In article >, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

> Craziness starts here, but it doesn't stay here.
>
> http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/...gmo-labeling-l
> aw-could-limit-your-food-choices-and-hurt-the-poor/

how does more info limit choice?

Craziness starts here, but it doesn't stay here.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/...hurt-the-poor/

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
> Craziness starts here, but it doesn't stay here.
>
> http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/...hurt-the-poor/


BS. More corporate fear mongering.

Paul

Mark Thorson > wrote:

>Craziness starts here, but it doesn't stay here.

>http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/...hurt-the-poor/


I'm not reading this because the "Freakonomics" guy is a drooling
Ayn-Randhole.



Steve

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:00:48 -0700, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
>> "Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Craziness starts here, but it doesn't stay here.
>>>
>>> http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/...hurt-the-poor/
>>
>> BS. More corporate fear mongering.
>
> Heaven forbid the big corporations actually produce products the
> consumers prefer.
>

Labeling does not mean that they will cease to produce anything, dumbo.
It's called "choice" and if you have an argument why people should not know
what is in the food they buy then by all means entertain us with your
arguments. That whole web site is 100% pure industry propaganda. GMOs are
causing massive problems both environmentally and socially.

Paul

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 18:20:58 -0800, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

> Craziness starts here, but it doesn't stay here.
>
> http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/...hurt-the-poor/

Oh, golly geee whiz. Limiting GMOs is bad, soooo bad. Walmart will
have to sell higher cost products and the Republicans might lose a way
to tell the poor to eat cake. Boo F*cking Hoo.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:36:30 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:

> Labeling does not mean that they will cease to produce anything, dumbo.
> It's called "choice" and if you have an argument why people should not know
> what is in the food they buy then by all means entertain us with your
> arguments. That whole web site is 100% pure industry propaganda. GMOs are
> causing massive problems both environmentally and socially.

I don't usually agree with you, but I'm SO in agreement with you on
this point.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

"Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Mark Thorson >
> wrote:
>
>> Craziness starts here, but it doesn't stay here.
>>
>> http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/...gmo-labeling-l
>> aw-could-limit-your-food-choices-and-hurt-the-poor/
>
> how does more info limit choice?


Excellent question! I do agree it's possible, if forced to label GM foods,
some big conglomerates might raise their prices. But I doubt it would be to
such a degree as to "hurt the poor". Just more fearmongering on Mark's
part.

Jill

On Jun 24, 7:20*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> Craziness starts here, but it doesn't stay here.
>
> http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/...2%80%99s-gmo-l...

gee, who do you suppose paid for that 'article'???

follow the money.

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:36:30 -0700, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:00:48 -0700, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Craziness starts here, but it doesn't stay here.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/...hurt-the-poor/
>>>>
>>>> BS. More corporate fear mongering.
>>>
>>> Heaven forbid the big corporations actually produce products the
>>> consumers prefer.
>>>
>>
>> Labeling does not mean that they will cease to produce anything, dumbo.
>> It's called "choice" and if you have an argument why people should not
>> know
>> what is in the food they buy then by all means entertain us with your
>> arguments. That whole web site is 100% pure industry propaganda. GMOs
>> are
>> causing massive problems both environmentally and socially.
>
> And heaven forbid I should actually side with you on anything else
> you'll take offense to it, somehow.

What can I say, you're just an offensive kinda guy.

Paul

On 2012-06-25, ImStillMags > wrote:

> gee, who do you suppose paid for that 'article'???
>
> follow the money.

I love the line:

"nothing about the process of recombinant DNA makes genetically
engineered (GE) crop plants inherently more dangerous to the
environment or to human health than the traditional crop plants that
have been deliberately but slowly bred for human purposes for
millennia."

Oh? They've been crossing vegetable genes with fish and frog genes for
mellennia? I seem to have missed that little bit of history.


nb


--
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
<http://www.labelgmos.org/>

In article >, Sqwertz >
wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 09:20:18 -0400, jmcquown wrote:
>
> > "Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> In article >, Mark Thorson >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Craziness starts here, but it doesn't stay here.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/...99s-gmo-labeli
> >>> ng-l
> >>> aw-could-limit-your-food-choices-and-hurt-the-poor/
> >>
> >> how does more info limit choice?
> >
> > Excellent question! I do agree it's possible, if forced to label GM foods,
> > some big conglomerates might raise their prices. But I doubt it would be
> > to
> > such a degree as to "hurt the poor". Just more fearmongering on Mark's
> > part.
>
> 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.
>
> -sw

which is what we call a business opportunity for the organic and non-GMO
farmers/ranchers which will eventually lead to the GMO crowd converting

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.

Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds wrote:
>
> In article >, Sqwertz >
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 09:20:18 -0400, jmcquown wrote:
> >
> > > "Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >> In article >, Mark Thorson >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Craziness starts here, but it doesn't stay here.
> > >>>
> > >>> http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/...99s-gmo-labeli
> > >>> ng-l
> > >>> aw-could-limit-your-food-choices-and-hurt-the-poor/
> > >>
> > >> how does more info limit choice?
> > >
> > > Excellent question! I do agree it's possible, if forced to label GM foods,
> > > some big conglomerates might raise their prices. But I doubt it would be
> > > to
> > > such a degree as to "hurt the poor". Just more fearmongering on Mark's
> > > part.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > -sw
>
> which is what we call a business opportunity for the organic and non-GMO
> farmers/ranchers which will eventually lead to the GMO crowd converting

More likely it will prove once again that there is a small minority who
will pay more to support niche non-GMO products, while the vast majority
simply want affordable food and don't give a rats ass what that minority
thinks of GMOs. This has been pretty well proven in the organic vs.
non-organic space.

On 2012-06-25, Doug Freyburger > wrote:

> 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.

Worse is these company's underhanded tactics of planting GM plants
next to non-GM fields to naturally pollinat the non-GM crops, then
suing them for having GM DNA in the farmer's crop.

Mexico has heirloom corns that need no GM help, they having already
been naturally crossbred over generations to resist insects and other
blights. Yet, GM DNA has already been detected in these non GM crops,
despite no farmer planting any. Three guesses how it got there and
whether or not the companies respondible have already sued for
royalties.

nb

--
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
<http://www.labelgmos.org/>

In article >,
"Pete C." > wrote:

>
> > which is what we call a business opportunity for the organic and non-GMO
> > farmers/ranchers which will eventually lead to the GMO crowd converting
>
> More likely it will prove once again that there is a small minority who
> will pay more to support niche non-GMO products, while the vast majority
> simply want affordable food and don't give a rats ass what that minority
> thinks of GMOs. This has been pretty well proven in the organic vs.
> non-organic space.

There is no reason to suggest that GMO products will ever be cheaper. Since
there can be no competition for lower priced GMO seeds, the GMO can keep raising
their seed prices.

In article >, notbob >
wrote:

> Worse is these company's underhanded tactics of planting GM plants
> next to non-GM fields to naturally pollinat the non-GM crops, then
> suing them for having GM DNA in the farmer's crop.

I should think that a sufficiently motivated lawyer might try to expand the
definition of rape...after all it isn't consensual

or maybe sue the GM farmer for having the non-GM DNA in it

On Jun 24, 10:20*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> Craziness starts here, but it doesn't stay here.
>
> http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/...2%80%99s-gmo-l...

These are similar to the laws that are being passed across the country
that you can't directly help the homeless by giving them food because
you should instead give to the government and they will decide how
much to give to the poor and how much to keep for themselves. You are
most likely not a licensed Dietician and you have not had your
premises reviewed by the Board of Health and Heaven forbid you give
these homeless people home prepared foods that aren't organic or might
have too much sodium or cholesterol.

On Jun 24, 10:29*pm, (Steve Pope) wrote:
> Mark Thorson > wrote:
>
> >Craziness starts here, but it doesn't stay here.
> >http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/...2%80%99s-gmo-l...
>
> I'm not reading this because the "Freakonomics" guy is a drooling
> Ayn-Randhole.

I agree. When I hear him on the radio, I wish that he would die.
>
> Steve

--Bryan

On 2012-06-26, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds > wrote:

> I should think that a sufficiently motivated lawyer might try to expand the
> definition of rape...after all it isn't consensual
>
> or maybe sue the GM farmer for having the non-GM DNA in it

One Canadian farmer did prevail against Monsanto, although it was only
a minor technical victory, not a huge financial win, the kind they
make movies about starring Gene Hackman or Julia Roberts. He also
held out against non-disclosure, which I consider huge. It's a
beginning and a precedent has been set.

http://www.naturalnews.com/022918.html

nb

--
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
<http://www.labelgmos.org/>

notbob wrote:

> One Canadian farmer did prevail against Monsanto, although it was only
> a minor technical victory, not a huge financial win, the kind they
> make movies about starring Gene Hackman or Julia Roberts.

Julia Roberts starred in Erin Brockovich, but you probably meant
Pacino rather than Hackman (Dog Day Afternoon, And Justice for All
come to mind).

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:08:02 -0800, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

> You can't have a controlled kitchen in a residence.

Technically, you can - but you have to pass the inspection first.
Most people opt for a professional kitchen rather than jump through
the hoops.


--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

Michael OConnor wrote:
>
> On Jun 24, 10:20 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> > Craziness starts here, but it doesn't stay here.
> >
> > http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/...2%80%99s-gmo-l...
>
> These are similar to the laws that are being passed across the country
> that you can't directly help the homeless by giving them food because
> you should instead give to the government and they will decide how
> much to give to the poor and how much to keep for themselves. You are
> most likely not a licensed Dietician and you have not had your
> premises reviewed by the Board of Health and Heaven forbid you give
> these homeless people home prepared foods that aren't organic or might
> have too much sodium or cholesterol.

In California, the problem with Food Not Bombs
giving away food is that the food is not made
in a controlled kitchen. That is a requirement
for any food offered to the public, even if it
is free. Technically, even bake sales are illegal
in this state. You can't have a controlled kitchen
in a residence.

Having gotten food poisoning from home-made food
sold (illegally) at a Chinese cultural event,
I can't say I'm totally against this.

Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> sf wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:08:02 -0800, Mark Thorson >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > You can't have a controlled kitchen in a residence.
> >
> > Technically, you can - but you have to pass the inspection first.
> > Most people opt for a professional kitchen rather than jump through
> > the hoops.
>
> When I looked into it, that was explicitly stated
> on some California government web page.

The answer is probably in-between - like you can convert your garage
into a commercial kitchen (with zoning approval) for your catering
business, but your regular kitchen can't qualify. One of the specs for a
commercial kitchen is the three basin sink (wash, rinse, sanitize) which
most residential kitchens lack.

sf wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:08:02 -0800, Mark Thorson >
> wrote:
>
> > You can't have a controlled kitchen in a residence.
>
> Technically, you can - but you have to pass the inspection first.
> Most people opt for a professional kitchen rather than jump through
> the hoops.

When I looked into it, that was explicitly stated
on some California government web page.

sf wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:36:30 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
> wrote:
>
>> Labeling does not mean that they will cease to produce anything, dumbo.
>> It's called "choice" and if you have an argument why people should not know
>> what is in the food they buy then by all means entertain us with your
>> arguments. That whole web site is 100% pure industry propaganda. GMOs are
>> causing massive problems both environmentally and socially.
>
> I don't usually agree with you, but I'm SO in agreement with you on
> this point.
>
Moi aussi.

--
Jean B.

Doug Freyburger 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?

--
Jean B.

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:09:16 -0800, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

> sf wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:08:02 -0800, Mark Thorson >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > You can't have a controlled kitchen in a residence.
> >
> > Technically, you can - but you have to pass the inspection first.
> > Most people opt for a professional kitchen rather than jump through
> > the hoops.
>
> When I looked into it, that was explicitly stated
> on some California government web page.

Then the law has changed since I looked into it, which admittedly was
a very long time ago.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

In article >, "Jean B." > wrote:

> Doug Freyburger 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

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> "Jean B." > wrote:
>> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>> > 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?

That too.

> under tort law, that amounts to trespassing and is actionable

It's a bug in the laws. The targetted farmers took no action. They are
victims of receiving GMO pollen and then victims of lawsuits.

In article >, Doug Freyburger >
wrote:

> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> > "Jean B." > wrote:
> >> Doug Freyburger wrote:
> >
> >> > 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?
>
> That too.
>
> > under tort law, that amounts to trespassing and is actionable
>
> It's a bug in the laws. The targetted farmers took no action. They are
> victims of receiving GMO pollen and then victims of lawsuits.

it's an often overlooked fact about law that it more often than not works both
ways...this seems like the most perfect of examples of this dictum

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> In article >, "Jean B." > wrote:
>
>> Doug Freyburger 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?

--
Jean B.

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 23:38:05 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:

> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> > In article >, "Jean B." > wrote:
> >
> >> Doug Freyburger wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 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?

Unfortunately, in reality the opposite happens. It's one way to drive
the smaller producer out of business.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

In article >, "Jean B." > wrote:

> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> > In article >, "Jean B." >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Doug Freyburger 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

In article >, Sqwertz >
wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:12:59 -0700, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>
> > In article >, "Jean B." >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> How about suing farmers when the GMO material drifts into their
> >> fields?
> >
> > under tort law, that amounts to trespassing and is actionable
>
> Are you _REALLY_ this stupid, James? Under "tort law", there is such
> thing as trespassing, you dumbass. One is civil one is criminal.

did you mean "...there is NO such thing as trespassing..." doesn't really matter
as you'd be wrong

Trespass to land is today the tort most commonly associated with the term
trespass; it takes the form of "wrongful interference with one's possessory
rights in [real] property."[12] Generally, it is not necessary to prove harm to
a possessor's legally protected interest; liability for unintentional trespass
varies by jurisdiction. "[A]t common law, every unauthorized entry upon the soil
of another was a trespasser", however, under the tort scheme established by the
Restatement of Torts, liability for unintentional intrusions arises only under
circumstances evincing negligence or where the intrusion involved a highly
dangerous activity.[13]



>
> What are you going to do, throw the pollen in jail?
>
> -sw

the farmer who allowed his pollen to "trespass" would be subject to whatever
punishment the judge hearing the case thought reasonable. of course the that
farmer might sue Monsanto for providing him with a "defective" product...in any
event

Jean B. wrote:
> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>
>>
>> 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?

I think that's going to be the end of that abuse. Everyone who gets
sued for GMO genes ending up in their seed stock countersue for
trespass and damage. After a few test cases it ends up a slam dunk.
Monsanto and the other big GMO companies stop there reign of terror.
Why this is not happening I don't understand.

sf wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 23:38:05 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
>
>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>>> In article >, "Jean B." > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>>>>> 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?
>
> Unfortunately, in reality the opposite happens. It's one way to drive
> the smaller producer out of business.
>
True, but that's so wrong. It... s--ks.

--
Jean B.

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> In article >, "Jean B." > wrote:
>
>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>>> In article >, "Jean B." >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doug Freyburger 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?

--
Jean B.

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

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.

--
Jean B.