Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
[12] [13] It concluded that MON 863, a corn rootworm-resistant Bt corn developed by Monsanto, caused health problems in rats, including weight changes, triglyceride level increases in females, changes in urine composition in males, and reduced function or organ damage in the liver, kidney, adrenal glands, heart and haematopoietic system. [12]
Monsanto said that it respected people's rights to express their opinion on the topic, but maintained that its seeds improved agriculture by helping farmers produce more from their land while conserving resources, such as water and energy. [82] The company reiterated that genetically modified foods were safe and improved crop yields. [86]
That’s why, in 1996, Monsanto created a GMO that Roundup could be used on without destroying the crop itself — the “Roundup ready” soybean. Other Roundup-ready crops, such as cotton and ...
From poisonous insecticides and dead birds to fertilizer runoff, and now genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the companies responsible for advancing farm technology have been.
They believe that genetically modified foods are a corporate plot, led by the giant multinational Monsanto, to profit off unhealthy food. [ 14 ] Uscinski, writing for Politico in the context of the 2016 United States presidential election , identified GMO conspiracy theories as one of the "honorable mentions" appended to his list of the "five ...
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with whether genetically modified organisms can be patented. [8] The Court held that a living, man-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter as a "manufacture" or "composition of matter" within the meaning of the Patent Act of 1952.
Monsanto makes money selling genetically modified (GM) seeds. Though once a broader-scale chemicals company, Monsanto's seeds and genomics business accounted for over 70% of the company's gross ...
The case (Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser) went to the Supreme Court which held for Monsanto by a 5‑4 vote in late May 2004. [22] The case is widely cited or referenced by the anti-GM community in the context of a fear of a company claiming ownership of a farmer's crop based on the inadvertent presence of GM pollen grain or seed.