Disclosure is a prerecquisit for a patent. You can't have a patent if the information is kept secret. Certainly the corporations pay lawyers big money to make these disclosures as obscure as possible, but if too obscure then the Patent becomes invalid, and that's too big a risk for most to be willing to take, which means the information is avaliable to all, at the Patent Office of every country where the Patent has effect.
The Truth About Gentically Modified Foods and How Ties to the NWO and Control of the 3rd World and The Food Supply
Mon, 2009-03-23 20:07
#52
Mon, 2009-03-23 20:09
#53
Rexdale_Punjabi
ironically - if GM foods destroy traditional varieties, except where saved in the "seed bank" they would have a natural monopoly over the traditional seed types, even as the GM ones became public property when the Patent expires after 20 years.
exactly and the newer varieties give less seeds after 1 generation then any before and they pushin em to new areas. So there u go what I been trying to say.
Mon, 2009-03-23 20:10
#54
This is the balancing factor of patents. If you keep it secret, then no patent. For society to vest a right in property in an idea, it requires disclosure of the idea to the public first.
Mon, 2009-03-23 20:11
#55
Cueball
Uhh no. The thread topic is GMO's not diction.Your thoughts deserve to be weighed by others, and you should not expect them to do all the work.
I think what you said here is very much to the point.
Mon, 2009-03-23 20:15
#56
Yes - this is the scarry part indeed. Imagine, if there hadn't been a couple of obscure breeds of hops, then the hops blight of the 40s would have been the end to beer! And now we know just how dire this really is.
You will be glad to know that the agriculture department at the University of Saskatchewan has a fairly developed seed bank. I would very much suspect that China's government does much the same. Seed banks are a excellent idea, and in private hands a very scarry one.
Mon, 2009-03-23 20:40
#57
ironically - if GM foods destroy traditional varieties, except where saved in the "seed bank" they would have a natural monopoly over the traditional seed types, even as the GM ones became public property when the Patent expires after 20 years.exactly and the newer varieties give less seeds after 1 generation then any before and they pushin em to new areas. So there u go what I been trying to say.
Um no. HYBRID seeds have lower yields, or lower seed production, after a generation for the simple reason that they are designed as hybrids. Like crossbreeding a donkey and horse produces a sterile mule. Farmers know the mule will be sterile but they still sometimes breed for mules because there are some advantages. Hybrid plants may or may not be sterile. If they are not sterile they generally reproduce lower yielding offspring, but the practice of producing hybrid plants is not uncommon because they very often produce first generation plants with very high yields, or other benefits. Farmers buying hybrid seeds understand what they are buying. Hybrid plants are the result of plant breeders breeding two plants together. It is not a new technique - in fact tangelo has been bred for about 3500 years. Wheat is a hybrid - one that probably occured naturally, and several plants and flowers either are natural hybrids are often form natural hybrids. It has zero, zip, nothing to do with GMOs.
Mon, 2009-03-23 20:49
#58
Hybrid plant certainly do as well, however many GM plants (not created in the same way) are often modified to eliminate their reproductive capacity. It is another "advantage" of the seed besides higher yields or resistance to disease, which they are modified to produce. Farmers do know what they are getting in most cases, but there is likely not much choice.
In Canada (for example) GM canola is the only Canola, as it has infected natural strains. In a moment of stupidity (not the first or last) the courts decided that if it infected other plants, then THEY TOO need a licenc before use as the patent right exists within the gene, and not the seed itself.
Mon, 2009-03-23 20:51
#59
You will be glad to know that the agriculture department at the University of Saskatchewan has a fairly developed seed bank. I would very much suspect that China's government does much the same. Seed banks are a excellent idea, and in private hands a very scarry one.
I see no reason to oppose the the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, except conspiracy parnoia spread by those who believe that everything is linked to a New World Order. If you believe in that conspiracy then fine, the SGSV is very, very bad. If you don't believe the same whack load of conspiracies that Engdahl believes in (He also believes the abiotic origin of oil "theory," among others) then you could probably use some common sense and realize that this seed bank is really no more evil than any other seed bank, probably the opposite. The Scandinavian countries are not known for being particularly evil and non-progressive (although who else would make better cover for those evil couple people who actually control the world). No evil private entity owns all these seeds. They are the property of those who deposit the seeds in the bank. The SGSV stores those seeds for free. Poor countries that have better things to do with their money than create their own seed bank are probably very happy to use this one.
Mon, 2009-03-23 21:06
#60
Frustrated Mess
True. The real evil is seed patents which, in many, many cases, represent an outright theft from humanity. In many cases these seeds are being destroyed to promote monoculture by those same corporations, supported by the Gates and Clinton foundations that are, in fact, evil if we define evil as that which manipulates both fear and hope to take from people their independence, interdependece, and livelihoods to render them slaves.
Mon, 2009-03-23 21:17
#61
haha - well said FM! And I don't think it is unjustified to worry about the centralization of our genetic heritage and food supply by a limited group. Even if some are Nordic. I might not agree that the conspiracy is as set out by the NWO types, but to think that the wealthy of the world don't plan for their futures is a much bigger leap of faith for me.
Mon, 2009-03-23 21:47
#62
Hybrid plant certainly do as well, however many GM plants (not created in the same way) are often modified to eliminate their reproductive capacity. It is another "advantage" of the seed besides higher yields or resistance to disease, which they are modified to produce. Farmers do know what they are getting in most cases, but there is likely not much choice.
In Canada (for example) GM canola is the only Canola, as it has infected natural strains. In a moment of stupidity (not the first or last) the courts decided that if it infected other plants, then THEY TOO need a licenc before use as the patent right exists within the gene, and not the seed itself.
There are no and have never been any GM seeds/plants used anywhere in the world that are/were modified to eliminate their reproductive capacity. Not even in field tests.
If you are referring to the Schmeiser case. I have read the court decision and agree with the decision. Schmeiser should not be a hero of the anti-GM movement. He wasn't trying to stop to spread the GM crops, but encourage it through purposely identifying, isolating, collecting, saving and planting GM seeds. Had it been an accidental case of planting GM seeds then the court would have ruled in his favor. But it wasn't accidental. It was deliberate, planned and orchestrated. In fact he didn't even use that as a defense at the trial, instead arguing that he did not benefit from growing the seeds because he did not spray round-up on them. In that case the court ruled the exact opposite of what you say it did. Arguing, at all three levels that in a case of accidental contamination beyond the farmer's control they would be protected. If you are referring to another case let me know.
Mon, 2009-03-23 22:11
#63
True. The real evil is seed patents which, in many, many cases, represent an outright theft from humanity. In many cases these seeds are being destroyed to promote monoculture by those same corporations, supported by the Gates and Clinton foundations that are, in fact, evil if we define evil as that which manipulates both fear and hope to take from people their independence, interdependece, and livelihoods to render them slaves.
Many GMO plants are patented along with their seeds. If you wish to avoid patents you have plenty of choice. I know of no case of a patented non-genetically modified plant in which the offspring are patented.
Monoculture has been moving fullspeed ahead long before patents on seeds.
Do I like patents on seeds being controlled by large private companies. No. However, the solution I favoured was to fund public R&D to produce non-patented seeds that were better suited for specific locations and environments. The left, for the most part, instead of promoting such an initiative took a neo-luddite stance against technological advancement. There is, of course, nothing wrong with anyone taking such a position. However, the farmers of the world have by and large rejected that position.
Mon, 2009-03-23 22:29
#64
Rexdale_Punjabi
most farmers in fact don't know what they buying only what mayn times they forced to. Im talking about the 3rd world where the majority of the world's population lives. On top of that conspiracy paranoia? They are destroying the world's natural diversity while preserving it for themselves. An example of this is for example rice in india. It was estimated that there were over 1/2 amil strains dif strains between villages now there about 50 and even then only a couple major ones. exactly what Will said to think that they don't plan ahead is bs. And capitalism in essence is actually this do you take that in? Making as much profit this = profit. These aren't hybrid seeds they genetically modified big dif bro they modifiy genes. And bro Ill find more links and sources after but think if you were sellin seeds and you wanted to make the most money possible? And you could change anything about the seeds what would you change? Now think these ppl are more vile and corrupt then you they happily plan the deaths of millions and go eat dinner with their families. That all im gonna say. And btw get out of KKKanada farmers by and large have no voice except for a couple big agencies that really speak for agribusiness not the common poor 3rd world farmer which there a lot more of.
