83 votes

Attention Californians: David vs. Monsanto Documentary

Watch it now:



Californians can view this documentary and learn about GMOs and the intimidation Monsanto is wielding over farmers before voting (YES hopefully) on Prop 37.Dr. Joseph Mercola is being attacked and smeared in negative ad mailers, but he posted the documentary link so people can view it for free before that privilege expires on November 10, 2012.

Percy Schmeiser, a feisty and savvy farmer, battled with Monsanto. In the process he has brought to light not only Monsanto’s attempt to control the food supply, but the pitfalls of any company being allowed to have the right to put a patent on higher life forms including birds, fish and human beings.

29:40 minutes in, Percy explains the damage seen from GMOs. He says GMOs are not based on proven science. “We do not want any more GMOs.”… “The corporations want total control of the seed supply which will then give them total control of the food supply. That’s what GMOs are all about; not more food to feed a hungry world but control of the seed supply.”

The second half of the documentary addresses the quality, technology and science associated with GMOs.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Monsanto is not "someone"

They are a corporation operating within the bio-tech Cartel (see my comment above). And they ARE doing harm.

so you're an anarchist? In a

so you're an anarchist? In a perfect world, I agree, but what what the country founded on and what does it mean to be a Constitutional Republic? State Sovereignty... one of the Ron Paul's prominent stances, having states make decisions for themselves as they see fit. You talk about big government, Ron Paul was running for the biggest position in government in the world. So based on your logic, we should've never supported Ron Paul?

I support Medical Marijuana because it is a step in the right direction. In a perfect world, my position is that I think the government should not be involved at all, and people should just be able to grow, consume, trade whatever they want wherever they want. Medical Marijuana has many flaws for many reasons... but if a state wants to try it out and people are willing to go through the financial hoops and regulations to order to open a MM care center, its their choice and proves that the people want to move in that direction. Its working towards full legalization.

Your intellectual argument about what is law and where it is derived from is completely true... Basitiat was a visionary. I have no reason to argue that, but I also believe the enormous amount of evil that is in our system will not give up their power without a fight.

To say I'm anti liberty because I support labeling GMO food is just laughable and is why so many people I know bash this website. Open discussion to try to get to the root of the issues and people's proposed solutions will make this place more hospitable.

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

I agree that more

I agree that more "government" is not the answer. But this website is advocating having GMO food products labeled in California, which would result in "more government." It would result in companies that sell harmful, genetically modified products to label so the consumer can make more knowledgeable choices about their food.

Its a state decision. Voting NO would only keep things exactly the same in terms of how Monsanto and other food chemical companies operate. In the end, this is what state sovereignty is all about. California is a massive state, therefore, if they required companies to label GMO products, which is easily 80% of typical grocery store products, that would be a massive road block for these companies. They would either stop using GMO's or label them, which could hurt their public image. If the average consumer see's GMO, then they will shy away from that product in most cases, putting these government dependent companies in a pickle.

Thats why I support this measure... you might call it more government, but the TRUE monopolized government aspect of this has already been in place for years, and thats GMO food. Most of the food we eat or is at least available to us at the grocery store is made with government subsidized corn. Monsanto is a very powerful company that spends more on lobbying than almost any other company because of this. Believe me, they are spending a lot of time and money fighting this measure, therefore, I think it the right thing to do as a step in the right direction... but the root is also connected mainly to the corn lobby.

I wouldn't support a national measure, but a state has the right to do this

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...


I for one am sick and tired of these so called anti liberty stances are okay to be done at a state level but not at a federal level.

Frederic Bastiat

What Is Law?

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

If every person has the right to defend—even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
A Just and Enduring Government

If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, nonoppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable— whatever its political form might be.

Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government.

It can be further stated that, thanks to the non- intervention of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking literary instruction before they have bread. We would not see cities populated at the expense of rural districts, nor rural districts at the expense of cities. We would not see the great displacements of capital, labor, and population that are caused by legislative decisions.

The sources of our existence are made uncertain and precarious by these state-created displacements. And, furthermore, these acts burden the government with increased responsibilities.
The Complete Perversion of the Law

But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.
How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?

The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy. Let us speak of the first.

You are pushing the status quo mainstream "solution"

Your position is basically that since there is so much government already involved in the food industry, that the only way we can fix the gmo problem is with more government. This is exactly the same attitude that brought us Obamney Care. It doesn't make much of a difference to me if it is state or federal beaurocrats running around bullying everyone into labeling their food according to weiman's standards. I support companies not using GMOs in their food voluntarily labeling their food GMO free. I don't support yet another beauracracy in a state drowning in beauracracy.

