Banning Monsanto GMO seeds would greatly help our food supply. These guys have put the small farmer in the US in jeopardy by getting large subsidies from our government.
http://naturalsociety.com/hungary-destroys-all-monsanto-gmo-corn-fields/
"Monsanto profited handsomely from federal subsidies for ethanol, which led to a near-record planting of corn across the Midwest. Between 2000 and 2007, the use of genetically modified corn seed grew from 25% of acres planted to 73% in the U.S., and the Department of Agriculture recently started giving farmers a break on insurance premiums if they use these seeds, creating yet another incentive. The seeds are genetically modified to either resist death by herbicide, allowing farmers to spray liberally to kill nearby weeds that lack resistance, or else to grow into plants that produce substances toxic to insect pests (allowing farmers to spray less, but worrying some about potential health risks).
Let's stop ALL subsidies and protective tariffs. Government interference creates distortions and allows a few to profit unfairly at the expense of consumers and competitors.
"Government interference creates distortions and allows a few to profit unfairly at the expense of consumers and competitors."
Pure garbage.
Why should we not harness the power of the US to the betterment of all society? Once again, look at the student loan and mortgage markets as an example. Take away that government backing and rates skyrocket, which would destroy our economy. An ideologue loser like yourself would say take it way even if it helps. A realist like me says use the power of our backing to get the best deal possible.
"Government backing" isn't free.
And government backing encourages taking risks that otherwise would not be taken, which ends up being a situation where profits are private but losses are socialized and borne by the taxpayers.
But this thread is about subsidizing farmers, who should instead be competing fairly.
More garbage.
Monsato is working to patent food, and at the same time deny natural alternatives. Getting a subsidy AND doing that is abusive.
That's not a good deal for us.
Not sure I would turn that into NO subsidy at all. As mentioned above, that's not the right answer. Structuring things to get the best deal we can is the right answer, and that does mean managing our industry so that it serves us well.
Government backing helps people. Why not harness the power to get the best deal?
Otherwise, we might as well be Lichenstein.
Troll, add some Round Up to that crow for a Monsanto Delight!
The Vatican is also against this too.
I wonder if UF&UB will be against it now?
Chris - 1, Troll - 0.
Game over.
If ethanol needs to be subsidized to make it competitive with gasoline, that means that the taxpayers are throwing money away to support an overpriced commodity that can't compete fairly. It would be better to buy straight gas and let the tax payers keep that money and use it to buy other things. And it would be better to not artificially stimulate the price of corn, driving the prices of corn products higher, and squeezing out arable land that could be growing other crops.
Subsidies distort the market and cause waste and inefficient use of resources.
"Chris - 1, F&B - 0.
Game over."
I'm in agreement with him to end the Monsanto subsidy.
We're on the same team on this one.
I doubt that Chris (or anyone else here) is going to be thrilled with that news. You have no "team" here. Dodgeball, anyone?
You must log in to post.