Mon, 2009-03-23 22:34
#65
That was the case - I don't have any notes in front of me, but I am reasonably certain that the patent was found in the gene and not seed. I will look it up when I get home. If I am mistaken, then I apologise. As for the ativities, much of what you said sounds right, but I only read the 2 higher court cases, which relied less on the background facts. Indeed, I may have only read summeries, can't remember, in which case I certainly didn't read the details.
I'll also see what other Canadian cases might be of interest. Good discussion. I am really glad that the nonsense above (of which I was a large part) didn't destroy a worthwhile thread
Mon, 2009-03-23 22:55
#66
Frustrated Mess
Do I like patents on seeds being controlled by large private companies. No. However, the solution I favoured was to fund public R&D to produce non-patented seeds that were better suited for specific locations and environments.
That is called seed saving and there is no need to fund it. Ask Percy Schmeiser about it. His saved seeds became property of Monsanto.
The left, for the most part, instead of promoting such an initiative took a neo-luddite stance against technological advancement. There is, of course, nothing wrong with anyone taking such a position. However, the farmers of the world have by and large rejected that position.
Actually, no they haven't. As usual you tend to exaggerate. The farmers of North America have rejected that position. US farmers are largely on welfare and Canadian farmers can barely make a living. Farmers in most of the rest of the world are fighting this form of slavery.
I've always believed the right wing ought to oppose slavery for their own interests but the opposite has mostly been true.
I know of no case of a patented non-genetically modified plant in which the offspring are patented.
You shoud read more. Monsanto and other biotech firms have been buying up seed companies and taking their seeds off the market. As well, "Under the European Directive on Biotechnological Inventions, plant and animal varieties are not patentable. However, the scope of patentability has been broadened by provisions that grant patents to inventions that cover more than one variety or species. This means that multinational corporations are increasingly able to obtain patents on conventional plants, in addition to genetically modified plants, and to control the market in plants and seeds. These practises restrict farmers’ rights to save, exchange and sell seeds that they have cultivated over generations."
http://ictsd.net/i/news/biores/41818/
As well, it has been reported and posted on this site that Monsanto and other biotechs have been patenting seed and plant varieties grown in developing nations - a blatant theft.
The battle over who controls the world's food supplies has escalated dramatically with the Indian government launching a legal challenge in the United States against an American company which has been granted a patent on the world-renowned basmati rice.
I appreciate your a fan of these fascist anti-human corporations, but they are truly evil as they seek to exercise control over our food. Throughout history slaves and entire peoples have been punished by having food withheld.
Mon, 2009-03-23 23:14
#67
excellent example. A big part of the problem isn't even patents, but giving patents for things that are clearly not new inventions. This was an issue with Mexico importing their coloured corn chips when they were patented to an American. It has happened often with drugs derived from an indiginous processes and drugs. I believe there was an issue with a local pesticide made in India as well.
Patents are at best a questionable legal right, but if allowed without the requirments originally intended in the law it becomes a nightmare.
Mon, 2009-03-23 23:23
#68
Rexdale_Punjabi
ty frustrated mess farmers aint doin well hell they bein eliminated in favor of big companies
Mon, 2009-03-23 23:33
#69
most farmers in fact don't know what they buying only what mayn times they forced to.
If farmers do not know what they are buying - which I find a little hard to believe as there is a clear difference in price, fertilizer, pesticide etc requirements - or are being forced to buy certain seeds then that should be dealt with by the government, regulatory and legal system of that country.
Im talking about the 3rd world where the majority of the world's population lives. On top of that conspiracy paranoia? They are destroying the world's natural diversity while preserving it for themselves. An example of this is for example rice in india. It was estimated that there were over 1/2 amil strains dif strains between villages now there about 50 and even then only a couple major ones.
So what you are saying is that farmers are growing the strains of rice that they find most profitable. That makes sense to me. The Indian Council for Agricultural Research helped develop high yield seeds which made the green revolution such a success there. Farmers grew those high yield seeds at the expense of the lower yield/greater diversity of the past. Why wouldn't they? Would you force them to plant those seeds they don't want to? Those who want more rice diversity are free to grow that diversity and free to buy that diversity, but not free to force others to grow that diversity.
exactly what Will said to think that they don't plan ahead is bs. And capitalism in essence is actually this do you take that in?
Yes, I expect and hope that people plan ahead.
Making as much profit this = profit. These aren't hybrid seeds they genetically modified big dif bro they modifiy genes.
I understand that genes are modified. In fact I support the modification of genes. I think that it is the next logical step. Not incredibly different than the methods and techniques (radiation, chemicals etc, etc) used for decades to encouraged gene mutations, which the majority of the public don't have a clue about. And most likely safer. I feel people fear GMOs because they view this as a huge leap from simple plant breeding to genetic modification. The reality is genetic modification is a small step and the next logical step.
And bro Ill find more links and sources after but think if you were sellin seeds and you wanted to make the most money possible? And you could change anything about the seeds what would you change?
I would change it so the plants could dance. I think that would be fun.
Now think these ppl are more vile and corrupt then you they happily plan the deaths of millions and go eat dinner with their families. That all im gonna say.
They are planning the deaths of millions? With seeds? Why? Is it a group of really rich people who gather in secretive places? Is it a group of scientists? Where is the benefit for them? Where are the whistle blowers? Or do they knock those people off?
And btw get out of KKKanada farmers by and large have no voice except for a couple big agencies that really speak for agribusiness not the common poor 3rd world farmer which there a lot more of.
Fine. If the farmers have no voice then that should change. Progressive people should work to help them make their voices heard. However, progressive people should not assume that the majority of poor farmers would agree with our vision of how they should be farming. I see no evidence that the voices of the majority of poor 3rd world farmers are being represented by Greenpeace, Vandana Shiva, opponents of the Green Revolution, etc. Nor do I think that those who oppose GMO are representing the voices of the majority of poor farmers. Instead they are using the plight of poor farmers to gain support for their anti-gmo position.
Mon, 2009-03-23 23:44
#70
Thank god we can only grow potatos in NL - they do still have eyes don't they?!?
The argument isn't whether or not GM foods should exist (not here anyway), the question is the legal regime underwhich it takes place, and the protections we offer to ensure that monopoly does not occur.
We go after taxi companies for trying to create monopolies. We deny banks the right, but we'd allow monopoly control of important aspects of our global food production? That's the point. It isn't GM foods, it IS who ownes those patents, and how long/ how strictly we protect those patents.
I guess the other point is that the seed banks should be more open, and should be publically funded with samples for whoever would like them. There is little cost here, and a huge reserve of potentially abusive power.
Tue, 2009-03-24 00:49
#71
Do I like patents on seeds being controlled by large private companies. No. However, the solution I favoured was to fund public R&D to produce non-patented seeds that were better suited for specific locations and environments.That is called seed saving and there is no need to fund it. Ask Percy Schmeiser about it. His saved seeds became property of Monsanto.
Many farmers want to grow seeds that produce higher yields. That are better drought or flood resistant. More resistant to fungus and pests that are a problem in their area. That is why those farmers choose to buy improved seeds instead of saving them. I don't need to ask Percy Schmeiser about it as the court cases make it very clear.
Actually, no they haven't. As usual you tend to exaggerate. The farmers of North America have rejected that position. US farmers are largely on welfare and Canadian farmers can barely make a living. Farmers in most of the rest of the world are fighting this form of slavery.
If you want to argue that farmers have rejected technological advancement that is fine. I will feel free to laugh at that.
