TED Conversations

artist/writer, springbright.org

This conversation is closed.

We just lost the constitutinal right to take Monsanto to court if their GMO crops sicken or kill us. Any comment?

Is this still America when the government grants freedom from responsibility for creating dangerous or deadly products to giant corporations? How can we protect ourselves when our bees are dying because of Round-up and Monsanto can easily get laws passed that free it from any responsibility for its products and the damage they cause, like killing all the bees?


Closing Statement from Spring Bright

I am glad a lot of people are well informed about GMOs, the death of bees and the battle for our right to know what's in our food.
Not long ago we didn't have to spend hours reading labels. Peanut butter was defined as peanuts and salt. maybe with sugar. Now hundreds of untested chemicals are added to food. We should not be forced to read labels to protect ourselves.
When companies don't have to disclose GMOs in our food we've lost the right to defend ourselves and our families. Anyone who is in favor of gun rights should be in favor of the right to know what's in our food and to not eat anything they find objectionable or even questionable. Shouldn't they?

Mr. Colera argues that GMOs aren't "conclusively proven" to be bad. I'm sorry, but corporations should not have all the rights. People deserve to have safe, unadulterated food and corporations should have to prove what they are adding to food is "conclusively safe" not the other way around.

They're adding "new" foods, they're profiting from GMOs, let them prove they're "conclusively safe" before they can sell them.
That's the logical, sensible, fair way to protect the public from "new" things.
People should not accept any industry assurance that something unproven to be safe should be allowed in food.

Why isn't this a major election issue? It should be.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jun 11 2013: Major tort lawyers are brave, thoughtful people who PAY the costs of litigation and spend years, up to a decade, fighting for clients against businesses that knowingly sell products that hurt or even kill people.
    They don't bother suing small businesses. They go after companies that can and should pay.
    They are scorned by pro-business zealots armed with vast war chests.
    They face armies of corporate lawyers on big salaries who don't pay litigation costs.
    But let's not pull punches.
    Under English common law, the basis of American law, if you knowingly selling a product that injures someone you must pay. Think snake oil salesmen. Selling poisonous pills was a crime, but congress has granted immunity from liability to drug companies if the FDA let them sell a product. This is true even if it wasn't tested, like hip implants, and even if it's proven (by tort lawyers, no doubt) to be poisonous, and even if the maker knew it was deadly poison, but lied to get FDA approval.
    We don't prosecute CEOs in America now, so the only things between us and death are tort lawyers. .
    Selling poisonous pills used to be attempted murder. And if the patient died from poisonous medicine that was first degree murder. It's killing for profit, like poisoning your husband for his insurance.
    Read about murder and mayhem in an old criminal law book and you'll see what I mean.
    We need an NRA type lobby against the unconstitutional business exemption from responsibility for crimes.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.