Gmo

[Drolefille]

I was following the story since before the trial. I'm inclined to believe Schmeiser's account, and I agree with his ethical position that he should not be forced to change his life long method of saving seeds and replanting them just because Monsanto has a patent on a variety that drifted into his property by natural means.

I could believe the 1997 crop was accidental. I can't believe the 1998 crop was, as he apparently deliberately and specifically saved those seeds and planted his fields with them.

Contamination is a well known issue with GMO crops. It's not the fact that plants tend to wander, but the fact that if you discover patented crops in your fields you are suddenly obliged to pay intellectual license fees to a giant corporation or bankrupt yourself fighting it.

Only if you replant it, which he did. Had he not replanted the seeds he knew weren't legit, he would have been fine. It wasn't that he found crops in his fields. That's intellectually dishonest. And the case proved he knew (or arguably if he didn't know was so negligent he SHOULD have known.) and hence his second crop wasn't <50% RR canola, it was 95-98% RR canola. That isn't "whoops" nor is it "I always harvest my seed and replant it." It was "I harvested THIS seed and specifically replanted it."

Schmeiser didn't win his counter-suit, but he is not liable for the license fees and Monsanto is liable for the cost of removing their IP from his land. He considers that a partial victory, not a defeat. The money he sunk into legal fees will never be recovered, but it set an important precedent.

According to wiki he didn't prosecute his counter suit, whether that's because a lawyer didn't want to or not, I don't know.

He harvested and sold that crop, Monsanto paid him like $660 for costs of removing something later. That's not much of a victory. More of a victory was the SC not mandating he pay the tiny profits (and therefore the lawyers fees) back, but he lost his case on the grounds meaning he was legally in the wrong.

In short - I can't see him as a horribly abused victim, nor Monsanto as the evil evil bad guy in this case. He did it on purpose.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My problem with GMOs are geared towards Roundup Ready seeds (Monsanto's practices and history are another thread). Roundup kills everything, and it begs to be asked should we really be eating something that was sprayed with such a deadly chemical?

 

[Thief]

We should not leave Monsanto out of it....or Tyson.

One farmer in Indiana, sued for the right to retain seed for the next planting.
It cost him everything to launch that suit.

He lost.

Genetically altered plants are an invention.
Patented.
The court ruled in favor of the company.

Altered grain does not reproduce true to the new form.
Heirloom seed is needed for the blend.

The most recent argument I saw displayed what happens when you feed altered grain to cattle.
They get sick and die.

When you enter a grocery....the bulk of what you see is a remix of four items.
Wheat, corn, soybean and tomatoes.

Read the labels.
There are more than a dozen chemistries that alter the processed food for flavor and texture.

That's right...the obesity and blood sugar and skin conditions we suffer.....
are basically a substance problem.

We eat but remain hungry.

The processing will never cover all the bases.

Try Food Inc video.
You will be appalled.
And realize then how trapped we are by the companies that do such things.

 

[icehorse]

Drolefille:

Only if you replant it, which he did. Had he not replanted the seeds he knew weren't legit, he would have been fine.

I might have made a mistake here so just to be clear:

1 - The farmer has always collected seeds from his crop for replanting.
2 - Some GMO material wanders into his fields, GMO seeds are created.
3 - Some legal stuff happens.
4 - The farmer can no longer collect seeds from crops in his fields.

If that's correct, it seems to me the courts screwed up. If anything he was effectively trespassed on.

(Also, I'm not quite ready to grant the claim that biologically "we've always done GMO")

 

[icehorse]

From the OP, Quatermas:

Almost every morsel of our food is genetically modified &#8211; admittedly by artificial selection not artificial mutation, but the end result is the same.

I'd love to be able to bet $100 that molecular biologists would disagree with that statement. I'd put it in the category of "extraordinary claims", and I'd like to see your evidence for making such an extraordinary claim.

Seems like utter nonsense to me.

 

[s2a]

Said someone who apparently didn't read the thread.

Brilliant. I humbled.

No, not really.

One day, others may unjustly accuse you of similar means. I look forwrad to your replies.

It is always poor judgement to preclude submitted commentaries that you may disagree with as being ignorant and uniformed.

See above.

 

[Alceste]

I could believe the 1997 crop was accidental. I can't believe the 1998 crop was, as he apparently deliberately and specifically saved those seeds and planted his fields with them.

Only if you replant it, which he did. Had he not replanted the seeds he knew weren't legit, he would have been fine. It wasn't that he found crops in his fields. That's intellectually dishonest. And the case proved he knew (or arguably if he didn't know was so negligent he SHOULD have known.) and hence his second crop wasn't <50% RR canola, it was 95-98% RR canola. That isn't "whoops" nor is it "I always harvest my seed and replant it." It was "I harvested THIS seed and specifically replanted it."


According to wiki he didn't prosecute his counter suit, whether that's because a lawyer didn't want to or not, I don't know.

He harvested and sold that crop, Monsanto paid him like $660 for costs of removing something later. That's not much of a victory. More of a victory was the SC not mandating he pay the tiny profits (and therefore the lawyers fees) back, but he lost his case on the grounds meaning he was legally in the wrong.

In short - I can't see him as a horribly abused victim, nor Monsanto as the evil evil bad guy in this case. He did it on purpose.

You are obviously not a gardener. Half the stuff in my garden, I have no idea how it got there. If I like it, or if it does well with little maintenance (I'm really busy and don't irrigate) I keep it. I save my seeds, take clippings, etc. Or I get clippings from the neighbours, whole plants, whatever. Occasionally I buy seeds or plants and put them in on purpose, but on the whole the name of the game is to keep the plants I like going. I'm looking forward to propagating a plant my grandmother inherited from her mother, that has survived in three completely different climates. It's 60 years old at least, and that's just the heritage I am aware of. You can't buy that.

The very idea of a corporation injecting themselves into the picture and telling me I owe them money for doing things the way they've been done for thousands of years offends me.

If what I do, and what my mother and her mother and her mother's mother, ad infinitum, is illegal, the law is wrong. That's really all there is to it.

 

[icehorse]

Alceste:

If what I do, and what my mother and her mother and her mother's mother, ad infinitum, is illegal, the law is wrong. That's really all there is to it.

I could not possibly agree more.

 

[Mycroft]

From the OP, Quatermas:

I'd love to be able to bet $100 that molecular biologists would disagree with that statement. I'd put it in the category of "extraordinary claims", and I'd like to see your evidence for making such an extraordinary claim.

Seems like utter nonsense to me.

You don't need to take my word for it. Do your own research. Try to find a fruit that hasn't been modified by artificial selection over the years. You might, but it wont be as large, or as sweet and will have way more seeds.

 

[InChrist]

I think there is a huge difference between the cross pollinating, grafting, and selective breeding farmers have been doing for centuries and the genetic modification practiced today which alters the the DNA of plants to make them herbicide resistant.


"Prior findings have already shown that Bt corn is anything but innocuous to the human system. Just last year, doctors at Sherbrooke University Hospital in Quebec found Bt-toxin in the blood4 of:

• 93 percent of pregnant women tested
• 80 percent of umbilical blood in their babies, and
• 67 percent of non-pregnant women

Bt-toxin breaks open the stomach of insects. Could it similarly be damaging the integrity of your digestive tract? If Bt-toxins can damage the intestinal walls of newborns and young children, the passage of undigested foods and toxins into the blood from the digestive tract could be devastating to their future health. Scientists speculate that it may lead to autoimmune diseases and food allergies. Furthermore, since the blood-brain barrier is not developed in newborns, toxins may enter the brain causing serious cognitive problems. Some healthcare practitioners and scientists are convinced that this one mechanism for autism.
If Bt genes are colonizing the bacteria living in the digestive tract of North Americans, we might expect to see an increase in gastrointestinal problems, autoimmune diseases, food allergies, and childhood learning disorders since the advent of Bt crops in 1996, and that's exactly what's being reported. For example, between 1997 and 2002 the number of hospitalizations related to allergic reactions to food increased by a whopping 265 percent. One out of 17 children now has some form of food allergy and allergy rates are rising"


Significant Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You don't need to take my word for it. Do your own research. Try to find a fruit that hasn't been modified by artificial selection over the years. You might, but it wont be as large, or as sweet and will have way more seeds.

While that is true, when discussing GMOs it refers not to things that have been selectively bred, but things that have genetic alterations because they have been engineered. To simply dismiss them as "all things are genetically modified by default" is to miss the point of the debate.

 

[icehorse]

You don't need to take my word for it. Do your own research. Try to find a fruit that hasn't been modified by artificial selection over the years. You might, but it wont be as large, or as sweet and will have way more seeds.

That's not how debates work. You made a claim. (In my opinion it's nonsense, but that's beside the point.) It's your job to provide evidence for your claim.

Now you're making a different claim, but this new claim about how most or all fruits have undergone artificial selection is a different claim than the one you made in the OP. It's your original claim that I'm saying is nonsense.

Once again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have provided zero evidence. Please provide evidence, it's your job as the creator of the OP.

 

[Alceste]

You don't need to take my word for it. Do your own research. Try to find a fruit that hasn't been modified by artificial selection over the years. You might, but it wont be as large, or as sweet and will have way more seeds.

