Monstano's modified wheat popped up in a field in Oregon....

[dhawk69]

Clone me a pig that is 40%+ bacon, I'll buy a herd. Same goes for a chicken with 6 or more legs.

I'll have to pass on that one. I'm all set with the Chernobyl livestock lol!

 

[Nicole]

So, if I nuked my garden with Round-up and one of the plants managed to survive for ANY reason, and I propagated it, Monsanto could sue me for patent infringement? ...and here, I thought I was just trying to improve my plants genetic lineage, much like we used to do to make plants resistant to pests. Monsanto can get bent; I don't want their product and I don't want their license, if they want to protect their patent(patenting DNA... what HAS this world come to?), then they have to ensure that their seed cannot cross-pollinate into neighboring fields. It is not the job of the neighbors to ensure your shit doesn't leave your field, that is your job; ESPECIALLY if you have something in your field that is worth a lot of money and has a tendency to spread on it's own.

Edit: Missed that there was a second page... if Bowman was doing the whole grain elevator thing, I suppose I can see where the patent thing comes from; my issue is that the scenario I painted above is not exactly far off the mark. If I bought a bag of soybean seed and planted them, Monsanto could conceivably come after me for patent infringement because my crop could contain their modified stuff. Thanks to the law that protects them from having to label their product, how would I know if that bag had GMO seed?

Your edits gets you closer to the truth.

Monsanto does NOT have rights to "any plant that is resistant to RoundUp." What they have rights to is "any plant with this very specific DNA sequence that does not occur in the plant in nature." If you start with seed that is not Monsanto seed, you just aren't going to end up creating something that violates their patent unless you know how to genetically engineer the things. If you decide to just select the non-Monsanto plants, or even if you mutate them and then select them, you aren't going to get something that violates the patents in question.

If you bought a bag of soybean seed, and unbeknownst to you, it had some Monsanto seed in it, and you selected and truly believed that you had created a brand new line of plants that are resistant to RoundUp, when in reality, you just selected for Monsanto's seed, then yes. You are violating the patent. But going back to my CT example from above - if you have never even heard of CrimsonTrace, and one day, after watching Austin Powers, you say - you know what, it would totally rock if my gun had a freaking laser beam on it - and you run out to the garage and make one....if it matches the description of what CT has claimed in their patent, you have infringed their patent too, despite the fact that you've never in your life even seen a CT grip.

Deep breath. The whole idea of a patent is that in return for coming up with a new and useful idea and telling everyone else in excruciating detail exactly how to make your thing, we will let you have the exclusive right to make, use, and sell it - for a limited period of time. If other people can just copy your thing, or claim that they thought it up independently and make, use and sell it, then your patent isn't worth anything and you would have been better off keeping it a secret and not telling anyone how to do it.

Now, the police don't come and throw you in jail for violating a patent. The owner of the patent has to sue you. So Monsanto (or CT) finds out that you have made and are using their invention (with or without intent). They are going to send you a letter and say "knock it off, that's mine." Because a letter is much much much cheaper than suing you. Once you know that you are violating their patent, you negotiate a license or stop violating. If you don't believe you are violating and keep right on doing what you are doing, then you are likely to end up in court.

 

[Nicole]

Next, if not already, it's going to be patents on genetically mutated cloned cattle and other farm animals. Tastey viddles...

Plant patents have been legal since 1930 - waaaay before genetic engineering. Patenting of genetically modified non-human life forms was ruled to be legal by the USC back in 1980 if I am remembering the date correctly. You are a few decades late to the party.

 

[dhawk69]

Plant patents have been legal since 1930 - waaaay before genetic engineering. Patenting of genetically modified non-human life forms was ruled to be legal by the USC back in 1980 if I am remembering the date correctly. You are a few decades late to the party.

I was talking more about the cloning aspect...

 

[Nicole]

I was talking more about the cloning aspect...

Well, asexually reproducing plants are clones. And making a transgenic organism generally involves cloning if you want the trait to carry to the offspring.

 

[Hiltonizer]

What? That's not quite what happened with Farmer Bowman. From the USC opinion:

Not familiar with that one, was referring to Schmeiser.

 

[dhawk69]

Well, asexually reproducing plants are clones. And making a transgenic organism generally involves cloning if you want the trait to carry to the offspring.

Sounds like someone knows what she's talking about. This is one subject I'll have to bow out on... I get what you're saying about the plants, but I was really talking about the cloned animals side. I wasn't clear... I just want the mad scientists and the govt to stay away from my food.

 

[SMASHING MACHINE]

MONSANTO is an abomination.

 

[Nicole]

MONSANTO is an abomination.

Thank you, that was an awesome contribution to the reasoned discourse.

Hiltonizer - I will be back to discuss Schmeiser when I am on a proper keyboard.

 

[Hiltonizer]

Thank you, that was an awesome contribution to the reasoned discourse.

Hiltonizer - I will be back to discuss Schmeiser when I am on a proper keyboard.

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree, it was a 5:4 decision. A single judge is the differentiation on who's legally right (you, admittedly) in this case. That's what's really concerning more than Monsanto itself... courts. Icky.

 

[Silverguns6]

IMO, no one has the sole rights to patent or copyright seeds unless they invented the first seeds. Monstano enhanced the "normal" seeds therfor his corp. would have to patent the process they used to create the "better" seeds. The fact that Monsato went around suing those who used his product is just pathetic and IMO he/they did so to eliminate any/all competiton. In regards to the Crimison Trace grip remark, unless your product was also named Crimson Trace, then from what I understand it is 100% legal to design a similar product although you would not be able to be granted a patent on it if it 100% replicates the already existing/developed Crimson Trace. I have made custom grips for my Ruger P94 and Beretta 92F. They are identical to Houge rubberized grips but I don't make them using the same process as Houge does. If I decide to sell them on eBay under my gunshop's name(when I open it) and say, "these are like Houge grips but made in my shop using my own process" I should be 100% in the clear and not violating the patent and rights of Houge.
My uncle is an attorney whos partner specializes in Patent and Copyright law, he currently is reviewing a product idea of mine to see if it already exists. If it does not, I will submit my info and whatnot to the Patent Office and begin full development. What I designed is just a design variation of a product which has been around for years.
I am sure we all watch TV and see those infomercials. asseenontv.com has a bunch of new innovations OF already developed and patented items. Like that new slinky garden hose thing, the garden hose has been around for years but last year(or so) someone had an idea on how to make a better garden hose.

