Why is Monsanto so hated? [Archive]

Tippit

24th January 2011, 02:43 AM

Wow - that's among the shallowest articles I've read in a decade. Monsanto is "evil" b/c it wants to enforce it's contracts with farmers. Heavily reliant on liberal stereotypes and economic fallacies.

Certain contracts can be deemed unenforceable, however. Just because you sign a contract for indentured servitude, doesn't mean courts will or should uphold such a contract. I'm not claiming that this example is analogus, but there are some problems with Monsanto's business model that depend on specific enforcement of intellectual property laws that are, in my opinion, flawed.

The short-sighted view, that Monsanto should give its product way - is exactly the same method any economist would use to drive Monsanto out of business and ensure that no company ever again invests in a product intended to improve the lot of poor agrarians.
The idiotic populist view is heavily investing their stereotypes that the poor agrarian is "deserving" and that any "large company" is rolling in free cash assets and ipso facto guilty of theft. Totally unrealistic and radically biased.

The problem is that GM crops can propagate naturally, with no intent of the farmer to "steal" the seed. But Monsanto's business model depends on a legal infrastructure (that they are cultivating) which gives them a claim against farmers who may have no contract with Monsanto at all.

I am not against the little guy (or the big guy), but I am not in favor of justifying theft based on poverty or other conditions.

Statements in the article like this .....

Implies that violating an agreement the farmer agrees to as a condition of sale, AND violating US ferderal law i somehow a god-giver right. That's kookie talk. If the farmer want;s to re-propagate GMO grops he needs permissio nof the patent holder AND federal licenses. Stupid arguments from VanityFair.

What about poor-liitle-me - why shouldn't I be allowed to steal from mean-ol-big-companies too ? Yeah - why can't I steal from VanityFair for example ? Illogical, anti-social cr*p.

Another problem is that the long term safety of GMO food is questionable, and unproven, yet these risks and costs are externalized by Monsanto on to the rest of us. Furthermore, how does Monsanto intend to control these seeds when they are out in the wild? I can guarantee you they're more interested in the creation of the farm police to coercively enforce their specially crafted IP laws which ensure that they get paid, regardless. The indignant red-blooded capitalist defense of Monsanto, and other big firms that make their living based on intellectual property doesn't hold with this red blooded capitalist, who recognizes that IP requires a large government to enforce and protect what are, in my opinion, questionable business models.

HansMustermann

24th January 2011, 02:59 AM

Actually, I wonder why they aren't _more_ hated.

One problem GM wheat, more specifically the Roundup-resistant kind, has caused already was propagating those genes to weeds. And such herbicide-resistant weeds are spreading alarmingly fast already. Now if you're a farmer who _doesn't_ use their modified seeds, effectively the weeds are more herbicide resistant than your crops.

It also has already proven a vector by which such genes _can_ spread to other plants without anyone wilfully infringing on Monsanto's IP. And it's the same vector they used to copy genes.

See, copying genes isn't actually invented by humans. There is a whole class of bacteria out there, the agrobacteria, which evolved a mechanism to copy genes from one plant to another. Usually just the kind of genes that causes a root tumour in which such bacteria thrive. But you can load it with any arbitrary payload. And occasionally it loads the wrong DNA segment by sheer random chance anyway.

It seems to be a major vector of horizontal gene transfer in plants.

Which brings us to another kind of GM crops, those who produce their own pesticides. E.g., those who have a gene copied from Bacillus Thuringiensis.

What you don't hear about it is that it caused a slew of problems, often in countries which are already too poor to deal with them anyway. It's caused harmless insects to go nearly extinct, it's created invasions of insects it _doesn't_ kill to fill the niches freed, _and_ again the genes have spread in the wild so such ecological effects are now happening even in places where nobody farms corn anyway.

At least spraying DDT in ye olde days killed all insects, but really only around the parts you were farming. A gene that spreads to wild grasses and makes them kill a class of insects everywhere is a whole other thing.

But that one seems to have solved itself in that it created resistance.

Aepervius

24th January 2011, 04:01 AM

There seems to be an assumption that the people who settle are all innocents who don't want to be drawn into an expensive legal battle with Monsanto, but there is no actual evidence that any of them are innocents. The fact that they settled suggests that they probably are not, in fact.

Many people settle because the cost of settling is much lower than the cost of fighting. Look at how much it cost Randi/JREF to fight that guy (was it sniffex ? Can't recall) and that money is *lost*.

stevea

24th January 2011, 06:30 AM

The anti-Monsanto ideation above fails to address the fact that other companies and even other nations that we might consider non-free also produce GMO seed. GMO crops would still exist - with all their admitted systemic peril - even if Monsanto was obliterated. It's blaming the messenger.

Tippit - your OPINION that Monsanto's non-propagation license is flawed or unenforceable is irrelevant. The legal mechanism is that Monsanto attempts to enforce and then the defendant can make a case to the court that contract is flawed. There is nothing wrong with anyone trying to enforce an explicit contract.

Your uninformed opinion about "business model" defies the 80 years of US plant patents which of course imply (non-)propagation licenses. Everything from roses, barley cultivars to fruit trees are patented, and have been for decades. Get a clue.

Another problem is that the long term safety of GMO food is questionable

Agreed - so how does hating Monsanto solve that problem ? Does hating Bayer, Novartis, Aventis, and AgrEvo improve the situation ? How about hating China's agriculture ministry with their Bt63 rice - is that helpful too ? Would things be better or substantially different if we waited a few years to allowed China and Korea to dominate GMO crop production ?

That train has already left the station and as far as I can tell there never was a realistic hope if could ever have been prevented. Telling China to not develop GMO rice is effectively telling a starving person not to eat. It isn't going to happen no matter how much you would prefer to wait for some perfect proof of safety. Yes the gene pool is polluted. What exactly did you think would happen once the less hirsute primates began tinkering with genes ?

=====
One problem GM wheat, more specifically the Roundup-resistant kind, has caused already was propagating those genes to weeds.

There is no evidence of that sort of gene flow. Instead roundup resistant weeds are developing/evolving in response to the heavy reliance on roundup/gylphosate.

See, copying genes isn't actually invented by humans. There is a whole class of bacteria out there, the agrobacteria, which evolved a mechanism to copy genes from one plant to another.

WRONG ! Agrobacterium transfer their bacterial DNA to plants - it's a one-way transfer. Now agrobacteria have been modified in lab to introduce selected "GMO" plasmids into plants, but that is nothing like the bogey man you are trying to invent.

I am not suggesting that horizontal gene transfer (very rare in higher plants) is not a huge looming problem associated with GMOs, but telling lies and crying wolf is not helpful.

What you don't hear about it is that it caused a slew of problems, often in countries which are already too poor to deal with them anyway. It's caused harmless insects to go nearly extinct, it's created invasions of insects it _doesn't_ kill to fill the niches freed, _and_ again the genes have spread in the wild so such ecological effects are now happening even in places where nobody farms corn anyway.

Evidence !

You can get GMO gene transfer to related wild crops by cross pollinization. There are no know cases of GMO plasmids horizontal transfer "in the field", despite your repeated claims to the contrary. Thanks for the alarmist woo; it's what I expect on this forum.

There was concern that Bt pollen might kill friendly insects at a distance, but this appears to not be the case in practice.

A lot of these concerns will likely be addressed in future GMO crops where one will be unable to re-propagate from offspring seed.

The Central Scrutinizer

24th January 2011, 06:50 AM

There's a few companies that many people love to hate.

Monsanto is one I hear a lot. I don't know too much about them but I understand that they mainly provide seeds for genetically modified crops, and that one of the complaints is that farmers can't keep the seeds and reuse them each year, but instead have to buy them from Monsanto each year.

Because there are modern day luddites (also known as hippies) who don't like Monsanto because their evil scientist are trying to poison us with unnatural chemicals and plants. They want to return to the days when Indians (oops, excuse me, "Native Americans") lived in harmony with nature, and didn't rape the land and kill all the little woodland creatures.

Well, OK, but what if the seeds are so much better than the natural stuff that it's worth it to the farmer to do that? Are farmers victims here or beneficiaries?

Beneficiaries.

The Central Scrutinizer

24th January 2011, 06:52 AM

There are many grounds why they are hated : they essentially for example sued a farmer contaminated by their seed for replanting them.

This is an oft-repeated myth. They did no such thing. They sued a farmer who was violating their patent and knew exactly what he was doing.

The Central Scrutinizer

24th January 2011, 07:01 AM

Certain contracts can be deemed unenforceable, however. Just because you sign a contract for indentured servitude, doesn't mean courts will or should uphold such a contract. I'm not claiming that this example is analogus, but there are some problems with Monsanto's business model that depend on specific enforcement of intellectual property laws that are, in my opinion, flawed.

You're not a judge, so your opinion is irrelevant. If this contract is uneforceable, how come it's still in force, Wendy? Like I said, good thing you're not a judge.

The problem is that GM crops can propagate naturally, with no intent of the farmer to "steal" the seed. But Monsanto's business model depends on a legal infrastructure (that they are cultivating) which gives them a claim against farmers who may have no contract with Monsanto at all.

Incorrect.

Another problem is that the long term safety of GMO food is questionable, and unproven, yet these risks and costs are externalized by Monsanto on to the rest of us. Furthermore, how does Monsanto intend to control these seeds when they are out in the wild? I can guarantee you they're more interested in the creation of the farm police to coercively enforce their specially crafted IP laws which ensure that they get paid, regardless. The indignant red-blooded capitalist defense of Monsanto, and other big firms that make their living based on intellectual property doesn't hold with this red blooded capitalist, who recognizes that IP requires a large government to enforce and protect what are, in my opinion, questionable business models.

GMO food is unproven? Indians have been eating corn for a 1000 years. Is that not long enough? The "unproven" argument is the same one used by the anti-vax loons:

Nut: "Vaccines are unproven"
Me: "Vaccines have been in use for decades and in some cases hundreds of years. How many years will it take for them to be proven?"
Nut: Refuses to answer

24th January 2011, 07:21 AM

You're not a judge, so your opinion is irrelevant. If this contract is uneforceable, how come it's still in force, Wendy? Like I said, good thing you're not a judge.

Incorrect.

GMO food is unproven? Indians have been eating corn for a 1000 years. Is that not long enough? The "unproven" argument is the same one used by the anti-vax loons:

Nut: "Vaccines are unproven"
Me: "Vaccines have been in use for decades and in some cases hundreds of years. How many years will it take for them to be proven?"
Nut: Refuses to answer

:rolleyes: so GM is nothing new, its the same as selective breeding?
thats pure nonsense, with GM some huge natural barriers have gone and they can cross stuff that was not even imaginable with selective breeding.

The Central Scrutinizer

24th January 2011, 07:26 AM

:rolleyes: so GM is nothing new, its the same as selective breeding?
thats pure nonsense, with GM some huge natural barriers have gone and they can cross stuff that was not even imaginable with selective breeding.

What do you think selective breeding is? The genes are being modified. That's how you get hybrids. But of course, it's not bad when the Indians (ooops, "Native Americans") do it, because they lived in harmony with nature, as opposed to those evil scientists in their sterile, man made labs. I bet they even work with chemicals! <gasp!!!>

24th January 2011, 07:29 AM

What do you think selective breeding is? The genes are being modified. That's how you get hybrids. But of course, it's not bad when the Indians (ooops, "Native Americans") do it, because they lived in harmony with nature, as opposed to those evil scientists in their sterile, man made labs. I bet they even work with chemicals! <gasp!!!>

nice straw-men you have there, have fun playing with them, when you are done reread my post and read the part about a barrier. and try to address my point, ok?

HansMustermann

24th January 2011, 07:43 AM

There is no evidence of that sort of gene flow. Instead roundup resistant weeds are developing/evolving in response to the heavy reliance on roundup/gylphosate.

Whatever the mechanism may be, those weeds now exist and are spreading very fast in other people's fields.

6800670]WRONG ! Agrobacterium transfer their bacterial DNA to plants - it's a one-way transfer. Now agrobacteria have been modified in lab to introduce selected "GMO" plasmids into plants, but that is nothing like the bogey man you are trying to invent.

I am not suggesting that horizontal gene transfer (very rare in higher plants) is not a huge looming problem associated with GMOs, but telling lies and crying wolf is not helpful.

Hate to break it to you, but they will transcribe just about any plasmid that has the right markers, and the _only_ modification that was made in the lab was inserting a specific one. Since bacteria exchange plasmids all the time, technically it can only take one bacterium with such a payload to not only multiply and spread it, but pass the plasmid around to other agrobacteria.

And it's not even necessary for it to escape from a lab. Infecting plants in the field has also been used extensively.

But really, plasmids get around. GM plasmids used in soy have been even found in the bacteria in some humans' gut. While the consensus is that they didn't get that from eating GM soy, nevertheless it's an illustration of those plasmids showing up just about everywhere, and where you expect them the least.

If you want to tell me that they show up everywhere _except_ in agrobacteria in the wild, I'm afraid that that kinda strains my suspension of disbelief.

Evidence !

You can get GMO gene transfer to related wild crops by cross pollinization. There are no know cases of GMO plasmids horizontal transfer "in the field", despite your repeated claims to the contrary. Thanks for the alarmist woo; it's what I expect on this forum.

Regardless of whether you believe it or not, nevertheless there are multiple studies showing those genes appearing in wild maize for example. E.g.,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1680848.stm

Now while that was probably by pollination -- and in this particular case I didn't claim it was by agrobacteria, but it's irrelevant anyway -- nevertheless you have something that is a non-cultivated grass that's showing up even in remote mountains and generally places where nobody cultivated anything, killing insects and wiping out plant species that don't have the GM genes too.

There was concern that Bt pollen might kill friendly insects at a distance, but this appears to not be the case in practice.

Yes, because the effects of strictly polen of one plant on strictly one species, which is actually what was tested in regards to the monarch butterfly, is all that matters ;)

A lot of these concerns will likely be addressed in future GMO crops where one will be unable to re-propagate from offspring seed.

Right, and you'll somehow also get rid of all those plasmids in the wild, many introduced by infecting plants in the field ;)

The Central Scrutinizer

24th January 2011, 07:46 AM

nice straw-men you have there, have fun playing with them, when you are done reread my post and read the part about a barrier. and try to address my point, ok?

No.

HansMustermann

24th January 2011, 07:53 AM

What do you think selective breeding is? The genes are being modified. That's how you get hybrids. But of course, it's not bad when the Indians (ooops, "Native Americans") do it, because they lived in harmony with nature, as opposed to those evil scientists in their sterile, man made labs. I bet they even work with chemicals! <gasp!!!>

So basically this is an argument from being unable to even understand what's being discussed?

timhau

24th January 2011, 07:58 AM

People hated Norman Borlaug too; sure, he was saving the world from hunger, but he was doing it all wrong.

The Central Scrutinizer

24th January 2011, 08:00 AM

So basically this is an argument from being unable to even understand what's being discussed?

That seems to be the way you are treating it.

The Central Scrutinizer

24th January 2011, 08:01 AM

People hated Norman Borlaug too; sure, he was saving the world from hunger, but he was doing it all wrong.

Of course. Because he used science and science created the atom bomb, so we know it's bad.

24th January 2011, 08:09 AM

No.

So you don't even have a clue what GM is......... that was to be expected :rolleyes:

lomiller

24th January 2011, 08:10 AM

There are many grounds why they are hated : they essentially for example sued a farmer contaminated by their seed for replanting them. And they seem to go for a no-replanting no-reseeding policy which has quite a certain implication for the 3rd world.

It’s not just policy, they sell hybrid seeds. Hybrids grow well the first generation but yields decline dramatically in subsequent generations, well below even the traditional seeds the farmers were planting.

It isn’t quite as bad in North America where we have a couple suppliers to choose from but essentially one you start using hybrid seeds you are at the mercy of the company selling them. This is one of the main reasons there really is no money in farming any more. If you want to make money from farming it’ll come from tax breaks and land value appreciation.

HansMustermann

24th January 2011, 08:11 AM

That seems to be the way you are treating it.

Seeing you reduce it all to the stupid oversimplification of its being kinda like selective breeding, kinda leaves me with few other options as how to name it. It's either Dunning-Kruger problems or a strawman. Take your pick.

But just to make it clear: nobody is against it because of being science, or because of it happening artificially. At least nobody in this thread. So, you know, you can take your canned BS retorts to some place where they're actually answering to something someone actually said.

It being kinda like genes that evolved naturally -- and indeed, virtually all of the GM genes _are_ genes that evolved naturally in other organisms -- doesn't preclude the need to test them for safety, for a start. The genes that produce atropine in Nightshade or the alcaloid cocktail in Hemlock or the botox in that infamous bacterium, are also quite naturally evolved, but that doesn't make them safe for human consumption.