You shoud read more. Monsanto and other biotech firms have been buying up seed companies and taking their seeds off the market. As well, "Under the European Directive on Biotechnological Inventions, plant and animal varieties are not patentable. However, the scope of patentability has been broadened by provisions that grant patents to inventions that cover more than one variety or species. This means that multinational corporations are increasingly able to obtain patents on conventional plants, in addition to genetically modified plants, and to control the market in plants and seeds. These practises restrict farmers’ rights to save, exchange and sell seeds that they have cultivated over generations."http://ictsd.net/i/news/biores/41818/
As well, it has been reported and posted on this site that Monsanto and other biotechs have been patenting seed and plant varieties grown in developing nations - a blatant theft.
Monsanto is a big mean company. No one argues that. I would like to see them split apart. However, as I said above "I know of no case of a patented non-genetically modified plant in which the offspring are patented." Your link gives no reference to an example of this. Not that I agree with the patenting of non-gm plants anyways.
The battle over who controls the world's food supplies has escalated dramatically with the Indian government launching a legal challenge in the United States against an American company which has been granted a patent on the world-renowned basmati rice.
This case was a little different. Horribly wrong and stupid, for sure. It was not a case of a texas company patenting the basmati rice seeds grown in India, but of a texas company growing rice which it had been selling under names such as 'Texmati' and 'Kasmati', but which got a patent so it could label the rice 'Basmati' which would be more profitable. "The patent on Basmati is believed to be a violation of the fundamental fact that the long grain aromatic rice grown only in Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh is called Basmati." It would have meant that real basmati rice grown in India could not have been sold in the US under the label basmati. It had nothing to do with controlling the seeds farmers plant in India, or patenting a traditional seed - the seed patented was a hybrid, not a traditional seed. It was predatory, dickish, ignorant and wrong of the company, as well as the patent office.
I appreciate your a fan of these fascist anti-human corporations, but they are truly evil as they seek to exercise control over our food. Throughout history slaves and entire peoples have been punished by having food withheld.
Thanks, but I am not a fan of anti-human corporations - hence my desire for public funded R&D to put control of agricultural progress in the hands of the people. The neo-luddites in their opposition to agricultural progress have done nothing but help those corporations gain this power by scaring governments aware from controversial research. People have also been punished by a lack of food to eat. I support higher yield, flood, drought, fungus, and pest resistant crops allowing more to fed on less land. I also eat as low on food chain as possible.
Tue, 2009-03-24 00:56
#72
Thank god we can only grow potatos in NL - they do still have eyes don't they?!?
The argument isn't whether or not GM foods should exist (not here anyway), the question is the legal regime underwhich it takes place, and the protections we offer to ensure that monopoly does not occur.
We go after taxi companies for trying to create monopolies. We deny banks the right, but we'd allow monopoly control of important aspects of our global food production? That's the point. It isn't GM foods, it IS who ownes those patents, and how long/ how strictly we protect those patents.
I guess the other point is that the seed banks should be more open, and should be publically funded with samples for whoever would like them. There is little cost here, and a huge reserve of potentially abusive power.
I agree with all of that. I oppose monopolies. I oppose longstanding patents on GMOs. I oppose patents on non-gmos. However, I do not oppose progress and I think that governments should be leading the way.
Tue, 2009-03-24 01:12
#73
RevolutionPlease
Find me a real "government" and I'd agree. It's good to question.
Tue, 2009-03-24 01:14
#74
RevolutionPlease
Thanks for all the posts, I'm having trouble keeping up but I'm trying. It is cause for worry to me.
Tue, 2009-03-24 09:48
#75
Refuge
Talking about 3rd world farmers:
So what you are saying is that farmers are growing the strains of rice that they find most profitable.
Actually that is not true. Here is a detailed story of what happened with cotton in the 3rd world increasing loses from 18% to 71%. It is compared to the rice crop here
http://www.indsp.org/chinghoc.phpThe reality was very different. In the first year of planting, during which the government aimed to assess the crop's performance before deciding on whether to allow further commercialisation, there were reported failures of Bt cotton - the crop succumbed to drought [2] and hundreds of hectares were attacked by pests [8]. The drought had led to a pest population explosion on Bt cotton, but not on other cotton varieties. As a result, instead of reducing pesticide use, farmers had to use a different mix and larger amounts of pesticides to control the pests [9]. Furthermore, the Bt cotton - engineered to be resistant to a pest that is not a major problem in Sulawesi - was susceptible to other more serious pests.
Bt cotton did not produce the promised yields [2, 9], which Monsanto had boasted to be as high as 3 tons per hectare. Some farmers were even promised 4-7 tons per hectare. The average yield was only 1.1 ton per hectare, and 74% of the total area planted to Bt cotton produced less than one ton per hectare. Some farmers only harvested about 500 kg per hectare, others even less, about 70-120 kg per hectare. About 522 hectares experienced total harvest failure. Despite the problems, the government extended its approval for Bt cotton commercialisation by another year, with equally dismal results.
The poor yields trapped farmers in a debt cycle [10]; some 70% of the 4 438 farmers growing Bt cotton were unable to repay their credit after the first year of planting [9]. Branita Sandhini, a subsidiary company of Monsanto's Indonesian subsidiary, had provided farmers with the transgenic seeds and fertilisers on credit schemes, and bought the harvests so that farmers could repay their debts to the company [2]. But as the yields were poor, many farmers were caught out. Research conducted by various Indonesian institutions clearly showed that, in the year 2002, farmers planting Bt cotton had lower income compared to farmers planting non-GM cotton [11].
To make matters worse, the company unilaterally raised the price of the seeds. According to Konphalindo, the National Consortium for Forest and Nature in Indonesia, the initial agreement between the farmers and the company set the price of the seed at Rp 40 000/kg; but this increased to Rp 80 000/kg in the second planting season [11]. Furthermore, the company initially bought the cotton from the farmers for Rp 2 600/kg, but this later decreased to Rp 2 200/kg.
Because the company could refuse to buy the farmers' cotton harvest, many had no choice but to agree to the higher seed prices, by signing a letter of agreement with the company. Santi, one of the farmers said, "The company didn't give the farmer any choice, they never intended to improve our well being, they just put us in a debt circle, took away our independence and made us their slave forever. They try to monopolize everything, the seeds, the fertilizer, the marketing channel and even our life" [2].
I feel people fear GMOs because they view this as a huge leap from simple plant breeding to genetic modification.
I fear GMO's because we are making new protiens with not enough research and these can have serious consequences, such as allergens, increased drug resistent diseases etc.
No evil private entity owns all these seeds. They are the property of those who deposit the seeds in the bank......However, as I said above "I know of no case of a patented non-genetically modified plant in which the offspring are patented."
This article shows that according to patent AND contract law Monsanto actually owns all second generation seeds by way of not allowing the farmers to collect to replant or to sell as part of their business and here is another case.
I support higher yield, flood, drought, fungus, and pest resistant crops allowing more to fed on less land.
That would be a perfect world however a quick wiki search shows that five of the 11 GMO foods have only one GM trait - resistant to one herbacide or pesticide - roundup or another Monsanto made harbacide / pesticide, Also the plants that do have things aded do not have enough of a complement as the rice article above showed (people are deficient in much more than Vitamin A found in rice) and that finding the genes to make all plants resistent to all bugs is almost impossible as noted in the cotton article above.
In reference to farmers fighting GMO crops:
If you want to argue that farmers have rejected technological advancement that is fine. I will feel free to laugh at that.
Tue, 2009-03-24 10:03
#76
Rexdale_Punjabi
exactly u can choose to ignore my sources + my 1st hand knowledge but also the stuff refuge posted then son you just stupid
Tue, 2009-03-24 11:11
#77
Actually that is not true. Here is a detailed story of what happened with cotton in the 3rd world increasing loses from 18% to 71%. It is compared to the rice crop here
In the case of RR soya in Argentina the problem is not rotating the crops. This would be true whether is was gm or non-gm soya. gm-soya is so profitable for the farmers that they don't want to rotate other crops in. Since 2004 from when this article was written the amount of land planting gm-soya has gone up by almost 50%. I am sure that if the farmers could rotate in other crops as profitably they would. My solution would be for the Government of Argentina to help develop such a crop variety. My guess is that a gm-crop could be developed quickest and most inline with the specific problems they are facing.
