What does the Supreme Court of the United States say about GMOs?

[Attorney in Texas]

From the Supreme Court of the United States opinion in Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms:

Emphasizing “the undisputed concentration of alfalfa seed farms,” the District Court found that those farmers had “established a ‘reasonable probability’ that their organic and conventional alfalfa crops will be infected with the engineered gene” if RRA is completely deregulated. App. to Pet. for Cert. 50a. A substantial risk of gene flow injures respondents in several ways. For example, respondents represent that, in order to continue marketing their product to consumers who wish to buy non-genetically-engineered alfalfa, respondents would have to conduct testing to find out whether and to what extent their crops have been contaminated. See, e.g., Record, Doc. 62, p. 5 (Declaration of Phillip Geertson in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment) (hereinafter Geertson Declaration) (“Due to the high potential for contamination, I will need to test my crops for the presence of genetically engineered alfalfa seed. This testing will be a new cost to my seed business and we will have to raise our seed prices to cover these costs, making our prices less competitive”); id., Doc. 57, p. 4 (Declaration of Patrick Trask in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment) (“To ensure that my seeds are pure, I will need to test my crops and obtain certification that my seeds are free of genetically engineered alfalfa”); see also Record, Doc. 55, p. 2 (“There is zero tolerance for contaminated seed in the organic market”). Respondents also allege that the risk of gene flow will cause them to take certain measures to minimize the likelihood of potential contamination and to ensure an adequate supply of non-genetically-engineered alfalfa. See, e.g., Geertson Declaration 3 (noting the “increased cost of alfalfa breeding due to potential for genetic contamination”); id., at 6 (“Due to the threat of contamination, I have begun contracting with growers outside of the United States to ensure that I can supply genetically pure, conventional alfalfa seed. Finding new growers has already resulted in increased administrative costs at my seed business”).Such harms, which respondents will suffer even if their crops are not actually infected with the Roundup ready gene, are sufficiently concrete to satisfy the injury-in-fact prong of the constitutional standing analysis.

Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 153-56, 130 S. Ct. 2743, 2754-56, 177 L. Ed. 2d 461 (2010).

If someone wants to have a bullshit argument about whether GMOs are safe to eat, that's fine, but why does anyone dispute that GMOs are horrible for independent farmers?

Why does anyone dispute that consumers have the right to know if the product they are buying is putting independent farmers into bankruptcy?

If we don't have the right to know if the crap for sale at the supermarket contains GMOs, do we also lose the right to know if wedding rings have conflict diamonds, if coffee is fair-trade, if pasta is gluten-free, if chickens are free-range, if beef is grass-fed (or confined in a crate and fed milk until it is slaughtered as a calf as sold as veal)?

Under what market system would we want to hide this information from consumers?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

1. Monsanto and their practices =/= GMOs.

To conflate the two is naive. Monsanto sucks. It's a terrible fucking company. I support GMOs.

[Attorney in Texas]

2. No matter who the company is, GMO crop drift creates financial havoc for independent farmers who

are driven out of countless markets by GMO contamination.

I'm not saying GMOs should be outlawed, but on objective observer should dispute the right of a consumer to know whether a product contains GMOs and yet I hear that outrageous argument here in a forum where we ought to value consumer rights.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

3. What you said makes no sense.

The whole issue with Monsanto was their frivolous lawsuits regarding pollen contamination. GMOs don't cause any financial problems. If your problem is a couple of companies who are aggressive with their patents, then that's fine. GMOs are not the problem, the patent holders are.

I support GMOs. I oppose labeling (feel-good legislation sucks). Fuck Monsanto.

[larkrake]

4. so why is GMO banned in so many countries?

[Vote2016]

5. As a separate issue, regardless of WHY GMOs are banned, the FACT that they are banned means clean

crops contaminated by GMO cross pollination are also BANNED despite the clean farmer's best efforts.

