Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan Goes to Bat for Monsanto, Sides With Conservative Justices

[cory777]

Source: Truthout

Alfalfa is the fourth largest crop grown in the United States and Monsanto wants to control it. On April 27, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could well write the future of alfalfa production in our country.

Fortunately, for those who are concerned about the potential environmental and health impacts of genetically engineered (GE) crops, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is not yet residing on the bench.

For the past four years, the Center for Food Safety (CFS), a Washington DC-based consumer protection group, and others have litigated against Monsanto and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding the company's Roundup Ready alfalfa. The coalition has focused their fight against Monsanto's GE alfalfa, based on concerns that the plants could negatively impact biodiversity as well as other non-GE food crops.

In 2007, a California US District Court ruled in a landmark case that the USDA had illegally approved Monsanto's GE alfalfa without carrying out a proper and full Environmental Impact Statement. The plaintiffs argued that GE alfalfa could contaminate nearby crops with its genetically manipulated pollen. Geertson Seed Farm, with the help of CFS, claimed that the farm's non-GE crops could be damaged beyond repair by Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa.

Read more: http://www.truthout.org/supreme-court-nominee-elena-kagan-goes-bat-monsanto-sides-with-conservative-justices59456

[Stinky The Clown]

1. In 5 ...... 4 ........ 3 ........ 2 ......... 1 .......

[inna]

2. oh great.

it's even worse than i thought it was.

nice pick, Obama.

[NashVegas]

3. Quelle Surprise

[roguevalley]

24. consider the paucity of her record. she decided a long time ago

when going into service that she was going to be a supreme court nominee and thus didn't leave a paper trail. she also, according to a law professor that belongs to a group that opposes her, didn't take a stand like zillions of other law professors against the war and bush's battering of the constitution. She didn't want to do anything that would taint her smooth ride into the court. she's a tool.

[Dover]

31. That worked in Obama's favor as well,

There was very little political history or litmus tests to grab onto and it worked in his favor.
It would be refreshing to have leaders who are willing to take a public stand, but I must say that
the current media and political environment make that nearly impossible as regards political
survival. Not condoning or condemning....just recognizing the reality and dilemma.

[liberation]

128. "pragmatism" in politics means not standing for anything....

some people here considered that a good thing.

We live in Orwellian times, when lack of ideology which is opposite to the concept of politics... it is seen as a fundamental quality for a politician.

[roguevalley]

153. yeah and we end up with a pig in a poke. now its come down to

trusting the judgement of obama. This woman has nothing and she didn't put anything on the line to challenge bush when her colleagues were. she is not much of a person to me.

[Delphinus]

91. Wow.

I have not really been following this, but this item about Monsanto caught my eye, and now I'm learning this. Thank you for sharing!

[femrap]

103. They're all tools. nt

[crikkett]

116. how do you know?

Please substantiate your claims.

[RC]

4. Monsanto needs to be hauled into court for racketeering.

Their Frankenstein pollen blows all over adjacent fields and then they go after the owners of the contaminated fields for growing Frankenstein crops without paying Monsanto to do so.

[Abq_Sarah]

7. When we the people

Throw as much money at congress as Monsanto, we might actually have a voice.

[No Elephants]

39. Bingo. Not sure what the solution is, but it is going to have to be something dramatic.

Corporations say the best return they get on a dollar by far is on political contributions.

[glinda]

8. And for causing pet cancer with Ethoxyquin in most pet foods.

[earcandle]

44. I read somewhere recently, here I think, that GMO's cause organ failure. So why do we allow this?

Genocide of those who don't know better???? 

[crikkett]

117. A strain of GM corn caused organ failure in rats.

Not all GMOs cause organ failure. Not that I support GMOs because I don't.

[defendandprotect]

141. Because in the idiocy that is capitalism, the dollar bill rules!!

Translates into illegitimate power --

Meanwhile, we have to stop judging everything by the yardstick of a dollar bill!!

There is no dollar bill you can eat or drink or plant -- or which will show you

a sunset or a rainbow.

Capitalism is patriarchal suicide.

"Manifest Denstiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature" are simply licenses issued to

the elite by organized patriarchal religion to exploit nature, natural resources,

animal-life -- and even other human beings according to various myths of inferiority.

It's over -- except too many Americans don't get it!!

[truedelphi]

53. + 302,000,000

or one vote for every person in this nation put at the risk of being sick while eating the "vomitoxin" contaminated grains brought to you by our CorproRATe Controlled government.

[era veteran]

61. Exactly

The Evil Empire of Monsanto is fucking up the planet for money.

[No Elephants]

73. Fat chance of prosecution, when the government sided with Monsanto in this case.

[Lorien]

110. Yep. Should have been done long ago

Monsanto= eco/ agri-terrorists.

[Ian David]

5. Someone has to side with Alfalfa

[No Elephants]

59. Sure, but genetically engineered alfalfa, conventional alfalfa or organic alfalfa?

[Javaman]

100. Genetically engineered Alfalfa, scares me...

His "personality" would be like a microwave antenna.

[femrap]

104. ...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[boppers]

6. LOL @ CFS lobbing grenades in cases that are over.

This case was already heard by the Supremes, on April 27th.

[Abq_Sarah]

10. Their point was

That as US Solicitor General, Elena Kagan sided with Monsanto and against neighboring farmers.

[boppers]

22. You mis-spelled "anti-science muckraking lobbyists"...

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/09-475.pdf

This was about whether or not a lobbying interest can force *every* farmer to not grow specific crops, because they don't like GM plants.

[No Elephants]

56. What a highly misleading description of the case, boppers.

As you well know, what you claim to be anti-science, muckraking lobbyists" are farmers and consumer groups, concerned about the food supply. Their complaint was that the USDA approved Monsanto engineered seed before the necessary scientific analysis--an EPA report on the environment impact of using the seeds--was done.

The concern was that use of the engineered seeds would contaminate conventional crops and organic crops through cross pollination by thousands of means, from bees and winds, to rented farming equipment and on and on.

If Willy Nelson were Triumph, the insult comic dog, Nelson may well have pooped on your post. As it is, I'm happy to, um, "clarify" it.

[boppers]

74. Yeah, lobbyists living in DC are *totally* farmers.

Their defense doesn't even pass a giggle test.

[No Elephants]

87. Kindly give Geerston Seed Farms D.C. address and lobbying credentials.

Kindly also name the other lobbyists you claim are involved in this case and give their D.C. addresses.

Then, we'll see who giggles.


Nothing like making an unsubstantiated claim and trying to pass it off as "defense" that I made. BTW, what am I supposed to be defending again? Besides defending this discussion from unsupported bs, that is?

Edited to delete a curse word.

BTW, I notice you made up more stuff, rather than responding to my claim that your description of this case was misleading.

[Jakes Progress]

120. You won't get an answer here.

Just a wall of defense invective. Our president deserves better defenders than this.

[boppers]

133. Here ya go:

http://truefoodnow.org/about/

National Headquarters
660 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, #302
Washington DC 20003
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]

It's such a hassle to read the article, and do a web search on the organization that's putting out the press release.

[No Elephants]

177. Sorry, but that doesn't seem to be the address of Geerston Farms.

Yes, I read the OP--and I got the point of it and stuck to the facts, instead of trying to pretend this thread is not about Kagan and pulling stuff right out of my ear about what Geerston Farms is going to do in the future.

Please see also, Reply 119.

Got anything to say about what Kagan's office did in this case, or are you goig to keep trying to pretend you're a cross between a high quality scientist and Willie Nelson, fighting for farmers dying to plant these engineered alfalfa seeds?

[ooglymoogly]

131. Boppers; U do not pass the giggle test

Your straw men look too much like DLC scarecrows. I think you should try, instead, for the sneer test.

[tblue]

49. That was her job, to defend the gov's position.

Devil's advocate here. Just because she argued a case doesn't mean she would, as a judge, rule in favor of her client. Even terrorists have attorneys, whose job is to try to get their client off. Doesn't mean the lawyer would favor terrorists were he/she to become a judge.

It's the gov's (Dept. Of Ag) fault for joining forces with Monsanto, not the Solocitor General's.