My issue with Monsanto is I oppose corporate greed and market dominance. I am "The little guy" so was my father, his father and several other family members. So many have been screwed over by corporations like Monsanto for no reason other than the small store stands in the way of the big store. They are money hungry SOBs with their political influences and deep wallets. My dad is a Pharmacist, owned a pharmacy in Milford CT from the early 1970s-2008. He retired after watching several other established "mom/pop" businessess close down while big chain stores like Walgreens, Costco, Walmart and CVS moved into town. His father was put out of business by Autozone and Advanced Auto Parts. Both my dad and his dad had dozens of employees and thousands of customers.

Things like the Pigford scandal really piss me off as well. I didn't know about the Pigford ordeal until 2011 and I have yet to achieve a similar migrane over Monsanto althought I probably wont even give it 5secs of my time.

-Dave

 

[Kevin_NH]

Patent != Copyright != Trademark

In regards to the Crimison Trace grip remark, unless your product was also named Crimson Trace, then from what I understand it is 100% legal to design a similar product although you would not be able to be granted a patent on it if it 100% replicates the already existing/developed Crimson Trace.

Sorry, but no, that's not how patents work.

Nobody is arguing that Monsanto Corp isn't greedy. They can be greedy and anti-competitive, and still legally correct.

 

[Nicole]

Sounds like someone knows what she's talking about. This is one subject I'll have to bow out on... I get what you're saying about the plants, but I was really talking about the cloned animals side. I wasn't clear... I just want the mad scientists and the govt to stay away from my food.

You first.

Point the first - I completely support people's right to choose what foods they do and do not want to eat. Whether it's GMO, hybrid, heirloom, organic, fair trade, free-range, ethical, low-impact, HFCS, made in the US, made in China, harvested in the US, vegan, vegetarian, blah blah blah, I support the IDEA of such labeling so that people could make informed decisions about what they put in their bodies. I think a lot of those choices aren't necessarily based in fact or particularly logical, but I COMPLETELY support your right to make your own choice, even if you make it because the Flying Spaghetti Monster told you to do it.

Logical Nicole points out that you CAN eat GMO-free right now, by eating "organic," having your own garden, and/or sourcing from farmer's markets and local food producers.

Libertarian Nicole says that if all the people who supposedly hate GMOs would stop buying things that don't specifically exclude the possibility of GMOs on their labeling, then perhaps the market forces would lead to more labeling and/or less GMOs. Or not, in which case, those who wish to avoid them can pay the premium price instead of forcing that cost upon others by dint of more government regulations.

Cynical Nicole notes that most people think such libertarian ideas are great right up to the moment it means their grocery bill is higher or they are inconvenienced by not being able to one-stop-shop. Then they want to force other people to do things they way they want to make life more convenient for themselves.

Point the second:

I just want the mad scientists and the govt to stay away from my food.

Roger that. And you are REALLY late to the party on that one. My connection at the moment is rather slow, but google "teosinte corn" and go look. Teosinte is the wild plant which corn comes from. The dramatic transformation from teosinte to corn was accomplished long ago - the mad scientists have always been among us, they aren't a modern phenomenon.

Polysomy: In the process of domesticating a lot of the crops, we ended up picking out the mutants that had extra copies of the genome in every cell. Many of your crops have 2, 4, 8 or more copies of their ENTIRE genomes...yet you probably munch happily upon your strawberries and bananas and have never considered this fact.

Ever consider how screwed up a seedless grape is?

Do you eat tomatoes? Corn? Potatoes? Those are New World crops. Humans did not evolve to eat those things, and when tomatoes and potatoes were brought to Europe, the governments and elites generally had to force people to grow and eat them, because the peasants recognized them as relatives of the nightshades and were none too keen on eating them.

Do you happily eat non-GMO wheat, corn, etc? Most of the commercial crops that aren't GMOs are hybrids. The two technologies aren't the same, but hybrids are exactly the sort of things that are cooked up by "mad scientists."

Do you eat apples? Drink wine? Most of those crops have had problems with various diseases, and the mad scientists of yore figured out years ago that if you stuck a branch from a very tasty type of apple or grape onto a resistant, but not so tasty apple or grape plant, that you'd end up with a chimera that made tasty food on that grafted branch AND was resistant to the diseases! How's that for Frankenfood?

The fact that we have domesticated crops at all is the work of some of the earliest mad scientists.

If you want to draw a line in the sand of "this far and no further" or you feel that GMO moved too far too fast and is making guinea pigs of us, then by all means, do so. But don't pretend that the organic corn you buy at the farmer's market is "natural" or free of the meddling of the mad scientists. You're just refusing to be an early adopter / beta-tester.

 

[Nicole]

Not familiar with that one, was referring to Schmeiser.

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree, it was a 5:4 decision. A single judge is the differentiation on who's legally right (you, admittedly) in this case. That's what's really concerning more than Monsanto itself... courts. Icky.

Ah yes, well the Courts are certainly a travesty of their own.

My beef in this isn't what is "right", but what I perceive as the mischaracterization of anything to do with Monsanto. There is a population of people out there who just plain hate the company, and as far as they are concerned, anything Monsanto does is evil. Monsanto is a corporate entity - I don't trust any of them. But I still like my facts.

Which brings us to Schmeiser.

First Schmeiser was in Canada, the land of the national gun registry and national healthcare, so yeah. I get about as torqued up about Canadian lawsuits as I do when some company gets caught offering a bribe to get a contract in the Third World.

But on to the facts. Schmeiser had canola fields, and he did routinely save his seeds and replant them for many years. In the mid-1990s, some of Schmeiser's neighbors started planting RoundUp Ready canola.

Now, according to Schmeiser, one year, he sprayed RoundUp on the edge of a field to keep the weeds down. And he noticed that some of the canola plants at the edge did not die. So he sprayed a couple of acres of that field with Roundup and over the half the plants lived. So he saved the seeds from those plants, separately from his other seed, and used it to plant something like 9 fields the next year.

Back to established facts: Well, Monsanto found out and told him he had their invention and to knock it off or pay them a licensing fee for every acre he planted with resistant seeds. Schmeiser said he wasn't going to pay, that those were his seeds because he had harvested them. At which point Monsanto whistled up a bunch of lawyers.

