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

[Hiltonizer]

Nothing good can come from me jumping back into this thread and perpetuating the conversation... but here I am, I can't let this go:

if the GMO crops suck so hard, why do people keep buying them?

Let me preface this by saying, this isn't directed at you Nicole... I understand you are arguing both a scientific and capitalist point.

The perpetuation of GMO's is the result of a failure of government, regardless of whether you are are for big government or small government. Small government would presumably have functional courts and not be hamstrung by its deleterious big government analogue. Big government should in theory protect by regulatory means both in court and in safety.

Should GMO's have been prevented from entering the market? Probably not. I can't say for certain as I'm not sure what was known about them at the time. However, an unavoidable reality of science is unintended consequences. For these very reasons big government types laud the FDA, and small government types want to limit regulation so that the market can decide.

What is in place now, is a protection racket. The market can't decide as grievances cannot be settled fairly in court. Property rights have been eviscerated.

While GMO's sounded like a good idea and a wise business decision at one point, over time we know that it infringes on property rights via environmental implications. Most farmers have to buy it now. The people whom the technology has hurt can't sue so they have to do business this way, and their competitors can't compete and have to use this same technology. An organic non-gmo farm of an open pollinated crop can no longer exist near a GMO crop.

Let's pretend you have a herd of cattle... those cattle get loose and stampede your neighbors property. You will be sued and pay for the damage. Monsanto et al, and their customers are protected from such action by this government. This skews the entire market and therefore makes the only reason this product is still viable. GMO's would disappear real fast if they were by regulation forced to be raised only in structures to contain their pollen, and the producers who chose not to held financially liable. They would also be dealt a death blow (and largely have in many other countries), by government labeling laws silencing their competitors from advertising "Non-GMO"

EDIT:

TL;DR: The government won't sort it out, and won't let the free market sort it out.

 

[coastie]

Let's pretend you have a herd of cattle... those cattle get loose and stampede your neighbors property. You will be sued and pay for the damage. Monsanto et al, and their customers are protected from such action by this government. This skews the entire market and therefore makes the only reason this product is still viable. GMO's would disappear real fast if they were by regulation forced to be raised only in structures to contain their pollen, and the producers who chose not to held financially liable. They would also be dealt a death blow (and largely have in many other countries), by government labeling laws silencing their competitors from advertising "Non-GMO"

Where do you stop? Am I liable if my heirloom flint corn contaminates my neighbors heirloom sweet corn? What if my bees cross pollinate their squashes resulting in an undesirable fruit? Should any crop that has the risk of "contaminating" another be grown in protected structures?

 

[Hiltonizer]

Where do you stop? Am I liable if my heirloom flint corn contaminates my neighbors heirloom sweet corn? What if my bees cross pollinate their squashes resulting in an undesirable fruit? Should any crop that has the risk of "contaminating" another be grown in protected structures?

The examples you cite are natural occurrence, and therefore acceptable by the common law of homesteading. Plants open-pollinating pre-dates you and me. Pollination happens as a fact of earth, similar to how if it rains on your property and rusts your roof you can't sue me for having a pond that was evaporated.

The negative effects GMO pollination are known, man made, and propogating them in open air is an act of aggression.... as would be knocking the windows out of your house with a firehose and calling it "rain".

 

[Silverguns6]

"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." -me
"That is the entire point of a patent. It is a temporary monopoly." Nicole.

So lets say Farmer Bob bought 10,000 seeds from his corner seed dealer or supplier and X amount of those seeds were Monsanto GMO seeds. Farmer Bob goes back to his farm and plants the seeds. blah blah blah *come harvest* those X GMO were discovered. How could Monsanto legitimately sue Farmer Bob for using the seeds unless Farmer Bob new the seeds were illegal Monsanto seeds? If the patent is for the DNA sequence and whatever, what basis does Monsanto have to sue anyone who plants their "secret" seeds?
By competition I meant those like Farmer Bob, not some billion dollar science corp. So if person A develops the same product as person B, if person B applies for the patent before person A, person B is the only one who can legally make said product?
Was Monsanto suing anyone who planted their seeds or anyone who developed the same GMO seeds as Monsanto and claimed ownership of the strain?