[No Elephants]

55. Nope.

There is a misconception that the obligation of the Executive Branch is always to defend every aspect of statutes and administrative agency actions to the nth degree. That is not so. This is an appeal from a temporary order, issued by the lower court until the USDA could reconsider its prior decision in light of findings by the Environmental Protection agency.

It's entirely possible for the U.S. to decide not to object to entry of the temporary order by the District Court, let alone to refrain from participating in appeals.

For the D of J, it is "tradition" that the D of J itself chose to establish and continues to choose to follow, not an obligation. And it's not an unbroken tradition, either.

As for Kagan's office, the SG, it's not even tradition: SG chooses which cases to pursue in the SCOTUS and what position to take:

"The Solicitor General determines the cases in which Supreme Court review will be sought by the government and the positions the government will take before the Court."

<snip>

Another responsibility of the Office is to review all cases decided adversely to the government in the lower courts to determine whether they should be appealed and, if so, what position should be taken. Moreover, the Solicitor General determines whether the government will participate as an amicus curiae, or intervene, in cases in any appellate court."


http://www.justice.gov/osg/about-osg.html

So, SG Kagan doesn't have fensies of any kind, law or self-imposed "traditon."

[NashVegas]

158. And That's Something We Want?

just saying ...

[wickerwoman]

156. But as solicitor general, she represents the government's official line

and not her own opinion.

So it's not really fair to say "because she argued such and such as solicitor general, she must be pro-corporate greed".

[No Elephants]

186. As SG, she is supposed to represent the best interests of the people of the U.S., not the admin.

And, she does indeed decide which cases to participate in and which position to take in those cases.

If she is ordered to take a case or a position that is against her conscience, she is not a helpless victim.. She can refuse and resign or refuse and take her chances of being fired. SG's have done that in the past.

Besides, the only reason Truthout is speculating about what her positio in this case might mean is that her legal positions are unknown, for the most part, despite a lifelong career involving the law.

To the extent this case reveals her legal position, that position does not necessarily have to be "pro-corporate greed," though.

[No Elephants]

40. What does that have to do with the position Kagan took?

[boppers]

43. They're using Kagan's nomination as a way to promote themselves.

I wouldn't be surprised if PETA issued a press release issuing an negative opinion in the next few days, they have a similar "use any and every popular event to generate money for our staff/lobbyists" mindset.

[No Elephants]

57. More bs. That has nothing to do with the thread topic, which is the position

taken by a SCOTUS nominee whose lifelong record is fairly opaque.

And, this is about our food supply a lot more than it is about animals, so I'm not sure why you are going to PETA, rather than crops and farmers.

BTW, what is wrong with promoting yourself, especially if you are a not for profit that depends on donations?

ETA: I meant "a SCOTUS nominee whose lifelong record is fairly opaque as to her legal position on issues of public interest."

Obviously, her resume is public information.


And, boppers, the case is far from over, regardless of the date of the oral argument. For one thing, the decision hasn't even been rendered. For another, as of the date of the oral argument, the EPA study still had a year to go and the public was still commenting.

[boppers]

146. Yes, public press releases can totally sway an argument.

Right and Wrong should be decided by press agents.


Uhm.... no.

[No Elephants]

176. I correct your statement that the case is over and you pretend I said pr should decide cases.

LMAO. Hope you didn't get a hernia building that straw man.

[Jakes Progress]

119. Zoom. That was the point of the OP whizzing by you.

[No Elephants]

185. Or the sound of trying to make the point of the OP whiz past the rest of us. Either way, a whiz

was involved.

:rofl:

[Sebastian Doyle]

9. God damn it.

I want to see the executive board of MonSatan imprisoned in SuperMax right in the cell next door to the BP execs. They're fucking up the planet just as bad, they're just doing it slower.

[bertman]

16. True, Sebastian, but working TOGETHER, as they are, they could hasten its/our demise.

[No Elephants]

58. Sure, but how about the USDA and the SG' s office? We're paying them.

[Sebastian Doyle]

108. Uh, you know who is in charge of the USDA, right?

Tom VilSuck, Ex DLC chairman, Iowa caucus rigger, and MonSatan's beeyotch. Don't count on him to do anything :evilfrown:

[No Elephants]

180. Yes, and I know who's in charge of the SG's office, too.

The particular USDA ruling that was the subject of this case, however, was issued during Bushco's reign.

My only point was that getting angry only at Monsanto for pursing Monsant's best interests, regardless of potential danger to U.S. taxpayers/consumers kind of misses the mark. And I would feel that way no matter who was in charge.

[slay]

11. THIS is why we don't want pro-corporate Dems as president.

Sorry moderate Dems or bluedogs or whatever - but this is why. Monsanto is possibly the creepiest corporation ever - and that's putting them up against Blackwater, Haliburton,and Diebold. But these guys will control our food. Very scary indeed that she would side with them. She's already too corrupt for me.

*edited for spelling

[Iowa]

12. +1

[salguine]

13. Pro-corporate Dems are the only ones the corporations will allow anywhere near the White House. Or

did you think the people actually decide who becomes President?

[No Elephants]

69. Yes, they do. They don't however, get to decide media spin or campaign budgets.

But, we still do decide. Though party bosses, media spin, massive advertising, clever consultants, etc. can do a lot to influence elections, we still mark the ballot or pull the lever.

I am as cynical as anyone about our plutonomy and the corporatists and politicians who run and perpetuate it. However, as of today, we are still making the decision.


I don't know how long that will remain true if we don't get very active and very effective, and very soon But, as of today, the decision is ours. Saying it's not up to us anymore is a dangerous cop out, an excuse not to do anything ever again, with the possible exception of complaining. That's nowhere near enough. The choice is still ours; therefore, so is the responsiblity for doing something.

[glitch]

121. The people don't control who/what counts the votes.

Once we lost that we lost the ability to oversee the election process. If you think the corporations making trillions off that captured process will simply allow its return to the people, think again.

[No Elephants]

182. We still vote for the people who determine who counts the votes. And we still vote for the people

who make (or don't make laws about election fraud. So, I'm sticking to my prior post.

[NashVegas]

157. Fine Then

If the only options are pro-corporate Dems vs Repukes who will cause it all to crumble, I say, let it crumble.

[depakid]

15. Monsanto ain't no friend to so called "moderates" that's for sure.

[LakeSamish706]

17. So how do we get someone like a Dennis Kucinich elected? Most won't vote for

someone like him.

[havocmom]

26. because most don't like the ones who tell us we have to eat our veggies and do our homework

So.... the majority gets the government the comfortably deluded majority deserves. Too bad the rest of us, and the world are all stuck with crap because of mass marketing success and poster boy pols fronting for evil corporations.

I am now officially looking for a cave to retire to.

[suzie]

144. We deserve arrogant and condescending?

No, I don't think so. Sometimes the public is absolutely correct.

A politician has to play well with others. Dennis Kucinich prides himself on playing well with no one and explaining that quality to the public in the most condescending way possible.

[slay]

29. "Had enough of the same old crap yet? Ignore the media - Vote Kucinich 2012 - he won't sell you out

i dunno - it's hard to fight the media and their propaganda machine. hopefully the internet will save us if people ever decide to pay attention. the sad thing is i think most people would agree with Kucinich on the issues - but he's been so personally demonized over the years. :shrug:

[suzie]

123. And rightly so, because he's an arrogant jerk who cares less about the public

than any of the candidates that he has run against.

[slay]

132. Oh, ok sure "suzie", whatever

it's people like you that make this a great country! :sarcasm:

[Forkboy]

167. DK drives Suzie nuts.

She hates him with the heat of a thousand suns. :)

[NorthCarolina]

135. I think you forgot to add the sarcasm thingy to your post. n/t

[earcandle]

46. Its just a matter of being positive about his attributes repetitively on the air and in print and on

the web.   Lots of positive reasons why we want to transcend
shallow voting behavior and go for what works. I would donate
documenting on MiniDV and edits to youtube.com.  I could also
do the accounting for the campaign.  Any good enthusiatic
campaign managers out there working for Dennis?  Isn't Mr.
Swanson one of those?   Hey lets get organized and show our
intelligence
and blatantly pit it against stupid money.  Get all of the IT
kids on our side, the artists, the activists, the movers and
shakers, preachers and makers.. lets get together, yea yea
yea.... we can have a real good time.

use music ... good meaningmaking music all around us to help
people to wake up, move over and onward.... 

"wake up and watch out" by the serpent power on the
album called "endless tunnel" is playing on ear
candle radio right now... 
how appropriate.... 

[No Elephants]

71. Would the Super Delegates allow Kuch to be the nominee, even if he won the primary?

[earcandle]

151. aren't there rules and regulations already in place to answer those kinds of questions?

because if there aren't, we have to start there. 

[No Elephants]

189. The rules are that the Super Delegates of the Democratic Party can, for all

practical purposes, overrule primary voters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate


But, no, none of the rules or regulations tell me if they would override the primary vote, even though they pretty much can, if they choose. They've never done it. Then again Democratic Presidential hopefuls candidates have gotten a lot more "moderate" since McGovern.

But, yes, we could start with Super Delegates.

Or, we could start with laws that keep third parties from competing with Republicans and Democrats.

We could also start by how rigged Presidential debates are, more designed to hide weaknesses of candidates than they are to reveal truth.

All are designed to take choices away from voters.

Or we could start with Citizens United, lobbying laws and election campaign laws, all of which are aimed at having money decide electios and what our government does in general. And all of which, at this point, would probably take a Constitutional amendment.

We've allowed so much since 1980, it's kind of hard to decide where to begin. Maybe we should begin by forming a group to represent American voters and taxpayers, the way that lobbyists represent corporations, and then funding it. We seem to be the only group not really represented in government.

[suzie]

122. n/t

[elleng]

14. 'Unfortunately, Kagan opted to ditch her duty and instead side with Monsanto'

misunderstands the role of the office of Solicitor General; the Office represents the U.S., NOT the point of view of the person who happens to be S.G. She's representing a CLIENT. Why the admin chose to take this position is another issue entirely.

[harkadog]

18. I think you miss the point.

Yes she was promoting the views of her client. But the client in this case was President Obama. Obama selected her for the Supreme Court because he knows her and her opinions.

[elleng]

23. Doesn't work that way.

Her opinions don't matter, re: S.G. Her ability to do the job matters. And her client is the United States, NOT President Obama. All this may appear to be nit-picking, but thats the way our system works.

[mopinko]

30. you are howling into a wind storm.

good on you.

[No Elephants]

82. Facts matter, though. Please see Reply ##s 55, 56 and 60.

[No Elephants]

62. Not sure what you mean about her opinions' not mattering re: SG.

The Office of the SG decided to join in this appeal. It did not have to. Her office also decided which position to take in this appeal. See Reply #55 and the link to the SG's website in that post.

Also not sure what point you are trying to make about who her client is.

Yes, nomninally, her client is the U.S., which makes it all the more revolting that her office supported Monsanto's position, namely, jeopardizing our food supply rather than for waiting for the Environmental Impact Statement.

However, for all practical purposes, she answers to the WH. Her options are to do what the WH wants, be fired or resign. See Reply 60.

And, Obama nominated her for the SCOTUS after this case, so, even assuming she took a position without consulting the WH, the WH is obviously fine with it.

[harkadog]

109. It does work that way.

You are apparently unfamiliar with the office. Yes the client is the "United States" but the person ultimately determining what the position of the U.S. is on any given case is the President. We the people of the U.S. don't vote on what the position is going to be. So effectively the client is President Obama. You speak like a bureaucrat who is attempting to deflect -- "Oh it is not me that is doing this, it is the U.S. don't you know." The President knows her opinions and viewpoints and chose her for that reason just as every President before him did.

[elleng]

111. Thanks so much

for 'you are apparently unfamiliar with the office,' and 'you speak like a bureaucrat.' GREAT way to encourage an informative discussion.

'The solicitor general is, however, indisputably an official of the Justice Department (now with fourth ranking) and is ultimately subject to the directives of the attorney general and the president.'

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O184-SolicitorGeneral.html

The President chose her because he knew she could do her job competently.

[Cha]

114. I really want to

thank you, elleng.:)

[Richardo]

139. Thanks, elleng

:patriot:

I'm late to the thread but you already posted my comments! :pals:

:hi:

[elleng]

163. Thanks!

You are welcome, Richardo.



:hi:

[No Elephants]

60. She is Solicitor General of the U.S., not Obama's private counsel.

The consumers and taxpayers and other inhabitants of the U.S. were her clients in this case, not President Obama. She could have resigned if she was asked to take a position that went against her morals, ethics, her duty to residents of the U.S., etc. It's happened.

But, I know your point is that Obama is not off the hook on this. No, he isn't, especially since he nominated her after she argued this case in the SCOTUS.

[appal_jack]

19. Her client SHOULD HAVE BEEN We The People

Her client SHOULD HAVE BEEN We The People

but someone decided that her clients were Monsanto-the-Corporation and Them's-wit-da-money.

Who decided? And why?

Had I been in Kagan's shoes at the time, I would have resigned as Solicitor General before defending Monsanto's power grab over our whole food supply and seed-genetics-heritage. GMO alfalfa (a wind-pollinated crop) is a terrible idea. GMO corn is a terrible idea, but that train has left the station. Do we reallyneed to make this mistake again?

-app

[jberryhill]

200. So, when someone sues the USDA, where should the USDA's lawyer come from?

[appal_jack]

20. Her client SHOULD HAVE BEEN We The People

Her client SHOULD HAVE BEEN We The People

but someone decided that her clients were Monsanto-the-Corporation and Them's-wit-da-money.

Who decided? And why?

Had I been in Kagan's shoes at the time, I would have resigned as Solicitor General before defending Monsanto's power grab over our whole food supply and seed-genetics-heritage. GMO alfalfa (a wind-pollinated crop) is a terrible idea. GMO corn is a terrible idea, but that train has left the station. Do we really need to make this mistake again?

-app

[boppers]

25. Farmers are the clients, too

This was farmers vs. anti-GM lobby, with farmers who want to grow GM alfalfa vs. those who don't want others to grow it.

[Robbien]

27. Farmers?

Factory farms more than likely. Real family farms are few and far between and these farmers want nothing to do with GM alfalfa and the GM bullies that go along with it. Family farmers are a dying breed. They can't compete with big money factory farms.

And the anti-GM lobby you talk about are just ordinary people who are concerned about the poison being passed off as food by the factory farms. Not very well funded and very loosely organized because these people are busy trying to live their lives.

So to rephrase your statement, big business factory farmers versus ordinary people who care about their food.

[Indydem]

33. Do you know any farmers?

I think if you do, they are the small plot organic variety.

I grew up in farm country and many of my best friends are still farmers. I just talked to one today.

They LOVE these Roundup-Ready crop products. They alloww them to plant theor crops and nuke the crap out of every other type of plant in the field.

The farmers I know farm a few hundred to maybe a thousand acres. If that makes them the big-business farms, then I'm not sure what the family farms are; two people in the field with a hoe and a bag of seed?

[era veteran]

63. Ask them how much more fucking roundup to kill Johnson grass than

it took five years ago? Weeds are getting hip to the roundup. The 'small crop organic variety' sustained this planet until recently. Ever hear of Sudden Bee Colony Collapse? Fuck Monsanto!

[boppers]

34. "concerned about the poison"...

Science free, but long on fear. Show me the science that says that GM crops are "poison" to humans.

[Robbien]

35. show me the science

that says GM crops are not poison to humans.

There's plenty of research on the ill effects of GM crops. There's a ton of propaganda statements but no research on how GM crops are good.

[boppers]

41. Wow.

Prove that food isn't poison? Uhm, it's food.

Here's a simple test: go buy a bag of corn chips. Eat them. Check to see if you're dead. Maybe you survived, and you're in a tofu mood, so try that as well.

If the corn, or tofu, was bought in the United States, it's probably GM.

Here's a google scholar link on safety:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&resnum=0&q=Genetically+Modified+safety
(276,000 papers published)

And here's one on benefits:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Genetically+Modified+benefits
(262,000 papers published)

Stating that there is "no research on how GM crops are good." is blatantly misleading. You may not like the research, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

[diane in sf]

47. that's why I don't eat corn or soy that's not organic. Just because something doesn't kill you

instantly does not mean it's healthy for you.

[Robbien]

50. Did you even read those links you provided?

Almost every article provided by your links questioned the safety of GM products. Again no science proving GM products are safe.