Now, throughout the court proceedings, samples of the seeds Schmeiser had saved were tested by various persons. They were confirmed to contain the DNA Monsanto had patented (that is, they were most definitely Monsanto's invention) and most of the testing indicated that something on the order of 90% of the plants in Schmeiser's fields were Monsanto plants. A few tests claimed less than that (like 68%), but I haven't seen anything below 50%.

The Canadian Supreme Court pointed out that "accidental contamination" is HIGHLY unlikely to result in that level of "contamination." It screams of selection practices. The Court all but accused Schmeiser of having "contaminated" his own fields or having engaged in additional selection he didn't admit to. Go read the decision.

Schmeiser wasn't just saving seed traditionally, he was, by his own admission, selecting for resistant plants (and by his own numbers, he found far too many to seriously think he'd discovered a natural mutation), and then saving those seeds separately from other seeds to plant them.

You may think Monsanto isn't in the right, but poor little Schmeiser didn't exactly get blind-sided here.

 

[Nicole]

IMO, no one has the sole rights to patent or copyright seeds unless they invented the first seeds.

As Kevin points out, you fail to understand how patents operate. To simplify quite a bit - I can patent things if they are new and nonobvious. If I invent a new doorknob that is different from existing doorknobs, I can have a patent, even though doorknobs were previously in existence as long as my doorknob is not an obvious variant. For example, a doorknob made by 3D printing would be obvious, because we all knew about doorknobs and 3D printing, and it would be obvious that I could print a doorknob as easily as I could print any other simple object.

Monsanto came up with DNA sequences and plants with those sequences that did not exist previously. The Patent Office thought that those sequences were not obvious variations of what already existed, so a patent was granted.

The fact that Monsato went around suing those who used his product is just pathetic and IMO he/they did so to eliminate any/all competiton.

That is the entire point of a patent. It is a temporary monopoly. Our society says (per the Constitution), that if you do the awesome thing of inventing something useful, then we will let you have a temporary monopoly on it so that you can make money off of your idea & work and the rest of us get the benefit of having the product available and knowing about it so that the next inventor can come up with something even better.

In regards to the Crimison Trace grip remark, unless your product was also named Crimson Trace, then from what I understand it is 100% legal to design a similar product although you would not be able to be granted a patent on it if it 100% replicates the already existing/developed Crimson Trace.

Nope, that's trademark. I can't look up the CT patents right now, but they probably say something like:

We claim a firearm grip incorporating a laser which is activated by the pressure of the shooter's hand on the grip and can be aligned such that the laser indicates the point of impact of the firearm at at least one distance from the muzzle. If you make that you have violated their patent. If you could copy it and just leave off the CT logo, then what would be the point of the patent? 6 weeks after CT brought it to market, someone would knock it off and sell it cheaper because they didn't spend time and money figuring the idea out and making it work.

I should be 100% in the clear and not violating the patent and rights of Houge.

Depends entirely upon what Hogue patented and when. Without looking at the patent, we couldn't possibly know.

My uncle is an attorney whos partner specializes in Patent and Copyright law, he currently is reviewing a product idea of mine to see if it already exists. If it does not, I will submit my info and whatnot to the Patent Office and begin full development. What I designed is just a design variation of a product which has been around for years.

I wish you luck. Design or utility patent? Do you know the difference?

My issue with Monsanto is I oppose corporate greed and market dominance. I am "The little guy" so was my father, his father and several other family members. So many have been screwed over by corporations like Monsanto for no reason other than the small store stands in the way of the big store. They are money hungry SOBs with their political influences and deep wallets. My dad is a Pharmacist, owned a pharmacy in Milford CT from the early 1970s-2008. He retired after watching several other established "mom/pop" businessess close down while big chain stores like Walgreens, Costco, Walmart and CVS moved into town. His father was put out of business by Autozone and Advanced Auto Parts. Both my dad and his dad had dozens of employees and thousands of customers.

My condolences on the death of a dream and avocation.

 

[dhawk69]

You first.

Point the first - I completely support people's right to choose what foods they do and do not want to eat. Whether it's GMO, hybrid, heirloom, organic, fair trade, free-range, ethical, low-impact, HFCS, made in the US, made in China, harvested in the US, vegan, vegetarian, blah blah blah, I support the IDEA of such labeling so that people could make informed decisions about what they put in their bodies. I think a lot of those choices aren't necessarily based in fact or particularly logical, but I COMPLETELY support your right to make your own choice, even if you make it because the Flying Spaghetti Monster told you to do it.

Logical Nicole points out that you CAN eat GMO-free right now, by eating "organic," having your own garden, and/or sourcing from farmer's markets and local food producers.

Libertarian Nicole says that if all the people who supposedly hate GMOs would stop buying things that don't specifically exclude the possibility of GMOs on their labeling, then perhaps the market forces would lead to more labeling and/or less GMOs. Or not, in which case, those who wish to avoid them can pay the premium price instead of forcing that cost upon others by dint of more government regulations.

Cynical Nicole notes that most people think such libertarian ideas are great right up to the moment it means their grocery bill is higher or they are inconvenienced by not being able to one-stop-shop. Then they want to force other people to do things they way they want to make life more convenient for themselves.

Point the second:


Roger that. And you are REALLY late to the party on that one. My connection at the moment is rather slow, but google "teosinte corn" and go look. Teosinte is the wild plant which corn comes from. The dramatic transformation from teosinte to corn was accomplished long ago - the mad scientists have always been among us, they aren't a modern phenomenon.

Polysomy: In the process of domesticating a lot of the crops, we ended up picking out the mutants that had extra copies of the genome in every cell. Many of your crops have 2, 4, 8 or more copies of their ENTIRE genomes...yet you probably munch happily upon your strawberries and bananas and have never considered this fact.

Ever consider how screwed up a seedless grape is?

Do you eat tomatoes? Corn? Potatoes? Those are New World crops. Humans did not evolve to eat those things, and when tomatoes and potatoes were brought to Europe, the governments and elites generally had to force people to grow and eat them, because the peasants recognized them as relatives of the nightshades and were none too keen on eating them.

Do you happily eat non-GMO wheat, corn, etc? Most of the commercial crops that aren't GMOs are hybrids. The two technologies aren't the same, but hybrids are exactly the sort of things that are cooked up by "mad scientists."

