Guest guest Posted July 12, 2003 Report Share Posted July 12, 2003 > Monsanto's case is 100.0% manure. As their lawyer's claim that the > world won't be able to feed itself without GMO. This argument really chaps my hide. I believe most of the starvation in this world is a result of politics in its most twisted and evil form, not because of a simple lack of food. And even if the world really did need GMOs to feed everyone (which it does NOT), how does that make it okay to make it illegal to tell people when they're eating GMO or non-GMO products? It's such a spurious argument, but entities like Monsanto win because they have the power and money to completely overwhelm and bury those they attack, logic and common sense don't figure in it. I hope they don't win this case. When they say things like " we need biotech to feed the world " , they're trying to prick our conscience, and make us feel selfish for wanting to reject something that they want us to think starving kids in Africa need to survive. Aubin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.