Oz wrote:
I doubt that the corporate advocates of GMO are going to provide them
with a balanced education on the issue either, so how can they can
engage in an informed decision?

You find out as soon as you grow the crop, or more likely when a
neighbour does.

You find out about yield, under that year's growing conditions -
that's all. What you don't find out is more important things like
whether the pesticide resistant gene can be transmitted to other,
unwanted plants. There are a lot of unanswered questions, which is
precisely why GMO crops are so controversial, even in situations like
cotton where their suitability for eating is not an issue.

If Monsanto's timing was responsible for a lost year of crops,
they should pay.

Generally so, if it's provable.

Right. If a group of third world farmers want to try to prove it in a
court of law, then they can collect. I don't see a fleet of American
contingency fee lawyers leaping to their defense. In any case, that
attitude is a far cry from the Monsanto Pledge, which CEO Hugh Grant
describes as "what we stand for as a company." Honesty, decency,
consistency and courage. It's an admirable creed, but it seems little
more than hot air when they are hiding behind a fleet of defense
lawyers.