Copying genes into food _should_ see some serious testing, to see that the result is indeed harmless for humans. Precisely because not all natural genes are good for ya.

And then there is the issue that sometimes they copy a bit too much. Cases where they copied an allergen into a plant that didn't have it, do exist. Again, it being a natural or possible to evolve naturally, doesn't override the fact that it's an unwanted addition.

roger

24th January 2011, 08:19 AM

I've read that to the end. It makes some valid points about possible over-litigiousness on the part of Monsanto and some environmental issues from decades ago but for the most part it's a one-sided hatchet job.I didn't present the article as truth, I presented it as an example of why people hated Monsanto. The OP asked why people hated them, not why should they hate them.

Monsanto has a long history with toxic chemicals, of saying things are fine when they are not, and are now saying things like GM crops are fine. I feel fine with GM crops, myself, but a lot of people don't, and that is going to cause mistrust and hatred.

I don't think it was in that article, but another one. A farmer got fined around 1.2-1.3 million for holding seed in his barn. The seed did not belong to him, but to his friend. So, yes, that was against the terms they both signed with Monsanto, and should be punished. But, in contrast, had that been cocaine he would have been fined thousands. I really don't think that farmer was doing the company over a million in damages. Perhaps it was an entirely fair verdict - but if as a farmer you hear "Farmer Joe was fined $1.2MM for some bags of seed" you are probably not going to like the suing company.

Or how about the story about how they went after the co-op - trying to sue them for washing seeds, which in itself is no way illegal. Note they weren't suing for washing Monsanto seeds, which is against the sales agreement, but just washing in general, because they might inadvertantly wash Monsanto seeds with this service.

And of course dairy farmers hate them - I'm not concerned about milk from cows that received growth hormone, but a lot of people are. Dairies were putting "no rBGH" on the side of their jugs, only to be sued by Monsanto. We can argue woo or not, but shouldn't people be able to know where their food comes from, especially if the provider wants to volunteer the information. I mean, you can buy "maple syrup", or "Vermont maple syrup", though I don't feel the distinction counts for much besides feel goodiness or making sure you are putting your money in a Vermonters pocket. But even Monsanto agrees that rBGH increases health risks in cows, and believe it or not some people care about that and would prefer to buy milk not produced in such a way. Monsanto is fighting that tooth and nail.

Their biotech is awesome, and who can blame them for seeing what the market will bear in regards to seed prices and related programs (no seed washing clauses). In the process they've become a de facto monopoly, and supposedly have made it hard for competitors to license their technology.

I don't know - it's hard to sort truth out from all the rhetoric. But all these concerns, true or not, along with the older stuff like dioxins and PCB dumping, are why people fear and hate the company.

The Central Scrutinizer

24th January 2011, 08:27 AM

So you don't even have a clue what GM is......... that was to be expected :rolleyes:

It's a car company.

Tippit

24th January 2011, 08:29 AM

Tippit - your OPINION that Monsanto's non-propagation license is flawed or unenforceable is irrelevant. The legal mechanism is that Monsanto attempts to enforce and then the defendant can make a case to the court that contract is flawed. There is nothing wrong with anyone trying to enforce an explicit contract.

I'm not suggesting that Monsanto's contracts are unenforceable, what I'm saying is that there is a precedent for society deciding that certain types of contracts should not be legally recognized. The problem I have with Monsanto's business model, is that it essentially requires "farm police" to determine what seed is being used.

Your uninformed opinion about "business model" defies the 80 years of US plant patents which of course imply (non-)propagation licenses. Everything from roses, barley cultivars to fruit trees are patented, and have been for decades. Get a clue.

I am against patent and copyright law, so it follows that I have a problem with patent law as it applies to the food that we eat. I don't think giant corporations should have a legal claim on the basis of what may or may not be growing on someone's property. I am entitled to my opinion. If you want to cheerlead for a greedy company that is risking the public health, and externalizing unknown costs, be my guest.

Agreed - so how does hating Monsanto solve that problem ? Does hating Bayer, Novartis, Aventis, and AgrEvo improve the situation ? How about hating China's agriculture ministry with their Bt63 rice - is that helpful too ? Would things be better or substantially different if we waited a few years to allowed China and Korea to dominate GMO crop production ?

Your argument is that because two countries with dismal human rights records are playing god with the food that we eat, that we require to EXIST, that criticism of Monsanto is unwarranted? Really?

24th January 2011, 08:30 AM

It's a car company.

:rolleyes: yeah, you don't even know the difference between GM and selective breeding.
very telling.

The Central Scrutinizer

24th January 2011, 08:31 AM

For those new to the Economics forum, it's worth noting that Tippit thinks US currency is counterfeit. So you may want to keep that in mind when reading his responses.

The Central Scrutinizer

24th January 2011, 08:34 AM

:rolleyes: yeah, you don't even know the difference between GM and selective breeding.
very telling.

You think there are no similarities.

very telling. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

24th January 2011, 08:39 AM

You think there are no similarities.

very telling. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

:rolleyes: yes there are similarities. it is not about the similarities, it is the differences that are important.....

but obviously you believe gene modification is just a new fancy word for selective breeding.

hint: it is not.

ETA: here for those that were not aware its not selective breeding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering

roger

24th January 2011, 08:47 AM

Beneficiaries.The farmers themselves agree, voting both with their mouth and pocketbooks. However, the relations between farmers and the company are such that, if somebody else came up with an equivalent seed, farmers would leave Monsanto in droves.

To try for an analogy - we all (mostly) agree that downloading music is stealing. But the RIAA goes for a scorched earth policy - you could get sued for millions for downloading a small personal collection - had you stole the same number of CDs from a store you'd get a modest fine. I don't blame the RIAA for protecting their interest (I don't download warez), but it's the sort of thing a heck of a lot of people don't perceive as a major ethical problem. After all, people traded mix cassettes for a few decades without worrying about million dollar lawsuits. Of course, the internet takes the effect of that sort of thing to a whole new level, but it "feels" the same. Same with patented seeds. Farmers have always washed seeds - it would be wasteful to just purposefully throw it away. It doesn't "feel" wrong, even though it is, since they could essentially reduce or eliminate their purchases from a company that put billions into creating the tech.

Scorched earth policies over what "feels like" minor infractions is never going to make you "most beloved company of the year".

pipelineaudio

24th January 2011, 09:59 AM

Glad you brought this up, I was going to comment on Tippit's version of what's going on as further proof that the subscription system, so forcefully vaunted as viable by the freetards, would be attacked by the same freetards once put in place. It happened with GM crops, and it happened with music. Typical hypocrisy

To try for an analogy - we all (mostly) agree that downloading music is stealing. But the RIAA goes for a scorched earth policy - you could get sued for millions for downloading a small personal collection

This isn't at all true. The RIAA doesn't have the mandate (they aren't given the legal right by those they represent) to sue for downloading. Contrary to many article titles, such as ones brought up in this very forum, they never have.

The only RIAA lawsuits have been for people UPloading copyrighted media, NOT DOWNloading it

This is typical freetardism mythology just like how "the music industry" (the guys who invented mp3 technology) are against mp3 technology. Its a lot like the stoner lore that cops aren't allowed to lie to you during a drug sale.

Its pretty telling that so much of media spread this lore like wildfire, and now all of a sudden when newspaper's are reduced to thin little inserts they amazingly stopped pushing it

HansMustermann

24th January 2011, 10:03 AM

For those new to the Economics forum, it's worth noting that Tippit thinks US currency is counterfeit. So you may want to keep that in mind when reading his responses.

I think I'll just read what he actually says and decide for myself if it has merits or not. Ad-hominem duly noted, but, as they say, even a broken watch is right twice a day.

roger

24th January 2011, 10:10 AM

This isn't at all true. The RIAA doesn't have the mandate (they aren't given the legal right by those they represent) to sue for downloading. Contrary to many article titles, such as ones brought up in this very forum, they never have.

The only RIAA lawsuits have been for people UPloading copyrighted media, NOT DOWNloading it

This is typical freetardism mythologyWell, perhaps you should inform the newspapers and courts.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96797,00.html
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-03-23-riaa-suits_x.htm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704584804575644610726717900.html
http://www.torontosun.com/tech/news/2010/11/04/15967161.html

Less snarkily, 'downloading' is pretty much understood to involve using file sharing services, which by default makes you a sharer. My point and analogy stands. Million dollar plus lawsuits over some downloaded songs strikes no one as fair (including the judge in the last linked article, where a woman received first a $1.9MM and then a $1.5MM fine for 24 songs! Two CDs worth of music!).

I mean, these seeds cost $1/lb. Getting sued for millions, dragged through the courts for years, is a tad excessive.

pipelineaudio

24th January 2011, 10:32 AM

Well, perhaps you should inform the newspapers and courts.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96797,00.html
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-03-23-riaa-suits_x.htm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704584804575644610726717900.html
http://www.torontosun.com/tech/news/2010/11/04/15967161.html

And, like I said, they're wrong

Less snarkily, 'downloading' is pretty much understood to involve using file sharing services, which by default makes you a sharer.

You can try using that sort of defense, I suspect you'll lose though.

The truth is the only RIAA mandate is for UPloading (or rather in RIAA mandate terms, illegal distribution) of copyrighted media. You can call that "downloading" if you want but you'd be wrong

(including the judge in the last linked article, where a woman received first a $1.9MM and then a $1.5MM fine for 24 songs! Two CDs worth of music!).

Glad you brought her up. Originally she was offered a settlement of 1200 dollars plus a 45 dollar court fee. After the first round of negotiations she was offered a 600 dollar settlement. Lawrence Lessig's minions decided to make her the posterboy for their cause, then abandoned her once the courts settled it in the RIAA's favor. She had an easy and criminal record free way out of this, quite a bit less than stealing a single CD from a store would have been, but she rejected it

Skeptic Ginger

24th January 2011, 10:34 AM

Patenting genes is wrought with problems.

(Cool, I found "Debatepedia", thats going to be an interesting source to look up the BS debates like vaccines and autism and see how they handle it, but I digress...)

Are gene patents, particularly related to food and agricultural products, a good idea? (http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Gene_patents)

On the medical side of gene patent controversy: Why the Gene Patenting Controversy Persists (http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/fulltext/2002/12001/why_the_gene_patenting_controversy_persists.9.aspx )

Here's a summary in a nutshell from the Human Genome Project web site: (http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/patents.shtml)

What are some of the potential arguments for gene patenting?
Researchers are rewarded for their discoveries and can use monies gained from patenting to further their research.
The investment of resources is encouraged by providing a monopoly to the inventor and prohibiting competitors from making, using, or selling the invention without a license.
Wasteful duplication of effort is prevented.
Research is forced into new, unexplored areas.
Secrecy is reduced and all researchers are ensured access to the new invention.

What are some of the potential arguments against gene patenting?
Patents of partial and uncharacterized cDNA sequences will reward those who make routine discoveries but penalize those who determine biological function or application (inappropriate reward given to the easiest step in the process).
Patents could impede the development of diagnostics and therapeutics by third parties because of the costs associated with using patented research data.
Patent stacking (allowing a single genomic sequence to be patented in several ways such as an EST, a gene, and a SNP) may discourage product development because of high royalty costs owed to all patent owners of that sequence; these are costs that will likely be passed on to the consumer.
Because patent applications remain secret until granted, companies may work on developing a product only to find that new patents have been granted along the way, with unexpected licensing costs and possible infringement penalties.
Costs increase not only for paying for patent licensing but also for determining what patents apply and who has rights to downstream products.
Patent holders are being allowed to patent a part of nature --a basic constituent of life; this allows one organism to own all or part of another organism.
Private biotechs who own certain patents can monopolize certain gene test markets.
Patent filings are replacing journal articles as places for public disclosure --reducing the body of knowledge in the literature.

Monsanto is evil. They used to shrink people at Disneyland. I was lucky to get out alive.

Skeptic Ginger

24th January 2011, 10:42 AM

Myths and real problems about GMFs both exist.

Genetically modified foods is where the reaction to Monsanto stems from, rather than the patents but the patents allowed the problems with suing farmers because pollen inadvertently contaminated a field and Monsanto had the power to unfairly overwhelm the little guy.

Goliath and David: Monsanto's Legal Battles against Farmers (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goliath_and_David:_Monsanto's_Lega l_Battles_against_Farmers)Monsanto has sued many a farmer when their GM crops have turned up on the farmer's fields even though the farmers say they never planted them (examples [1] [2]). Farmers who get into the Roundup-Ready (RR) System lose their independence, and are obliged to sign a lengthy and restrictive agreement. [3]. What's more Monsanto contracts out to private investigation firms like Pinkerton, to regularly check up on their farmers (and independent, non-GM farmers as well), taking samples unannounced from their fields to make sure they are not in violation [4] [5]. It also maintains a hotline so farmers can turn in their neighbors for suspected violations.
According to Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers Monsanto pursues hundreds of new investigative leads a year, 600 in 2003 for example, aimed at farmers....

...To be fair, there are undoubtedly a percentage of cases wherein the "violating" farmer signed the contract with full knowledge of what he was getting himself into. Equally without doubt however, there are many who either signed without reading (or understanding) the fine print, or who were perhaps given a bag of seed by a friend (not uncommon), or whose crops were pollinated by a neighbor's GM field - the HT trait going undetected (how many farmers routinely test for herbicide tolerance?) until a large portion of his crops are GM, or who perhaps gave the engineered seed a trial run one year then next growing season changed his mind only to find that the persistant stuff keeps coming back effectively putting him in violation, etc.

roger

24th January 2011, 10:45 AM

And, like I said, they're wrongIf you want an argument about how people should use language colloquially, the windmill is over that-a-way.

Can we stick to the topic of the OP?

Skeptic Ginger

24th January 2011, 10:51 AM

For anyone who has an hour, this is an excellent U of WA lecture on GMFs with some surprising examples of what many of our food crops began as.

Genetically Engineered Food: The Science Behind the Controversy (http://www.uwtv.org/programs/displayevent.aspx?rid=2512)Food plants modified by genetic engineering have been hailed by some as a technological marvel that will provide food security for the world's hungry, while being demonized by others as a serious threat to human health, a danger to the environment, and an economic weapon to increase the corporate control of agriculture. How does genetic engineering differ from traditionally accepted practices in crop breeding? Does genetic engineering of plants involve an unnatural breach of species boundaries? Do genetically engineered crops pose unique risks?

Personally, it does concern me when viruses are used to insert genes like those that result in cows producing insulin in their milk. I realize the potential from some virus to escape and/or turn into a new disease such as an infection that causes your body to produce insulin (and thus kill you) is extremely remote, the viruses used are rendered incapable of spreading, yadda yadda. But we know from experience that genes are exchanged among unrelated organisms and there have been many technologies in the past that appeared harmless but weren't.

The risk is remote and the benefits are probably worth it. But I do hope the technology stays at the highest level of research and doesn't become so common place that every fly by night producer can start experimenting with the technology. That's a ways off, but not inconceivable.

HansMustermann

24th January 2011, 11:07 AM

A virus would be the least of my problems, because of how viruses work. They need to bind to very specific proteins to even activate, much less to then spread. (See for example why bird flu could be transmitted bird to human, but almost never human to human.) Even inside the body, it is routinely the case that a few cells are attacked by the virus, but the others are effectively off limits.

So the chances of getting an epidemic out of a virus that specifically targets specific cels in a specific animal, even after a mutation or two are likely to be very slim.

In the case of GM plants, well, that's probably even less of a worry. Viruses that can get through a plant's cellulose walls have very specialized capsids, and pretty much can't attack anything else. Ditto for viruses which prey on bacteria, btw. But that's probably ok because we don't use viruses to modify plants.

We use bacteria and, well, I already ranted about that in this thread :p

pipelineaudio

24th January 2011, 11:10 AM

If you want an argument about how people should use language colloquially, the windmill is over that-a-way.

Right, because everyone agrees that "downloading" means - to upload something

Go email your ISP and ask them why they advertise both an upload and download speed when in fact they are the same thing. Please paste their response here

Francois2807

24th January 2011, 11:13 AM

roger

24th January 2011, 11:27 AM

The fact is that people settle lawsuits often due to the fact that even in a situation where the plaintiff has no case fighting the suit will bancrupt you and there is definitly a class of parasite lawyer that has no compunction about doing this and taking a settlement for the low costs of filing. That's why I protect myself with a pre-paid legal service.
As an aside, watch out for those prepaid services: http://www.essortment.com/lifestyle/commonfraudpre_skkg.htm

But that's another troubling aspect about this. Who knows what these settlement terms are. Say I do something that costs a company $10K. Surely they deserve compensation. Then they come to me and say "settle for $250,000, or we will take you to court and ride you until you are destitute, and you know we've already done that to others." What choice do you realistically have but to settle? Sure, you shouldn't have broken the law in the first place, but should you really have to face endlessly deep pockets types of litigation for a rather small mistake?

geirka

24th January 2011, 11:47 AM

I find it surprising that noone has mentioned Monsanto's involvement in the production of PCBs and related spillages.

roger

24th January 2011, 11:58 AM

I find it surprising that noone has mentioned Monsanto's involvement in the production of PCBs and related spillages.I did, very tangentally. I didn't go into it because I don't know much about it myself and don't know how much to trust these second hand articles.

Travis

24th January 2011, 12:20 PM

quixotecoyote

24th January 2011, 12:27 PM

Does anyone really think the world would be a better place if everything to do with Monsanto was destroyed? Seems to me there are always some good aspects to these megacompanies even if you need to watch them.

Depends if you mean destroyed as in "all their assets, technology, and products vanish from the face of the Earth" or destroyed as in "broken into smaller, less powerful pieces"

Psi Baba

24th January 2011, 12:27 PM

Right, because everyone agrees that "downloading" means - to upload something

Go email your ISP and ask them why they advertise both an upload and download speed when in fact they are the same thing. Please paste their response here
Are you saying that you really didn't understand that what Roger meant was that if you use a bittorrent program "just to download" then you are also guilty of uploading as well because that's how the technology works. But the lawsuits assume that if you've got downloaded music on your hard drive then you must have, therefore, uploaded it at some point. Otherwise, how can they tell what you upped?

Also, are you saying that the RIAA doesn't care about downloading music from blog sites?

OnTopic: How can Monsanto tell whether a farmer is planting seed that they purchased or seed that they "saved." It seems like you're allowed to buy the seed, but you're not allowed to plant it. If they catch you planting it, you're done. What are you supposed to do with it, anyway?

Childlike Empress

24th January 2011, 12:37 PM

they essentially for example sued a farmer contaminated by their seed for replanting them.
This is an oft-repeated myth. They did no such thing. They sued a farmer who was violating their patent and knew exactly what he was doing.

A myth? No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser

roger

24th January 2011, 12:40 PM

OnTopic: How can Monsanto tell whether a farmer is planting seed that they purchased or seed that they "saved." It seems like you're allowed to buy the seed, but you're not allowed to plant it. If they catch you planting it, you're done. What are you supposed to do with it, anyway?I'm not sure on the particulars. I don't know if there is a seasonal restriction (i.e. plant in '09 what you bought in '09). But basically they try to force farmers, under abusive threats, to sign documents giving them full access to all of the farmer's records. They then look for documentation that you bought the seed from them. No proof, and you can guess how it goes from there.

bikerdruid

24th January 2011, 12:40 PM

Why is Monsanto so hated?

because they would destroy biodiversity on the planet to increase profits....and are actually working at it.:mad:

JJM 777

24th January 2011, 12:42 PM

roger

24th January 2011, 12:44 PM

A myth? No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_SchmeiserRegardless of whether we believe Schmiser's story or not, even Monsanto admits that it is possible for a farmer's crops to become cross pollinated with their seed stock. So, effectively, it becomes a game of russian roulette for a farmer to save his own seed.

Childlike Empress

24th January 2011, 12:50 PM

Regardless of whether we believe Schmiser's story or not

The "story" is well documented.

24th January 2011, 12:55 PM

Farmers that have their fields contaminated with Monsanto stuff should sue Monsanto.

roger

24th January 2011, 12:57 PM

The "story" is well documented.
How do you document what somebody knew? (i.e. did he or did he not know that the seeds he saved and replanted had Monsanto genes)

Galteeth

24th January 2011, 12:57 PM

Why is Monsanto so hated for selling to people with monopoly right what they already had for (nearly) free?

Hmm, a group of businessmen could buy all major forests in the world, and then start charging people for the right to breathe. Wouldn't they be hated?

Yeah, basically. They have a notorious history of pressuring third world governments to make deals that benefit Monsanto at the expense of the poor. For me, it has nothing to do with the technology of GM itself. This corporation is kind of the poster boy for what people talk about when they say Western companies are exploiting the third world.

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_in_India

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/10/823719/-Millions-Against-Monsanto

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100707/03403910100.shtml

http://humanrights.change.org/blog/view/how_monsanto_hurts_farmers_around_the_world

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/agent-orange-background-monsanto-involvement.aspx

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/business-practices-in-indonesia.aspx

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/revolving-door.aspx

"You may have seen articles or stories claiming Monsanto engaged in improper activities in Indonesia. The truth is that Monsanto did act incorrectly in Indonesia between 1997 and 2002. This involved a series of illegal or questionable payments totaling at least $700,000 made to various Indonesian government officials during that time period. These payments were financed, in part, through unauthorized, improperly documented and inflated sales of Monsanto’s pesticide products in Indonesia. During this period, the Indonesian affiliates violated the accounting policies, controls and procedures of Monsanto."

I love how even the stuff from mansanto's own web page makes them sound evil.

24th January 2011, 01:00 PM

How do you document what somebody knew? (i.e. did he or did he not know that the seeds he saved and replanted had Monsanto genes)

so what, the crap contaminated his fields. its Monsanto farmers that has to keep their stuff on his fields, or not care about......

roger

24th January 2011, 01:12 PM

so what, the crap contaminated his fields. its Monsanto farmers that has to keep their stuff on his fields, or not care about......
The "so what" is that you can end up being sued by Monsanto all the way to the Supreme court because your crop was cross pollinated with their genes.

24th January 2011, 01:17 PM

The "so what" is that you can end up being sued by Monsanto all the way to the Supreme court because your crop was cross pollinated with their genes.

Just sue back when your fields are contaminated or send them the bills. they actually pay for the cleanup to remove their crap from other people's field.

stevea

24th January 2011, 02:12 PM

Whatever the mechanism may be, those weeds now exist and are spreading very fast in other people's fields.

Evidence ! No - there are no known examples of horizontal GMO genetic transfer to weeds in the field.

Hate to break it to you, but they will transcribe just about any plasmid that has the right markers, and the _only_ modification that was made in the lab was inserting a specific one. Since bacteria exchange plasmids all the time, technically it can only take one bacterium with such a payload to not only multiply and spread it, but pass the plasmid around to other agrobacteria.

There in a lot of evidence that there has been horizontal transfer among species over geological time periods, perhaps mediated by virii and bacteria. Much more common in single celled organisms than complex ones (for some obvious reasons). It IS NOT a normal or common agrobacteria feature as you claim. The fact is that you cannot show any evidece of GMO genes transferre to another higher plant (weed) as you claim.

And it's not even necessary for it to escape from a lab. Infecting plants in the field has also been used extensively.

But really, plasmids get around. GM plasmids used in soy have been even found in the bacteria in some humans' gut. While the consensus is that they didn't get that from eating GM soy, nevertheless it's an illustration of those plasmids showing up just about everywhere, and where you expect them the least.

I see this "soy/gut/bacterial transfer" claim on numerous "I hate GMO" woo websites, but I can't find any reference to this study from any reputable source. Do you have a reference that isn't from one of your GMO alarmist blogs ?

If you want to tell me that they show up everywhere _except_ in agrobacteria in the wild, I'm afraid that that kinda strains my suspension of disbelief.

I've seen NO evidence that these GMO genes jump species at all. It's a realistic concern with no evidence. They aren't "show[ing] up everywhere", unless "everywhere" means your fevered imagination. Your level of disbelief is apparently quite defective anyway - led around by woo claims and conflating all sorts of distinct issues.

Regardless of whether you believe it or not, nevertheless there are multiple studies showing those genes appearing in wild maize for example. E.g.,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1680848.stm

Now while that was probably by pollination -- and in this particular case I didn't claim it was by agrobacteria, but it's irrelevant anyway --

If by "irrelevant anyway" you mean "the key issues which demonstrates you are in error" - then we agree.

[...] killing insects and wiping out plant species that don't have the GM genes too.

Cross pollination is well recognized, GMO sugar beets crossing with wild beets, GMO maize crossing with wild maize, GMO rapeseed crossing with native brassica. That is not horizontal transfer which is the main danger.

Roundup-resistant wild crosses DO NOT "wipe out" or out-compete any plant species unless roundup/gylphosate is applied (again with your ignorant alarmism). Actually they should slightly under-perform as they have marginally less efficient photosynthesis.

Yes GMO Bt species crosses can impact insect populations - this is no surprise. But the primary example is Chinese cotton,
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100513/full/news.2010.242.html#B1
Where the Chinese Bt cotton was developed by Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), not Monsanto.

Yes, because the effects of strictly polen of one plant on strictly one species, which is actually what was tested in regards to the monarch butterfly, is all that matters ;)

I've seen several field studies of several insect species - So it's hard to parse the errors in your claim. What is your approach - let humans starve untill we test Bt pollen against every species ? Would be nice - but it's not realistic.

Right, and you'll somehow also get rid of all those plasmids in the wild, many introduced by infecting plants in the field ;)

I NEVER suggested that was possible (just the opposite), but you are just being obstinately ignorant or lack critical reading skills.

If plant genomes were as plastic as you erroneously believe there would be no stable genomes and our environment would be filled with mostly ineffective mutants. Yes horizontal transfer between higher plant species can happen, but it's not the daily experience you claim.

-

You are doing a creditable job of trying to switch the topic from your false claim that horizontal transfer to higher plants (weeds) is common.

Mr. Purple

24th January 2011, 03:33 PM

For those new to the Economics forum, it's worth noting that Tippit thinks US currency is counterfeit. So you may want to keep that in mind when reading his responses.

Neat. A bona-fide ad hominem. Not merely an insult, but the actual fallacy.

Travis

24th January 2011, 03:40 PM

Depends if you mean destroyed as in "all their assets, technology, and products vanish from the face of the Earth" or destroyed as in "broken into smaller, less powerful pieces"

I mean all their assets are destroyed, their scientific work is censored all the people that work for them or with them are shot and thrown in ditches.

Near as I can tell that's usually the intended endgame of every anti GM wacko I've ever encountered ranting on street corners to anyone that doesn't mind the smell of their urine stained pants.

My own personal opinion is that they are probably a net benefit to the world even if I do think they should be watched because profits can make smart people do dumb things. I also think the anti-GM crowd needs to tone down the crazy by 300% if they want to be taken seriously.

pipelineaudio

24th January 2011, 03:56 PM

Are you saying that you really didn't understand that what Roger meant was that if you use a bittorrent program "just to download" then you are also guilty of uploading as well because that's how the technology works.

I do understand that, however I object to the misleading (ok, LYING) claims that say people are being sued for downloading

Its like saying, "yeah I stole the car, but look, I didn't run any red lights"

But the lawsuits assume that if you've got downloaded music on your hard drive then you must have, therefore, uploaded it at some point.

No. You can upload your own legally obtained mp3s illegally (how do you think they got there in the first place?)

Otherwise, how can they tell what you upped?

They CANT tell what you uploaded (or more fairly, there are technically ways they could but they don't have a mandate to do this). What they care about is what you are in the process of uploading. During the upload is when you are marked and logged

Also, are you saying that the RIAA doesn't care about downloading music from blog sites?

Yes, in the same way that the Food and Drug Administration doesn't care what color car you drive. Its not currently part of their mandate.

Actually if you want to get really specific, the RIAA does have suggestions for creating downloadable files depending on bandwidth, sound quality, and purpose, but I don't think that's what you mean.

HansMustermann

24th January 2011, 03:58 PM

Evidence ! No - there are no known examples of horizontal GMO genetic transfer to weeds in the field.

Ok, I stand corrected. It does appear that a different mutation causes the resistance in weeds.

But, nevertheless, the fact is in the last dozen years or so, we have about 10 different weeds that are now GM resistant, 6 of them in the USA. And not only that, but selecting those resistant to Roundup seems to also have selected them to more easily adapt to other herbicides too.

Source, for example
http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/GWC/GWC-1.pdf

I see this "soy/gut/bacterial transfer" claim on numerous "I hate GMO" woo websites, but I can't find any reference to this study from any reputable source. Do you have a reference that isn't from one of your GMO alarmist blogs

1. The study was published as: Netherwood et al., "Assessing the survival of transgenic planic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract," Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004):2. If you don't like the available online sources, well, I guess you can always track down the paper version.

2. If all you can find wrong with one study is what sites mention it, that's pretty silly even by the standards of guilt by association. And generally, it seems to me that if one decides simply to not believe except for what comes from sources one likes, one could just as well "prove" God or that we're still in 1999. Just don't trust all those alarmist sites with dates newer than that, and there you go.

3. _My_ blogs? Really? Oh, I get it, a bit of ad hominem goes a long way to sound smart, right? Heh. Anyway, I'm not particularly interested in what delusional stuff you need to imagine about me to make yourself feel smart. But knock yourself out, if that's what makes you feel better. Just as long as you also get around to actually answer the actual points.

I've seen NO evidence that these GMO genes jump species at all. It's a realistic concern with no evidence. They aren't "show[ing] up everywhere", unless "everywhere" means your fevered imagination. Your level of disbelief is apparently quite defective anyway - led around by woo claims and conflating all sorts of distinct issues.

Really. Do elaborate what problems you see conflated. Because the only one misled there seems to be your poor strawman built out of pretending that different issues are just one. So if it bothers you, then you can solve it yourself: just stop conflating different issues and pretending that that was my position.

If by "irrelevant anyway" you mean "the key issues which demonstrates you are in error" - then we agree.

1. It's irrelevant because the end result is the same. Those wild maize plants have that BT gene anyway. However that happened, it got there anyway and is killing insects some tens of miles away from the nearest farm.

2. As for key factor, heh, learn to read. That's a claim I genuinely hadn't made for _that_ point. The only claim in that paragraph is "the genes have spread in the wild". Note that the previous claim also wasn't that it's the _only_ way those genes spread in the wild, so any hard connection there is your own.

Yes, I get that you're the kind too hurried to unilaterally claim some silly victory to actually bother with the boring parts like reading or thinking, but your comprehension problems are just that: your problems, not mine.

Cross pollination is well recognized, GMO sugar beets crossing with wild beets, GMO maize crossing with wild maize, GMO rapeseed crossing with native brassica. That is not horizontal transfer which is the main danger.

Except you're still answering to a paragraph which didn't claim that that's horizontal transfer. While that claim _was_ made erroneously for the roundup-resistance weeds, there was nothing of the kind about the BT gene in wild maize.

But, nevertheless, those genes now are in the wild, and are causing ecological problems. _That_ is the main problem. Now are you going to address that, or keep on pounding on your own distortion?

Roundup-resistant wild crosses DO NOT "wipe out" or out-compete any plant species unless roundup/gylphosate is applied (again with your ignorant alarmism). Actually they should slightly under-perform as they have marginally less efficient photosynthesis.

Ah, right, more strawmen or comprehension problems. Exactly which part in going about "E.g., those who have a gene copied from Bacillus Thuringiensis" or having it specified on the same row that that's about crops "who produce their own pesticides"... makes you think it's about Roundup resistance?

Anyway, a species that produces its own pesticides _can_ out-compete a species who doesn't, and if you had read the provided link, you'd have noticed that that's exactly what the concern in Mexico is: they're afraid they'll lose a chunk of biodiversity in their wild flora.

Yes, if it were the strawman of it still being about Roundup resistance, then it wouldn't, but it isn't about that.

Yes GMO Bt species crosses can impact insect populations - this is no surprise. But the primary example is Chinese cotton,
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100513/full/news.2010.242.html#B1
Where the Chinese Bt cotton was developed by Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), not Monsanto.

Yes, well, an ecological problem is an ecological problem no matter who causes it. The BT gene is doing a number of some species that were never pests to begin with. Whether it's from Monsanto or the Chinese... should I really care?

I've seen several field studies of several insect species - So it's hard to parse the errors in your claim. What is your approach - let humans starve untill we test Bt pollen against every species ? Would be nice - but it's not realistic.

No, but at least don't deny a known problem just because you find one species that wasn't affected.

I NEVER suggested that was possible (just the opposite), but you are just being obstinately ignorant or lack critical reading skills.

It's funny to see you going on about lack of critical reading skills, when you just go on about your own strawmen.

If plant genomes were as plastic as you erroneously believe there would be no stable genomes and our environment would be filled with mostly ineffective mutants. Yes horizontal transfer between higher plant species can happen, but it's not the daily experience you claim.

Actually, the genome _is_ that plastic in that if you copy a gene into it, it will be transcribed into proteins. That's why viruses work. And that's why you can take a gene from a bacillum, and have a maize plant transcribe it.

Now whether an actual plasmid of one of those GM genes gets to get out, that's a very good and relevant question, but otherwise, yes, genomes actually seems to be quite flexible in the parts that matter.

