Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JBTFD who wrote (2105)	10/1/2006 1:30:05 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 10087

"...We are working in concert with the folks in Hawaii, Mendocino County, and in the 30 nations around the world where GMO crops are stringently regulated, to put farmers first." OK. This was passed on to me by a lurker. One concern (more about corporate litigation than GMOs specifically) is the watering down of what qualifies as ‘Organic’ farming. ccof.org And another concern is the contamination by GMOs to GMO free crops. google.com Vermont Legislation Vermont Senate Passes Historic Law to Protect Farmers from GMO Contamination GE Free VT Media Release: Wednesday March 10, 2004 Vermont Senate on GMOs: Unanimous YES on Farmer Protection Act. Vermont Bill is first-in-the-nation to hold biotech corporations accountable for contamination by genetically engineered crops. Montpelier, VT< Vermont Senators voted 28-0 Wednesday to support the Farmer Protection Act (S.164), a bill to hold biotech corporations liable for unintended contamination of conventional or organic crops by genetically engineered plant materials. This historic decision was peppered by debate on the patent laws that allow biotech corporations like Monsanto to sue farmers for patent infringement who are contaminated with GMO pollen or plant materials. Senator Vincent Illuzzi (R-Essex-Orleans) dramatically illustrated cross-pollination of corn varieties with multi-colored ears of Vermont corn. Today¹s vote comes after 79 Vermont towns have passed Town Meeting measures calling on lawmakers in Montpelier and Washington enact a moratorium on GMOs, and 10% of Vermont's conventional dairy farmers have pledged not to plant the crops. Vermont joins Mendocino County, CA at the forefront of domestic resistance to genetically engineered crops. "The Farmer Protection Act is a pre-emptive strike to stop predatory lawsuits against Vermont¹s family farmers by biotech companies like Monsanto," said Ben Davis with the Vermont Public Interest Research Group. "Today the Vermont Senate took the first step to defend family farmers from these kinds of intimidation suits and the hazards of genetically engineered crops." VPIRG is among a coalition of groups including Rural Vermont, Institute for Social Ecology, and Vermont Genetic Engineering Action Network who are spearheading the grassroots campaign for the first "GE Free" state in the union. "Big biotech corporations are writing the rules in their own interests at the national and international level, and using their patented GMOs as a tool to contaminate and control farmers," said Doyle Canning, a campaigner with the GE Free VT campaign. "Vermont is showing that a little state can make a big statement against corporate greed and work towards a Time Out on this technology. We are working in concert with the folks in Hawaii, Mendocino County, and in the 30 nations around the world where GMO crops are stringently regulated, to put farmers first." Today's Farmer Protection Act was amended with an 18-11 vote to include language specifically targeting genetic engineering patent lawsuits "The Sears-Illuzzi amendment defines Ogenetically engineered seeds or plant parts" as different from conventional seeds or plant parts. This is unprecedented and undermines the industry's claim that GE products are the same as traditional products," said Amy Shollenberger, Policy Director at Rural Vermont. "The amendment says that a person who is found to have traceamounts' of genetically engineered material shall be indemnified by the manufacturer if they are sued. In other words, it protects a farmer from being sued by the manufacturer if the farmer's crops are contaminated with GMO material." Tomorrow Shollenberger and 10 other GE Free VT supporters will testify to the House Agriculture Committee 9 AM-11:30 AM on a related bill on Genetically Engineered Crops. The GE Free Vermont Campaign on Genetic Engineering is a statewide coalition of public interest groups, businesses, concerned citizens and farmers, who are organizing to oppose genetic engineering at the local, state and national level, and calling for a ³Time Out² on GMOs. For more information: www.gefreevt.org Contact: Amy Shollenberger, Rural Vermont 802.793.1114 Doyle Canning, GE Free VT 802.279.0985 organicconsumers.org

To: JBTFD who wrote (2105)	10/1/2006 1:41:41 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

"Major companies in the U.S. are already asking their suppliers to certify, in a form prepared by the customer, that the supplier is selling GMO-Free product. But is your product GMO-free and what are the risks of signing that form? For example, the corn industry takes the position that bulk corn is not GMO-free due to intermingling of GMO corn with non-GMO corn. As a result, a number of finished goods that contain corn syrup, corn starch, or gluten may not qualify as GMOFree. Is your company signing on to liability for a major recall if you supply a GMO product after erroneously certifying it as GMO-Free? Product liability in the U.S. is governed by state law, meaning that your business could possibly be sued for product liability in any state in which you do business. Product liability law is usually based on a combination of three different alleged failures: (1) a design defect in the product; (2) a marketing defect, such as misbranding or using erroneous directions for use; and (3) the failure to warn of a dangerous propensity. Two types of claims are likely to result from an erroneous GMO-Free or BSE-Free designations. If cases of vCJD are detected in the U.S. or if there is a GMOrelated health issue, lawyers here may very well target U.S. companies in class action lawsuits rather than attempt to bring suits abroad. It comes as no surprise to many companies that class action lawsuits are frequently filed because of the strength of the damages claim, not because of the scientific evidence pointing to the liability of any particular company. As has been repeatedly demonstrated in some U.S. courts, scientific evidence will not always protect your business. Instead, the best-protected business may be the one with the best record keeping and the best insurance. The ability to track the source of mammalian products could prove to be the decisive factor in whether or not your company can withstand the attack." library.findlaw.com