-Dave

 

[Silverguns6]

Where do you stop? Am I liable if my heirloom flint corn contaminates my neighbors heirloom sweet corn? What if my bees cross pollinate their squashes resulting in an undesirable fruit? Should any crop that has the risk of "contaminating" another be grown in protected structures?

HEY! You got you toothpaste in my peanut butter!!!!!!

 

[Nicole]

The negative effects GMO pollination are known,

What are they? Other than "traits I don't want in my field" - which exactly covers the example given of flint corn v. sweet corn.

 

[Nicole]

"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." -me
"That is the entire point of a patent. It is a temporary monopoly." Nicole.

So lets say Farmer Bob bought 10,000 seeds from his corner seed dealer or supplier and X amount of those seeds were Monsanto GMO seeds. Farmer Bob goes back to his farm and plants the seeds. blah blah blah *come harvest* those X GMO were discovered. How could Monsanto legitimately sue Farmer Bob for using the seeds unless Farmer Bob new the seeds were illegal Monsanto seeds?

Well if that did happen (and that scenario does NOT cover the court cases I am aware of), the way it would happen is Monsanto would go knock on the door of Farmer Bob and say "Hi. You have our seed. Here's our proof you have our seed. You are now on notice that you are violating our patent. Destroy the seed you have left or pay us a royalty. k thanx bye."

If Farmer Bob KEEPS violating the patent once he knows he is violating it, THEN he gets sued.

If the patent is for the DNA sequence and whatever, what basis does Monsanto have to sue anyone who plants their "secret" seeds?

Well, as I broke down earlier in the thread, Monsanto's patent claims several things, examples of which, in plant English are:

Cool new DNA sequence
A plant cell having cool new DNA sequence
A seed having cool new DNA sequence
A plant having cool new DNA sequence

If the seed has the DNA in question, Monsanto owns the right to exclude anyone from making, using or selling it. Period. Full stop. That is their legal right. You may not think it's just, but it is legal. It's the entire point of a patent.

By competition I meant those like Farmer Bob, not some billion dollar science corp. So if person A develops the same product as person B, if person B applies for the patent before person A, person B is the only one who can legally make said product?

It depends. Getting a patent takes several years, and you spend those years fighting with a government bureaucracy over whether you have an invention at all.

Traditionally, the US has been a "first to invent" country. This is extremely simplified but: if A and B both file a patent application at about the same time, the US Patent Office will look at the second person to file and say "Hey, other guy got his application in first - can you prove you INVENTED before he filed?" And this goes back and forth, until someone shows he came up with the idea first. And he is the winner (There's a lot more legal detail to this process, but that's the general idea).

Congress changed the laws recently, and we are transitioning to more of a "first to file" system like the rest of the world, where the first person to file the application is the winner.

It doesn't matter who the violator is. If I have a legal right, it's my right. It's not okay for certain classes of people to violate it. Think about the implications of that for a moment. If our system says it is your legal right to X...except when THOSE people are involved, don't you see the danger of that?

Was Monsanto suing anyone who planted their seeds or anyone who developed the same GMO seeds as Monsanto and claimed ownership of the strain?
-Dave

I'm not sure I understand that question.

 

[Nicole]

Let me preface this by saying, this isn't directed at you Nicole... I understand you are arguing both a scientific and capitalist point.

Just wanted to acknowledge this and say the same applies here. I will critique sources and arguments, but I respect the people in this thread and am not trying to attack anyone on a personal level. I think everyone is doing an admirable job of having a discussion of ideas without devolving into personal attacks.

 

[Hiltonizer]

What are they? Other than "traits I don't want in my field" - which exactly covers the example given of flint corn v. sweet corn.

BT Toxin is a big one; while I don't believe its health concerns are proven its creation of super-bugs certainly is. Terminator genes entering the biosphere prevent perpetuation of the crop. Farmers cannot market products as non-gmo without undue burden, effecting marketability. Creation of new allergens as the proteins in the foods change.