It's absurd to pretend that a team of scientists splicing genes in a multi-million dollar lab, patenting the result and demanding endless fees for the use of it is the same thing as my gran encouraging the proliferation a random berry pairing and sharing it with friends.

Not the same.

 

[Aquitaine]

The very idea of a corporation injecting themselves into the picture and telling me I owe them money for doing things the way they've been done for thousands of years offends me.

If what I do, and what my mother and her mother and her mother's mother, ad infinitum, is illegal, the law is wrong. That's really all there is to it.

I share your sentiments here. It seems ridiculous to penalize others for..... growing food.

 

[Alceste]

I share your sentiments here. It seems ridiculous to penalize others for..... growing food.

Exactly. And it's absurd to suggest there is something shady or dishonest about a farmer saving seeds from his own fields and replanting the toughest performers.That's what farming IS. That's how it was done for thousands of years before companies like Monsanto decided to interfere with it to pad their profit margins.

"Loopholes" my butt.

 

[Revoltingest]

There'll be a few hitches & glitches along the way, but I look forward to a GMO future.
We'll have beer trees, bacon vines, breadfruit, spice weasels, & ears of pre-popped
caramel popcorn! But I urge caution about being wedded to monoculture strains though,
since they'd be vulnerable to disease.

All hail the brilliant Monsanto!
Our wishes & dreams they'll grant, oh
we'll have a utopia
with our cornucopia!
And I can't think of a fifth line!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There'll be a few hitches & glitches along the way, but I look forward to a GMO future.
We'll have beer trees, bacon vines, breadfruit, spice weasels, & ears of pre-popped
caramel popcorn! But I urge caution about being wedded to monoculture strains though,
since they'd be vulnerable to disease.

The monoculture strains should have us all concerned. If a disease effects them, there is a potential for it to devastate a massive portion (I've heard up to 90%) of all crops in America.. It's really a game of Russian Roulette on a massive scale.

 

[Alceste]

The monoculture strains should have us all concerned. If a disease effects them, there is a potential for it to devastate a massive portion (I've heard up to 90%) of all crops in America.. It's really a game of Russian Roulette on a massive scale.

Exactly.

 

[Drolefille]

Drolefille:

I might have made a mistake here so just to be clear:

1 - The farmer has always collected seeds from his crop for replanting.
2 - Some GMO material wanders into his fields, GMO seeds are created.
3 - Some legal stuff happens.
4 - The farmer can no longer collect seeds from crops in his fields.

If that's correct, it seems to me the courts screwed up. If anything he was effectively trespassed on.

(Also, I'm not quite ready to grant the claim that biologically "we've always done GMO")

His next crop was 95-98% GMO. That means he specifically saved THOSE seeds and knew that they weren't what he had planted in 97 to plant in 98.
He argued the trespass, he lost because he replanted those seeds.

We should not leave Monsanto out of it....or Tyson.

One farmer in Indiana, sued for the right to retain seed for the next planting.
It cost him everything to launch that suit.

He lost.

Citation? I'm genuinely curious.

The most recent argument I saw displayed what happens when you feed altered grain to cattle.
They get sick and die.

Same, citation please?

You are obviously not a gardener. Half the stuff in my garden, I have no idea how it got there. If I like it, or if it does well with little maintenance (I'm really busy and don't irrigate) I keep it. I save my seeds, take clippings, etc. Or I get clippings from the neighbours, whole plants, whatever. Occasionally I buy seeds or plants and put them in on purpose, but on the whole the name of the game is to keep the plants I like going. I'm looking forward to propagating a plant my grandmother inherited from her mother, that has survived in three completely different climates. It's 60 years old at least, and that's just the heritage I am aware of. You can't buy that.

The very idea of a corporation injecting themselves into the picture and telling me I owe them money for doing things the way they've been done for thousands of years offends me.

If what I do, and what my mother and her mother and her mother's mother, ad infinitum, is illegal, the law is wrong. That's really all there is to it.

And that's fine, it's your opinion. There's something of a difference from being a gardener and a professional farmer. And the court disagrees with your opinion. (Also the corporation isn't so much inserting itself into YOUR business, you replaced all your crops with their seed without paying them... that isn't the same as your neighbor sharing her seedlings from you. )

For me though this case doesn't demonstrate that Monsanto's evil. Nor that GMOs are evil bad things.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'll be honest, I will probably never watch a 100 minute movie on Youtube. I hate youtube videos as arguments anyway: Who made it, where'd the money come from, etc. But I already don't particularly like Monsanto, they're just another corporation.

The World According to Monsanto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia