "tribunal" may even be in the Hague! Archae Dec 2015 #1
What is your opinion on Monsanto and the GMO? darkangel218 Dec 2015 #4
What difference does it make? Archae Dec 2015 #5
Gotcha. n/t darkangel218 Dec 2015 #6
GMO's use more pesticides and are making crops more resistant requiring more pesticides. tecelote Dec 2015 #17
GMOs reduce pesticide use, and super weeds are not a bigger issue with GMOs. HuckleB Dec 2015 #25
Don't be fooled. This is poisoning our land and our people. tecelote Dec 2015 #27
All of your links are about the same basic stuff, from Benbrook. HuckleB Dec 2015 #31
So it makes sense to you that we can keep pouring pesticides on our land with no adverse effects? tecelote Dec 2015 #37
,..That^ 840high Dec 2015 #38
Lots and lots of plants you eat produce natural pesticides and always have skepticscott Dec 2015 #40
Because they have always been safe. Centuries of testing. tecelote Dec 2015 #42
So then when you said "poison is poison" skepticscott Dec 2015 #50
Please list these "lots and lots" of plants Art_from_Ark Dec 2015 #259
not a list but an explanation Kali Dec 2015 #284
Oh, I understand that plants often produce natural insecticides Art_from_Ark Dec 2015 #289
ah, wasn't sure if you knew the process Kali Dec 2015 #297
So, you just ignore the fact that you made claims that don't stand up? HuckleB Dec 2015 #45
Weed Control Freaks? tecelote Dec 2015 #46
WCF is run by agricultural professors. HuckleB Dec 2015 #97
"Please post articles from a reputable source." Says the person who posted a Global Research link. EX500rider Dec 2015 #102
There are zero scientific papers in your insane list. Zero. NNadir Dec 2015 #33
OK. bvar22 Dec 2015 #41
For whom? For you? To prove a negative? NNadir Dec 2015 #179
Gish-Gallop. bvar22 Dec 2015 #183
You didn't ask a question. You lazily made an assertion that is, in fact, an attempt to... NNadir Dec 2015 #184
I don't care. I don't want to eat pesticides RoccoR5955 Dec 2015 #132
Organic doesn't mean no pesticides Major Nikon Dec 2015 #140
Not in New York State RoccoR5955 Dec 2015 #163
That's not even close to true. HuckleB Dec 2015 #165
Not the ones that I buy. n/t RoccoR5955 Dec 2015 #168
Ah, you can think that. HuckleB Dec 2015 #169
Uh, I buy LOCAL organic food. RoccoR5955 Dec 2015 #171
I've heard that claim so many times, it's not funny. HuckleB Dec 2015 #173
The people around here are my friends. RoccoR5955 Dec 2015 #181
So first it was "New York State" and now it's "local" Major Nikon Dec 2015 #177
New York State IS local to me. RoccoR5955 Dec 2015 #180
Oh no! Not the dreaded ignore! Major Nikon Dec 2015 #182
What you are describing is called the National Organic Program (NOP) Major Nikon Dec 2015 #176
In 2006, my wife & I moved to the Woods, far away from any Agri-Businesss or Industry, bvar22 Dec 2015 #142
You began to eat better, but that had nothing to do with it being marketed as organic. HuckleB Dec 2015 #143
Not true RoccoR5955 Dec 2015 #164
Well, then it's placebo effect. HuckleB Dec 2015 #166
Ok doctor RoccoR5955 Dec 2015 #167
It's got nothing to do with me. HuckleB Dec 2015 #170
Yes doctor RoccoR5955 Dec 2015 #172
Well, you don't seem to understand much about chemistry, biology, or agriculture. HuckleB Dec 2015 #174
Unfortunately for several billion people on the planet, those lacking decent nutrition levels... NNadir Dec 2015 #175
Strawman. bvar22 Dec 2015 #186
Since you don't know any scientists, or for that matter any science... NNadir Dec 2015 #316
A commercial for an organic grocery chain as "proof"? Nailzberg Dec 2015 #47
How long does you 1/2 gallon of 2% milk good for? maybe 2weeks LiberalArkie Dec 2015 #22
Ultra-heat pasteurization and aseptic packaging. Dr Hobbitstein Dec 2015 #101
What difference does it make? carla Dec 2015 #28
Milk? SoLeftIAmRight Dec 2015 #30
I truly hope your health holds up archae, it sucks being sick! Dont call me Shirley Dec 2015 #189
What is your opinion on misleading news releases? jberryhill Dec 2015 #106
Read the article, no one is mislead anything. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #117
The article is very misleading, and that has been pointed out to you repeatedly. HuckleB Dec 2015 #156
I doubt Monsanto is the worst company out there. ZombieHorde Dec 2015 #354
Like we couldn't have "bananas and hamburgers" without GMO and pesticides! darkangel218 Dec 2015 #355
All cows are GMOs. ZombieHorde Dec 2015 #356
GMO stand for genetically modified oats. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #357
GMO stands for genetically modified organisms. ZombieHorde Dec 2015 #358
My banannas are not GMOs. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #359
Here's a little picture of a wild, non gmo banana. ZombieHorde Dec 2015 #361
That is exactly what they look like!! darkangel218 Dec 2015 #362
I'll look for them the next time I go to the health food store. ZombieHorde Dec 2015 #367
The article tells a great big honking fib in the headline, to start. MADem Dec 2015 #351
Uh.....no. At least, not a real trial. jeff47 Dec 2015 #2
Here are those who are going after MON: darkangel218 Dec 2015 #9
That's not a list of organizations with good track records for accuracy and honest science. HuckleB Dec 2015 #19
So only those carla Dec 2015 #29
The organization at the OP link promotes all kinds of pseudoscience. HuckleB Dec 2015 #32
OMG - The Science SoLeftIAmRight Dec 2015 #34
That's a fine response to someone noting the ludicrous things promoted by MAM. HuckleB Dec 2015 #35
OMG - The Science SoLeftIAmRight Dec 2015 #36
OMG Marty McGraw Dec 2015 #103
Indeed. CanSocDem Dec 2015 #152
Monsanto and Dupont have poor records on protecting the environment. nt pnwmom Dec 2015 #196
That doesn't justify the use of deceitful organizations. HuckleB Dec 2015 #198
Monsanto and Dupont have been deceitful, just in different situations. pnwmom Dec 2015 #204
I'm not defending them. HuckleB Dec 2015 #207
Have they been proven in court to be dishonest, like Monsanto and Dupont? nt pnwmom Dec 2015 #211
So now you're defending dishonest organizations? HuckleB Dec 2015 #213
I'm asking if their dishonesty has ever been proved in court. pnwmom Dec 2015 #216
That's irrelevant. HuckleB Dec 2015 #217
There are levels of dishonesty. Apparently theirs doesn't rise to the levels of the GMO producers, pnwmom Dec 2015 #225
You keep telling yourself that. HuckleB Dec 2015 #228
And they're still not a court of law. (nt) jeff47 Dec 2015 #71
The article speaks for itself. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #73
Yes, it does. And it does not back up the claims you are making. jeff47 Dec 2015 #75
The headline is from the article. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #78
Yes, their PR effort is also not telling the truth. jeff47 Dec 2015 #81
When the criminal or civil charges will be brought, yes they will be forced to testify darkangel218 Dec 2015 #83
You posted an OP with a title that is clearly misleading, no matter how much you pretend otherwise. HuckleB Dec 2015 #98
That group is not the one going after Monsanto. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #129
It appears that you can't answer the questions I pose. HuckleB Dec 2015 #133
Your concern is noted LiberalLovinLug Dec 2015 #147
You actually compared civil rights to anti-GMO propaganda? HuckleB Dec 2015 #154
I've been saying for a long time they need to be in prison. bkkyosemite Dec 2015 #3
+1 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #7
+2 CharlotteVale Dec 2015 #20
This sounds like the kangaroo court "Citizen's Grand Juries" that all found Obama guilty of treason. MohRokTah Dec 2015 #8
I'm sure it will be fair. cpwm17 Dec 2015 #10
some how I have a feeling that yuiyoshida Dec 2015 #11
Except this isn't the Hague, the International Court in that city. Archae Dec 2015 #14
Just maybe they could prosecute Dick 'n' Don? chapdrum Dec 2015 #12
This isn't the ICC. This is activists setting up their own court in the same city. (nt) jeff47 Dec 2015 #72
International organizations, not just "activists". darkangel218 Dec 2015 #76
I did read the article. These are international organizations OF ACTIVISTS. jeff47 Dec 2015 #77
Yes, so? darkangel218 Dec 2015 #79
So Monsanto is not being put on trial. jeff47 Dec 2015 #82
Lol you keep going in circles. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #84
I'm afraid it's you who keep returning to the same point, hoping that this time it matters. jeff47 Dec 2015 #85
The article explains what the mock court will be doing very clearly. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #87
And then goes on to massively overstate the results. jeff47 Dec 2015 #88
Official charges will be brought against Monsanto darkangel218 Dec 2015 #89
No, they won't. HuckleB Dec 2015 #113
You only wish. Are you gonna have a sad when Monsanto will be officially charged?? darkangel218 Dec 2015 #114
I don't defend Monsanto. HuckleB Dec 2015 #115
OMG! You have defended GMOs in every thread, ever since I've joined DU! darkangel218 Dec 2015 #120
Monsanto is a company. GMOs are plants developed using a particular technology. HuckleB Dec 2015 #122
Stop acting in which manner? darkangel218 Dec 2015 #124
My questions are clear. HuckleB Dec 2015 #131
Wish I knew your position on the GMO before I wasted my time going in circles lol darkangel218 Dec 2015 #90
So you admit that your stance is purely ideological. HuckleB Dec 2015 #138
Round-Up Ready -- for cancer TryLogic Dec 2015 #13
Did you seriously just link to mercola?... SidDithers Dec 2015 #15
Mercola. It figures. Archae Dec 2015 #16
Thanks for reminding me that I have to buy some more glyphosate Botany Dec 2015 #18
Thats just sad. n/t darkangel218 Dec 2015 #21
And so is the loss of lupines, monarchs, wood thrushes, and our native ecosystems Botany Dec 2015 #23
I am in favor of a mock trial of Monsanto even if it is merely a mock trial Jack Rabbit Dec 2015 #24
Suing farmers - the invisible elephant in the room MH1 Dec 2015 #92
It's pretty sad to see support of bad science and conspiracy theory purveying groups at DU. HuckleB Dec 2015 #136
Before there were these allegations swilton Dec 2015 #26
EXACTLY WHAT I WAS THINKING! Herman4747 Dec 2015 #39
Not just what it did... deathrind Dec 2015 #51
Yes, people are still dying because of agent orange. n/t darkangel218 Dec 2015 #74
Makers (Dow and Monsanto) of Agent Orange followed formula dictated by U.S. government HuckleB Dec 2015 #137
...and still being born. deathrind Dec 2015 #146
Awesome! Monsanto's criminal abuses deserve swift & sure justice. 99th_Monkey Dec 2015 #43
I'm a farmer.....lots of ignorance posted here Dickster Dec 2015 #44
Thank you for your post. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #86
Thank you for taking the time zalinda Dec 2015 #99
And what is your informed opinion skepticscott Dec 2015 #116
He failed to address exactly what method of weed control he utilizes, too. HuckleB Dec 2015 #118
Not everything in life is about costs. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #126
I care about not poisoning the planet. HuckleB Dec 2015 #135
And if he wants to spend more, let him admit skepticscott Dec 2015 #139
Indeed. -eom- HuckleB Dec 2015 #141
He failed to mention a lot of other things as well Major Nikon Dec 2015 #144
Id rather spray my fields with Roundup than "conventional" Atrazine. Elmergantry Dec 2015 #309
Quite misleading headline. Not a real court. yellowcanine Dec 2015 #48
I disagree. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #49
Not correct. tritsofme Dec 2015 #58
Because they need to figure out the charges which can be brought against Monsanto darkangel218 Dec 2015 #59
They don't get to make such a determination on charges tritsofme Dec 2015 #148
Sure.. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #149
Keep dreaming! I guess... tritsofme Dec 2015 #150
It all has to start somewhere. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #151
It's not starting anywhere. HuckleB Dec 2015 #155
DERP Kali Dec 2015 #52
Are you for or against GMO, Kali? darkangel218 Dec 2015 #55
I have a nuanced view of the matter. Simplistic, black-and-white thinking is not my style. Kali Dec 2015 #56
Ohh ..the personal attacks again darkangel218 Dec 2015 #57
the way you "asked" the question didn't warrant much respect Kali Dec 2015 #60
Because I already knew the answer, darkangel218 Dec 2015 #63
... Kali Dec 2015 #68
! n/t darkangel218 Dec 2015 #70
I wouldn't count on that. Texasgal Dec 2015 #61
Umm OK lol. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #62
like talking to a 2nd grader Kali Dec 2015 #69
I feel the same about you. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #80
K&R... spanone Dec 2015 #53
Good. deathrind Dec 2015 #54
Kick! darkangel218 Dec 2015 #64
Renaming my living room The Hague,... NCTraveler Dec 2015 #65
Yes I did. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #66
And BTW, Monsanto is not "a neighbours barking dog". darkangel218 Dec 2015 #67
Kick for visibility! darkangel218 Dec 2015 #91
Ah, a "trial" Recursion Dec 2015 #93