As for mostly ineffective mutants, hey, congrats, you just discovered natural selection, didn't you? That's actually the main reason why there aren't all that many ineffective mutants around.

You are doing a creditable job of trying to switch the topic from your false claim that horizontal transfer to higher plants (weeds) is common.

No, you're just hammering on a previous topic.

stevea

24th January 2011, 04:08 PM

Galteeth - -several of your sources hold the rather romantic notion that farmers save annual seed from year to year, whereas it's virtually universal in advanced nations that hybridized annual seeds are purchased every year.

I don't grow any patented annuals (recently, planted some patented barley once) but the two varieties of apple, 3 peach and 2 of 3 grape varieties I grow are patented. Even some perennial flowers I grow are patented. I cannot lawfully propagate these.

Your argument against Monsanto has two components - you (and a lot of lefties) believe that the poor and ignorant shouldn't have to fulfill their contractual obligations. That's a formula for chaos and failure. No rational company will develop products for a market where they cannot make a profit, and Monsanto can' make a profit unless they sell seed. The other part is hinged in the insinuation that Monsanto used bribes to corrupt the government (of Indonesia for example). The fact is that Indonesia's government is rife with corruption and it's sometimes impossible to do business w/o providing payoffs. Here is a pretty even-handed evaluation,
http://www.businessday.com.au/business/indonesia-booming-but-corruption-still-rules-20110121-1a035.html

So yes, yielding to government pay-to-play corruption is sad, negative, but hardly worthy of hate.

If you want something to hate - consider that the rampant poverty and poor development prospects of Indonesia encourages corruption and is the result of a religion that prevents ready capital formation.

HansMustermann

24th January 2011, 04:20 PM

Actually, I don't think anyone proposed to give people a blank check out of contracts generally. What some of us believe is that the government can regulate what kind of crap can go into a contract in the first place. Whether that applies to Monsanto or not, that's a whole different topic, but mis-representing the "lefties" as a complete strawman is not helping much.

jimtron

24th January 2011, 04:22 PM

FWIW, here are criticisms of the company from the Wikipedia Monsanto article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto) (lots more sourced info there):

In the United States

The non-profit Center for Food Safety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Food_Safety)[112] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#cite_note-111) listed 112 lawsuits by Monsanto against farmers for claims of seed patent violations.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#cite_note-url_monsantoharvest-23) The Center for Food Safety's analyst stated that many innocent farmers settle with Monsanto because they cannot afford a time consuming lawsuit. Monsanto is frequently described by farmers as "Gestapo" and "Mafia" both because of these lawsuits and because of the questionable means they use to collect evidence of patent infringement.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#cite_note-url_monsantoharvest-23)
Monsanto is responsible for more than 50 United States Environmental Protection Agency‎ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency) Superfund (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund) sites, attempts to clean up Monsanto Chemical's formerly uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#cite_note-url_monsantoharvest-23)
As of May 2008, Monsanto is currently engaged in a campaign to prohibit dairies which do not inject their cows with artificial bovine growth hormone from advertising this fact on their milk cartons.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#cite_note-url_monsantoharvest-23)
When the Federal Trade Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission) did not side with Monsanto on this issue, the company started lobbying state lawmakers to implement a similar ban. Pennsylvania Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolfe attempted to prohibit dairies from using labels stating that their milk does not contain artificial bovine growth hormone, but public outcry led Governor Edward Rendell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_Edward_Rendell) to step in and reverse his secretary's position, stating: "The public has a right to complete information about how the milk they buy is produced."[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#cite_note-url_monsantoharvest-23)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monsanto&action=edit&section=32)] Missouri

Gary Rinehart of Eagleville, Missouri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagleville,_Missouri) was sued by Monsanto in 2002, who claimed that he had violated their Roundup Ready Soybean patent. Rinehart is not a farmer or seed dealer, but he still had to spend money for his legal defense. Monsanto eventually dropped the lawsuit, but never issued an apology, admitted to making a mistake, or offered to pay for Rinehart's legal expenses.[113] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#cite_note-bas-rinehart-112) This is not the only case of aggressive, misconstrued action on the part of Monsanto. Monsanto has been accused of showing up at farmers' houses, making accusations, and demanding records.[113] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#cite_note-bas-rinehart-112)
Monsanto sued the Pilot Grove Cooperative Elevator in Pilot Grove, Missouri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_Grove,_Missouri), claiming that offering seed cleaning services to farmers was tantamount to inducing them to pirate Monsanto seeds. The Pilot Grove Cooperative Elevator had been cleaning seeds for decades before companies such as Monsanto could patent organisms.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#cite_note-url_monsantoharvest-23)
In order for the FDA to determine if Monsanto's growth hormones were safe or not, Monsanto was required to submit a scientific report on that topic. Margaret Miller, one of Monsanto's researchers, put the report together. Shortly before the report submission, Miller left Monsanto and was hired by the FDA. Her first job for the FDA was to determine whether or not to approve the report she wrote for Monsanto. In short, Monsanto approved its own report.[114] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#cite_note-113)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monsanto&action=edit&section=33)] Illinois

In 1926, when environmental policy was generally governed by local governments, Monsanto Chemical Company founded and incorporated the town of Monsanto, later renamed Sauget, Illinois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauget,_Illinois), to provide a more business friendly environment for one of its chemical plants. For years, the Monsanto plant in Sauget was the nation's largest producer of polychlorinated biphenyls. And although polychlorinated biphenyls were banned in the 1970s, they remain in the water along Dead Creek in Sauget.[115] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#cite_note-114)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monsanto&action=edit&section=34)] Alabama

Monsanto is accused of encouraging residents of Anniston, Alabama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anniston,_Alabama) to use soil known by the company to be contaminated with PCBs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCBs) as topsoil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topsoil).[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#cite_note-url_monsantoharvest-23)

24th January 2011, 04:23 PM

i have no problem when people agree to not collect the seed and replant them, that is a contract between a farmer and a company, as long it is all fair, its ok. my problems come when Monsanto sues farmers that have no contract with Monsanto but their fields got contaminated with Monsanto seeds, i think a farmer has a right to use them then. or at least Monsanto must pay for the cleanup of the mess their seeds created on other people fields. and they do pay for it.

Cavemonster

24th January 2011, 04:39 PM

Neat. A bona-fide ad hominem. Not merely an insult, but the actual fallacy.

I was gonna say the same thing!

Not to derail, but most times people call out ad homs, it's really just an insult laid on top of an argument. So few people here actually use this fallacy in such an obvious way, it's almost adorable.

Ferguson

24th January 2011, 05:48 PM

If you want an argument about how people should use language colloquially, the windmill is over that-a-way.

Can we stick to the topic of the OP?

If your source of vocabulary is mass media, then uploading is downloading, kazaa is a website, cryptozoology is a science, and pistols are machine guns.

stevea

24th January 2011, 05:58 PM

Ok, I stand corrected. It does appear that a different mutation causes the resistance in weeds.

Or to more more clear - you have made repeated erroneous claims on our major point of contention about horizontal gene transfer(HGT) from GMO crops to higher plants.

But, nevertheless, the fact is in the last dozen years or so, we have about 10 different weeds that are now GM resistant, 6 of them in the USA. And not only that, but selecting those resistant to Roundup seems to also have selected them to more easily adapt to other herbicides too.
Source, for example
http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/GWC/GWC-1.pdf

Your Purdue source clearly states that weed plants have evolved Roundup/Gylphosate resistance as a result of exposure and selection from among the natural weed biodiversity, NOT "GM resistant". Conflate much ?

1. The study was published as: Netherwood et al., "Assessing the survival of transgenic planic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract," Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004):2. If you don't like the available online sources, well, I guess you can always track down the paper version.

I'm happy to use online resource to reputable journals. Unlike you I actually read the source (abstract) instead of relying on your yellow-journalism blog sheets. Here is the abstract of YOUR source:
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v22/n2/full/nbt934.html
Which concludes ...
As this low level of epsps in the intestinal microflora did not increase after consumption of the meal containing GM soya, we conclude that gene transfer did not occur during the feeding experiment.

Your own sources give evidence that you are wrong !

2. If all you can find wrong with one study is what sites mention it, that's pretty silly even by the standards of guilt by association. And generally, it seems to me that if one decides simply to not believe except for what comes from sources one likes, one could just as well "prove" God or that we're still in 1999. Just don't trust all those alarmist sites with dates newer than that, and there you go.

Friend - I asked you for YOUR source since I couldn't find any reliable source for your position in a cursory search. YOUR source supports my position. Game over !

3. _My_ blogs? Really? Oh, I get it, a bit of ad hominem goes a long way to sound smart, right? Heh. Anyway, I'm not particularly interested in what delusional stuff you need to imagine about me to make yourself feel smart. But knock yourself out, if that's what makes you feel better. Just as long as you also get around to actually answer the actual points.

I'm still listening - show me a reliable non-blog source that gives evidence for YOUR view . Your Nature reference supports my position. Don't become a bigger fool - look at the source of the evidence and read it honestly.

Really. Do elaborate what problems you see conflated. Because the only one misled there sees to be your poor strawman built out of pretending that different issues are just one. So if it bothers you, then you can solve it yourself: just stop conflating different issues and pretending that that was my position.

Hans - look at the history above. Our main point of disagreement is clear. In post #14, I responded to your post #12 and every single item I refute is related to your (now admitted) erroneous understanding of HGT in higher plants. There is no evidence of plant-to-plant transfer as you repeatedly had claimed.

Your reply in post#21 is to re-iterate your erroneous misunderstanding more forcefully, and to CONFLATE this with a new issue of plant-to-bacterial horizontal transfer which I never suggested. You CONFLATE this again with cross-pollination - something that I never addressed. Then in a parting shot of post #21 you conflate my comment about future GMO crops being designed to prevent re-propagation as somehow related to your wildly exaggerated thinking about HGT and a gross mischaracteization/strawman that I am claiming this recinds genes in existence.

No - you are dead-wrong on our major point of contention, so now you are creating a shotgun spray of other CONFLATED issues. Further you are purposely mischaracterizing my position. I am not, in the abstract, in favor of using GMO crops. I made this very clear in post #14. You continue to act as tho' I a supposed to defend the "unintended consequences" of say Bt wild corn cultivars, or insect population changes. My misgivings about GMO are exactly those - unforeseen systemic consequences and our inability to rescind the damage. As I also said - that ship has sailed, and there is little hope it could have been prevented.

1. It's irrelevant because the end result is the same. Those wild maize plants have that BT gene anyway. However that happened, it got there anyway and is killing insects some tens of miles away from the nearest farm.

It's completely relevant - your view of HGT is erroneous, dead-wrong alarmist and foolish. We can't have a rational discussion while you are spewing and defending major errors in thinking. There is a major difference in impact between pollination witin a species and HGT across species - the end result is not "the same" but instead vastly different. I am not and never have argued that either is harmless - so drop the strawman.

heh, learn to read.

Purdue said nothing about "GM resistant" - crazy concept based on crazy erroneous thinking. The Nature article clearly says there was no evidence of gene transfer - and yet you try to pass it off as evidence of the opposite. Yes you seem to have a reading or comprehension problem on the topic.

No, you're just hammering on a previous topic.

No - you are trying to switch topics, move the goal post.

I NEVER said, thought or suggested GMOxWild crosses were harmless. You are straw-manning my position, and conflating the issue of HGT among higher plants with bacterial HGT, pollination within a species, resulting systemic impact.

If you'd like to agree that;
/ there is no evidence of recent higher plant-plant HGT
/ there is at most marginal evidence of plant-bacterial HGT
(not your source btw)
/ That weed resistance to roundup mechanism is not directly related to human genetic manipulation of plants

Then perhaps we can rationally discuss the systemic damage that GMOs can realistically cause. That discussion can't happen while you are venting irrational fears and erroneous exaggerated claims.

HansMustermann

25th January 2011, 03:53 AM

Your Purdue source clearly states that weed plants have evolved Roundup/Gylphosate resistance as a result of exposure and selection from among the natural weed biodiversity, NOT "GM resistant". Conflate much ?

And I had already conceded that it's not horizontal transfer and never said that the Purdue source says that.

_Can_ you read? No, seriously. It's getting tiresome to argue with the kind of BS-er that insists on assigning his own delusional strawmen to me.

I'm happy to use online resource to reputable journals. Unlike you I actually read the source (abstract) instead of relying on your yellow-journalism blog sheets. Here is the abstract of YOUR source:
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v22/n2/full/nbt934.html
Which concludes ...

Your own sources give evidence that you are wrong !

No, it just gives evidece that your retarded strawman is retarded. Whop-de-do. Don't make that strawman if it bothers you. My claim never was that the transfer happened during feeding, but that those plasmids showed up in gut bacteria. And it does say they do.

Really, _can_ you read?

Friend - I asked you for YOUR source since I couldn't find any reliable source for your position in a cursory search. YOUR source supports my position. Game over !

Doing the troll trope of claiming game over based on your own being unable to even read what I wrote, is kinda cute, but no banana. Learn to read, then come back.

I'm still listening - show me a reliable non-blog source that gives evidence for YOUR view . Your Nature reference supports my position. Don't become a bigger fool - look at the source of the evidence and read it honestly.

No you're not listening at all. You keep hammering on something that isn't even discussed any more, and for some cases never was, and bears no resemblance to what I actually wrote. That's not listening, that's doing an abject ego masturbation routine.

Hans - look at the history above. Our main point of disagreement is clear. In post #14, I responded to your post #12 and every single item I refute is related to your (now admitted) erroneous understanding of HGT in higher plants. There is no evidence of plant-to-plant transfer as you repeatedly had claimed.

Yes, dearie, but even post #12 contained more than one idea, and the posts after it even more. Your trying to pretend that there's one single idea everywhere is getting tiresome. Even in post #12, the horizontal gene transfer was _one_ claim among many, and there was no mention of it for wild maize for example. That was your own strawman too.

So, again, _can_ you read?

Your reply in post#21 is to re-iterate your erroneous misunderstanding more forcefully, and to CONFLATE this with a new issue of plant-to-bacterial horizontal transfer which I never suggested. You CONFLATE this again with cross-pollination - something that I never addressed.

Dude, I realize you're trying hard to sound all smart, but making stuff up about something that's black on white in the same thread is kinda stupid. Just because two things are in the same post doesn't mean they're conflated.

Cross polination was never conflated in #21 with anything, it was mentioned as a _distinct_ mode of gene transfer. The plant to bacterium transfer was also never mentioned as being _your_ claim, so I dunno whatever confusion of mind would cause such a massive distortion.

So, again, _can_ you read? Take a frikken break from polishing your own statue and look at what I actually wrote there, not at what delusional strawman could you invent to let you give a smashing response.

Then in a parting shot of post #21 you conflate my comment about future GMO crops being designed to prevent re-propagation as somehow related to your wildly exaggerated thinking about HGT and a gross mischaracteization/strawman that I am claiming this recinds genes in existence.

It wasn't a strawman, as it was never ascribed to you. It was asking how you suppose to solve a different problem.

Again: _can_ you read?

No - you are dead-wrong on our major point of contention, so now you are creating a shotgun spray of other CONFLATED issues. Further you are purposely mischaracterizing my position.

Dude, they're just different issues. I'm sorry if you're unable to get more than one idea per post in your head, but some of us do that anyway.

Furthermore even that "main issue" was _one_ point out of several. And not only it wasn't supposed to be "main", it was a subordinate claim, as support. The _main_ claim was that those crops cause harm. The exact ways in which that happens, were actually subordinate to that.

The only one who promoted it to "main" is you, presumably because it seems to be the only one you can address.

I am not, in the abstract, in favor of using GMO crops. I made this very clear in post #14. You continue to act as tho' I a supposed to defend the "unintended consequences" of say Bt wild corn cultivars, or insect population changes. My misgivings about GMO are exactly those - unforeseen systemic consequences and our inability to rescind the damage. As I also said - that ship has sailed, and there is little hope it could have been prevented.

Who the <bleep> cares what you're for? You're trying to ascribe an ad-hominem to me now too, or what? What matters is whether those crops create problems or not, and what problems.

It's completely relevant - your view of HGT is erroneous, dead-wrong alarmist and foolish. We can't have a rational discussion while you are spewing and defending major errors in thinking. There is a major difference in impact between pollination witin a species and HGT across species - the end result is not "the same" but instead vastly different. I am not and never have argued that either is harmless - so drop the strawman.

But apparently you can have a "rational" discussion by answering to just your own delusional strawmen... ;)

I never actually claimed that HGT is the same as cross-polination. And the "end result" there that's the same is the killing of insect species, not the resulting plant.

Again: learn to read.

