Gmo

[Riverwolf]

So I find, particularly in America where these things usually begin, people are afraid of/opposed to GMOs. Genetically Modified Organisms. Food, in other words.

The funny thing about this is that people have been eating GMOs for centuries. Practically all produce and meat you buy is genetically modified. There are no wild seedless watermelons. There are no wild cows. There are no wild large bananas. People seem to have an exaggerated idea of what is 'organic'. All agariculture is unnatural.

Wheat, be it ever so wholemeal and stoneground, is not a natural food for Homo sapiens. Nor is milk, except for children. Almost every morsel of our food is genetically modified – admittedly by artificial selection not artificial mutation, but the end result is the same. A wheat grain is a genetically modified grass seed, just as a pekinese is a genetically modified wolf.

So what's different this time around? The fact that it's all done in a lab. All done by science. And it is the scientific illiteracy of the people that is fuelling the fear behind GMO. They don't understand science, so they fear it instead. There's really very little difference between genetically modifying the cow via artificial selection and doing it in the lab except that people don't understand the latter.

You forget one other thing: wild carrots are poisonous.

 

[Riverwolf]

We've destroyed the earth.

No we haven't.

 

[Riverwolf]

Preference for natural mutations and selective breeding isn't anything like corporate genetic manipulation. I know a fair amount about nutrition, agriculture, etc.....it's not all ignorant hipsters against GMOs. Corporate food and food-like products has been a big factor in obesity, sickness, disease all skyrocketing.

I was in Yosemite a few weeks back, and saw something VERY telling.

A table at one of the cafeterias had a long explanation for why we're not supposed to feed the animals "human food", and one of the listed reasons was that it makes the animals "gain weight".

Hm...

 

[Sees]

I was in Yosemite a few weeks back, and saw something VERY telling.

A table at one of the cafeterias had a long explanation for why we're not supposed to feed the animals "human food", and one of the listed reasons was that it makes the animals "gain weight".

Hm...

Yeah, and it's sadly intentional in factory farming.

Just to rant...

Open eyes and common sense show that fat and sick people feed the corporations all around - quality of life be damned. The numbers for obesity, autism, cancer, insomnia, food allergies, etc. are insane and absolutely go hand in hand with FDA backdoor dealings and blind-eyeing. Massive amounts of severe depression is bad enough. It's all interconnected, as always.

It boggles my mind why people are so trusting in this area. For the majority of folks - being the optimal weight and hardly ever getting sick is as simple as a steady supply of nutritious, natural foods. It doesn't do anybody any favors for people to promote otherwise...unless their own pockets are getting bigger.

The only time my wife, kids, or I have been sick in the last 3-4 years was once after a night of Papa John's pizza lol I know a few people, personally close to me, who have completely changed lives after becoming serious about only eating clean, natural food. World's improved mental and physical health. Surgeries and operations prevented, tons of pounds dropped.

No brands, labels, gimmicks to market or promote :run:

 

[s2a]

So I find, particularly in America where these things usually begin, people are afraid of/opposed to GMOs. Genetically Modified Organisms. Food, in other words.

The funny thing about this is that people have been eating GMOs for centuries. Practically all produce and meat you buy is genetically modified. There are no wild seedless watermelons. There are no wild cows. There are no wild large bananas. People seem to have an exaggerated idea of what is 'organic'. All agariculture is unnatural.

Wheat, be it ever so wholemeal and stoneground, is not a natural food for Homo sapiens. Nor is milk, except for children. Almost every morsel of our food is genetically modified – admittedly by artificial selection not artificial mutation, but the end result is the same. A wheat grain is a genetically modified grass seed, just as a pekinese is a genetically modified wolf.

So what's different this time around? The fact that it's all done in a lab. All done by science. And it is the scientific illiteracy of the people that is fuelling the fear behind GMO. They don't understand science, so they fear it instead. There's really very little difference between genetically modifying the cow via artificial selection and doing it in the lab except that people don't understand the latter.

A fair question.

The answer is, most people are dumb.

People tend to fear things they do not/can not understand, control, or profit from.

It's really that simple.

 

[Alceste]

A fair question.