As for the rest, it is typical of what I come to expect from these reports. Find instances where a gmo-crop did poorly one year in a country and pretend that it is the case in all years in all countries. It must be hard to square that circle where the planting of gm-crops goes up by millions of hectares every year - because farmers want to plant those crops, because they are more profitable, or have higher yields, or are less labor intensive, or require less pesticide etc. And I have no doubt that hysteria will continue and intensify as gm crops improve each year.
I fear GMO's because we are making new protiens with not enough research and these can have serious consequences, such as allergens, increased drug resistent diseases etc.
Allergies could occur from hybrid breeding, or even mutation in "conventional" crops. The difference is with GMOs they are actually tested for allergies in animals and humans and discontinued if any are present. The other difference is that will biotechnology we can isolate allergenic proteins and substitute in non-allergenic proteins. If you are really worried (which I highly doubt) about allergens then gmos are the way to go. Quick rundown. Allergic reactions caused by proteins in conventional foods: millions. Allergic reactions caused by proteins in gmo food: zero (outside of the skin prick research setting)
This article shows that according to patent AND contract law Monsanto actually owns all second generation seeds by way of not allowing the farmers to collect to replant or to sell as part of their business and here is another case.
Both of those cases are gmo crops. Reread what I wrote. What should happen to farmers who sign a contract and then violate that contract?
That would be a perfect world however a quick wiki search shows that five of the 11 GMO foods have only one GM trait - resistant to one herbacide or pesticide - roundup or another Monsanto made harbacide / pesticide, Also the plants that do have things aded do not have enough of a complement as the rice article above showed (people are deficient in much more than Vitamin A found in rice) and that finding the genes to make all plants resistent to all bugs is almost impossible as noted in the cotton article above.
You are knocking golden rice because it only helps poor people receive enough of one of the vitamins they are deficient in? A deficiency that causes the deaths of 1 - 2 million poor people every year, and the blindness of a half million more poor people? The stance of the environmental movement on golden rice is both ridiculous and shameful. When the general public better understands what the stance of environmental groups like Greenpeace is to the world's poorest people, and the lies they have spread to try to justify their ridiculous position, it will cause long lasting harm to the environmental movement.
If 5 of 11 only have 1 trait, that should mean that 6 of 11 have more than 1 trait. This is an industry that is still in its infancy. It has started out by mainly developing the types of seeds farmers are more likely to buy - hence BT cotton and corn. As the industry and technology develops seeds will be more specified for certain areas, weather patterns, local fungus and pest issues etc. As your article above pointed out, in some years in some countries the potency of the BT was not strong enough. Who wouldn't expect that to happen. However, in the vast majority of cases they have done very well. For every case of gm crops performing poorer than the non-gm varieties in an area, there are a 100 cases of the opposite. However, it is only the former cases that the environmental movement is concerned with and they will flog that horse forever.
In reference to farmers fighting GMO crops:If you want to argue that farmers have rejected technological advancement that is fine. I will feel free to laugh at that.
I am well aware that some farmers oppose GMOs. You find a certain percentage of farmers who reject anything. Bottom line is the number of farmers who grow gmos increases dramatically every year (125 million hectares last year, compared to 50 million hectares in 2000, and 2 million hectares in 1996). If it didn't produce positive results they would stop using those products.
Tue, 2009-03-24 11:20
#78
exactly u can choose to ignore my sources + my 1st hand knowledge but also the stuff refuge posted then son you just stupid
I rate sources from scientific journals far above sources like environmental groups and globalresearch.ca because of their bias and track record on gmos. For the same reason I rank the company monsanto as a poor source. In the case of globalresearch.ca, I have read Smith's book Seeds of Deception and it is one of my favorite books ever. I enjoy reading a statement he makes. Tracing it back to the non-globalresearch source and trying to figure out how he managed it.
As for your 1st hand knowledge. It is anecdotal evidence. I rate it very low.
Tue, 2009-03-24 13:13
#79
Rexdale_Punjabi
exactly u can choose to ignore my sources + my 1st hand knowledge but also the stuff refuge posted then son you just stupidI rate sources from scientific journals far above sources like environmental groups and globalresearch.ca because of their bias and track record on gmos. For the same reason I rank the company monsanto as a poor source. In the case of globalresearch.ca, I have read Smith's book Seeds of Deception and it is one of my favorite books ever. I enjoy reading a statement he makes. Tracing it back to the non-globalresearch source and trying to figure out how he managed it.
As for your 1st hand knowledge. It is anecdotal evidence. I rate it very low.
Very low? Someone who grown up around farmers has relatives n everything of farming and history of it as low? The debt cycle part is very true many farmers bacc home are now addicted to drugs cuz they see no way out of it. That the main reason GMO aint good it has the benefits but the way it controlled must be shattered. The seed aint always the problem it the capitalistic system.
Fist Up
Tue, 2009-03-24 13:43
#80
Very low?
Yes, very low. That is nothing against you, and does not mean that I don't care about your experiences and history. I rate my own experiences very low when it comes to evidence as well, for the simple reason that my own experiences are heavily influenced by my beliefs and opinions. Scientists are also influenced by their beliefs and opinions, but science has a self correcting mechanism where reproducibility is required for evidence to be accepted, and they also isolate what they are studying to remove variables. A farmer can have a bad crop and blame it on the seed instead of the weather or them not taking care of the crops properly etc.
Someone who grown up around farmers has relatives n everything of farming and history of it as low?
Yes, very low. Almost everyone of my relatives are farmers. I have spent most of my life on farms. I respect their knowledge of their land a ton. However, I do not rate their (or my) understanding and positions (which are all over the map) on gmos anywhere near what I rate what is published in scientific journals. Far to many variables and biases.
The debt cycle part is very true many farmers bacc home are now addicted to drugs cuz they see no way out of it. That the main reason GMO aint good it has the benefits but the way it controlled must be shattered. The seed aint always the problem it the capitalistic system.
I largely agree with this statement. Farmer debt in India has been a problem long before gmos were grown there. I believe it started to rise dramatically in 1991 - in large part due to government policy. This was several years before gmo crops, and many years before gmos gained a large share of the crop land. Hopefully, the cancellation of some of that debt last year will help. But, I am sure that it will not help much. I think that it has been very unfortunate that certain groups of people, for their own narrow interests, have tried to shift this from a debt problem to a GMO problem. That does nothing to help the indebted farmers who are heavily in debt whether they grow gmo crops or non-gmo crops.
Tue, 2009-03-24 18:11
#81
Refuge
In the case of RR soya in Argentina the problem is not rotating the crops.
I was refering to your position that third world farmers base their crops on how much profit they make, I did not refer to soya in Argentina to talk about how they don't, I used the cotton crops as an example of how they base their decisions different than yeilds when it comes to GMO crops.
Allergies could occur from hybrid breeding, or even mutation in "conventional" crops. The difference is with GMOs they are actually tested for allergies in animals and humans and discontinued if any are present. .........Allergic reactions caused by proteins in conventional foods: millions. Allergic reactions caused by proteins in gmo food: zero (outside of the skin prick research setting)
There has been little to no independent testing on GMO and allergens. That is why there are no known allergens of GMO. You may trust scientific papers but I trust where they came from and any and all research I have seen has been paid for by the companies themselves, if that is not bias, I don't know what is. I am not against GMO crops (yet) I am against not doing proper testing of GMO crops. Here, here, and here. I can pull out just as many scientic studies on why GMO is bad as you can on why it is not. There needs to be more testing done, independently and over a longer period of time BEFORE it is / has been introduced to the public.
However, as I said above "I know of no case of a patented non-genetically modified plant in which the offspring are patented." .......Both of those cases are gmo crops. Reread what I wrote. What should happen to farmers who sign a contract and then violate that contract?
Ahhh, I did, sorry didn't see the non part. In terms of the second part of the contract if it is not a legal contract they would be allowed to break it. The problem is that Monsanto throws money at litigation so that farmers don't have the money to fight and have to settle and when they do get up they have the lawyers who remind me of the cigarette companies. They are winning now, not because they are necessarily legal but because they have the money to fund them winning and lawyers who could make a strong case against don't have the same funding.