Purdue said nothing about "GM resistant" - crazy concept based on crazy erroneous thinking. The Nature article clearly says there was no evidence of gene transfer - and yet you try to pass it off as evidence of the opposite. Yes you seem to have a reading or comprehension problem on the topic.

The only comprehension problems here are yours. You're the one repeatedly answering to other stuff than you quote, and trying to distort what was explained repeatedly into your own strawmen.

No - you are trying to switch topics, move the goal post.

Your being unable to juggle more than one idea in your head doesn't make it moving the goalpost. Especially if the "new" goalpost was actually there all along since that post #12.

I NEVER said, thought or suggested GMOxWild crosses were harmless. You are straw-manning my position, and conflating the issue of HGT among higher plants with bacterial HGT, pollination within a species, resulting systemic impact.

Again, it's not conflating, it's a bunch of different issues with GM crops. And since I never ascribed that position to you, the strawman there is yours again, not mine.

Your comprehension problems are just that: your problems not mine.

If you'd like to agree that;
/ there is no evidence of recent higher plant-plant HGT
/ there is at most marginal evidence of plant-bacterial HGT
(not your source btw)
/ That weed resistance to roundup mechanism is not directly related to human genetic manipulation of plants

Then perhaps we can rationally discuss the systemic damage that GMOs can realistically cause. That discussion can't happen while you are venting irrational fears and erroneous exaggerated claims.

Except here's the funny stuff: The message you quoted, but apparently didn't read, starts by conceding exactly that. But it doesn't stop you from hammering on your own delusional strawmen anyway. Even explicitly dropping that claim, doesn't stop your ego-masturbation number and a whole retarded show in which you pretend it didn't happen, and answer to different things than you quote.

_Can_ you read? Because nothing says the opposite like seeing you unable to read and comprehend even the first sentence in the message you pretend to answer to.

Cuddles

25th January 2011, 06:36 AM

Yes, well, an ecological problem is an ecological problem no matter who causes it. The BT gene is doing a number of some species that were never pests to begin with. Whether it's from Monsanto or the Chinese... should I really care?

Given that the topic is why people hate Monsanto, yes you should. I don't see any argument that there can potentially environmental problems from GM crops, the question is why people seem to hate Monsanto so much more than all the other companies and institutions that work with them. It might not matter who is involved for a general discussion of GM, but if the only significant problems seen so far have been caused by the Chinese government, it would seem odd to criticise Monsanto for that.

As someone already suggested, it may well simply be that Monsanto is the more prominent name, so any problem with GMOs is translated to hate for Monsanto by many people, regardless of who was actually involved.

HansMustermann

25th January 2011, 06:48 AM

Yes, well, I never said I see Monsanto as the only entity worth hating. And if it's making any difference, let me assure you that the Chinese government isn't getting any love from me. In fact, they're loathsome enough with or without this.

But, really, Monsanto doing the crap same thing that the Chinese government is doing too (the BT in wild maize in Mexico wasn't coming from China), is hardly something positive or exculpating them. "Only as bad as the PRC" -- for the environment or otherwise -- isn't something I'd put on my business card ;)

Skeptic Ginger

25th January 2011, 03:12 PM

Skeptic Ginger

25th January 2011, 03:13 PM

Does anyone really think the world would be a better place if everything to do with Monsanto was destroyed? Seems to me there are always some good aspects to these megacompanies even if you need to watch them.Well being shrunk to the size of an atom was fun, but like I said, I was glad I got out alive. ;)

For you youngsters who don't know what I'm talking about: Adventures Through Inner Space (http://davelandweb.com/atis/)

HansMustermann

26th January 2011, 01:18 AM

Three words that should give you nightmares: Horizontal gene transfer

Oh gee, I'm not touching that topic with a ten foot polearm any more :p

Bob Blaylock

26th January 2011, 12:36 PM

What's more Monsanto contracts out to private investigation firms like Pinkerton, to regularly check up on their farmers (and independent, non-GM farmers as well), taking samples unannounced from their fields to make sure they are not in violation.

Those farmers who are in contracts with Monsanto, it seems plausible to me that these contracts include provisions allowing Monsanto to send agents to the farmer's field and collect samples. The “independent, non-GM farmers” would not be party to these contracts. If Monsanto is sending agents into these farmers' fields, to collect samples of thee farmers' crops, then what I want to know is why Monsanto and these agents are not being criminally prosecuted for trespassing, theft, and vandalism.

Furthermore, since the only evidence that Monsanto could have against these “independent, non-GM farmers” could only have been obtained by trespassing in these fields, and stealing from these farmers' crops, this evidence, being illegally-obtained, would not be admissible in court, so Monsanto wouldn't have any case to pursue.

lomiller

26th January 2011, 02:02 PM

The “independent, non-GM farmers” would not be party to these contracts. If Monsanto is sending agents into these farmers' fields, to collect samples of thee farmers' crops, then what I want to know is why Monsanto and these agents are not being criminally prosecuted for trespassing, theft, and vandalism.

Furthermore, since the only evidence that Monsanto could have against these “independent, non-GM farmers” could only have been obtained by trespassing in these fields, and stealing from these farmers' crops, this evidence, being illegally-obtained, would not be admissible in court, so Monsanto wouldn't have any case to pursue.

Yeah, that’s not how it works. First, you don’t need evidence to start up a civil case. Since lawyers cost money typically it doesn’t pay for the farmer to even try to fight. I they do it’s well within Monsanto’s rights to request samples for genetic testing. Since many crops are wind pollinated there is a pretty high chance that there will be at least some contamination in nearby fields.

Puppycow

26th January 2011, 03:53 PM

Galteeth

26th January 2011, 05:11 PM

If that's really the case then there's something seriously wrong with our legal system.
That's the equivalent of a protection racket.

Yup. The legal system in general favors those with money.

pipelineaudio

26th January 2011, 11:15 PM

Anyone have court transcripts of these lawsuits? I can't imagine how this scenario actually would play out in front of a judge. I don't see how it could even result in a summons

pipelineaudio

26th January 2011, 11:31 PM

Here's the findings of the monsanto case everyone talks about

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2001/2001fct256/2001fct256.html

Besides this obviously corrupt and incompetent Canadian legal system which, even when given the concept of "the stray bull" somehow found against the defendant, are there any other cases of Monsanto pulling this?

Where is all the hate that should be directed at the Canadian legal system for this?

Bob Blaylock

27th January 2011, 12:16 AM

Yeah, that’s not how it works. First, you don’t need evidence to start up a civil case. Since lawyers cost money typically it doesn’t pay for the farmer to even try to fight. I they do it’s well within Monsanto’s rights to request samples for genetic testing. Since many crops are wind pollinated there is a pretty high chance that there will be at least some contamination in nearby fields.

I still just don't see how Monsanto is getting samples from farmers without committing criminal acts in order to do so. Lacking a legal search warrant (which would require probable cause) entering the farmer's fields without his permission is trespassing. Taking samples from that field is theft. Very likely, the farmer's plants would be damaged by the sample-taking, which would be vandalism. These are not civil offenses, for which the farmer would have to sue; these are criminal offenses, for which the farmer ought to be able to call the police, and have the offenders arrested and jailed.

Almo

27th January 2011, 10:13 AM

Right, because everyone agrees that "downloading" means - to upload something

Go email your ISP and ask them why they advertise both an upload and download speed when in fact they are the same thing. Please paste their response here

I know this is way upthread, and my response may be a duplicate. But I have to say it:

Much filesharing, uses bittorrent. Usually when you use bittorrent, you upload as well as download. If you don't, your share ratio is low, and many clients will shun you. Therefore, in a colloquial sort of way, people who are downloading are many times uploading as well.

lomiller

27th January 2011, 10:57 AM

I can't imagine how this scenario actually would play out in front of a judge. I don't see how it could even result in a summons

It’s a civil case, either you show up to defend yourself or they win by default. The way it plays out in front of a judge is that you have their genetics in your field, so you can’t sell the crop as that would violate their patent. “I didn’t intend to violate the patent” has never been a defence.

lomiller

27th January 2011, 11:03 AM

I still just don't see how Monsanto is getting samples from farmers without committing criminal acts in order to do so. Lacking a legal search warrant (which would require probable cause) entering the farmer's fields without his permission is trespassing. Taking samples from that field is theft.

They don’t need samples to file a civil case. This isn’t like a criminal case where they need to establish probable cause. Once the case is filed they have a right to disclosure.

Bob Blaylock

27th January 2011, 12:46 PM

They don’t need samples to file a civil case. This isn’t like a criminal case where they need to establish probable cause. Once the case is filed they have a right to disclosure.

Without having at least probable cause, to start with, what you are describing is what is known as a “fishing expedition”—intrusively looking for evidence on the unfounded hope that one might thus discover evidence of an actionable offense. In U.S. law, at least, this is very highly frowned on. See the Fourth Amendment.

On the other hand, trespassing—entering someone's property without their consent and without a legally-valid warrant, is very much an actionable offense, for which the violator can be arrested and put in jail.

So is stealing.

And so is damaging someone else's property.

If Monsanto's agents are committing these acts, and are not being arrested and jailed for it, then something is very, very wrong here. And if they are using materials that they are obtaining by stealing and vandalism as evidence in subsequent legal actions, and not having these materials ruled inadmissible because they were illegally obtained, then again, there is something very wrong.

lomiller

27th January 2011, 01:02 PM

Without having at least probable cause, to start with, what you are describing is what is known as a “fishing expedition”—intrusively looking for evidence on the unfounded hope that one might thus discover evidence of an actionable offense. In U.S. law, at least, this is very highly frowned on. See the Fourth Amendment.

The fourth amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with whether you can file a civil case or not.

On the other hand, trespassing—entering someone's property without their consent and without a legally-valid warrant, is very much an actionable offense, for which the violator can be arrested and put in jail.

Once again, when you have a case before the courts you have the right to request relevant information so there is no need for Monsanto to do anything to get samples; you would need to provide them.

pipelineaudio

28th January 2011, 03:30 AM

I know this is way upthread, and my response may be a duplicate.

It is

Bob Blaylock

28th January 2011, 01:01 PM

The fourth amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with whether you can file a civil case or not.

Once again, when you have a case before the courts you have the right to request relevant information so there is no need for Monsanto to do anything to get samples; you would need to provide them.

Well, one can request anything, under any circumstances. And the one of whom the request is made can decline to grant it. To compel an adversary to produce evidence requires a warrant or a subpoena. And this requires that one be able to show some compelling reason why one is entitled to the evidence in question. Warrants and subpoenas aren't routinely granted (or at least they are not supposed to be) just to support random, unsubstantiated fishing expeditions. If they were, then the Fourth Amendment would be rendered meaningless.

lomiller

28th January 2011, 02:08 PM

Well, one can request anything, under any circumstances. And the one of whom the request is made can decline to grant it.

Incorrect. Once a lawsuit is filed they can request (almost) anything that can lead to evidence and if you don’t provide it you can be faced with fines or sanctions. Push it far enough and the judge may simply rule the whole case in their favour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_discovery_under_United_States_federal_law#Ru le_26._General_Provisions_Governing_Discovery.3B_D uty_of_Disclosure

Subdivision (b) is the heart of the discovery rule, and defines what is discoverable and what is limited. Anything that is relevant is available for the other party to request, as long as it is not privileged or otherwise protected. Under §1, relevance is defined as anything more or less likely to prove a fact that affects the outcome of the claim. It does not have to be admissible in court as long as it could reasonably lead to admissible evidence.

To compel an adversary to produce evidence requires a warrant or a subpoena. And this requires that one be able to show some compelling reason why one is entitled to the evidence in question.

Again you seem to be confused. Warrants are elements of criminal law and do not apply to civil cases. You can subpoena someone in a civil case but I don’t imagine they would do so because if you don’t show up they pretty much win by default.

jimtron

28th January 2011, 10:38 PM

If Monsanto's agents are committing these acts, and are not being arrested and jailed for it, then something is very, very wrong here.Yeah, I think that's why they're hated by many (I think, I'm not an expert on this topic...)

ETA: I'm not familiar with this site, but there seems to be sourced information about the legal cases in question:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goliath_and_David:_Monsanto%27s_Le gal_Battles_against_Farmers

And a Vanity Fair article on Monsanto (Monsanto's Harvest of Fear):
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805

From one farm's point of view:
http://www.nelsonfarm.net/

From this site (http://www.organicconsumers.org/Monsanto/farmerssued.cfm):
Monsanto has a toll-free line set up to accept calls from people who
suspect farmers of violating the company's rules. The company runs ads in
magazines and on the radio encouraging people to turn in those they suspect
of breaking a Monsanto contract. When the company gets a tip, it sends
detectives out to investigate. The detectives search farmers' fields and go
through documents to find out how much seed farmers bought and how much
grain they've sold, tying to ferret out those who save it.

Court documents show that one of Monsanto's detectives searched the
Mayfields' farm in 1998, taking samples from 1,261 acres of soybeans. All
the beans were determined to contain the Roundup Ready gene. According to
Monsanto, the Mayfields had signed a contract in 1998 stating that they
only planted about 800 acres of Roundup Ready. All those extra acres of
beans were grown from saved seed, the company charges.

According to court documents, Monsanto is suing the Mayfields for at least
$ 75,000, including punitive damages. "That's just an astronomical amount
for the amount we're farming," Mayfield said.

nvidiot

28th January 2011, 10:46 PM

It's kind of like brand names. Monsanto just has a brand that says: evil agricorp. Whether that has anything to do with reality is irrelevant.

jimtron

28th January 2011, 10:50 PM

It's kind of like brand names. Monsanto just has a brand that says: evil agricorp. Whether that has anything to do with reality is irrelevant.

They may or may not behave badly, but it's not just the brand name, I think it's more about things they have done (which may or may not be misunderstood). See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Criticism

Stuff like this (from the Vanity Fair article linked in my previous post):
As interviews and reams of court documents reveal, Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents in the American heartland to strike fear into farm country. They fan out into fields and farm towns, where they secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners, and co-ops; infiltrate community meetings; and gather information from informants about farming activities. Farmers say that some Monsanto agents pretend to be surveyors. Others confront farmers on their land and try to pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records. Farmers call them the “seed police” and use words such as “Gestapo” and “Mafia” to describe their tactics.

pipelineaudio

29th January 2011, 01:40 AM

So are there any court transcripts besides the canadian one or is it all hearsay?

jimtron

29th January 2011, 11:24 AM

So are there any court transcripts besides the canadian one or is it all hearsay?

The seed/farmer issue? I don't have access to court transcripts, but there seem to be many reliable sources that back this up (see links in my previous posts and elsewhere in this thread).

bikerdruid

29th January 2011, 11:32 AM

The seed/farmer issue? I don't have access to court transcripts, but there seem to be many reliable sources that back this up (see links in my previous posts and elsewhere in this thread).

the film 'Food Inc.' makes some good points against monsanto.
their persecution of seed cleaning operations is heinous.
monsanto ruthlessly harrasses seed cleaning operations because they could possibly be assisting farmers in using patented seed.

i would highly recommend the film.

jimtron

29th January 2011, 01:57 PM

the film 'Food Inc.' makes some good points against monsanto.
their persecution of seed cleaning operations is heinous.
monsanto ruthlessly harrasses seed cleaning operations because they could possibly be assisting farmers in using patented seed.

i would highly recommend the film.

I recommend the film as well. Here's a thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=148405) about it, where Monsanto gets brought up. IMHO, like this thread, there seems to be a knee-jerk reaction discounting criticisms against Monsanto and other issues raised in Food, Inc. I welcome debate on these issues, but some folks are quick to shoot them down without really looking at the evidence.

drkitten

29th January 2011, 02:20 PM

Well, one can request anything, under any circumstances. And the one of whom the request is made can decline to grant it. To compel an adversary to produce evidence requires a warrant or a subpoena. And this requires that one be able to show some compelling reason why one is entitled to the evidence in question.

Right. And "because it's potentially relevant" is a compelling reason, when we're taking about civil discovery.

GlennB

29th January 2011, 02:26 PM

It would be a hoot to see a wealthy farmer prosecute Monsanto for crop contamination by GM pollen.

pipelineaudio

29th January 2011, 02:34 PM

I'm still trying like hell thru the links and my weak google-fu to find any actual instances of monsanto doing the stuff people claim about them besides the canadian one

bikerdruid

29th January 2011, 04:53 PM

I'm still trying like hell thru the links and my weak google-fu to find any actual instances of monsanto doing the stuff people claim about them besides the canadian one

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6822166&postcount=106

pipelineaudio

29th January 2011, 07:12 PM

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6822166&postcount=106

That doesnt seem to have any in it, just the same claims

jimtron

29th January 2011, 11:07 PM

I'm still trying like hell thru the links and my weak google-fu to find any actual instances of monsanto doing the stuff people claim about them besides the canadian one

Uhh, did you really try the links? There are many sourced sites linked in this thread showing actual instances of Monsanto doing these things.

stevea

31st January 2011, 12:56 PM

And I had already conceded that it's not horizontal transfer and never said that the Purdue source says that.

