It is beginning to look like GMO, principally an American economic activity, may not endure as structured. This is one example of why I say that. There is a developing consensus against it.
Cargill Sues Syngenta Over Sale of GMO Seeds Unapproved in China
JACOB BUNGE – The Wall Street Journal
In a fight that highlights global sensitivity over genetically modified crops, Cargill Inc. sued Syngenta AG SYNN.VX -0.56% , claiming that the Swiss seed maker’s push to sell bioengineered corn seeds that weren’t approved in China cost the U.S. grain company $90 million when Beijing rejected corn shipments.
The suit, filed on Friday in Louisiana state court, escalates tensions that have shaken U.S. agribusiness since China last year sharply curtailed imports of U.S. corn. Beijing’s move all but closed off a major market for the grain, contributing to a sharp decline this year in prices for the U.S.’s biggest crop by value and costing shippers hundreds of millions of dollars, according to U.S. grain groups.
Phi Beta Iota: Cargill has a case. Perhaps more interestingly, this adds weight to our long-held view that farmer’s whose crops are contaminated by Monsanto should be suing and winning against trespass, not the other way around, where Monsanto’s legal prostitutes sue for unlicensed presences of the grain. Now what about the US IT industry? All ethical legal vendors of US communications and computing equipment and services have been royally screwed by Dell, Google, HP, IBM, Microsoft and others who willfully and maliciously agreed to compromise all of their hardware and software to NSA. In that light, anyone with information to protect who buys US communications and computing equipment is clearly irresponsible to their own stakeholders. So the question has to be asked: should everyone that did NOT sell out to NSA be suing those that DID?