Bill and Hillary Clinton to be put on... meaculpa2011 Dec 2015 #94
Don't get fooled by the GMO issue, this is about business practices. haele Dec 2015 #95
YAY! Obviously the International Court has plenty of clear EVIDENCE to put the murderous company Dont call me Shirley Dec 2015 #96
Your post was alerted on Ichingcarpenter Dec 2015 #104
Oh, thank you thank you thank you jurists! Dont call me Shirley Dec 2015 #145
Mucho intersante Tab Dec 2015 #100
"International court" Dr Hobbitstein Dec 2015 #105
Lololol!!! darkangel218 Dec 2015 #111
I support force feeding of GMOs to breast-feeding mothers by pitbulls at the Olive Garden. Dr Hobbitstein Dec 2015 #153
Not "Pitt bulls and Olive Garden", but you surely support Monsanto and GMOs in dozens if not hundred darkangel218 Dec 2015 #157
The good doctor is quite accurate! HuckleB Dec 2015 #158
GMOs, yes. Dr Hobbitstein Dec 2015 #159
See ya. I have no use in continuing a conversation with someone who calls other DUers darkangel218 Dec 2015 #160
Once again, you fail to be able to discuss the matters at hand. HuckleB Dec 2015 #161
Plenty of science to back up anti-gmo. But the pro-gmo crowd is more like the "Climate Change is a Dont call me Shirley Dec 2015 #190
You have it exactly backwards. HuckleB Dec 2015 #192
Actually, there's not. Dr Hobbitstein Dec 2015 #194
"If you want to link to some actual peer-reviewed papers that aren't in pay-to-play publications Dont call me Shirley Dec 2015 #200
That's not what pay-to-play means. Dr Hobbitstein Dec 2015 #202
Oh, my bad, Pay to Read/Access then. Think...Aaron Schwartz... Dont call me Shirley Dec 2015 #209
Good post. Thanks. immoderate Dec 2015 #107
Breaking News: Monsanto to Be Put on Trial NEAR the Hague for Crimes Against Humanity SidDithers Dec 2015 #108
YES! Faux pas Dec 2015 #109
About damn time... StandingInLeftField Dec 2015 #110
It's a mock trial, by anti FMO international organizations darkangel218 Dec 2015 #112
What penalty do these charges carry? (nt) TacoD Dec 2015 #119
They will determine the official charges at the mock trial. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #121
There are no actual charges. It's just a PR stunt. HuckleB Dec 2015 #123
It is not a PR stunt. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #125
That's complete nonsense MohRokTah Dec 2015 #127
Throw insults all you want. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #128
It's funnier what lengths anti-science people go to promote their anti-science. eom MohRokTah Dec 2015 #130
Nonsense. This group is a non-entity in legal circles. HuckleB Dec 2015 #134
Bye!! darkangel218 Dec 2015 #178
Okay, great, you'll update is when a case is filed in an actual court? jberryhill Dec 2015 #205
K & R !!! WillyT Dec 2015 #162
Good to hear . TheFarS1de Dec 2015 #185
K&R aspirant Dec 2015 #187
Exactly, Aspirant! darkangel218 Dec 2015 #188
Breaking: Natural News put on trial for crimes against science, educide in The Hague HuckleB Dec 2015 #191
Perfect! nt Dr Hobbitstein Dec 2015 #195
Satire. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #197
Yes, it's satire, which is more accurate than your OP. HuckleB Dec 2015 #199
In your own pro-GMO, pro-Monsanto mind maybe.. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #201
No, Monsanto Is Not Going On Trial For Crimes Against Humanity HuckleB Dec 2015 #203
Lolololol!!!! darkangel218 Dec 2015 #206
No, Monsanto Is Not Going On Trial For Crimes Against Humanity HuckleB Dec 2015 #208
Now you're spammimg darkangel218 Dec 2015 #212
You already had me on ignore. What happened? HuckleB Dec 2015 #215
Mail ignore, since I've heard how you send cursing messages to posters darkangel218 Dec 2015 #218
You claimed to put me on ignore long before that. HuckleB Dec 2015 #221
You sent PMs before pnwmom darkangel218 Dec 2015 #226
Wow! HuckleB Dec 2015 #230
Recommend. nt Zorra Dec 2015 #193
No, Monsanto Is Not Going On Trial For Crimes Against Humanity HuckleB Dec 2015 #210
!!! darkangel218 Dec 2015 #219
I was being honest. HuckleB Dec 2015 #220
You send PMs telling ppl" F..You" and youre saying you have been honest??? darkangel218 Dec 2015 #224
That's over them treating me like crap for years. HuckleB Dec 2015 #229
pretty funny Kali Dec 2015 #234
Over personal attacks, not GMO discussions! darkangel218 Dec 2015 #235
Looks like there's even more hypocrisy involved than is already seen by this OP, HuckleB Dec 2015 #236
she claims she is a nurse Kali Dec 2015 #270
Umm. HuckleB Dec 2015 #275
Are you saying I am not a nurse now?? darkangel218 Dec 2015 #286
If you are, that's scary. HuckleB Dec 2015 #291
This message was self-deleted by its author darkangel218 Dec 2015 #292
BS, BSN, MS, NP. HuckleB Dec 2015 #293
I don't know in what world do you live, but ALL MY colegues on my floor are against GMOs! darkangel218 Dec 2015 #295
I doubt that. HuckleB Dec 2015 #296
No, YOUR status is scary. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #299
She wasn't just disagreeing with me. You don't know the first thing about it. HuckleB Dec 2015 #303
I'am asking you again for probr your attacks, darkangel218 Dec 2015 #306
I am making a fool out of myself, by bothering to address your foolish posts. HuckleB Dec 2015 #307
might want to get a cup of coffee or sleep this off a while Kali Dec 2015 #329
alerted 5-2 to keep Duckhunter935 Dec 2015 #312
I guess they're working hard again, tonight. HuckleB Dec 2015 #314
wasted my time Duckhunter935 Dec 2015 #315
I just wish the jury system was more consistent. HuckleB Dec 2015 #338
I don't "claim" I am a nurse, I AM a nurse. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #285
No, Monsanto Is Not Going On Trial For Crimes Against Humanity HuckleB Dec 2015 #222
This will result in a lot of irrelevant criticisms from Monsanto's colleagues and associates. LanternWaste Dec 2015 #214
Kick and rec! zappaman Dec 2015 #223
This message was self-deleted by its author darkangel218 Dec 2015 #227
A "trainwreck", like your opinion about the homeless?? darkangel218 Dec 2015 #231
So logical fallacies are your thing. HuckleB Dec 2015 #237
Are you agreeing with what that poster said about homeless people? darkangel218 Dec 2015 #243
No, I'm not. HuckleB Dec 2015 #244
What content? darkangel218 Dec 2015 #247
Why are you asking me questions when you refused to answer mine? HuckleB Dec 2015 #249
I answered all your questions. And you accused me of saying the trial is official darkangel218 Dec 2015 #251
No, you didn't. Not even close. HuckleB Dec 2015 #255
Answer where did i say if was an official trial?? darkangel218 Dec 2015 #300
How many times have you said the "headline is accurate?" HuckleB Dec 2015 #305
The headline is accurate because there will be a trail! darkangel218 Dec 2015 #308
Not in the actual Hague, and not in an actual trial. HuckleB Dec 2015 #310
You hate the Anti GMO movement so much, darkangel218 Dec 2015 #317
I don't lie, and I don't hate. HuckleB Dec 2015 #340
After you attacked my job, you and I have nothing to discuss anymore. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #342
That might matter, if you had actually answered my questions the other day. HuckleB Dec 2015 #343
Golly, you'd think if someone went to all that trouble they wouldn't selectively edit. zappaman Dec 2015 #248
So you admit you said what that poster copied and posted?? darkangel218 Dec 2015 #252
Yup and will match your donation. zappaman Dec 2015 #254
You call homeless people unspeakable names... darkangel218 Dec 2015 #260
No I didn't. zappaman Dec 2015 #262
I googled most of them and it was from a poster with your name. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #266
Sure you did. zappaman Dec 2015 #269
Not all, but most. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #272
Like what? zappaman Dec 2015 #277
You have a "choice of words "... darkangel218 Dec 2015 #280
pfffffffffffffffffft PeaceNikki Dec 2015 #232
THIS really is the correct reply to the OP Kali Dec 2015 #279
YES! From the pro GMO folks! darkangel218 Dec 2015 #281
Well, maybe Monsanto will re-hire Shannon Watts to do PR... Eleanors38 Dec 2015 #233
Hehehe! That would be rich! darkangel218 Dec 2015 #238
From SustainablePulse: darkangel218 Dec 2015 #239
That's just the same stuff found via the OP. HuckleB Dec 2015 #240
I was told that you keep replying to me, even though I told you you were blocked darkangel218 Dec 2015 #241
I am not going to let conspiracy theory "content" go without a response. HuckleB Dec 2015 #242
Answer the question, why are you against labeling??? darkangel218 Dec 2015 #245
You left several unanswered questions above. HuckleB Dec 2015 #246
I never once once said this was a real trial. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #250
The headline clearly implies that. HuckleB Dec 2015 #253
The headline is correct, because there is a Monsanto Tribunal, darkangel218 Dec 2015 #256
Oh, brother. HuckleB Dec 2015 #257
Stop deflecting, no one here said it was an official charge, and you know it darkangel218 Dec 2015 #261
I'm not the one deflecting in any way, shape or form. HuckleB Dec 2015 #264
Sure you're not! darkangel218 Dec 2015 #265
I've already done that. HuckleB Dec 2015 #267
No you have not. Copy and paste where I said the trial was official?? darkangel218 Dec 2015 #268
You seem to think you can go with that headline and pretend. HuckleB Dec 2015 #271
The headline is accurate , because they are going on trial! darkangel218 Dec 2015 #274
Yawn. HuckleB Dec 2015 #276
What about your stance against labeling?? darkangel218 Dec 2015 #282
And now you try to deflect in another direction. HuckleB Dec 2015 #283
I asked you for proofbi ever said such things, you didn't answer darkangel218 Dec 2015 #287
Yes, I did. HuckleB Dec 2015 #290
No, you have not answered why you are against labeling . darkangel218 Dec 2015 #353
Just when I think there can't be any stupider posted on DU than what I've read today tammywammy Dec 2015 #258
Are you pro or against GMO, tammywammy? darkangel218 Dec 2015 #263
You keep insisting that they can bring charges. They can't. tammywammy Dec 2015 #273
They are assesing what official charges can be brought on INTERNATIONAL level against Monsanto darkangel218 Dec 2015 #278
"including RT!" tammywammy Dec 2015 #313
Yah, RT. Russia has banned GMOs. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #318
I have no idea what you mean by true colors. tammywammy Dec 2015 #321
How many other European countries are banning GMOs? Do you care about that?? darkangel218 Dec 2015 #322
bookmarking for future LOLs Kali Dec 2015 #288
Good idea! HuckleB Dec 2015 #294
Yup. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #302
If there's a reason for it to go down, great. HuckleB Dec 2015 #304
So all your other pro GMO threads, including Anti Labeling, darkangel218 Dec 2015 #324
Labeling makes no sense. HuckleB Dec 2015 #336
Self admitted Pro-GMOs will always laugh at this type of thread. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #298
nah, I just laugh at you Kali Dec 2015 #301
And i laugh at you, darkangel218 Dec 2015 #311
Post removed Post removed Dec 2015 #325
You should be ashamed of yourself for the unwarranted personal attacks. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #326
I should be ashamed? how many time-outs have you been on? Kali Dec 2015 #327
You have attacked my job, saying I "was not a nurse" you have attacked my fiance!! darkangel218 Dec 2015 #328
post links or everyone will suspect your accusations are just Kali Dec 2015 #331
Anyone can search for your attacks!! darkangel218 Dec 2015 #332
You seem to do a lot of research on the posts of others. HuckleB Dec 2015 #344
FYI - jury results - RiverLover Dec 2015 #334
TY River and jurrors. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #335
Someone is making a lot of baseless alerts. Not cool. HuckleB Dec 2015 #339
Trial? No government is trying Monsanto. MineralMan Dec 2015 #319
It is a mock trial. Did you not read the article??? darkangel218 Dec 2015 #320
How can official charges follow? hack89 Dec 2015 #330
The ICC. n/t darkangel218 Dec 2015 #333
You really have not got a clue about this, have you? muriel_volestrangler Dec 2015 #363
They have no connection whatsoever with the ICC hack89 Dec 2015 #364
It's not plausible. It's just PR. HuckleB Dec 2015 #345
Wishing thoughts. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #348
Well, it is a mockery of real trials. MineralMan Dec 2015 #365
Hello? darkangel218 Dec 2015 #323
You'll wait a long time for me, sometimes. MineralMan Dec 2015 #366
Oct 7 - "Monsanto Tanking: Posts $495 Million Quarterly Loss and Plans to Eliminate 2,600 Jobs" RiverLover Dec 2015 #337
You might want to find a more honest source of information... HuckleB Dec 2015 #341
You might want to give up your pro Monsanto propaganda. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #347
HuckleB? darkangel218 Dec 2015 #352
TY! darkangel218 Dec 2015 #346
May they be tried! burrowowl Dec 2015 #349
Amen!!! darkangel218 Dec 2015 #350
Kick!!!! darkangel218 Dec 2015 #360

