Is Monsanto Eeeeevuuuullll ? [Archive]

headscratcher4

9th June 2008, 02:02 PM

GreyICE

9th June 2008, 02:15 PM

How is the senario you suggest different than what is possible right now...say in mulitple year drought senarios? Large parts of the globe have long faced and experienced mass starvation...both naturally caused as well as man made. Your logic is that a farmer should not opt for potentially better methods of farming (someone else would have to prove the real utility) because if the method is adopted and some unforeseen circumstances occurs, than they'd be up the creek.
No, my argument was that companies shouldn't sell seeds that produce sterile plants. That's not 'unforseen circumstances.' It's quite easy to forsee circumstances where sterile crops produce huge problems. The words 'economic slavery' come to mind, in point of fact.

A multi-year drought is very different from every plant being sterile.

So, diabetics shouldn't use insulin because if they got use to using it and there was a glitch at the factory, they might not get thier medicine? Or HIV/AIDS sufferers shouldn't use the drug cocktail because if they use it and stabilize their condition and there's a failure at the factory they'd be up the creek? Yes, lets turn Africa into a continent of diabetics, for no good reason. Great analogy. I think I'll use it to support my position, thanks.

I don't follow the logic here. EVERY agricultural innovation is fraught with this potential. Example, today less than 1% of Americans farm, but the farming is incredibly successful thanks to all kinds of technological innovations...tractors, seed technology, new breeds of plants, soild chemistry, etc. AND, bettter yer, because of those changes I don't have to be a farmer. Now, that whole system is subject to periodic failures, are you suggesting we go backwards?
No, I'm suggesting lets not design our system for failure. Duh.
Use or don't use the seeds because they are good for the farmer and/or good for the consumer, but your "it could fail" line just doesn't make much sense....especially because agricutlure could fail with or without using the seeds.... No it couldn't. Sterile plants create a VERY specific point of failure that never used to exist.

Imagine if a few terrorists could destroy the seed that was being shipped to an entire continent because all the plants they were growing were sterile...

Yeah.

godless dave

9th June 2008, 02:27 PM

I live in a state with a lot of agriculture, and based on what I've seen and heard, Monsanto is pretty damn evil. ADM and Cargill are evil as well.

SezMe

9th June 2008, 02:28 PM

How is the senario you suggest different than what is possible right now...say in mulitple year drought senarios?
The difference is biodiversity. If farmers are using seeds from a variety of sources, then there is a chance some farms will still be OK in the face of drought, insects, etc. If every farmer is using the same feedstock and a bug comes along that loves that crop, you have a complete loss of crop.

GreyICE

9th June 2008, 02:34 PM

The difference is biodiversity. If farmers are using seeds from a variety of sources, then there is a chance some farms will still be OK in the face of drought, insects, etc. If every farmer is using the same feedstock and a bug comes along that loves that crop, you have a complete loss of crop.

I was more concerned about the so-called "Terminator Technology" actually. That's a good point too, but they more designed a system that couldn't do anything BESIDES fail. At the potential costs of millions of lives, no less.

soylent

9th June 2008, 04:26 PM

That's a good point too, but they more designed a system that couldn't do anything BESIDES fail. At the potential costs of millions of lives, no less.

I don't see the problem here. In case of a lack of terminator seeds farmers will just go buy other seed varieties; in the unlikely event of a lack of those they'll buy seeds of another suitable crop. What to plant is a decision many farmers make each year based on economical trends; it's not set in stone.

Almo

9th June 2008, 04:50 PM

GreyICE

9th June 2008, 08:35 PM

I don't see the problem here. In case of a lack of terminator seeds farmers will just go buy other seed varieties; in the unlikely event of a lack of those they'll buy seeds of another suitable crop. What to plant is a decision many farmers make each year based on economical trends; it's not set in stone. You mean if Monsanto jacks the price of their terminator seeds, they'll what? Find the tons upon tons of seeds they need to sow their fields in the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow? Maybe they'll learn to live on air?

Or will they pay any price they have to in order to get the thing that they need to live? Supply and demand, what's the price flexibility on something that will kill you if you don't get it?

Unfortunately, I can't think of a solid profit motive for a company to make really awesome seeds if the user can buy one ton then start producing his own. It's a hazard of trying to sell something that can make more of itself.
Oh, I dunno. Take a contract to create a seed that can meet some specification. Make the deliverable on the contract 500 tons of seed.

Easy as pie, really. I just thought of a way right there.

Or you could, I dunno. Be evil.

PixyMisa

9th June 2008, 08:49 PM

You mean if Monsanto jacks the price of their terminator seeds, they'll what? Find the tons upon tons of seeds they need to sow their fields in the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow? Maybe they'll learn to live on air?
Monsanto has a global monopoly on seeds?

Jorghnassen

9th June 2008, 09:24 PM

Monsanto has a global monopoly on seeds?

Not yet...

/but I hear it's trying to.

The Mad Hatter

9th June 2008, 09:46 PM

Keep in mind that terminator technology only exists conceptually, and is not commercially available. In fact, Monsanto pledged not to release it commercially, if that means anything.

Also keep in mind that farmers are, by contract, only allowed to plant regular Monsanto GMOs for one generation before buying new seeds. While I think the contract's a better idea, terminator technology is just a way of enforcing it. And the effects are really nothing new - hybrid seeds need to be purchased every generation because their sexual reproduction breaks it down.

As for biodiversity, I don't see how the crops limit it. "Terminator" is not a single variety; it's a trait that could be introduced into many different varieties.

PixyMisa

9th June 2008, 10:54 PM

So the farmers who use the seeds get a huge competative advantage, and drive everyone else out of the market...

Until their economy hits a hiccup or Monsanto's factory breaks down and suddenly their seed grain can't grow a new crop and a few million starve to death.
Assuming that Monsanto had a global monopoly, and only had one factory, and had no stockpiles of seeds, and no-one else had any stockpiles of seeds, and no-one had any food reserves, yes, that would be bad.

But not Monsanto's fault.

Yeah, glad you're not on the policy board of, well, anything. I'd love for a factory breakdown to cause mass starvation.
Ain't gonna happen.

You mean if Monsanto jacks the price of their terminator seeds, they'll what?
And what if Google bought a nuclear weapon on the black market and dropped it on Sheboygan? That would be bad too.

GreyICE

9th June 2008, 11:02 PM

Monsanto has a global monopoly on seeds? Monsanto releases this. They're going to gain a competitive advantage, because they can resell seeds every year. All their competitors will either adopt the same technology, or suffer a competitive disadvantage.

Their technology will constantly improve. Their crops will continue to improve. So farms with them will outproduce farms without them. Which is great, right up until you have the entire developing world's food supply controlled by 2-3 corporations. Note that this is the case in America (the only seeds available are DuPont or Monsanto, there is literally no way we could plant our crops with non-brand seed, meaning we all starve if they screw up and we are stuck with terminators).

Hell, the railroad barons only controlled railroads.

Keep in mind that terminator technology only exists conceptually, and is not commercially available. In fact, Monsanto pledged not to release it commercially, if that means anything.

Also keep in mind that farmers are, by contract, only allowed to plant regular Monsanto GMOs for one generation before buying new seeds. While I think the contract's a better idea, terminator technology is just a way of enforcing it. And the effects are really nothing new - hybrid seeds need to be purchased every generation because their sexual reproduction breaks it down.

As for biodiversity, I don't see how the crops limit it. "Terminator" is not a single variety; it's a trait that could be introduced into many different varieties.
Yes, and keep in mind their pledge only occurred after a multinational moratorium on any testing, sale, or any other use of that subject. Which was, in turn, the result of massive international pressure on virtually every level, sparked by the news of the research.

The terminator seeds are now illegal in two countries, and the moratorium is voted back through every damn time it comes up.

So yes, lobbying for a technology that is pretty much one step above biological warfare is pretty much the definition of corporate evil.

And if that's not enough, they dumped toxic waste illegally, are on record as being convicted of bribing government officials, and have been convicted of false advertising. Oh and hell, lets throw in Agent Orange. That was partially their witch's brew.

Oh hell, and remember when the reporters were fired for not lying in a Fox News broadcast? The OTHER company involved, the one who pressured Fox not to release the news? Yeah. Oh, and the reporters lost on the technicality that lying on the news is not actually illegal - they proved their case true to the court's satisfaction (that Fox had no reasonable grounds whatsoever to say the report wasn't true).

