That must cause some cognitive dissonance when you consider some of the good things they do.
I guess it's never enough.

Both articles are good.
Nestles doesn't have a prayer in patenting that.

The glyphosate article indicates the study is rather inconclusive.

Dale, let me understand. You sprayed weed killer on a patch of ground and the weeds died and nothing grew there for five years because you didn't plant anything there. Finally some weeds grew on their own. OK

Too many details of the events are missing for me to draw any conclusions.

prove the corn was either gmo or organic...what a ridiculous post.

words like "saturation" are really scarey.

Glyphosate does not bioaccumulate and breaks down rapidly in the environment.

Glyphosate has a United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Toxicity Class of III (on a I to IV scale, where IV is least dangerous) for oral and inhalation exposure.

The EPA considers glyphosate to be noncarcinogenic and relatively low in toxicity.[46] The EPA considered a "worst case" dietary risk model of an individual eating a lifetime of food derived entirely from glyphosate-sprayed fields with residues at their maximum levels. This model indicated that no adverse health effects would be expected under such conditions.

If the EPA considers it low risk...you can probably drink it.

It isn't agent orange.

@unknownuser said:

the conscious design and maintenance of cultivated ecosystems that have the diversity, stability, and resilience of a natural ecosystem

I can't think of a better description of what Monsanto does.

...except they make improvements much faster than nature.

you could post the skp

You might move them up... only if you have room for headers.

Sent from my Milestone X2 using Tapatalk 2

Export the image you want in.jpg
Then edit the size in a photo editor

This article is quite revealing in regard to the case in point.
I'm not sure where the patent law thing will end up but I can understand how a bad decision could impact future R&D in all areas.

Supremes Unsympathetic to Farmer's Deception at Center of Monsanto GMO Soybean SCOTUS Patent Challenge

The decision will turn on the minutiae of patent law, but the implications will extend to all cutting-edge technologies.

Forbes (www.forbes.com)

As for farmers being more trustworthy and amenable to humanities welfare and their likelihood to "do the right thing for the economy and society in general" ...

...they do seem to be pretty shrewd in knowing a good thing when they see one...They apparently like GMOs. Note that Bowman's motive was apparently the bottom line ($$$) by his own statements.

I also find the title of this thread amusing in that we apparently have the left, the right and the more pragmatic moderates flip flopping sides and playing goose goose duck or musical chairs or something.... I couldn't find a more ironic title than Monsanto (science) vs Mother Earth (????) If there is a "mother earth" she'd be telling you...adapt or die.

I have to say I really enjoy this topic...I have learned a lot about GMO.

anyway I seem to be hogging the thread so I will let you have it...unless you address me specifically.

Yeah I've smelled it before...out in the bull pasture.

I thought everyone did.

Those are great.

Be sure and take video!

I actually had written another few lines about perceptions and thought it too obvious.

windows 8 notified me the second bomber is captured

wow

..just a little sarcasm but terms like "x industrial complex" implies (to me) a dastardly homogenous characterization..

I guess this whole argument is really about perspectives or perceptions.

The evil "better mouse trap" makers aren't interested in inventing "fine designs" or making life better. They only want to make filthy riches and kill the poor lil mice!

I have a question. If you take the wealth possessed by the evil american corporation CEO and give it to a poor person...does the poor person instantly become evil...or does it take time.

The "Science 2.0" name irritation would be one of those fringe arguments. I thought it was more a catchy geek/internet/scientific sounding name...but I/m not trying to discredit them because looking at the list of related articles on the subject it appears there are proponents of both sides.

Am I to assume that since your wife attended UC Davis she is complicit in the big evil chemical farming industrial complex? Probably not.

OK so you don't like any of the sources for information on GMOs that I found. Could you please direct me to your favorite "go to" site so I can read some of the more accurate information.

I noticed everyone is stepping over the link to the article on Mark Lynas like a gift someones dog left on the sidewalk.