This is part of what killed off the rice farms that were banned from their markets due to GMO contamination.

GMO farming is fine for huge corporate agribusinesses but it's terrible for smaller farms.

[Humanist_Activist]

11. Wow, so GMO rice causes cross contamination, even though its not commercially available...

how was it able to pull that off?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_rice

[Vote2016]

16. LOL! Did you not read the "legal issue" discussion at the link YOU posted?!?

[Humanist_Activist]

18. I'll admit, I was wrong, but it illustrates the point, those who suffered losses were compensated...

the source of the contamination wasn't found. But the issue was that the variety found wasn't approved for food usage at the time.

[HuckleB]

20. You just did something that anti-GMO folks refuse to do.

I applaud you!

[Humanist_Activist]

22. Hell, I've admitted mistakes before, in this case, I read the first paragraph, then linked to it...

nearly as bad as just reading headlines and then commenting on them. Been guilty of that too, lol.

[HuckleB]

23. Oh, I get it. I've deleted a couple of OPs after I learned they were bogus.

That's partly why I get frustrated at the obsessiveness of those who have had beliefs debunked.

Why are they here if not to challenge their beliefs?

[Humanist_Activist]

24. Eh, many people like their beliefs reinforced, in addition, most hate being wrong...

I mean, I don't like being wrong, but I do actually prefer being corrected than being correct, if that makes sense. lol

[HuckleB]

25. It makes total sense.

It's really the only point of discussion.

If one isn't wondering if one's assertions are off base, there is no real point to discussing them.

[larkrake]

28. I totally agree with you on that, the independent farmers are being shanked

by agrobusinesses.
What happened to the laws forbidding monopolies? Did they dissolve while I was away?

[GaYellowDawg]

6. There's not a complete ban in "many" countries. Just a few.

Switzerland, Italy, and Sweden have the tightest restrictions, although Italy seems to be loosening their stance.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

37. No country has banned GMOs.

Some countries have required labeling, however. I oppose any feel-good legislation, no matter how many countries decide to. If there is NO scientific reason for the label, then it is ridiculous to require it.

[Vote2016]

8. Do you also oppose labeling of free-range chickens?

[Humanist_Activist]

10. I do, its deceptive, they are allowed to lock them up most of the time, let them out for a...

couple of hours, then call it "free range".

Also oppose "certified organic" particularly since too many people are under the erroneous assumption that organically produced food is pesticide free or some such nonsense.

[Vote2016]

13. Do you also oppose labeling fair-trade coffee?

[Humanist_Activist]

14. If its deceptive or not helpful, yes...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_trade_debate

[Vote2016]

15. Do you oppose labeling grass-fed beef too?

[HuckleB]

19. Do you not understand the difference between voluntary and mandatory labels?

PS: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027878871

[Vote2016]

26. I understand the difference. I just asked a question.

[HuckleB]

33. Well, then show it.

Your posts indicate no understanding whatsoever.

[Humanist_Activist]

21. I don't oppose it, however, there's little difference between grass-fed and grain-fed beef...

generally speaking, there's less marbling in the meat of grass fed cows, but not much difference otherwise.

http://beefmagazine.com/beef-quality/grass-fed-vs-grain-fed-ground-beef-no-difference-healthfulness

More concerned about the ethics of raising cows and other animals for meat, hence why I advocate for lab grown meat. Imagine, we can control, precisely, the environment the meat is grown in, no added hormones, or antibiotics, nor contamination by bacteria, viruses or other contaminants, and no need to kill a living animal either.

[Vote2016]

27. Do you presume your wisdom on grass-fed beef, free-range chickens, fair-trade coffee is infallible

or are you aware that others have different views that you have no veto over.

In other words, are other people allowed to have opinions contrary to your opinion on these issues?