I could go on. Corporate Evil? Yeah, they're it.

PixyMisa

9th June 2008, 11:25 PM

Monsanto releases this. They're going to gain a competitive advantage, because they can resell seeds every year. All their competitors will either adopt the same technology, or suffer a competitive disadvantage.

Their technology will constantly improve. Their crops will continue to improve. So farms with them will outproduce farms without them. Which is great, right up until you have the entire developing world's food supply controlled by 2-3 corporations. Note that this is the case in America (the only seeds available are DuPont or Monsanto, there is literally no way we could plant our crops with non-brand seed, meaning we all starve if they screw up and we are stuck with terminators).
So what you're saying is that on a hypothetical parallel future world where everyone in the agriculture business is really really stupid they might under certain highly implausible situations potentially run into problems with the food supply?

The Mad Hatter

9th June 2008, 11:59 PM

And if that's not enough, they dumped toxic waste illegally, are on record as being convicted of bribing government officials, and have been convicted of false advertising. Oh and hell, lets throw in Agent Orange. That was partially their witch's brew.

Hey, I never said they were a good company. I don't even support terminator technology. But I do wish I hadn't wasted an hour and a half watching that damn movie.

INRM

10th June 2008, 12:12 AM

I'd have to say yes

bobdroege7

10th June 2008, 02:00 AM

I'd say no

http://monsanto.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=59&item=169

It may be their own propaganda, but it seems they are doing some non-evil things in Africa.

Anyone for intellectual property rights?

Ivor the Engineer

10th June 2008, 05:37 AM

How quickly can you grow crops which are not resistant to Roundup in a field which has been sprayed for years with the stuff?

ectoplasm

10th June 2008, 07:50 AM

How quickly can you grow crops which are not resistant to Roundup in a field which has been sprayed for years with the stuff?

Are you asking, or do you know?

Almo

10th June 2008, 07:57 AM

Unfortunately, I can't think of a solid profit motive for a company to make really awesome seeds if the user can buy one ton then start producing his own. It's a hazard of trying to sell something that can make more of itself.
Oh, I dunno. Take a contract to create a seed that can meet some specification. Make the deliverable on the contract 500 tons of seed.

Easy as pie, really. I just thought of a way right there.

Or you could, I dunno. Be evil.

You're being really short-sighted. If the shipment of seeds can be used to create more seeds, then you don't get another sale. The R+D costs on this stuff are monstrous, and you need a way of recouping your cost. If you're charging $0.01 per seed to recover cost, and your first customer starts selling them for $0.005, when normal seeds cost $0.001, you're screwed.

Ivor the Engineer

10th June 2008, 09:05 AM

Are you asking, or do you know?

Asking.

GreyICE

10th June 2008, 09:19 AM

So what you're saying is that on a hypothetical parallel future world where everyone in the agriculture business is really really stupid they might under certain highly implausible situations potentially run into problems with the food supply?
You mean, in the hypothetical situation that has already occurred in America and several other countries, using a hypothetical technology which has already been developed might cause problems?

Wow, yes, I do think that's a real-world problem. I happen to live in the real world where Monsanto and DuPont do supply the vast majority of seeds for the United States of America, and viciously and angrily prosecute anyone who saves seeds to replant fields, assuring their monopoly. Would they use terminators minus the UN ban? Most assuredly. And that means the vast majority of crops grown in the US would be terminators.

You're being really short-sighted. If the shipment of seeds can be used to create more seeds, then you don't get another sale. The R+D costs on this stuff are monstrous, and you need a way of recouping your cost. If you're charging $0.01 per seed to recover cost, and your first customer starts selling them for $0.005, when normal seeds cost $0.001, you're screwed.
How am I being shortsighted? Make the contract for cost of development + healthy profit. They never have to sell another seed of that batch again, they've already delivered on a contract.

Do companies who lay roads have to construct tollbooths because once they build the roads they have no way to recoup costs? No? Same concept.

Hellbound

10th June 2008, 09:37 AM

Do companies who lay roads have to construct tollbooths because once they build the roads they have no way to recoup costs? No? Same concept.

Yes, same concept.

So, because they now have to include the lack of future business int heir pricing model, the cost all have to be recouped in the first year. So how, the people who want these seeds cna't afford to buy them.

For the road situation, a lot of places do need to set up toll booths. Not hte company laying the road, because they won't do it without a garauntee of payment, but the person buying the orad. They'll (for example) sell bonds that are going to be repaid out of toll costs.

How many farmers can sell bonds to cover the seed costs?

How many can get large loans to cover a highly inflated price (because now Monsanto must recover 100% of the R+D costs in the first year of sales, and still make a profit)?

So your solution is:

1. Drive the price too high for most farmers to afford it, because they have to recoup R+D costs immediately.
2. Because the price will have to be high, sales will decline, and the comapnies will not be cable to recoup costs effectively...leading to this type of research ending.
3. Most farms will still rely on older seed stock, that is susceptible to diseases, less drought resistent, less nutritious, etc, etc, etc.
4. THe only farmers to benefit from this will be large-scael facotry farming operations, that can afford to contract for sepcific R+D research. THese farms will then be able to grow even more food, of better quality, over a larger area, and sell their product cheaper, making sure that small farms and farmers cannot compete in the market.
5. Now you get a monopoly on crop production, with a few large, corporate farming operations being the only ones able to compete effectively.

Brilliant.

Ivor the Engineer

10th June 2008, 10:35 AM

Anyone compared yield from GM vs conventional crops?

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html

Genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops, an authoritative new study shows, undermining repeated claims that a switch to the controversial technology is needed to solve the growing world food crisis.

The study – carried out over the past three years at the University of Kansas in the US grain belt – has found that GM soya produces about 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent, contradicting assertions by advocates of the technology that it increases yields.

Professor Barney Gordon, of the university's department of agronomy, said he started the research – reported in the journal Better Crops – because many farmers who had changed over to the GM crop had "noticed that yields are not as high as expected even under optimal conditions". He added: "People were asking the question 'how come I don't get as high a yield as I used to?'"

He grew a Monsanto GM soybean and an almost identical conventional variety in the same field. The modified crop produced only 70 bushels of grain per acre, compared with 77 bushels from the non-GM one.

The GM crop – engineered to resist Monsanto's own weedkiller, Roundup – recovered only when he added extra manganese, leading to suggestions that the modification hindered the crop's take-up of the essential element from the soil. Even with the addition it brought the GM soya's yield to equal that of the conventional one, rather than surpassing it.

Hellbound

10th June 2008, 10:38 AM

Ivor:

Now that is interesting, and a good argument against these varieties (assuming the study is sound and can be replicated).

However, I don't see how that has bearing on whether or not it's evil to desing crops to be sterile; although it does defeat my argument of creating factory-farm monopolies above (they'd stay with higher-yield traditionals). But then again, this is simpyl the varieties of soybean designed for Roundup resistence...would this apply to other species and other GM modifications?

headscratcher4

10th June 2008, 10:45 AM

Ivor: interesting. If true, one might expect to see Kansas farmers turn away from the GM seeds studied for others promising higher yeilds...any sense of if that is so?

GreyICE

10th June 2008, 01:28 PM

Yes, same concept.

So, because they now have to include the lack of future business int heir pricing model, the cost all have to be recouped in the first year. So how, the people who want these seeds cna't afford to buy them.

For the road situation, a lot of places do need to set up toll booths. Not hte company laying the road, because they won't do it without a garauntee of payment, but the person buying the orad. They'll (for example) sell bonds that are going to be repaid out of toll costs.

How many farmers can sell bonds to cover the seed costs?

How many can get large loans to cover a highly inflated price (because now Monsanto must recover 100% of the R+D costs in the first year of sales, and still make a profit)?

So your solution is:

1. Drive the price too high for most farmers to afford it, because they have to recoup R+D costs immediately.
2. Because the price will have to be high, sales will decline, and the comapnies will not be cable to recoup costs effectively...leading to this type of research ending.
3. Most farms will still rely on older seed stock, that is susceptible to diseases, less drought resistent, less nutritious, etc, etc, etc.
4. THe only farmers to benefit from this will be large-scael facotry farming operations, that can afford to contract for sepcific R+D research. THese farms will then be able to grow even more food, of better quality, over a larger area, and sell their product cheaper, making sure that small farms and farmers cannot compete in the market.
5. Now you get a monopoly on crop production, with a few large, corporate farming operations being the only ones able to compete effectively.