And your example of eating something where you don't die immediately proves nothing. You can eat mercury and live for years afterward but that doesn't prove you should eat mercury because it is safe.

[boppers]

51. Science doesn't prove things, it falsifies things.

There cannot ever be science that definitively proves Organic food is safe, *ever*... because science doesn't work that way.

So, there is no science proving GM, or Organic, is safe.

Should we ban organic food, then?

After all, I can eat organic food and live for years afterward but that doesn't prove I should eat organic food because it is safe.

[Robbien]

52. It appears you may have been eating too much of that GM food

Science doesn't prove things?


Really, maybe you should lay off the GM for a while. A few brain cells don't seem to be functioning correctly.

[boppers]

70. Theory is not the same as proof.

Please prove that "organic" cyanide poisoning, and death, is less fatal than GM.

I'll wait.

[No Elephants]

65. Thank you, Justice Scalia. However, the study on the impact of the seeds involved in this case

on other crops had not been completed.

[boppers]

76. You think that matters?

Do you think that if the study comes back as positive, negative, whatever, that the anti-GMO folks will stop?

These are not folks funded based on science. This is religion.

[No Elephants]

86. Unlike you, I don't own a crystal ball. Plus, I am discussing the OP, not crusading.

[boppers]

136. I did a bunch of reading on the organization who issued the OP.

http://truefoodnow.org/campaigns/

They want GM reduced and/or eliminated, regardless of safety/benefits.

"Crusade" definitely applies to some of their causes.

[No Elephants]

183. No, you read a crystal ball that told you what was going to happen in the future.

Besides, this is a thread about a case in which the USDA, under Bush, approved planting without doing the studies required by existing law, and whether the position Kagan took in that case tells us anything about what she thinks about legal issues, since very little in her career tells us about that.

As hard as you may be trying to pretend otherwise, this thread is not about whether genetically engineered seeds are a boon or mankind or not and certainly not about what food safety groups MAY do, no matter how this case ultimately turns out.

[era veteran]

66. It will just fucking destroy bio diversity.

Lets talk about the farmer with heirloom seed planting across the road from the GM seed the factory farm uses. When they cross polinate the GM seed DNA shows up in the regular seed, Monsanto's law dogs sue you for ripping them off. Control like GOD is what they want. Fuck Monsanto!

[boppers]

72. biodiversity is not harmed by your scenario.

It's increased, by creating hybrid crops.

That means *more* diversity.

[era veteran]

78. All seeds becoming tainted with GM modified DNA may increase numbers of

strains but they will all get it sooner or later thus reducing bio diversity. That means *less* diversity. Unless you want all your grains and etc. with the roundup DNA. Roundup is a fucking poison, which takes more and more every year to work. Fuck Monsanto! Oh, the hybrid crops can be attached by Monsanto's law pig brigade.

[boppers]

80. Fuck racism.

"All seeds becoming tainted with GM modified DNA may increase numbers of strains but they will all get it sooner or later thus reducing bio diversity. That means *less* diversity. Unless you want all your grains and etc. with the roundup DNA. Roundup is a fucking poison, which takes more and more every year to work. Fuck Monsanto! Oh, the hybrid crops can be attached by Monsanto's law pig brigade."

Sorry, I can't be racist against grain.

[No Elephants]

184. Racism against grain? You had to have hurt yourself with that straw man. Speedy Recovery!

[boppers]

164. To further expand: This is "one drop of blood" thinking.

It's kind of an ugly part of US history.

[No Elephants]

187. No, what's ugly is invoking racism when you're talking about seed cross pollination.

That is an insult to every victim of racism and everyone who cares about the issue.

[No Elephants]

81. Um, the farmers in this case wanted to wait for the scientific study. Monsanto and the SG didn't.

This case is not about "GM crops" as you keep implying. It is about one group of Monsanto peddled genetically engineered alfalfa seeds that the USDA allowed to be sold for planting before the EPA did its study of the environmental impact on other crops, including organic crops. The plaintiffs asked only for delay in the approval until the science was completed. So, all your claims about science support the farmers and consumer groups asking for delay in this case, not Monsanto and the SG's office.

[No Elephants]

79. Why do you misrepresent this case over and over?

No, farmers who want to grow the seeds in question are not the clients of the SG's office.

All the people of the US are the clients of the SG. That includes farmers who want to know if these seeds will forever contaminate their crops and all residents of the U.S. who eat food or care about food, as well as these farmers you claim want to grow the particular Monsanto genetically engineered alfalfa seeds involved in this case. (BTW, do you actually know of any?)

If there are farmers who were desperate to grow these particular Monsanto seeds, they had already bought them and would have been able to plant the seeds they bought while the EPA did its work. However, nothing in the description of parties in this case given by the SCOTUS during the oral argument suggests those farmers chose to get involved in this case. (Thanks for that link, btw. Not many posters link to material that blows their own posts out of the water.)

In this particular case one side consisted of farmers and consumers groups who wanted the EPA process to complete before the USDA deregulates these particular Monsanto genetically engineered alfalfa seeds On the other side of this case was Monsanto and and the SG's office, both of which wanted Monsanto to ring up more sales without waiting for the science to see if the seeds would contaminate conventional and organic crops or not.

If this mythical group of farmers you keep mentioning gave enough of a rat's tail about these seed to get involved in this case, I bet they could even have gotten their legal fees taken care of by the producers of genetically-engineered alfalfa seeds. But, apparently, they are content to wait for the EPA's EIS. Too bad the people in charge of the USDA weren't.

[OnyxCollie]

102. That's his schtick.

Topic dilution. Follow some of his old posts. I thought he was just a moran, but he's got an agenda.

[boppers]

142. His? He?

Cute.

I do have an agenda, to promote science over knee-jerk ignorance. I am totally aware of this agenda, and I am glad if others advance it, too.

[OnyxCollie]

152. You have an undeclared gender; I took a guess.

Would you have preferred "it?"

Is there a name for the female of the species, or is "troll" the general term for both sexes?

[boppers]

162. Perhaps getting out of the habit of using gender-specific language would help.

Objectifying others based on gender, or species even (troll?) tends to do little to advance discourse.

[OnyxCollie]

174. Funny.

Your posts do little to advance discourse.

[No Elephants]

192. LOL

[boppers]

138. Yay, somebody actually read it!

However, you'll note that farmers were already buying and planting the seed, which is part of what the injunction arguments were about.

WRT the EPA's EIS, the opponents are dead-set against *any* sales, so even if the EPA's EIS came back as "hey, looks good, no problem", they'd continue to sue, and demand another study. This is an attempt to litigate science, much in the same way that anti-science folks are trying to turn climate change into a litigation issue.

Since you repeatedly use "contaminate" for the process of a specific HGT becoming common in a species (which has been naturally occurring for the last 3.5 billion years), I'm guessing you share their opinion.

[No Elephants]

191. Yep, I read it.

The injunction expressly allowed farmers who had bought the seed to plant it. AND NONE OF THOSE FARMERS CARED ENOUGH TO BECOME PARTY TO THE CASE.

Again, your posts have been misrepresenting what the case is about.

And, again, you deflect.

BTW, I used "contaminate" because that was the term used in the oral argument before the SCOTUS to which you so kindly linked us, not because I am taking sides.

If you keep leaping to conclusions, you may end up in traction. Then again, you could probably use the bed rest, given the size of the straw men you've been building on this thread.

[No Elephants]

75. Legally, her client IS we the people, not the WH. She betrayed her client.

[No Elephants]

67. No, it does not misunderstand the role of the SG. Her client is the U.S. meaning you and me, not the

WH.

That's why her decision to side with Monsanto in this case is all the more revolting. It was done at our expense, literally, short term and long term. Please see also, Reply #60.

[Dinger]

21. We Can Do Better For A SC Judge

Why does Obama continue on this path?

[sandnsea]

28. Kagan's argument was about injunctions

not GM seeds. A permanent injunction is only appropriate when there is irreparable harm that is so aggregious there is no means of compensating for the harm. That is what the DOJ brief addressed.

[elleng]

32. Thanks SO MUCH for the facts, sand!

I didn't get into the details, and how important they are!

[No Elephants]

85. Monsanto's brief probably covered the same thing the SG's brief did, tho. Please see Reply #84.

RYI: Two things decide the issues the SCOTUS considers in any given case: what the briefs of the parties, including the brief of the SG, ask the SCOCTUS to consider; and what applicable law allows the SCOTUS to consider.


Only two major issues were before the SCOTUS, whether the lower court should have vacated the order of USDA (which allowed planting of the seeds BEFORE the EPA finished its study) and whether the lower court should have issued a temporary injunction against planting of the seeds while the EPA was completing its study.

There were some lesser issues, too, also all technical, like standing to sue. Kagan's office briefed those too, all on the side of Monsanto. So, no, it was not only about injunctions.


ETA: Please see also Reply ##'s 85. and 89.

[MilesColtrane]

36. This is the correct answer.

I'm not a lawyer.

I don't even play one on TV, but it took me all of 2 minutes to wade through the deliberate distortion here.

Kagan was defending against any warm body obtaining a nationwide injunction against an action deemed safe by a government agency without showing that there was a likelihood of irreparable harm.

Imagine if you will a federal court enforcing an anti-vaxer's injunction to stop the distribution and dispensation of vaccines nationwide without the court conducting an evidentiary hearing to resolve genuinely disputed facts that were directly relevant. (like, is there any evidence that vaccines harm people)

Kagan was defending the ability of government agencies to function and not be hamstrung by someone with nothing more than a groundless assertion.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

37. That's how I read it, but I am not a lawyer so I can't be sure one way or the other.

[No Elephants]

90. Please consider Reply ##s 84, 85 and 89.

[Davis_X_Machina]

83. Bad argument, at least here....

Imagine if you will a federal court enforcing an anti-vaxer's injunction to stop the distribution and dispensation of vaccines nationwide without the court conducting an evidentiary hearing to resolve genuinely disputed facts that were directly relevant. (like, is there any evidence that vaccines harm people)

This would be, I reckon, the DU majority position...

[No Elephants]

89. Not really.

Whether irreparable harm may occur is a legal standard for issuing a temporary injunction or a permanent injunction. The SG was not arguing for the court to apply that standard. That standard was established long ago, probably centuries ago. Courts always apply it, as a matter of law, no matter what the parties say.

Whether the long-established standard was met in this case depends very much on the particular, specific facts of this case, as presented by Geerston Farms and the consumer groups who asked for the temporary injunction.

Whether a temporary injunction issues in this particular case has nothing to do with the freedom of the USDA to function going forward, let alone all other government agencies. The only point of arguing on Monsanto's side in this case would be to have the SCOTUS allow these specific seeds to be planted before the EPA finishes its study.

Monsanto genetically engineered alfalfa seeds are not the only source of alfalfa, maybe not even the only source of engineered alfalfa seeds, so there are reasonable substitutes available to use while waiting for the science. So, the issue here is potential contamination of the entire food supply vs. about a year of Monsanto profits on this one product.

Please see Reply ##a 84. and 85. as well.

As for vaccines, this case has nothing to do with them, either. But, if a vaccine could cause potential widespread damage, and the major downside was the profits of the vaccine manufacturer, I'd probably be on the side of waiting for the science in that case, too, especially if a reasonable alternative were already available.

[MilesColtrane]

101. .

"Whether irreparable harm may occur is a legal standard for issuing a temporary injunction or a permanent injunction."

As a side point, the District Court's injunction against Monsanto is a legally defined permanent injunction.

A temporary injunction is one that is in place until there has been a trial or other court action. There is no trial or other pending action in the district court as of now.

Once the Environmental Impact Study has been completed Monsanto may file to have the injunction lifted.

"The SG was not arguing for the court to apply that (irreparable harm) standard."

That neither the "may" or "has" standard was met is indeed the very first argument made in the brief issued by the Solicitor General.

The district court failed to find either that respondents had suffered or were likely to suffer irreparable harm or that legal remedies would be inadequate to compensate any harm respondents might suffer.

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-475_RespondentFederal.pdf

"That standard was established long ago, probably centuries ago. Courts always apply it, as a matter of law, no matter what the parties say.
Whether the long-established standard was met in this case depends very much on the particular, specific facts of this case, as presented by Geerston Farms and the consumer groups who asked for the temporary injunction."

Courts don't always apply the four standards correctly hence the SG's petition to the Supreme Court.


"Whether a temporary injunction issues in this particular case has nothing to do with the freedom of the USDA to function going forward, let alone all other government agencies."

While he government's brief does not argue this, and narrowly points to a particular procedural standard in allowing the issuance of a permanent injunction, the practical effect of allowing an unmet standard to hold sway would be the ability of of anyone to override the regulatory functions of federal agencies.

"The only point of arguing on Monsanto's side in this case would be to have the SCOTUS allow these specific seeds to be planted before the EPA finishes its study."

Or, the only point could be to uphold strict standards on when a court can intrude upon the regulatory power of a federal agency.

Neither you, nor I, know for sure the government's motivation.

I happen to believe that this is just the ongoing push and pull turf war between the Executive and Legislative branches.

The WH regularly fights what it perceives as an encroachment upon its powers.

Some here just want to believe that it is more likely that Obama and Kagan are thoroughly corrupt.

[Cha]

115. It's tatooed on their brain..

no use in presenting facts.

[No Elephants]

178. Sorry, no.

As far as whether the injunction is temporary or permanent, you are splitting hairs, at best.


"The decision that Kagan and Monsanto object to was issued by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who ruled that during the Bush administration, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) should not have given its blessing to GM alfalfa without considering possible environmental, financial, and health consequences (a requirement under the law). Erring on the side of caution, Breyer said that until the USDA conducted the proper environmental assessment, no GM alfalfa could be grown."

http://www.theatlantic.com/food/archive/2010/05/elena-kagan-toward-a-pro-gm-supreme-court/56587/


The injunction is in place UNTIL the USDA conducts the proper assessment. "Until" does not indicate that something is forever (aka "permanent"), nor will this injunction be in place forever. The Judge put the injunction in place only until the USDA did what existing law required the USDA to do.

If the USDA conducts the "proper assessment" as required by existing law and still finds the seeds do not violate the standards existing law requires the USDA to examine, we would have entirely different factual and legal issues to discuss. If the USDA conducts the "proper assessment" that existing law requires and finds the seeds do NOT meet the financial, environmental and health then the the USDA decision would be the permanent one, unless Monsanto appeals. Judge Breyer never said that the seeds can never be planted, no matter what the USDA finds.

"Monsanto’s primary arguments in support of review were that the Ninth Circuit: (1) denied an evidentiary hearing on the ground that “the likelihood of irreparable harm is immaterial to the issuance of a NEPA injunction”; (2) denied an evidentiary hearing on the ground that NEPA injunctions – even if styled “permanent” – are in fact “temporary”; and (3) affirmed an injunction based on the “mere possibility of reparable harm<.>”<8>

http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20100505-nepa-injunctive-relief-standard

BTW, Judge Charles Breyer, who issued the preliminary injunction, is the brother of Justice Breyer, a moderate Democrat.

As to the SG's motivation: When I referred to the only point of the case being to get this particular injunction lifted, I was not guessing about the SG's motivation. I was speaking to what practical effect of this case can be, given how fact specific meeting the legal standard of "irreparable harm" is. That was to address YOUR claim that her motivation was to help all federal agencies operate more freely in the future. No matter what happens in this case, that will not be the result of lifting this particular injunction.

As far as protectig the power of the WH, this case was not about the power of the WH, nor is the WH an appropriate client for the SG. The SG is supposed to represent the best interests of the people of the United States, not WH power. The President has personal counsel and also has WH counsel.

"Some here just want to believe that it is more likely that Obama and Kagan are thoroughly corrupt."

Maybe. And some here want to believe Obama is walks on water, never does a wrong or even slightly shady thing, and therefore all his appointees must be perfect, too. However, my posts don't take either of those extremes.

Your earlier post made some broad--and unsupported--claims about what this case will/could accomplish, while admitting you are not a lawyer and don't even play one on TV. And, now, you've noted that the SG's brief did not raise the points you claim were the reasons for filig the brief in the first place.

I simply disagreed with what you said about the potential legal impact of the case on the case on the future. If you want to interpret an argument about the potential legal impact of this on the future as a desire by me to believe that Obama and Kagan are corrupt, that's totally on you and says a lot about you and your thinking. However, it says nothing about my beliefs.

