Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
March against Monsanto taking place toay everywhere around the world. www.march-against-monsanto.com/
Source
not provided yet
Edited
This.
I advocate plant explosives too. Full steam ahead for development of the Extremis serum!
If Americans weren’t such pacifist cows there would be more groups like the weathermen running about today! I think it speaks volumes about the uselessness of Occupy, the acceptance of injustice amongst their populace, and the inadequate education of their young people that the most force that can be mustered against ‘the powers’ are those laughably inept ‘social justice warriors,’ who actually spend more time attacking the little people and the things that give them joy and IMPOSING “Tha Man’s” censorious anti-freedom agendas than fighting against them.
Niggo. You scare me.
Also, it’s, you know, the government. They will pull out all the stops to avoid blame in every avenue, portray the victim as being in the wrong, even if they’ve lost their fucking legs or something, or they might just decide to encourage the police to pull you over and beat you at every opportunity.
This is why I only advocate fighting the government with bombs, bullets, and and timed plant explosions. You will never get a fair shake otherwise. I would totally suggest going full out Weathermen whenever possible.
That was a valid hypothesis, and was investigated. The investigations did not confirm the hypothesis. There’s almost no BtCry in nectar or pollen, which is what bees collect. Bees also don’t consume those substances straight from the flower. They carry the nectar in a special sac from which they regurgitate it into the honeycomb, dry and condition it for months, and then consume it. They carry pollen stuck to hairs on their legs. BtCry affects the cell membranes of the bee’s own mid-gut, not the bacteria of the bees’ colon. Nor the nectar stomach, nor the hairs of the legs. Most bees don’t even eat a lot of pollen; that’s for larvae, pupae, and royalty. While it’s the workers who die off in colony collapse.
Moreover, if the problem behind colony collapse disorder was BtCry poisoning, it would affect other species of bees. They’re all nectar- and pollen-feeders. Neither Africanized bees, nor any of the native bees, are suffering from colony collapse disorder. It affects only the domesticated Italian honeybee. That suggests the problem is inbreeding, combined with an opportunistic infection.
Whoa, congratz on the generalization.
That’s very scientific indeed =__=
Yes, the FDA can get things wrong. So what? Is Monsanto’s fault if that happens?
Sue the FDA instead. But be warned, you’ll have to prove that they did a poor job on checking the food you ate, which means:
People died of ass cancer before genetic engineering was even a thing. People will continue to die of ass cancer even if GMO food is some day banned (and unlike all other forms of prohibition ever, that ban somehow works).
Even if, hypothetically, you were able to prove some specific GMO food sometimes causes ass cancer, and that it causes ass cancer to a greater extent than the non-GMO version of that food, and you documented your food intake over your lifetime to prove that you did in fact eat enough of that GMO food to have significantly increased your risk of ass cancer as a result of that…
…you still can’t possibly prove that YOUR specific case of ass cancer was due to eating that specific GMO food, rather than you simply happened to get ass cancer naturally like Farrah Fawcett did. And without that proof your ass cancer was caused by their food, you can’t call it “justice” if a court makes them pay for your ass cancer treatments, much less makes them pay for any pain and suffering you went through. You don’t have to show “the possibility” that their food might have the ability to make some people sick. You have to show BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE that their food MORE LIKELY THAN NOT did make YOU sick. But if you and 330,000,000 people in the US alone ate GMO corn last year, and around 7,000 of them got ass cancer (as opposed to ~6,000 cases per year before GMO corn), the preponderance of the evidence is that you just naturally got ass cancer. Tough luck, but not Monsanto’s problem. Even if you could reliably say 7,000 cases was different from 6,000 (which you can’t, because in reality ass cancer varies year by year from 4,000 to 8,000 cases), at most you should be entitled to 1/7th the cost of your treatment on Monsanto’s dime (that is exactly and properly what class action lawsuits are for), because you still can’t prove that YOUR case was one of the ones they caused.
Yes, I suppose if for some unholy reason Monsanto one day decided to make corn that expressed large amounts of botulism toxin then lied to the FDA to get them to declare it safe to eat, and you got sick eating it, you could reasonably make the case that their food made you sick. But in that case you could still sue, and win, since they lied to the FDA.
“Why do you think you have the right to sue Monsanto if its products were considered healthy by the FDA?” Because the FDA never, ever, ever gets anything wrong, right? I’m not saying they did here or that they’re wrong on a regular basis, but suppose that something slipped by them. Why am I left high and dry because some small detail went unnoticed and I end up with ass cancer because of it? I don’t think I have the right to sue Monsanto if its products just because they’re on the market, but I do have the right to seek justice against the party responsible for my poor health, don’t I? Assuming there’s enough evidence to at least show the possibility of that party’s product is responsible for my ass cancer?
@B2C
Thanks for clarifying. The seeds themselves still shouldn’t have a special kind of legal protection though, in my opinion.
Full-on no prohibition of seeds period. The Court could ban the food the seeds are grown into, and then no one would want to buy the seeds, but the seeds themselves are fine.
That’s not protecting Monsanto in particular, it’s just setting things right.
If Monsanto’s GMOs will be found harmful, then it’s FDA’s responsibility to pull the food off the market. Why do you think you have the right to sue Monsanto if its products were considered healthy by the FDA? That makes no sense.
Note that that happened a lot with the “drug” part of the FDA: many medicines were retired from the market after late reexaminations, but none could sue the pharm industries for that, unless they hid the risks.
Does it prevent courts from prohibiting the sale of the seeds unless there’s something wrong with them, or just full-on no prohibition period? In other words, is there something in there that says “If Monsanto sells fucked up seeds that become fucked up plants that fuck up the health of the people who eat those plants, then the court may prohibit the selling of those seeds.”? Sorry if it says that somewhere in the text, I can’t read legal-ese.
It doesn’t prevent all lawsuits. It prevents the courts from prohibiting the sale of the seeds.
Full text:
Sec. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary’s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.[
Two ways I can deal with that argument.
Say you’re right, there is no evidence suggesting that GMOs are harmful - yet. What happens if/when said evidence does come to light? What then? Surely then people would have legitimate reason to–
>Monsanto Protection Act
Well, shit! There’s that pesky law saying we can’t do anything about the food again.
Alternatively, I refer you to my previous statement: There is no purpose for a law that protects Monsanto from lawsuits if GMOs can’t harm you, or even if they can.
You may be right that GMOs aren’t harmful, hell I’ll even admit that I like the idea of eating a super vegetable, but the government has no business protecting Monsanto - or anyone for that matter - in a manner such as this.
But what’s responsible if harmful food is in the market?
The ones who produces it, or the ones that allowed it to be there?
Because, you know, there’s an institution that checks for the healthiness of every food in the market. (Actually, this happens for more or less everything that’s sold in markets, not just food.)
You can seek justice in courtrooms if what you ate differs from what the FDA checked, and caused you harm.
@misnamed
Frivolous lawsuits are beside the point, again; no lawsuits allowed at all!
Must be her second fetish, next to the hands.
high five
>there can be know health risks to sue for if no health risks are possible.
You poor, naive fool. People sue for absurdities all the time.