Brilliant.
Or perhaps you could purchase a license from Monsanto to use their crop. Say, for 10 years (after which they can continue using the seed without paying any additional money, but they have the option to repurchase the latest batch of seed). Oh. Wait. That works.

Or, in other words, how about we think of methods that actually really do work, instead of methods that don't. I can think of a zillion payment models that don't work. You're trying to think of those, instead of thinking how WOULD it work - a more important economic reality.

You're basically creating a giant strawman, with bullet points, then setting the poor guy on fire. GJ.

Hellbound

10th June 2008, 01:45 PM

Or perhaps you could purchase a license from Monsanto to use their crop. Say, for 10 years (after which they can continue using the seed without paying any additional money, but they have the option to repurchase the latest batch of seed). Oh. Wait. That works.

Or, in other words, how about we think of methods that actually really do work, instead of methods that don't. I can think of a zillion payment models that don't work. You're trying to think of those, instead of thinking how WOULD it work - a more important economic reality.

You're basically creating a giant strawman, with bullet points, then setting the poor guy on fire. GJ.

No, I'm trying to follow the models you're putting forward. I didn't create a strawman. You compared it to road construction...I was taking that economic model and applying it to the seed. I was using the model you put forth in analogy. Just as I'm about to do again.

Let's look at your 10-year plan. It's an unenforceable contract. Again, after the first year, the contractee can simply take the seed he's produced and sell it to his neighbors, and you're out. A group of farmers can get together, pool their money, have one person buy the contract, then that person shares his seeds out the next year. And in any cae, paying for ten years runs into the problems of cost again. I fyou say "well, they can do a yearly payment plan) yes, they can. But, then you run into the problem you borught up before: what happens if they have a bad year or two? Now, not only are they not producing a crop, the farm (or parts of it) or the equipment (or parts or it) have to be sold to pay for the contract for that year, which means next year they have less farm to work and stil have to pay the contract costs. Again, the large factory farming outfits, which are somewhat insulated from bad years by variety of crops, scale of operations, and stored capital, take over the market.

I'm trying to say that, so far, you haven't given a method that works. The engineered sterility enforces the contract agreements.

Why not sell the seed, engineered to be sterile, for the first ten year,s then only after that start offering it in a non-sterile version, with a new seed available in a sterile version? Follow the model used by prescription drugs and generics...a time period where sterility is allowed in order for the company to recoup R & D costs, then it's opened up.

What I'm trying to point out is that you seem to be stuck into a "sterile seed=evil" model without looking at any option other than getting rid of sterile seeds, period. I'm simply saying that I see nothing wrong with it at all; it's a way for Monsanto to enforce the contract agreements that the farmers are supposed to be following anyway. And, as the study Ivor posted seemed to hint, if the yields for GM crops are actually less than traditional kinds, then your scenario (GM crop monopoly) won't come to pass anyway.

GreyICE

10th June 2008, 02:39 PM

No, I'm trying to follow the models you're putting forward. I didn't create a strawman. You compared it to road construction...I was taking that economic model and applying it to the seed. I was using the model you put forth in analogy. Just as I'm about to do again.

Let's look at your 10-year plan. It's an unenforceable contract. Again, after the first year, the contractee can simply take the seed he's produced and sell it to his neighbors, and you're out. A group of farmers can get together, pool their money, have one person buy the contract, then that person shares his seeds out the next year. And in any cae, paying for ten years runs into the problems of cost again. I fyou say "well, they can do a yearly payment plan) yes, they can. But, then you run into the problem you borught up before: what happens if they have a bad year or two? Now, not only are they not producing a crop, the farm (or parts of it) or the equipment (or parts or it) have to be sold to pay for the contract for that year, which means next year they have less farm to work and stil have to pay the contract costs. Again, the large factory farming outfits, which are somewhat insulated from bad years by variety of crops, scale of operations, and stored capital, take over the market.Which is pretty much already happening anyway. Large farms are ALWAYS more insulated from temporary setbacks.

As for the contract being unenforceable, see: rule of law. Our country has it. If countries don't, simply deal on the country level. It's a problem, yes, but it's significantly better than risking famine based on Monsanto's goodwill.

I'm trying to say that, so far, you haven't given a method that works. The engineered sterility enforces the contract agreements.So does hiring assassins to kill everyone who breaks the contract. Many things that solve one particular problem create several others.

Why not sell the seed, engineered to be sterile, for the first ten year,s then only after that start offering it in a non-sterile version, with a new seed available in a sterile version? Follow the model used by prescription drugs and generics...a time period where sterility is allowed in order for the company to recoup R & D costs, then it's opened up.

What I'm trying to point out is that you seem to be stuck into a "sterile seed=evil" model without looking at any option other than getting rid of sterile seeds, period. I'm simply saying that I see nothing wrong with it at all; it's a way for Monsanto to enforce the contract agreements that the farmers are supposed to be following anyway. And, as the study Ivor posted seemed to hint, if the yields for GM crops are actually less than traditional kinds, then your scenario (GM crop monopoly) won't come to pass anyway.I don't see any option other than banning them. There is no such thing as basd science, but there certainly is technology that should never be used.

Oh and by the way, they've never really proven that the terminator plants won't cross pollinate. There's a significant risk of cross-pollinization. How does that fit into your libertarian economic model?

Mister Agenda

10th June 2008, 03:01 PM

But if Monsanto sells fertile seeds their frankenfood varieties will conquer the world. Weren't concerns about fertile GM seeds spreading and hybridizing outside laboratory conditions one of the reasons Monsanto was pressured to make sterile seeds? Sounds like most of the same people will think they're evil either way.

We're on the verge of a GM-based green revolution in the poorest parts of the world stuck with the crappiest growing conditions and the main thing holding it back is anti-GM propaganda when NO GM food has EVER been shown to be harmful to humans or other crops. Setting a higher priority on stroking Luddite, anti-corporate prejudices than on helping people in extreme or severe poverty get enough food to eat and have a little prosperity...now THAT's evil. I don't care if Monsanto is run by Lex freakin' Luthor, what they're doing in Africa will do more to improve the lives of a hundred million people than all the organic-produce-only fair-trade-coffee-buying Prius-driving hemp-wearing bleeding hearts who have ever lived, put together. There's nothing wrong with any of that stuff...but it's companies like Monsanto that have helped to increase the wealth of the world about 1800% in the last 100 years and moved us from a world where 80% of the human population was in extreme or severe poverty to one where less than 35% of the world's population is that poor. Economic growth and business innovation can lift another billion out of poverty in the next 20 years and all we have to do is get out of the way. Better crops for Africa is key to countries like Mali achieving enough development to reach the bottom rung of the economic ladder, to getting to the point where they can start climbing out of poverty. I know in twenty years, with hardly anyone left in extreme poverty and less than 20% in severe poverty, there will still be people crying out against corps for not caring, for exploiting the poor, for not being good citizens and so forth. They still won't comprehend the role that multinationals played in making their world possible and will still think that pure motives are more important than good results. C'est la vie.

GreyICE

10th June 2008, 03:06 PM

But if Monsanto sells fertile seeds their frankenfood varieties will conquer the world. Weren't concerns about fertile GM seeds spreading and hybridizing outside laboratory conditions one of the reasons Monsanto was pressured to make sterile seeds? Sounds like most of the same people will think they're evil either way. And the global cooling scare perpetrated by a few bad scientists proves that global warming isn't occurring, because global cooling didn't occur either.

We're on the verge of a GM-based green revolution in the poorest parts of the world stuck with the crappiest growing conditions and the main thing holding it back is anti-GM propaganda when NO GM food has EVER been shown to be harmful to humans or other crops. Setting a higher priority on stroking Luddite, anti-corporate prejudices than on helping people in extreme or severe poverty get enough food to eat and have a little prosperity...now THAT's evil. I don't care if Monsanto is run by Lex freakin' Luthor, what they're doing in Africa will do more to improve the lives of a hundred million people than all the organic-produce-only fair-trade-coffee-buying Prius-driving hemp-wearing bleeding hearts who have ever lived, put together. There's nothing wrong with any of that stuff...but it's companies like Monsanto that have helped to increase the wealth of the world about 1800% in the last 100 years and moved us from a world where 80% of the human population was in extreme or severe poverty to one where less than 35% of the world's population is that poor. Economic growth and business innovation can lift another billion out of poverty in the next 20 years and all we have to do is get out of the way. Better crops for Africa is key to countries like Mali achieving enough development to reach the bottom rung of the economic ladder, to getting to the point where they can start climbing out of poverty. I know in twenty years, with hardly anyone left in extreme poverty and less than 20% in severe poverty, there will still be people crying out against corps for not caring, for exploiting the poor, for not being good citizens and so forth. They still won't comprehend the role that multinationals played in making their world possible and will still think that pure motives are more important than good results. C'est la vie. What the hell? Even their press releases aren't that self-congratulatory.