Archae

(46,292 posts)
1. Heck, this "tribunal" may even be in the Hague!
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:05 PM
Dec 2015

In that city, of course.

Now will it be held in the international court in that city?
More than likely, NOT.

This "March Against Monsanto" group is a bunch of quacks, conspiracy theorists, organic industry advocates and lobbyists.

Let all of us know about this "trial" or "tribunal" when they actually are reported on by a CREDIBLE source.

Archae

(46,292 posts)
5. What difference does it make?
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:45 PM
Dec 2015

The point is, I don't post articles by salesmen, quacks or politicians, when it comes to science.

GMO's are not "frankenfoods" or "poison," Roundup is not "deadly" if it's handled properly, like my Mom and I do with it.

Organic is a scam.

I saw just this week a half-gallon of "premium organic milk" in the local grocery, for $6.00.

How is it different from the gallon jugs of store brand milk?

Only one way. The price.

The gallon of store brand is about $2.50 a gallon.

tecelote

(5,122 posts)
17. GMO's use more pesticides and are making crops more resistant requiring more pesticides.
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 07:10 PM
Dec 2015

Pesticides kill more than pests.

Pesticides Linked To Increased Childhood Cancer Risk
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pesticides-linked-to-increased-childhood-cancer-risk_55f6deb5e4b077ca094f9274

Monsanto asks California to pull plan to list herbicide as cancer cause
http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-monsanto-glyphosate-idUSL1N12K2P820151020

Chemical Exposure Linked to Billions in Health Care Costs
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/150305-chemicals-endocrine-disruptors-diabetes-toxic-environment-ngfood/

Monsanto Knew of Glyphosate (Roundup)-Cancer Link 35 Years Ago
http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-knew-of-glyphosate-roundup-cancer-link-35-years-ago/5449462

Glyphosate residues in Roundup Ready crops are ignored in safety studies
http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16423-glyphosate-residues-in-roundup-ready-crops-are-ignored-in-safety-studies

Ban on GMO crops in Northern Ireland welcomed
http://www.greenpartyni.org/ban-on-gmo-crops-in-northern-ireland-welcomed/

The Case of Glyphosate: Product Promoters Masquerading as Regulators?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/24/the-case-of-glyphosate-product-promoters-masquerading-as-regulators/

Want to know what happens in your body when you switch from eating conventional food to organic?



We're killing our planet.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
25. GMOs reduce pesticide use, and super weeds are not a bigger issue with GMOs.
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 07:47 PM
Dec 2015

A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

Where are the super weeds?
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2013/05/superweed/

Also, glyphosate is not a GMO, and while it may be concerning, it is less toxic than many older herbicides. In fact, Chipotle's non-GMO tactic meant going back to the use of harsher herbicides, and increasing super weeds.
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2015/05/what-does-chipotles-switch-to-non-gmo-ingredients-mean-for-pesticide-use/

Also, note that organic crops use carcinogenic pesticides.
http://ascienceenthusiast.com/organic-crops-use-carcinogenic-pesticides/

tecelote

(5,122 posts)
27. Don't be fooled. This is poisoning our land and our people.
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 07:59 PM
Dec 2015

FORBES: GMO Crops Mean More Herbicide, Not Less
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/

REUTERS: Pesticide use ramping up as GMO crop technology backfires
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-study-pesticides-idUSBRE89100X20121002#JTvKzLdoZHMLgbvr.99

HUFFINGTON POST: Herbicide and Insecticide Use on GMO Crops Skyrocketing While Pro-GMO Media Run Interference
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bronner/herbicide-insecticide-use_b_5791304.html

HARVARD: GMOs and Pesticides: Helpful or Harmful?
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/gmos-and-pesticides/

MOTHER JONES: How GMOs Unleashed a Pesticide Gusher
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/10/how-gmos-ramped-us-pesticide-use

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
31. All of your links are about the same basic stuff, from Benbrook.
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:06 PM
Dec 2015

His stuff was debunked in one of the pieces I already posted. (And note that his single debunked study does not mean the meta analysis in my post goes away.)

Also, I don't think you read the fourth link. It's quite balanced.

When Bad News Stories Help Bad Science Go Viral
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2012/10/03/when-bad-news-stories-help-bad-science-go-viral/

A Very Short Debunking: “Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years” Benbrook, 2009
http://www.foodsecurist.com/debunked-impacts-of-genetically-engineered-crops-on-pesticide-use-the-first-thirteen-years-benbrook-2009/

Anti-GMO study is appropriately dismissed as biased, poorly-performed
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2012/09/24/anti-gmo-study-is-appropriately-dismissed-as-biased-poorly-performed/

And guess who funds Benbrook's bad science?

Washington State Professor Allies With Organics Industry
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/06/us/document-benbrook.html?_r=0

This is a classic story that shows the ugly side of corporations. This time, the corporations are ones that have tried to pretend their the good guys, when they're not, but it's no different. It's interesting that this is an OP supposedly focused on bad corporate behavior, but it's supported by NGOs who are supported by corporations who are acting rather badly.

tecelote

(5,122 posts)
37. So it makes sense to you that we can keep pouring pesticides on our land with no adverse effects?
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:20 PM
Dec 2015

How about some common sense?

Kill the insects and we kill ourselves.

What's poisonous when it is sprayed is inert when we eat it?

I agree, many "scientific" studies are bought and the results are what's paid for.

But, I'll rely on my gut feelings. Poison is poison.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
40. Lots and lots of plants you eat produce natural pesticides and always have
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:34 PM
Dec 2015

Why do you eat that poison willingly?

tecelote

(5,122 posts)
42. Because they have always been safe. Centuries of testing.
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:49 PM
Dec 2015

Their natural pesticides repel insects, few kill them. None that are food plants.

What plant sprays gallons of poison on the earth?

What plant's poison you refer to last decades in the soil?

What food plant requires protective clothing?

Common sense. It's free!

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
50. So then when you said "poison is poison"
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:55 PM
Dec 2015

that wasn't true.

And if your claim that none of them are food plants is true, then your claim that centuries of testing has proved them safe is false.

Can't quite get your stories straight, can you?

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
289. Oh, I understand that plants often produce natural insecticides
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:53 PM
Dec 2015

However, I would like a list of the "lots and lots" of plants that we eat that still contain natural insecticides when we eat them.

According to your article, these insecticides can be produced in parts of plants which are never eaten (such as coconut or walnut husks), or disappear when a fruit ripens (as in the case of persimmons), or can be denatured when cooked. In other cases, such as tomatoes, the plant that contains the poisons is not eaten.

Kali

(55,000 posts)
297. ah, wasn't sure if you knew the process
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:06 PM
Dec 2015

many are not aware

I suspect most modern crops are pretty weak in this area since they are "protected" by our various growing practices. I am not an expert on plant crops by any means but assume anything that is sour or bitter may be part of that list - citrus, various herbs and spices, things that contain natural tannins etc.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
45. So, you just ignore the fact that you made claims that don't stand up?
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:14 PM
Dec 2015

And go to some general statements that really take the conversation off the rails, rather than addressing the real world? What's the point in that?

Organic uses poison, too. Why are you focusing on GMOs, when they may lead to the use of less?

This is a good read for perspective: http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2014/06/salt-vinegar-and-glyphosate/

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
97. WCF is run by agricultural professors.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 11:48 AM
Dec 2015

Last edited Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:47 PM - Edit history (4)

it's pieces are all supported by the actual scientific consensus.

You posted nothing but long debunked anti-GMO propaganda links, many of them simply reporting on the same thing, making it appear that you're posting more content than you are, but you don't think a link that is produced by actual scientists is legitimate? WTF?

The OP links to a group that promotes chemtrail conspiracy theories, and every other kind of conspiracy and pseudoscience you can imagine, but you said nothing about that source at all. Hmm.

And use of the shill gambit just further shows that you don't know the first thing about this topic. You just bought into bad propaganda, and when you run into someone who does understand the issue, you can't discuss it. You even posted a link that you clearly had not read. It's time to step back, and question your preconceived notions. They are not based on good evidence.

The war against genetically modified organisms is full of fearmongering, errors, and fraud.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

EX500rider

(10,784 posts)
102. "Please post articles from a reputable source." Says the person who posted a Global Research link.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:40 PM
Dec 2015

....lol

While many of Globalresearch's articles discuss legitimate humanitarian or environmental concerns, the site has a strong undercurrent of reality warping throughout its pages. Its view of science, the economy and geopolitics seems to be broadly conspiracist. It's no surprise then that the site has long become a magnet for radicals, fringe figures and whacko elements from the left in general.
Globalresearch may be best described as the moonbat equivalent to WorldNetDaily. Whenever someone makes a remarkable claim and cites Globalresearch, they are almost certainly wrong.


Despite presenting itself as a source of scholarly analysis, Global Research mostly consists of polemicists. The prevalent strand is that a New World Order is being implemented by global elites (primarily governments and corporations). Many of the articles accept conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and propaganda in order to further this narrative.


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch

NNadir

(33,449 posts)
33. There are zero scientific papers in your insane list. Zero.
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:09 PM
Dec 2015

In general, when one launches an attack on science, whether it comes from the left or the right, the argument being made comes from a closed circle of people who hate science and scientists because they know nothing at all about science and scientists, except that they hate both.

Right now, several million people, many of them children are blind because people who hate science and scientists prevented the use of golden rice, engineered to include vitamin A as a nutritional feature.

There are millions of people alive today who would have otherwise died from breast cancer, or free of pain that might have crippled them with intractable arthritis, because of drugs made by scientists who genetically engineered organisms to produce those drugs.

Frankly there is nothing more obnoxious, more deadly, more ethically disgusting than letting children go blind, and letting people die from cancer, or suffer with crippling arthritis because one is too damn lazy to open a science book.

And right now, and right now, this minute, we have seven billion people to feed on this planet, the same planet that is being destroyed because people burn coal, oil and gas to run computers to post stupid stuff on the internet - this while dreaming of a nonsensical "green" fantasy land that doesn't exist - we have seven billion people who need to eat.

Every damn major agricultural product on this planet is genetically engineered, albeit through breeding historically. As far as genetic modification goes, it's called "evolution." Gene exchange between organisms has long been a regular feature of all living things on this planet, for billions of years. Leftist creationism is not qualitatively different than right wing creationism. Both represent the unyielding destruction of our country's, and the world's future.

The ignorance here is appalling.

Have a nice weekend.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
41. OK.
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:43 PM
Dec 2015

Then YOU produce independent, peer reviewed, long term research published in a Scientific Journal.
That should be easy for a "science" guy like you.


I'll wait.


NNadir

(33,449 posts)
179. For whom? For you? To prove a negative?
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 07:09 AM
Dec 2015

Listen Bub. Google Scholar is available for anyone to use. It's free. If I enter "glyphosphate" in Google Scholar I get 144,000 hits, in three seconds.

You'll wait? For what? For me to give you an education on line because you can't be bothered to find out yourself? Do you have any idea how long a scientific education takes? For some people, many people, it never ends; it's a lifetime activity.

What's your background? Where did you get your Ph.D? In what? Molecular biology?

Somehow, I don't think you have a Ph.D in molecular biology. Your demand, hollow and insipid, suggests otherwise.

But since you ask, how about I start here, by producing, since you are too lazy to look for yourself, just one of the 144,000 papers on the subject, from an issue in a journal for agroscientists wholly devloted to the subject of glyphosphate, Monsanto's product, agroscientists being the people who keep most of the world's food on the table for the seven billion people living in it, a non-trivial task: Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century herbicide (Pest Management Science Special Issue: Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds and Crops
Volume 64, Issue 4, pages 319–325, April 2008)

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
183. Gish-Gallop.
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 03:54 PM
Dec 2015

I asked a question:

Where is the long tern, independent, peer reviewed research published in a Scientific Journal that concludes that GMOs offer no significant damage to either humans, pets, stock,wild animals, or the environment.

Despite your rude and incohesive rant, this is NOT "proving a negative".
It IS what we call "Science".....

or would you just take Monsanto's word for it, you know...the guys who made Agent Orange and claimed it as safe too.

Well,,NOW we have the research on Agebnt Orange. Unfortunately, Monsanto used human beings for "test subjects"
and an unspoiled Rain Forest for their long term "experiments".

I can get a million hits on Google by typing in "Titty". The number of hits on Google means NOTHING ( much like your whole post).


The problem with your failure to produce long term, independent, peer reviewed publiched Research is that it does NOT exist.
Monsanto used bribed politicians and "their" guys at the FDA to approve GMOs..... not scientists.

NNadir

(33,449 posts)
184. You didn't ask a question. You lazily made an assertion that is, in fact, an attempt to...
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 08:34 PM
Dec 2015

ask someone to prove a negative, because you're L-A-Z-Y, and obviously have a poor education.

Any topic that produces 144,000 references on a premier scientific search engine will obviously have a range of views, but science doesn't involve proving stuff to every asshole who comes along saying that he won't believe x or y or z because 50 years ago the organization the author works for did something questionable. Science is done by consensus.

The consensus among agricultural scientists is that we need to increase agricultural yields to feed humanity, and the products of agrochemical companies, including but not limited to Monsanto, are working their asses off to make that happen.

Suppose my rationale for saying that the German "renewable energy" program sucks because 75 years ago Germans were killing Jews.

Suppose I announce that no research produced at Princeton University is valid because the one time President of that University, Woodrow Wilson, was a Ku Klux Klan excusing racist.

Would I be justified, or would I just be being stupid?

You simply are a bad thinker. Period.

Now if you were educated, you would respond with a statement about your level of education so that one could tailor, if one was interested in addressing such buffoon bluster, a search among the 144,000 references that one can easily get in 3 seconds or less.

But that's not what happened.

Let's be clear here. You're not asking for knowledge. You're assuming your bias is true and are claiming that in order to refute your bias, someone has to 1) spoon feed you an education you are not competent to absorb and 2) accept that any use by you of the logical fallacy of Poisoning the Well will immediately render any attempt to educate your sorry ass invalid...

Clearly, you won't know a peer reviewed paper if it bit you in the ass. In any case, you've announced quite confidently that you know that any thing presented to you would be a lie, since you fucking know. You're simply just another creationist who knows everything because you know it, you believe it, and not one can tell you otherwise, albeit a creationist on the left.

As for your statement about "agent orange" and your less than intelligent reference to the word "titty" well, the less that's said the better. It is one thing to be intellectually deficient, and is another thing to assert that one has the right to hurt others as a result.

There are seven billion people on the planet. Agroscientists in academia, in industry, and in regulatory agencies around the world are doing the best to feed those people, and clearly their goals are not being realized, because in part, of the catcalls from clueless insulting poorly educated ideologues, and in part, because the challenges are too large. Science is hard enough. We, the world's scientists, don't need you as much as you need us, even if you're not bright enough to know it.

Have a great week.

 

RoccoR5955

(12,471 posts)
132. I don't care. I don't want to eat pesticides
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:34 PM
Dec 2015

or other crap.
I want to eat food. I try to stay as organic as I can, and as local as I can myself, and when I switched, noticed that I was feeling less tired, and also could think more clearly. But that is just me.

Major Nikon

(36,817 posts)
140. Organic doesn't mean no pesticides
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:58 PM
Dec 2015

It doesn't mean less pesticides or less toxic pesticides. It doesn't even mean no synthetic pesticides.

It's nothing more than a marketing term that in no way guarantees a safer product.

 

RoccoR5955

(12,471 posts)
163. Not in New York State
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:48 PM
Dec 2015

They have strict regulations as to what can be labeled "organic."
Here in the Northeast we have a certification organization that makes it very tough to certify your produce as organic.
I know, I used to work in a food co-op warehouse for many years.
We were selling organic goods before it was cool, so don't tell me that organic means no pesticides. I know better.

And after further inspection, there are also federal guidlines: http://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/organic-standards

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
165. That's not even close to true.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:50 PM
Dec 2015

Organic products come from all over the world, and New York state isn't keeping them all out.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
169. Ah, you can think that.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:55 PM
Dec 2015

But the actual lack of regulation when it comes to organic farming, especially in regard to pesticide and herbicide use, makes that belief rather flimsy, to be very kind.

 

RoccoR5955

(12,471 posts)
171. Uh, I buy LOCAL organic food.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:57 PM
Dec 2015

And I KNOW most of the farmers that I buy from. I have known many of them for more than 20 years.
You can believe what you want, but I know what I know.
Now stop trolling please.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
173. I've heard that claim so many times, it's not funny.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 08:20 PM
Dec 2015

And I know people in Portland, Oregon who believe that same thing.

A funny thing happens when people start showing up at local organic farms without warning.

It's not so easy to grow that much food. And the lack of regulation is rather astounding.

I'm not trolling. I'm just making a point to not let the usual anti-GMO, organic is great nonsense go unchecked. It's not helping anyone, and it's time for progressives to fight against the "halo effect" that is not earned.

 

RoccoR5955

(12,471 posts)
181. The people around here are my friends.
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 11:51 AM
Dec 2015

I used to drive a truck for the local food coop warehouse. I know them. Some have been my friends for more than thirty years.
Yes, the "halo effect" as you put it should be scrutinized. In my case, I know the farmers. There are also a growing number of CSAs here in the Northeast, who strive to either farm organically, or with very little fertilizer and such. Several apple farmers have told me that the amount of pesticides and fertilizers that is "recommended" by the manufacturer is staggering. I believe they do this to make more money, and the farmers agree. But that is another point.

I have had my own garden and manage to control pests with companion planting, and use compost tea for fertilizer. I have been doing this for a long time, and can provide some of my own diet with this method.

Monoculture farms, and big corporate farms that dub themselves as "organic" should be the first ones to be investigated afaic.

Major Nikon

(36,817 posts)
177. So first it was "New York State" and now it's "local"
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 10:25 PM
Dec 2015

Interesting how your story changes and how you call someone a troll for making the obvious bullshit call.

Major Nikon

(36,817 posts)
182. Oh no! Not the dreaded ignore!
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 01:55 PM
Dec 2015

Now I can't look forward to replies from someone who simply makes it up as they go.

Major Nikon

(36,817 posts)
176. What you are describing is called the National Organic Program (NOP)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 10:19 PM
Dec 2015
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Organic_Program

I'm quite familiar with it. I'm not telling you organic means no pesticides. I'm telling you organic is no guarantee that pesticides will not be used regardless of what you believe. It's not even a guarantee that no synthetic pesticides are used.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div6&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7#se7.3.205_1601

Organic is nothing more than a marketing term which in no way guarantees a safer, more nutritious, or higher quality product.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
142. In 2006, my wife & I moved to the Woods, far away from any Agri-Businesss or Industry,
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:00 PM
Dec 2015

Far away from any independent farmers who might use that crap, and no neighbors.
or Urban Pollution, or the toxic suburbs.
We grow most of our own food.
The amazing part was how shockingly GOOD the homegrown food was compared to Supermarket...or even "Farmer's markets".