Do you eat apples? Drink wine? Most of those crops have had problems with various diseases, and the mad scientists of yore figured out years ago that if you stuck a branch from a very tasty type of apple or grape onto a resistant, but not so tasty apple or grape plant, that you'd end up with a chimera that made tasty food on that grafted branch AND was resistant to the diseases! How's that for Frankenfood?

The fact that we have domesticated crops at all is the work of some of the earliest mad scientists.

If you want to draw a line in the sand of "this far and no further" or you feel that GMO moved too far too fast and is making guinea pigs of us, then by all means, do so. But don't pretend that the organic corn you buy at the farmer's market is "natural" or free of the meddling of the mad scientists. You're just refusing to be an early adopter / beta-tester.

You and my wife would have a great conversation I'm sure. She is really the one that is driving all our food choices and I fully support her. So does my paycheck... I know enough to be dangerous about the subject lol, but everytime I debate her on something new that she comes to me with, she shows me the "proof" and where it came from. She's very thorough like you ;-) Do I complain about it every time she goes food shopping and I see the price she just paid for milk or eggs etc? You bet. She bought raw milk from a farm in Framingham the other day and I almost passed out at the price! We're not making that one a regular occurance lol... In the end I believe she's right. Every once in a while I have to stop her and explain that I can't process any more information re: the food industry. It gets overwhelming, but it's her passion and what she researches alot. Some might say we're crunchy granolas for that. They couldn't be any more wrong. If you knew us, you'd understand. We love beer, Harleys and guns. Almost sounds a little red neck lol!
I grew up on meat and potatoes. My children are growing up on meat and potatoes. When I talk to my parents who are extremely frugal (I mean extremely), they always come back to "you grew up on that and look at you! We bought the cheap hamburg, why can't you?" Using me as a comparison for "normal and healthy" makes me laugh every time even though I am very healthy. The food they were buying in the 60s and 70s is far different than what you find in the main stream now.
There are no lines drawn in the sand from me except for the one where I say stay away from the foods my family and I want to buy and grow. If someone wants to buy the "pink slime" meats and other main stream foods, go for it! It's their choice and none of my business. Eating healthy is a pain in the ass and expensive! Like you said, the prices would come down if the masses didn't want McDonald's type food. In the end, I like science. There is a place for it. I think they've just gone way too far. My wife takes organic to another level. She doesn't look at something and believe it's organic just because it has a label. She goes as far back to the source as possible to see where it came from and how it was grown or what it was fed. I really give her credit. It's a lot of work. "Guns and butter". I'm guns, she's butter lol. She supports my gun habit, so the least I can do is support her!

 

[Nicole]

You and my wife would have a great conversation I'm sure. She is really the one that is driving all our food choices and I fully support her. So does my paycheck... I know enough to be dangerous about the subject lol, but everytime I debate her on something new that she comes to me with, she shows me the "proof" and where it came from. She's very thorough like you ;-) Do I complain about it every time she goes food shopping and I see the price she just paid for milk or eggs etc? You bet. She bought raw milk from a farm in Framingham the other day and I almost passed out at the price! We're not making that one a regular occurance lol... In the end I believe she's right. Every once in a while I have to stop her and explain that I can't process any more information re: the food industry. It gets overwhelming, but it's her passion and what she researches alot. Some might say we're crunchy granolas for that. They couldn't be any more wrong. If you knew us, you'd understand. We love beer, Harleys and guns. Almost sounds a little red neck lol!
I grew up on meat and potatoes. My children are growing up on meat and potatoes. When I talk to my parents who are extremely frugal (I mean extremely), they always come back to "you grew up on that and look at you! We bought the cheap hamburg, why can't you?" Using me as a comparison for "normal and healthy" makes me laugh every time even though I am very healthy. The food they were buying in the 60s and 70s is far different than what you find in the main stream now.
There are no lines drawn in the sand from me except for the one where I say stay away from the foods my family and I want to buy and grow. If someone wants to buy the "pink slime" meats and other main stream foods, go for it! It's their choice and none of my business. Eating healthy is a pain in the ass and expensive! Like you said, the prices would come down if the masses didn't want McDonald's type food. In the end, I like science. There is a place for it. I think they've just gone way too far. My wife takes organic to another level. She doesn't look at something and believe it's organic just because it has a label. She goes as far back to the source as possible to see where it came from and how it was grown or what it was fed. I really give her credit. It's a lot of work. "Guns and butter". I'm guns, she's butter lol. She supports my gun habit, so the least I can do is support her!

She sounds awesome. Kudos to her for putting in that level of work. We have our own preferences for food re: ethics, sources, ingredients and it is a long hard slog to work towards a personal ideal. I agree that the modern world doesn't facilitate a lot of thoughtful food choices, in a number of ways. Keep hoping for the winning lotto ticket so we have the time and money!

 

[Scarecrow]

You and my wife would have a great conversation I'm sure. She is really the one that is driving all our food choices and I fully support her. So does my paycheck... I know enough to be dangerous about the subject lol, but everytime I debate her on something new that she comes to me with, she shows me the "proof" and where it came from. She's very thorough like you ;-) Do I complain about it every time she goes food shopping and I see the price she just paid for milk or eggs etc? You bet. She bought raw milk from a farm in Framingham the other day and I almost passed out at the price! We're not making that one a regular occurance lol... In the end I believe she's right. Every once in a while I have to stop her and explain that I can't process any more information re: the food industry. It gets overwhelming, but it's her passion and what she researches alot. Some might say we're crunchy granolas for that. They couldn't be any more wrong. If you knew us, you'd understand. We love beer, Harleys and guns. Almost sounds a little red neck lol!
I grew up on meat and potatoes. My children are growing up on meat and potatoes. When I talk to my parents who are extremely frugal (I mean extremely), they always come back to "you grew up on that and look at you! We bought the cheap hamburg, why can't you?" Using me as a comparison for "normal and healthy" makes me laugh every time even though I am very healthy. The food they were buying in the 60s and 70s is far different than what you find in the main stream now.
There are no lines drawn in the sand from me except for the one where I say stay away from the foods my family and I want to buy and grow. If someone wants to buy the "pink slime" meats and other main stream foods, go for it! It's their choice and none of my business. Eating healthy is a pain in the ass and expensive! Like you said, the prices would come down if the masses didn't want McDonald's type food. In the end, I like science. There is a place for it. I think they've just gone way too far. My wife takes organic to another level. She doesn't look at something and believe it's organic just because it has a label. She goes as far back to the source as possible to see where it came from and how it was grown or what it was fed. I really give her credit. It's a lot of work. "Guns and butter". I'm guns, she's butter lol. She supports my gun habit, so the least I can do is support her!