I hope you weren't expecting this to get a pass on a skeptical forum. [citation needed]

Mister Agenda

10th June 2008, 03:11 PM

Which is pretty much already happening anyway. Large farms are ALWAYS more insulated from temporary setbacks.

As for the contract being unenforceable, see: rule of law. Our country has it. If countries don't, simply deal on the country level. It's a problem, yes, but it's significantly better than risking famine based on Monsanto's goodwill.
So does hiring assassins to kill everyone who breaks the contract. Many things that solve one particular problem create several others.

Why not sell the seed, engineered to be sterile, for the first ten year,s then only after that start offering it in a non-sterile version, with a new seed available in a sterile version? Follow the model used by prescription drugs and generics...a time period where sterility is allowed in order for the company to recoup R & D costs, then it's opened up.
I don't see any option other than banning them. There is no such thing as basd science, but there certainly is technology that should never be used.

Oh and by the way, they've never really proven that the terminator plants won't cross pollinate. There's a significant risk of cross-pollinization. How does that fit into your libertarian economic model?

It doesn't fit into my ecological model. You're worried that sterile plants will cross-pollinate with fertile plants which will then...what? Things that don't reproduce tend not to spread much.

There's no such thing as a libertarian economic model, although most libertarians find free-market oriented economic theories persuasive, libertarianism hasn't created any schools of economics. One could argue that the reverse may have happened to some degree. The libertarian approach to the scenario you describe would be for the injured parties to recover their damages from Monsanto via mediation or the courts.

Mister Agenda

10th June 2008, 03:26 PM

And the global cooling scare perpetrated by a few bad scientists proves that global warming isn't occurring, because global cooling didn't occur either.

No it doesn't. And I don't see the relevance as I am not positing contradictory doomsday scenarios, I'm pointing out that Monsanto will receive heavy criticism whether it sells sterile GM seeds or fertile GM seeds.

What the hell? Even their press releases aren't that self-congratulatory.

As I neither work for nor represent Monsanto, my comments were not self-congratulatory at all.

I hope you weren't expecting this to get a pass on a skeptical forum. [citation needed]

I would be happy to help you direct your own research. The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) has a site you might enjoy, I'm sure I picked up much of my info there. I also recommend the OXFAM site. Jeffrey Sachs 'End of Poverty' is enlightening and relevant reading, as is anything by William Easterly.

krazyKemist

10th June 2008, 03:36 PM

However, I don't see how that has bearing on whether or not it's evil to desing crops to be sterile; although it does defeat my argument of creating factory-farm monopolies above (they'd stay with higher-yield traditionals). But then again, this is simpyl the varieties of soybean designed for Roundup resistence...would this apply to other species and other GM modifications?

Those species are made for industrial agriculture. That means they are fine under conditions which prevail here, like monoculture, the possibility to add mineral fertiliser and to use irrigation, mechanized soil work and crop picking.

The situation is very different in india. Farms tend to be smaller, not to practice monoculture, employ people for soil working and crop picking. These farmers cannot afford to buy mineral fertilizer, and do not have consistent access to irrigation. For them, their traditional crops offer better resistance, and the poor's economy depends on the jobs manual farming gives to them. Monsanto has tried to penetrate this market in a sly way (promising better yields to farmers) and has been strongly objected there for what I consider good reasons.

Another thing is that GM crops make me uneasy. One reason is that they can contaminate traditional crops, mostly by cross-polination. So basically, that means that you can refuse to buy from monsanto, but your field may be contaminated by GM crops, and you may later be accused of using the seed illegally, and face a costly and time-consuming trial, even if you can prove that you are not at fault.

Another reason is that this transmission can also happens directly, with the splice inserting itself in a haphasard way in wild plants. Gene insertion in a random spot is not necessarily a good thing. It can cause other things besides conferring the desired resistance to bugs, fungus or whatever. It can also cause increases or decreases in gene expression. That may considerably change the properties of an organism. Imagine for example that a splice inserts itself in celery plant in such a way that it increases the production of psoralen (a toxic chemical normally produced by celery in self-defense) tenfold ? The GM crop may have been tested and found safe, but the contaminated plant has not. Well, under the assumption that a GM is of identical composition as the original plant (GRAS), it may even not be tested at all !

Mister Agenda

10th June 2008, 07:49 PM

Don't all of those issues also apply to non-GM crops? If I try a new crop that is supposed to have enhanced resistance to a particular disease due to good old-fashioned plant breeding, can't it cross-pollinate other crops and wild plants? Can't a gene from my new crop (or any of my crops) wind up inserted in a random spot in another plant? Doesn't this sort of thing happen all the time? What makes it so much worse if the crop is GM instead of the product of decades of specialized breeding?

AkuManiMani

10th June 2008, 07:58 PM

Is Monsanto Eeeeevuuuullll ?

I'd say its the tool of pathologically selfish and criminally irresponsible people.

They aren't out to hurt anybody so I would call them 'evil'. They just wanna rake in cash and don't give a #*$@ if anyone gets hurt in the process.

PixyMisa

10th June 2008, 07:58 PM

You mean, in the hypothetical situation that has already occurred in America and several other countries, using a hypothetical technology which has already been developed might cause problems?
You're claiming that America currently relies on a single source for all its agricultural needs every year and that source has a single point of failure?

You're nuts.

Wow, yes, I do think that's a real-world problem. I happen to live in the real world where Monsanto and DuPont do supply the vast majority of seeds for the United States of America, and viciously and angrily prosecute anyone who saves seeds to replant fields, assuring their monopoly.
So?

Would they use terminators minus the UN ban? Most assuredly. And that means the vast majority of crops grown in the US would be terminators.
Or, y'know, not.

That's why your whole argument is ridiculous. If you were saying that this is a bad idea, that the risks might outweigh the benefits, many of us would agree. But you're saying instead that Monsanto is "evil" because of a hypothetical outcome of something they haven't actually done.

AkuManiMani

10th June 2008, 08:03 PM

That's why your whole argument is ridiculous. If you were saying that this is a bad idea, that the risks might outweigh the benefits, many of us would agree. But you're saying instead that Monsanto is "evil" because of a hypothetical outcome of something they haven't actually done.

Hes saying they're 'evil' because they are actively seeking to create a food monopoly, and have blatantly lied on numerous occasions about the toxicity of many of their products among other things.

PixyMisa

10th June 2008, 08:29 PM

Hes saying they're 'evil' because they are actively seeking to create a food monopoly, and have blatantly lied on numerous occasions about the toxicity of many of their products among other things.
The latter half of that makes sense. It refers to things Monsanto has actually done.

The former half isn't true (isn't possible) and wouldn't be of any significance even if it were true. Monsanto wants a monopoly in its field? Name a company that doesn't.

AkuManiMani

10th June 2008, 08:39 PM

Monsanto wants a monopoly in its field? Name a company that doesn't.

True enough. But trying to monopolize food in starving third world nations, erm...thats kinda eff'd up :covereyes

The Mad Hatter

10th June 2008, 09:08 PM

Those species are made for industrial agriculture. That means they are fine under conditions which prevail here, like monoculture, the possibility to add mineral fertiliser and to use irrigation, mechanized soil work and crop picking.

Not necessarily - if you look at the benefits of, say, Bt crops, the farmers who would normally have walked through their fields spraying pesticides benefit much more than those who drop it from an aeroplane. For example, a "dramatic reduction in pesticide applications in Bt cotton fields has also been reported in China, and the proportion of farmers with pesticide poisoning has been reduced from 22% to 4.7%" according to this (http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/%7Emckay/BIOS424/literature/recent%20developments%20in%20pest%20control.pdf) article in TRENDS in Plant Science.

I don't really buy the monoculture argument. There are over 1000 varieties of herbicide-tolerant soybeans in the US in cultivation. To me, this is a great opportunity to preserve the diversity out there because it allows pure and sterile lines to be protected. But there's a good chance I'm confusing your argument with another common one. Forgive me if that's the case.

The situation is very different in india. Farms tend to be smaller, not to practice monoculture, employ people for soil working and crop picking. These farmers cannot afford to buy mineral fertilizer, and do not have consistent access to irrigation. For them, their traditional crops offer better resistance, and the poor's economy depends on the jobs manual farming gives to them. Monsanto has tried to penetrate this market in a sly way (promising better yields to farmers) and has been strongly objected there for what I consider good reasons. And you don't think they would benefit from Bt crops, which drastically reduce the cost of pesticides? The biggest benefits of GM crops are in the input costs; not necessarily the yield. Roundup Ready crops, regardless of what, regretfully, Monsanto claims, are not expected to increase yields.

I'm not sure what fertilizers and irrigation has to do with it.

Another thing is that GM crops make me uneasy. One reason is that they can contaminate traditional crops, mostly by cross-polination. So basically, that means that you can refuse to buy from monsanto, but your field may be contaminated by GM crops, and you may later be accused of using the seed illegally, and face a costly and time-consuming trial, even if you can prove that you are not at fault. Unless you knowingly plant GM crops in violation of the contract, Monsanto will pay all the cleanup costs. I have yet to hear of an unfair case in this area. Activists often point to Percy Schmeiser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser), but it's quite blatantly obvious that he knowingly destroyed his own crops to plant RR crops without permission.

Another reason is that this transmission can also happens directly, with the splice inserting itself in a haphasard way in wild plants. Gene insertion in a random spot is not necessarily a good thing.It's possible, but that's exactly what happens with in nature with transposons and retroviruses. The effects of course depend on the specific variety. Herbicide-tolerant crops are less fit in the wild; Bt crops are more fit. Also, this is not specific to biotechnology.

It can cause other things besides conferring the desired resistance to bugs, fungus or whatever. It can also cause increases or decreases in gene expression. That may considerably change the properties of an organism. Imagine for example that a splice inserts itself in celery plant in such a way that it increases the production of psoralen (a toxic chemical normally produced by celery in self-defense) tenfold ?Also not specific to GMOs - in fact, this has happened with hybrid celery that was causing rashes on people's hands. The probability of a single-gene insertion causing this change pales in comparison to the probability of natural hybridization causing it. Why does nobody worry when thousands of genes are introduced at once?

The GM crop may have been tested and found safe, but the contaminated plant has not. Well, under the assumption that a GM is of identical composition as the original plant (GRAS), it may even not be tested at all !As far as I know, the FDA, EPA, and USDA all require certain tests to be performed on GMOs, even if every ingredient is GRAS.

GreyICE

10th June 2008, 10:19 PM

[QUOTE=Mister Agenda;3765965]No it doesn't. And I don't see the relevance as I am not positing contradictory doomsday scenarios, I'm pointing out that Monsanto will receive heavy criticism whether it sells sterile GM seeds or fertile GM seeds.
Which has absolutely no bearing on whether or not that criticism is valid. It's a red herring. You're bringing in an absolutely irrelevant factoid, linking it to an absolutely irrelevant conclusion, and then trying to create an equivalence between two positions that you've presented no evidence for.

As I neither work for nor represent Monsanto, my comments were not self-congratulatory at all. And as I don't think you're an idiot, why are you posting this?

I would be happy to help you direct your own research. The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) has a site you might enjoy, I'm sure I picked up much of my info there. I also recommend the OXFAM site. Jeffrey Sachs 'End of Poverty' is enlightening and relevant reading, as is anything by William Easterly.Hmm.
http://www.agra-alliance.org/work/seeds.html

Wow. They don't even mention Monsanto. I'm inclined to say you're making garbage up. Seems totally fake to me, if your best citation is that.

littlehulkster

10th June 2008, 10:47 PM

Monsanto is evil, but GMO food is probably the single greatest scientific advancement of the 20th century.

B3LYP/CEP-31G(d)

11th June 2008, 01:02 AM

No one who develops an efficient process for producing vinegar for fries can rightly be called evil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_process

Mister Agenda

11th June 2008, 07:51 AM

[QUOTE] Which has absolutely no bearing on whether or not that criticism is valid. It's a red herring. You're bringing in an absolutely irrelevant factoid, linking it to an absolutely irrelevant conclusion, and then trying to create an equivalence between two positions that you've presented no evidence for.

I'm getting that you don't think my comment is relevant. I think it is. I'm getting that you think I am trying to say both positions are equivalent. I am not.

And as I don't think you're an idiot, why are you posting this? Hmm.

A better question would be why would you say I was being self-congratulatory in the first place. I posted that in hopes it would lead you to consider what you're saying and stick to discussing the issue rather than venting on me because I hold a different view than you. Thank you for not thinking I'm an idiot though. My response to what I think you meant to say is that I feel strongly about poverty issues and have a particular interest in subjects that affect Africa.

http://www.agra-alliance.org/work/seeds.html

Wow. They don't even mention Monsanto. I'm inclined to say you're making garbage up. Seems totally fake to me, if your best citation is that.

It isn't. I'm a little behind the times. My opinions on the economics of poverty tend to be more influenced by books on the economics of poverty by economists working in the field of poverty issues than on easily-digested websites and blogs. If you refer back to my post, I said very little specifically about Monsanto. I favor them based on their work in GM food, arguably the basis for a second green revolution. If Haliburton put their efforts into developing biotechnologies that have the potential to feed hundreds of millions of hungry people, I would cut them more slack too. I apologize if I gave the impression that AGRA is about Monsanto. It's about feeding Africa. I'm glad you read it.

You can actually say I'm making garbage up, it's pretty much the same thing as saying you're inclined to say it. :rolleyes:

I said a lot in my post. If you would care to pick a single thing you think I'm lying about, I'm willing to take the time to address that, one example should suffice to make either your point or mine. I'll say up front: I do not claim that Lex Luthor has anything to do with Monsanto or that he is not a fictional character.

GreyICE

11th June 2008, 09:15 AM

You're claiming that America currently relies on a single source for all its agricultural needs every year and that source has a single point of failure?

You're nuts.And you're creating a strawman.

IF Monsanto and DuPont implemented the Terminator technology, the majority of the crops grown in the US would have a single point of failure. As it stands they do not, because the crops do NOT have Terminator technology.
Or, y'know, not.

That's why your whole argument is ridiculous. If you were saying that this is a bad idea, that the risks might outweigh the benefits, many of us would agree. But you're saying instead that Monsanto is "evil" because of a hypothetical outcome of something they haven't actually done.
[/QUOTE]
No, I'm actually saying they're evil because of their bribing of government officials and illegal toxic waste dumping. Those documented cases proved in courts should pretty much prove that law, to them, is something they bludgeon other people with, not something they have to follow. The terminators is just my biggest concern with them at the moment.
[QUOTE=GreyICE;3767080]

I'm getting that you don't think my comment is relevant. I think it is. I'm getting that you think I am trying to say both positions are equivalent. I am not. Explain how the fact that they'll have critics no matter what they do on one issue (pretty much a given, see illegal toxic waste dumping) has any influence on the validity of those concerns.

A better question would be why would you say I was being self-congratulatory in the first place. I posted that in hopes it would lead you to consider what you're saying and stick to discussing the issue rather than venting on me because I hold a different view than you. Thank you for not thinking I'm an idiot though. My response to what I think you meant to say is that I feel strongly about poverty issues and have a particular interest in subjects that affect Africa. Why did you edit my post? It was so unnecessary.

It isn't. I'm a little behind the times. My opinions on the economics of poverty tend to be more influenced by books on the economics of poverty by economists working in the field of poverty issues than on easily-digested websites and blogs. If you refer back to my post, I said very little specifically about Monsanto. I favor them based on their work in GM food, arguably the basis for a second green revolution. If Haliburton put their efforts into developing biotechnologies that have the potential to feed hundreds of millions of hungry people, I would cut them more slack too. I apologize if I gave the impression that AGRA is about Monsanto. It's about feeding Africa. I'm glad you read it. I did read it actually. It's a great plan. It doesn't do much to reduce my concerns about a country with a proven record of playing fast and loose with the rules, when people's lives were on the line.