Who is going to be held responsible for the orders canceled by asian companies as a result of GMO wheat being found in "non-gmo" wheat? Not Monsanto, not under this government.

Comparing the pollination of different breeds of naturally occurring plants is not the same as pollination of lab created demi-food who just happens to pollinate the same way.

 

[Kevin_NH]

So lets say Farmer Bob bought 10,000 seeds from his corner seed dealer or supplier and X amount of those seeds were Monsanto GMO seeds. Farmer Bob goes back to his farm and plants the seeds. blah blah blah *come harvest* those X GMO were discovered. How could Monsanto legitimately sue Farmer Bob for using the seeds unless Farmer Bob new the seeds were illegal Monsanto seeds? If the patent is for the DNA sequence and whatever, what basis does Monsanto have to sue anyone who plants their "secret" seeds?

Those aren't the kind of cases where Monsanto is filing lawsuits.

For example, Percy Schmeiser knew a particular field was "contaminated" with glyphosate-tolerant plants, so he ordered a farmhand to intentionally kill off all the non-glyphosate-tolerant plants in his crop by spraying Roundup. He then harvested the seeds from the survivors to plant his next year's crop. He knew what he was doing, a willful violation of the patent.

By competition I meant those like Farmer Bob, not some billion dollar science corp. So if person A develops the same product as person B, if person B applies for the patent before person A, person B is the only one who can legally make said product?

Yes, exactly. This is exactly how a patent works. There has never been a claim of independent arrival in breeding glyphosate-tolerant crops, and even if there were, you can't escape a patent lawsuit by claiming 'independent invention'.

Was Monsanto suing anyone who planted their seeds or anyone who developed the same GMO seeds as Monsanto and claimed ownership of the strain?

No, Monsanto has ONLY ever sued farmers and seed cleaners who went to considerable effort to propagate plants carrying the patented Roundup-ready gene, not "accidental infringers" with a small percentage of glyphosate-tolerant plants.

 

[Nicole]

Thanks for the answer!

BT Toxin is a big one; while I don't believe its health concerns are proven its creation of super-bugs certainly is.

And BT toxin is used on it's own quite widely. It is my understanding that organic farmers have used it as it's a natural product found in the soil. Like so: Bt Crop Spraying

Terminator genes entering the biosphere prevent perpetuation of the crop.

1. Please show me a commercial crop that included terminator technology. To my knowledge, a commercial crop has never had terminator technology.

2. If terminator technology got loose, the plants just hit a dead end in a generation or two. Something that makes a plant completely non-competitive isn't going to spread all that far.

Farmers cannot market products as non-gmo without undue burden, effecting marketability.

I sympathize with this, I really do. The counter argument is that organic farmers or Non-GMO farmers who are labelling their product as such are trying to avail themselves of claims of purity in their product. If I am buying organic food, I don't want pesticide residue on my food at all. So whose responsibility is it to guarantee that? Should the organic farmers be able to shut down use of pesticides/herbicides by farmers who are upwind or upwater? If a farmer wants to claim that his product is X-free, isn't it HIS duty to figure out how to produce a product that is X-free?

I don't claim to have the authoritative answer on this issue, but being able to restrict how others use their property, not because that use is a health risk, but because it is inconvenient to the neighbor's desire to create a product that is free of X....well that kind of gives me the shivers too, you know?

Creation of new allergens as the proteins in the foods change.

GMO foods go through extensive testing to rule out allerginicity. The industry made one very stupid call at the very beginning to use nut proteins in one product and they quickly figured that out. I'll buy this one when someone shows me that GMO technology generally causes allergies. Until then, it has to be a case-by-case basis.

Who is going to be held responsible for the orders canceled by asian companies as a result of GMO wheat being found in "non-gmo" wheat? Not Monsanto, not under this government.

Relates back to the arguments above.

Comparing the pollination of different breeds of naturally occurring plants is not the same as pollination of lab created demi-food who just happens to pollinate the same way.

To you, I'm sure it isn't. But you've decided they are "demi-foods." You don't think they're "real plants," but "frankenfood" or science experiments wrongly allowed into the food supply. But from where I sit, I haven't seen anything in this thread or in my reading that convinces me that they are what you think they are.