The answer is, most people are dumb.

People tend to fear things they do not/can not understand, control, or profit from.

It's really that simple.

Said someone who apparently didn't read the thread.

 

[Thief]

So I find, particularly in America where these things usually begin, people are afraid of/opposed to GMOs. Genetically Modified Organisms. Food, in other words.

The funny thing about this is that people have been eating GMOs for centuries. Practically all produce and meat you buy is genetically modified. There are no wild seedless watermelons. There are no wild cows. There are no wild large bananas. People seem to have an exaggerated idea of what is 'organic'. All agariculture is unnatural.

Wheat, be it ever so wholemeal and stoneground, is not a natural food for Homo sapiens. Nor is milk, except for children. Almost every morsel of our food is genetically modified – admittedly by artificial selection not artificial mutation, but the end result is the same. A wheat grain is a genetically modified grass seed, just as a pekinese is a genetically modified wolf.

So what's different this time around? The fact that it's all done in a lab. All done by science. And it is the scientific illiteracy of the people that is fuelling the fear behind GMO. They don't understand science, so they fear it instead. There's really very little difference between genetically modifying the cow via artificial selection and doing it in the lab except that people don't understand the latter.

Just last weekend I was up late and watched a debate about gmo.

The photos were alarming.
The counterpoint was made by a fellow who could offer nothing be distracting comparisons.

Yeah it's true ....the bulk of the stuff at the grocery store is altered.
And the substance we need in small amounts is disappearing.

You can eat a lot of bulk and not be nourished.

I hear on the radio as well, 90% of all corn is now gmo.
That stuff finds it's way into everything else.
So too the soybeans.
and the tomatoes.....and the wheat.

It may interest you to know...the company that spearheaded the movement was Monsanto.
The same company that made it's big start making Agent Orange.

Now the same company is seeking to make soybeans.....resistant to Agent Orange.

I wonder what kind of monster that will turn out to be?!!!!

 

[Mycroft]

I think in this context, "natural" means anything that does not require a laboratory, tens or hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investment and a patent to produce.

There's really no difference between doing it in a laboratory and doing it in a field. GM is GM.

 

[Mycroft]

. Corporate food and food-like products has been a big factor in obesity, sickness, disease all skyrocketing.

That has nothing to do with GMO's. That's been a thing ever since we invented fast-food.

 

[Willamena]

There's really no difference between doing it in a laboratory and doing it in a field. GM is GM.

The significant difference is that humans have a pretty lousy track record as far as meddling in nature goes.

 

[Willamena]

That has nothing to do with GMO's. That's been a thing ever since we invented fast-food.

I think it's a reference to things like processed food ingredients.

 

[Alceste]

There's really no difference between doing it in a laboratory and doing it in a field. GM is GM.

No, it isn't. Gardeners and organic farmers generally save and share locally. Corporations generally patent and sell globally. Very different food production models, and the former is far more resilient than the latter.

 

[Drolefille]

Watch this when you have the time:

[youtube]N6_DbVdVo-k[/youtube]

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

Schmeiser had no idea his field was contaminated with GMO crops until Monsanto demanded payment from him. He is a life-long seed saver. How do you propose he would have gone about distinguishing between his own crops and Monsanto's in order to intentionally save the GMO seeds?

I'm going based on the wiki article on the case, so if you have alternate sources, LMK:
Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As established in the original Federal Court trial decision, Percy Schmeiser, a canola breeder and grower in Bruno, Saskatchewan, first discovered Roundup-resistant canola in his crops in 1997.[4] He had used Roundup herbicide to clear weeds around power poles and in ditches adjacent to a public road running beside one of his fields, and noticed that some of the canola which had been sprayed had survived. Schmeiser then performed a test by applying Roundup to an additional 3 acres (12,000 m2) to 4 acres (16,000 m2) of the same field. He found that 60% of the canola plants survived. At harvest time, Schmeiser instructed a farmhand to harvest the test field. That seed was stored separately from the rest of the harvest, and used the next year to seed approximately 1,000 acres (4 km²) of canola.

