Slashdot Mirror

Here are the statements I quoted that you think this supports, rebutted using only that source:

the new claim is that if the gene is in your crops, you infringed the patent ... they have disputed the possibility of innocent gene transfer

They clearly say "...it has never been Monsanto policy nor will it be to exercise patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in a farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means." and that quote also implicitly admits that transfer is possible.

Any claim that pollination cannot carry the gene to another crop should result in a conviction for perjury at this point.

Since they say "The study also found two plants (0.7 percent) had both the Liberty Link and the Roundup Ready gene.", and since as far as I know they've never been sold in the same plant, it seems pretty clear that they understand that crossing happens.

claims based on poor viability of the crop without roundup should be barred from the trial as unfounded

1. Again, I don't believe that this has been an issue in any court case, and your source doesn't even use the word "viability" (in any version) anywhere.

2. As the article you cited points out, government agencies think that crosses are unlikely to be more weedy (i.e. they can still be easily be controlled by other means), not have poor viability.

3. This thread's original article's research on non-commercial rice (not commercial canola) is troubling, but probably has to do with weedy rice having a less effective EPSP synthase gene to start with, and shouldn't be generalized.

At this point I can only conclude that you have a reading comprehension problem, or are trolling.

From the horse's mouth

Did you read it? That article pretty much contradicts everything you've said.

From the horse's mouth

No. Monnsanto threw a bunch of jargon at some judges that left them convinced that there was evidence of a science-like nature that there was only a 1 in a billion chance.

Since then, volunteer canola has been found growing wild and expressing the RR trait along with traits from other varieties. They also failed to account for the possibility that the RR crop had some other positive trait that Schmeiser was selecting for in his breeding. Otherwise, since Schmeiser wasn't using roundup, why would he bother with RR crops at all?

What's really comical (in a sad way) is a posting on monsantoblog.com where they report roadside wild canola with 86% expressing GM traits. That is in canola that is not being managed at all.

And if hybrid seed is so good, why isn't it labeled? If Haram / non-Kosher food won't send you to hell, why isn't it labeled? If food produced with mutagenesis, or somaclonal variation, or induced polyploidy, or embryo rescue, or marker assisted breeding, or mutant bud sports, or asexual propagation is so good, why isn't it labeled? GE food is not labeled for the same reason nothing else I listed is. GE corn is corn, GE soy is soy, GE canola is canola. If you want it labeled, thats fine, buy organic or create another market demand, but labels should not be legally mandated based on simple wants. Also, it is not Monsanto that does not label GE food. Monsanto produces GE seed, not the actual food, and they do label it. It is the food producers who do not label if their food was produced with GE crops, or produced with silos or tractors, or was grown with a particular input, ect. And if that lawsuit is what you are talking about, as far as I know that didn't happen.

Not yummy enough for Monsanto staffers to eat, of course. Their staff cafeterias are 100% GMO free. They have an idea of what's in the crap they sell.

Not according to Monsato. You're trusting the word of a caterer because they said something you'd like to believe is true.

Some scientists decided that the situation is unconsciable and tried to do their own, publicly available, peer-reviewed studies on Monsanto's products. Most of them didn't have the strong backing of people up high in their government. So Monsanto destroyed them. A quick internet search will find info about the people destroyed professionally, personally, and even literally.

Can you at least provide some names? I have no idea what your talking about and don't want to Google random terms hoping I discover what you mean.

what's most disturbing about this is forbes magazine just named monsanto company of the year.

"Company of the year" has everything to do with business model, and not the quality of the product offered.

what's most disturbing about this is forbes magazine just named monsanto company of the year.