I can see where people would be uncomfortable with being early adopters and that's certainly their right. But the human race has a long history of being leary of new things (including foods!) that they aren't familiar with, and from my perspective that's what I see. Maybe the GMO-skeptics are right, maybe there are bad things afoot. But I've not seen evidence of them. I've seen a lot of Monsanto-hate and disinformation (not accusing you of such, but the article Adam linked to is a good example of what I am talking about) leading to an emotional reaction against GMOs.

 

[Hiltonizer]

Thanks for the answer!



And BT toxin is used on it's own quite widely. It is my understanding that organic farmers have used it as it's a natural product found in the soil. Like so: Bt Crop Spraying

Applied externally, yes, but I'm referring to the plants modified to produce it themselves. These are pollinating with plants not sprayed with BT Toxin.

1. Please show me a commercial crop that included terminator technology. To my knowledge, a commercial crop has never had terminator technology.

V-GURT and T-GURT aren't on the market yet only due to market pressure. Government isn't stopping it, Monsanto has only pledged not to sell it. They doubled down on it though in 2006 by buying a company who had a lot of patents on it. Delta & Pine.

2. If terminator technology got loose, the plants just hit a dead end in a generation or two. Something that makes a plant completely non-competitive isn't going to spread all that far.

Doesn't need to be commercialized to get loose, there's been "testing phase" gmo's get loose before. I believe the most recent incidient that caused the recent news about canceled wheat orders being such a

The counter argument is that organic farmers or Non-GMO farmers who are labelling their product as such are trying to avail themselves of claims of purity in their product. If I am buying organic food, I don't want pesticide residue on my food at all. So whose responsibility is it to guarantee that? Should the organic farmers be able to shut down use of pesticides/herbicides by farmers who are upwind or upwater? If a farmer wants to claim that his product is X-free, isn't it HIS duty to figure out how to produce a product that is X-free?

I don't claim to have the authoritative answer on this issue, but being able to restrict how others use their property, not because that use is a health risk, but because it is inconvenient to the neighbor's desire to create a product that is free of X....well that kind of gives me the shivers too, you know?

There are established standards for organic food. If wind carries pesticide onto an otherwise organic crop, that may not meet your standard of organic but in that case nothing would as it would be impossible to guarantee that all the air, soil, and water that contributed to the growth of a plant was void of any contamination. This is where the real nutters with hydroponics come in but that's a whole other story. All that said, there is regulation in place for the use of certain pesticides and if they aren't followed an a neighboring crop is contaminated, that is actionable.

GMO foods go through extensive testing to rule out allerginicity. The industry made one very stupid call at the very beginning to use nut proteins in one product and they quickly figured that out. I'll buy this one when someone shows me that GMO technology generally causes allergies. Until then, it has to be a case-by-case basis.

There's no shortage of labs who would disagree about this, and other safety factors. York Labs and the list goes on and on and on and last but not least roundups effect itself on your innards.

I can see where people would be uncomfortable with being early adopters and that's certainly their right. But the human race has a long history of being leary of new things (including foods!) that they aren't familiar with, and from my perspective that's what I see. Maybe the GMO-skeptics are right, maybe there are bad things afoot. But I've not seen evidence of them. I've seen a lot of Monsanto-hate and disinformation (not accusing you of such, but the article Adam linked to is a good example of what I am talking about) leading to an emotional reaction against GMOs.

The disinfo out there is brutal, I agree... trying to find sources for anything is a real chore because pretty much everything google kicks back are blogs from chicken little organizations. Something I posted from pubmed was like 5 pages deep. Shit.

All that said, yes the early adopter stuff is part of the problem right now, as the possibility that GMO skeptics are right is what drives the distinction between food and frankenfood. Being right or wrong is not my concern on the GMO front though... property rights are my issue and I see the way they are used as gross abuse of state power. If it turns out GMO skeptics are right long-term, the number of innocent people effected will be catastrophic. The genie is out of the bottle, its irreversible. I just advocate mitigating the potential impact by allowing those who wish to not be a party to it have some recourse.