BTW, not that I believe it will impact your victim-mentality conclusions, I contributed more than I could afford to Obama's primary and election campaigns, volunteered in both campaigns and voted for him both times. Oh, yes and I live in America, as does my family. I assure you, the very, very last thing I "wanted" was to be disappointed by Obama or his nominations, especially his judicial nominations, or anything else he did.

[FrenchieCat]

38. Reactionaries are all attorneys today,

and they were Economist yesterday,
and terrorist experts the day before.

What can one say other than folks should really read,
and then try to do some research. Just cause a story
is written with a twist, don't mean folks have to
twist right along with it. Geeze!

[No Elephants]

92. The transcript of oral argument in the SCOTUS was not written with a twist, unless the stenographer

for the SCOTUS gets away with spinning what the parties and Justices say during oral argument.

I read it, thanks to boppers, who linked it.

I saw nothing that contradicted the article linked in the OP.

Are you referring to any specific alleged twist in the article?

[Bluenorthwest]

129. And tax preparation people who did not vote until 2000

claim to care, claim to know a thing. Apathetic people who helped dig this hole by staying home for half an lifetime claim to have the only eyes that can see.
CA Democrats did not even deliver the State to Obama in the Primary, so your advice, well, your delegates went to Hillary. That is what your State did, and you along with it. Keep it up, and you'll put Whitman in Sacramento, and you can have a grand old time.
CA is about to cut services to those most in need. To the least among us. The least among you, that is. And that is what politics should be about. Not personality games.

[NashVegas]

159. And Internet Posters Are All PR Flacks For Monsanto

If our Dem. president wants to do that company a favor.

[flamingdem]

45. devil in the details people, Obama is not going to give us a rotten tomatoe nt

[No Elephants]

94. V.P. Quayle, is that you? And to what details are you referring ?

I haven't loved all Obama's appointments so far and we don't know a whole lot about this one, one way or another.

Then again, I don't believe politicians in high places are not a good place for blind faith, unconditional love or hero worship.

[Egnever]

64. Color me shocked!

Shocked I say that someone would post misleading articles here on DU and that people would be outraged by it! That never happens here!

Thnx for the clarification sand

[No Elephants]

95. How is the article supposedly misleading? Please see Reply ##s 84, 85 and 89.

Maybe Reply #60 as well.

[No Elephants]

84. Are you implying the SG took Monsanto's side to defend the purity of the common law? LMHO.

The farmers' and consumer groups argued that these seeds could contaminate all other crops. Sounds like plenty of potential for irreparable harm to me.

And it was not even a permanent injunction against planting the seeds, only a temporary one, until the EPA study was complete. Seems to me, the SG could easily have chosen to stay out of this or go in on the side of the farmers and consumers groups, but it went in on Monsanto's side instead.


The brief deals with the temporary injunction and other legal technicalities because those are the only issues before the SCOTUS. The facts of the case are presented in the federal district court. The SG gets involved only at the SCOTUS level, so the SG would never be arguing for or against the seeds. Therefore, I am not sure what your point is re: her brief being only about the injunction. Monsanto's brief would have been only about the issues before the SCOTUS, too.

No matter how you try to slice, dice or spin, the SG came in on the side of Monsanto--on the side of lifting the TEMPORARY injunction beore the EPA finished its study. And that lifting would allow the seeds to be planted widely before the science was done.

See also, Reply #60.

[sandnsea]

107. There was no irreparable harm

If a farmer's crop is contaminated, Monsanto can compensate. That's not irreparable.

A permanent nationwide injunction, otoh, is massively damaging to farmers and ranchers who do want to use the gm alfalfa, or rely on alfalfa for feed. That's what the brief addressed, specifically.

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-475_RespondentFederal.pdf

The screaming headlines "Kagan intercedes for Monsanto", "Kagan a shill for Monsanto", are such distortions as to be worthy of Fox News. In fact, the lies about Kagan are far worse from the left than from the right.

[NashVegas]

160. Compensating a Farmer For Lost Income Does Not Equal Decontaminating the Food Supply

[No Elephants]

193. Good grief.

Noooooooo.

Cross pollination of engineered seeds with, say organic crops, is, as you say, contamination. And it is irreversible.

The SG's own brief states irreversiblity in the summary of the facts of the case that precedes the legal arguments the SG is making. No amount of money can undo irreversible contamination of organic crops, or even conventional crops.

And, the injunction is "permanent" only in a technical, legal sense. Judge Breyer enjoined planting UNTIL the USDA could do the studies that already existing law required the USDA to do, but which the USDA never did with these seeds. That includess financial, environmental and health impacts. Once the USDA ccmpletes the studies the law requires it to do, the court's order will be satified. So, the court was NOT enjoining planting forever.

BTW, I am not sure why you lined to the SG's brief to try to prove that money can compensate for irreversible crop contamination. . First, the SG's brief proves only which arguments the SG made. It does not prove the SG is correct, any more than linking the briefs of Geerston Farms or the consumer groups on Geerston's side would prove their arguments were correct.

Second, the SG's brief never even argues that irreversible contamination of crops could be adequately compensated by money. (Bear in mind, Geerston's crops were by far not the only crops that would be contaminated.) To the contrary, the SG's brief cites a Supreme Court case holding that money is NOT an adequate remedy for environmental damage. (I believe that is at p. 20 of the SG's brief.)

Rather, the SG's arguments were about lack of an evidentiary hearing and violation of law by the USDA not being sufficient evidence of irreparable harm.

Let's say the SG's office was correct on the legal issue. That still leaves us with the question of why did the SG choose to intervene in this particular case when it did not have to and a win by Monsanto might mean irreversible contamination of the food chain. (Bear in mind, too, this was a case where the USDA gave permission to plant without doing the studies the law requires the USDA to do, so there was absolutely NO evidence that planting of these particular seeds was safe.)

The office of the SG did indeed intervene in this appeal on the side of Monsanto. "Intervening" in an appeal is a legal way of saying "interceding." So "Kagan intercedes for Monsanto" is not a lie at all. Indeed, calling that a lie is very misleading.

And a headline asking if Kagan is shilling from Monsanto is not the same as a headline stating she is. Good lord, if it's a lie to ask a question about why government does something just bc Obama is indirectly involved, what the hell have we oome to?

[Cha]

113. I always go down threads like

these and look to see if there's any rational contribution as opposed to the predictable kneejerk reaction..and here it is. Thanks sandnsea~

[enki23]

42. Oh jebus. Must the left join the right in the anti science lunacy?

Criticize Monsanto's business practices all you want. I'll agree with you wholeheartedly. But this wasn't about Monsanto's business practices. GM crops are just crops. They're not significantly different from the highly selectively bred crops humans have been raising for millennia. I know my assertion of that won't convince anyone, nor should it. The science should convince you. The problem is, none of the people engaged in this fearmongering know more than a shallow google-university version of the science involved, much less the regulatory policies and apparatus they're criticizing.

This is anti science fearmongering, and it's bullshit, and I'm so sick of it... This is the equivalent of the righties and their climate change denial. No, it isn't as serious, or as damaging, but at its heart it's just a fucking stupid, dishonest, and wrong.

[diane in sf]

48. GM crops are very different than normal crops and they contaminate normal crops

by cross-pollination.

[enki23]

105. Here's news for you: so do non GM crops.

.

[truedelphi]

54. Please stay tuned for upcoming

Reports on how the fungal matter of vomitoxins is coming to a piece of bread close to you.

"Vomitoxin" has been around but it seems to be on the increase - exponentially - perhaps on account of how the GMO RoundUp ready crops demand so much RoundUp. The herbicide throws the natural balance inherent in the soil out of kilter, and the soil is radically altered. Minerals go missing from our foods.

Also the yield per acre is less. Strange things happen, as when three separate weeds in Canada that were traditionally found around rapeseed crops ended up becoming one type of SuperWeed. This Superweed variety is now immune to RoundUp, so harsher and more toxic chems will be needed to kill them off.

Before the current GMO "revolution," in traditional plant breeding selection, no farmer ever had the ability to insert the genetic material from a totally different species into the inner molecular structure of the item to be hybridized. But now we have tomatoes with flounder genes, we have corn with Bt pesticides. And on and on.

