Monsanto on trial for crimes against humanity by government mob
Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 4 months ago to Business
While I would applaud a fair trial and restitution if guilty, my life experience leads me to believe that this is more llkely extortion by the world government mob that will not benefit anyone harmed by Monsanto. The 'world court' will fine Monsanto millions and those damaged will never see a penny.
ENVIRONMENTALIST ARE EVIL
Jan, strongly on the side of Monsanto
Much easier to bribe the court by agreeing to pay big fines and provide free vacation homes for the judges.
Its a 'protection racket' similar to the mafia.
Not that Monsanto is an innocent either.
I do not think this will happen, but I think that it would be the best thing in the long run: Refuse to pay the fines and accept that your markets for improved agritech will be legally diminished until the countries dump the restrictions (as Uganda has apparently done per db's GMO article).
Many years ago, insurance companies had the policy of 'caving' and negotiating settlements even when they knew they could win the case - because litigation is expensive. About 15-20 years ago, they woke up to the fact that they had created an ecology of litigation, and they began fighting even the small cases (though a net financial loss to do so, even when they won). (I was a witness at such a case.) The number of suits diminished, because they were no longer 'cows' to be milked by ambulance-chaser lawyers.
This is what Monsanto needs to do.
Jan
Jan
However, if it's ever made a crime to "hurt" the ecology, then anyone can be jailed, even a farmer, and certainly miners, fishers, loggers, factory owners, etc.
On the other hand, "prov[ing] that their products aren't unsafe" really isn't possible. There can always be a longer timeframe than tested, etc.
Did you know that after about 20 generations' use, acetylsalicilic acid causes permanent and 100% sterility among all users' offsping?
Trying to prove those kinds of 'unsafe" should be illegal... :)
Most shareholders have no voice whatsoever as the brokers hold their shares and can vote if the small investor doesn't take the time to vote them. Directors election are rarely affected by small shareholders. Insiders and Wall St brokers(with short term incentives) are nearly always in control. On the contrary, Wall Street brokers take short positions directly opposite to the buy recommendations they give to small investors. Its a rigged game. There is much more profit in causing market fluctuations than in long term productive gains. Obviously, this is ethically reprehensible.
"At this time, New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) rules allow your broker to vote your shares in their discretion on “routine” proposals when they have not received instructions from the beneficial owner of the shares at least ten days prior to the Annual Meeting. We believe the election of directors and ratification of the selection of our independent registered public accounting firm are routine matters."
I would, however, not refer to the "game" as 'rigged.'
Virtually everything you described is legal under existing law.
If "investors" are stupid enough to vote the way the Directors suggest all the time, that's not a rigged game, that's stupid players. And many shares are held by companies in 'street names', I believe, and the original investors might not even get a chance to vote at all... although that, again, is 'what they signed up for' at the start.
btw, I was working AT HP long before and for a while after the Compaq purchase. My take on Carly was that her theme was "downsize to success" even if downsizing got rid of the players most likely and capable of bringing success to the company.
I personally, as an 'individual contributor,' suggested several strategies which probably would have worked if anyone at manager levels a few above me had been open to such ideas.
One idea was estimated to have a 3-month payback period, but no money could be allocated to even try it. It was a sad time.
They are 'merely' responding to market pressures impressed on them by government regulations, and those regulations are there because of the 'nature' of the lawmakers who, in many cases, have been Elected to Office by the general population of the US...
So, if uninformed, ignorant people keep re-electing Congressmonkeys into office who keep creating such laws, I can't start out by faulting those "clever human beings" who, being smart and adaptable, figure out any and every way to get around the laws!
If the Laws (and/or Lawyers) were 'better,' there would be fewer people trying to skirt them.
Or were you not around when the government started raising income tax rates on CxO's? The first thing the BOD's and Compensation Committees of the largest corporations did was to cut upper management's SALARIES and convert their "income" to vehicles not taxed as hard as their 'paychecks.'
To reduce the undesired effects, one must start by Identifying The Real Root Cause.
Virtually nobody does this today, and the results appear Everywhere.
Like blaming 'banksters.'
The Root Cause is not government, although when looking at the power government has today it's easy to make that assumption.
Power concentrated in the hands of a few is the problem. The greatest power is in the hands of banksters. Read the Creature From Jekyll Island for the details.
That's what I'm trying to say. Want to go another round? I Love Socrates!
Everyone thinks their 'solution' will fix Root Cause, but almost Never have they truly identified ROOT Cause... usually some secondary or tertiary or umpteenth-erary result of Root Cause.