Yes you did ! You clearly did. What you actually said in post #71 was ....

But, nevertheless, the fact is in the last dozen years or so, we have about 10 different weeds that are now GM resistant, 6 of them in the USA. And not only that, but selecting those resistant to Roundup seems to also have selected them to more easily adapt to other herbicides too.

Source, for example
http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/GWC/GWC-1.pdf

Now "GM resistant" is a nonsense term, but you CLAIMED that 6 USA/10 total weeds were "GM resistant", clearly indicating genetic modification. The numbers 6/10 come from the Purdue paper. You were clearrly stating that the Purdue paper was related to GM weeds, which is false. It's natural selection not genetic modification nor HGT.

To now claim that the Purdue article wasn't about your misunderstands of HGT & GM, is refuted by your own posts.

No, it just gives evidece that your retarded strawman is retarded. Whop-de-do. Don't make that strawman if it bothers you. My claim never was that the transfer happened during feeding, but that those plasmids showed up in gut bacteria. And it does say they do.

Point to any specific strawman case with a quote or admit you are just flinging feces again. As for your "not during feeding", - go back and re-read your own posts where you do make that claim about HGT from GMO soy in the gut. If YOU can find ANY papers showing that occurs I'd like to see them.

No you're not listening at all. You keep hammering on something that isn't even discussed any more, and for some cases never was, and bears no resemblance to what I actually wrote. That's not listening, that's doing an abject ego masturbation routine.

You are having a great deal of difficulty making any intelligible point as you have introduced so much fallacious argument.

What I "hear" you saying is,
/ HGT has occurred from GMO grops - now retracted.
/ Implied Cross pollination is as dangerous as HGT - clearly not true.
/ Said GMO soy transfers its genes in the gut - you source says the opposite.
/ You cited the Purdue article for some reason - although it's irrelevant to GMO, and would be occurring faster w/o GMO crops.

Excuse me if I can't make sense from nonsense.

Again - I'll respond to a coherent point, but you are all over the map with unsupportable views, erroneous thinking and irrelevant red-herring topics.

HansMustermann

31st January 2011, 01:50 PM

Now "GM resistant" is a nonsense term, but you CLAIMED that 6 USA/10 total weeds were "GM resistant", clearly indicating genetic modification. The numbers 6/10 come from the Purdue paper. You were clearrly stating that the Purdue paper was related to GM weeds, which is false. It's natural selection not genetic modification nor HGT.

Oh gee, if it's not the return of the guy who can't take "yes" for an answer.

You realize that you're the only one who reads it as "containing the GM genes", especially with it coming right after a sentence where I conceded that's not the case, right?

Yes, "GM resistant" is a nonsense term, because it was basically an awful typo. I meant to write "herbicide resistant", but it ended the wrong thing. Now I'm not asking you to magically know what was meant but,

1. that's just the point "GM resistant" is a nonsense term, and even taking it literally, it would mean at most "resistant to genetic modification". There is no honest reading of that as meaning "contains the genes from Monsanto's GM crops." So you're still going into your own flights of fantasy in interpreting it as HGT.

2. again, it's coming right after a sentence where I said it does _NOT_ contain the Monsanto genes. How dishonest _do_ you need to be to spin two words into... meaning exactly what the sentence before said is not the case? Shouldn't that have tipped you off a bit?

Basically shouldn't you ask what it means, instead of assigning it your own, totally fantasy meaning?

To now claim that the Purdue article wasn't about your misunderstands of HGT & GM, is refuted by your own posts.

Your building imaginary hidden meanings based on 2 words taken out of context are your problem, not mine. Learn to read.

Point to any specific strawman case with a quote or admit you are just flinging feces again. As for your "not during feeding", - go back and re-read your own posts where you do make that claim about HGT from GMO soy in the gut. If YOU can find ANY papers showing that occurs I'd like to see them.

Yes, do go back and actually read my posts. I never claimed "during feeding". Your filling in that part is the very definition of a strawman.

You are having a great deal of difficulty making any intelligible point as you have introduced so much fallacious argument.

... most of which exist only in your strawmen...

What I "hear" you saying is,
/ HGT has occurred from GMO grops - now retracted.

Wow, you finally noticed that, huh? That's a good sign.

/ Implied Cross pollination is as dangerous as HGT - clearly not true.

Well, see, that's your problem right there. Try to answer to what I actually wrote, instead of imagining "implied" things to answer to.

What I said is that both cause the same end result: killing insects far away from farms. There was no claim about it being exactly the same extent or whatever you imagined there.

It's like saying, if you will, that both a zeppelin and an airplane achieve the same end result: flight. It does not also say that both do it exactly the same way or as efficiently or anything.

/ Said GMO soy transfers its genes in the gut - you source says the opposite.

Nope. That's your own strawman, and quite the silly strawman at that. I never said they're transferred from soy _nor_ during feeding, I just said that those plasmids appeared even in the gut bacteria. The idea that it transferred from soy and during feeding are both your own strawmen.

You know, since you asked me to point out a strawman, there we go.

And quite silly, because that part was coming after my talking about plasmid transfers from bacterium to bacterium. I'm not sure what kind of confusion of mind would cause takíng that to mean "from plant to bacterium."

It's double silly since the same message and in fact the very next sentence where I talked about those plasmids in gut bacteria, says... "the consensus is that they didn't get that from eating GM soy". So, really, how dishonest _do_ you need to be to accuse me of a claim that not only I didn't make, but I claimed to _not_ be the case?

/ You cited the Purdue article for some reason - although it's irrelevant to GMO, and would be occurring faster w/o GMO crops.

Whew. Well, it's nice to see that for a change quoted without some convoluted divining hidden meanings based on words taken out of context. Yes, I quoted that "for some reason", the reason being that such plants are spreading fast and making it a pain for those who aren't Monsanto customers too anyway.

But would it? Would we use as much Roundup without GM crops modified to resist it? Or would such a mutation be selected for faster without the, you know, selection pressure that makes it an advantage?

Excuse me if I can't make sense from nonsense.

Then stop making up nonsense and address what i actually wrote. Simple solution, really.

Again - I'll respond to a coherent point, but you are all over the map with unsupportable views, erroneous thinking and irrelevant red-herring topics.

... most of which happen only in your imagination. If all that incoherent nonsense bothers you, stop making it up, really.

pipelineaudio

2nd February 2011, 02:05 AM

JihadJane

2nd February 2011, 02:40 AM

Heinrich Kissinger: "Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people."

stevea

7th February 2011, 06:46 PM

Oh gee, if it's not the return of the guy who can't take "yes" for an answer.

You never before conceded wrt the Purdue link. You never said anything like "yes". You seem to think we can read your muddled thoughts and non-sense terminology and make sense of it.

To the argument- what EXACTLY did you mean when you cited the Purdue paper ? That we should hate Monsanto since some weeds are developing resistance ? I can impute no relevant meaning to your Purdue citation. It's not part of a coherent argument.

Now I'm not asking you to magically know what was meant but,
Good - now extend that thinking to your "can't take yes" comment when you never conceded and when the posting point seems at best a red-herring argument.

There is no honest reading of that as meaning "contains the genes from Monsanto's GM crops." So you're still going into your own flights of fantasy in interpreting it as HGT.

"GM" means "genetically modified" in this context and the only "resistance" discussed int the citation is round-up resistance, where Monsanto is the sole originator of that GMO genetics. So yes a very honest interpretation is that you were referring to GM from Monsanto in weeds. There ar no flights of fancy involved - but you need a grounding is use of language.

2. again, it's coming right after a sentence where I said it does _NOT_ contain the Monsanto genes. How dishonest _do_ you need to be to spin two words into... meaning exactly what the sentence before said is not the case? Shouldn't that have tipped you off a bit?

That's not what you said in post#71. You agreed that HGT wasn't rampant and suggested "mutation" (a term that includes GM) as the cause. Perhaps you meant natural selection, since there is NO EVIDENCE OF MUTATION, either naturally occurring or human-devised by GMO related to these weeds. Even your Purdue paper misuses the term mutation (one occurrence), but states the cause is pressure selection of a rare phenotype, NOT MUTATION.

You again lack a basic understanding of the issue and misused language, then you expect others to understand you "actual thoughts" through a sea of errornous posts and incorrect language.

Basically shouldn't you ask what it means, instead of assigning it your own, totally fantasy meaning?

I have asked, and still you refuse to help make any sense of why that Purdue citation is relevant to hating Monsanto.

Yes, do go back and actually read my posts. I never claimed "during feeding". Your filling in that part is the very definition of a strawman.

I asked for a reference and in #71 you supplied a Nature:Biotech article that ONLY tested the hypothesis in the gut, stating transfr did not occur. If you want to make a different argument, cite your evidence.

Originally Posted by stevea View Post
/ Implied Cross pollination is as dangerous as HGT - clearly not true.

What I said is that both cause the same end result: killing insects far away from farms. There was no claim about it being exactly the same extent or whatever you imagined there.

1/ You never said any such thing.
2/ Call for evidence for your "same end result" claim.

Cross pollination is only same-species gene transfer. That's vastly different from HGT where there are no boundaries for your "plasmids, plasmids spreading everywhere" fear mongering.
So for example we introduce Bt corn and perhaps have already crossed with wild maize of central America. Your alarmist fear is that we are going to wipe out European corn borer moths which predate on about 200 plant species - nearly all of which have no agricultural value ? Making one entire plant species out of ~200 poisonous to EuroCornBorer is VASTLY DIFFERENT from your alarmist case that would imply the eventually every higher plant would carry Bt genes.

Not the "same end result" at all. We are not eradicating any pest species that predates on Bt crops, unless it predates only on those few crop species (no cases in evidence). Instead we are reducing the pest population just a bit farther than expected. Your claim is entirely different.

Yes pollinating Bt crops into wild co-species has an foreseen impact and is dangeous. But to be fair - Euro CornBorers never hit maize till the late 1700s. Pushing these species off of the human crop species (even species-wide including wild members) doesn't mean they won't survive and may cause an increase in some competing species that was previously more dominant.

To clarify,
/ I am not, and never have, suggested that field use of GMO is without grave concerns and potentially disastrous outcomes.
/ I am not suggesting the cross pollination of GMO crops to a wild member of a species is not dangerous. It is.
/ I have never suggested the HGT doesn't occur; just that current evidence is that it has only occurred rarely over geological time periods and primarily in single celled life. Not a topic for this thread but lager brewing yeast seems to be an example.
/ I am stating that the danger involved in GMO cross-pollination is categorically different from your claims that plasmids are being transferred willy-nilly from higher plants to every other thing in the ecosphere without regard to species.

You know, since you asked me to point out a strawman, there we go.

I seriously suggest you find a source book on critical thinking and try to understand what a "strawman fallacy" is. I asked for evidence and so far YOUR ONLY SOURCE is solely about HGT in the gut. Your source concluded there was no evidence for HGT in the gut. If you want to make a different case, that HGT happens elsewhere, your more expansive claim that plasmids transfer every time a bell rings, then YOU must provide evidence for those other points. It's not my job in a debate to prove your evidenced claims are wrong. Burden of proof is on you.

I'm not sure what kind of confusion of mind would cause takíng that to mean "from plant to bacterium."

If plasmids don't transfer from higher plants to bacteria - then why are you bringing it up in a discussion of Monsanto/GMO in higher plants ? Either you do blivet that point OR you are making an incoherent red-herring argument about a problem that you now seem to admit doesn't happen.

It's double silly since the same message and in fact the very next sentence where I talked about those plasmids in gut bacteria, says... "the consensus is that they didn't get that from eating GM soy". So, really, how dishonest _do_ you need to be to accuse me of a claim that not only I didn't make, but I claimed to _not_ be the case?

Wrong. Your source ONLY studied HGT in the gut (no evidence found). I was responding your source citation. If you provide evidence of other HGT I can respond to that --- -HOWEVER, I insist you make some claim relevant to the current thread.

I see no way that your points about pressure to select resistant weeds and plasmid transfer NOT occurring from higher plants to bacteria has any relevance unless your understanding of these things is very flawed. That's my working assumption based on the egregious errors your early posts, some of which you have later retracted.

Stop the feces flinging and ad hominem and state what you actually believe. This is my last response to your your points until you can provide your position with backing evidence.

But would it? Would we use as much Roundup without GM crops modified to resist it? Or would such a mutation be selected for faster without the, you know, selection pressure that makes it an advantage?

Again a silly use of language - THERE IS NO MUTATION INVOLVED IN RESISTANT WEEDS ! It's selection pressure of a natural phenotype. Still there is a good question here.

On crops Glyphosate(GP=RoundUp) is absorbed through a foliar spray, and acts as a competitive enzyme inhibitor on the the shikimic pathway; stunts growth and causes rapid kill with lower dose in rapidly growing plants. GP is not effective on pre-emergent plants. GP is most effective on young growing annuals, far less effective on mature plants in reproductive phase. The GMO crop GP resistance is conferred by a single gene controlling the enzyme secondary conformation. I don't know if the weed natural phenotype is also controlled by a single gene - but it's reasonably likely. If so (**ASSUMPTION NOTED**) then each plant is either fully resistant or not - no partial cases as in multifactorial bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

Before the GMO/GP-resistant seed, GP was used as a kill-all - often in two heavy doses - one 4+ weeks before planting and one, often after planting but pre-emergent stage. After the non-GMO crop emerged then GP was no longer useful, and other selective herbicides like 2,4-D for corn were used (kills dicots, doesn't touch monocots) for imperfect weed control.

Since GMO GP-resistant seed, then ag ppl still use a kill-all (often GP) before planting, but they can use lower-dose GP after the crop emerges and throughout the growing season AS-NEEDED (to certain limits) for (nearly) complete weed control.

(+)Less RoundUp per hectare is required b/c we can spray after crops emerge and "hit" the weeds in growth phase when it requires a low dose. (-)More Roundup is actually used b/c everyone (practically) recognizes the advantage so more hectares are planted with such GMO seed. (-?)In practice more RoundUp ?may? be used since it is off/patent and a relatively cheap and effective "kill-all" for field prep.

Any use of GP creates selection pressure, but if the assumption is correct (single gene), then an effective light dose may provide less pressure in the marginal areas around the field with lighter dosing and more mature weeds, and greater selection pressure w/in the field where presumably the ag-person sprays before the weeds mature leaving (almost) only the GP-resistant plants. The net result is difficult to assess without field data.

Rotating to a non-GP kill-all(burndown) and then using lighter dose GpP after emergence would obviously allow less GP- selection pressure. In practice this isn't how GP-resistant crop fields have been managed.

So the main problem seems the ubiquity of GP/Roundup as the main herbicide for vast regions of the planet. If we rotated between several herbicides with GMO/GP-resistant crop then the selection pressure would be greatly alleviated.

Then stop making up nonsense and address what i actually wrote. Simple solution, really.

Even simpler - You can make a coherent statement of your position using common accurate language. So far you have failed repeatedly then you chide me for not understanding your confused thoughts, red-herring argumens and grossly inaccurate language. Quit flinging feces to cover your errors.

I'm perfectly willing to address a coherent statement of your position, but so far I have nothing to reply to except your incompetent arguments. Why was the Purdue paper relevant ? Why was the non-transfer of plasmids from higher plants to bacteria important to the topic ? Can you cite any evidence for your GMO-soy=>bacteria claim ? (Your paper does not support that point).

Why not scale back the ad hominem fallacies too ? You've made this unnecessarily personal and argumentative.

You seem to support Monsanto-hatred proposition but the reasons are extremely confused and confusing in no small part to your poor use of language and off-topic/tangential propositions.

bikerdruid

7th February 2011, 06:54 PM

Heinrich Kissinger: "Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people."

kissinger is as much an enemy of mankind as monsanto is.

stevea

7th February 2011, 08:20 PM

I'm about ready to do a 180 flip on my opinion of monsanto here. From what I've been reading, even considering the extremely dubious sources, it seems like monsanto may be doing some predatory "patent enforcement"

Still trying to find actual trial transcripts, but so far it looks not cool

If this is what the public at large thinks the RIAA is doign then I can understand the hatred for them, though I assure you, this is not in any way similar to what the RIAA is doing

Pipe',

What method are you using to distinguish whether Monsanto or their customers are lying ? You claim the sources are dubious and I agree. So what we have is a "He_said/She_said" type argument. That doesn't constitute evidence either way.