We go to the store, we buy the food, we bring it home and cook it and eat it. Worrying about what is in my food is not something I spend my time on. Granted, we buy mostly fresh stuff, but I seriously couldn't care less if my chicken was free-range, or kept in a shoebox that was regularly loaded into a paint shaker, so long as the stuff cooks up right. I would avoid GMO's and the like out of principal, but I'm not going to pay double because someone slapped a label on their product that claims it is organic. Wanna make sure your vegetables are free of pesticides? Wash the damned things before you eat them. Better yet, grow them yourself; the taste of a strawberry fresh from the plant is better than anything you'll buy in a store, and the same goes for corn and carrots, I can say that from experience. Beef/chicken/pork is the same way, fresh killed is soooo much tastier than the stuff in the store.


EDIT: I am not saying my thoughts are right or wrong, I am saying they are right FOR ME. Make your own decisions and then stick to them until something comes along that makes you reevaluate your position.

 

[dhawk69]

She sounds awesome. Kudos to her for putting in that level of work. We have our own preferences for food re: ethics, sources, ingredients and it is a long hard slog to work towards a personal ideal. I agree that the modern world doesn't facilitate a lot of thoughtful food choices, in a number of ways. Keep hoping for the winning lotto ticket so we have the time and money!

She is and I'll keep my eyes open for that ticket!

We go to the store, we buy the food, we bring it home and cook it and eat it. Worrying about what is in my food is not something I spend my time on. Granted, we buy mostly fresh stuff, but I seriously couldn't care less if my chicken was free-range, or kept in a shoebox that was regularly loaded into a paint shaker, so long as the stuff cooks up right. I would avoid GMO's and the like out of principal, but I'm not going to pay double because someone slapped a label on their product that claims it is organic. Wanna make sure your vegetables are free of pesticides? Wash the damned things before you eat them. Better yet, grow them yourself; the taste of a strawberry fresh from the plant is better than anything you'll buy in a store, and the same goes for corn and carrots, I can say that from experience. Beef/chicken/pork is the same way, fresh killed is soooo much tastier than the stuff in the store.


EDIT: I am not saying my thoughts are right or wrong, I am saying they are right FOR ME. Make your own decisions and then stick to them until something comes along that makes you reevaluate your position.

You are the mainstream consumer. I get it. You know how many chow halls I ate at in the Corps? Talk about bargain basement ingredients. MREs were real healthy lol... I lived with it and didn't think twice about it. A good portion of society thinks just like you. I support you completely in your decision to buy what you want. It's all good... I just hope you keep your eyes and mind open. Certain things are expensive, but it's actually kind of funny, a majority of what we buy offsets the cost of the expensive things. I would put money on it that our food bill is a lot less than most peoples. It just takes a little more time to go food shopping. We eat out pretty routinely. We're not ridiculous with it, we just do the best we can.

 

[wacky_doug]

Nicole is spot-on explaining how patents work.

And, I think the patent system is beyond repair. I work in engineering, mostly software with some hardware thrown in. If you start a software company, be prepared to get sued by someone claiming to have already invented what you're trying to do. Patent trolling in my industry makes ambulance chasers look like choir boys.

[/threadjack]

 

[Mattyweb]

Nicole et al. thank you for this discussion and all the great info. One of the things that has always interested me in the Monsanto discussion is from the point of view of those that specifically do not want to be contaminated or crossed with GMOs. I think there is a lawsuit (or several) against Monsanto now from a group of farmers in CA that want to stay organic and NGMO. What is Monsanto's responsibility in regards to making sure their self propagating invention does not get out of control (ie jump from one farmer's field to another's who does not want it)? I would think the organic farmers would have some sort of damage claim for their fields being contaminated with Monsanto seed and out-competed.

This discussion always reminds of the 'lysine contingency' from Jurassic Park (the dinos could not produce their own lysine so had to be provided it or would die). To the OP's original post, the thing that concerns me from a prepper pov is if we get to the point where seeds are so modified that they will not grow without some magic Monsanto solution, in a SHTF situation we are all f****ed.

1.Monsanto creates dependent seed that out competes all others
2.Only Monsanto seed is left on the planet, farmers use magic solution from Monsanto to grow crops.
3.TOWAWKI
4.No one can get magic solution, man starves
5.Dinosaurs inherit the Earth.

 

[Nicole]

Nicole et al. thank you for this discussion and all the great info. One of the things that has always interested me in the Monsanto discussion is from the point of view of those that specifically do not want to be contaminated or crossed with GMOs. I think there is a lawsuit (or several) against Monsanto now from a group of farmers in CA that want to stay organic and NGMO. What is Monsanto's responsibility in regards to making sure their self propagating invention does not get out of control (ie jump from one farmer's field to another's who does not want it)? I would think the organic farmers would have some sort of damage claim for their fields being contaminated with Monsanto seed and out-competed.

Yay! More science!

This is actually a fascinating question and I'll be very interested to see how it works out. I am not aware of any precedent on plant "contamination" issues so I don't know where these lawsuits go. A duty to contain your stuff on your property generally varies wildly depending on your location. For instance, on the East Coast, you are supposed to keep your animals on your property. I can't get a goat and just let it wander around the neighborhood. Not so in "open range" areas - it's my understanding that in such places, you put up a fence if you want to keep everything OUT, not to keep your stuff in.

I'm sure the farmers suing Monsanto will try to argue that the GMO seed is "toxic" or "harmful" and get the court to view it as pollution instead of merely garden variety containment of a plant.

the organic farmers would have some sort of damage claim for their fields being contaminated with Monsanto seed and out-competed.

Back up. Roundup Ready seed only significantly out-competes other commercial seeds when Roundup is sprayed on a field. And an organic farmer wouldn't Spray Roundup would they? So how would the GMO outcompete the coventional plant?

Whatever "damages" are there arise from a small amount of seed or pollen that may have blown in. But without a significant selection pressure, you don't just magically end up with the contaminating plant strain taking over the field.