Several years back, the Starlink variety of GMO corn was almost thrown into the human food supply. Since this new variety of corn contained antibiotics, and was develloped for CATTLE, we were quite fortunate that this was caught in time, and the Starlink corn that did get out for human consumption was mostly recalled.

After all, perhaps you don't want bovine related antibiotics floating around in your bloodstream. It would have been disastrous for people on certain types of medication. (IIRC, blood thinners and these antibiotics were a hazardous mix.) Perhaps you wouldn't want to have such things in your system, especially if you were on a blood thinner, or you simply cannot tolerate antibiotics properly.

And of course, this is why it was such a shame that our nation does not have The Precautionary Principle as the standard to be followed for alterations in our food supply. Decent independent scientists desire this - we really do need to say that it is correct to be wary of introducing a new type of seed and food into our grocery stores, before we find out the hard way that one of these combinations is deadly. (I am old enough to remember the thalidomide tragedy from so long ago, and all the little babies born without fully formed arms and/or legs.)

Monsanto's record on all of this is terrible. They lied through their shiny sharky teeth to get the over the counter license for Round Up - the product at that point in time (the early 1970's) contained Formaldehyde, a known carcinogen. Had the EPA known that - it would not have granted Monsanto their license. (without an aldehyde of some type in the mix, the glyphosate in RoundUp would not be able to be aerially dispersed, but would be cake like.)

[enki23]

106. there's so much that's outrageously, factually wrong in there, it's beyond saving

.

[truedelphi]

127. Like you actually can refute any of this.

I have spent hundreds of hours dealing with independent scientists, on the pesticide/herbicide issue, whose concern for the TRUTH far outweighs whatever "junk" science "proofs" the industrial giant is selling the gullible.

[enki23]

147. You bet I can. Here's just one: the Bt toxin in starlink corn is *not* an antibiotic.

And it has nothing whatsoever to do with cattle. This is what happens with graduates of Google U start searching for things like "BT" and assume that what comes up first must be what they're looking for. The BT you, or whoever you're getting the "antibiotic" thing from is likely something related to Brevibacillus texasporus, a gram negative bacterium that produces a group of peptide antibiotics when under nutrient stress.

The Bt in starlink corn comes from Bacillus thuringiensis, a gram *positive* bacterium which has long been used as an alternative to synthetic insecticides, and which produces toxins (in the real, specific sense of the word) which are very specific to certain kinds of insects, binding to specific receptors in the insects' gut epithelia.

"Antibiotic" is something that kills, or inhibits bacterial growth. The toxin expressed by Bt corn does nothing of the sort. It's a very specific natural insecticide. This is a silly, elementary sort of mistake, and betrays a serious ignorance of the subject. Nobody who is taken in by something like this is someone who is worth listening to in any serious discussion of this issue, at least until he or she bothers to learn something about the subject he or she is blathering about.

[truedelphi]

154. point taken. But do you really want to be ingesting

an insecticide? On every bit of grain you eat? Without any real proof that doing so is okay?

[enki23]

169. well, Bt formulations are often sprayed in massive quantities on organic crops.

it's considered an allowable "organic" treatment. presumably because it's "natural."

[truedelphi]

175. So let's attempt some logic.

We know that when Bt is sprayed on corn, that it dissipates over a short time. The organic farmers who mastered this technique did not spray this Bt on the corn crop and then put it to market. They timed it so that it had dissipated before it was brought to the dinner table.

But that is not possible now. If it is Bt GMO corn, and you eat it, then what? Will there be changes in stomach lining? Will there be allergen effects after a person has had their first or their tenth or their fiftieth ear of corn on the cob?

[truedelphi]

161. I do not see myself as a graduate of "Google"

Rather I am someone who has spent fifteen years talking to the independent researchers on issues like these.

My problem in debating on DU is that often I don't feel like trudging downstairs to the basement and sorting through stuff to find my notes from talking to experts. So I type off the top of my head, hoping I remember correctly. (Reason I used term "IIRC" in my post, BTW.)

Anyway, the fact of the matter is that many people took the Starlink corn and its accidental introduction into our food supply seriously.

The controversy was in part because the Cry9C protein was considered by the EPA to be a potential allergen. And it may now no longer be considered in this manner by our EPA - but do note that over the past decade, the European food market has stood firmly against this type of thing, in large part because they still have free laboratories and independent researchers.

Many independent researchers have long held concerns that in addition to the possibility that people may have an adverse reaction to the Cry09 protein contained in the Starlink corn, they may also have an adverse reaction to the ampicillin resistance marker genes and to the cauliflower mosaic virus.

One thing I am musing over as I type this is that my disgust with our bought and paid for scientists on the iside of the pond, who are willing to toss out their data to continue getting their degrees, and then have their labs funded, they are not only guilty of dishonest science, but also sloppy thinking. When someone like Ernest Hodgson can say taht the risk is not actual but potential, and by that he means to justify the stance that let the free markets of bio augmented grains fall where they might, I feel as a student of logic, like I have been kicked in the gut. i am old enough to remember that the "O" ring situation with the challenger was only a monir "potential" problem - and that the day the Challenger was launched, the odds given against its crashing were ONE BILLION to one.

And so these "experts" like Hodgson use not only sloppy junk science, but total illogic in making their arguments.

My household has already given up wheat, and we both almost immediately recovered our health and dropped some weight. I have no idea what aspect of GMO wheat was afflicting us. I do know that Jim Martindale, who is a major Monsanto critic in China, also is pleased that by being in China, he can partake of corn and not have to feel ill from its vomitoxin count.


When I am thinking of the future, and I am knowing that the beets, carrots, asparagus, radishes and every other crop known to man will soon be "augmented" by the Frankenfood industry, this scenario does not present pleasant dreams when I think of the future. Just as the Oil Industry was given its exemptions, and we now have the Gulf of Mexico turning into a Major Dead Sea, so too will our "scientifically sanctioned" carelessness with the GMO crops prove our equal undoing in a few short years.

[fascisthunter]

130. bull

[era veteran]

68. OK Monsanto's business practices suck too

Their GM seed crosses with regular seed and then they can sue you thus running the small seed people out of business or out of life as many Indian seed carders have committed suicide. We do not know what long term use of this as food will do as study was non existent. We do know that weeds are developing resistance to its use. Johnson grass needs a lot more roundup now to kill it than it used to. Fuck Monsanto!

[sandnsea]

118. But that's not what the legal questions are

at least not the ones Kagan addressed. If this were a case that specifically addressed Monsanto's practice of refusing to allow farmers to collect seed from their own crops, I'd agree with you, fuck Monsanto. But that isn't what Kagan addressed, at all.

Just like you can't convict an individual based on their criminal history, you can't say "fuck Monsanto" and argue against them every single time, just because it's a case involving Monsanto.

[boppers]

77. The uneducated, ignorant, shouters are both right and left.

Education is the solution.

[era veteran]

93. The solution 'would' have been complete scientific study of long term use

of these types of GM seeds. DDT was ok once in the US. A Southern States salesman in my hometown would taste it in front of his customers to show how benign it is. He is/ has been dead a long time. We should just go along and trust your half assed science then and just HOPE it doesn't fuck up the world?

[boppers]

134. Nope, don't trust me.

Trust the mountains of existing studies already done on this particular genetic modification, and the related studies on other HGT modifications, and the results of hundreds of thousands of acres being planted already.

[era veteran]

148. I think you are wrong and are standing up for Monsanto, thats agent orange

Monsanto, while destroying the natural seed bank. Scientific study of effect would have been nice. Are you a tool for Monsanto? ..................................................................................................................................................................... It is only a matter of time, Johnson said, before there are so many resistant weeds that the use of glyphosate products would become much less effective in some places.
"We have weeds that have developed resistance, including giant ragweed, which is one of the weeds that drove the adoption of Roundup," Johnson said. "It's a pretty major issue in the Eastern Corn Belt. That weed can cause up to 100 percent yield loss."..... Bill Johnson, Associate Prof of weed science @ Purdue.

[boppers]

149. No, I'm not a tool for Monsanto, what's this about agent orange?

Is agent orange implicated in alfalfa crops?

[era veteran]

150. Monsanto, your friend, has brought a bunch of poisons out but you can trust

them, right?............Since at least 1978, several lawsuits have been filed against the companies which produced Agent Orange, among them Dow Chemical, Monsanto///// More good stuff.......Monsanto began manufacturing DDT in 1944//// These were studied as well.

[boppers]

165. IBM made the Holocaust possible.

Are you posting from a machine running an operating system besides windows, free of intel chips?

Is your vehicle of choice non-complicit in war?

[era veteran]

166. Bullshit argument from Monsanto apologist

BTW Yes, Apple computer & my S-10 is a '97, too young to be drafted for your inane argument, EOM.

[boppers]

168. Apple computers use IBM's derivative chips now.

In addition, your S-10 is laden with technologies that are part of the Rape of Nanking by Japan.

Aren't "guilt by association" arguments fun?

And stupid?

[era veteran]

170. New Apple yes, my Apple no, regardless Monsanto has established a pattern

of poisoning the planet.

[boppers]

171. Is your Mac 17 years old (or older?)

Pre-intel, they were PowerPC, also an IBM-related architecture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC

Before *that*, they were Motorola 68K machines.

[era veteran]

172. No after the rape of Nanking my Mac visited the IBM = Holocaust theory of

you are in a basement full of check stubs from Monsanto, doing the Google on conspiracy theories. The question is are you 17 years old?

[boppers]

173. I did some work on the early PPC architecture development.

So, I was either one heck of a precocious infant, or I'm a wee bit older than 17.

[era veteran]

179. Why equate Japanese and German atrocities with Monsanto?

A very unreal connection with IBM. These are adolescent statements that ARE factually untrue. Why do you stick up for Monsanto? Dividend check?

[boppers]

181. Absurdity is the point.

IBM = Nazi
is just as intellectually valid as
GMO = Poison

These are positions held by folks, to be certain, look at this thread for the latter. Since arguing with conspiracy theorists tends to be tedious, I try to short-circuit the arguments by pointing out similarly flawed theories and wild-eyed speculation.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and Monsanto really *is* on a global campaign to remove their customers through some grand multinational poisoning scheme, thereby reducing their profits.

Perhaps.

Or, perhaps, folks who don't understand basic science are freaking out about their superstitions, and making assumptions based on their superstitions... rather than science.

So, what do you know about horizontal gene transfer? Methods, History, Risks, Rewards?

[era veteran]

194. Read the other posts about Monsanto.

Apologists for right wing serial poisoners are not welcome. There are other political sites which will wholeheartedly support your position.

[boppers]

196. So, no response on HGT....

...and now science is "right wing" based on who is selling it?

Bizarre, but predictable.

Have some wikipedia-level material on the topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

Once you've mastered that, try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism

[era veteran]

199. Flamer, baiter, but what for? Monsanto GTFA sell that, Monsantoman

[cali]

88. no, I'm sorry. GM crops are NOT just crops

do you know any farmers? Well, I live surrounded by them and they sure as hell don't think GM crops are just crops. You really can't divorce Monsanto's business practices in this situation from the product itself.

[No Elephants]

96. The plaintiffs were asking only for a delay until the EPA study was completed.

So, who had the anti-science position in this case, plaintiffs or Monsanto?

Your post may be very relevant to some other case or thread, but not this one.

BTW, I am not a scientist. (Are you?) However, I am old enough to know that one year's "scientific" miracle (as declared by scientists) after another has been found (also by scientists) deadly dangerous 30 or 40 years later (or earlier or later). A notable example are the many studies that found tobacco in a variety of forms perfectly safe, even beneficial. Meanwhile, the FDA had the formulae for various brands in a special room under lock and very carefully controlled key.

Sometimes, scientists disagree with each other contemporaneously, especially when very big bucks are involved, as they are here

So, yes, I have tons of respect for science, but a soupcon of skepticism as well.

However, again, the subject of this thread is not the safety of genetically-manufactured products in general, only whether a federal agency should have waited for an EPA study before okaying planting of this particular variety of Monsanto alfalfa seed.

And, actually, it's not even about that. It's what the position Kagan took might or might not suggest about her as a Justice. Given we know so very little about her legal leanings, people are parsing whatever they can find.

[Lorien]

112. Actual scientists do not agree with you:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/jun/25/gm.greenpolitics

http://www.euractiv.com/en/cap/bulgaria-approves-law-ban-gmo-crops-news-355729

http://fbae.org/2009/FBAE/website/news_gm-crops-banned-in-switzerland.html

[boppers]

143. Legislators are not scientists.

Well, some are, but the vast majority aren't.

It's pretty easy to figure out which groups are against GM foods: are they in favor of "racial purity" or not.

If they favor "racial purity", they are against genes intermingling.

If they aren't racists, they aren't upset about different "races" intermingling.

[No Elephants]

188. Neither are you, I wager. And invocation of racism when the subject is seeds is disgusting.

[Codeine]

155. The voice of reason

is not always a popular one here sir. Prepare to be flamed for being correct.

[Amaya]

97. how truly disappointing

:puke:

[No Elephants]

99. On the bright side, in the oral argument, some of Sotomayor's questions seemed to help out the

lawyer for the farmers who were opposing Monsanto.

Regardless of who is right or wrong in this case, I was pleased to see that she seemed to be seeking the truth on both sides, even if Monsanto's lawyer may have been slicker than the lawyer for Geerson Farms.

[No Elephants]

98. The headline is wrong. Kagan asked the Justices to side with Monsanto.

Kagan's office wrote the brief before the Justices considered the case, let alone took a position.

The position of the Justices is supposed to be based on the facts and law presented in the briefs of the parties before the Court and the oral arguments of the parties.

In the brief and oral argument the office of the SG presented to the SCOTUS, the SG asked the SCOTUS to side with Monsanto.

The overarching issue in the case: Whether Monsanto genetically engineered alfalfa seeds should be planted before the EPA completes its study. Geerston Farms and the consumer groups that joined Geerston in this case argued for a temporary halt to planting, until the study was complete. Their concern was that cross pollination by innumerable, unavoidable means, might contaminate conventional and organic crops and therefore our entire food supply.

Geerson and the consumer groups prevailed in the lower court, which issued a TEMPORARY injunction againt planting. Monsanto and the SG wanted the SCOTUS to rule against the temporary injunction on the ground that Geerson and the consumer groups had not submitted enough evidence to prove the likelihood of irreparable harm..

See also Reply 55.

There are other technicalities to the case, too, but that is the substantive gist.

[pinto]

124. Interesting thread. fwiw, Here's link to the brief as written and presented (51 pg. pdf file) -

http://www.truthout.org/video123/audio/09Federal.pdf

[placton]

125. But we voted for Obama to nominate liberal judges!

were we misled?

[NorthCarolina]

137. Gee... ya think?

[No Elephants]

190. Hard to say yet. If you read the oral argument, Sotomayor seems to be helping

the lawyer for Geerston Farms with her questions. She had a reputation for being a moderate judge and, before that, , a corporate lawyer and a "law and order" oriented lawyer.

Thing is, it's a little like Congress. By that, I mean in Congress, you only get to vote for or against a bill. And, on the bench, you only get to vote for or against the plaintiff. So far, I think Sotomayor's has voted with the liberals on the court. However, the most liberal one of them (or so they say) is now gone.

Anyway, too soon to say, even about Sotomayor, let alone Kagan.

[Duval]

126. Oh, hell! I am seriously

withdrawing, don't feel like reaching out and extending myself for anything!! I am so tired of watching Mother Earth gasping for breath, humans killing each other and the great democratic experiment (USA) going down the drain. I think I'll be an ostrich for a couple of weeks, or maybe a monkey that sees, hears and speaks nothing.:argh: :nuke: :scared: :yoiks: :hide:

[defendandprotect]

140. War by Monsanto/Agent Orange -- Food by Monsanto -- Kagan Horrors!!

Thanks Obama !! More change we can belive in!!

[New Dawn]

145. Kick for truth.

[FailureToCommunicate]

195. Nice. She and Clarence Thomas will have something to chat about. (Clarence is former Monsanto

lawyer. Ruled in Monsanto's favor any time a case has come to SC)

[fishnchips54]

197. This is why Kagan will get approved

She's not progressive, nor even necessarily liberal.

[Romulox]

198. Kagan was made Dean of Harvard Law after never having practiced law in any meaningful way

$$$$