You can actually say I'm making garbage up, it's pretty much the same thing as saying you're inclined to say it. :rolleyes: No, I'm saying you're not referencing your sources. I'm not saying you're making crap up, I'm saying from my perspective you might as well be making it up if I can't find what you're talking about.

I said a lot in my post. If you would care to pick a single thing you think I'm lying about, I'm willing to take the time to address that, one example should suffice to make either your point or mine. I'll say up front: I do not claim that Lex Luthor has anything to do with Monsanto or that he is not a fictional character. Okay, lets start simple:

What are these yield benefits to the GM revolution? What sort of percentages are we talking here? I want 20% minimum before I call it a revolution.

Show that Monsanto increased the wealth of the world by 1800%.

Document how multinational corporations were responsible for the rise of the United States, China, Japan, and other countries that went from backwards, reasonably impoverished status to international superpowers from 1900 to 2000.

Hellbound

11th June 2008, 09:17 AM

Actually, I have another point in regards to the cross-pollination argument:

If the Terminator plants are sterile...doesn't that mean they can't cross-polinate? Are they truely sterile, or do they just not produce viable seeds (but still produce viable pollen)?

If they're truely sterile, then this throws a lot of arguments out...arguments that would still be considerations if the plants were not sterile. I'll have to look into it a bit deeper and see.

GreyICE

11th June 2008, 09:31 AM

Actually, I have another point in regards to the cross-pollination argument:

If the Terminator plants are sterile...doesn't that mean they can't cross-polinate? Are they truely sterile, or do they just not produce viable seeds (but still produce viable pollen)?
Yup. Exactly what happens. They still produce pollen and seeds just fine, the seeds are just sterile. The pollen can pollinate a non-sterile plant and make future generations sterile. Which is a nice time bomb for some poor farmer.

Hellbound

11th June 2008, 09:56 AM

krazyKemist

11th June 2008, 10:25 AM

Not necessarily - if you look at the benefits of, say, Bt crops, the farmers who would normally have walked through their fields spraying pesticides benefit much more than those who drop it from an aeroplane. For example, a "dramatic reduction in pesticide applications in Bt cotton fields has also been reported in China, and the proportion of farmers with pesticide poisoning has been reduced from 22% to 4.7%" according to this (http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/%7Emckay/BIOS424/literature/recent%20developments%20in%20pest%20control.pdf) article in TRENDS in Plant Science.

The problem that happened in India was that those crops, which are very productive under industrial conditions (access to irrigation, good quality fertilizers, ect) tend to fare a lot less well in subsistance agriculture conditions, where amounts of water and quality of fertilizers (dung) may vary.

I don't really buy the monoculture argument. There are over 1000 varieties of herbicide-tolerant soybeans in the US in cultivation. To me, this is a great opportunity to [I]preserve the diversity out there because it allows pure and sterile lines to be protected. But there's a good chance I'm confusing your argument with another common one. Forgive me if that's the case.

Yes, it was probably confusing. By monoculture I meant cultivating the same crop over a very large area of land, which allow for mechanized farming. Since India has a large supply of farm workers at low cost, they tend not to farm in this way. Indeed, industrial monoculture has already robbed many indian farmers of their jobs and sent them into city slums. I'm not sure that constitutes an improvement in their lives.

And you don't think they would benefit from Bt crops, which drastically reduce the cost of pesticides? The biggest benefits of GM crops are in the input costs; not necessarily the yield. Roundup Ready crops, regardless of what, regretfully, Monsanto claims, are not expected to increase yields.

I'm not sure what fertilizers and irrigation has to do with it.

The high yields demanded by our type of agriculture often come at the cost of a loss of resistance to difficult conditions such as poor soils and droughs. As I said, those varieties work well here but may be catastrophic for a third world country practicing familial/subsistance farming and which has very low reserves of food.

Unless you knowingly plant GM crops in violation of the contract, Monsanto will pay all the cleanup costs. I have yet to hear of an unfair case in this area. Activists often point to Percy Schmeiser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser), but it's quite blatantly obvious that he knowingly destroyed his own crops to plant RR crops without permission.

I'm not sure how I would explain that to a illeterate farmer of india or africa, which may already have commited suicide after being accused of such a thing because he cannot afford to defend himself.

It's possible, but that's exactly what happens with in nature with transposons and retroviruses. The effects of course depend on the specific variety. Herbicide-tolerant crops are less fit in the wild; Bt crops are more fit. Also, this is not specific to biotechnology.

Also not specific to GMOs - in fact, this has happened with hybrid celery that was causing rashes on people's hands. The probability of a single-gene insertion causing this change pales in comparison to the probability of natural hybridization causing it. Why does nobody worry when thousands of genes are introduced at once?

Yes, it does happen in nature, after all, all the tools that allow us to do this come from nature. And I'm not a believer in "natural is better than synthetic" anyways. I'm just questioning the risk-benefit ratio of it all. As I understand it, spliced-in genes tend to behave more like transposons or retroviruses than like stable genes. Is increasing the presence of such things (confering resistance to or producing toxic chemicals) in our environment a good/bad/neutral thing ? I frankly don't know.

As far as I know, the FDA, EPA, and USDA all require certain tests to be performed on GMOs, even if every ingredient is GRAS.

I'm not sure, but didn't the recent legislation lower the requirements for testing of GMOs ?

Mister Agenda

11th June 2008, 03:30 PM

Explain how the fact that they'll have critics no matter what they do on one issue (pretty much a given, see illegal toxic waste dumping) has any influence on the validity of those concerns.

I'm pointing out that no matter what they do on that issue they will be criticized for being evil on that same issue. Illegal dumping is a separate separate issue that presumably doesn't suffer from the same 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' dilemma.

Why did you edit my post? It was so unnecessary.

If I changed anything you said, it was unintentional. I will check back and see if I can figure out what you're referring to in order to avoid making the same mistake again.

I did read it actually. It's a great plan. It doesn't do much to reduce my concerns about a country with a proven record of playing fast and loose with the rules, when people's lives were on the line. No, I'm saying you're not referencing your sources. I'm not saying you're making crap up, I'm saying from my perspective you might as well be making it up if I can't find what you're talking about. Okay, lets start simple:

What are these yield benefits to the GM revolution? What sort of percentages are we talking here? I want 20% minimum before I call it a revolution.

Show that Monsanto increased the wealth of the world by 1800%.

Document how multinational corporations were responsible for the rise of the United States, China, Japan, and other countries that went from backwards, reasonably impoverished status to international superpowers from 1900 to 2000.

I'm glad you found it interesting and I appreciate you clarifying what you meant by the statement 'I'm inclined to think you're making garbage up'.

You seem to want me to provide citations for things I didn't actually claim. I made no claims about crop yields, and crop yield is not the only thing that can make a crop successful...saving money on pesticides and reducing human and animal exposure to them can make a particular crop a good investment even if it doesn't yield any more than the crop it's replacing. I believe we're on the verge of another green revolution, we would have to be a little past the verge for me to be able to make the claims you seem to want me to make. The whole thing could turn out to be a pipe dream, but it would be unconscionable not to pursue it. The future doesn't come with any guarantees. We make the effort and hope it pays off the way we think it can.

I said that companies like Monsanto drove much of the increase of wealth the last 100 years. I'm sure Monsanto is a blip compared to the whole global economy over ten decades. My point was that economic growth has been the most significant factor in countering poverty. It is important that this growth continue and that it finally includes Africa.

You're very demanding, GreyICE. It's an annoying quality. I claimed that multinationals played an important role in the development of the modern world and you want me to document how they are 'responsible' (as though I claimed multinationals were the only important factor) for the rise of various nations from poverty. I imagine the documentation of even my modest claim that they played an important role would be quite breathtaking in its scope, and I'm not prepared to devote many hours of time to educating you, especially since I truly doubt you are unaware of the importance of foriegn investment to a developing country, which is particularly obvious in the cases of Japan and China.

I believe we have fundamentally incompatible debating styles. I tend to talk about the big picture and you tend to sit back and dissect and demand specifics and citations rather than actually presenting a case of your own. Essentially, you are acting as a critic rather than a contributor, in my opininon. I'm not finding this to be either a pleasant experience or a learning one, so I will leave you the field. Perhaps we can have a more enjoyable conversation on another topic in future.

Mister Agenda

11th June 2008, 03:39 PM

"And as I don't think you're an idiot, why are you posting this? Hmm."

As far as editing GreyICE's post, the only change I can see is that the 'Hmm' got contracted to immediately follow the rest of the quote when originally it was separated from the preceding sentence by a quote from me. I apologize for not doing a better job quoting and am sorry it was as confusing as it seems to have been. GreyICE if you're referring to something else, please clarify so I can learn from my mistake.

krazyKemist

11th June 2008, 04:22 PM

Time-bomb? Only if they plant traditional seeds and Terminator seeds close enough for cross-pollination. Being a known problem, I wouldn't necessarily call that a time bomb.

But, I can see where this could be an issue with one farmer contaminating the field of another; so someone using reuseable seed could be unfairly held to the single seed/single year standard being proposed for GM seed.

I wonder if it's possible to make a Terminator type plant that would not cross-pollinate? I think pollination is required for the development of the seeds/fruit (the parts that, generally, we're wanting for food).

Actually, this can become a severe problem for a farmer who produces his own seed. The Terminator crops may well end up sterilizing his crops.

Hypothetical question : suppose you produce your seed using the traditionnal method of keeping the best seed for replanting. Your neighbor plants Terminator crops which cross-polinate with yours, causing your plants to produce less and less until they become sterile. Who will replace your seed ? And with what ? The seed you were using was selected for resistance and productivity in your area over generations. It was in itself a genuine local variety, produced by your family over time. Will the biotech pay back what it was worth ? Will you even be able to find and buy seed that is neither Terminator type or F1 hybrid anymore ?

This problem actually didn't begin with GMOs. It began with seed producing companies wanting to aquire a captive clientele. F1 hybrids do this almost as efficiently as Terminator seeds.

GreyICE

11th June 2008, 04:27 PM

I'm pointing out that no matter what they do on that issue they will be criticized for being evil on that same issue. Illegal dumping is a separate separate issue that presumably doesn't suffer from the same 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' dilemma.
No, but it does show a particular corporate willingness to play fast and loose with the rules when lives are on the line. Toxic Waste, after all, doesn't get its name because it's normal garbage. Bribery shows a certain lack of respect for the proper workings of the law, if you will. Corporations who participate in activities like that earn a little extra scrutiny. They do get it, and they do get jumped on a lot faster than corporations that generally tow the line. I don't think this is particularly unfair, any more than it is unfair to look watch the school bully a little more than you watch the honor students.

I'm glad you found it interesting and I appreciate you clarifying what you meant by the statement 'I'm inclined to think you're making garbage up'.

You seem to want me to provide citations for things I didn't actually claim. I made no claims about crop yields, and crop yield is not the only thing that can make a crop successful...saving money on pesticides and reducing human and animal exposure to them can make a particular crop a good investment even if it doesn't yield any more than the crop it's replacing. I believe we're on the verge of another green revolution, we would have to be a little past the verge for me to be able to make the claims you seem to want me to make. The whole thing could turn out to be a pipe dream, but it would be unconscionable not to pursue it. The future doesn't come with any guarantees. We make the effort and hope it pays off the way we think it can.

I said that companies like Monsanto drove much of the increase of wealth the last 100 years. I'm sure Monsanto is a blip compared to the whole global economy over ten decades. My point was that economic growth has been the most significant factor in countering poverty. It is important that this growth continue and that it finally includes Africa. I agree. I just think that we're rushing into it. Monsanto gets a free pass because they might be able to help out Africa? We have to sacrifice any concerns, potential problems, drawbacks, corporate crimes, and legitimate drawbacks in a rush for economic growth? No.

We have a system. It works. It is working. I need a damn good reason to take down a system that is working for one that might work. And our system says we watchdog our technologies. Our system says if there's potentially disastrous results with a technology, we don't use it before we prove its safe. Our system is working quite well, really.

You're very demanding, GreyICE. It's an annoying quality. I claimed that multinationals played an important role in the development of the modern world and you want me to document how they are 'responsible' (as though I claimed multinationals were the only important factor) for the rise of various nations from poverty. I imagine the documentation of even my modest claim that they played an important role would be quite breathtaking in its scope, and I'm not prepared to devote many hours of time to educating you, especially since I truly doubt you are unaware of the importance of foriegn investment to a developing country, which is particularly obvious in the cases of Japan and China.

I believe we have fundamentally incompatible debating styles. I tend to talk about the big picture and you tend to sit back and dissect and demand specifics and citations rather than actually presenting a case of your own. Essentially, you are acting as a critic rather than a contributor, in my opininon. I'm not finding this to be either a pleasant experience or a learning one, so I will leave you the field. Perhaps we can have a more enjoyable conversation on another topic in future.
That is because your big picture is fundamentally flawed. The flaw is it has ground over the little picture, destroying it. You see, the big picture is just an excuse for not considering the effects of the policies you are advocating. There is actually no difference at all between 'the big picture' and 'the little picture' besides the fact that one cares about the human lives you might be obliterating.

The little picture contains facts. Facts like toxic waste dumped by those multinationals. Facts like they have played fast and loose with the rules, killing thousands upon thousands of people this century. Facts like they have manipulated governments, started wars, and slaughtered entire towns. All in the name of this economic growth.

Are they necessary? Quite possibly. But you giving them a pass to do as they will is insane. They are, and have been for quite some time, out of control. They are more powerful than governments, and answer to very little.

You have made claims that they are responsible for all of our progress. Perhaps. The fact that you can't document it suggests to me that perhaps it's not true. I don't think their role is as big as they like to think it is. It could certainly have occurred with smaller companies, spread out (see Merlin, as opposed to the big record labels). With the internet and improved communication, it very well could happen in Africa entirely without them - thousands upon thousands of personal connections efficiently flowing together.

Do you want me to document the people they have killed? I can document thousands.

Do you want me to document major corporations making decisions that they knew would kill people for profit reasons? I can.

Do you want me to document them starting wars? It all exists.

We're not talking about Prison Planet, we're not talking about Alex Jones. We're talking about historians, documented court cases, proven, verified facts. This has all happened.

And you would give these people a pass to do whatever they want, in the name of progress?

Our debating style difference is that you are a believer. I am a skeptic. I see a proven history of death, violence, and horror in the name of progress, andI expect more death, violence, and horrors if we continue to use the same method, unaltered. You take that same method, and expect different results.

It's magical thinking. Tigers don't change their stripes, these corporations don't suddenly decide that they should do no evil.
"And as I don't think you're an idiot, why are you posting this? Hmm."

As far as editing GreyICE's post, the only change I can see is that the 'Hmm' got contracted to immediately follow the rest of the quote when originally it was separated from the preceding sentence by a quote from me. I apologize for not doing a better job quoting and am sorry it was as confusing as it seems to have been. GreyICE if you're referring to something else, please clarify so I can learn from my mistake. Yes, it made my quote from a simple question, which it was (the argument was stupid) into some weird implication. You made a semantic point, then sat back and ignored the real point, which was that your post read like the world's most saccharine press release. If you're going to play semantic Nazi, and then add implications into my post when I was pointing out semantic arguments are stupid (and honestly asking you why you're making them) I will get annoyed.

The Mad Hatter

12th June 2008, 12:03 AM

I think it is important to examine each variety individually. It is useless to discuss the yields of GMOs in general, because that varies tremendously with each type of technology, and each crop. Contamination into the wild is not as great a threat with wheat, which only exists in agriculture. It is also not a great threat with herbicide tolerance, because that gives it no advantage in the wild. Farm-to-farm contamination isn't as great a threat with corn, which has very heavy pollen, almost always falling within 3 meters from the plant. So let's just be careful to keep our criticisms specific. I don't really know who that's addressed to...just something to keep in mind.

Also, the type of terminator technology most people seem to be discussing is not the only one. Another version exists which acts only on the inserted gene. Basically the gene (Bt/HT, etc.) is in the plant but inactive until an activating compound is absorbed. Seeds can be replanted, and crops are not sterile - but to express the added trait, you need to add this compound. This would solve most of the problems presented - contamination would not spread sterility, and the food security issues GreyICE brought up would not at all apply. I would be very interested to see people's criticisms of this version.

The problem that happened in India was that those crops, which are very productive under industrial conditions (access to irrigation, good quality fertilizers, ect) tend to fare a lot less well in subsistance agriculture conditions, where amounts of water and quality of fertilizers (dung) may vary.

I'm not very familiar with the situation in India, so I can't offer much here. I'm not sure which varieties they used and what the problems were. I did read this (http://www.agbioforum.org/v7n4/v7n4a04-schimmelpfennig.pdf) study of Bt cotton in South Africa, in which small farms benefited significantly more than similar larger ones. Granted, irrigated farms did benefit slightly more than small farms.

