Slashdot Mirror
Terminator Gene Ban Suggested in Canada
innocent_white_lamb writes "A member of the Canadian Parliament has proposed legislation to outlaw the development and deployment of 'terminator genes' that would prevent seeds from germinating after a set span of time. This practice would require farmers to re-purchase seed every year instead of saving the seeds from last year's crop. The legislation is not expected to pass due to opposition from the Agriculture Minister. 'There is also an issue with the technology, which is based on a complicated five-gene construct. It is "inevitable" it will fail and could harm biodiversity, said Lucy Sharratt, co-ordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, which backs the ban. CFIA argues exactly the opposite, saying "the terminator approach provides an excellent method to protect against transference of novel traits to other crops and plant species."'"
But if you happen to be a farmer that likes to reuse your own seeds, and it happens that your neighbor uses a T-gene crop, and they cross-pollinate with your plants, your seeds can inherit the T-gene and next years seeds are no longer any good. The gene prevents germination, it doesnt stop pollination or production of seeds. The same issues with other genetic-modified crops have come up already and made their way through court, specifically the Monsanto RoundUp resistant rape-seed/canola plants.
Tm
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
Track your TV Shows with your iPhone - FREE
Have you forgetten about two little things called "Wind" and "Bees"? Genetically altered grain's pollen will spread.
y Schmeiser.html
Theres a story of a guy and his father who for years grow his own canola from seed they had been breeding. Then a seed producer, Monsanto, came in with a crop of these genetically altered canola next to his field. The cross pollination destroyed his crop in 2 years. The first year produced the defunct seeds. The next year the seed did not germinate.
Imagine if few dozen farmer planted altered grain near seed field. Within a few years our entire agricultural system would be wiped out except for a few select seed producers.
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
http://www.savethepinebush.org/News/04FebMar/Perc
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
Actually, he won, partially, and is firing back with another case due in 2008.
Tm
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
I'm not sure if you realize this or not, but to say it explicitly:
Modern corn seeds are F1 hybrids from two parent strains that are only used to generate seed. You don't save seeds for next year because then you get a range of variable F2 progeny, and over time you just get a mess. Terminator strains were developed to keep those F1's from growing accidentally.
The image of good ol' Farmer Bob pickin' through his corn to collect seeds for next year, and being thwarted by a greedy corporation, has absolutely nothing to do with the reality of who this seed is being sold to. If Farmer Bob wants to grow his own seed he doesn't use these to begin with.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Read the article more closely, and feel your spirits lift!
The article is about a law which would outlaw "terminator" seeds—basically, seeds genetically engineered to be sterile, and thought(by e.g. this member of the Canadian Parliament) to pose an environmental threat. The legislation does pretty much the exact opposite of what you describe: it requires seed providers to only provide seeds that need not be repurchased every year.
If only every spiral of depression could be handled that easily.
OMG Amerika sux LOL!!!11!one! (Score:5, Insightful)
Insightful, my ass. It's off-topic karma-whoring. Think before you mod, people. I wasn't whoring. This is a technology that got it's start in America. All the Canadians are doing is making sure it stays here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_gene Terminator Technology is the colloquial name given to proposed methods for restricting the use of genetically modified plants by causing second generation seeds to be sterile. The technology was under development by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Delta and Pine Land company in the 1990s and is not yet commercially available. Because some stakeholders expressed concerns that this technology might lead to dependence for poor smallholder farmers, Monsanto, an agricultural products company and the world's biggest seed supplier, pledged not to commercialize the technology. Now you might think "Monsanto says they won't use it so they must be heroes, right?" Yeah, the same heroes who brought us Agent Orange and genetically tampered seed product.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto Throughout 2004 and 2005, Monsanto filed lawsuits against many small farmers in Canada and the U.S. The lawsuits have been on the grounds of patent infringement, specifically the sale of crops containing Monsanto's patented genes as a result of wind carrying seeds from neighboring crops. These instances began in the mid- to late 1990s, with one of the most significant cases being decided in Monsanto's favor by the Canadian Supreme Court. By a 5-4 vote in late May of 2004, that court ruled that "by cultivating a plant containing the patented gene and composed of the patented cells without license, the appellants [canola farmer Percy Schmeiser] deprived the respondents of the full enjoyment of the monopoly." With this ruling, the Canadian courts followed the U.S. Supreme Court in its decision on patent issues involving plants and genes. There are certainly people out there who will kneejerk condemn the US Government and Microsoft without reading the articles. That does not mean that all negative articles are making up their facts out of whole cloth.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Part of the problem is that the terminator gene is not 100% effective.
