proposed California law to hurt foodies and the poor
 

In article >, says...
>
> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> > In article >, "Jean B." > wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>> Sqwertz wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Keep in mind that this has all come about because a significant number
> >>>>>>>> of people do not WANT GMO foods in the first place. The big
> >>>>>>>> conglomerates just don't want to spend the money to accommodate them
> >>>>>>>> or lose a portion of the market share by not doing so. They don't
> >>>>>>>> have to change a thing of they don't want to. They're just don't want
> >>>>>>>> to give up market share to smaller farmers who do cater the non-GMO
> >>>>>>>> crowd.
> >>>>>>> It's the organic thing over again. Organic products are more
> >>>>>>> expensive. Some who want them are willing to pay more. To the extent
> >>>>>>> that GMO products cost less the price difference will matter. I don't
> >>>>>>> know if the productivity of GMO crops is high enough to make often
> >>>>>>> price difference to matter. Eventually they will be for the same
> >>>>>>> reason the "green revolution" happened.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> My current objection to GMO products is the corporate tactics of the
> >>>>>>> companies sueing farmers for keeping some of their seed for the next
> >>>>>>> year as has been done since the invention of argiculture.
> >>>>>> How about suing farmers when the GMO material drifts into their fields?
> >>>>> under tort law, that amounts to trespassing and is actionable
> >>>> Wouldn't it be the farmers whose fields GMO products have strayed into who
> >>>> could sue then?
> >>> yes
> >> So why does Monsanto end up suing them instead?
> >
> > They have the money and clout, but more specifically this is a new area of law
> > and the trespassed farmer may not be getting advice from lawyers that feel
> > capable of pursuing the issue or they may advise that the judge would rule
> > against the trespassed.
> >
> > It's hard to say the real reason, but one should always keep in mind that for
> > most legal matters, the law works both ways
>
> Thanks for the illumination.

Never forget this adage: "The law is whatever you can convince a judge
that it is."

proposed California law to hurt foodies and the poor
 

On 2012-09-29, J. Clarke > wrote:

> Never forget this adage: "The law is whatever you can convince a judge
> that it is."

.....and it's so much easier to convince elected judges, of which CA
judges are, every six years.


I love this domain, freakonomix.com, "The hidden side of everything".
Funny a conservative business mouthpiece website should use that
particular phrase, as they are registered under GoDaddy's Domains By
Proxy, LLC, which claims "domains owners personal information safe
from the public eye". Safe from what? The truth? Since when did the
conservative right start using the term "freak" to identify
themselves, it having been scorned in the past as an alias for hippies
and others of the unwashed masses.

And using the AMA to tout their logic, as if the AMA is looking out
for the well being of the general public. "there is no scientific
justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods."
Ummm... the public needs no justification. If it wants it, it should
get it! Oh! ....but the customer is always right EXCEPT when it's not
in the best interest of the business serving same said customer.

Lying scumsucking dirtbags!

nb --grrr.....

--
Definition of objectivism:
"Eff you! I got mine."
http://www.nongmoproject.org/

proposed California law to hurt foodies and the poor
 

On 29 Sep 2012 15:50:30 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2012-09-29, J. Clarke > wrote:
>
>> Never forget this adage: "The law is whatever you can convince a judge
>> that it is."
>
>....and it's so much easier to convince elected judges, of which CA
>judges are, every six years.
>
>
>I love this domain, freakonomix.com, "The hidden side of everything".

Hehe-- *that* ain't http://www.freakonomics.com/

>Funny a conservative business mouthpiece website should use that
>particular phrase, as they are registered under GoDaddy's Domains By
>Proxy, LLC, which claims "domains owners personal information safe
>from the public eye". Safe from what? The truth? Since when did the
>conservative right start using the term "freak" to identify
>themselves, it having been scorned in the past as an alias for hippies
>and others of the unwashed masses.

I've been reading Dubner and Leavitt for a decade or so. [Went to
school with Dubner's big sister] They are hardly mouthpieces for
any political group. Their most popular book was"Freakonomics: A
Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything" [also a movie
by the same name] 4million books later they wrote another one.

Jim

proposed California law to hurt foodies and the poor
 

On 2012-09-29, Jim Elbrecht > wrote:

>>I love this domain, freakonomix.com, "The hidden side of everything".
>
> Hehe-- *that* ain't http://www.freakonomics.com/

The above is a misspelling error on my part:


Domain Name: FREAKONOMICS.COM
Created on: 23-Oct-03
Expires on: 23-Oct-15
Last Updated on: 15-Mar-11

Registrant:
Domains By Proxy, LLC


> I've been reading Dubner and Leavitt for a decade or so. [Went to
> school with Dubner's big sister]

Didja score?

> Their most popular book was"Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores
> the Hidden Side of Everything"....

.....and appears to have more than a few rather harsh critics.

I reiterate. What the AMA considers scientifically relevent to the
public means crap! What matters is what the public wants to be
informed of. Also, your being enamored of Dub's older sister does not
make D&Ls opinion any more valid. Looking at some of the other
articles on that site does nothing to change my opinion of the
website. Sorry, but a statistician and a media personality are not
who I look to for factual information.

nb


--
Definition of objectivism:
"Eff you! I got mine."
http://www.nongmoproject.org/

proposed California law to hurt foodies and the poor
 

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 09:35:13 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> wrote:

> In article >, says...
> >
> > Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> > > In article >, "Jean B." > wrote:
> > >
> > >>>>>>> Sqwertz wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Keep in mind that this has all come about because a significant number
> > >>>>>>>> of people do not WANT GMO foods in the first place. The big
> > >>>>>>>> conglomerates just don't want to spend the money to accommodate them
> > >>>>>>>> or lose a portion of the market share by not doing so. They don't
> > >>>>>>>> have to change a thing of they don't want to. They're just don't want
> > >>>>>>>> to give up market share to smaller farmers who do cater the non-GMO
> > >>>>>>>> crowd.
> > >>>>>>> It's the organic thing over again. Organic products are more
> > >>>>>>> expensive. Some who want them are willing to pay more. To the extent
> > >>>>>>> that GMO products cost less the price difference will matter. I don't
> > >>>>>>> know if the productivity of GMO crops is high enough to make often
> > >>>>>>> price difference to matter. Eventually they will be for the same
> > >>>>>>> reason the "green revolution" happened.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> My current objection to GMO products is the corporate tactics of the
> > >>>>>>> companies sueing farmers for keeping some of their seed for the next
> > >>>>>>> year as has been done since the invention of argiculture.
> > >>>>>> How about suing farmers when the GMO material drifts into their fields?
> > >>>>> under tort law, that amounts to trespassing and is actionable
> > >>>> Wouldn't it be the farmers whose fields GMO products have strayed into who
> > >>>> could sue then?
> > >>> yes
> > >> So why does Monsanto end up suing them instead?
> > >
> > > They have the money and clout, but more specifically this is a new area of law
> > > and the trespassed farmer may not be getting advice from lawyers that feel
> > > capable of pursuing the issue or they may advise that the judge would rule
> > > against the trespassed.
> > >
> > > It's hard to say the real reason, but one should always keep in mind that for
> > > most legal matters, the law works both ways
> >
> > Thanks for the illumination.
>
> Never forget this adage: another "The law is whatever you can convince a judge
> that it is."

This California resident is voting for it in November.

--
I take life with a grain of salt, a slice of lemon and a shot of tequila