This discussion always reminds of the 'lysine contingency' from Jurassic Park (the dinos could not produce their own lysine so had to be provided it or would die). To the OP's original post, the thing that concerns me from a prepper pov is if we get to the point where seeds are so modified that they will not grow without some magic Monsanto solution, in a SHTF situation we are all f****ed.

Another good point! Monsanto, and others, have done work on something called terminator technology. Without going into the details, you buy your seed from SeedCo and plant it. The plant that grows from the seed does it's normal plant thing, but then the seeds you get at the end of the year will not germinate. No lysine feeding, it's just programmed in to the plants.

This means the contamination issue, or escape into the environment is reduced if not removed.

Prepper issues are legit from the prepper perspective. Are you also concerned about the use of hybrids? Cause if you are worried about society going tango uniform, most commercial farmers are dependent on the seed companies without GMOs ever coming in to the picture.

1.Monsanto creates dependent seed that out competes all others
2.Only Monsanto seed is left on the planet, farmers use magic solution from Monsanto to grow crops.
3.TOWAWKI
4.No one can get magic solution, man starves
5.Dinosaurs inherit the Earth.

I like 5. But don't forget the cockroaches.

#1: We are sooo far from that. If I plow under a field and plant seed A, then yes, I will get a whole bunch of Plant A and not much else. But if a couple of seed B's blow in from next door, they do not just magically take over the field. Causing a shift in the genetic makeup of a population takes a lot of selection pressure. A lot. Dousing the field with Roundup will provide that kind of pressure in spades, but that's a nuclear option. If you aren't TRYING to make the Roundup Ready crop take over, it won't.

There is one extra gene in the Roundup Ready crop - all it does it make the plant more resistant to Roundup. That's it. It does not make it grow faster, or need less water, or anything else. HOW is it going to take over the field unless you engineer that outcome?

Monoculture or a Monsanto-monopoly-by-choice-of-the-farmers is a separate issue. And gets into free market questions while going far beyond GMOs and Monsanto.

#2: Hyperbole There are plenty of organic farmers and backyard farmers who are preserving the germplasm of heirlooms. We have giant underground vaults full of seeds. Monoculture has the potential to screw us royally, but Monsanto does not have the power to go "poof!" and magic away all the non-Monsanto seed.

We have similar issues with other infrastructure. We have all kinds of buildings that are not designed to be useful without copious inputs of electricity and fossil fuels. We have sprawling suburbs that are unlivable without each house having multiple cars, but are equally poor for enabling households to produce their own food/fuel/etc.

On the societal level, making the most of technology as it develops often means taking the risk of being in a really poor position should the house of cards fall down.

 

[Acme.Armament]

Nicole,
Do you think there is any truth that Monsanto and it's Round-up-Ready are killing bees at an alarming rate?
Monsanto Now Funding Bee Research After Round-Up Ready Queen Confiscated | Off The Grid News

 

[Nicole]

Nicole,
Do you think there is any truth that Monsanto and it's Round-up-Ready are killing bees at an alarming rate?
Monsanto Now Funding Bee Research After Round-Up Ready Queen Confiscated | Off The Grid News

Instigator.

*sigh*. I am not a bee person. I do know that there is a problem with the bees and as far as I know, no one has demonstrated precisely what the issue is. Theories have been floated but then shot down.

Ann - is there any progress on that front?

As far as Roundup killing the bees?

Pubmed is where you go to search the scientific papers. If you go there and search on "bee + glyphosate" (the chemical name for Roundup's active ingredient), you get 5 results bees glyphosate - PubMed - NCBI

Going in chronological order:

Hit #5 - 2004 - Both in lab and the field, they looked at the effect of Roundup ready canola and conventional canola on bee health. What did they find? NOTHING.
"Results from this study suggest that transgenic canola pollen does not have adverse effects on honey bee development and that the use of transgenic canola dose not pose any threat to honey bees."

Hit #4 - 2006 - Looked at gene flow in soybeans. No bee data is apparent from the abstract, just a discussion of them as pollen transporters.

Hit #3 - 2011 - Looked at bee movement patterns in an area with Roundup Ready and conventional alfalfa. No data on bee death or glyphosate use. No indication that the type of alfalfa influences bees foraging behavior.

Hit #2 - 2012 - The abstract doesn't mention glyphosate

Hit #1 - 2013 - Shows that glyphosate has the OPPOSITE of the neonicotinoids when you look at the activity of a single enzyme in the bees.

Pawing through the wiki entry got me this:
Results of the fifth joint pesticide testing programme carried out by the IOBC/WPRS-Working Group ?Pesticides and beneficial organisms? - Springer

I can't see the 20+ year old article. Allegedly it looked at glyphosate’s effects on bees and recommended "further testing," i.e. they couldn’t say for certain if it was or was not dangerous to the bees.

If someone has something better, do point it out to me. I’ve asked before and all I got was “oh, I read it somewhere.”

Heck, if someone with bee experience wants to help me (because again, I don’t know how to handle or maintain bees), I will run the damn experiment myself and blog the results. It might have to wait for next summer so I have time to do the research and set it up properly (in my copious free time!), but I’ll do it if someone can help me on the bee end of things. Warning. Bees will most definitely be hurt in the making of this experiment.


You should have had Ann pick out a reference to stir this pot though. The article you linked to, while anti-GMO (not stridently, but that's still what I'm getting out of it), doesn't say it's the GMO crops that cause problems for the bees, but rather, claims that it's the use of Roundup that is hurting them.

I also just love how the article you linked to keeps referring to neonicotinoids (pesticides) and then switching seamlessly to discussing Roundup (glyphosate). Glyphosate is not a neonicotinoid.

They need to pick one issue and follow through - I can't tell if they are bitching about neonicotinoids, Roundup, Monsanto, Big Ag, corrupt Illinois politicians, or tyranny by bureaucracy. All are legitimate topics, but one point at a time, please!

The inflammatory title is also awesome: Monsanto Now Funding Bee Research After Round-Up Ready Queen Confiscated. I thought, from reading that, that Monsanto took his bee and was using it themselves. Turns out the state inspectors took the bees and all the bees are now dead. Monsanto (and others) are funding bee research, the details of which are not discussed. Bees are part of ag. It's really not shocking that ag companies have some sort of research involving bees.

