GMO conspiracy theories

[Cairenn]

Wrong is wrong, and BOTH sides make errors.

That is one difference, I call bunk on it, no matter which side says it.

 

[Joe]

Wrong is wrong, and BOTH sides make errors.

That is one difference, I call bunk on it, no matter which side says it.

You can't Call it bunk ! You have to prove it to be bunk . You failed !

 

[Cairenn]

The Farmer Assurance Provision, also referred to by critics as the “Monsanto Protection Act”, refers to Sec. 735 of US HR 933, a bill signed into law as the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 by President Barack Obama on March 26, 2013.[1] The provisions of this bill remain in effect for six months, until the end of the fiscal year on September 30, 2013.
Text

Sec. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary's evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary's authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.

Content from External Source

All it does is to prevent activists from demanding the destruction of crops that were already approved. And it ONLY lasts until Sep of THIS year.

It's a tempest in a teapot.

 

[Leifer]

Are you sure ? heres a Soros site that says otherwise THINKPROGRESS http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/04/10/1832621/monsanto-protection-act-power/?mobile=nc

The so-called "Monsanto Protection Act" is a coined term, by advocacy groups who are opposed to it.
It is actually Section 735 of HR 933.

Sec. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary’s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.

Content from External Source

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/04/01/monsanto-protection-act-separating-the-facts-from-the-fury/

 

[Pete Tar]

A good explanation of all the scary lawyer speak has been made here - http://blog.skepticallibertarian.co...cy-theorists-lose-it-over-minor-deregulation/
This is the situation it is meant to cover -

In August 2010, the Center for Food Safety and some organic farmers who may stand to gain by injuring their competition managed to convince a court to void the five-year-old approval of GE sugar beet seeds. This decision, in effect, reverted the sugar beets to “pest” status. In November 2010, a federal judge ordered the sugar beet seedlings pulled from the ground, as required by law. But by this point, nearly 95 percent of domestic sugar beet production was from GE seeds. In other words, if the decision had stood, it could have destroyed as much as half of America’s granulated sugar production on purely procedural grounds.
The so-called “Monsanto Protection Act” actually does nothing to protect Monsanto. Rather, it protects the farmers that bought Monsanto seeds and planted them under the belief that it was legal to do so by granting them temporary permits for their existing crops and seeds, which have already been subjected to extensive USDA scrutiny. It does not allow them to keep planting where there are proven health risks or to keep planting at all in fact.

Content from External Source

 

[Cairenn]

Has anyone else noticed the amount of anti GMO stories end up referring to something from Russia? A Russian study, an article in a Russian news paper or media source. I saw the same thing show up with the BP oil spill, there was the addition of some from China and the mid East.

I read one story, I think it was in Business Insider that pointed at a lot of the anti fracking stories starting in Russia. Russia is major supplier of gas to Europe and some feel that fracking would allow Europe to be less dependent on imports from Russia.

I am not implying a conspiracy, just countries with government controlled media looking out for their selves.

 

[Pete Tar]

Russia Today is a news network that seems to give time to a lot of fringe conspiracy subjects, possibly because of the potential to make America look bad.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_%28TV_network%29#Objectivity_and_bias

 

[Joe]

Has anyone else noticed the amount of anti GMO stories end up referring to something from Russia? A Russian study, an article in a Russian news paper or media source. I saw the same thing show up with the BP oil spill, there was the addition of some from China and the mid East.

I read one story, I think it was in Business Insider that pointed at a lot of the anti fracking stories starting in Russia. Russia is major supplier of gas to Europe and some feel that fracking would allow Europe to be less dependent on imports from Russia.

I am not implying a conspiracy, just countries with government controlled media looking out for their selves.

government controlled media ? Like the American Media ?

 

[JonJson]

A good explanation of all the scary lawyer speak has been made here - http://blog.skepticallibertarian.co...cy-theorists-lose-it-over-minor-deregulation/

I read the article and found something that I would have to disagree with.

GE food poses no threat to human health or the environment. The absurd reaction to this provision shows how desperate the anti-GE crowd has become.

The statement that it poses no threat to the environment is in my opinion just blatantly false. The GMO or GE plants have repeatedly been shown to cross pollinate with existing crops in adjacent and non adjacent fields. Monsanto has taken farmers to court and sued them for attempting to retain seeds from their cross pollinated fields which they wanted to use for replanting in the following year, a common practice in farming. I won't get into the whole issue of ownership of the seeds but will say that this type of contamination effectively eliminates genetic diversity which I consider to be a proven threat to the environment.