At the time, Roundup Ready canola was in use by several farmers in the area. Schmeiser claimed that he did not plant the initial Roundup Ready canola in 1997, and that his field of custom-bred canola had been accidentally contaminated. While the origin of the plants on Schmeiser's farm in 1997 remains unclear, the trial judge found that with respect to the 1998 crop, "none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality" ultimately present in Schmeiser's 1998 crop.[5]

So he found RR canola in his field in 1997, harvested it, stored the seed separately and then used that seed to replant his fields for the 98 crop.

n 1998, Monsanto learned that Schmeiser was growing a Roundup-resistant crop and approached him to sign a license agreement to their patents and to pay a license fee. Schmeiser refused, maintaining that the 1997 contamination was accidental and that he owned the seed he harvested, and he could use the harvested seed as he wished because it was his physical property. Monsanto then sued Schmeiser for patent infringement, filing its case in Canadian federal court on August 6, 1998.[4] Negotiations to settle the matter collapsed on August 10, 1999, leading Schmeiser to file a countersuit against Monsanto for $10 million for libel, trespass, and contaminating his fields.[6][7]

It's not clear to me HOW Monsanto found out, but he argued that there was contamination but it was accidental in 1997, he didn't argue that he didn't know it was RR canola, and thus required a license, he just argued his property rights trumped Monsanto's patent rights. I do believe this is was a reasonable attempt at an argument, it just lost.

(emphasis mine)

. Regarding his 1998 crop, Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination. The evidence showed that the level of Roundup Ready canola in Mr. Schmeiser's 1998 fields was 95-98% (See paragraph 53 of the trial ruling[4]). Evidence was presented indicating that such a level of purity could not occur by accidental means. On the basis of this the court found that Schmeiser had either known "or ought to have known" that he had planted Roundup Ready canola in 1998. Given this, the question of whether the canola in his fields in 1997 arrived there accidentally was ruled to be irrelevant. Nonetheless, at trial, Monsanto was able to present evidence sufficient to persuade the Court that Roundup Ready canola had probably not appeared in Schmeiser's 1997 field by such accidental means (paragraph 118[4]). The court said it was persuaded "on the balance of probabilities" (the standard of proof in civil cases, meaning "more probable than not" i.e. strictly greater than 50% probability) that the Roundup Ready canola in Mr. Schmeiser's 1997 field had not arrived there by any of the accidental means, such as spillage from a truck or pollen travelling on the wind, that Mr. Schmeiser had proposed.

From the supporters of Schmeiser side:

In the public arena, Schmeiser supporters argued that his account still leaves open the possibility that the harvesting and replanting of Roundup Ready canola from the sprayed region was accidental and resulted from a miscommunication between Schmeiser and his farmhand, or from a failure of Schmeiser to have the presence of mind to instruct his farmhand to avoid taking canola seed for replanting from the sprayed region.

What doesn't make sense then would be why his next crop was almost ALL (95-98%) RR. And this also is what the court found - by the level of certainty for a civil suit, he did it.

Yours is kind of an odd take on the whole issue, if you don't mind me saying so. I've yet to see Schmeiser blamed for playing any intentional part in this, even by Canadian courts.

The court ruled against him AND at least one judge stated he couldn't find any way to account for the seed being there other than it being intentional. He only didn't have to pay damages because there was very minimal amount profited by it. They did argue that accidental patent infringement is still patent infringement, but from the facts I can see - without honestly going back through YEARS of reports, which I won't - The farmer did it intentionally, or at least SHOULD have known since it was resistant to the Roundup he clearly sprayed on it.

So, I don't know if I'm missing something huge, but from this the Canadian courts appear to agree with me. (Or more accurately, I believe I'm understanding the Canadian courts ruling correctly.) This doesn't mean anyone needs to think it's RIGHT or WRONG for Monsanto to do this, I don't care, I just don't see it as a horrible injustice for a guy who sounds like he was looking for a loophole to get busted. But I'm a bit jaded by people who look for loopholes all day.

As far as Monsanto is concerned, their GMO crops are generally designed to tolerate higher doses of their proprietary pesticides and herbicides, not to feed the world.