Finally, I will point to the final paragraph of the article, which reads:

For more than 15 years, Terry Ingram has been researching the impact of Round-Up on honeybees. He strongly believes that the body of data he has collected indicates that both the chemical pesticide and Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) are to blame for the dwindling bee population. CCD is impacting bee populations from around the world. Had the state not taken and destroyed his Round-Up Ready queen bee, Ingram was going to raise her female offspring to determine if there was a genetic resistance to the pesticide present. When the Illinois Department of Agriculture seized and destroyed the beekeeper’s colony, they ruined 15 years of research on the effects of Round-Up on honeybees.

The last sentence makes no sense. One queen bee is not 15 years of research demonstrating that glyphosate is responsible for killing bees. It’s what could be a fabulously interesting mutation (if glyphosate IS even killing bees! It could be something else in the environment or the spray that got his bees too). If he has data and research, please, present it. Plenty of people who are not trained scientists blog on science data, pulling it apart and showing their own work. Do it!

The destruction of such a potentially interesting queen is despicable. I hate thuggery. I hate government thuggery. I would have LOVED to have seen what could have been gleaned by studying that bee and her offspring. She lived where others died - that has serious potential, no matter what killed the others.

And the following isn't meant to diminish what they did to him (because destroying his hives, if it happened the way he says, is just wrong). Now, he says the queen lived through 3 summers of spraying and he was waiting for her offspring to test them. The spraying started in 1996. The confiscation happened in 2012 or 2013. Am I missing something? When did he notice the queen? He had her for AT LEAST three years. If you were going to study her offspring, why in God's name didn't you freeze some of her offspring? Little bags of bees in the chest freezer people. The queen could have gotten sick, the hive could have been damaged...anything. If I had such an interesting queen, I would have started another hive from her offspring, at a SEPARATE location as soon as possible. And if I was conducting "15 years of research" on the topic, I'd damn well have frozen bee samples stashed each year.

I’m not trying to blame the victim, I’m trying to point out that if he did 15 years of research, then where is it? One queen? That’s all? No records, no nothing? Then that’s not 15 years of research, it’s a single potentially interesting bee. Which could be awesome. But things are what they are and words have meaning.

If people want to make claims like "Monsanto is killing the bees," then back it up. Data. Otherwise it's nothing but rhetoric and emotion.

 

[Mattyweb]

Nicole, agree completely about that article, lots to be desired. I too noticed there seems to be some data on the neonicotinoids and the author of that article seems to keep pointing to the big evil M even though they don't make them. I also had the same reaction to the missing 15 years of research by the disappearance of one queen. Something doesn't add up.

One thing I did find interesting from that article Adam linked is Figure 4

View attachment 69170

I could not find a source for this but it seems to indicate a decline in the bee population since 1950. From what I can tell, Roundup hit the market in 1970. I do think it is related to all pesticide use though. My unsubstantiated guess is it has to do with sublethal doses effecting bee behavior.

Nicole, thanks for the response above. One more related question: In addition to the 'blown in' contamination from one field to another, I was also thinking of bee carried contamination. I may need some schooling on my plant genetics, but won't bees carry half the genome from GMO plants from Farmer A to Farmer B's NGMO field such that subsequent generations will be ?? Half GMO?

 

[Nicole]

One thing I did find interesting from that article Adam linked is Figure 4

View attachment 69170

I could not find a source for this but it seems to indicate a decline in the bee population since 1950. From what I can tell, Roundup hit the market in 1970. I do think it is related to all pesticide use though. My unsubstantiated guess is it has to do with sublethal doses effecting bee behavior.

Yeah, they didn't cite where it came from that I saw, so I'm as lost as you are. I am certainly not going to argue against the data showing decreasing numbers of colonies, nor the existence of CCD. But the fact that there are less hives over the years doesn't immediately in and of itself mean pesticides are a factor, much less a significant factor (although I wouldn't be surprised if they are).

For example:

1. What is the incidence of disease over time?
2. Has the coverage of the survey this data comes from changed? More or less participation?
3. Are there more or less bee keepers?
4. Is there more or less of a market for commercial bee pollination?

One more related question: In addition to the 'blown in' contamination from one field to another, I was also thinking of bee carried contamination. I may need some schooling on my plant genetics, but won't bees carry half the genome from GMO plants from Farmer A to Farmer B's NGMO field such that subsequent generations will be ?? Half GMO?

Completely correct. Plenty of things that eat the plants can move the pollen too.

If a grain of Farmer A's pollen makes it to the appropriate location of Farmer B's plant, then a seed will be created that is roughly half GMO.

This is actually what Hit#4 was studying - the rate at which this gene transfer happens.

Gene flow from GM glyphosate-t... [Environ Biosafety Res. 2006 Jul-Sep] - PubMed - NCBI

 

[wacky_doug]

The destruction of such a potentially interesting queen is despicable. I hate thuggery. I hate government thuggery. I would have LOVED to have seen what could have been gleaned by studying that bee and her offspring. She lived where others died - that has serious potential, no matter what killed the others.

+1

There's a book called "Mad Sheep" written by a good friend of mine in Vermont. It outlines in painstaking detail the government thuggery behind the closure of my friend's sheep farm and the destruction of their family business. Highly recommend the read.

Science, not corporations or government, holds the answers. To the extent that we can keep both corps and govt from influencing the research, the better off we'll be.

 

[Acme.Armament]

Instigator.

PM sent to Ann.

 

[reinbeau]

I have arrived This is a huge topic and Nicole, you said "They need to pick one issue and follow through - I can't tell if they are bitching about neonicotinoids, Roundup, Monsanto, Big Ag, corrupt Illinois politicians, or tyranny by bureaucracy. All are legitimate topics, but one point at a time, please! " - that's the problem. It isn't one issue.

Here's the deal. Yes, there has been an escape of a genetically modified wheat that was not supposed to be released to the market, it was discovered as described in that article. GM wheat isn't going to kill the bees. The whole GM thing is being conflated (new word of the week, it seems, since Jay Carney uttered it the other night in one of his lying sessions) with pesticides and honeybee death because, in a way, they're all related. The wheat (and other crops) are being developed to withstand agricultural chemicals, in this case herbicides, so no one has to weed the crop fields. There has been an argument made that gathering the GM pollen by the bees, who bring it back to the nest and make bee bread out of it to feed the brood, is compromising the immune system of the brood. Then there's the argument that it's the pesticide load being brought back in with the pollen. And then there's the neonics, which are another huge kettle of fish. Imidacloprid is used to coat corn seeds, that are mechanically inserted into fields, which raises an insecticide laced dust that seems to be gathered by the bees along with pollen (remember, bees are fuzzy, they comb themselves and gather the resulting pollen into their corbicula, or so-called pollen baskets). It's taken back to the nest and made into bee bread, which is fed to the brood (babies). It's convoluted, and complicated, and all due to the use of agricultural chemicals, which use is protected by virtue of the harm being explained away by study after study after study supported by the deep pockets of the chemical companies - gee, no conflict of interest here. All while ignoring the obvious. They're killing the pollinators, the very thing a farmer needs to pollinate their plants. It has reached the point where this can no longer be explained away.