A few of the seeds pollinated by such a plant will be fertile, and their children will carry the gene with them, making these half-breeds and then quater-breeds mostly infertile (but with no easy way of determining which plants have the gene and whcih don't). As the gene slowly spreads, it would cause a generalized reduction in plant fertility rates,
For an interesting look at the Monsanto history, GM foods, risks and impact across North America, I recommend you watch the documentary "The Future of Food" (torrent).
Description:
THE FUTURE OF FOOD offers an in-depth investigation into the disturbing truth behind the unlabeled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have quietly filled U.S. grocery store shelves for the past decade.
From the prairies of Saskatchewan, Canada to the fields of Oaxaca, Mexico, this film gives a voice to farmers whose lives and livelihoods have been negatively impacted by this new technology. The health implications, government policies and push towards globalization are all part of the reason why many people are alarmed by the introduction of genetically altered crops into our food supply.
Shot on location in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, THE FUTURE OF FOOD examines the complex web of market and political forces that are changing what we eat as huge multinational corporations seek to control the world's food system. The film also explores alternatives to large-scale industrial agriculture, placing organic and sustainable agriculture as real solutions to the farm crisis today.
IMDB link.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/
The PBS special HARVEST OF FEAR is also a good resource. I believe I watched a bit of THE FUTURE OF FOOD, and found it primarily biased against biotech, as you may surmise from the description. I don't think it's good for people new to the subject to watch because of this, though it is certainly worth watching.
I felt HARVEST OF FEAR is a better introductory documentary. It provided a better balanced documentary; every interview was countered with an opposing view. When I watched it, I felt that because of the balanced viewpoints, it helped lead viewers to pros and cons, rather than inundate the viewer with negativity.
In any case, I'm offering an alternative, and I hope anyone who watches one will watch the other.
That's because their downwind neighbours get sued for copyright infringement of Monsanto products. You can see a bunch of cases of this at the following places:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm
http://www.monsantowatch.org/
Monsanto is truly one of the few RIAA-like "evil" companies on the planet. They are vicious, predatory, and have no qualms about being that way.
PCBs - check.
Agent Orange - their creation, too. Most people forget these two facts. I can pull up links if you want to ads stating that Agent Orange was perfectly safe.
GMO Corn that causes liver damage in rats(and any other mammal, actually) - yep. Many unexplained cases of pets getting sick come from this, btw. The reason they have to pump cattle and chicken full of antibiotics? Because the corn they feed them destroys their immune system and they would otherwise be dead way before slaughter. Except - cats and dogs and people live a TAD longer than cows and chickens.(the meat is evidently fine, but the stuff they pump them full of to keep them alive till slaughter is another horrifying mess and why I don't eat non-organic meat anymore)
GMO Crops that cross-pollinate so that ONLY their pesticide works - you betcha.
Crops with an 80% die-off rate that happen to easily cross-pollinate? - Just invented!
And of course, as it was previously pointed out, Microsoft-type "deals" with other nations via our government. IE - a grant or money but only if they use the "approved" products. They currently spend billions every year trying to get GMO crops into Europe and India and everywhere around the planet that they can, despite the near universal rejection. They keep pounding away regardless because in the U.S., GMO crops from Monsanto and ADM(much less evil, though equally unenlightened) make up 80%+ of all crops other than wheat(though they are trying HARD to legalize GMO wheat as well right now - Corn, Canola, Soybeans, and half a dozen other crops are mostly GMO now in the U.S. Canola and Soybeans are virtually 100%.