You are knocking golden rice because it only helps poor people receive enough of one of the vitamins they are deficient in? A deficiency that causes the deaths of 1 - 2 million poor people every year, and the blindness of a half million more poor people?
Personally I am against people who throw a bone to make it all look better. If this truely was about making people in third world countries better they would have vastly different ethical policies. The old adage give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime is much more important. I visited a farm where they send people out the third world countries and teach them to farm using no money or next to no money. They provide the seeds for free because of money they make in other areas and also provide the advice for free. They teach people how to grow food in rural areas and urban areas - even on steal rooftops of shacks. This is what needs to happen for the various deficienties to stop a whole centered approach, not well, lets add this vitamin or that vitamin to the rice. Maybe helping people out of poverty or helping them feed themselves properly, with a rich full diet that I would want to eat, by doing some of the initiates instead of sending in a for profit company to go in and trust that Monsanto will be looking out for the little guy.
I support higher yield, flood, drought, fungus, and pest resistant crops allowing more to fed on less land..........If 5 of 11 only have 1 trait, that should mean that 6 of 11 have more than 1 trait. This is an industry that is still in its infancy. It has started out by mainly developing the types of seeds farmers are more likely to buy - hence BT cotton and corn. As the industry and technology develops seeds will be more specified for certain areas, weather patterns, local fungus and pest issues etc. As your article above pointed out, in some years in some countries the potency of the BT was not strong enough. Who wouldn't expect that to happen.
No, in fact 3 of the other 11 have only resistence to bugs, 2 of them only one type of bug, one other one makes tomatoes that last longer, why? So they can stay fresher on the shelf at supermarkets in developed countries, there is no other benefit than salability and one only has vitamin A. So out of 11 plants, 10 of them make them easier to grow by depending on Monsanto or getting rid of mostly specific bugs or make GMO tomatoes more saleable. The myth of world hunger existing simply because of a lack of high yields needs no scientific studies. This IS the environmentalists domain
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/17/5-dangerous-green-myths_n_150239.htmlIn short, hunger and poverty have much more do with lack of access to land, water shortages, lack of access to credit and education, and poor infrastructure (some of which are exacerbated by industrial agriculture) than it does with the poor quality of conventional crops. GM crops may benefit the companies who make them, but that's about it.
I think you misunderstood the cotton article. They had to use more BT than on their previous crops. Not more than they thought they would have to use for these crops. And this on crops that are suppose to use less BT than the previous crops.
For every case of gm crops performing poorer than the non-gm varieties in an area, there are a 100 cases of the opposite.
That specific point of mine was meant to talk about how the farmers pick the crops that they pick and it is not based soley on yields as you had suggested. I don't want to get into a debate on if the GMO are better or worse in terms of growing and I never did comment on that. I was only pointing out that in third world countries the way they pick the crops in not soley based on yields but on other factors that are very complicated and dare I say repressive to the very people it is suppose to help.
If you want to argue that farmers have rejected technological advancement that is fine. I will feel free to laugh at that. ...I am well aware that some farmers oppose GMOs. You find a certain percentage of farmers who reject anything. Bottom line is the number of farmers who grow gmo foods is increasing every year
Your response was to this
The farmers of North America have rejected that position. US farmers are largely on welfare and Canadian farmers can barely make a living. Farmers in most of the rest of the world are fighting this form of slavery.
I say you are talking about big business farming and Frustrated mess is talking about on the ground farmers who aren't big business. Very different viewpoints but you can't say that you will laugh at finding farmers who don't find this progress when so many do, even if you only consider it "some"
If it didn't produce positive results they would stop using those products.
I know I used Bell in the 80's not because I was getting positive results. They are taking a monopoly, something you conceded to yourself, and this is what afffects peoples decisions as well. As much as showing harm or a lack of harm sufficently because of what this monopoly is doing (as evidenced in my posts). And a lack of understanding of how one company owning the patent for 80% of the food in the world would be a bad thing, or how they are involved. A lot of people, including farmers are misinformed or just don't want to know, they go with the newest or the best thing without a true understanding of what it is they are buying into.
Tue, 2009-03-24 18:35
#82
Rexdale_Punjabi
Very low?Yes, very low. That is nothing against you, and does not mean that I don't care about your experiences and history. I rate my own experiences very low when it comes to evidence as well, for the simple reason that my own experiences are heavily influenced by my beliefs and opinions. Scientists are also influenced by their beliefs and opinions, but science has a self correcting mechanism where reproducibility is required for evidence to be accepted, and they also isolate what they are studying to remove variables. A farmer can have a bad crop and blame it on the seed instead of the weather or them not taking care of the crops properly etc.
Someone who grown up around farmers has relatives n everything of farming and history of it as low?Yes, very low. Almost everyone of my relatives are farmers. I have spent most of my life on farms. I respect their knowledge of their land a ton. However, I do not rate their (or my) understanding and positions (which are all over the map) on gmos anywhere near what I rate what is published in scientific journals. Far to many variables and biases.
The debt cycle part is very true many farmers bacc home are now addicted to drugs cuz they see no way out of it. That the main reason GMO aint good it has the benefits but the way it controlled must be shattered. The seed aint always the problem it the capitalistic system.I largely agree with this statement. Farmer debt in India has been a problem long before gmos were grown there. I believe it started to rise dramatically in 1991 - in large part due to government policy. This was several years before gmo crops, and many years before gmos gained a large share of the crop land. Hopefully, the cancellation of some of that debt last year will help. But, I am sure that it will not help much. I think that it has been very unfortunate that certain groups of people, for their own narrow interests, have tried to shift this from a debt problem to a GMO problem. That does nothing to help the indebted farmers who are heavily in debt whether they grow gmo crops or non-gmo crops.
but the GMOS aint helping that the thing about it and like the post after me even explained there more then enough food in the world for everyone the distribution is the problem. So also the primary reason they market GMOs because of the food "shortage" is false, and there are benefits to GMOS but all of them don't mean shit if it means giving up freedom (what little we have) to big companies like monsanto and have them control our food supply. There have been studies and you can google this most of the world's population could comfortably live in a land area the size of australia and a lot of the food today is wasted. almost 1/2 before it gets to market. I've heard that the USA produces 80% of the world's grain but 1/3 almost and increasing is diverted to ethanol. And there is the practice of leaving food in the warehouse and not putting it on market or even burning it to keep prices up. That's forcefully killing ppl and they know it, we know it and that another thing that has to stop. The system is fucced not the farmers they stucc in it like we are and they need help. I dont give a shit about the big agricultural companies but the common farmer who grows food on what little land he has to survive I will fight to the death for. And also the assumption that most farmers know what they buying is false cuz for one most farmers are illiterate or barely literate they have no understanding of how shit works and go with what everyone else is or what they told will make them more money = more then 1 meal a day.
Fist Up
Tue, 2009-03-24 19:25
#83
There is a large amount of ignorance being demonstrated on both sides in this thread.
I simply don’t have time, or the inclination to address them all, but I will try my best.
Firstly, there is some serious bug-shit crazy stuff in the op article. It seriously undermines real concerns around GMOs
Secondly, it is a myth that GMOs have been tested properly and have wide spread scientific acceptance. Independent studies have shown that GM potatoes, bred to have their own insecticide produced pre-cancerous growths in the digestive tracts of rats. Much of the ‘science’ done on GMOs has not been peer reviewed, is done in private studies not available for examination and done by the companies themselves. The old adage he who pays the piper calls the tune applies here.
Farmers whether here in North America, or elsewhere around the world, are often not ‘choosing’ to grow GMOs in the traditional sense of the word. The food industry is massively concentrated and global. The best way to understand it is to think of an hour glass. At the top are the many farmers, at the bottom are the many eaters. In between are the greater and greater concentration of processors, retailers and so on. In the middle is the most constricted area is just a small handful of companies that all but control the worl food system. Those companies offer preferential contracts to those who will grow their products. In some cases if you don’t grow what they ‘suggest’ you can’t sell your crop. Many farmers are left with no real choice but to choose GMOs. The companies don’t have to co-opt everyone, just enough to tip the balance.