Monsanto is investing in bee research, they've poached Jerry Hayes, the beloved author of The Classroom, the question and answer column we all read monthly in American Bee Journal. He's been taking it on the chin for that new job he's got. They're working on honeybee research, as is Bayer CropScience that bought the research lab in South Carolina. The scuttle the beeks are tossing around is the thought that they'll create a 'frankenbee' that will withstand the chemical soup that douses conventional agriculture now - and that bee, of course, will be patented, you know where that all leads to. It will be the death of backyard beekeeping. Patenting nature (and your genes, by the way). That a whole 'nother rant.

I'm not going to get into citing and arguing back and forth on all of this, it's tedious, and I can't teach you what has taken me years of studying (gardening, beekeeping, studying our food system and, of course, playing 'keep track of where they work and where they worked when it comes to the key players in Big Ag and Big Government). There's a lot out there on this, just keep your eyes open and you'll be able to pick out what you should be paying attention to (and if it's backed by Monsanto, or Bayer CropScience, etc, you'd better be paying attention). I'm just going to say that the rise in the use of neonics skyrocketed in 2006, the same year that we really saw a huge increase in what is commonly known as 'CCD'. Neonics are persistent in the soil and in crop residue. It is being found in pollen samples taken from hives, both living and dead. There are scientists studying it, but no one is willing to draw conclusions because - well, Big Ag has lawyers, and they know how to use them. If you want to read an interesting case read up on Percy Schmeiser, a Canadian farmer, and his fight with Monsanto that he eventually won. Sort of. It's quite a story.

One of the saddest story I've read on the GM issue is what happened to the cotton farmers in India when they rolled out BT cotton. It was such a miserable failure hundreds of them committed suicide - by drinking the herbicides the cotton could supposedly withstand. Read more here. Of course there were studies that insisted the suicides had nothing to do with the BT cotton. Studies funded by whom.....none of those studies supported the families that were left with the crushing debt of paying the seed suppliers even though the seeds didn't produce and the farmer was gone.

There's a reason why these chemicals and GM foods are being banned in Europe. It isn't hysteria. We don't need them (oh, but we must feed the world! Bullfeathers. It can be done without all these manipulations), and they're doing far more harm than good. The only reason for them is to make money. That is why Monsanto is being turned into a boogeyman - they deserve it, frankly. We could get into the usual back and forth about corporate wealth and the machinations, blah, blah, blah - I am a retired business manager, I understand business, I get what business are supposed to do. It isn't business anymore. It's incest between government officials and businessmen. Politics protecting one, businessmen funding the other. Globalism. That's destroying the United States. Short term gain, long term destruction. We all need to open our eyes and really see what it really is. Greed, ultimate power and control. Ignore it at your freedom's peril.

We need to stop poisoning ourselves, our bees, all of our pollinators. I know there's a huge faction on NES that poo-poos any environmental thought. I'm sorry, but the answer to all of this is staring us all in the face. We need to deal with it and quit pretending people are 'whackos' because they've been ballyhooing this from the rooftops. Environmental chemicals are doing all of this in. People are making money short term, and that seems to be the only consideration that anyone cares about.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled gun discussion. I will go back to Facebook, where I can follow links, read everything and evaluate it for myself. I put it on my wall. Then I walk out the door and go out into my organic garden, tending the veggies, flowers, and taking care of our hives. I don't know how much longer we'll be able to afford to replace the bees, year after year, I will miss that golden honey the year we can no longer do it. That is how bad this is, guys.

If you are interested in friending me on to follow my rants, here's the link.

 

[Nicole]

Ann makes a lot of good points. I haven't been studying this in the sort of detail she has, so I won't make any attempt to counter her statements.

All I can address is specific claims and references. The one she does give me is the Daily Mail article. I read it. And I went Googling. For anyone still following along, I would prefer this:

AgBioForum 12(1): Persistent Narratives: Why is the "Failure of Bt Cotton in India" Story Still with Us? Yes, Monsanto does shitty things. Yes, people around the world are used and abused, by all sorts of entities. I don't dispute that in the least.

But as a scientist, I will prefer numbers and a balanced approach to emotional appeals.

Some Bt cotton crops failed in India and farmers committed suicide because of the immense debt they incurred in buying GMO seeds. I don't doubt the suicides or the debt problems. But why did the crops fail? Because everyone's crop failed? Because they were GMO? Because they were GMO's using poorly adapted parent strains? Were they actual Monsanto crops and/or other approved seeds from reputable companies or fakes and/or Chinese knockoffs (no, really, they have those too)?

I went looking for the answer and found conflicting reports about the performance of the crops. Sadly, I don't have time for a meta-analysis right now. Resorting to logic though - if the GMO crops suck so hard, why do people keep buying them? I get how you can dupe poor farmers into making a bad purchase on a new product, but when your neighbors are killing themselves with pesticide, the jig is up, no? They're poor, not naturally daft.

Finally, I note that the Daily Mail article completely ignores the other sources of GM cotton in India and claims that "terminator technology" is being used. Um, no. Scroll down to page #475. http://www.columbia.edu/~sr793/doc/RHerring.pdf Terminator technology is not in commercial crops. Please show me proof that it has been found in the Indian cotton.

This is why I find it so hard to swallow any claims made by the anti-GMO crowd - I find the propagandists distorting the truth or just flat out lying a bit too often. It makes it hard to focus on the real problems - maybe the Bt cotton DOES suck - but why? Not merely by dint of being a Monsanto product.

FTR- I agree with Ann's assessment of the problem of regulatory capture and government corruption.

I also agree that it will be a very sad day when/if she looses the bees for good. Her honey is out of this world. The difference between a mass-produced commodity and something crafted by individuals who are invested in the process is striking, especially to the tongue!