regd this monsanto seed story
I_own_thedot
somehow chooses the most inflammtory summaries..
Judges decided that the farmer intentionally planted the seed. Why? 95
% of the crop was from the seeds with the gene. 15-20 or even 25 % is
acceptable but 95 %? Gimme a break.
Ok, lets say the farmer is innocent. If so much of the crop is from
that gene, where did those seeds come from?
-Last years crop
-Neighboring fields
If its the neighboring fields, what about the canola crop in fields
bordering this farmer. Are they on the same monsanto seeds? If not, how
much contamination is going on in those fields. 5 %, 10 % 95 %?? And
the farmer planted not 1, 5 or even 50 acres. 1000 acres! Not a small
size of land by any count.
The article summary is so fucking biased, how can somebody even look at
it and say "research supports". Do you expect me to even take a fucking
look at the link that links to the farmer's website?? Give me
independent research. Not monsanto, not the farmer.
Leave the matter of monsanto bad/evil and focus on the merits/demerits
of the case. The farmer is wrong here and righfully lost the case. And
I sent a mail(snail-mail) to that farmer telling him so.
If the farmers hate monsanto why the heck is so much corn and soyabeans
in the us and other countries gene modified? Why did this very farmer
use the gene modified seeds?
I'm done. If you guys feel so righteous about gene modified crops etc
then why don't you give money for contraception in developing
countries(PAI)? Pressures on population means the land has to produce
more. And that is why these seeds are popular.