[Humanist_Activist]

29. Of course they can have different opinions, but opinion aren't facts...

if, for example, they were to claim that grass-fed beef was healthier than grain-fed, they should have evidence to back it up. The cows may suffer less stress, and that may be a valid argument to advocate for marketing grass-fed over grain-fed, but the jury is out on that.

Same for pretty much any other claim, if you think your fair trade coffee was ethically harvested, then have evidence to back that up, and evidence that its better than non-fair trade coffee because of this.

Same goes for the free range chickens. The term isn't really protected or regulated well in the United States, so is really more a marketing term that means little. All that's required to have chickens labeled "free range" is to allow them access to the outdoors, which can mean a small fenced in yard with gravel and no grass. There's no regulation on "free range" eggs.

Voluntary labels are great and all, to make people feel good about themselves, but otherwise its just marketing.

[larkrake]

30. and probably not given antibiotics and hormones

which leads to breasts in young boys

I will never eat food made in a lab. The only future is vertical farming, hydroponics and free grazing.Any large livestock wont survive if our CA drought extends to the plains, it might be another dustbowl in the future that brings to end to grass fed beef . I have eliminated all but Maine seafood because of Fukishima and BP. What is next?

[Humanist_Activist]

32. I just searched, of the sites I looked at(Mayo clinic, etc.) none of them identified...

hormones from meat as being a cause for Gynecomastia. Malnutrition, yes, many types of drugs, even herbal supplements, yes, but not growth hormones from beef.

Not sure why you would be opposed to lab grown meat though, it would be much more ethical and healthier than the natural stuff.

[larkrake]

34. chemicals made on the cheap mainly, and it is not natural food, nor do I trust labs.

For our digestive systems, we have to evolve into changes. Obesity/diabetes is on the rise from processed and refined foods,humans are hunter/gatherers, with canine teeth, We do not do well with grains when processed. We are meat eaters, which distresses animal rights folk

I can live without beef, but I cant live without bacon

[Dr Hobbitstein]

36. If you want to label your chicken as free range, that's fine by me.

There is, however, no free-range standard.

[GaYellowDawg]

7. Agreed on all counts.

Monsanto sucks. It's a terrible fucking company. I support GMOs.

Well said.

[bvar22]

9. GMOs are forever banned from our little hilltop in the woods.

There are no Factory Farms, Agri-Businesses, Industry, or Urban pollutants for many miles.
Also banned are all non-naturally occurring pesticides, herbicides, and non-naturally occurring fertilizers.
This is OUR choice.

I also believe all food should be labeled with country of origin and whether it contains GMO products.

I wish we had elected THIS guy President.

[nationalize the fed]

12. k&r

Under what market system would we want to hide this information from consumers?

The same kind that has brought TPP, NAFTA, the $200 million wasted EVERY DAY on fighting extremists in Toyotas and on and on and on and on. Americans have been turned into nothing more than "consumers". Media "personalities" lie every time they open their mouths. Many people watch 10 hours a day of this rot.

I Used to Work as a Scientist with GMOs—Now I'm Having Serious Second Thoughts About The Risks

I believe that GMO crops still run far ahead of our understanding of their risks.
By Jonathan Latham, PhD / CounterPunch

By training, I am a plant biologist. In the early 1990s I was busy making genetically modified plants (often called GMOs for Genetically Modified Organisms) as part of the research that led to my PhD. Into these plants we were putting DNA from various foreign organisms, such as viruses and bacteria...
http://www.alternet.org/food/i-used-work-scientist-gmos-now-im-having-serious-second-thoughts-about-risks

[HuckleB]

17. Ah, an anti-GMO shill speaks his "mind."

http://genomesunzipped.org/2011/04/the-genome-hasnt-failed.php

[larkrake]

31. It is profitable to keep the public in the dark. Corporations have time and time again

have poisoned us, put us at risk and lied just for the almighty profit equation, balancing "acceptable losses"

I say label everything, leave nothing out, including diaoxin

[NobodyHere]

35. You know Latham is a tinfoil hatter right?