We keep HoneyBees and Free Range too.

Of course, all GMOs, non-naturally occurring pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers are forever banned from our little hilltop in The Woods.
MY wife is a two times Cancer survivor.
She is now in complete remission.

The Hague is where Monsanto belongs,
but Monsanto has very powerful "friends" in the White House that will cover for him.

Still, having "Monsanto" and "The Hague" in the same sentence made me happy today.
.
.
.
.
.
Maybe the pendulum IS swinging back.
IF so, it has a LOOOOONG way to swing.

 

RoccoR5955

(12,471 posts)
164. Not true
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:49 PM
Dec 2015

My eating habits did not change, other than I am eating as local and as organic as possible.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
170. It's got nothing to do with me.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:57 PM
Dec 2015

It's just how things work, and that funny thing called science has noticed them.

 

RoccoR5955

(12,471 posts)
172. Yes doctor
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:59 PM
Dec 2015

I know all about science. I have an MS in Geology that I got in 1975. Okay?
You could have a PhD in trolling yourself, so please stop it.
Thanks in advance.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
174. Well, you don't seem to understand much about chemistry, biology, or agriculture.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 08:22 PM
Dec 2015

And repeating silly organic marketing cliches doesn't help your reputation.

NNadir

(33,449 posts)
175. Unfortunately for several billion people on the planet, those lacking decent nutrition levels...
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 08:58 PM
Dec 2015

...for example, what is good for "just you" is not an issue.

You want to eat food, and you can, being comfortably bourgeois and having the privilege of living in a rich country.

There are billions of people who are not living a luxurious life of "feeling less tired" and "thinking more clearly," but if I may note, you are clearly not thinking more about those people with your new "clear thinking."

The tenor here is that Monsanto scientists wake up in the morning thinking to themselves "how can I kill more people to make money." This is a huge injustice, rather smug if I may say so.

The people engaging in the chorus of this tenor are nevertheless spectacularly uninterested in the people who many agribusiness scientists - and I personally have met quite a few of them - are actually very involved in serving, for instance, the nearly one billion people identified by the UN Millenium Goals Report still living on less than $1.25/day.

You, of course, can afford to throw away foods infested with insects, or deal with low yields and thus higher priced foods, but trust me, those living on $1.25/day are not really quite so privileged.

Now that, by your own description, you are "thinking more clearly," maybe you can set aside some of that libertarian indifference to everyone else on the planet and figure out, with this new "clear" thinking, how you will contribute, as many Monsanto (and other agroscientists) being subjected to mock trials by Kangaroo ersatz courts are doing, to addressing the needs of that particular one billion human beings who can't be like American "foodies," driving to farm stands in their SUV's to buy "locally grown" foods.

How clearly does one think, and how tired does one get in a famine? Can you provide me with some "clear thinking" on this score?

Enjoy the rest of the weekend.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
186. Strawman.
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 09:21 PM
Dec 2015

Nobody at Du has ever said,"Monsanto scientists wake up in the morning thinking to themselves "how can I kill more people to make money."

NO!!!!
What people say here is that Monsanto wakes up saying "How can I make more money for Monsanto & Me?"
...and could really give a shit if people die in their quest for Money & Power.

Thankfully, some European Countries are saying...["Hey. Wait a minute! Where is your long term, peer reviewed independent research proving these new species are safe?"

NNadir

(33,449 posts)
316. Since you don't know any scientists, or for that matter any science...
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:32 PM
Dec 2015

Last edited Tue Dec 8, 2015, 01:58 AM - Edit history (2)

...I'll take your remark for what it is, contempt for science and scientists.

As for what a "strawman" is, I've already discussed your inability to utilize standard logical reasoning, i.e. that which avoids, for example, overt logical fallacies, and, in my opinion, such ability as you have for utilizing such reasoning is roughly comparable to your knowledge of science and scientists, which is to say zero.

From the Primary Scientific literature, albeit a journal that is devoted to what may be called "scientific epistemology," I'll leave you with this link to a journal article devoted to discussing whether scientists have a responsibility to confront nonscientific woo-woo stuff from loud and obnoxious deniers of science:

Synthese August 2014, Volume 191, Issue 12, pp 2751-2765

Now it is very clear from your hysterical ranting that you have never in your life set foot inside an academic library of any kind, and will thus be unable to access the text, so I'll simply produce the excerpt that best applies to this rather vapid conversation:

Dissent has long been recognized to play crucial roles in the production of scientific knowledge. Dissenting views can correct false assumptions and ensure consideration of a wider range of theories, models, and explanations (Popper 1963; Feyerabend 1975; Rescher 1993; Longino 1990, 2002; Solomon 2001; Kitcher 2011). Such benefits are thought to give rise to obligations not merely to tolerate dissent, but to actively seek and engage dissenting views— both within scientific communities and from a wider range of stakeholders. Thus, many have argued that scientists have obligations to establish public venues for research to be critically evaluated by those with diverse perspectives and engage with such criticism (Longino 1990, 2002; Kitcher 2001; Solomon 2001). This might include duties to secure the participation of dissenters in peer review, conferences, scientific advisory panels, and academic departments (Longino 1990; Solomon 2006; Douglas 2009; Kitcher 2011).

But are there limits to the type of dissent scientists have an obligation to seek and engage while practicing science? In constructing climate models for instance, do researchers have duties to create opportunities for climate change skeptics to critically evaluate their work and take those criticisms seriously? Are there obligations to include them on conference programs? Should journals make an effort to include intelligent design (ID) scientists as reviewers for manuscripts related to evolutionary theory? While not many would advocate that dissenting views be censored, the question is whether scientists always have obligations to involve dissenters in evaluating research, accepting hypotheses, taking scientific problems to be solved, or in synthesizing the current state of a science for policymakers.

Some dissenters seem to assume that such obligations exist and that scientific communities are failing to meet them. For example, climate change skeptics charge they have unfairly been excluded from conference programs and advisory panels and that their work has been treated unfairly in the peer-review process (Pearce 2010; Michaels 2009). Creationists and ID theorists argue that evolutionary theorists unreasonably dismiss their arguments against evolutionary theory (Behe 2007; Wells and Dembski 2007; Witt 2005).

The idea that scientists have obligations to provide opportunities for dissenting views thus raises concerns. First, establishing public venues for all dissenters to be heard and have their criticisms considered may contribute to a false public perception that there is significant disagreement or that no scientific consensus exists. Indeed, some private companies and think-tanks have funded scientific research aimed at generating skepticism about climate change and environmental toxins, stalling the development of public policy, and creating doubt among the public and policymakers (Oreskes and Conway 2010; Michaels 2008). Although this may happen regardless of whether scientists seek and engage the participation of dissenters, there is fear that doing so risks bringing even more attention to dissenters and exacerbating the problem...


I note, with some amusement, that the authors of this paper explicitly link anti-GMO hysteria with creationism and other woo-woo stuff:

...We distinguish several different ways of understanding what constitutes “sharing standards” and argue that the most plausible interpretation fails to limit our obligations to dissenters. Specifically, we will show that they fail in those cases of dissent that they were intended to exclude: creationism, climate change skeptics, and dissenters on GMO safety.1...

... Our focus will be on dissent that arises from scientists. In many cases, these are the dissenting views that receive much attention from laypersons and the media, as can be seen in the case of climate change and GMOs...


Now, as a scientist, it appalls me that anti-scientific thinking, contempt for, even hatred of, science and scientists is becoming so prevalent in our culture. While it pains me when I think of future generations that will have to pay the price for this ignorance and stupidity, it is unlikely to affect me personally, since I am an old man and am not likely to live all that much longer.

But I don't know what is to become of the human being in a climate like this.

To quote Hesse, from the prologue to Demian that I so admire:

Wenige wissen heute, was der Mensch ist. Viele fühlen es, und sterben darum leichter, wie ich leichter sterben werde...


I often muse on my responsibility to confront ignorance in the general public, as I know science and am devoted to it as I love it for its potential to save humanity from itself as well as for its pure beauty and wonder.

Most often, these efforts degenerate into stupid screaming, usually on the part of the person who knows no science and, in fact, hates science. This is certainly the case here. One imagines from the violent tone that if stretched far enough, this could degenerate into the kind of terrorism that has so infected the world, as it is so filled with self righteousness and anger, but no matter...

The world cannot be saved from ignorance I think, and the effort to do so may well be doomed. I am certainly done with confronting fear and ignorance in the present case. Irrespective of the academic authors of the cited and quoted paper, who I will assume you will claim to be paid off by Monsanto since anything that goes against your narrow paranoid thinking must come from Monsanto, I really think that nothing I do can make you into a sentient being.

Congratulations. Ignorance has won the day. You must be very proud.

We're done.




LiberalArkie

(15,703 posts)
22. How long does you 1/2 gallon of 2% milk good for? maybe 2weeks
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 07:22 PM
Dec 2015

I buy Horizon Organic milk it is stamped for good until at least 1 month, maybe 2 months. And it is good.

 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
101. Ultra-heat pasteurization and aseptic packaging.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:38 PM
Dec 2015

Both of those greatly extend shelf life. It has nothing to do with the milk itself.

carla

(553 posts)
28. What difference does it make?
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:02 PM
Dec 2015

Cancer linked recombinant bovine growth hormone in your milk is one difference.. Carcinogenic corn that underproduces. Glyphosate found to linger in the soil even up to years later and at depths not thought possible ( 9 meters in one case in the USA)...I could go on but apparently quality of your food is not an issue for you, just having more pennies to spend on who knows what...silly that i should even bother with you but truth demands a pulpit when others spout patented bull hockey-pucks. And if organic is a scam it is one of the most labor-intensive scams I have ever seen. Silly like a Republican...(shakes head slowly).

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
106. What is your opinion on misleading news releases?
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:55 PM
Dec 2015

You believe Monsanto is being dishonest, but you are okay with posting s news release designed to create a false impression.

Odd.
 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
117. Read the article, no one is mislead anything.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:43 PM
Dec 2015

Are you saying the article is lying? On a side note, we all know you are just fine with the GMOs and Monsanto. ( fron your previous posts on the topic.
Thank you for your concern.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
156. The article is very misleading, and that has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:36 PM
Dec 2015

How can you deny that? WOW!

ZombieHorde

(29,047 posts)
354. I doubt Monsanto is the worst company out there.
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:31 AM
Dec 2015

We'll see what evidence is brought forth in the trail, I hope.

I think GMOs are awesome. I love bananas and hamburgers.

eta: Oh shit, it's not even a real trial. It's just a marketing ploy by big organic. I should have seen that sooner.

ZombieHorde

(29,047 posts)
356. All cows are GMOs.
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:39 AM
Dec 2015

Every. Single. One.

Bananas that are not GMO are filled with seeds. Even organic bananas are GMOs, because the other kind sucks.

So yeah, we couldn't.

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
357. GMO stand for genetically modified oats.
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:47 AM
Dec 2015

Are you saying Cows are made of "oats"??? Or are you referring to what they eat? If that, can they not eat organic oats???

Also, Organic bananas are not GMOs, I buy them all the time.

ZombieHorde

(29,047 posts)
358. GMO stands for genetically modified organisms.
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:57 AM
Dec 2015

GMOs are an intentional mutation. Cows were created by humans using aurochs, a type of ox that is now extinct.