If the case in "The Atlantic' had been reported to police or better yet, taken to court then we would have some fact-finding and a courts view of the situation. For example if the Atlantic writer said he had seen the police report and that it supported the outline of the facts, (a Monsanto goon threatened an Ag person) I'd have to accept that barring a reply from Monsanto, and despite the Atlantic's clear bias. OTOH we have a second hand uncorroborated report - that's not evidence, tho' it's a reasonable basis for suspicion.

Either side can make unsupported claims and it's very difficult to disprove a lie without a serious examination.

I am not trying to argue for either side. Merely stating that critical thinking is evidence based, and here there is nearly no evidence.

===

FWIW - I just took a cursory look through the Federal court docket for Monsanto and RoundUp. I saw only 6 or 8 related cases and most were small farmers making fairly egregious advantage of Monsanto. Trivette (200 acre soy farmer) wanted the court to dismiss since he started replanting GMO soy in 2001, and the 5yr statute of limitations had run (the court disareed on good grounds of repeat offense. Some North Carolina group of small farmers were claiming their replanted seed was not the original hybridized GMO seed, so therefore it wasn't covered by the patent of the original genetics ... more similar.

The Trivette case - even tho' the guy admitted breaking the contract in 2001 in the court filing, had websites up trying to get support/donations for the poor little downtrodden farmer being unfairly attacked by the big-ol-mean Monsanto. In this case at least the farmer was clearly a scumbag.

My hunch is that larger growers don't often violate the agreement as they understand the liability. A small-time farmer may think he can get away with it and try. Whether Monsanto's attempt to enforce is excessive or not has very little real evidence.

Note that the patent violations will appear in federal court but any suites based on Monsanto using unfair practices of enforcement might appear in state or local courts - harder to find.

WildCat

7th February 2011, 08:28 PM

because their seeds contaminate the GM free fields, because of their practices, because they talk about better yields for poor people while mainly selling roundup ready seeds that have NOT better yields. etc etc.
Why would people buy their seeds, and at a premium, if they had lower yields? Are farmers morons?

WildCat

7th February 2011, 08:45 PM

The "so what" is that you can end up being sued by Monsanto all the way to the Supreme court because your crop was cross pollinated with their genes.
Doubtful.

What American farmer grows his own seed anyway? Yours would be contaminated by crops from miles around, you wouldn't even know what you were growing and your plants would mature at different times.

eta: ever see a miniature corn plant growing in the middle of a soybean field? That's the kind of plant you get when your crop cross-breeds with other corn from nearby fields. A hybrid that is stunted and doesnt even resemble the parent crops. This is why farmers don't save corn to use as seed next year.

WildCat

7th February 2011, 08:55 PM

Yeah, that’s not how it works. First, you don’t need evidence to start up a civil case. Since lawyers cost money typically it doesn’t pay for the farmer to even try to fight. I they do it’s well within Monsanto’s rights to request samples for genetic testing. Since many crops are wind pollinated there is a pretty high chance that there will be at least some contamination in nearby fields.
No, there wouldn't. This would only show up in the next generation, and no modern farmer is saving seed corn for next year's crop.

I grow peppers in my garden, and a common myth I hear is that you can't grow sweet peppers next to hot peppers because then the sweet peppers will be hot due to cross-pollination. It's absolute nonsense. A hot pepper can't make a sweet pepper hot any more than a white man can lighten the skin of a black woman by having sex with her. Likewise, genes from GM crops aren't going to show up in the DNA of the crop in the field adjacent to them.

ThunderChunky

7th February 2011, 09:44 PM

Yeah, that’s not how it works. First, you don’t need evidence to start up a civil case. Since lawyers cost money typically it doesn’t pay for the farmer to even try to fight. I they do it’s well within Monsanto’s rights to request samples for genetic testing. Since many crops are wind pollinated there is a pretty high chance that there will be at least some contamination in nearby fields.

They have to prove you planted seed with their genetics. If you replant your seed every year and there was some contamination you would be guilty. But you wouldnt have to pay anything if you never took advantage of their genetics. That's what happened with Percy Schmeiser "The patent infringement finding was based solely on the determination that Schmeiser had recognized the cross-contamination, and knowingly went on to collect the crossbred seed, then replant and harvest it the next year. No punitive damages or the costs of the technology use fee were awarded to Monsanto, as the Supreme Court also ruled 9-0 in Schmeiser's favor that his profits were exactly the same with or without the presence of the Roundup Ready Canola." (from wikipedia)

Actually, I cannot tell if he had to pay monsanto something for the infringement finding....

ThunderChunky

7th February 2011, 09:59 PM

My claim never was that the transfer happened during feeding, but that those plasmids showed up in gut bacteria. And it does say they do.

They detected the transgene in the gut microflora only in the people with ileostomies. It was not detected in the people with intact guts. The transgene was detected at very low levels (1-3 copies per million bacteria). The bacteria carrying the transgene could not actually be isolated. And finally, only a portion of the transgene was detected, not the full length gene.

So, yes, in the guts of people with ilestomies it appears some DNA may be able to transform into the gut microflora (not too surprising). The transgene is not expected to be any different from other DNA sequences in this regard.

GlennB

7th February 2011, 11:30 PM

No, there wouldn't. This would only show up in the next generation, and no modern farmer is saving seed corn for next year's crop.

I grow peppers in my garden, and a common myth I hear is that you can't grow sweet peppers next to hot peppers because then the sweet peppers will be hot due to cross-pollination. It's absolute nonsense. A hot pepper can't make a sweet pepper hot any more than a white man can lighten the skin of a black woman by having sex with her. Likewise, genes from GM crops aren't going to show up in the DNA of the crop in the field adjacent to them.

The phenotype would only show in the next generation it's true, but the Monsanto genes would indeed be in the seed of the cross-pollinated crop as long as fertilisation is at all possible between the two strains.

As far as your analogy is concerned, it would be any embryo being carried by the black woman that would show evidence of fertilisation by a white man.

pipelineaudio

8th February 2011, 01:43 AM

My concern was from the monsanto website itself. They made it sound as if they had investigators at the seed washers and would checkout anyone who showed up. I realize that in and of itself that isnt bad, but seeing as how people treat much more innocent activity by the RIAA, I think Monsanto isnt doing its own image any favors. I'm still very confused on this whole issue

WildCat

8th February 2011, 09:11 PM

The phenotype would only show in the next generation it's true, but the Monsanto genes would indeed be in the seed of the cross-pollinated crop as long as fertilisation is at all possible between the two strains.
So?

GlennB

9th February 2011, 12:05 AM

So?

Just sayin' that GM genes are present in the cross-pollinated non-GM plant. If Monsanto detectives included the ears of maize when testing your innocent crop they'd find their genes in there. Hopefully they wouldn't be that stupid/devious and would only test the 'green' material. However any farmer who does retain seed (and some certainly do, though I don't know about maize specifically) of wind or insect pollinated plants might risk being found 'guilty' when in fact innocent.

Skeptic Ginger

22nd February 2011, 07:44 PM

Why Monsanto Always Wins (http://www.truth-out.org/why-monsanto-always-wins67976)It's unclear if such internal cooperation continues under the current administration, but regulators still openly rely on data and research provided by the biotech industry when approving GE technology....Emphasis on the fox guarding the hen house mine.

I'm in favor of GMFs and think the advances in genetic science are a welcome benefit for a resource challenged society. But I am not comforted to see profit motivated companies checking on their own product safety.

ThunderChunky

22nd February 2011, 10:09 PM

Why Monsanto Always Wins (http://www.truth-out.org/why-monsanto-always-wins67976)Emphasis on the fox guarding the hen house mine.

I'm in favor of GMFs and think the advances in genetic science are a welcome benefit for a resource challenged society. But I am not comforted to see profit motivated companies checking on their own product safety.

It's how drug companies work too. They prove (or try to) the product is safe and works, the studies get reviewed by the FDA scientists, and the FDA makes the final decision.

WildCat

23rd February 2011, 10:05 PM

Just sayin' that GM genes are present in the cross-pollinated non-GM plant. If Monsanto detectives included the ears of maize when testing your innocent crop they'd find their genes in there. Hopefully they wouldn't be that stupid/devious and would only test the 'green' material. However any farmer who does retain seed (and some certainly do, though I don't know about maize specifically) of wind or insect pollinated plants might risk being found 'guilty' when in fact innocent.
No US farmer is saving his seed, the result would be a terrible crop. And no, Monsanto can't do squat about pollen fertilizing other crops, and you've shown no evidence at all that they did so.

lomiller

24th February 2011, 08:23 AM

No US farmer is saving his seed, the result would be a terrible crop.

Hybrids can’t be replanted or you get a terrible crop the following year (Which has devastated agriculture in some poorer countries), but not everyone plants hybrids.

And no, Monsanto can't do squat about pollen fertilizing other crops

Appeal to dubious (self) authority noted. Why should we give any credence to your opinion that Monsanto can’t sue for cases where wind or insects carry their patented genes into someone else’s field? Ignorance of patent violation doesn’t absolve you of the infringement.

ThunderChunky

25th February 2011, 11:21 PM

Appeal to dubious (self) authority noted. Why should we give any credence to your opinion that Monsanto can’t sue for cases where wind or insects carry their patented genes into someone else’s field? Ignorance of patent violation doesn’t absolve you of the infringement.

Anyone can sue for anything but the court system is supposed to throw out bunk lawsuits. Do you have any evidence of judgments when someone was forced to pay monsanto because their crop was inadvertantly pollinated by monsanto's plants?

lomiller

26th February 2011, 06:05 AM

Anyone can sue for anything but the court system is supposed to throw out bunk lawsuits.

If the patented gene was in their field it's not a bunk lawsuit. Patent law makes no allowances for why you are infringing only that you infringe.

ThunderChunky

27th February 2011, 01:53 AM

If the patented gene was in their field it's not a bunk lawsuit. Patent law makes no allowances for why you are infringing only that you infringe.

Law is only what the courts rule. I take it you have no evidence.

lomiller

28th February 2011, 08:02 AM

Law is only what the courts rule. I take it you have no evidence.

Courts do not make law.

I take it you have no evidence.

the relevant section of US law is readily available

http://www.law.cornell.edu/patent/35uscs271.html

There isn't a single line saying unintentional infringement "doesn't count", if you want to claim it doesn't "because the courts make the law" then *you* are the one who needs to provide evidence, not I.

psionl0

28th February 2011, 11:26 AM

Do you have any evidence of judgments when someone was forced to pay monsanto because their crop was inadvertantly pollinated by monsanto's plants?More to the point, why would monsanto get to do the suing if he allowed his patented plants to contaminate someone else's crops?

ThunderChunky

28th February 2011, 11:32 AM

Courts do not make law.

the relevant section of US law is readily available

http://www.law.cornell.edu/patent/35uscs271.html

There isn't a single line saying unintentional infringement "doesn't count", if you want to claim it doesn't "because the courts make the law" then *you* are the one who needs to provide evidence, not I.

I'm not going to argue pointless hypotheticals about what the law might or might not mean. Unless you are a patent lawyer with a specialization in biotech, your opinion doesn't matter to me, even if you are I would only care is this was having a real world effect. To the point: has Monsanto sued someone and WON for unintentional infringement? If they have, you are right. If they have not, what is your point?

stevea

28th February 2011, 11:37 AM

Stuff like this (from the Vanity Fair article linked in my previous post):

As interviews and reams of court documents reveal, Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents in the American heartland to strike fear into farm country. They fan out into fields and farm towns, where they secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners, and co-ops; infiltrate community meetings; and gather information from informants about farming activities. Farmers say that some Monsanto agents pretend to be surveyors. Others confront farmers on their land and try to pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records. Farmers call them the “seed police” and use words such as “Gestapo” and “Mafia” to describe their tactics.

Well - I suppose no impartial observer could question the motivation of that reportage. ;)

When we hear an argument so biased it should cause a critical thinker to discount the claims until unbiased or alternatively biased evidence accrues. The FV article failed to provide any leads to actual evidence - no court filing info, no names, no specifics. I'd classify it as a yellow journalism screed. That doesn't make the contentions of the article right or wrong, but it is evidence of little except the authors bias.

So are there any court transcripts besides the canadian one or is it all hearsay?

All the US federal court records are online. Not transcripts, but filings, reviews, and decisions. You can search "Monsanto Roundup" and you'll find the cases. My interpretation from the defense position filings is that most of the farmers aren't making a credible legal case about the agreement violations. Their position involve arguments about statute of limitations and dubious provenance of the patented seeds (claiming the patents were invalid for example). The cases generally show egregious and uncontested agreement violations by small farmers.

The seed/farmer issue? I don't have access to court transcripts, but there seem to be many reliable sources that back this up (see links in my previous posts and elsewhere in this thread).

Name one - show evidence.

If the patented gene was in their field it's not a bunk lawsuit. Patent law makes no allowances for why you are infringing only that you infringe.
Agreed it is not "bunk" if the gene was in the field, but the license agreement prohibits replanting (or sale for replanting). Monsanto can't win a case just b/c a few volunteer corn plants self-propagated in a field. The cross-pollination issue would not lead to high rates of the GMO gene - so that case is easily distinguishable from replanting based on a grain sample.

Here is the Monsanto 2010 agreement form, and clearly Monsanto has rights to the farmers records and to enter the field on 7 day notice. This may or may not have been the terms of previous agreements.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.doeblers.com%2F08%2F2010%2520 Monsanto%2520Technology%2520Stewardship%2520Agreem ent%2520-%2520Downloadable%2520version.pdf&rct=j&q=monsanto%20agreement%20form&ei=OPBrTbDKMoH6lweJ6qX_AQ&usg=AFQjCNGqpHl5zZc5iU2GtlwetsnauGdGjg&sig2=t3qj35tCUZjRoKj1U7z25A&cad=rja

From Monsanto's website:
A very small percentage of farmers do not honor this agreement. Monsanto does become aware, through our own actions or through third-parties, of individuals who are suspected of violating our patents and agreements. Where we do find violations, we are able to settle most of these cases without ever going to trial. In many cases, these farmers remain our customers. Sometimes however, we are forced to resort to lawsuits. This is a relatively rare circumstance, with 144 lawsuits filed since 1997 in the United States, as of April 2010. This averages about 11 per year for the past 13 years. To date, only 9 cases have gone through full trial. In every one of these instances, the jury or court decided in our favor.

I understand the some people hold in inherent bias that the little-guy is always right/good, and the big-guy is always wrong/evil; it's a major stumbling block to critical thinking. A review of the US court evidence leads me to the opposite conclusion - that little-guy are the cheats in these specific cases. Perhaps Monsanto is doing more than properly enforcing their legitimate agreements against violators, but I see no substantial evidence..

WildCat

28th February 2011, 07:02 PM

Hybrids can’t be replanted or you get a terrible crop the following year (Which has devastated agriculture in some poorer countries), but not everyone plants hybrids.
Yes, everyone in the US plants hybrids. They like to turn a profit with their produce.

Appeal to dubious (self) authority noted. Why should we give any credence to your opinion that Monsanto can’t sue for cases where wind or insects carry their patented genes into someone else’s field? Ignorance of patent violation doesn’t absolve you of the infringement.
What you describe is not patent infringement.

28th February 2011, 11:09 PM

Why would people buy their seeds, and at a premium, if they had lower yields? Are farmers morons?

Why do people buy RedBull when it doesn't give wings?

WildCat

1st March 2011, 10:04 AM

Why do people buy RedBull when it doesn't give wings?
So you think farmers are losing money buying Monasnto GM corn, and don't know it? :confused:

lomiller

1st March 2011, 10:28 AM

I'm not going to argue pointless hypotheticals about what the law might or might not mean.

There is nothing hypothetical about the law. It exists it says what it says and anhyone who has ever dealt with the patent system can tell you inadvertant infringment is not a defence.

You want to claim otherwise then it's up to you provide evidence.

has Monsanto sued someone and WON for unintentional infringement? If they have, you are right. If they have not, what is your point?

Most of the cases end up settled with an NDA clause forbidding the farmer from discussing the suit but it's already been demonstrated in this thread that Monsanto has sued and won for cases like this.

lomiller

1st March 2011, 10:36 AM

What you describe is not patent infringement.

The patented genes are in the crop the farmer is growing. I have sympathy for the notion that should not constitute infringement but there is no exception for that in the law.

WildCat

1st March 2011, 10:36 AM

There is nothing hypothetical about the law. It exists it says what it says and anhyone who has ever dealt with the patent system can tell you inadvertant infringment is not a defence.
And anyone who knows anything about biology can tell you that this is not infringement, inadvertant or otherwise.

And you have shown no evidence at all that it is.

WildCat

1st March 2011, 10:38 AM

The patented genes are in the crop the farmer is growing.
So?

I have sympathy for the notion that should not constitute infringement but there is no exception for that in the law.
It's not infringement, and you haven't shown any evidence at all that it is.

Will you be doing so, or is a claim now evidence on this board?

ThunderChunky

1st March 2011, 11:21 AM

There is nothing hypothetical about the law. It exists it says what it says and anhyone who has ever dealt with the patent system can tell you inadvertant infringment is not a defence.

Provide evidence that accidental contamination is not a defense. That is what we are taking about. This is clearly a hypothetical scenario that you are dreaming up until you can provide real world examples of it happening. Again, if this is not happening in the real world, what is your point?

You want to claim otherwise then it's up to you provide evidence.

The burden is on you, because you are making the unsupported claim that accidental contamination is a form of patent infringement.

Most of the cases end up settled with an NDA clause forbidding the farmer from discussing the suit but it's already been demonstrated in this thread that Monsanto has sued and won for cases like this.

Settled cases are just that, settled. If you position was correct there would be court rulings finding defendants guilty for accidental contamination. You have yet to provide such evidence and refuse to do so. You now claim it's already been demonstrated, provide the link.

lomiller

1st March 2011, 01:03 PM

Provide evidence that accidental contamination is not a defense.

Nope, sorry. That's not how it works. You claim it's a defense so you prove that claim.

The burden is on you, because you are making the unsupported claim that accidental contamination is a form of patent infringement.

I've already linked to the law in question.

lomiller

1st March 2011, 01:12 PM

So?

It's not infringement, and you haven't shown any evidence at all that it is.

What next will you claim crops are not really crops? Seriously. Sit back and consider how deep in the woo you have to be to try are argue that growing patented crops isn't infringing on the patent.

ThunderChunky

1st March 2011, 02:20 PM

Nope, sorry. That's not how it works. You claim it's a defense so you prove that claim.

Anything can be a defense (just like you can sue for anything), whether it works in court is the question. You claimed something is infringement, I asked you to back that up with court cases. You have refused/failed to do so, yet you keep claiming it's infringement. If your claims are true there should be court cases to back you up and you should be able to find them.

If there are no such court cases, what is your point? This is now the third time I have asked you this simple question.

I've already linked to the law in question.

You have linked to no court cases dealing with this issue, which is what was requested. Linking to a generic law page and saying "hey it doesn't mention this" means nothing. You need to find a page that actually mentions this issue.

WildCat

1st March 2011, 02:36 PM

What next will you claim crops are not really crops? Seriously. Sit back and consider how deep in the woo you have to be to try are argue that growing patented crops isn't infringing on the patent.
What you described isn't "growing patented crops". Assume I plant a field of DeKalb hybrid corn, and the neighboring field is Monsanto GM corn. My DeKalb hybrid corn doesn't magically become Monsanto corn because pollen blew into it and fertilized my crop, any more than the Monsanto corn now becomes DeKalb corn because some pollen from my field blew into his.

Your claim, frankly, is ridiculous.

1st March 2011, 07:56 PM

So you think farmers are losing money buying Monasnto GM corn, and don't know it? :confused:

I didn't say that. And higher yields are not the only basis farmers decide for a specific plant.
and Monsanto's most sold seeds are not about higher yields. they are mainly if not only about roundup resistence. the new series II is claimed to have higher yields, we will see in a few years if they indeed have higher yields.

I think you listen to much to the marketing departement of Monsanto.
yields of the same plant can vary extremely from region to region, year to year.

WildCat

2nd March 2011, 08:07 AM

I didn't say that. And higher yields are not the only basis farmers decide for a specific plant.
and Monsanto's most sold seeds are not about higher yields. they are mainly if not only about roundup resistence. the new series II is claimed to have higher yields, we will see in a few years if they indeed have higher yields.

I think you listen to much to the marketing departement of Monsanto.
yields of the same plant can vary extremely from region to region, year to year.
I'm pretty sure farmers know how to best determine what is the best seed for them to plant, without any input at all from some armchair know-it-all who never planted anything more than a backyard garden.

If they didn't get value for their money they wouldn't buy seed from Monsanto.

3rd March 2011, 12:18 AM

WildCat

3rd March 2011, 09:09 AM

so you moved that goalpast of higher yields.
I spoke hastily before. Yield is only part of the equation, expenses are another. If yield remains the same but other expenses are lower (such as pesticides or fertilizer or irrigation or tilling) then the farmer still makes more money.

What is your argument DC? Do you think farmers are just suckers for slick marketing, and are incapable of determining what seed works best for them? It just amuses me to no end how many people who never planted anything in their lives think they know more than the farmer who literally bets the farm every spring when he decides what seed to plant, particularly when it comes to GM crops.

3rd March 2011, 10:09 PM

I spoke hastily before. Yield is only part of the equation, expenses are another. If yield remains the same but other expenses are lower (such as pesticides or fertilizer or irrigation or tilling) then the farmer still makes more money.

What is your argument DC? Do you think farmers are just suckers for slick marketing, and are incapable of determining what seed works best for them? It just amuses me to no end how many people who never planted anything in their lives think they know more than the farmer who literally bets the farm every spring when he decides what seed to plant, particularly when it comes to GM crops.

No, Farmers have their database to check the yield performance of seeds in the different regions in the US.

A lot GMO fans are just suckers for slick marketing and have no clue what seeds are actually sold most.

WildCat

4th March 2011, 09:32 AM

No, Farmers have their database to check the yield performance of seeds in the different regions in the US.

A lot GMO fans are just suckers for slick marketing and have no clue what seeds are actually sold most.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here, your second sentence seems to contradict the first.

Pythonic

4th March 2011, 11:14 AM

Why hate them? They had the best ride at Disneyland!

ThunderChunky

4th March 2011, 07:02 PM

A lot GMO fans are just suckers for slick marketing and have no clue what seeds are actually sold most.

The GMO critics tend to be the ones with the least scientific knowledge.

ThunderChunky

4th March 2011, 07:06 PM

Report issued by the national academy: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12804

John Jones

4th March 2011, 07:13 PM

courts do not make law.

hahahahahaha!
:d

Zavlon

5th March 2011, 08:01 PM

If there were no Monsanto, it would have been necessary for the anti-GMO movement to invent it.

ThunderChunky

6th March 2011, 04:07 AM

I'm pretty sure farmers know how to best determine what is the best seed for them to plant, without any input at all from some armchair know-it-all who never planted anything more than a backyard garden.

If they didn't get value for their money they wouldn't buy seed from Monsanto.

From the report summary I linked to: "In many cases, farmers who have adopted the use of GE crops have either lower production costs or higher yields, or sometimes both, due to more cost-effective weed and insect control and fewer losses from insect damage, the report says. Although these farmers have gained such economic benefits, more research is needed on the extent to which these advantages will change as pests adapt to GE crops, other countries adopt genetic engineering technology, and more GE traits are incorporated into existing and new crops.

The higher costs associated with GE seeds are not always offset financially by lower production costs or higher yields, the report notes. For example, farmers in areas with fewer weed and pest problems may not have as much improvement in terms of reducing crop losses. Even so, studies show that farmers value the greater flexibility in pesticide spraying that GE crops provide and the increased safety for workers from less exposure to harmful pesticides."

stevea

6th March 2011, 11:50 PM

The patented genes are in the crop the farmer is growing. I have sympathy for the notion that should not constitute infringement but there is no exception for that in the law.

lomiller - I think your objection is off-base. The farmers in question have all (the half dozen cases I examined) signed license agreements with Monsanto and DO have rights to grow the GMO crop from purchased seed. They do not have the right to use the resulting crop for replanting.

A few volunteer plants in a field that was GMO planted the previous year is NOT replanting by any reasonable definition. Finding A modest fraction of plants in a field that are the offspring of cross pollination is not evidence of replanting the direct GMO crop. Neither of these would appear to violate the agreement.

Just having a GMO plant is NOT a violation. The violation comes from using the item beyond the terms of the agreement.

theprestige

7th March 2011, 05:30 PM

From the report summary I linked to: "In many cases, farmers who have adopted the use of GE crops have either lower production costs or higher yields, or sometimes both, due to more cost-effective weed and insect control and fewer losses from insect damage, the report says. Although these farmers have gained such economic benefits, more research is needed on the extent to which these advantages will change as pests adapt to GE crops, other countries adopt genetic engineering technology, and more GE traits are incorporated into existing and new crops.

The higher costs associated with GE seeds are not always offset financially by lower production costs or higher yields, the report notes. For example, farmers in areas with fewer weed and pest problems may not have as much improvement in terms of reducing crop losses. Even so, studies show that farmers value the greater flexibility in pesticide spraying that GE crops provide and the increased safety for workers from less exposure to harmful pesticides."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to to be citing material that supports WildCat's premise that "If [farmers] didn't get value for their money they wouldn't buy seed from Monsanto".

ThunderChunky

8th March 2011, 12:16 AM

^^Yes, I was proving a quote to support his statement. I wanted to emphasize the content of the source because I had previously just provided the link alone.

8th March 2011, 12:36 AM

The GMO critics tend to be the ones with the least scientific knowledge.

yeah, thats why the GMO fans always keep coming with the higher yield claims while most sold seeds are not higher yielding seeds but roundup resistant seeds with normal yields..... only now in 2011 Monsanto launches a new series with higher yields...........

yeah you GMO fans are so well informed, its just laughable....

ThunderChunky

8th March 2011, 09:11 AM

lomiller

8th March 2011, 09:22 AM

Not that that is the point, you can find uninformed people on either side of the issue. However, the real scientific organizations (like the NAS) are on the pro-GMO side, while Greenpeace and fringe groups are on the other.

This isn’t a discussion about GMO, the issue here is Monsanto’s business practices.

lomiller

8th March 2011, 11:02 AM

lomiller - I think your objection is off-base. The farmers in question have all (the half dozen cases I examined) signed license agreements with Monsanto and DO have rights to grow the GMO crop from purchased seed. They do not have the right to use the resulting crop for replanting.

Just having a GMO plant is NOT a violation. The violation comes from using the item beyond the terms of the agreement.

Monsanto has sued and won even when there was no licence agreement.
http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/cases/monsanto-scruggs2.html

Just having a GMO plant is NOT a violation. The violation comes from using the item beyond the terms of the agreement.

There is no such provision in US (or most countries) law.

In patent cases any use of the patented invention, in this case the genetics to make the plant round up resistant, is infringement even if it’s unintentional. Even if you design it yourself from the ground up, if some aspect of a device you are building steps on someone else’s patent you can and probably will be sued for infringement or hit up for a settlement.

There is a whole industry built up around this type of patent camping. Companies build nothing and who’s whole business model is to acquire a portfolio of IP and wait for people to inadvertently infringe on the patent then extract a legal settlement.

ThunderChunky

8th March 2011, 11:33 AM

This isn’t a discussion about GMO, the issue here is Monsanto’s business practices.

If you'll read the thread you will note the I was responding to DC on a discussion about GMO.

Why don't you respond to my previous posts that were addressed to you that have gone unanswered... Specifically my question that I asked multiple times.

lomiller

8th March 2011, 12:24 PM

If you'll read the thread you will note the I was responding to DC on a discussion about GMO.

Why don't you respond to my previous posts that were addressed to you that have gone unanswered... Specifically my question that I asked multiple times.

All I recall is you insisting it was up to me to prove your claim wrong. No matter how many times you ask, that just isn't how it works.

ThunderChunky

8th March 2011, 05:10 PM

All I recall is you insisting it was up to me to prove your claim wrong. No matter how many times you ask, that just isn't how it works.

Your recollection is incorrect. I asked you to substantiate your claim which you failed to do. I made no claim of my own, only the rejection of yours. I also specifically asked you a question about the point of your claim under the circumstance where the data I requested does not exist. You ignored this question over the course of multiple posts.

ETA: Just to reiterate... First, if your claim is true, there should be court cases supporting it. You failed to provide such supporting evidence. Secondly, if there are no such court cases supporting your claim, what was the point of your claim? This seems very straightforward to me, so I do not know what your problem is.

Zavlon

8th March 2011, 06:29 PM

yeah, thats why the GMO fans always keep coming with the higher yield claims while most sold seeds are not higher yielding seeds but roundup resistant seeds with normal yields..... only now in 2011 Monsanto launches a new series with higher yields...........

yeah you GMO fans are so well informed, its just laughable....That depends on where you are and what crop/trait you mean. Insect resistant Bt crops in the US have only improved yields by something like 5% maybe...however, that's because yields were already really high thanks to pesticides (the use of which Bt GE crops has cut). In places where they don't have access to those pesticides, the gain has been much higher, for example, I believe the gain in yield for Bt corn is something like 24% in the Philippines. And the gains from herbicide tolerant crops are significant too. Not sure the exact gain in terms of yield since the gains are mostly environmental. The carbon sequestering as a result of the no-till methods that herbicide tolerant soybeans allow was, in the US in 2005 the equivalent of removing just a bit under a million cars from the road. In Argentina it was almost double that. Now if you compare yields of papaya in Hawaii when the papaya ringspot virus was decimating the crop and after the introduction of the genetically modified virus resistant papaya then you have gains...as in something vs nothing, so how's that for yield gains? Since this tread is about Monsanto, it should be noted that they don't have any virus resistant crops like that out right now, and who knows if they ever will, but if you mean GMOs in general, then there you go, and while it is true that no currently approved GMO has traits that directly effect yields, higher yields are not just a myth, there's more than one way to reach that goal, and do not forget that there is a lot more to it than higher yields, even with the often hated herbicide tolerant crops. Monsanto is a lot like Merck or Pfizer...not your friend, not to be trusted, but not without merit either. Just like Merck's vaccines make the world a better place, Monsanto's GMO crops are actually a positive too.

ThunderChunky

8th March 2011, 07:21 PM

I cannot find any court cases of Monsanto suing a farmer for accidental contamination (a case where Monsanto genetics contaminate a farmers crop unbeknownst to the farmer). lomiller claims that accidental contamination is patent infringement, but has failed to produce such an example. I asked why one should care if this type of infringement is not being enforced and lomiller refused to answer.

Looking in the Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser case I have found some interesting legal opinion. This case itself did not rule on the issue, because the defendant knew he was growing Monsanto genetics.

(b) The innocent infringer

[55] Counsel for Mr. Schmeiser submitted that a finding for Monsanto in this case would be highly prejudicial to any farmer who does not wish to grow Roundup Ready Canola. That is because glyphosate resistant canola can appear in a field without having been planted there, but a farmer cannot detect it without spraying Roundup, thereby killing any conventional canola in the field.

[56] There is considerable force to the argument that it would be unfair to grant Monsanto a remedy for infringement where volunteer Roundup Ready Canola grows in a farmer's field but its resistance to glyphosate remains unknown, or if that characteristic becomes apparent but the seeds of the volunteer plants are not retained for cultivation. It is often said that intention is not material to a finding of infringement: H. Fox, The Canadian Law and Practice relating to Letters Patent for Inventions, 4th ed. (1969), at page 381; Computalog Ltd. v. Comtech Logging Ltd. (1992), 44 C.P.R. (3d) 77 (F.C.A.). That principle was developed in the context of patents for conventional inventions: see, for example, Stead v. Anderson (1847), 2 W.P.C. 156, Wright v. Hitchcock (1870), L.R. 5 Ex. 37, Young v. Rosenthal (1884), 1 R.P.C. 29 (Q.B.), Skelding v. Daly et al. (1941), 1 C.P.R. 266 (B.C.C.A.). Clearly, in most cases of patent infringement, to allow a defence of ignorance or lack of intention to infringe would destroy the efficacy of the patent, because the actual content of any particular patent is known to very few people.

[57] However, it seems to me arguable that the patented Monsanto gene falls into a novel category. It is a patented invention found within a living plant that may, without human intervention, produce progeny containing the same invention. It is undisputed that a plant containing the Monsanto gene may come fortuitously onto the property of a person who has no reason to be aware of the presence of the characteristic created by the patented gene. It is also reasonable to suppose that the person could become aware that the plant has that characteristic but may tolerate the continued presence of the plant without doing anything to cause or promote the propagation of the plant or its progeny (by saving and planting the seeds, for example). In my view, it is an open question whether Monsanto could, in such circumstances, obtain a remedy for infringement on the basis that the intention of the alleged infringer is irrelevant. However, that question does not need to be resolved in this case.

At the time of this ruling (2002) it was unknown whether accidental contamination was actually infringement (and there apparently was no precedent--implying no such cases had been taken to court).

Some states in the USA have recently passed laws making such accidental contamination explicitly not a crime (California 2008). Again, it's still not clear whether that type of potential infringement was ever litigated. Also of note is that Schmeiser got Monsanto to pay for the removal of Monsanto crop that contaminated his farm.