Listen, you can simplify my

Listen, you can simplify my position without even doing any research about the mesure all you want, i'm open for a discussion... but if you're just going to attack me and down vote without even thinking about what I said, then your just a babbling fool saying "No more big government", which is just too damn easy to say.

My position is I believe it states rights... This would never be an issue in the free market, but we dont have a free market and its an issue. Monsanto is arguably the most powerful company in the food industry through patents and other forms of unconstitutional intellectual property, and taking away that power away will not happen overnight, not unless YOU habe billions to spend on lobbying. Over 80% of food products, ALL soda made with HFCS, ALL CAFO meat production, fast food restaurants, dressings, sauces, chips, cereals, canned goods, frozen food, juice boxes, CHILD FOOD, peanut butter, etc. have this GMO crap in it and unless you independent research, which most people are too busy trying to survive to do, you dont know whats in what you purchase.

This all dependent on government subsidies and Monsanto Patents, its usually the cheapest, most nutrient defunct, downright unhealthy food one can purchase.... but its cheap so people buy it. This drives is the price of REAL food,. ie, meat, eggs, veggies, beans, nuts, etc. Voting yes on this measure in, yes, one of the most bureaucratic poorly run states, will provide consumers with more knowledge about what is available to them and will put pressure on these government dependent companies.

say what you want, you're entitled.... but your attitude will never result in anything more than pandering on the internet. Just because you support a state measure like this, doesn't mean you can't also address the fundamental fallacies of the distortion of the role of government and the larger issues with our food system. Thats what STATE government is all about... which Dr. Paul fully supports. Down playing different opinions, with a holier-than-thou attitude, without discussion is ignorant.

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

Look, I understand your

Look, I understand your position and the way you are justifying it. I was heading down a similar path until I discussed the measure with a friend who helped me work through the issues and make sure I was applying my libertarian beliefs consistently and without compromise. I have no idea what your beliefs are, whether you are a libertarian leaning Republican who believes in big government for some things and not others, or a card carrying Libertarian. However, I'm not going to get sucked into an adolescent level Internet argument with you over this. If you are going to call me "holier-than-thou" out one side of your mouth while lambasting me for not "having done any research about the measure" out the other (what do you know what I have or have not researched). We are done here. I think I've struck a cord with you here and given you something to think about. That is good enough for me.

you still havent answered my

you still havent answered my question and still are belittling my opinion... you told me My beliefs are what led to ObamaCare and that I represent the status quo, which is why I made the "holier than thou" remark.

You can be as principaled as you want, still doesn't address the issue of states rights jurisdiction. I asked for a discussion after you're initial comments. So please dont try to somehow turn it around and turn this into an argument when a perfectly civil discussion can occur about the role of states rights

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

This isn't about state's rights...

I believe the state of California has the right to make this law...I just don't believe it to be a good law or consistent with my principles (and more generally libertarian principles). That would be true regardless of whether or not the law is being considered at the federal, state, county or city level. For me this isn't an argument over state's rights. This is an argument about whether or not the government needs to be telling food companies what they can and cannot put on their labels. For me, the libertarian position is clear on this. Consumers have the right to decide what they will and will not purchase. Included in those decisions would naturally be what companies decide to put on their labels.

You said:

Over 80% of food products, ALL soda made with HFCS, ALL CAFO meat production, fast food restaurants, dressings, sauces, chips, cereals, canned goods, frozen food, juice boxes, CHILD FOOD, peanut butter, etc. have this GMO crap in it and unless you independent research, which most people are too busy trying to survive to do, you dont know whats in what you purchase.

And that's exactly it! That's the free market in action that we libertarians hold sacred! The free market says people do not care about GMOs. If people cared about GMOs, they would demand companies not using GMO label their food as such. That is not what is happening.

To me, what you are essentially saying is that:

1. The people of California do not know how to shop for healthy food.
2. I know how to shop for healthy food.
3. I am going to use the force of government to make sure my vision of how to shop for healthy food is enforced for 38 million people.

Go ahead and vote for this prop if you want. I'm not going to take it to court and try to overturn it on Constitutional grounds. Just don't pretend this is a libertarian position because it is happening at the state, and not federal, level.

"And that's exactly it!

"And that's exactly it! That's the free market in action that we libertarians hold sacred! The free market says people do not care about GMOs. If people cared about GMOs, they would demand companies not using GMO label their food as such. That is not what is happening."

I disagree, it is happening! I think the entire local food/ farmers market movements prove that people are sick and tired of not knowing whats in their food. Places like Whole Foods becoming as big as they have (Not to mention John Mackey is the man), the surge of health food shoppes or health food sections in regular stores, and companies voluntarily labeling GMO FREE do illustrate that the public does not want to consume poison. Ive seen companies even label, "REAL SUGAR... NO HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP" in sodas, that tells where the market is going. So we agree that the free market is at the root of this change. Having said that, its still not as mainstream as it should be because the average consumer goes for price, which the entire pricing of food is grossly distorted because of companies like Monsanto. Our current food system is about as far from a free market as you could get.

"To me, what you are essentially saying is that:

1. The people of California do not know how to shop for healthy food.
2. I know how to shop for healthy food.
3. I am going to use the force of government to make sure my vision of how to shop for healthy food is enforced for 38 million people."

1. California probably knows how to shop for healthy food more than any other place... bunch of damn hippies haha
2. I do know how to shop for healthy food, I grow a lot of my own, support local meat/ egg producers and buy local as much as possible. I read labels, research ingredients, and research companies. Nobody is perfect, but i think the more people who are aware of what they are eating, the better.
3. Force is already used on the consumer who is left in the dark about what they consume. We dont have a free market in practically anything, especially food systems. I read the Blue Republican endorsement of Gary Johnson and am going to use a line that you may disagree with, but suits this debate well.

"Johnson is not a purist. He is a pragmatist, and he says as much – often. As he says, “I think libertarians need somebody who can articulate getting from A to Z. But you know, if G is achievable, how about it? Let’s get there!”"

I think the "force" put onto the government subsidized companies is a reflection of the people's attitude toward GMO food in California as is getting from A - G, the ultimate goal is to get to Z, but going in the right direction is better than going no where.

"Go ahead and vote for this prop if you want. I'm not going to take it to court and try to overturn it on Constitutional grounds. Just don't pretend this is a libertarian position because it is happening at the state, and not federal, level."

I'm not in Cali so I have no say other than my own opinion... and I'm not pretending anything. I believe that the All or Nothing stance is less effective than working in steps. If the people of California approve this referendum, than It is 100% Constitutional, as long as no individual rights are violated. Monsanto is not an individual with rights, even though they claim to be. They are harming the public, including their right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and the government helps with this process. We need to anything we can to illustrate their actions.

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

I can't speak for pistol, but

I can't speak for pistol, but I for one do not believe in all or nothing. Incremental change in the right direction is just fine, and in most cases the only option. But there is a big difference between incremental change in the right direction and saying that the ends justify the means. I would argue that the ends justifying the means takes us in the direction exactly opposite of the one we want to go in. Every time a principle is sacrificed because the ends supposedly justify the means, a new and greater problem is created. The more problems are created, the more urgent we are told the situation is, that in turn is used to once again get us to accept that the ends justify the means, and, each time, rather than getting closer to what we want, we get further away (ad nauseam). This progression is in my view exactly how this once great country got into the mess it is in. The first incremental change to make is to say that no, that the ends do not justify the means (no matter how much you want to believe it, they don't in the end anyhow), to discard moral relativism, and to stick to principles.

some common sense... thanks

some common sense... thanks

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

Also available for free viewing through election day

is the movie Genetic Roulette. http://www.geneticroulettemovie.com/
It runs about 1.5 hours. I haven't finished watching the David vs Monsanto one yet, so I can't compare them -- but genetic roulette is also very good. I'm going to buy a copy as soon as my finances allow.

Great find!

Unfortunately, after a few minutes I was thoroughly disgusted... Thanks!

When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!


runs deep. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2701340/posts

Off topic but related I suppose.


The real problem is IP.

People want to know how a free market would solve this problem. If there was a true free market this problem would never have even been created in the first place. Could Monsanto even exist without government enforced monopoly patent privileges?

No one should be able to own ideas. No one should be able to own life. Could more regulations solve this problem? This would seem to be treating only a symptom of a much bigger problem. This patent issue leads to slavery.

People are big on saying "no victim no crime" to defend marijuana legalization. Well the same is true for issues of IP. No victim if you save seed from year to year, even if you did buy it from a corporation. Monsanto only claims to be victims due to their possession of a government granted monopoly, but that is not free market.

Sorry, but we've had this

Sorry, but we've had this argument before. IP is property and we protect and defend property rights in this country. No law or system is perfect, but an America with property rights is far better than an America without property rights.


Of course we need property rights, meaning rights to physical property. But ideas are not physical property. People have equated ideas with property because they have been given the propaganda term intellectual PROPERTY.