Unless you have to pick a ton of seeds out of your bananas, you're organic bananas are GMOs.

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
359. My banannas are not GMOs.
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 03:00 AM
Dec 2015

Thats what the pro GMO movement wants us to thimk, that all is GMO and full and pesticides, and we should just shut up and take it.

I do not think so.

ZombieHorde

(29,047 posts)
361. Here's a little picture of a wild, non gmo banana.
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 03:09 AM
Dec 2015


It might taste way better than the ones we buy in the store. I wouldn't know, because I, like most Americans, have only eaten GMO bananas.
 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
362. That is exactly what they look like!!
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 03:18 AM
Dec 2015

Tiny, puny banannas! You can find them in the stores, if you want to!!!!

MADem

(135,425 posts)
351. The article tells a great big honking fib in the headline, to start.
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:02 AM
Dec 2015

Then it follows up by claiming it got the information from another site, which does not say what the first one claimed:

Relying on the “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” adopted by the UN in 2011, an international court of lawyers and judges will assess the potential criminal liability of Monsanto for damages inflicted on human health and the environment. The court will also rely on the Rome Statute that created the International Criminal Court in The Hague in 2002, and it will consider whether to reform international criminal law to include crimes against the environment, or ecocide, as a prosecutable criminal offense. The International Criminal Court, established in 2002 in The Hague, has determined that prosecuting ecocide as a criminal offense is the only way to guarantee the rights of humans to a healthy environment and the right of nature to be protected.


http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/12/03/monsanto-put-on-trial-for-crimes-against-humanity-in-the-hague/#.VmZw-PkrIhe

And of course, the HEADLINE of the source document is a huge giveaway:

Monsanto Put on Mock Trial for Crimes against Humanity in The Hague

Key word that did not carry forward: MOCK.


The source citation is all about changing law, not charging anyone.

It's pure nonsense, this "report." That's not to say "Monsanto" has clean hands, but this isn't the way to prove it.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
2. Uh.....no. At least, not a real trial.
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:05 PM
Dec 2015

This group: http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/12/03/monsanto-put-on-trial-for-crimes-against-humanity-in-the-hague/
is setting up their own court in order to put Monsanto "on trial".

Everyone else reporting on this story is going back to that group and their press release.

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
9. Here are those who are going after MON:
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:50 PM
Dec 2015
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA), IFOAM International Organics, Navdanya, Regeneration International (RI), and Millions Against Monsanto, joined by dozens of global food, farming and environmental justice groups announced today that they will put Monsanto MON (NYSE), a US-based transnational corporation, on trial for crimes against nature and humanity, and ecocide, in The Hague, Netherlands, next year on World Food Day, October 16, 2016.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
32. The organization at the OP link promotes all kinds of pseudoscience.
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:07 PM
Dec 2015

That's rather problematic, to be kind. The fact that so few DUers note that, and call that out is, quite frankly, sad.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
35. That's a fine response to someone noting the ludicrous things promoted by MAM.
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:12 PM
Dec 2015


That organization even promotes chemtrail conspiracy theories. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/March_Against_Monsanto

Marty McGraw

(1,024 posts)
103. OMG
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:44 PM
Dec 2015

More like the *Paid-For* Science. Science is beautiful if done for the pure knowledge, excitement of results and true advancements in society. But the distortion from the infusion of excess cash will always produce an initial stigma on any claims of research.

 

CanSocDem

(3,286 posts)
152. Indeed.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:18 PM
Dec 2015


I can't believe how many self-proclaimed science "experts" roam the halls of Democratic Underground attempting to silence those that even so much as mention the market influence on science.

Somebody up thread even went so far as to confuse standard marketing deceptions with 'bad science'.

Organic is a scam.
I saw just this week a half-gallon of "premium organic milk" in the local grocery, for $6.00.
How is it different from the gallon jugs of store brand milk?
Only one way. The price.
The gallon of store brand is about $2.50 a gallon.



.

pnwmom

(108,950 posts)
204. Monsanto and Dupont have been deceitful, just in different situations.
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:35 PM
Dec 2015

Breaking the law and polluting the environment is deceitful.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
207. I'm not defending them.
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:36 PM
Dec 2015

The reality remains that the organizations tied to the OP are dishonest.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
213. So now you're defending dishonest organizations?
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:38 PM
Dec 2015

Some that promote chemtrail conspiracies, among other nonsense?

WOW!

pnwmom

(108,950 posts)
225. There are levels of dishonesty. Apparently theirs doesn't rise to the levels of the GMO producers,
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:53 PM
Dec 2015

Last edited Mon Dec 7, 2015, 05:41 PM - Edit history (2)

Monsanto and Dupont.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
228. You keep telling yourself that.
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:59 PM
Dec 2015

Even I know you don't believe that. Nice propaganda.

(And I know what you're trying to do.)

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
73. The article speaks for itself.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:17 AM
Dec 2015

They're assesing what charges can be brought against Monsanto on am INTERNATIONAL level.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
75. Yes, it does. And it does not back up the claims you are making.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:19 AM
Dec 2015

This is more commonly known as "lying".

Also, it is not at all necessary to set up a fake court to "assess what charges can be brought". That just requires some lawyers familiar with international law to spend a bit of time reviewing precedents.

This is a PR stunt, and that's it. It has zero real-world impact.

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
78. The headline is from the article.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:25 AM
Dec 2015

Those are not a few people , they are International organizations, and by Oct next year, probably MANY more will join them in the fight to bring Monsanto down.

I'm sorry you have a problem with what they're doing.

I personally think its amazing Monsanto is being questioned and possible CRIMINAL charges being brought against them.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
81. Yes, their PR effort is also not telling the truth.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:33 AM
Dec 2015
I personally think its amazing Monsanto is being questioned

Monsanto is not going to be questioned. These activists have no authority to compel Monsanto to testify.

and possible CRIMINAL charges being brought against them.

These activists have no authority to bring any charges, criminal or otherwise.

But keep those donations coming.
 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
83. When the criminal or civil charges will be brought, yes they will be forced to testify
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:38 AM
Dec 2015

Why do you keep repeating yourself? The article is clear on what they're doing.

And yes, I'm ecstatic, because it is a HUGE thing, to have organizations from all over the world weighing in on what charges they and others can bring against Monsanto on an INTERNATIONAL level.

And I'm glad they will make it public!

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
98. You posted an OP with a title that is clearly misleading, no matter how much you pretend otherwise.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 11:54 AM
Dec 2015

Last edited Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:04 PM - Edit history (2)

You posted an OP with a link to a page that promotes the belief in chemtrails, and many other conspiracy theories and pseudoscience scams.

Why would you do that? Don't pretend this is going to lead any actual charges. That is simply not on the table in the real world, no matter how much the organic industry people behind this propaganda pretend otherwise. And even if it would, the use of such a source and such a misleading title is simply unethical.

You have chosen to go with ideology by fighting against a technology, blindly, full speed ahead. Why would you do that?

Also, referring to people as "Monsanto fans" simply because they don't fall for bad propaganda is really not cool.

PS: If you can defend this, then defend it here.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/GMOSF/permalink/635024676636786/?hc_location=ufi

It's also being discussed here: https://www.facebook.com/FFdiscussionlab/

And why is it that the groups you are utilizing as support all ban people from discussion when they question the blind assertions made by those groups? They don't seem to care about actually getting the story right. They just want to promote their blind ideologies. Do you really think that's ok? Do you really think that's going to help anything?

Take a harder look at March Against Monsanto, and the other groups you support. They are promoting some very ludicrous things.

http://skepchick.org/2015/02/why-well-march-against-march-against-monsanto-part-1/

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
129. That group is not the one going after Monsanto.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:25 PM
Dec 2015

It was just a link where the article was posted. The fact of the matter is that the mock trial WILL take place on Oct 2016, it is not a lie.

You're blocked. I've heard ENOUGH of the same pro Monsanto and pro GMO propaganda from you to last me a lifetime.

Have a good one.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
133. It appears that you can't answer the questions I pose.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:35 PM
Dec 2015

I have shown that the majority of those groups act similarly, and that they are funded by organic corporations, to boot.

You have blocked me because you can't actually discuss the issues at hand. You are only repeating bad propaganda, blindly. That is the main problem here.

Here's the reality of the anti-GMO movement. It is not justified.

The war against genetically modified organisms is full of fearmongering, errors, and fraud.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

LiberalLovinLug

(14,164 posts)
147. Your concern is noted
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:33 PM
Dec 2015

I mean why try to fight against anything when the cards are stacked against you? Everyone should just go home and eat their (GMO) Cornflakes and shut up, right? Rosa Parks should also have just shut up and let the white man have her seat. If that is an extreme example tell me where does your sliding scale stop at standing up for things you believe are harmful to society and future generations?

But then again you are being transparently disingenuous. You are not concerned at all with if they will win any case. At least be honest...you support Monsanto copyrighting the seeds of the food you eat so they can alter it to make it more profitable as is their corporate right, no matter the health consequences brought up in some links in this thread, or their suing of farmers who don't play along, because you believe their paid scientists over independent research voices. Why? I have no idea. Maybe you're and old school stuck-in-your-ways meat 'n potatoes kind of guy that likes things just the way they are thank you very much. But at least stop the fake concern and/or ridicule of those actually doing something.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
154. You actually compared civil rights to anti-GMO propaganda?
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:32 PM
Dec 2015


Guess what? The scientific consensus that GMOs are safe is vast, and it includes hundreds of independently funded studies. Also, all seed companies patent all types of seeds: GMO, non-GMO, organic. There are only a small group working to develop open source seeds, at the moment. That is not a Monsanto thing. It is a thing that is done by all seed companies.

Thus, standing up to baseless fear mongering about a technology that can help the planet is the right thing to do. It is not ok to make claims that the people who do stand up to fear mongering are somehow beholden to any company, especially in light of the fact that many of the anti-GMO groups are supported financially by organic companies.

yuiyoshida

(41,817 posts)
11. some how I have a feeling that
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:51 PM
Dec 2015

Attorneys for Monsanto will point their middle fingers at the Haque and laugh at the audacity of a court to even think they have a chance of punishing the company. The corporate headquarters will scoff and might even say, "Hey come and get us if you can". Does the Hague really think they can demand that someone come to their court from the US and go though their "silly little trial" when there is big money to be made? The company will simply lift their middle fingers to the Haque and tell them to "fuck off", that they can do what ever the hell they like, and no one will stop them. What is ruled in Europe will have no jurisdiction on American soil, and even if treaties are broken, no one will come to escort them in handcuffs back to Europe. No one.

Archae

(46,292 posts)
14. Except this isn't the Hague, the International Court in that city.
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 07:03 PM
Dec 2015

It's a kangaroo court created by organic industry advocates and lobbyists, in that city.

They have no legal credibility, this is only a publicity stunt against Monsanto.

 

chapdrum

(930 posts)
12. Just maybe they could prosecute Dick 'n' Don?
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:54 PM
Dec 2015

Hadn't heard anything of ICC for so long, was wondering whether it had gone defunct.

This is good news.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
77. I did read the article. These are international organizations OF ACTIVISTS.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:21 AM
Dec 2015

They're setting up a kangaroo court with zero real-world authority.

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
79. Yes, so?
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:27 AM
Dec 2015

They're setting up the court to analyze possible international charges! It is a big difference!
They're doing it in public, and not behind doors so that many more organizations from all over the world could join.