Yes, it was probably confusing. By monoculture I meant cultivating the same crop over a very large area of land, which allow for mechanized farming. Since India has a large supply of farm workers at low cost, they tend not to farm in this way. Indeed, industrial monoculture has already robbed many indian farmers of their jobs and sent them into city slums. I'm not sure that constitutes an improvement in their lives.

Ahh, I see. But on the other hand, many GMOs have the advantage of being very non-invasive in the farming procedure. The Amish, for example, have embraced the seeds because the technique is the same (on their part at least), and with the extra income, they can help preserve their culture. I haven't read any follow-up studies, though.

The high yields demanded by our type of agriculture often come at the cost of a loss of resistance to difficult conditions such as poor soils and droughs. As I said, those varieties work well here but may be catastrophic for a third world country practicing familial/subsistance farming and which has very low reserves of food.

I'd be interested in seeing some studies about this. Is there any evidence that these crops are more harmful in this sense than conventional crops?

I'm not sure how I would explain that to a illeterate farmer of india or africa, which may already have commited suicide after being accused of such a thing because he cannot afford to defend himself.

I know that suicides are a problem with Indian farmers, but is that actually a realistic scenario? Has anything like this happened in the past? Even when Indians planted unapproved GM seeds without the permission of Monsanto (or whatever Monsanto derivative is over there), I don't think Monsanto pursued any legal action over there. I also think Monsanto cleans it up before any legal action, unless it's clearly a conscious violation. I could very well be wrong though.

Yes, it does happen in nature, after all, all the tools that allow us to do this come from nature. And I'm not a believer in "natural is better than synthetic" anyways. I'm just questioning the risk-benefit ratio of it all. As I understand it, spliced-in genes tend to behave more like transposons or retroviruses than like stable genes. Is increasing the presence of such things (confering resistance to or producing toxic chemicals) in our environment a good/bad/neutral thing ? I frankly don't know.

I've heard this claim from a few people, but I've never actually seen evidence to support it. I have a hard time believing that added genes "pop out" just as much as transposons, because transposons have special beginning and end sequences that act as "wheels". I haven't looked at the roundup-ready genes in detail, but I know it's not a component in the Bt sequence insertion.

Whether it's a good thing of course depends on the specifics. But I'm not quite sure what your scenario actually depicts - are you worried that these genes will pop out and be inserted back into wild plants? Or are you worried about the effect on the plant itself?

I'm not sure, but didn't the recent legislation lower the requirements for testing of GMOs ?

I haven't heard of this. Did they?

GreyICE

12th June 2008, 12:19 AM

Also, the type of terminator technology most people seem to be discussing is not the only one. Another version exists which acts only on the inserted gene. Basically the gene (Bt/HT, etc.) is in the plant but inactive until an activating compound is absorbed. Seeds can be replanted, and crops are not sterile - but to express the added trait, you need to add this compound. This would solve most of the problems presented - contamination would not spread sterility, and the food security issues GreyICE brought up would not at all apply. I would be very interested to see people's criticisms of this version.
Beyond the normal criticisms inherent in the process - any time you're screwing with heredity you should definitely have to prove that your technology isn't going to do anything odd long term before we beta test it in real life - I don't have much of a problem with it. My problem is with crops that kill the next generation, not with crops that might not have some designer gene.

I'd say it would only be a problem if the crop in question was some low-water form of the plant that was growing in an area where the non-GMO version would die (at which point it would be functionally the same as killing the plant). But if it's just some gene like Roundup Ready, sure, go ahead and turn it off. If we're losing a few percentage points, some easy access to herbicide, some things that make the seed easier to collect, there will be belt tightening and problems. But certainly no risk of mass starvation.

Hellbound

12th June 2008, 06:42 AM

Actually, this can become a severe problem for a farmer who produces his own seed. The Terminator crops may well end up sterilizing his crops...

Yes, I realize that. I mentioned it in the second paragraph :) For the person buying the seed it's not an issue; they know what they're getting and know they need to keep it seperate from any seed crops, etc. The neighbors are a problem. And considering that, if contamination did occur, the victim likely wouldn't know until next season when he planted his saved seed and got diddly-squat, trying to prove causation and recoup damages from the person who caused it could be very problematic.

krazyKemist

12th June 2008, 04:45 PM

I'm not very familiar with the situation in India, so I can't offer much here. I'm not sure which varieties they used and what the problems were. I did read this (http://www.agbioforum.org/v7n4/v7n4a04-schimmelpfennig.pdf) study of Bt cotton in South Africa, in which small farms benefited significantly more than similar larger ones. Granted, irrigated farms did benefit slightly more than small farms.

I've read a little on what happened. Actually, the whole incident was around a trial of Bt cotton, which was supposed to be the first GM crop allowed in India. This, published in Nature biotech. (2002), sums up what happened:

One of the problems, according to both government sources and NGOs, is that local farmers are not meeting the many technical specifications—such as for refugia management and planting conditions—for Bt cotton, a relatively high-maintenance crop. Cotton farmers with very small land holdings, for instance, have found it impossible to set aside land for refugia, and only 40% of the total area of cotton is irrigated—which is causing problems this year because of a delayed monsoon.

Add this:

Suman Sahai, convener of Gene Campaign, a Delhi-based NGO, and a visiting professor at the University of Heidelberg, blames the government and scientific community for failing to educate farmers about dangers of not following proper procedure.

and the fact that several illegal F1 Bt cotton seeds were being sold as the real thing, and you have a recipe for disaster.

I'd be interested in seeing some studies about this. Is there any evidence that these crops are more harmful in this sense than conventional crops?

I would not say that this is unique to GMOs. This is a general observation on all our chosen crops and farm animals - bred to increase yield, in high maintainance conditions (irrigation, proper fertilizer, pesticides). The prevailing farming conditions must be kept in mind when trying to penetrate a third world market, and in the case of Bt cotton in india, the failure to do so contributed greatly to the failure of the trial.

I know that suicides are a problem with Indian farmers, but is that actually a realistic scenario? Has anything like this happened in the past? Even when Indians planted unapproved GM seeds without the permission of Monsanto (or whatever Monsanto derivative is over there), I don't think Monsanto pursued any legal action over there. I also think Monsanto cleans it up before any legal action, unless it's clearly a conscious violation. I could very well be wrong though.

Farmer suicides admitedly didn't begin with GM crops, but some say that the Bt cotton failure added to it. After all, Bt cotton seeds cost 4 times as much as regular seeds, and farmers were promised higher yields. They simply could not make ends meet. As for the scenario I depicted, I guess we would have to ask people working in rural areas what kind of actions Monsanto or its subsidiaries take over there.

I've heard this claim from a few people, but I've never actually seen evidence to support it. I have a hard time believing that added genes "pop out" just as much as transposons, because transposons have special beginning and end sequences that act as "wheels". I haven't looked at the roundup-ready genes in detail, but I know it's not a component in the Bt sequence insertion.

According to the litterature, this seems to happen with a very low frequency. It tends to depend on the vector and site of insertion. From what I know of transfectants, some are very stable, and some a lot less.

However, recombinant DNA, in the case of RR soybeans, has been found to remain in soil for up to one year after seeding, allowing horizontal contamination of non-GM crops (Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (2007), 55(25)). The effect may be dependant on vector design and agricultural practices.

Whether it's a good thing of course depends on the specifics. But I'm not quite sure what your scenario actually depicts - are you worried that these genes will pop out and be inserted back into wild plants? Or are you worried about the effect on the plant itself?

One chief concern in litterature is transmission of antibiotic resistance to soil bacteria, followed by transmission to pathogenic bacteria. This is due to vector design which include an antibiotic resistance gene to control for the presence of the desired gene. The risk is estimated to be very low. However, efforts have been undertaken to remove the antibiotic resistance gene from the final GMO.

The one I have is with the persistance of recombinant DNA and its effect on neighboring plants, or plants that would be planted there following the GM crop. Naked DNA, depending on its design, does have the capability to insert itself in a genome. This insertion, beyond confering the GM trait, could change the properties of a plant that is supposedly not a GMO, so is not tested.

I haven't heard of this. Did they?

I may have mixed it up with the rejection of the obligation to declare if a foodstuff contains a GMO (in US).