 

[Pete Tar]

... Monsanto has taken farmers to court and sued them for attempting to retain seeds from their cross pollinated fields which they wanted to use for replanting in the following year, a common practice in farming...

I have heard that this claim may be exaggerated or there was more to it than an innocent farmer being bullied by a big corporation, but maybe someone else knows the details of that.
If it's true though it does seem like a blatant abuse of corporate power and doesn't make me like Monsanto any more than I do (I don't).
I do agree that saying GMO's are absolutely safe is too much of a definitive statement - I think that traces of the insect gut busting component have shown up in the environment long after they were supposed to have safely disappeared?

 

[Jazzy]

Mutation being what it is, then the natural world will, of its own accord, over time, throw in every viable type of modification into the mix. Even when naturally-grown it is not impossible for some deadly and unwelcome variation to occur.

So neither the human nor the natural variation is without risk, although in general a powerful change is not a single-step change, so such variations will be low-contrast. Mostly.

Risk is an inevitable part of existence. Nature isn't "safe".

GMO's reduce diversity no more swiftly than man's normal activities. The world will absorb GMOs into the "natural" genetic bank. They will be a small account there. It's not a real issue. I used to think otherwise...

 

[Cairenn]

One purpose of GM crops is to reduce the amount of chemicals needed. To me, that sounds good.

Genetic diversity is another matter. One of the causes of the bee die off is being attributed to the fact that bees are being moved from one crop to a another, always single crops. It seems that honey bees in permanent locations are not having the same issues. They feed on a variety of plants.

 

[Joe]

One purpose of GM crops is to reduce the amount of chemicals needed. To me, that sounds good.

Genetic diversity is another matter. One of the causes of the bee die off is being attributed to the fact that bees are being moved from one crop to a another, always single crops. It seems that honey bees in permanent locations are not having the same issues. They feed on a variety of plants.

ARE YOU SURE ? do you know what Round Up Ready means ? Its so they can spray round all over the crops and only kill the weeds not the crop . meaning the crop still get saturated with Round Up . Yummy . Bees ? Iv heard stories about parasites and cell towers . They still are not sure what it is . But locally We know its not from moving them .http://www.floridatoday.com/article...-bee-kill-south-Brevard-caused-by-insecticide

 

[Cairenn]

But Round up ready is ONLY ONE type of crop. Many others have been created for other purposes.

Your article does not describe the major problem of colony collapse disorder. That seems to be an insecticide poisoning, not the same thing. I have even been reading beekeeper sites, not just newspapers and internet 'papers'.

 

[Joe]

But Round up ready is ONLY ONE type of crop. Many others have been created for other purposes.

Your article does not describe the major problem of colony collapse disorder. That seems to be an insecticide poisoning, not the same thing. I have even been reading beekeeper sites, not just newspapers and internet 'papers'.

I have read them too , That was a local story . watch and see how Monsanto treats farmers after they contaminate their canola product with their Round Up Ready Crop , What have you learned on Colony Collapse ? ​

 

[JonJson]

I have read them too , That was a local story . watch and see how Monsanto treats farmers after they contaminate their canola product with their Round Up Ready Crop , What have you learned on Colony Collapse ? ​

I was following Percy's case against Monsanto back in the late 90's and even contributed to his defense fund. The US Supreme Court will hear a similar case this year. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/business/justices-signal-a-monsanto-edge-in-patent-case.html?_r=0 I don't know if Monsanto's business plan constitutes a conspiracy theory or not but it is pretty underhanded on their part the way they go after independent farmers.

 

[Joe]

I was following Percy's case against Monsanto back in the late 90's and even contributed to his defense fund. The US Supreme Court will hear a similar case this year. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/business/justices-signal-a-monsanto-edge-in-patent-case.html?_r=0 I don't know if Monsanto's business plan constitutes a conspiracy theory or not but it is pretty underhanded on their part the way they go after independent farmers.

Yea I dont think its a conspiracy Just as you say underhanded bully tactics . They are too big and too powerful .

 

[Jazzy]

Yea I dont think its a conspiracy Just as you say underhanded bully tactics. They are too big and too powerful.