It is really very simple!

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
82. So Monsanto is not being put on trial.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:35 AM
Dec 2015
They're setting up the court to analyze possible international charges!

This requires no court. This requires 1 lawyer with experience in international law.

To actually bring charges, prosecutors at the actual ICC would have to file them. That does not require setting up a fake court to "analyze" anything.

It is really very simple!

Yes it is. They're lying in order to get more attention and more donations.
 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
84. Lol you keep going in circles.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:48 AM
Dec 2015

I never said it was a real court, nor did the article. It CLEARLY explains what is the purpose of the mock trial, which is to bring ACTUAL charges on an INTERNATIONAL level. It's really that simple.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
85. I'm afraid it's you who keep returning to the same point, hoping that this time it matters.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:52 AM
Dec 2015
It CLEARLY explains what is the purpose of the mock trial, which is to bring ACTUAL charges on an INTERNATIONAL level.

Which is a lie. Because this mock court can not do that, and has zero influence with the actual court in the Hague.
 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
87. The article explains what the mock court will be doing very clearly.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:57 AM
Dec 2015

It is not a lie, the reason for the mock court is explained in the article! They have a REASON, and that is to assess what charges the international Court will bring against them.

I think maybe you should read it again. It's all there.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
88. And then goes on to massively overstate the results.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:11 AM
Dec 2015
They have a REASON, and that is to assess what charges the international Court will bring against them.

"will bring against them" is a lie. Because this faux-court has no connection to the real court, and has no ability to actually bring charges.

The other lie is that this mock court is necessary to "assess" anything. Again, the way this is actually done is lawyers look at the relevant laws and precedent...and if they are not actual prosecutors at the actual ICC, all they can do is say to those prosecutors, "In my opinion, this is a crime".

Again, this is a PR stunt. That's it. It's designed to make you think they're actually doing something, so you'll crack open your wallet and donate to those INTERNATIONAL organizations.
 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
89. Official charges will be brought against Monsanto
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:39 AM
Dec 2015

after the mock trial, as I explained plenty and the article clearly states.

Again, this is a PR stunt. That's it. It's designed to make you think they're actually doing something, so you'll crack open your wallet and donate to those INTERNATIONAL organizations.


Let's see who will laugh last. And I guarantee you that it won't be Monsanto and its fans. Have a good night.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
113. No, they won't.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:31 PM
Dec 2015

There is nothing official about any of this. Please change the OP to reflect reality.

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
114. You only wish. Are you gonna have a sad when Monsanto will be officially charged??
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:35 PM
Dec 2015

You keep defending them all over the place. I have yet to see an anti GMO thread without you defending them, and it really baffles me as to why..

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
115. I don't defend Monsanto.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:38 PM
Dec 2015

I do defend the real world against unethical attacks, and sometimes those attacks come via unethical groups like March Against Monsanto, and other groups funded by organic companies, with the aim of promoting their products. They are no better than Monsanto, and yet you have no problem promoting them.

This OP is misleading, and that makes it unethical. And now you have again made a post that is misleading about me. That, too, is unethical.

Please stop acting in this manner. Thank you.

PS:

You posted an OP with a link to a page that promotes the belief in chemtrails, and many other conspiracy theories and pseudoscience scams.

Why would you do that? Don't pretend this is going to lead any actual charges. That is simply not on the table in the real world, no matter how much the organic industry people behind this propaganda pretend otherwise. And even if it would, the use of such a source and such a misleading title is simply unethical.

You have chosen to go with ideology by fighting against a technology, blindly, full speed ahead. Why would you do that?

Also, referring to people as "Monsanto fans" simply because they don't fall for bad propaganda is really not cool.

PS: If you can defend this, then defend it here.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/GMOSF/permalink/635024676636786/?hc_location=ufi

It's also being discussed here: https://www.facebook.com/FFdiscussionlab/

And why is it that the groups you are utilizing as support all ban people from discussion when they question the blind assertions made by those groups? They don't seem to care about actually getting the story right. They just want to promote their blind ideologies. Do you really think that's ok? Do you really think that's going to help anything?

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
120. OMG! You have defended GMOs in every thread, ever since I've joined DU!
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:46 PM
Dec 2015

Should I post links?

Why are you denying the fact that you have no issuea with GMOs and Pesticides?

(And again, the OP is not misleading, you just don't like anything against the mighty GMOs)


HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
122. Monsanto is a company. GMOs are plants developed using a particular technology.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:05 PM
Dec 2015

They are not the same thing.

Can you please stop acting in this manner? Can you please answer the questions I have posed to you?

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
124. Stop acting in which manner?
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:10 PM
Dec 2015

You have no problem with Monsanto, and you defend them whenever an anti GMO thread pops up.

I've already answered your question and I have explained what the Oct ',16 mock trial is about. Read the article and the thread!

Your constant defending of Monsanto's products every single thread on the subject, is tiresome to say the least.



HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
131. My questions are clear.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:33 PM
Dec 2015

Please answer them.

Your ideological attacks are not supported by the consensus of science.

PS:

The war against genetically modified organisms is full of fearmongering, errors, and fraud.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
138. So you admit that your stance is purely ideological.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:49 PM
Dec 2015

You refuse to actually explore the science of the topic. You just make blind faith alliances and enemies.

WOW!

TryLogic

(1,722 posts)
13. Round-Up Ready -- for cancer
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:59 PM
Dec 2015

In recent weeks, we've learned some very disturbing truths about glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup, which is generously doused on genetically engineered (GE) Roundup Ready crops.

GE crops are typically far more contaminated with glyphosate than conventional crops, courtesy of the fact that they're engineered to withstand extremely high levels of Roundup without perishing along with the weed.

A new peer-reviewed report authored by Anthony Samsel, a retired science consultant, and a long time contributor to the Mercola.com Vital Votes Forum, and Dr. Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), reveals how glyphosate wrecks human health.

In the interview above, Dr. Seneff summarizes the two key problems caused by glyphosate in the diet:

Nutritional deficiencies
Systemic toxicity

Their findings make the need for labelling all the more urgent, and the advice to buy certified organic all the more valid.

In 2009, a French court found Monsanto guilty of lying; falsely advertising its Roundup herbicide as "biodegradable," "environmentally friendly" and claiming it "left the soil clean."

Much More: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/06/09/monsanto-roundup-herbicide.aspx

California’s Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) intends to list the herbicide glyphosate – the active ingredient in Monsanto’s RoundUp – as a carcinogenic chemical under the Proposition 65, which requires the state to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. The announcement came on 4 September, following a conclusion by the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer in March that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen.

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2015/09/glyphosate-roundup-labelled-carcinogen

The cancer-research arm of the World Health Organization last week announced that glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide, is probably carcinogenic to humans.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer/

Jack Rabbit

(45,984 posts)
24. I am in favor of a mock trial of Monsanto even if it is merely a mock trial
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 07:31 PM
Dec 2015

This is about raising consciousness of an organization with questionable practices (like suing farmers) and has bought enough politicians to not worry about being prosecuted by a real court anytime soon.

Mock trial? You bet. This is what democracy looks like, where there is none otherwise.

MH1

(17,573 posts)
92. Suing farmers - the invisible elephant in the room
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 10:01 AM
Dec 2015

It's pretty sad to see support of Monsanto's hyper-aggressive patent protection behavior, on a supposedly progressive website.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
136. It's pretty sad to see support of bad science and conspiracy theory purveying groups at DU.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:41 PM
Dec 2015

No one is defending Monsanto, though it would be interesting to know your level of knowledge of the Monsanto lawsuit story.

 

Herman4747

(1,825 posts)
39. EXACTLY WHAT I WAS THINKING!
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:28 PM
Dec 2015

All of you out there remember Agent Orange and what it did to the Vietnamese?

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
137. Makers (Dow and Monsanto) of Agent Orange followed formula dictated by U.S. government
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:45 PM
Dec 2015

Last edited Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:26 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article24751345.html

Also, not that it justifies the company making it, but...

"Monsanto warned the government as early as 1952 that 2,4,5-T contains a toxic substance, but this information was not acted upon.[19] This would place the blame for the effects of Agent Orange primarily on the U.S. government"

From: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Monsanto

Of course, the reality is that anti-GMOers have no real way to argue against the GMOs sold by Monsanto, (which also sells non-GMO and organic seeds, btw) so the only thing they can do is scream about a product the US government created 60 years ago. It's bizarro world stuff.
 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
43. Awesome! Monsanto's criminal abuses deserve swift & sure justice.
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:49 PM
Dec 2015

I can only hope the Hague "delivers" it.

I also fervently hope the Bride of Frankenfoods gets called-out in the process.

Dickster

(103 posts)
44. I'm a farmer.....lots of ignorance posted here
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 08:59 PM
Dec 2015

I've used Roundup since it became available. I've used it on my corn and soybeans crops for many years. I no longer use it. The weeds it used to kill have developed resistance and some have become very hard to kill. I have neighbors who use 3-4 times the rate of the product that they did previously, and still cannot kill the weeds. So they then have to use other herbicides or hire manual labor to rid the fields of the weeds, which isn't cheap. So the total amount of herbicides has increased.
I've gone back to conventional seeds that use older, traditional methods of weed control. I still use chemical herbicides that work quite well. The seed cost is considerably less. A bag of Monsanto GMO seed corn runs around $350. I can buy a bag of conventional seed corn for $150. This past year there was no difference between my corn yield and that of my neighbors who used the GMO varieties. The savings are about $80 per acre. Monsanto soybean seed runs about $60 per bag. I can buy conventional soybean seed for half that. So I'm saving $30 per acre on soybean seed that yield the same. I'd rather keep that money in my pocket than hand it over to one of the most profitable companies on the face of the planet.
Monsanto and a handful of other companies have a monopoly on seed. It is very hard to find non GMO seed. There a a few companies left that breed conventional varieties, but it is probably less that 5 percent of the market.
I have several problems with Monsanto. They have cornered the seed market so that most farmers don't have much choice about who they buy seed from. If you buy the seed, you are forced to buy their herbicides. I also cannot save any of that seed to plant the following year, due to patent rights Monsanto has on the seed.
They have made it very difficult for any independent research to be done on their products, so the public has to rely on the "honesty" of Monsanto as to the safety of their products. Any time independent research questions the safety of their products, Monsanto unleashes a massive publicity campaign impugning the integrity of the independent research.
There is a revolving door within the USDA and Monsanto researchers, bureaucrats, etc. so we get no help out of the Dept of Agriculture. They have swallowed Monsanto's creed hook, line, and sinker.
A good portion of the rest of the world has said 'no thank you' to GMO products, for many of the same reasons I have given. They haven't drunk Monsanto's KoolAid like we have here in this country. I could go on, but enough for now......

zalinda

(5,621 posts)
99. Thank you for taking the time
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:20 PM
Dec 2015

to tell us about what real farming is about. I hate Monsanto for what they have done to farmers. No matter what the 'science' is of GMO's, this company is evil, and should be stopped.

Z

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
116. And what is your informed opinion
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:38 PM
Dec 2015

on whether GMO foods themselves are unsafe to eat? You interestingly failed to address that topic at all.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
118. He failed to address exactly what method of weed control he utilizes, too.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:43 PM
Dec 2015

It's either an older, more toxic product than glyphosate, or he's employee people to get out in the fields, and, thus, his costs just went way up, yet, he didn't give us those costs, or the information about the product.