Farmers are also given preferential contracts on inputs like insecticides and herbicides if they are willing to use certain products. However, there is no evidence outside the false economy, that soon disappears once farmers are hooked into the system actually creates benefits for farmers. Chemical dependence, used in massive amounts in GMO cropping, in fact creates resistant pests that require more and eventually a whole new line of chemicals to deal with.
All of this leaves out the production of super weeds that are becoming a noxious threat to some multi-million dollar crops. Some of these weeds are in fact GMO crops, like RR Canola growing in places it is not wanted and that burns out other crops. It also leaves out the practice, the large and much used practice of farmers saving their own seeds for re-planting. (Sorry Trevor your contention that this is not a common practice and that farmers do not know how to save the best seed is simply full of it). In fact the Canadian government is working very hard, through the end of KVD and other issues to hand the entire grain wagon over to the large companies. There is also little independent evidence that GMO crops actually produce the benefits they claim.
GMO crops are not about progress, food production or anything other than simple commerce and creating a compliant demand for your products.
Tue, 2009-03-24 19:51
#84
FM. I am not sure of your age, but I am wonder if you remember another practice that was declared safe, encouraged by government, compaines and academics. It was meant to be the height of effeciency and progress. Farmers and others who questioned this practice were told they were out of step with the times, anti-progess and all sorts of other things. It made livestock production much cheaper and oh so modern. Now remember ALL of the science said - good idea boys go at-er.
You see it was all about maximizing protien feeding to livestock, particularly cattle. So what you did was grind up all the left overs from the meat industry, rather than making head cheese or hot dogs I guess. Then you put it into a machine and made littel pellets out of the cattle, sheep and what have you and fed it to cattle, sheep and so on.
This safe, modern process that was good for business, good for consumers, good for farmers, good for the developing world so that they could export more of course was the root cause of the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy more commonly known as BSE. Those of us who said wait, hold on a moment, I am not sure this is a good idea where treated with the same contempt you are responding too.
Tue, 2009-03-24 19:59
#85
Frustrated Mess
Many farmers want to grow seeds that produce higher yields. That are better drought or flood resistant. More resistant to fungus and pests that are a problem in their area. That is why those farmers choose to buy improved seeds instead of saving them. I don't need to ask Percy Schmeiser about it as the court cases make it very clear.
North American farmers whose response to low commodity prices is to grow more ... not international farmers who resist the planting and importing of GMO seeds and the patenting of seeds and plants. Humans have been growing food since the beginning of history and managed to deal with fungus, drought, and other issues without patented GMO seeds. Imagine. Of course, being a believer in the technological silver bullet, I suppose that would be news to you.
If you want to argue that farmers have rejected technological advancement that is fine. I will feel free to laugh at that.
Farmers have and do. You can laugh, but only a fool fails to recognize that technology is energy and resource intensive in a world of growing scarcity. But maybe your magical wizards of science to whom you would sell your soul will save us all or maybe God will.
This case was a little different. Horribly wrong and stupid, for sure.
Blah, blah, blah. So it is a case of non-GMO seed patent, yes or no?
Thanks, but I am not a fan of anti-human corporations
Yeah, sure ...
hence my desire for public funded R&D to put control of agricultural progress in the hands of the people.
That's absolute bullshit. Agriculture has been in the "hands of the people". Farmers for generations have done the research saving seeds over generations and developing plants suited to climate, soil, and pests through selection. What takes - steals - agriculture from people is the very technologies, corporations, regulations and governments you pretend you don't support even as you defend them. You couldn't be more disingenuous.
I support higher yield, flood, drought, fungus, and pest resistant crops allowing more to fed on less land. I also eat as low on food chain as possible.
Bullshit. You support a corporate lie. Much like Golden Rice which is intended to remove from Asians control over their own grains and own lives. If it is an issue of vitamin D deficiency send them the vitamin for free? Why don't they? Can you answer that? I will. Because capitalism and GMOs are not about altruism. They are about profit and exploiting human needs and scarcity.
If Golden Rice is really about caring about the poor, why don't they release the patent and let the poor save the seeds?
I won't hold my breath over another big lie.
More:
A global campaign to stop an “alarming new trend” for patents to be allowed on conventional plants is stepping up its action in advance of an appeal to be considered by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) in Munich.The Enlarged Board of Appeal, the highest appeal body of the EPO, is due to consider appeals against patents granted on conventional broccoli and tomato species and its binding landmark ruling is expected to determine the patentability of conventional seeds in Europe.
The “no patents on seeds” campaign, initiated by Greenpeace, the Norwegian Utviklingsfondet development fund, the Swiss organisations Swissaid and Berne Declaration, the German Kein Patent auf Leben and the Catholic aid organisation Misereor, is already supported by many established environmental, development, farming and organic agriculture organisations from around the world, including Demeter and the Foundation on Future Farming.
The campaign says that the patenting of conventional seeds is in contradiction specifically of the prohibition of patents on “essentially biological processes for the production of plants and animals” contained in the European Patent Convention.
http://www.nna-news.org/news/en/index.cgi/2008/10/13
And more (keep this one in mind when you're told there are lots of alternatives):
Since that time, the seeds sector has dramatically changed its structure. Since the beginning of the 21st century, nearly all large seed companies have been bought up by agrochemical companies. As a result, Monsanto, Syngenta, Dupont, Bayer and BASF have become major players in seeds whilst companies like Pioneer, Seminis and DeKalb kept their names but changed their owners.
Others, especially smaller companies, have disappeared and been integrated completely within agrochemical companies. Up to 2005, the US multinational, Monsanto , had spent about 10 billions US dollars in 10 years to take over companies in the agricultural sector, many of them seeds companies.
Today, around 50% of the global seed market is controlled by only 10 multinational companies ...
As Syngenta's research director David Lawrence described in an article in the German newspaper Die Welt on 29 November 2004, - business had often found conventional methods to be more effective than biotechnology. "We have conducted many genetic engineering experiments for seed materials and plant protection and they have often failed." On the other hand, excellent results had frequently been achieved with the traditional approach to plant growing. The convenient "Pure Heart" water melon was the best example.
Without major public discussion, an increasing number of patents were granted on conventional seeds in parallel to those on genetically modified seeds. Since the conventional plants do not contain foreign genes, the companies try to base their claims on natural occurring compounds such as oil or protein content, or normal genetic conditions, or on specific processes.
Examples of patents granted in this way are maize with a higher oil content (Dupont, EP 744888, granted in 2000) and wheat with special protein content (Monsanto, EP 445929, granted in 2003).
In 2004, these patents were revoked after opposition in Europe, but remained without challenge in the US and other countries such as Australia.
http://www.blauen-institut.ch/tx_blu/tp/tpg/g1551_bkgrd_paper.pdf
Tue, 2009-03-24 20:13
#86
Rexdale_Punjabi
ty Bookish agrarian and FM BG the analogy was great and what I have been trying to say the whole time it fucced up ty
Tue, 2009-03-24 20:24
#87
Frustrated Mess
Have you read The Omnivore's Dilemma, BA? I am most of the way through it. I appreciate it is too late to turn back the clock at a societal level, but my spouse and I make a point of buying all of our food directly from the people who grow it. It means we eat a lot of root, self-canned and/or frozen veggies and meat in winter, but we know what we eat is healthy and good and grown or raised with integrity. And you know what? We eat far better and spend far less than most of our neighbours.
I am often critical of farmers but only because I think they're so damned important to any future we hope to have that is sustainable.
Tue, 2009-03-24 21:16
#88
FM if you like Pollan's book you should check out Raj Patel's Stuffed and Starved. It looks at many of these issues in this thread in a straightforward way that despite Patel's background as an economist is surprisingly a very fun read if you can manage to not get to depressed about the topic.
I keep telling people that you can live cheaper and eat better by skipping the processed food sections of the grocery store. Thankfully more people are starting to follow your lead and I think we will be better off health wise, economic wise and so on as more and more of us do. Personally I would never give up the fun time I have with our family doing things like canning and freezing food. This past week doing maple syrup with them was a great time and yummy work.