Which does appear to be what people are wanting to buy right now. As I said, Monsanto isn't the saviour of mankind. However GMO crops probably will be, IMO. Maybe Monsanto steps into that role, maybe someone else does, maybe Joe with a lab and a small grant does. Things like Golden Rice exist.

 

[YmirGF]

No, it isn't. Gardeners and organic farmers generally save and share locally. Corporations generally patent and sell globally. Very different food production models, and the former is far more resilient than the latter.

I gotta ask, Do you even garden, Alceste? If so, I've never heard you mention it.

 

[Alceste]

I gotta ask, Do you even garden, Alceste? If so, I've never heard you mention it.

Yes, and I have also worked as a landscaper.

 

[Alceste]

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

I'm going based on the wiki article on the case, so if you have alternate sources, LMK:
Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So he found RR canola in his field in 1997, harvested it, stored the seed separately and then used that seed to replant his fields for the 98 crop.


It's not clear to me HOW Monsanto found out, but he argued that there was contamination but it was accidental in 1997, he didn't argue that he didn't know it was RR canola, and thus required a license, he just argued his property rights trumped Monsanto's patent rights. I do believe this is was a reasonable attempt at an argument, it just lost.

(emphasis mine)


From the supporters of Schmeiser side:

What doesn't make sense then would be why his next crop was almost ALL (95-98%) RR. And this also is what the court found - by the level of certainty for a civil suit, he did it.




The court ruled against him AND at least one judge stated he couldn't find any way to account for the seed being there other than it being intentional. He only didn't have to pay damages because there was very minimal amount profited by it. They did argue that accidental patent infringement is still patent infringement, but from the facts I can see - without honestly going back through YEARS of reports, which I won't - The farmer did it intentionally, or at least SHOULD have known since it was resistant to the Roundup he clearly sprayed on it.

So, I don't know if I'm missing something huge, but from this the Canadian courts appear to agree with me. (Or more accurately, I believe I'm understanding the Canadian courts ruling correctly.) This doesn't mean anyone needs to think it's RIGHT or WRONG for Monsanto to do this, I don't care, I just don't see it as a horrible injustice for a guy who sounds like he was looking for a loophole to get busted. But I'm a bit jaded by people who look for loopholes all day.


Which does appear to be what people are wanting to buy right now. As I said, Monsanto isn't the saviour of mankind. However GMO crops probably will be, IMO. Maybe Monsanto steps into that role, maybe someone else does, maybe Joe with a lab and a small grant does. Things like Golden Rice exist.

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

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

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

 

[Mycroft]

No, it isn't. Gardeners and organic farmers generally save and share locally. Corporations generally patent and sell globally. Very different food production models, and the former is far more resilient than the latter.

But again that's to do with corporations. That's not to do with GMO's themselves. So, I maintain, doing it in the garden is no different - corporate stuff aside - than doing it in the lab.

 

[Alceste]

But again that's to do with corporations. That's not to do with GMO's themselves. So, I maintain, doing it in the garden is no different - corporate stuff aside - than doing it in the lab.

Fair enough. There are other legitimate reasons to prefer organic to GMO food than fear of science or ignorance. That's all I'm saying. I also think consumers (even the fearful and ignorant ones) should have a right to choose, and so I support accurate labelling.

 

[mycorrhiza]

We must not forget that Monsanto aren't synonymous with GMO. Patenting food isn't good, but that doesn't say anything about GMO. I would rather see a law forbidding patent on anything that isn't "luxury" (i.e. products not related to food, health care, clean environment, etc).

Money isn't really the driving force of most scientists anyway (because then they most certainly would get a job that didn't require begging for grants ).

GMO in general is good. It can increase nutrition, improve yield, decrease the amount of pesticides needed, etc. It sure doesn't solve the problems of large scale monoculture on it's own, but it could be part of the solution.

 

[illykitty]

Nothing against GMO, just need clear labelling for people to make their choice. I do however have an issue with companies like Mosanto who try to patent and restrict the usage of seeds and food. I hope I don't need to explain why this is bad.

Heck even bottled water bothers me. They're essential to life and a company can just go, take the FREE resource and then sell it for huge profits? Insanity! But that's off topic.