And we all know how trustworthy and corruptless these organizations are. Their word is like gospel.
back
1 comments
So you give more credibility to Food Inc. over a consensus of Stanford, Harvard, and MIT biotech scientists? Funny.
Power corrupts, profit corrupts, how transparent are these "consensus" really? Because everything I see points to the other direction. Are you ignorant or are you deliberately trying to convince me that Monsanto is good for me? Am I nine or something?
Monsanto is irrelevant to you, with respect to these issues, unless you are a farmer.
What is relevant is the products you choose to buy. If you choosing products raised from Monsanto GM seed, then you are giving incentive to the farmer to buy more seed from Monsanto and its licensees. You are defining the market, the farmer has to fulfill your demands.
On my farm, we stopped growing GM soybeans completely because people in several Asian countries have specifically asked us to fulfill non-GM products, and it is our business to comply. Assuming you do not come from one of the aforementioned Asian countries, and have not made market requests for non-GM products, why not? What is holding you back from defining a non-GM market in your country of origin?
As farmers we have to provide exactly what you, the consumer, are asking for, or we quickly go out of business. If GM crops remain in rotation, it is because people are asking farmers to grow it. Ask for something else, and they will quickly disappear. But are you willing to do that?
"Power corrupts, profit corrupts"
Prove that the National Academy of Sciences were paid for their conclusions.
"deliberately trying to convince me that Monsanto is good for me? Am I nine or something?"
No one is trying to convince you of anything. The National Academy of Sciences, the FDA, the World Health Organization, and the American Medical Association are on my side. Are you saying they're all paid and corrupted? If so, prove it.
I don't need to. You just did.
Yes, you do. You made a claim. Prove it or quit making unjustified claims.
Give me unrestricted access to all of their documents and I will. Since that ain't going to happen, I can use my logical abilities to make a deduction:
You seem to have a lot of pro-GM and pro-Monsanto information and came here ready to confront anyone and as it seems the vast majority do not share your opinion. You talk about your sources but don't provide any citation, instead you end all arguments with "prove I am wrong!". You use the phrasing "on my side" which implies involvement. When you're operating in the billion and trillion dollar scale you can buy yourself through anything and have any desired outcome, this is obvious, yet you want me to provide proof about how power and money corrupts.
I'm sorry you'll lose your job as a GM pherephon since you don't seem to be doing quite well right now. If you have any self-appreciation it's best that you admit your fault and ask for forgiveness.
This is funny. Anyone who sides with science on this matter is considered corrupted, evil, and paid. Anyone who believes in due process is a paid lobbyist.
1) You made a claim. You have no evidence. You have no case. Courts would laugh at you. Don't make claims if you have no evidence.
2) I'm actually a Silicon Valley engineer. Paul Graham is welcome to trace my account's IP to identify who I am. Go ask him if you want. Keep believing I'm in the GM industry if it makes you sleep at night, however.
Instead of watching King Corn and relying on bunk science, maybe you should converse with Harvard, MIT, Stanford, and scientists from any other top biotechnology school. And even better, talk to IP lawyers. If I can't convince you, maybe they will.
I do enjoy your ad hominem insults however.