Tue, 2009-03-24 21:22
#89
Frustrated Mess
There is nothing more fun than hanging out with friends at a sugar shack. And the reward! Oh, too many Canadians aren't acquainted with the golden treat that flows from the maple tree. And thanks for the tip. I will check out that book.
Tue, 2009-03-24 23:45
#90
I don't have endless time to counter all that has been written here, so I will only answer some:
Refuge - In regards to your three links on GMO allergens, I do not have the time to check the claims - especially as there are no sources. The second link is a piece by Jeffrey Smith who I have a very low opinion of. For instance he writes: "Soon after Monsanto’s genetically engineered soy was imported into the UK, for example, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50 percent." How are you supposed to check and see if that is true? Well as I have seen that claim before from Smith I know where it comes from - an anti-gm newspaper article regarding a release from York Nutritional Laboratory. The spokesperson from the lab replied that article misquotes the information released. Misquoting information is far too common and I encourage everyone to read Smith's book and actually compare his claims to his sources.
but the GMOS aint helping that the thing about it and like the post after me even explained there more then enough food in the world for everyone the distribution is the problem.
I agree that there is enough food in the world and that distribution is a huge problem. However, the world's population is likely to peak at close to 10 billion - there is not enough food for that many people yet. Even still there are other reasons to increase food production - such as reducing the strain of over-fishing. Increasing yield per acreage would also reduce the amount of land needed for agriculture. And we wouldn't need to increase food production if we consumed far less meat - but I don't see that happening. And support for GM doesn't have to be strictly about increasing yield - it may be a benefit to the environment if the crops require less pesticides, are more efficient at converting nutrients into food, or require less or no tilling. I don't say that GM crops are perfect, but I think that the environmental and poverty problems are severe enough that everything should be on the table. And I have yet to see any legitimate argument as to why they shouldn't be used.
Bullshit. You support a corporate lie. Much like Golden Rice which is intended to remove from Asians control over their own grains and own lives. If it is an issue of vitamin D deficiency send them the vitamin for free? Why don't they? Can you answer that? I will. Because capitalism and GMOs are not about altruism. They are about profit and exploiting human needs and scarcity.If Golden Rice is really about caring about the poor, why don't they release the patent and let the poor save the seeds?
I won't hold my breath over another big lie.
Golden rice is under a Humanitarian Use License. As long as a farmer or user of golden rice genetics makes under $10,000 USD a year with it they pay nothing for it. It was designed to benefit small farmers, not large ones. Anyone is permitted to save or reuse the seeds, it is their property.
Blah, blah, blah. So it is a case of non-GMO seed patent, yes or no?
If you would go back and read what I wrote, I never said that non-gmo seeds were not patented.
That's absolute bullshit. Agriculture has been in the "hands of the people". Farmers for generations have done the research saving seeds over generations and developing plants suited to climate, soil, and pests through selection. What takes - steals - agriculture from people is the very technologies, corporations, regulations and governments you pretend you don't support even as you defend them. You couldn't be more disingenuous.
That is a bit rich. First if traditional farmers were so amazing at developing seeds suited to their area then the Green Revolution would not have been needed, or have been such a success. I never said or pretended not to support technologies, regulations and governments. I a supporter of those things.
Firstly, there is some serious bug-shit crazy stuff in the op article. It seriously undermines real concerns around GMOsSecondly, it is a myth that GMOs have been tested properly and have wide spread scientific acceptance. Independent studies have shown that GM potatoes, bred to have their own insecticide produced pre-cancerous growths in the digestive tracts of rats.
I support better testing of GM. I also support testing of non GM food. I support better testing of pharmaceutical drugs. I also support testing of all alternative medicines.
As for GM potatoes, there was one independent study 11 years ago. The results have not been reproduced and to say that both the Lancet (where it was published) and the Royal Society had significant concerns about the methodology and conclusions (which didn't match the data very well) of the experiment would be the understatement of the year.
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Pusztai/Pusztai-Mendel-in-the-Kitchen1.pdf
http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=6170
http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=1791
Wed, 2009-03-25 07:40
#91
Rexdale_Punjabi
Trevor I agree wit ur point about the benefits of increasing the yeild production etc but, the way I meant was a counter to all the muhfuccas who always say o sterilize ppl in 3rd world countries overpopulation n shit. that kind of stuff I know what you mean on that and if you look at what the green revolution really done create a couple major companies that control everything it had a major downside to it. And a lot of the small farmers were forced out of the market due to debt or not being able to compete and also increased machinery resulted in job losses. This a big reason why modern cities are so much bigger then before. And probably the real reason for it cuz the west doesnt give 1/2 a shit if the 3rd world starves was to counter socialist movements cuz they thought technological change would counter the agraian reform set out by socialists. The production needs to be put bacc into the hands of the ppl not the major corporations.
Wed, 2009-03-25 08:48
#92
Nice try trevor, but it is not nearly so cut and dried as you seem to think.
Here is more than anyone would ever want to know about GM potatoes in South Africa as a counter-balance. http://www.cban.ca/content/download/375/2271/file/Hot%20Potato%20book%20South%20Africa.pdf
You are also ignoring the overall point that the testing of GM varieties have been woefully inadequete and that lots, and lots of independent studies have shown bio-diversity loss, including benifical insects, fungus and bacterias, soil degredation and anti-biotic resistance due to the gene insertion technique itself.
If I had a dollar for every 'new' scientific technique thrown at agriculture that later proved to be wrong-headed or dangerous, I would be a wealthy person.
Wed, 2009-03-25 09:08
#93
ElizaQ
Monsanto is a big mean company. No one argues that. I would like to see them split apart. However, as I said above "I know of no case of a patented non-genetically modified plant in which the offspring are patented." Your link gives no reference to an example of this. Not that I agree with the patenting of non-gm plants anyways.
I'm not totally clear on what you mean by a 'where the offspring aren't patented'.
Could you clarify?
I could give you dozens of examples of non-gmo plants where propagation (making babies) is prohibated by law from several of the garden catalogs I've been looking at this am but I'm not exactly sure if that's what you're talking about.
Wed, 2009-03-25 09:08
#94
Refuge
I also say nice try Trevor. My sources were used as reference to show there are questions about the health risks of GMO's. Instead of just stating that you don't believe they are credible to question the health risks of GMOs and leaving it there maybe you should try using references to the sound independent studies on GMO foods, done over a long period of time, that refute these claims of "uncreditable" sources. Links to the extensive independent testing that was done. But you even said yourself that better testing should be done. I guess our disagreement comes down to the fact I think this testing should be done before it is tested on humans.
Wed, 2009-03-25 09:13
#95
Yeah Eliza all kinds of examples including IP contracts for field crops.
Wed, 2009-03-25 09:17
#96
There's a neat section in Gulliver's Travels. It's when he visits the scientists who are trying to make pillows out of stones.
Science is always trying to outsmart nature. Food science, and nutritionism, is especially short-sighted in trying to reform nature to work better with human wants and wishes. Mix in a little capitalism and it's literally a recipe for disaster.
I listened to Perrin Beatty, CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce on Monday. He was in London. He specifically pointed to tearing down agricultural supports around the world as a way to keep the economy running. He didn't mention much about the effects on food and health. It was about business and money, the very same things that drive Syngenta's models for agriculture.
Pollan's books are good. For more of a diet-releted work of his, read In Defense of Food. Also, for an american and social agricultural read, look at Wendell Berry's Unsettling of Amercia.
I actually have trouble eating store bought meat at this point. I can tell by looking at a chicken how it was raised and how it will taste. Grass fed and finished beef is another very clear example of the differences that can be had with a very simple transition in how our meat animals are raised. The spin off benefits for the environment and human health are clear.
Wed, 2009-03-25 09:19
#97
ElizaQ
Yeah Eliza all kinds of examples including IP contracts for field crops.
Yeah the first one that comes to mind that I think most everyone who has ever gone to a grocery store or Canadian Tire has seen would be 'Wave Petunias'. They're patented, registered and trademarked up the yin yang. You just have to read the labels. 
