all 4 comments

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 funny2 insightful - 0 funny3 insightful - 1 funny -  (3 children)

Wow that's interesting. I am surprised the supreme court ruled that way.

I had a teacher once who was also a lawyer, and he also owned some land that he said "the government paid me NOT to grow barley on". Like simply because he was leaving the land vacant, he was getting paid a stipend to NOT grow a certain specific crop. I still find this such a bizarre waste of money, and I feel this somehow ties in to what you're saying.

It makes me wonder if the FDA and whoever else would be involved in this ruling, are in fact co-opted by big agriculture.

I mean if you think about it, agriculture is one of the oldest industries in the world. It's also therefore one of the most likely to be monopolized and gamed as much as possible, because it's so long-established. If regulatory capture exists anywhere, it exists in the food and agriculture regulatory bodies. This seems like a reasonable assumption, and the data backs it up: http://occupy-monsanto.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/individual_monsanto_federal_position-large.jpg

Here it shows monsanto having people from their legal teams becoming federal judges and much more.

With your story as added context, it seems this regulatory capture game to starve out the little guy in order to ensure total monopoly and reduce the chance of a competitor growing healthy enough to challenge the establishment...it seems to have been going on a hundred years or more...

I am so glad we live in a time where we have the internet to put these puzzle pieces together.

[–]i_cansmellthat[S] 2 insightful - 1 funny2 insightful - 0 funny3 insightful - 1 funny -  (2 children)

So monsanto has been getting their tentacles into policy for 4-5 decades now. Did the Bayer/Monsanto merger go through? Cursory search brought up articles from about a year ago, don't have time to dig at the moment but will have to look into that.

A tangent to this:I found some articles over the past few weeks that seem to show a push for what is called "agriculture biotech." (In my head I am calling it "fucking with the our food") There is a lot of money possibly to be made, and two of the big investors is Bayer Crop Science and Bill Gates. I haven't tied anything together at this point, but here are some links if interested:

Ag Biotech Market Map: 245 Startups Using Biology & Chemistry to Revolutionize Agriculture

BREAKING: Ginkgo Bioworks Raises $275m Series D for Robotic Microbe Factory Expansion

AgriFood Tech Investment Surges to $10.1bn Bringing in a New Normal

The articles are written in a positive tone to inform about investment potentials. I found it disconcerting to read about the level of food manipulation. Maybe it's not unhealthy, but with so much money to be made my bet is that those involved in these projects don't care.

Kind of went off topic there....

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 funny2 insightful - 0 funny3 insightful - 1 funny -  (1 child)

I found this from a month ago: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/bayer-monsanto-merger-decision-in-the-first-part-of-2018-vestager.html

Apparently the EU is to decide if the bayer-monsanto merger will be allowed or not.

Interesting about the agriculture biotech. I think some of this is like GMOs, which I don't think are unsafe, but the pesticides they put on GMO crops (that they're specifically genetically engineered to tolerate) are what is harmful to the humans and animals, because it leeches into the food. I could envision a similar unintended blowback with this agriculture biotech. And like you said, with so much money to be made, they care little for who they hurt. Or they're so far removed from the consequences they can get away with lying to themselves about it.

It's a very interesting topic, that's for sure. D3rr and I have been talking about perhaps starting to do a weekly focused 'town hall' discussion thread, and perhaps this could be one of the weekly focus topics.

[–]i_cansmellthat[S] 2 insightful - 1 funny2 insightful - 0 funny3 insightful - 1 funny -  (0 children)

I agree about the pesticides, at least for the moment. It's been theorized that celiac disease may be attributed more to the pesticides than to the actual food. If GMO's experience a swift uptick, I'm going to be a bit more uneasy though. I think I read at some point about how GMO's were supposed to help solve hunger, both here and in other countries. Instead, they ended up stocking grocery stores with cheap, junkie food.

A town hall discussion thread sounds good, I think there are many coming here that would participate. It feels really good here; honest, open and positive. Thanks to both of you!