But, once people think they're solving Root Cause, they convince themselves of that, even if their 'solution,' for some mysterious reason, doesn't reverse the tide of The Problem.
I am willing to wait and see if I'm right... or not.
Good Luck.
"that's also not "root cause" of The Problem until you dig deeper about WHY they had/have such power... and even the answer to THAT question probably won't point to The Root Cause, either!
Rachel Carson may have been one of the root causes of The Death Of Critical Thinking....
I'm still collecting data to try to determine who/what/when/where It Started To Die.
Thanks, in large part, to Rachel Carson.
Yep!
http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/info...
multiplier which he had to fix. -- j
.
I thought that it was just pure defiance. -- j
.
"You can't get me;;; why are you trying?" . like thumbing
your nose at the judge -- like "I do not recognize your
jurisdiction over me." -- j
.
I sent back an OK, though I cannot now even remember who the defendant was.
I did not not feel victimized or anything.
What I do recall was being tightly strapped for paying child support at the time.
Yes, a financial hardship rendered me shamelessly greedy.
Months later I received a letter that proclaimed a courtroom victory and a settlement check for six dollars and something cents.
I recall staring at the check and thinking, "I bet the lawyers received a lot more than this."
The legal beagles take 35% or more of the 'settlement' in their fees, and the 'remainder' is divided among so many 'injured parties' that none of them tend to get anything close to 'real compensation,' even if they actually suffered harm.
When I get those mailings nowadays, they go directly to Recycling Bin.
And you've got to still have all the original sales slips, too?! Ludicrous. If they knew I was affected, they can damned well find the documentation, too!
There doesn't seem to be an 'attorney shortage' anywhere in the world... least of all, the US...
:)
Y'know... market-clearing prices and all that...
Slow in doing the math?
!I didn't even know the math.
Thanks for informing me of the law firm's cut.
I suppose that's the average.
The whole article is good, but I found one quote here, from a man at the conference, that really summarizes the root of their hatred.
"You are trying to poison us all, you know, in order to pursue maximizing your profits.”
The author quickly dismembers that argument. I'm very much on Monsanto's side, not just as a biologist but as a person too.
"a glorified meeting of the who’s who of anti-biotech science deniers"
As you say, the articles sounds biased, but I think it's correct that modern biological science does not find evidence of risks of GMOs.
When she explains why she imagines people buy organic, she's bordering on a straw man. She says it's because of fear of GMOs but doesn't have any evidence.
I really appreciate the article in that explains in a sober-minded way that it is not a real trial in a court of law but rather a convention to discuss the topic.
When a writer with no credentials (that I could determine online) in the area being discussed, calls anyone opposed to her beliefs a "conspiracy theorist" it gives me reason to doubt the writer's veracity, just as I doubted the veracity of the people critical of GMO's without scientific evidence.
Mud slinging on both sides is not science. It's just obfuscation.
too much finger pointing and talk, Not enough truth and not near enough action from the usual couch potato groupies.
What Do We Really Know About Roundup Weed Killer? April 2015 National Geographic
By Elizabeth Grossman, National Geographic
PUBLISHED Thu Apr 23 10:35:32 EDT 2015
The world’s most widely-used herbicide has been getting a lot of attention lately.
Last month, an international agency declared glyphosate, the primary ingredient in the popular product Roundup, a “probable human carcinogen.” The weed killer also has made recent headlines for its widespread use on genetically modified seeds and research that links it to antibiotics resistance and hormone disruption. Several national governments are planning to restrict its use, and some school districts are talking about banning it.
So what do we know about glyphosate? Five key questions and answers:
How Is Glyphosate Used?
Introduced commercially by Monsanto in 1974, glyphosate kills weeds by blocking proteins essential to plant growth. It is now used in more than 160 countries, with more than 1.4 billion pounds applied per year.
Glyphosate, often sold under the brand name Roundup, is probably in your garage or shed because it’s ranked as the second most widely used U.S. lawn and garden weed killer. These products have been promoted as easy-to-use and effective on poison ivy, kudzu, dandelions, and other weeds.
But the primary use is by agriculture. Nearly all the corn, soy, and cotton now grown in the United States is treated with glyphosate.
Its use skyrocketed after seeds were genetically engineered to tolerate the chemical. Because these seeds produce plants that are not killed by glyphosate, farmers can apply the weed killer to entire fields without worrying about destroying crops. Between 1987 and 2012, annual U.S. farm use grew from less than 11 million pounds to nearly 300 million pounds.
“By far the vast use is on [genetically engineered] crops – corn, soy and cotton – that took off in the early to mid-nineties,” says Robert Gilliom, chief of surface water assessment for the US Geological Survey’s National Water Quality Assessment Program.
In addition, some five million acres in California were treated with glyphosate in 2012 to grow almonds, peaches, onions, cantaloupe, cherries, sweet corn, citrus, grapes, and other edible crops.
Picture of Roundup weed killer for sale at Home Depot
Glyphosate, marketed by Monsanto as Roundup, is the second most popular weed killer for residential yards and gardens.
Photograph by J. Blue, Bloomberg/Getty
What Happens to Glyphosate in the Environment?
Despite its widespread use, USGS hydrologist Paul Capel said there is “a dearth of information” on what happens to it once it is used.
Related Content
Monarch Butterfly's Reign Threatened by Milkweed Decline
Glyphosate is not included in the U.S. government’s testing of food for pesticide residues or the monitoring of chemicals in human blood and tissues. As a result, there is no information on how much people are exposed to from using it in their yards, living near farms or eating foods from treated fields.
A recent USGS study sampled waterways in 38 states and found glyphosate in the majority of rivers, streams, ditches, and wastewater treatment plant outfalls tested. Not much was found in groundwater because it binds tightly to soil.
Glyphosate also was found in about 70 percent of rainfall samples. It “attaches pretty firmly to soil particles” that are swept off farm fields then stay in “the atmosphere for a relatively long time until they dissolve off into water,” Capel says.
What About Exposure Through Food?
Before genetically engineered crops, glyphosate residues in food were considered unlikely, says Charles Benbrook, research professor at Washington State University’s Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources. But since about 2005, pre-harvest use of glyphosate “results in very high residues,” he says. Traces were found in 90 percent of 300 soybean samples.
continued at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/20...
"Hard information is sparse there are a lot of could , probably, maybe, might sort of qualifications. Unlike with DDT which was pulled without replacement and caused the deaths of millions there seems to have been no 'rush to judgement ' however if one read the label and followed directions...which people won't do......etc etc etc...ad nauseum
I often recall this when I hear Agent Orange:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKtjB...
I was really more interested on who could see us and what sort of sights they were using. We didn't bother suiting up. We didn't carry gas masks for that matter. That equaled the weight of perhaps three magazines full of bullets. We didn't use flak vests or helmets either and other items the rear area types liked to over load us. Water, One LRRP ration per day extra radio battery and lot and lots of lovely bullets. Man's got to have his priorities.
I recall one day we were being sort of watched by visiting REMFs collecting their battle field time for their phony medals. Once our Hueys got airborne and out of sight the flak vests, helmets and other crap were jettisoned. except I think the air crew kept the vests to sit on. Half of us carried an entrenching tool and the others carried a machete. SOP was for one of each on each of us. Really stupid. The vests weren't worth the trouble back then. Hard to do a quiet recon with ten tons of crap.
Possibly the agent orange had lost it's effect - it had been a couple of weeks since the last spraying. Stuff worked good.
How many divisions does the World Court have?
But, if you commit a crime in a foreign country you will be apprehended and stand trial in their court. I'm not saying I agree with any of this. I'm just trying to answer your question.
With Rachel Carson at the top of the list I blame the both the green movements. The commercial developers and the destroyers such as Headwatrers in Southern Oregon. Now that they've joined together as drug growers maybe that will prove self correcting to one problem ...while creating another. Complete with 50 years of built in excuses and BS philosophy.
The kangaroos are out in force. Time to see if any actually have boxing gloves.
...To see the farm is to leave it....
Normally trial in another sovereign jurisdiction requires an extradition treaty. The UN has no soveriegn status it is not a country nor does the World Court.
However any crime committed in foreign country by a US Citizen is subject to the laws of that country. The State Department is not noted for being of much help.
US jurisdiction in these matters stops three miles offshore and on the border with Mexico and Canada.
Monsanto representatives, factories, dealers etc in foreign countries are subject to the laws of those countries some having laws that recognize World Court Jurisdiction.
Rachel Carson remains unindicted.
The "self help" rule is not so much a rule as a case of "Who's gonna make us stop?" I guarantee as soon as some other country kidnaps a person (without US government permission) from within the US and puts him on trial, they'll find out (maybe from a war) that the rule doesn't work that way. Of course that doesn't apply in this case. Any country in which a company operates can seize the persons and assets that are within its borders.
The World Court, of course, is a joke. Like the UN as a whole it only has the ability to enforce anything if the Security Council agrees, and the US has a veto there. I'm sure right now Monsanto is trying to delay any action until the US has a president who will veto it.
Baseline
Normally, the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured is the low-water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal state. This is either the low-water mark closest to the shore, or alternatively it may be an unlimited distance from permanently exposed land, provided that some portion of elevations exposed at low tide but covered at high tide (like mud flats) is within 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) of permanently exposed land. ...
Territorial sea
A state's territorial sea extends up to 12 nautical miles (22.2 km; 13.8 mi) from its baseline. If this would overlap with another state's territorial sea, the border is taken as the median point between the states' baselines, unless the states in question agree otherwise. A state can also choose to claim a smaller territorial sea.
In December 1988 the USA extended the 3nm to 12 nm by Presidential Proclamation.
Contiguous zone
The contiguous zone is a band of water extending from the outer edge of the territorial sea to up to 24 nautical miles (44.4 km; 27.6 mi) from the baseline, within which a state can exert limited control for the purpose of preventing or punishing "infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea". This will typically be 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) wide, but could be more (if a state has chosen to claim a territorial sea of less than 12 nautical miles), or less, if it would otherwise overlap another state's contiguous zone. However, unlike the territorial sea, there is no standard rule for resolving such conflicts and the states in question must negotiate their own compromise.
"The United States invoked a contiguous zone out to 24 nmi on 24 September 1999]"
As mentioned the Self Help Rule was ruled legal by the US Supreme Court of the United States ...you should have read a little further. Recently the US used a hired force to extract a Mexican Citizen from Mexico (which led to that SCOTUS ruling and the Nation of New Zealand used a quasi force actually led by one of their counter Terrorist section national police officers who brought the French Citizen of the ship that sank the Rainbow Warrior in NZ Territorial Waters back to New Zealand to stand trial.
The World Court as you stated is a joke unless you are caught in a sovereign State or Nation which has agreed to enforce it. What is not a joke is crimes as listed by another nation within the claimed area of another nation. In any case two things you can count on. US normally via the Coast Guard will enforce US Law on US Flag vessels including my 30' sloop where ever and US State Department will do not much if anything if you violate foreign law in a foreign country. That included a minor who received a sentence of bamboo lashing in Singapore.
A third rule is no search warrant is required for boarding a US Flagged Vessel by Coast Guard, Customs, Immigration or Border Patrol.
Something those of us who live aboard on a full time basis just....live with. That same rule now applies to anyone or any structure within 100 miles of any shoreline or land border.
getting back to the question under discussion there is much hyperbole and bombast on both sides much of it knee jerk in character and a limited amount of acceptable 'fact' on both side so nations have it seems invoked their own interpretation which is their sovereign right. What the World Court has to do with it - is....not much. They have even less divisions that did the Vatican in WWII.
What is also true is the issue stems back to the DDT Scare fomented by Carson in 'The Silent Spring.' which led to the deaths of millions as the ban was not accompanied by a replacement product for a number of years. Possible death by DDT became certain death by starvation and spread of disease because no one least of all Ms. Carlson bothered to 'think it through.' for some that is a good thing otherwise the world population might have been 12 billion or whatever excuse they are offering. Still Ms. Carlson and her supporters certainly, without question became the greatest mass murderers the world has yet witnessed.
Especially since we now find out DDT was not the danger it was made out to be. Estimates of deaths because of the DDT Ban have now reached as high as an estimated ESTIMATED 90 million while....the Locusts Laughed.
That said, and in reference to your very educational post on glyphosate, I try to reduce my family's exposure to the stuff. Can't avoid it, as it's everywhere.
Now that I've scratched the surface with my first Kindle book, I'm looking forward to lots more.
And if nobody believes, agrees with or understands me... well, I don't see much downside... :)
And it will just remind me of many of the unacceptable ideas I came up with in about 34 years working in technological industries. :)))
Cheers!
In the first paragraph lists toxic chemicals they're accused of introducing. The few of them I happen be knowledgeable about are actually not toxic. Maybe none of them are.
They will have to "answer for their reign of terror" and "atrocious acts".
It almost seems like a parody. First Monsanto makes some controversial products, but there's no scientific evidence of harm. Popular opinion is against them, regardless of the science, so gov't harasses them. Then a rightwing news outlet reports on it, but they cannot help but write like crazed idiots, regardless of the topic. I can't tell if the author is truly critical of Monsanto, doing a parody of Monsanto's critics, doing a general parody of the hyperbolic tone of rightwing blogs.
If I had a penny...
Now they have become "populist" in their outlook and are "forgetting" their involvement in creating this genre of food stock! What's worse, there has been absolutely no evidence of harm to man, animal or the environment to date! Yet there go the "doomsayers" who wish to have the world go backwards as opposed to going forward to meet the many challenges ahead!
(I avoid fluoride except when unavoidable.)