RE: monsanto

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: monsanto

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: monsanto

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: monsanto - 4/13/2008 9:31:13 AM

stef

Posts: 10215
Joined: 1/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

The only problem with this is that apartame was discovered in the 1965 and was only approved after 1980. If 15+ years amounts to "fast track approval," I'd hate to see how long the "slow track" would take.

The FDA had blocked it's approval for 15 years until cronyism overcame that hurdle and it was then fast-tracked through an incredibly favorable administration. Six months from application to approval is lightning speed for an FDA decision for a food additive, especially one with such a questionable past.

~stef

_____________________________

Welcome to PoliticSpace! If you came here expecting meaningful BDSM discussions, boy are you in the wrong place.

"Hypocrisy has consequences"

(in reply to cloudboy)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: monsanto - 4/13/2008 11:51:02 AM

Politesub53

Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

~FR~

quote:

Main article: Aspartame controversy
Aspartame has been the subject of controversy regarding its safety and the circumstances of its approval by the American FDA and European FSA. Some studies have also recommended further investigation into possible connections between aspartame and negative effects such as headaches, brain tumors, brain lesions, and lymphoma.[16][17][18] These findings, combined with possible conflicts of interest involving CEO Donald Rumsfeld in the approval process, have engendered vocal activism regarding the possible risks of aspartame.[19][20]

A conflict of interests ? Surely not ?

(in reply to stef)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: monsanto - 4/14/2008 7:21:34 AM

SugarMyChurro

Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline

Looks like Slashdot is running a similar story here:

-----

Monsanto's Harvest of Fear
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/14/017258&from=rss

As with other forms of IP tyranny, the point is not really to help the public but to consolidate corporate power.

-----

The constitution says: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Which means that the main goal is to promote progress and not to enrich corporations or give them a free ride decade after decade.

Should the building blocks of life - plant and animal DNA - even be something that is subject to patent?

I don't think so.

(in reply to Politesub53)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: monsanto - 4/14/2008 7:46:27 AM

aviinterra

Posts: 208
Joined: 11/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

Should the building blocks of life - plant and animal DNA - even be something that is subject to patent?

I don't think so.

I fully agree.

As for the Monsanto suing farmers on whose fields their modified corn has sprung up, I believe it should be the right and duty of those farmers to sue Monsanto for not being able to contain their monstrosities.

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: monsanto - 4/14/2008 10:51:52 AM

cloudboy

Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline

The saccharin (sweet and low) lobby had done all it could to keep aspartame off the market. Since being on the market, there's limited to no proof that's its any kind of strong carcinogen.

(in reply to stef)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: monsanto - 4/14/2008 11:28:29 AM

SugarMyChurro

Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline

Cloudboy:

If anything you've put your finger on the problem of the revolving door. The people that are supposed to be in government regulating industry are very busy delivering favors to corporations as they look forward to a payday down the road. Then they work in the private sector for a while and then come back again to government to do more regulating (i.e. favor granting).

Where is the regulation part taking place? We are not being protected from dangerous products.

This is a criticism of corporate practices and not precisely of government. People will point to government and talk about government waste, incompetence and corruption - the real problem is that we have to close the revolving door. And that's precisely what corporations don't want as they specifically benefit from the chaos we have now.

In my view, the problem is not government incompetence as much as it is corporate greed.

(in reply to cloudboy)

Profile

Post #: 26