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."'"

73 of 364 comments (clear)

  1. can someone explain how a plant with a t-gene by lilgorgor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    is going to harm biodiversity? IT CAN'T PROPAGATE.

    1. Re:can someone explain how a plant with a t-gene by WrongMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The terminator gene prevents germination, but not pollination. So it can still trade genes with other plants, then those plants are unable to germinate.

    2. Re:can someone explain how a plant with a t-gene by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because the plants are also engineered to be resistant to chemical herbicides, so they (1) end up being grown instead of multiple, other species of the same plant, and (2) encourage a lot more herbicide use, which kills off other species of plants by `accident'.

    3. Re:can someone explain how a plant with a t-gene by Tmack · · Score: 4, Informative

      is going to harm biodiversity? IT CAN'T PROPAGATE.

      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
    4. Re:can someone explain how a plant with a t-gene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Jurassic Park anyone?

      Yes, that was a great documentary.

      Insightful? ugh.

    5. Re:can someone explain how a plant with a t-gene by randomErr · · Score: 5, Informative

      Have you forgetten about two little things called "Wind" and "Bees"? Genetically altered grain's pollen will spread.

      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/Percy Schmeiser.html

      --
      You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
    6. Re:can someone explain how a plant with a t-gene by IgLou · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'll caveat my response with "I have no love for genetic engineering as it's being pursued today". I truly believe that genetically modifying foods is a bad idea and we shouldn't stop at terminator genes. Taking one gene from one organism to get a trait in another has HUGE consequences; my favorite being splicing fish DNA into tomatos to make them frost resistant, yum fishmato. How can they actually sell us this food when we don't fully understand the end result? Really, is it nutritionally the same? I never understood why we take our food so lightly but we regulate drugs so heavily.

      Further, the whole Monsanto thing unfortunately gave Canola a bad name. Too many folks attribute Canola to being some kind of Frankenfood when it's a cultivar - it was bred not spliced or at least it wasn't spliced originally before Monsanto thought to improve on it. A friend of our family is an organic farmer and some of the things that he and other farmers are trying to do were really amazing to us and the techniques didn't require labs or millions to accomplish, just patience and breeding. Anyways, I don't think we need to be producing genetically modified foods and at a minimum our food should be clearly labelled if it is a GMO.

      --

      Oops, how did this get here?
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    7. Re:can someone explain how a plant with a t-gene by AttillaTheNun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If there is a more advanced alien race out there, I'm sure their moto is "Don't Fuck With Mother Nature".

    8. Re:can someone explain how a plant with a t-gene by halplus00 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If there is pollination on some plants then those plants are unable to germinate on the other generation so... they won't propagate anymore.

    9. Re:can someone explain how a plant with a t-gene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The gene is found in hybrid crops that have a pretty poor yield anyway in a second generation plant. In practice, few industrialized farmers can afford to not buy new seed each year. Sacrificing a portion of their crop for seed that will generate an inferior hybrid-hybrid cross will cost more than just buying the new seed. The people for whom this is a problem are organic farmers (who use much different lines and who do recycle seed). But they don't buy this kind of seed, so they are only worried about cross-polination.

      I had worked for Monsanto a long ways back, and so this product was something they were developing at the time. Cross-pollination was a serious concern for them. IIRC, their solution was an insertion of 3 cis genes that all had to be present in order to work: a repressor, a recombinase, and an embryonic toxin. To active the system, the seeds must be treated with and inducer that inhibits the binding of the repressor to recombinase so that the recombinase is produced. In the absense of the chemical inducer, the terminator system doesn't work and the seeds are normal (which is how the producer makes more seeds, by not chemically treating them). If the repressor is blocked, the recmobinase excises a promoter blocker and leaves a late-promoter for the embryonic toxin which causes the embryo (seed) to arrest once it's reached maturity.

      It's a pretty fragile system and if there was cross-pollination, the cassette would either transfer intact but uninduced or be destroyed through recombination or genetic silencing (the terminator genes themselves separately occur naturally in maize).

      So, the danger of the technology is somewhat misstated. It's not as simple as pollen being carried to another crop -- that alone is insufficient to cause harm. The question is whether or not the traits will be transferred and then subsequently mutated through generations of natural genetic variation to develop a new system that doesn't require an exogenous inducer to activate. And, that such a system will be virulent (since sterile strains of plants occur with a certain frequency already in nature and have no ill effect on the environment -- seedless oranges, for example). No known mechanism for that exists, nor has such a thing been observed. I'm thinking that millions of these plants have been planted so far and there might be some documented evidence of this occurring (it would be fascinating if it did), but in the absence, one can only conclude it would be rare event, and it's also self-limiting (one generation only), soe the risk (probability of event x cost of event) would have to be very low.

      There's risk in any agricultural operation. Out in CA there was an organic vendor of celery that had developed a crop that was so toxic, it caused welts on the exposed skin of the pickers (luckily the reaction was quick, if people had eaten it, it would have been deadly) -- and that's through organic crosses.

    10. Re:can someone explain how a plant with a t-gene by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If there is pollination on some plants then those plants are unable to germinate on the other generation so... they won't propagate anymore.

      Right. In other words, it effectively kills any plant strains it cross pollinates with. If terminator crops continue to be planted, then they will pollinate and kill more crops, until eventually there are no non-terminator crops left.

      Obviously as the terminators cannot reproduce on their own, this is only a problem if farmers continue buying terminator seeds from Monsanto and plant them.

      Which is why they should stop immediately.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    11. Re:can someone explain how a plant with a t-gene by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 2, Informative

      all plants that pollinate with these plants run the risk of dying off because they cannot reproduce. Who thought of this? There is a serious flaw here.
      Monsanto. The company that loves death and destruction so long and they can get a stiff profit.
    12. Re:can someone explain how a plant with a t-gene by iluvcapra · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's like DRM, except for living things.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    13. Re:can someone explain how a plant with a t-gene by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      In the first year, the financial losses would be covered by a crop insurance company, which would then turn around and sue Monsanto into the stone ages. Think "big agriculture" is scary? See what a scorned insurance company can do. Those guys make IBM law division look like preschool teachers.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    14. Re:can someone explain how a plant with a t-gene by James+McGuigan · · Score: 2, Informative

      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,

    15. Re:can someone explain how a plant with a t-gene by ajs318 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just because a particular gene sequence found in fish means something when spliced into tomato DNA isn't really saying anything. The word "fart" is perfectly respectable in Swedish. The word "mist" is not so respectable in German. It just so happens that a bit of the pattern that happens to make an improvement to a tomato, also occurs in fish.

      DNA is basically a self-extracting compressed executable. It just happens that with the current state of the art (which is a bit like doing embroidery by firelight and wearing boxing gloves), messing with it whilst it's still compressed is easier than trying to expand the compressed form.

      A living organism is dealt a hand of DNA and plays out that hand strictly according to predetermined rules. Either it scores enough points to play again, or it dies. Most of the possible DNA sequences don't do anything useful. Scientists might be able to stick bits of gene sequences together, but they can't alter the rules for how they play out; just the starting cards. Some random mutation could happen to produce the same sequence and there would be no way to tell which was created artificially and which was created naturally.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    16. Re:can someone explain how a plant with a t-gene by IgLou · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a living organism not a bunch of lego's. Molecular biology is still very young and our knowledge of the interactions at that level is still limited. Sure one strand of DNA is a piece but the consequence that piece can have is profound and has considerable risk when introduced in the food chain. We need to fully understand those consequences and risks be for we look at the commercial application and that day and understanding is years away, so best to ban GMO's until we do.

      --

      Oops, how did this get here?
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    17. Re:can someone explain how a plant with a t-gene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's like DRM, except for living things.

      Actually it is like DRM that not only affects the tract purchased but all your other similar tracts and all of your neighbours tracts.

      I still haven't figured out why Monsanto-using farmers do not get sued by their downwind neighbours.

      There is absolutely no question that Monsanto pollen harms Canadian farmers who do not have agreements with Monsanto. In Monsanto v. Schmieser the courts indirectly concluded that Mosanto's pollen constituted an airborne infection that made Mr. Schmeiser's seed crop worthless since he did not have a right to use the seeds that the source farmer had infected with Monsanto's IP. Additionally, that farmer was also responsible(*) for Monsanto being given Mr. Schmeiser's IP (his own Canola strain that he had spent 50 years developing) free of charge. In effect, the negligence of the upwind farmer resulted in not only the loss of his crop but having 50 years of research handed to a competitor.

      (*) This part is arguable since that part of the judgement was unprecedented and had no apparent legal basis.

    18. Re:can someone explain how a plant with a t-gene by glesga_kiss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Great post, which adds to the discussion. However, you miss one key point: why make the seeds terminate? You say that the yield from second generation seeds is poor enough that most farmers buy new seed. That's fair enough, but it doesn't address the central question: why have them terminate at all? Is there any benefit to the farmer in this? They can choose to buy new seed next year if they want to. Monsanto seem to be forcing it upon them.

    19. Re:can someone explain how a plant with a t-gene by ThePromenader · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Friendly companies "do things" we find useful and make a profit when we buy many. Evil companies decide what they 'can do' based on possible profit, and to hell with usefulness.

      --

      No, no sig. Really.

      ThePromenader
    20. Re:can someone explain how a plant with a t-gene by ATMD · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wonder. I suspect that most companies start out "friendly", (I do believe that people are basically good), but become more "evil" as they begin to make larger profits. I think we're witnessing this in Google right now. The pressure is there (especially since they went public) to make as much money as possible, in any way possible.

      There is no morality in a big/successful company. I think it's because of the whole "groupthink" mentality that's built-in to the human psyche - even though any given member of the board of directors may know that what the company is doing is against ordinary individual morals, it's the group that's doing it, and so it isn't their individual fault. This links back to the famous Stanley Milgram experiment, where people are shown to be willing to do horrific things, provided somebody lifts the burden of responsibility. Furthermore, a vote against something that will make profit (morality aside) may be perceived as a sign of weakness, possibly jeopardising the individual's career. For these reasons, the ethics which you and I live by simply do not apply to corporations, no matter how well-intentioned their founders were.

      This may not sit comfortably with many on Slashdot who love to hate the "bad guys", (Microsoft, Sony), whilst pouring adoration on the "good guys" (Google, Apple), but I'm afraid it's the truth. In the world of business there is no good and bad - just money and the best way of acquiring it.

      --
      Nobody else has this sig.
    21. Re:can someone explain how a plant with a t-gene by Nasajin · · Score: 4, Informative

      I still haven't figured out why Monsanto-using farmers do not get sued by their downwind neighbours.
      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/
    22. Re:can someone explain how a plant with a t-gene by crashfrog · · Score: 2, Informative

      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!
    23. Re:can someone explain how a plant with a t-gene by Curtman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The point should be that genetic modification of our food isn't worth the risk. It isn't enough to try to prove that they are safe. It needs to be shown why we can't go on without them. They can't do that because we've got along just fine for what a hundred thousand years or so now without them.

      Get rid of this crap, and get rid of aspartame. That would be a good start.

    24. Re:can someone explain how a plant with a t-gene by lpq · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can't figure out how they can push those cases. Why can't the farmers sue Monsanto for damages -- contaminating their crops with defective "seed" that won't breed.

      In another context: I release a "toxin" into the air, that sterilizes the next generation of every plant it comes in contact with. Those in turn can fertilize the next generation to sterilize their offspring. Eventually all plant life is wiped out.

      How is that not eco-terrorism on a vast scale?

  2. This should be banned.. by mulvane · · Score: 2

    This for 1. sounds almost like a bad vendor lock-in and 2. Any time you alter something, you have the possibility of a long term result you couldn't plan for.

    1. Re:This should be banned.. by nametaken · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This has everything to do with recurring revenue, and nothing to do with protection against transference for the sake of preventing unwanted traits in other crops.

      Just wrong.

    2. Re:This should be banned.. by Sylvak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree.

      Imagine a world disaster happens and Monsanto goes under, and all of humanity needs to rely on the existing crop seeds for nutrition... if everyone is using a crop with the terminator gene, then we would be doomed.

      These corporate folks are putting greed ahead of public responsibility.

    3. Re:This should be banned.. by diodeus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Food shouldn't be intellectual property. Period.

      - or -

      Patent everything and enslave us all.

      Choose your own future.

    4. Re:This should be banned.. by *weasel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These corporate folks are putting greed ahead of public responsibility.

      That's their job.

      It's the government's job to watch out for the public and slap down such reckless and exploitative practices.
      Don't blame Monsanto, blame the legislators and bureaucrats who have so shamelessly violated the public trust.

      Honestly, an Agriculture Minister standing up for t-genes... it's so transparently corrupt you'd swear it was American politics.
      --
      // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
    5. Re:This should be banned.. by happyfrogcow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > These corporate folks are putting greed ahead of public responsibility.


      That's their job.


      Bullshit bullshit bullshit.

      Sorry for swearing, but i see this so much here. It's not their job to rape and pillage the world for profit. Being a corporation does not give you a free pass to put money ahead of morals. That is not their job. Their job is to offer a product to a market.

      It's the government's job to watch out for the public and slap down such reckless and exploitative practices.
      Don't blame Monsanto, blame the legislators and bureaucrats who have so shamelessly violated the public trust.


      No, blame Monsanto. Blame the government too. They are both doing the wrong thing.

    6. Re:This should be banned.. by John+Whitley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's their job. I call bullshit. It may be a natural result of human greed combined with the rules of corporate operation, but that doesn't make it "their job". Fucking over "the other guy", writ large, is not a socially acceptable way of life. Simply put, there is no room for faceless ignorance of human needs and social good in constructs such as corporations. Period. Everyone must come to expect, and demand, better behavior. This thinking essentially shields corporate management from responsibility, law and precedent effectively shields shareholders from responsibility... leaving a huge ethical loophole wherein the people to get screwed. At least until the damage is already long-done and someone sues.
    7. Re:This should be banned.. by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Being a corporation does not give you a free pass to put money ahead of morals. Indeed: It gives you a legal obligation to put money ahead of morals.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    8. Re:This should be banned.. by *weasel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not their job to rape and pillage the world for profit. Being a corporation does not give you a free pass to put money ahead of morals. That is not their job. Their job is to offer a product to a market.

      The limits they operate within can only be defined by the government for the public good.
      It's impractical to expect corporations to act 'morally' when there is no consensus on morality, until it's coded into law. If their actions are so clearly immoral, they should be illegal.

      Playing corporate whack-a-mole, hating and blaming and boycotting corporations one-at-a-time for acting legally but immorally is truly a Sisyphean endeavor.
      --
      // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
  3. Doesn't sound like such a good idea. by Usagi_yo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hmmm. Genetically modifying plant DNA so that they stop producing seeds after a generation. Why does that sound like a really really bad idea.

    1. Re:Doesn't sound like such a good idea. by someone1234 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Haha, something goes wrong and a full year's crop goes wasted. People die, lawyers get rich and the designers of this plan get a free card out of jail.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  4. Sterile by Twillerror · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Isn't making the plants that grow from the seeds produce seeds that are sterile good enough?

    If I buy a seed I should be able to plant it as far away from when I bought it as I'd like.

    If you explain to the farmer that the plant cannot be used for seed it is up to the farmer and the open market to decide if that is the right approach. If the farmer cannot afford the seed then they will have to use non engineered seed and the companies will have to decide if it is worth it.

    1. Re:Sterile by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you explain to the farmer that the plant cannot be used for seed it is up to the farmer and the open market to decide if that is the right approach. If the farmer cannot afford the seed then they will have to use non engineered seed and the companies will have to decide if it is worth it.

      Unless, as has been pointed out elsewhere, your neighbor uses the modified seed. Then, due to natural processes, your crop gets cross contaminated. Then you're fsck'd.

      When wind and bees take away your choice to use or not use a crop, and you end up losing a court judgement saying you're illegally using someone's patented crop, then the whole system is messed up. If it kills off all of the natural stuff by getting the t-gene into other crops, then we're left with no biodiversity since it'll all be owned by the chemical companies.

      If someone wants to have plants like this, then they should be required to have their entire field hermetically sealed so that it doesn't have a chance to cross-pollinate with others who don't want it. Otherwise, everyone else in the vicinity loses their right to choose.

      Similarly, a few years ago the US wanted to send food aid to Africa. It was GM corn. The normal practice would be to keep some seed for next years crop. Then, they would be planting GM crops, and their export markets to the EU would have dried up due to bans -- leaving the poor starving people with noplace to sell their corn. The request to mill the corn to prevent the problem was not readily accepted by the Americans who couldn't understand why people wouldn't want GM corn, leaving food aid to moulder -- all because they couldn't risk importing GM seeds for fear of losing next year's export market.

      This stuff tends to affect loads more people than just the first farmer to do it. It's not like the people designing this stuff have figured out how to restrict it to only the approved plots of land -- it's pretty indiscriminate once it's out in the wild.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  5. lets not reverse nature by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The industry of growing crops has been around for thousands of years... of course farmers shouldn't have to re-buy seeds. Using last year's seeds/etc is how the small farmer can even bear to get a living against a corporate farm.

    --
    stuff |
    1. Re:lets not reverse nature by Otter · · Score: 3, Informative
      Last year's seed cannot compete with the engineered mule seed that the large corporations use. Pesticide resistance, herbicide resistance, better drought tolerance, etc, all come bundled with the sterility gene package.

      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.

    2. Re:lets not reverse nature by CowTipperGore · · Score: 2, Informative

      Picking out the rational parts of this: Rational, eh? Care to explain what makes the rest of my post irrational, other than your disagreement with my words?

      Nope. Not in developed countries. When you buy organic food in the supermarket, or vegetables at a farmers' market, that's raised from big bags of seeds they bought from professional seed growers. There certainly are those who rely on seeds from the larger nurseries and seed distributors, and some do use hybrids (especially for corn, the example we've used). Yet, federal guidelines for organic labeling prohibits the use of GMO crops, so you can be sure they aren't using what nearly all of industrial agriculture uses now.

      Yes, there are "small but forceful" groups of hobbyists and enthusiasts who save seeds, but they're essentially irrelevant in the context of the agricultural industry. Unfortunately, you are correct in regard to total commercial output or acres farmed. However, the number of individual farmers on each side are likely much closer to equal. Also, the last 10 to 15 years have seen exponential growth in the more organic (using the generic use, not the federal definition) farming for commercial operations.

      Look at my original comment. Do you really think I need to have that explained? I would have hoped not, but your subsequent replies made me quite unsure. Spending much time on a place like Slashdot teaches you that there is a big difference between regurgitating something from Wikipedia and being able to actually understand the material. I also note your choice of condescending language throughout your posts and your posting history indicating about equal number of troll/flamebait mods as positives ones. With nothing more to go on, it seemed like a reasonable assumption.

      Let's say farmer A is growing his precious heirloom strain. To the north, farmer B is growing a different heirloom or commercial strain; to the south, farmer C is growing a terminator strain. There's some cross-pollination and A winds up with 0.001% hybridization with both B and C's crop. If anything, the problem for him is B! A tiny rate of sterile seeds are a non-issue. (Assuming the sterility is dominant, which presumably it is, otherwise this is even more of a non-issue.) In reality, so is the contamination from B, but you can't simultaneously claim that cross-pollination is rampant and that it's only a concern with strains you really don't like. Actually, I can. It is an aggressive and intentional act on the part of Monsanto to produce open-pollinated GMOs that produce sterile offspring. For an example of what can happen with such GMOs we can look at Percy Schmeiser's saga. He planted no GMO canola, instead using seeds that he saved each year just as he has for over 40 years (this, on a scale of hundreds of hectares, not a hippie with a row of corn). He was sued by Monsanto because their seeds were growing in his field, although he never bought or intentionally sowed any. Monsanto claimed that 90% of his fields were their GMO seeds; while independent testing showed that the numbers were smaller, they were still large enough to show that after 40 years this GMO had significantly contaminated his crops in two to three years. Now, imagine this was a different GMO, one that produced sterile seeds instead of plants resistant to the chemicals in their brand of weedkiller.

      The real problem (and as I said, it's a problem, so you don't need to give me another condescending lecture on why it's a problem) is that the 0.001% contamination is enough to show up in screens for GMOs. I'm glad that we can agree on this particular problem. While this is an economic problem for farmers intentionally avoiding GMOs, the really scary issues are what these GMOs are doing to our food supply and the future of agriculture for the world.
  6. I never thought I'd see.. by tehwebguy · · Score: 4, Funny

    .. DRM for seeds.

    --
    -- lol pwned
  7. thank god by jollyreaper · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems like with the insanity the US government promotes with corporations gone wild and the destruction of human rights, it will be up to the rest of the world to preserve civilization. Maybe once the whole house of cards collapses the rest of the world can then help us fund our rebuilding, a reverse Marshall Plan.

    And I avoided making any reference to man-eating venus flytraps looking for Sarah Connor! Yay--er, crap.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:thank god by jollyreaper · · Score: 3, