Monsanto is to pull out of Europe.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Nobody doubts that.

But the poor are here. Even if they are the Earth's unwanted guests, which is the naked reality, now that they have come we have to feed them.

I'm sure you're not exactly suggesting we have people die off for the greater good of human kind, but the argument you're making does tend to sail perilously close to that.

It's not a question of how to feed the poor; it's a question of what the poor are eating. If you want to find a nutrition-based crisis, look no further than obesity and the related health problems. They promise to be a massive burden on health-care budgets down the line. Of course, for a company like Monsanto a doughy, immobile couch potato on state welfare is the perfect cash-cow.

I hope the door doesn't hit them on the way out.

Well that's great news indeed, good riddance to them, and i hope they don't come back. Organic is more expensive, but i am willing to pay for it.

Great News.

Cuchulainn1. wrote: »

So where do we stand in regards to eating a Tesco horse burger?
Also would kill for a Kinder suprise egg now.Am i evil?

Anyone who would kill for a Kinder surprise egg requires hospitalisation. However, the bed they need is probably occupied by the idiot who thought they could kill for an extra quarter- pounder.

There's nothing wrong with GM produce. So many people fear it without even understanding the genetic processes behind it. Biotechnology and genetically modified organisms is the future. You're already consuming genetically modified products like insulin and various vaccinations. There's no difference between the end result of that and GM food.

zenno wrote: »

You are missing the point kid, I don't want that junk inside me, i'd rather organic food, that's all there is too it. My choice how i spend my cash.

Kid? When you grow a genetically modified crop all you've done is taken one desireable gene from one plant, let's say one that would let it grow in poor soil, and stick it into the plant you wish to grow, let's say a potato plant. All you've done is changed the blueprint of the plant's DNA and you've added a gene -a gene you know to be safe, and you then let nature to take over and build it for you from that blueprint. So now you've a potato plant that can grow in poorer soil and give a better yield.
This has been done with golden rice and has saved the eye sight of billions in China. All without any negative implecation.

That's all there is to it. There's no junk or anything. You're free to favour what you like, but don't run down GM products without knowing anything but misinformation about them and then act condescendingly towards someone when they point out they're not all bad.

By what absurd logic does the existence of corrupt ethics in other companies, become an excuse to play down criticism of corrupt ethics in Monsanto?

If it's supposed to be some kind of edgy pointing out of hypocrisy/bias, "well why don't you criticize 'random company x' too?! Hypocrites!", then either pick something less predictable/boring/twatty from your list of fallacious arguments, or stop pretending to be anything more than apologists for corporate corruption and shítty ethics.

It's a really stupid line of argument that, as it's obvious how it's meant to play out, so you can never win:
Statement: "Criticize 'x' company"
Response: "Well why don't you criticize 'a, b, c' too?! Hypocrite!!"
Statement: "Criticize 'a, b, c' companies"
Response "Well why don't you criticize 'e, f, g,' too?! Hypocrite!! Gosh don't you know these companies are Innovate Leaders and Job Creators, employing lots of people, therefore they can never do anything wrong."


If anyone wants to learn about why to hate Monsanto, then just start with a read of their Wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto