Slashdot Mirror
Dodging the Negative Reaction To GE Crops
BINC writes "Wired has an article up today entitled 'Selective Breeding Gets Modern.'" From the article: "Genetically modified food has gotten a chilly reception from consumers, especially in Europe and Asia. Just last week, Japan suspended imports of American long-grain rice after authorities discovered that a genetically modified variety had accidentally mixed with conventional rice. To skirt such problems altogether, biotech companies are creating superior plants using genetics technology that is advanced but which falls short of grafting genes from one organism into another."
Not all of the opposition to GM crops stems from "...asshole science-fearing luddites."
s =org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=GM+crops +%2B+infringement+lawsuits&btnG=Google+Search)
i s_30_38/ai_87353922)
How about all of the farmers getting sued for infringement by Monsanto because Monsanto's GM crops contaminated the farmer's own crops?
Start here:
(http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rl
or here's this:
" The real possibility of interbreeding is dramatized by the defense of farmers against lawsuits filed by Monsanto, the agribusiness company most involved in research and development of genetically modified crops. The company has filed patent infringement lawsuits against some farmers. Monsanto claims that the farmers obtained Monsanto-licensed genetically modified seeds from an unknown source and did not pay royalties to Monsanto. The farmers claim that their unmodified crops were cross-pollinated from someone else's genetically modified crops planted a field or two away.
Percy Schmeiser has been farming in Saskatchewan, Canada, for 53 years. He has served in the Canadian Parliament and been a mayor. Instead of retiring, he has spent the last several years fighting Monsanto after having been sued for patent infringement. Schmeiser grew canola plants on his farm, over the years developing his own seed that was resistant to diseases common in western Canada.
Property rights
In 1998, he was sued by Monsanto, charging that Schmeiser had infringed on their patent by growing genetically altered canola--Monsanto's Roundup Ready--without paying their technology fee. Schmeiser claimed he had never purchased seed from Monsanto. The suit went to trial in June 2000 in the Federal Court of Canada. The judge ruled that it didn't matter how Monsanto's genetically altered canola got onto Schmeiser's land, that any conventional plant that cross-pollinates with the genetically modified plants becomes Monsanto's property, that patent infringement had taken place and that Schmeiser must pay his 1998 profits from his canola crop to Monsanto." This is from here: (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/
So maybe you want to change that last declaration a little, unless you are truly that stupid...if so, nevermind- you're as closed minded as your "asshole science-fearing luddites", and a troll not worth having a discussin with.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
I remember there was this outcry against Monsanto in India quite a few years (4-5) ago. The plan was to release designer seeds with much better characteristics than natural varieties but these seeds would feature a "Terminator" gene (no I promise it was called that I don't have a very large tin foil hat). The gene would prevent future seeds produced by the crop to be viable. Their buisness model was thus that you bought the seeds from Monsanto every year.
Most farmers in India are poorer than most of you can imagine and save some of the seeds from one years crop to reuse the next. There was also some concern that the Terminator gene would find its way into the natural crop varieties and render them useless. This in particular reeks of a company creating something principally to safeguard its profits without there being any actual value added to the farmer.
I think the result of the mess was Monsanto stopped testing it and I think later stopped developing it. That a company would try to develop something like this makes me actively distrust them and its no wonder that a lot of people are scared of genetic engineering. A lot of these groups also tend to be very secretive treating some of their research as trade secret. This is definetly what I'm used to in physics and its definetly not how science should be done. Perhaps its just me but I'm much more skeptical of research done by groups that seem primarily motivated by profit.
I'd worry that a lab environment is just too controlled and the nature has a lot of unplanned for scenarios which may end up producing unintended consequences. I've some respect for their ability to identify what a particular gene as they are doing in the present articles research - I'm more skeptical of their ability to predict what that gene will do if it is suddenly found in another species say. And no matter how extensive your lab trials become they do not address very slow processes which may well occur with GE crops. This selective breeding is less controversial but I'm no biologist and I can already see that there might be a risk with a lack of genetic diversity and that leading to an increased susceptability to disease.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
>making more efficent crops could free up more space for the growing of bio-fuels.