All in the last ten to fifteen years, no less. They don't test it, they don't care - they just make the stuff and lie to our faces like the tobacco companies did(and still do).
Not to mention it's been shown in some studies that GM crops have nasty side effects like having pollen that kills butterflies.
It's been one study, actually; and the results were never replicated.
It's really impossible for them to do so, actually, since the pollen of a Bt crop doesn't express the Bt protein that would be lethal to lepidopterans.
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
Monsanto has a long history of using a combination of tactics, bribery, force and unethical means to get their products sold world wide.
n 060702.cfm
0 30606005912300.htm
This has apparently become a huge problem in developing countries like India where farmers are committing suicide in the thousands, because they are too poor to keep re-purchasing monsanto seeds every year - thanks to the terminator gene infested crops they do not germinate.
Contrary to what monsanto claims, the plants ability to resist pests and the use of pesticides has not declined.
In China, there have been huge uproars about how genetically modified Bt cotton, designed to control bollworm, is encouraging the spread of other types of insect pests. There has been a huge impact on the insect ecology, which is resulting in new problems for farmers.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/patent/chinacotto
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2011/stories/20
Don't forget, Monsanto was one of the companies who produced and supplied agent orange ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange ) during the vietnam war, and they wouldn't blink before screwing half the world if it profited them.
I'm not saying Monsanto isn't evil, what big company isn't, but at least the R&D people have no desire to mess with the environment. You mention ADM as being less evil, but I think if you look into the matter you'll find ADM considerably more sinister (they got Nixon to go to China for a reason) and influential with the US government. Monsanto is very much beholden to ADM.
Monsanto's chemical division split off decades ago, the company that is now Monsanto is a seed and glyphosate company. It's the most successful of about a 1/2 dozen of producers of GMO seeds.
I've never hear any evidence of GMO corn causing elevated levels of liver damage in rats (it does cause some when consumed in quantity, but so does non-GMO corn -- both have ANFs). I don't know of any incidence in the literature that makes a claim that it has an effect on animal's immune systems either (I've heard that from anti-GMO activists, but never seen it supported).
As far as antibiotics -- I thought the main reason that people had an issue with this was because the animals aren't sick but still get them. Those against chronically dosing agricultural animals with antibiotics don't claim the animals have weak immune systems, they are claiming it's unnecessary and risks producing antibiotic resistant strains of infectious bacteria, or that people will consume antibiotics given to the animal (and produce antibiotic resistant strains of human-infecting bacteria). There's at least something to that (albeit, it's not nearly as problematic as you might think). Farmers give antibiotics to the animals, by the way, not because the animals have weakened immune systems, but because chronic dosing yields suppression of immune responses that diminish yield (a chicken using up calories to fight bacterial infections can't use those calories ot build muscle mass, for instance -- especially important when you raise the animals in high density farms).
Monsanto doesn't sell any pesticide, just an herbicide (that they sell a resistance trait for). They do sell plants that express Bt toxin (a popular insecticide derived from soil bacteria widely used in organic farming) in their leaves and stems, though. In case you are wondering, Bt is only toxic to animals with alkaline guts (e.g., herbivorous insects).
You're right about Monsanto wanting to lock up the seed market. That's for certain. But they only do so in highly profitable industrialized agriculture. Organic (who won't have them), subsistence, and 3rd world agriculture isn't really affected.
Also, I'd add that GMO plants, for better or worse, probably can't be considered "near universally rejected". More GMO acres are planted than not. At least 5 years ago, >99% of the commercially produced soy in the USA was of one or another GMO variety (though only about 40% from Monsanto). I believe Canada produced more GMO canola than the US does, though.
The first transgenic crops appeared in US supermarkets in 1993 (tomatos).
Really, the true test is: can anyone attribute ill effects to the consumption of the crops. Many people have looked into it (there's lots of scientific literature from the US and elsewhere), but no statistical evidence exists (yet) to substantiate it. It doesn't mean that health risks don't exist, but it does mean that they are not acute nor differentiable from non-GMO varieties.