Spaces follow, but never precede, full stops.

Big and powerful Monsanto may be, but Round-up won't have any effect on bees unless they are directly sprayed with it. And then drowning will be the effect. But they might well shake it off.

 

[Cairenn]

http://boingboing.net/2012/05/07/the-honeybees-are-still-dying.html

That is one of the articles that suggests that pesticides are not causing CCD.

 

[JonJson]

Spaces follow, but never precede, full stops.

Big and powerful Monsanto may be, but Round-up won't have any effect on bees unless they are directly sprayed with it. And then drowning will be the effect. But they might well shake it off.

That is a nonsense statement. Have you sprayed bees and tested them to support this claim?

Roundup Weed & Grass Killer contains two listed active ingredients, one of which is 2 percent isopropylamine salt of glyphosate. According to the chemical's material safety data sheet on file with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, this substance may irritate eyes and cause blurred vision, diarrhea, vomiting and nausea. The membranes within the mouth may become irritated. The substance in a spray form can cause upper respiratory tract problems. Overall, the MSDS rates isopropylamine salt of glyphosate as being a slight health hazard and recommends care by a doctor in the event it is ingested or inhaled.
The other active ingredient listed on the Roundup Weed & Grass Killer label is 2 percent pelargonic acid. This acid is found in nearly all living beings, and as such it is generally considered harmless in small quantities. When used as a weed killer, pelargonic acid is safe as long as its use in areas containing edible plants takes place at least 24 hours before the plants' harvest for use as food, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

So neither of these sound like the only risk to a bee would be drowning if sprayed.

​

 

[JonJson]

http://boingboing.net/2012/05/07/the-honeybees-are-still-dying.html

That is one of the articles that suggests that pesticides are not causing CCD.

Well CCD is a very complex situation and everything I have read on it indicates that it is most likely a combination of factors and not a single factor.

There have been many theories about the cause of CCD, but the researchers who are leading the effort to find out why are now focused on these factors:

• increased losses due to the invasive varroa mite (a pest of honeybees);
• new or emerging diseases such as Israeli Acute Paralysis virus and the gut parasite Nosema;
• pesticide poisoning through exposure to pesticides applied to crops or for in-hive insect or mite control;
• bee management stress;
• foraging habitat modification
• inadequate forage/poor nutrition and
• potential immune-suppressing stress on bees caused by one or a combination of factors identified above.

Additional factors may include poor nutrition, drought, and migratory stress brought about by the increased need to move bee colonies long distances to provide pollination services.

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/intheworks/honeybee.htm

 

[Cairenn]

To me that makes more sense. I believe I read that our native bees are not having the same problems and that is not been seen as much in urban bee colonies

 

[Jay Reynolds]

I was following Percy's case against Monsanto back in the late 90's and even contributed to his defense fund. The US Supreme Court will hear a similar case this year. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/business/justices-signal-a-monsanto-edge-in-patent-case.html?_r=0 I don't know if Monsanto's business plan constitutes a conspiracy theory or not but it is pretty underhanded on their part the way they go after independent farmers.

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/percy-schmeiser.aspx

 

[Cairenn]

Reminds me of the Micky D's coffee story, that when one got the full story, the award was not as outrageous as it seemed to be.

 

[Jazzy]

That is a nonsense statement. Have you sprayed bees and tested them to support this claim?

I omitted to say in my opinion. But it isn't a "nonsense statement".

this substance may irritate eyes and cause blurred vision, diarrhea, vomiting and nausea

Content from External Source

If you get sprayed with it. Operators would certainly need to know all about that. The question is "Does that equate to bees?" and also "why would bees be poisoned by a glyphosated plant?" It would be dead, and of no interest to them. You could also ask why active bees would approach a spraying event. I don't believe they would.
Glyphosate is a plant contact poison. As such it isn't usually sprayed as a mist, but in directed squirts like window washing fluid so that it falls on the plant and not its surroundings. Anything falling on healthy soil is digested by its bacteria.

This acid is found in nearly all living beings - harmless in small quantities

Content from External Source

So neither of these sound like the only risk to a bee would be drowning if sprayed.

You are funny. But I like you. Please don't spray any bees on my behalf.

I support permaculture myself, and have no interest in artificially maintaining food production using oil-based anything. But you have to keep your impulses in order. A cool head.

