[–] SecularPenguinist 0 points 18 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago
$10,000,000 is pocket change for Monsanto.
[–] forgetmyname 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago
Revenue
US$ 15.9 billion (2014)
US$ 14.861 billion (2013)
US$ 13.504 billion (2012)
They dont even sue people for less than $25 million
[–] BustyChicksFTW 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
Yes but for sure they know their public image is at stake and that's something EXTREMELY hard to buy.
[–] SPAMplanet 0 points 11 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago (edited ago)
They don't care about their public image, they bought the governments and politicians.
[–] klobos 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
It isn't the money that they should care about. It is proving that GMO's are safe. They could have done that and donated the money to charity for a huge PR win. Now it just looks like they know they can't prove they are safe. Which most people already knew they couldn't
[–] Dec_12 4 points 6 points 10 points (+10|-4) ago
Simply put you can prove a negative, it should be up to Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai to prove GMO isn't safe the same way that if he where to claim unicorns exist he should have to produce one not simply say they exist because we haven't looked everywhere yet.
[–] Pepper-theDoctor 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
agreed. not sure why this isnt at the top. Monsanto doesnt have anything to prove, this nutjob does.
[–] Super_Cooper 4 points 0 points 4 points (+4|-4) ago
There is a lack of evidence that GMOs are unsafe, despite countless attempts by scientists to find it as such. Are they expecting Monsanto to show up with the dozens of published research papers from third party research groups?
[–] eaglewatch1945 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
"Hey, Monsanto. Why don't you come to our event. We're totally not going to blindside you with a hostile panel and audience."
[–] KnobJockey ago
You will never win, anyway. All food can be proved to be unhealthy and unsafe one way or another.
Either way, GMO food is going to become mainstream. You won't be able to stop companies from using the cheapest, most effective methods of production, especially when it comes to something as insignificant as GMO food.
[–] the-gerbil-in-my-bum 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
whats with all these retards trying to mix monsanto with GMOs?
[–] [deleted] 3 points 13 points 16 points (+16|-3) ago
[–] Amateur_Wizard 7 points 2 points 9 points (+9|-7) ago (edited ago)
Ok so this is a complex as hell issue.
GMOs in and of themselves are safe. Dogs are GMO, and everything we eat was already GMO (by selective breeding) before test tubes came along.
HOWEVER.
Anyone who's fucked with a punnett square knows that you cant introduce a genome and have it stable off the bat. So I think the CAPITALIST use of GMO technology is fucking horrible.
They will haphazardly toss together two genomes, breed it for one generation if lucky, then release it to the world where it cannot be withdrawn.
If they don't rush these organisms, and they are bred out over GENERATIONS (6-8) to have all/most of the fuckery worked out, and then release it/feed it to us? I think thats fine.
Patented self terminating glyphosphate seeds? WTF?
[–] klobos 1 point 8 points 9 points (+9|-1) ago
There is a huge difference in selective breeding and changing the DNA structure of a plant so that certain poisons don't effect it. If it was the same, they would cross breed plants.
[–] New_years_day 2 points 0 points 2 points (+2|-2) ago
^This
[–] casper ago
Eh, kinda, there's no such thing as a stable genome true; but that's equally true of all genomes - GMO or conventional or wild. Evolution happens.
Wait, what are you talking about? That's not how what most people think of GMOs are made. That's how conventional hybrid cultivars are made.
All new cultivars (again, GMO or conventionals) are seeded or backcrossed for multiple generations (more than 6) before commercialization. The least of the reasons for doing this are to stabilize the new trait. The main reason is simply scale-up of the crop from the first single new seed.
All those patents were abandoned and no such thing was ever commercialized. That's a funny story actually. The tech wasn't invented or patented by Monsanto, but rather the USDA and Delta Pine. It was sold to Monsanto as a potential solution against what was at that time the wholly imaginary problem of cross-pollination of wild crops with GM plant pollen, something the anti-GM crowd was very noisy about back then, and still is today. But did the anti-GM crowd celebrate this cross-pollination preventive tech when they got wind of it? (I R good at puns), no, of course not, instead it somehow morphed into this evil plot to somehow spring a trap on the world where our food is held hostage to artificial shortages or something like that, no one has been able to explain the evil plot to me in precise terms. Anyway, Monsanto basically said, "oh for fucks sake, really?" and peaced out on that technology like Katie Holmes to Tom Cruise.
[–] SuperShak ago
GMO's are very different than artificial selection.
GMO's do not alter genomic DNA. Instead they introduce plasmids into the nucleus that replicate indefinitely. The plasmids themselves have no feedback mechanisms, they're just GO GO GO all the time.