http://www.naturalnews.com/031139_GE_alfalfa_deregulation.html
I understand ther should be no government....but the reality is there is a government and we have to live within this levithian.
"USDA has announced a surprise lifting of all restrictions on the genetically engineered crop, effectively allowing anyone to plant GE alfalfa anywhere, without any restriction. This is the USDA's surrender to Monsanto"
what is your take on this?
yes, no government would be nice...but in reality there is a government and they go after herbs and natural supplement hard....
Government lifting restrictions is always a good thing just like government lowering taxes. As long as the public has full disclosure of which product on the shelf is genetically altered and which is not.
(It remains to be seen if they really lifted all restrictions or if a competitor who is not the friend of the government comes along, his product will be suppressed or not)
Undoubtedly there was some political motivation behind this decision to favor somebody, but for whatever reason, a little more liberty benefits everybody.
The invisible hand of the free market can now play a larger role.
Innovative minded buyers can buy the product and test it on themselves. They will report back that it is better or worse or the same than the old product. Whether it will cost more, or less, or the same to consume. Reluctant buyers will wait and see if this first group dies of cancer, grows extra limbs or suddenly become immortal- whatever. Individuals will have the free choice to try it or to avoid it. Hopefully this will prove to consumers that governments don't need to be our nannies.
Saskatchewan, Canada:
http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/8-7-8/73144.html
He took Monsanto all the way to Canada's Supreme Court after the agro-chemical company sued him for using its product without purchasing it. Schmeiser claimed he had never used the product. The Supreme Court found in Monsanto's favor because their Roundup Ready canola was protected by a patent. However, in an out-of-court settlement finalized in March, Monsanto agreed to pay all the clean-up costs of the Roundup Ready canola that contaminated Schmeiser's fields, and the court ruled that Monsanto can be sued again if contamination on his fields recurs.
He took Monsanto all the way to Canada's Supreme Court after the agro-chemical company sued him for using its product without purchasing it. Schmeiser claimed he had never used the product. The Supreme Court found in Monsanto's favor because their Roundup Ready canola was protected by a patent.
However, in an out-of-court settlement finalized in March, Monsanto agreed to pay all the clean-up costs of the Roundup Ready canola that contaminated Schmeiser's fields, and the court ruled that Monsanto can be sued again if contamination on his fields recurs.
Seems like it comes down to the government protecting the wrong kind of "rights", but I suppose they got it correct in the end. I believe law under a libertarian system would have protected the farmers crop if something such as herbicide or pollen were to cross over and contaminate and/or destroy his crop in the first place.
I also believe under free market conditions, if one company produced "super seeds", whether terminator or not, they'd want to contain their products for not wanting to get their "super product" out to competitors gardens - even if that means huge, indoor hydroponics set-ups (especially in the absence of IP).
Thats all assuming that the industry is profitable without monopolies or a foot on their competitors ballsack via the government.
As long as the public has full disclosure of which product on the shelf is genetically altered and which is not.
Nobody is entitled to disclosure.
Not"entitled" as in being enforced by the state sure.
But if shopkeeper A sells a product that is different from the one shopkeeper B sells, there are market reasons for the consumer knowing.
The seller might want word of mouth for his product to be seen as somehow "superior" or bigger or longer lasting than the old version, so he can attract more customers and make more money, so there sometimes is incentive for the seller to disclose.
He might want to disclose the new product as being different, and have customers sign a waiver against side effects. He might calculate that to be a good move.
Or if he can secretly buy the new product being produced more efficiently for cheaper, but still sell it to the consumer at the same price as the old product, he might try not to disclose that the product is different. But Wikileaks or his competitor or a disgruntled employee might feel the need to point it out to customers and word gets out. Especially if one of his customers is harmed in some way by the new secret product, his enemies will broadcast it to the media.