The main reason GE foods exist is so that the companies that own them can patent the gene and own the plant. They don't increase production of the plant significantly, that is not their desire, as there's plenty off food currently (starvation is primarily a distribution issue, not a supply issue).
The reason that I choose organic whenever it's available, is because I want to vote with my dollars to say that I don't support giant companies owning the plants that we need to survive.
As a disclaimer, my girlfriend was the Narrator (among other tasks) for 'The Future of Food' and it was the research that she came across there that changed how we eat. It's a film that covers the aspects of this discussion quite well, but with a bit of a leftist slant. Not intentionally though, monsanto refused any interview requests to present their side of the story.
Also, if you've got a spare few days, give 'The Omnivores Dilemma' a read. It's long, but not heavy, and a lot of good information. My favorite part is the bit about the "grass farmers".
My life is dedicated hosting
You forgot to mention the part where he went and tested the seed to ensure that it was Round-up resistant and planted the collected seed extensively. The trick with roundup ready seed is that it doesn't convey any advantage over regular seed UNLESS under the special condition where you are applying roundup to the field. So when the farmer ended up with 95% of his plants being roundup ready, it became obvious that the farmer was collecting and specifically planting the round up ready seed intentionally, not some "oh, the pollen just blew in and 95% of my plants ended up infringing on a patent!" If someone throws a copy of "Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band" on my lawn, and I feign ignorance that it is a protected work produced by the Beatles (since it is implausible that the farmer had never heard of Roundup Ready crops), go out to burn several thousand copies and attempt to sell them, how am I not in the wrong?
Not wanting to eat GE foods has nothing to do with wanting or not wanting to study genetics and developing potential life saving gene-therapy or drugs based on genetic engineering.
I am all for genetic experimentation in the lab to help us gain better scientific understanding. That does not mean I want to eat the results of that experimentation or release it into the wild.
-CF
One of the first things viceroy bremer did was arrange that iraqi farmers had to use GM patented seeds. That was one of the most heinous acts of blatant imperialism outside of the hijacking of their nation. This is just *data*, verified, it happened.
As to 9-11, you have got to be beyond an idiot to not see all the strange "coincidences" and "intelligence failures" for what they are-clear cut evidence of governmental high level involvement with the reichstagg fire-9-11 attack and part of the coup consolidation.
Why don't you just be a man and admit it-you are a fascist supporter. Go ahead, show some courage. It's a legitimate type of political organization, so just go ahead, stop pretending you are for a representative republic or democracy, and openly come out as a transnational corporate/order giver supporter. No sense hiding it. You support large corporations creating monopolies-good for your business. You support a strong dictatorial central government run behind the scenes by those corporations-you see yourself as part of "them" and want to rule over others and profit in it. Blood profits? Who cares, it's just money and money has no conscious-right? The ends justify the means? Hey, what do the serfs need to know about 9-11 besides what they are told to believe, it got you a nice strong police state and your portfolio is doing great! sieg-frikkin-heil!
And in the meantime we continue to poison existing crops with chemical fertilizers and pesticides. That doesn't make me feel any safer.
GMOs don't decrease the use of chemicals. Actually some GE crops are made so more chemical input can be used. Such as Roundup Ready seeds Monsanto sales. They made it so farmers will use their use Roundup herbicide. Since the seends are immune to Roundup farners can drown their crops in the herbicide thus increase it's usage.
FalconShould there be a Law?
OK, so why would a company want to spend many millions of dollars developing a new kind of corn, only to have a competitor buy a handful of seeds, and start selling them under their own label? Assuming all other things are equal, the company that developed the new strain is out many millions of dollars. Doesn't seem to smart to me to spend another red cent developing new strains of crops if they couldn't patent them. And if this were the case, we'd have a LOT more starving people in the world.
Are you another person who mistakening believes people starve because of the lack of food? Plenty of food is growth so no one has to starve. Most people starve because of politics. Those "illegal immigrants" from Mexico were likely to have been farmers or worked on farms but were driven off the farm because US agrobusinesses flooded the corn market in Mexico with US taxpayer subsidized corn. The US subsidizes agrobusinesses to the tune of billions of dollars a year. How about southern Africa? Before President Robert Mugabe rose to power in Zimbabwe Zimbabawe was the breadbasket of southern Africa. Once he gained power though he forced off the farms the farmers who worked the land, they were usually white, and gave the farms to his cronies who don't know how to farm. Where before there was enough food for everyone now many are starving. In India many farmers are being driven off their farms because of subsidized imports as well. That was the BIG reason the WTO talks in Geneva fell apart, India and other countries wanted to talk about the subsidizes the EU, Japan, and US pay their agrobusinesses. The US placed an offer on the table but the EU refused to lower their subsidizes enough.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The problem is stopping western farmers dumping their products on third world markets at far below cost. Destroying the local market for locally produced food, thereby driving local farmers out of business and off the land. The famines, are caused by US and EU farming subsidies.
This makes no sense.
Your claim/accusation is that US & EU food is made available to third world consumers at a lower cost than the local farmers can provide.
That could certainly cause some problems. But famine can not be one of them. Famines happen when food prices are too high for people to afford feeding themselves. Making food prices lower can only work to lower the risks of famine, not the other way.
I don't want to sound too condescending, but perhaps it can help to point out that when you hear some argument, even - no, especially - if it claims that someone you deeply dislike is doing something bad, try to critically think it through. Try evaluating and understanding what they're actually saying.
Also remember that if all your friends believe the same thing, chances are none of them have actually thought it through, and they're quite likely wrong. Or at least right for the wrong reason.
The old system was a more or less closed loop: food may have been more expensive, but the money remained locally. Now the money is siphoned away to Europe and the US. And Europe and the US are not reinvesting all of it back into the local economy, so you have a net loss.
People seem to have some idea that seeds from crops will germinate.
This was perhaps true in the 1940's. The "Green Revolution" beginning in the 1960's with all-hybrid crops put an end to that. No farmer in the US plants seeds from crops grown - they are all sterile. Perhaps some low-yield farmer in Bangledesh plants crop seeds this way today. Certainly nobody else does.
If you are worried about corporate seed control, we are there already. Do some reading. We have been there since at least 1970. We would all be starving if non-hybrid crops were being grown today.
Your original scenario, with numbers to make it more concrete.
Before:
Local farmer produces for for $4. Sells it on local market for $5. People buy food for $5.
After:
France sells surplus to importer for $2. He sells it on local market for $3. Farmer has to quit farming. Local people buy food for $3.
Clearly the local food buying public is better off in the After scenario. The argument that they're too poor to afford it makes no sense. They would be even less able to afford the locally produced, more expensive food.
The whole "money stays in the country" stuff is mumbo jumbo, possibly of mercantilist origin. Economy is about the flow of goods and services. The pieces of paper with numbers on them are only there to help keep track. It's usually more confusing than enlightening to look at the money flow, especially when some actors can just print more of it.
As for famines, they're caused by criminally bad government in the affected countries, not by rich countries dumping cheap food. If it was the causation you suggest, all the countries the west exports/dumps cheap food to would experience famines. But it in fact only occurs in very oppressive ones.
It's revealing that you decide that someone you know nothing about must be ignorant and uneducated, just for disagreeing with you.
Net result: local farmer has earned $1 he can use to buy food, and has extra left over from his own crop to feed his family. It's a healthy economy.
Net result: the importers, of which there are far fewer than there used to be farmers, earn a lot of money. French farmers earn a lot of money at the expense of their fellow subsidizing taxpayers. The majority of local people, who used to be farmers, lose their livelyhood, can't find new work in their country's stunted economy, and become wholly dependent on foreign aid.
It's revealing that you call directly observable economics "mumbo jumbo" simply because you don't understand it. It's rational to decide that someone is ignorant when they are demonstrably without knowledge.