Because they have better things to do and fighting the WHO in a lengthy litigation process would likely garner them bad publicity in the eyes of those who aren't "aware" of what Monsanto does. The WHO hasn't banned anything yet because there isn't anything that is dangerous to human consumption.
Apparently the WHO is quite important in your decision to consume or use a product. I didn't explicitly mean in the press and eye of the public or on the forefront of court cases etc; but more so in preventative ways or dealing with things quietly regarding bribes. I never stated the foods themselves are dangerous to human consumption. Though wouldn't Monsantos handling in the agent orange cases and the business practises that have resulted in probably many cases of depression and suicides in India resulting from the cotton seed issue at least bring to the attention of the WHO?
Whatever the case is, it's not down to bloody corruption. And in any case, Monsanto can probably afford more writers and scriptors of the company's image than Hollywood employs.
I never said it was. I was supporting the idea that Wearer of Hats brought forward on corruption and how it could be addressed and considered in the argument.
Yet corruption still exists within businesses; corporations or organisations.
There's a difference between debates and conspiracy theories. One is fact based.
Well I guess I should call people retarded and such, perhaps that is more progressive. What I'm discussing and the manner I am doing so is far from a conspiracy theory. Learn how corruption works in the business world.