Most of the rest of his post is just the usual anti-GMO talking points. I suspect we might have an impostor on our hands, but I may be too suspicious.

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
126. Not everything in life is about costs.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:18 PM
Dec 2015

You know, some people actually care about not poisoning themselves and the planet. I know, that is a hard concept for you to understand ( considering your hundreds of pro Monsanto and GMO posts in the past).

It's sad, but its your choice. To each their own, right HuckleB?

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
135. I care about not poisoning the planet.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:38 PM
Dec 2015

That's why I oppose returning to the use of non-GMO seeds that lead to the use of more toxic pesticides. That's why I want more regulation on the use of pesticides and herbicides in organic agriculture.

Why do you oppose those things?

The supposed farmer either used more toxic chemicals, or spent more money, while claiming he was saving money. He can't have it both ways. If he wants to spend more, great, but admit that.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
139. And if he wants to spend more, let him admit
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:57 PM
Dec 2015

that when his product gets to market, it's going to be more expensive, and not affordable by everyone not driving a Volvo.

Can't quite figure out why people who say that want to protect the environment would prefer the indiscriminate external application of insecticides (some of which will go where they do no good, or even harm, requiring more to be used in any case), to the engineering of plants to produce internal insecticides, which end up nowhere but where they are needed.

Major Nikon

(36,817 posts)
144. He failed to mention a lot of other things as well
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:14 PM
Dec 2015

Like the fact that about 95% of the corn market in the US was composed of hybridized patented seeds BEFORE Monsanto's products ever came into existence. So the idea that Monsanto came along and fucked up a seed market where farmers were reusing their seed from year to year is one of those alternate reality myths that rely on the perpetuation of ignorance. The actual reality is that over 95% of the US corn market is composed of Monsanto's seed, but somehow we must believe that this is because the vast majority of farmers out there are just too fucking stupid to use seed that is better and cheaper.

 

Elmergantry

(884 posts)
309. Id rather spray my fields with Roundup than "conventional" Atrazine.
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:21 PM
Dec 2015

Roundup doesn't end up in the water table, unlike Atrazine. But I don't do grain farming anymore. Roundup is great for keeping weeds down around the outbuildings, so less CO2 emissions with the push mower. So I am fighting GW in my own special way...

yellowcanine

(35,692 posts)
48. Quite misleading headline. Not a real court.
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:03 PM
Dec 2015

Equivalent to a "citizen's court" in the U.S. putting Cheney on trial. It would mean squat.

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
59. Because they need to figure out the charges which can be brought against Monsanto
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:38 PM
Dec 2015

Like i said, its just the beginning.

tritsofme

(17,363 posts)
148. They don't get to make such a determination on charges
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:48 PM
Dec 2015

Ever. When their event is over, they can issue a press release. That's about it.

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
151. It all has to start somewhere.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:05 PM
Dec 2015

RT also published an article at the same subject, it is pretty impressive the make up of the said "tribunal".

If we as a country can't or refuse to go after Monsanto, the rest of the world will, as evidenced in the forthcoming " trial".
Like I said , it all has to start somewhere.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
155. It's not starting anywhere.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:34 PM
Dec 2015

This is just another attempt to get the true believers excited over nothing.

Kali

(55,000 posts)
52. DERP
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:06 PM
Dec 2015

the words monsanto, Hague, and trial used in a press release does not equal the conclusion you jumped to

Kali

(55,000 posts)
56. I have a nuanced view of the matter. Simplistic, black-and-white thinking is not my style.
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:31 PM
Dec 2015

I have a better understanding of both agriculture and the science behind these processes, than you apparently do.

I do have serious concerns about large corporations having so much control over the food supply. I have less concern about the actual science and technology being used than the fact that so much of it is "owned" by profiteers.

I imagine that is hard for you to comprehend, but maybe someday you will mature enough to see the bigger pictures in life.

Kali

(55,000 posts)
60. the way you "asked" the question didn't warrant much respect
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:41 PM
Dec 2015

and frankly, it was more than you deserve.

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
63. Because I already knew the answer,
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:49 PM
Dec 2015

I just wanted to see if you maybe changed your opinion on Monsanto and GMO lately. Apparently not.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
65. Renaming my living room The Hague,...
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:51 PM
Dec 2015

Inviting a buddy over, and we are going to discuss my neighbors barking dog.

Did you read your link?

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
66. Yes I did.
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:55 PM
Dec 2015

A mock trial to discuss the charges which can be brought against Monsanto, by serious organizations, not 2 people in a "living room".

I wonder if you " read the link".

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
67. And BTW, Monsanto is not "a neighbours barking dog".
Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:57 PM
Dec 2015

It's a vile unspeakable organization which needs to be brought up to justice. I wish they were so harmless as a "barking dog". They are not. They are poisoning the planet.

meaculpa2011

(918 posts)
94. Bill and Hillary Clinton to be put on...
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 10:13 AM
Dec 2015

trial in Chappaqua for "Crimes Against Suburbia."

The tribunal, made up of wealthy homeowners, will assess whether the increase in traffic caused by the former first family added to air and water pollution in the quiet hamlet, thereby eroding the value of their estates.

Details to come.

haele

(12,628 posts)
95. Don't get fooled by the GMO issue, this is about business practices.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 10:52 AM
Dec 2015

This includes the damage aggressive monoculture does in ecologically sensitive areas and how it affects bio-diversity and the local resources, cultures, and economies.
It's easy to observe that an aggressive monoculture push by an outside corporation that cares only about profits in a developing country where there's still a majority of population engaged in subsistence economies can be linked to a sudden outburst in crime and political instability in those areas.
The reason international petroleum companies and manufacturers are not right up next to Monsanto is the weakness that Monsanto doesn't provide a significant number of additional "jobs" in most of these countries; there's actually a decrease in employment when Monsanto moves in as small subsistence farmers, plantations and villages are pushed aside in favor of modern mega-farms where significantly fewer people are needed to work those fields and orchards. More impoverished people flooding cities that don't have employment for them, or ways for them to continue farming, unlike the resource-extraction corporations where there is a need for a large workforce to do extracting and refining prior to transport to the factories.

Haele

Dont call me Shirley

(10,998 posts)
96. YAY! Obviously the International Court has plenty of clear EVIDENCE to put the murderous company
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 11:15 AM
Dec 2015

on trial!

lots of poison supporters here today.

Tab

(11,093 posts)
100. Mucho intersante
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:34 PM
Dec 2015

Although I'm thrilled to see them taken to task, I was actually surprised with the observation that they are shunned by most other countries. I know people don't like what they do, but I figured they were just getting away with it and the hell with everyone else, but now it seems they've only been getting away with it here.

"Crimes against humanity" in theory actually sounds appropriate but I can't do a reading of the law so I don't know if it's applicable to this case, but it sure seems it should be.

I'm also waiting for Bush/Cheney but I'm not holding my breath on their appearing in the Hague anytime soon.

 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
105. "International court"
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:46 PM
Dec 2015

That's fucking rich. More like "international group of chem-trail crazies meet to discuss things they know nothing about".

 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
153. I support force feeding of GMOs to breast-feeding mothers by pitbulls at the Olive Garden.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:25 PM
Dec 2015

Also, Monsanto pays me big bucks to reply to you. Between you and me, we're actually really scared of this international brotherhood of anti-science dumbfucks and their LARP court. They're paying us all overtime to post comments against it.

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
157. Not "Pitt bulls and Olive Garden", but you surely support Monsanto and GMOs in dozens if not hundred
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:37 PM
Dec 2015

of posts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=208190

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027005378#post3

And this is what you're calling the anti GMO posters "

Dr Hobbitstein (2,484 posts)
3. Yes...

Yes they have. A simple look around this board is telling enough. For every one sensible person posting on a GMO thread are 15 rabid anti-GMO, pseudo-science shilling, Dr. Oz watching troglodytes..


Buh bye.
 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
159. GMOs, yes.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:40 PM
Dec 2015

Monsanto, no. The two are not synonymous. I argue with all the anti-science, mouth-breathing troglodytes on this board. Anti-vaxxers, anti-GMO, alternative medicine quackery, et al.

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
160. See ya. I have no use in continuing a conversation with someone who calls other DUers
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:41 PM
Dec 2015

"anti-GMO, pseudo-science shilling, Dr. Oz watching troglodytes."

Dont call me Shirley

(10,998 posts)
190. Plenty of science to back up anti-gmo. But the pro-gmo crowd is more like the "Climate Change is a
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 02:29 PM
Dec 2015

Hoax" crowd.

 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
194. Actually, there's not.
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:08 PM
Dec 2015

All you have is the debunked Seralini study. That's it. If you want to link to some actual peer-reviewed papers that aren't in pay-to-play publications with low impact factors, go ahead.

Pro-tip: you won't find any.

Dont call me Shirley

(10,998 posts)
200. "If you want to link to some actual peer-reviewed papers that aren't in pay-to-play publications
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:19 PM
Dec 2015

with low impact factors,"

Precisely, all the evidence is not only behind a blackout wall it is behind a paywall as well.

 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
202. That's not what pay-to-play means.
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:24 PM
Dec 2015

That means the researchers pay to have it published. Because reputable publications won't.

SidDithers

(44,228 posts)
108. Breaking News: Monsanto to Be Put on Trial NEAR the Hague for Crimes Against Humanity
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:03 PM
Dec 2015

There, fixed your headline for you.

Sid

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
112. It's a mock trial, by anti FMO international organizations
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:30 PM
Dec 2015

They will determine which official charges Monsanto can be charged on, under the International court.
It's not as good as the real deal, but its a huge step. We need the International court involved.

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
121. They will determine the official charges at the mock trial.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:49 PM
Dec 2015

Monsanto hasn't been officially charged yet. What the October '16 trial do is determine with what charges Monsanto can be charged with in the International court, which is amazing!

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
125. It is not a PR stunt.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:14 PM
Dec 2015

It's the first step for the International community to decide with what CRIMINAL charges Monsanto can be charged with under the International laws.

But you already knew that.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
127. That's complete nonsense
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:18 PM
Dec 2015

This group has no more effect on the actions of international courts than do the silly citizen's grand juries that put Obama on trial for treason did with US courts.

That you'd promote this sort of bullshit puts you in the same league as birthers.

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
128. Throw insults all you want.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:20 PM
Dec 2015

It's not my first encounter with you or the other pro GMO posters. It's funny to what lenghts you go to defend them.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
134. Nonsense. This group is a non-entity in legal circles.
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:36 PM
Dec 2015

It has no connection at all to international legal systems.

TheFarS1de

(1,017 posts)
185. Good to hear .
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 08:53 PM
Dec 2015

Maybe they can also look at the newer chemicals which are linked to pollinators dying ( bees ) and is being sold worldwide as a home use chemical .

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
212. Now you're spammimg
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:38 PM
Dec 2015

Time for you to go on full ignore. And please don't send anyone nasty PMs anymore.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
215. You already had me on ignore. What happened?
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:40 PM
Dec 2015

This OP is pure spam, and the fact you failed to acknowledge that, and do the right thing once that was shown to you is really sad.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
230. Wow!
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 05:01 PM
Dec 2015

Last edited Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:29 PM - Edit history (1)

You really don't care about integrity at all. Amazing. I used a bad word. Wow! LOL!

And it looks like you're letting the cat out of the bag on those "private conversations." Hmm.