 

[JonJson]

If you get sprayed with it. Operators would certainly need to know all about that. The question is "Does that equate to bees?" and also "why would bees be poisoned by a glyphosated plant?" It would be dead, and of no interest to them. You could also ask why active bees would approach a spraying event. I don't believe they would.

The roundup ready crop would not be dead and the plants that will die don't die the moment that they are sprayed. Bees gather pollen and and nectar from flowering plants, Roundup ready plants that have been soaked in Roundup and even plants that have been sprayed with that will die but haven't died yet. The bees can't tell the difference.

Glyphosate is a plant contact poison. As such it isn't usually sprayed as a mist, but in directed squirts like window washing fluid so that it falls on the plant and not its surroundings. Anything falling on healthy soil is digested by its bacteria.

That may be how it is sprayed by the homeowner but I can assure you that is not how it is sprayed in agricultural applications.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/percy-schmeiser.aspx

If anyone wants to know the full extent of evidence presented showing that Percy Schmiesser had planted patented seed of a high enough percentage to be unmistakably from a commercial source, not simply from wind-blown seed, should read the sampling data presented at trial, specifically sections 39-59 of the Canadian Federal Court findings.

Schmiesser's actions had been reported to Monsanto by another farmer who saw Schmiesser's evasion of patent fees as taking unfair competitive advantage against the farmers who honored the contracts signed to not replant the patented seeds.

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

[44.] In early 2000 Dr. Downey arranged for a grow-out test of the sample provided by Mr. Mitchell from seeds retained from the 1997 sample. Mr. Schmeiser and his counsel were invited to be present at commencement of the test. There were differences in the testimony of Dr. Downey and Mr. Schmeiser about the presence of cleaver seeds among the sample seeds. All seeds in the sample provided to Dr. Downey were planted. The grow-out test of the seeds resulted in about 50% of the seeds germinating. The subsequent application of Roundup herbicide left surviving all of the plants which germinated from the seed, demonstrating they were glyphosate tolerant. This led Dr. Downey to conclude that the seeds provided to him from the 1997 sample taken of plants growing along the road allowances of fields 2 and 5, demonstrated that the canola plants growing there were not the result of pollen movement into those fields, or out crossing between glyphosate-resistant and susceptible plants. Rather, in his view, the high percentage of glyphosate-tolerant plants, among those which had germinated, indicated they were grown from commercial Roundup Ready canola seed.

[46] Later in the spring of 1998, Monsanto representatives learned that the defendants had seed treated at the HFM and that HFM had retained samples of his seed for its own purposes. They requested a sample of the seed withheld from Mr. Schmeiser by HFM. Mr. Schmeiser had not previously used HFM for seed-treating purposes, and he was not aware that samples were regularly taken from the seed provided by farmers. As was done for all others whose seed was treated, HFM did take samples of the seed brought in by the defendants and of the seed after treatment and before delivery to Schmeiser. HFM provided a portion of both samples to Monsanto without informing Mr. Schmeiser that this had been done.

[58] Mr. Freisen obtained further seed samples of Mr. Schmeiser's 1997 seed directly from the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool (which had taken over the former HFM) in April 2000, to complete the grow-out tests prepared for the preparation of expert evidence at trial. After testing all of the samples provided to him by both the defendants and HFM, Mr. Freisen obtained a variety of results that ranged from 0% Roundup-tolerant to 98% Roundup-tolerant canola. At trial, he testified that while he could determine an average percentage of glyphosate-tolerant canola for the 17 samples he tested, there was little point in doing so because of the drastic differences in the level of Roundup tolerancee noted. His evidence did reveal that of the seeds grown from samples provided by HFM, before and after treatment, both those received from the defendants after they were obtained by Mr. Schmeiser in 1999 and those received directly from Saskatchewan Wheat Pool at Humboldt in April 2000, the survival rate of germinating plants after spraying with Roundup ranged from 95 to 98%. That range is evidence of the presence of commercial Roundup Ready canola. This evidence is supportive of the plaintiffs' claim.

 

[JonJson]

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/percy-schmeiser.aspx

Yeah I wouldn't expect Monsanto to say anything different. They seem to be implying that Schmeiser obtained the seed by some underhanded action without making it clear that he had never purchased Monsanto seed in the first place. He had never had a contract with Monsanto to grow their seed on his field so some drift had to happen in order for him to obtain the resistant plants in the first place.