But they are not property in any physical sense and it makes no rational sense to treat them that way. They are treated that way in practice because the government has declared it to be that way. But this is done primarily to benefit special interests who benefit from the monopoly on an idea. Ideas should be free.

That you so confidently

That you so confidently declare "ideas" the same as "intellectual property" proves you have not done your homework. I suggest you carefully read the Wikipedia definition, or better yet, go to the USPTO.gov web site.


That you so confidently brush off an argument by simply referring to an official government website is the logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority." Just because the government says that intellectual property as it currently exists is right and good does not make it the most beneficial or correct position.

Intellectual Property ultimately comes down to thoughts and ideas and the ability to express thoughts and ideas in the world.

I will refer you back to your same wikipedia entry on intellectual property: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

Please scroll down and read the section: criticisms. There are two sides to the argument. One that favors state control and monopoly, the other that favors human liberty and creativity.

If you would like to "do some homework" and really explore this issue I recommend reading "against intellectual monopoloy" by boldrin & levin and "against intellectual property" by kinsella

A lot of plagiarizing college

A lot of plagiarizing college students would be very happy if what you suggest were reality. I wonder how this would play out in the music industry...

Not necessarily

Just because there would be no crime of copyright infringement does not mean that copying other peoples material would be a legitimate activity. If the purpose of a class is to teach writing or research and all a student did is copy someone else, they would fail just as they would now.

How would it play out in the music industry? Who knows exactly? but copying music is not a crime. If I reach into your book bag and steal your cd I have stolen property from you. But if I copy an mp3 I have not taken anything from anyone. There are now two where there once was one. This is not a crime. Those who say otherwise are only looking at it from the perspective of a government granted monopoly to the patent/copyright holder.

When you have an idea in your head it is yours. if you dont want other people using your idea, keep it there, no one will take it. Once you share an idea with the world it exists in your head but it now exists in other peoples heads as well. Can you control ideas in other peoples heads? Ideas that are expressed become part of the culture. It is how we learn and develop. We build upon the achievements of others.

Ideas are the most powerful forces in the world. We should not allow monopoly control of ideas. The end result will be bad as we see already from the likes of monsanto and the major media.

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." -Thomas Jefferson

I disagree about IP.

I disagree about IP. Intellectual property, like rights governing your physical property, is important for decentralization and prevention of totalitarianism. No IP rights, only corporatism.

I totally disagree

Getting rid of IP would be the greatest form of decentralization the world has ever seen. All the knowledge of people in the hands of the people, instead of being bought up and controlled by corporations. Corporatism is powered by patents. Get rid of the patents and corporate power will be decentralized.

I see it playing out nearly

I see it playing out nearly exactly opposite of what you suggest.

The established corporations would have the advantage and would immediately seize upon any new idea and produce it themselves before a less-established individual or business could do so.

I dont see it that way...

It is hard now for new or small companies to compete because they have to devote huge resources to patent procurement and protection. This is how corporations want it because they have the resources and it limits their competition. Most small groups don’t have the finances to compete with them. They also devote extraordinary resources to obtaining patents on things that only theoretically could exist. Then if someone actually invents the thing they already claim a patent to it. This is called the “submarine patent.” For example, companies are already patenting “human genes.” They are not using them now…but just you wait.

Without patents the little guy could still compete. They would actually stand a chance against the corporations, unlike today, because the corporations could not hang gigantic / baseless patent court cases over their heads.

Most innovation takes place in small companies and small groups. Small organizations are also best equipped to serve the needs of people in their community. And they are positioned to deliver the highest quality. We have been inundated with mass marketing, economies of scale and “one size fits all” products. But if people were allowed to use ideas you could set up a company that works to make local or regional modifications of some popular design. If people like yours better they can buy it. If the mega company can make better quality then people can buy that. Competition is good. It rewards consumers with a broader range of choice and drives innovation.

As it stands now competition is prevented and monopoly control is given to the corporation. Who fights for IP law? It’s the big corporations. They want it. It shuts out their competition. Without patents they would be bombarded from all sides by competitors trying to cut in on the action by providing a better product at a lower cost.


What is IP?


IP = intellectual property

i.e. patents, copyright, etc. is considered 'intellectual property' (IP).

Oh Okay

Thanks for the info.


What about property rights?

If Monsanto's seeds blew onto a farmer's farm, shouldn't the farmer be able to sue for trespass (plus any liabilities that result from this)? I'm just asking this question is theory. I know our legal system is probably bought and paid for by big corporations.