It still doesn't address the bullying tactics used by Monsanto and others in destroying small farms.
If bees inadvertently cross pollinate a Monsanto genetically engineered crop, with a farmer who hasn't paid, then Monsanto sues the farmer out of existence. Its not as prevalent in the states, but in other developing countries, it has helped larger companies that can afford Monsanto's seeds to gobble up any competition.
I would agree with the retort you are about to say that its a problem with government and not Monsanto, if they didn't lend so much support to this happening. Monsanto 9 times out of 10 pays for the legal fees, as more and more marketshare is moved to their GMO simply by reducing the competition.
But Charlie, why you no give sauce? [url=http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2013-07-25/restaurants/monsanto-gm-crops/]Fine, have some sauce[/url]
I'm fine with GMO's on my table. I'm not fine with the business practices that got them there.
English
-
Corporate ethics and genetic patents are a completely different issue than the question of whether or not genetically engineered food is inherently less healthy than "natural" food.
-
I agree with you. But the issue of my being comfortable with them being on my table remains. Be it for health, or business practices of the companies involved, I choose to abstain from them until they develop fair business practices.
-
That is a fair point, I was mainly referring to the argument that genetically modified crops are not as healthy as "natural" ones. I think that argument is without merit. Don't get me wrong, crops could be engineered to be less healthy, just like nature can produce things that are very unhealthy for us to eat. I'm just saying there is nothing about the practice of genetic engineering that makes it inherently more or less dangerous than traditional breeding, it is just faster.