Wed, 2009-03-25 09:31
#98
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
I really don't understand Trevor's game here at all. He is being incredibly disingenuous; picking a line here, a line there to rebut - yet generally ignoring the primary arguments made.
So here's another primary argument that he may want to ignore: genetic contamination of the natural environment. No one has yet touched upon the dangers of cross-fertilization of native grasses and plants by GMO crops. We upset the balance of nature at our own peril.
Wed, 2009-03-25 10:06
#99
ElizaQ
Um no. HYBRID seeds have lower yields, or lower seed production, after a generation for the simple reason that they are designed as hybrids. Like crossbreeding a donkey and horse produces a sterile mule. Farmers know the mule will be sterile but they still sometimes breed for mules because there are some advantages. Hybrid plants may or may not be sterile. If they are not sterile they generally reproduce lower yielding offspring, but the practice of producing hybrid plants is not uncommon because they very often produce first generation plants with very high yields, or other benefits. Farmers buying hybrid seeds understand what they are buying. Hybrid plants are the result of plant breeders breeding two plants together. It is not a new technique - in fact tangelo has been bred for about 3500 years. Wheat is a hybrid - one that probably occured naturally, and several plants and flowers either are natural hybrids are often form natural hybrids. It has zero, zip, nothing to do with GMOs.
Yes hybrids are different then GMOs. I have to comment though on the absolute statement that second generations hybrids have lower yields and lower seed production. In some cases yes but not absolute. If you save seed from a hybrid plant you will likely get an inferior plant to the specific initial goals of the hybrid but not necessarily an inferior plant overall. It's just different. Some hybrids might remain 'true' but more often then not you'll get something close if not the exactly one of the plants that initially was used to form the hybrid.
I see this in my tomato plants and in my grandmothers old rose garden. Two years ago I save the seed from a hybrid tomato. The hybrid was a larger cherry size with a very tomatoy but sweet taste. Last year the seed from that hybrid plant produced one plant where the tomato was quite a bit smaller and tasted like sugar and another plant where the tomato was quite a bit bigger, a table slicing size with the taste very acidic and tomatoy and not sweet at all. In comparison to the original hybrid which I planted again the smaller offspring was oodles more prolific in terms of yield and the bigger offspring much the same. It's not to difficult to see what the original hybrid was breed for. In this case for taste combination and yield. None of the offspring I would in any way say were inferior, they were just different then the original.
It's not absolute.
My Mom had a super bizarre thing happen when she replanted a hyrbid seed. The same plant grew two very different tomatoes, different colors and different in the way they grew on the plant. The experts she took this too are still trying to figure that one out because in all their knowledge of tomato biology that really shouldn't have happened. One guy was so astounded that he actually drove 3 hours to see it because he thought she was making it up. I think there's a good lesson in that, nature does do weird and unpredictable stuff sometimes that even experts don't understand.
In my grandmothers old rose garden that was left derilect for years the roses are still prolific and great, many now just grow different flowers on the same bush as the root stocks which the hyrbids were grafted onto have reverted back to the original plant. It's pretty cool actually.
Wed, 2009-03-25 14:53
#100
I really don't understand Trevor's game here at all. He is being incredibly disingenuous; picking a line here, a line there to rebut - yet generally ignoring the primary arguments made.
So here's another primary argument that he may want to ignore: genetic contamination of the natural environment. No one has yet touched upon the dangers of cross-fertilization of native grasses and plants by GMO crops. We upset the balance of nature at our own peril.
LTJ, there are risks of cross-fertilization with GMO to native grasses and plants. There are regulations to try to minimize those risks. I am not saying that those regulations are good enough. Maybe they are maybe they are not. Scientists are also moving forward with many different methods to eliminate that risk. Things like growing sterile varieties of the plants, modifying the plants to stop the foreign genes from appearing in the pollen, or fluorescent markers to identify stray seeds, among others.
However, there are also risks of cross fertilization from non-gmo plants to native grasses and plants. And there have been, of course, many cases of this especially as plants are transplanted from one area of the world to another. And cross fertilization occurs in nature.
But, of course, this isn't really about cross-fertilization. If changes were made tomorrow so that the chances of cross fertilization from GMOs was gone, people who say they are against GMOs because of cross fertilization fears wouldn't change their minds. They would just find another excuse. Those people who say that they are against GMOs because of cross fertilization fears don't have the same concern about cross fertilization from plants like wave petunias coming from Japan. Those people who say that they are against GMOs because of cross-fertilization don't demand regulations to decreases the risk of cross fertilization from non-gmos for the simple reason that they are only using cross fertilization as an excuse for their anti-gmo position. In fact if the GMO crops tomorrow had removed the risk of cross fertilization they would then start screaming that seeing as cross fertilization occurs naturally, that it is dangerous that GMO crops can't. That, LTJ is being incredibly disingenuous.
Wed, 2009-03-25 14:56
#101
I have been having a hard time getting these posts to show. I typed up a long response, posted it and nothing was available. So I typed up another shorter response and it didn't show up. My only guess is that the post was too long as it appears when it is split up.
Yeah the first one that comes to mind that I think most everyone who has ever gone to a grocery store or Canadian Tire has seen would be 'Wave Petunias'. They're patented, registered and trademarked up the yin yang. You just have to read the labels.
I did the google search "wave petunias patent" and found links saying that wave petunias are trademarked, not patented.
http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/go/51500/
http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/go/54864/
Other gardening links said that you can save the seeds, but can not sell them as "wave petunias" because they are hybrids and they do not breed as true wave petunias. It is very possible that the seeds of patented non-gmo plants are patented. I said I know of no case of that. If I am made aware of a case I will certainly accept it, but I have not been given a link where it is the case.
I also say nice try Trevor. My sources were used as reference to show there are questions about the health risks of GMO's. Instead of just stating that you don't believe they are credible to question the health risks of GMOs and leaving it there maybe you should try using references to the sound independent studies on GMO foods, done over a long period of time, that refute these claims of "uncreditable" sources. Links to the extensive independent testing that was done. But you even said yourself that better testing should be done. I guess our disagreement comes down to the fact I think this testing should be done before it is tested on humans.
I have the same position on GMOs in the same as the major scientific societies such as the AAAS and Royal Society (both independent bodies, made up of some of the US' and UK's most highly respected scientific experts.), the most prestigous science journals including Science and Nature, and bodies such as the WHO. The position of the Royal Society is "that there is no reason to doubt the safety of foods made from GM ingredients that are currently available, nor to believe that genetic modification makes foods inherently less safe than their conventional counterparts." The others hold almost identical positions based on all of the available evidence. And yes, like myself, all of them have called for better testing on GMO (and non-gmo) food.
You are also ignoring the overall point that the testing of GM varieties have been woefully inadequete
It is up to individual countries to regulate the testing required. I have said repeatedly that I support better testing of both gm and non gm food. I am also aware that no amount of testing would satisfy those who oppose GM products. In fact most anti-gmo organizations who are saying that the testing is inadequate also oppose and try to block gmo testing, field trials etc.
and that lots, and lots of independent studies have shown bio-diversity loss, including benifical insects, fungus and bacterias, soil degredation and anti-biotic resistance due to the gene insertion technique itself.
Well I guess we now know when bio-diversity loss, including benifical insects, fungus and bacterias, soil degredation and anti-biotic resistance started. With the introduction of GMOs. We don't oppose all organic farming because of the practices of a couple very large organic companies. Much of non gm farming leads to bio-diversity loss including beneficial insects, fungus and bacterias, soil degredation, and antibiotic resistance. If this was really about " bio-diversity loss, including benifical insects, fungus and bacterias, soil degredation and anti-biotic resistance" then people would argue for ensuring that gmo products that are approved don't have those side effects. And approve of those GMOs that do not have those side effects. But they don't argue for that, because they are actually simply against all gmo no matter what the positive or negative consequences.
As for your claim that "anti-biotic resistance due to the gene insertion technique itself." I would love to see the evidence for such a claim.