Unlike his neighbors, and the vast majority of farmers who plant patented seeds, Schmeiser saved seed that contained Monsanto’s patented technology without a license. As indicated by the trial court in Canada, the seed was not blown in on the wind nor carried in by birds, and it didn’t spontaneously appear. Schmeiser knowingly planted this seed in his field without permission or license.

The problem as I see it is that unless you segregate the Monsanto Canola from other Canola plants you can't maintain control over the genetic spread of this GMO. When all Canola plants contain this genetic modification then Monsanto will, through it's patent, control all the production of Canola oil.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/an-invader-biotech-canola/

 

[Jay Reynolds]

These videos shows a better view of how roundup is sprayed.
​
​

However, anyone who has ever seen corn like this will know that there is practically zero chance of a substantial amount of bees being within such a corn field. There are no flowers or pollen at this stage of corn growth. Once corn begins to tassle and make pollen, the tractors simply cannot spray it anymore. Some aerial spraying of roundup is done, and some soybeans are sprayed after flowering.

This poster had had his hives in the center of 1000 acres of RR soybeans and had no problems with the herbicide. When they began to spray pesticides, he moves them out.

Chiggerbait, they spray the roundup when the plants are small to kill the competition for the sun. After the competition is gone and the plants get to about 8"-1' they start to spread out and choke the weeds out. I put 5 hives in the middle of 1000 acres of RR soybeans and they exploded. They build alot of comb and put up significant amount of honey. The farmers usually do not spray when the blooms are on but when the blooms finish they spray for stink bugs and other insects. The farmer told me when to remove my hives!

The Center for Honeybee Research speaks to the question:

I read whre they are spraying Glyphosate on weeds on the Appalachia Trail. The following is what I found on one of the sites regard this chemical:

"Honey bees are not affected by glyphosate or Roundup formulations based on data from laboratory and field studies. Screening tests have been performed on a number of other beneficial arthropods including beetles, mites, spiders, and wasps. These tests are designed to maximize exposure (maximum use rate, no interception, etc.). Large beneficial arthropods such as ground predators (spiders and beetles) are not at risk from glyphosate formulations. Several foliar dwelling species (e.g. parasitic wasp, predatory mite) for several glyphosate formulations are potentially affected based on laboratory screening tests. However, under realistic exposure regimes, testing showed that it is unlikely that effects will be observed. Within treated areas, alteration of the vegetation following glyphosate treatment can result in substantial change in habitats over the short term, and, consequently, in some cases, insect populations. Michael J. McKee, Ph.D., Ecotoxicology Specialist, Monsanto Agricultural Group"

Because Monsanto did the study, a whole lot of red flags went up for me. So I asked a friend of mine, Dr. David Tarpy his view on the subject. He wrote the following:

"Being an herbicide, and not an insecticide, RoundUp tends to be relatively non-toxic to honey bees. The standard measure to toxicity of compounds is the LD50--the lethal dose at which 50% of the exposed individuals die. The convention for honey bee toxicity is:

highly toxic (acute LD50 < 2μg/bee)
moderately toxic (acute LD50 2 - 10.99μg/bee)
slightly toxic (acute LD50 11 - 100μg/bee)
non-toxic (acute LD50 > 100μg/bee) to adult bees
Several studies have tested glyphosate, and all have shown its LD50 to be greater than 0.1 mg (>100 ug). Of course, very high concentrations applied directly to beehives can be problematic, just like anything would. But residual field-use levels are not likely to pose risks to bees or other pollinators.

More information, including how to protect bees from pesticides, can be found at:
http://ipm.ncsu.edu/agchem/5-toc.pdf
Let me know if you have any other questions! Sincerely, David
David R. Tarpy
Associate Professor and Extension Apiculturist
Department of Entomology, Campus Box 7613
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-7613

http://www.centerforhoneybeeresearc...tryId/17/Monsantos-Roundup-and-Honeybees.aspx

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Yeah I wouldn't expect Monsanto to say anything different.

The quotation was NOT from Monsanto, it was from a court decision based on FACTS.

They seem to be implying that Schmeiser obtained the seed by some underhanded action without making it clear that he had never purchased Monsanto seed in the first place. He had never had a contract with Monsanto to grow their seed on his field so some drift had to happen in order for him to obtain the resistant plants in the first place.

The court did not IMPLY that he obtained the seed underhandedly. The EVIDENCE showed that he planted commercial quality patented seed which could not have come from pollen drift.

The EVIDENCE showed that Schmiesser liked the roundup ready canola. He purposefully sprayed ROUNDUP to come up with 1000 acres of 95% pure patented seed!

Do you know how big 1000 acres is? That is 1.5 miles square.

He saved $15,000, or in other words, he CHEATED Monsanto out of their patent fee and tried to grow plants on a cheaper basis than his neighbors.

The problem as I see it is that unless you segregate the Monsanto Canola from other Canola plants you can't maintain control over the genetic spread of this GMO

Sure you can. You can grow seed isolated from the unwanted trait(roundup ready) and plant that seed. The resultant crop will be 100% GMO free. Most crops which hybridize easily are grown by professional seed growers in that way. Schmiesser knows how to do this. You can bet he still grows non-GMO canola to this day, now that he got caught.

BASF has a non-GMO variety of canola which is extensively marketed and grown in Canada as well as othe parts of the world:

http://www.agro.basf.com.au/clearfield/clearfield-canola/common-questions/

 

[JonJson]

The quotation was NOT from Monsanto, it was from a court decision based on FACTS.

Actually it was from a Monsanto website that you pointed to in post #183

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/percy-schmeiser.aspx

The truth is Percy Schmeiser is not a hero. He’s simply a patent infringer who knows how to tell a good story.

This hardly reads like any court document that I would expect to see. Instead it appears to be written by someone from Monsanto's legal or marketing group.

The court did not IMPLY that he obtained the seed underhandedly. The EVIDENCE showed that he planted commercial quality patented seed which could not have come from pollen drift.

The EVIDENCE showed that Schmiesser liked the roundup ready canola. He purposefully sprayed ROUNDUP to come up with 1000 acres of 95% pure patented seed!

Do you know how big 1000 acres is? That is 1.5 miles square.

He saved $15,000, or in other words, he CHEATED Monsanto out of their patent fee and tried to grow plants on a cheaper basis than his neighbors.

I wasn't commenting on the court documents that you posted later in post #187. I will say that the court did not establish how the original plants got into his field but established that he was aware that the seeds from the surviving plants were Roundup resistant and that he intentionally selected seeds from these plants to be used for replanting.
The whole story reminds me of when we stood an American Cream Draft Stallion on our farm. Our fences were proving to not be up to the challenge of keeping the stallion contained and he was constantly getting out of his field to chase after our mares. My wife asked me what we were going to do if he got into the neighbors field and bred her mares. "Send them a bill for stud fee for each of her mares that the stallion breeds." was my reply.

Sure you can. You can grow seed isolated from the unwanted trait(roundup ready) and plant that seed. The resultant crop will be 100% GMO free. Most crops which hybridize easily are grown by professional seed growers in that way. Schmiesser knows how to do this.

Can I then save the seeds from the harvesting of my field and use this to replant my fields? Can I do this from any location on my farm, even if it is in a field adjacent to my neighbors field who grows a GMO crop? This was the real heart of the question asked in the courts, and the answer was no you may not do that because Monsanto retains ownership of this seed and all resulting generations in perpetuity no matter where it may be found growing, on the side of the road or in your fields.

You can bet he still grows non-GMO canola to this day, now that he got caught.

Actually he no longer grows any Canola, he switched over to wheat.

 

[Cairenn]

Isn't there a case that was presented to the Supreme Court recently, about a farmer that bought soybeans from his local mill. Mixed seed, some GMO, some not, to plant as a backup crop (it was late in a poor growing area, so he wanted the cheapest seed he could find) and Monsanto charged him?

 

[Jazzy]

Bees gather pollen and and nectar from flowering plants

That would be the time NOT to spray, then.
I knew you would find the answer in the end.

 

[JonJson]

Isn't there a case that was presented to the Supreme Court recently, about a farmer that bought soybeans from his local mill. Mixed seed, some GMO, some not, to plant as a backup crop (it was late in a poor growing area, so he wanted the cheapest seed he could find) and Monsanto charged him?

Yes I mentioned the case in one of my earlier postings. There is a link to a report about that case.

The US Supreme Court will hear a similar case this year. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/bu...case.html?_r=0

 

[JonJson]

That would be the time NOT to spray, then.
I knew you would find the answer in the end.

Yeah I can just hear the farmers now, "I wanted to spray the field with Roundup but I can see that the Morning Glory has already started to flower so I will just have to wait, don't want to run the risk of hurting any bees. Hope I can get it sprayed before something else starts to flower."

 

[Cairenn]

You are spraying Round up so the Morning Glory's DON'T come up. I imagine that urban bees get a lot higher doses of PESTICIDES from folks spraying their roses and flowering trees.

In fact, it does seem that round up causes some problems for bees--native ones, because it eliminates many of the weeds that they feed on.

Another problem with honeybees is that they have lost much of their genetic diversity.


Are pesticides part of the problem? Are GMO crops a part? Most likely they are, but are many other problems


http://baynature.org/articles/are-n...e-same-colony-collapse-disorder-as-honeybees/


http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2011/10/native-bees-are-better-pollinators-honeybees

 

[Minnesota CHawk]

Some general points in regards to the GMO "conspiracy" (I think corruption would be a more accurate term).

1. Even if studies that show genetically engineered crops to be safe are legit, unbiased and take into account all necessary factors to really determine that the GMO crops that were tested are really save (vs. the specific factors that would actually be measured), this says nothing for all the new GMO products that continue to be introduced. This is one of the really bothersome things here. We are not talking about one technology. We are talking about a potentially infinite # of technologies. Like any powerful technologies there will be promise and peril. It seems the official stance (backed up by libertarian types) is to focus on the promise (so far mostly realized as $$$) and poo poo any peril. Being cautious about powerful new technologies is not paranoid or irrational, ITS WISE.

2. On one hand industry (and sadly the government) basically says corn is corn, a soybean is a soybean, in regards to safety and consumers right to know. But on the other hand, in regards to marketing and who can grow it, they claim ownership due to patent holding, which by it's definition means these products are unique. This is complete hypocrisy. Either require their uniqueness to be labeled or make patenting of lifeforms illegal, but not both ways.

 

[Sjacco]

Or maybe a hidden viral gene?
http://independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/regulators-discover-a-hidden-viral-gene-in-commercial-gmo-crops/

 

[MikeC]

One that does nothing at all, despite the hoopla surrounding it? And indeed one that has been in the human food chain for thousands of years, has been studied for decades, and is not actually "hidden" at all??

Here's the abstract of the actual study
, which states, in part:

Multiple variants of the Cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter (P35S) are used to drive the expression of transgenes in genetically modified plants, for both research purposes and commercial applications.

Content from External Source

So that is why the researchers were looking at this gene - it is actually used ... A LOT!! The purpose of the paper was to:

The present paper investigates whether introduction of P35S variants by genetic transformation is likely to result in the expression of functional domains of the P6 protein and in potential impacts in transgenic plants.

Content from External Source

So they were testing whether this gene does anythign when used. Adn what did they find??

No relevant similarity was identified between the putative peptides and known allergens and toxins, using different databases.

Content from External Source

they found nothing at all.

More over CaMV is endemic in commercial crops - having it in GMO is not anything new to the human food chain.

Scientists avert new GMO crisis

Perhaps the main criticism, however, was that the ubiquity of the CaMV 35S promoter and related sequences means that its presence in GM plants is simply irrelevant. Roger Hull, an emeritus research fellow at the John Innes Institute (Norwich, UK) and one of the discoverers of the CaMV 35S promoter, for instance, had estimated that about 10% of cauliflowers and cabbages at his local market were infected with CaMV. That data were not new, having been gathered in the late 1980s as part of the approval process for the release of the first recombinant plant pathogen in the UK. Furthermore, a typical infected cell contained around 100,000 copies of the virus and its genome. Transgenesis would add but one to five copies of the 35S promoter. In addition, says Hull, plants are “loaded” with potentially mobile DNA—such elements making up close to 50% of the genome in some cereals. Historically, therefore, humans have been consuming CaMV and its 35S promoter at levels that are over 10,000 times greater than those in uninfected transgenic plants.

Content from External Source

Wow - thank heavens for actual science to cut through the bovine excrement!!

 

[Sjacco]

MikeC,
Thanks for your fast response.
7 in the morning (here NL), so I should go to sleep now. I do not know enough about this matter, but I have been reading this: http://independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/gmo-regulators-hidden-viral-gene-vi-regulators-fail/
to see more of both sides.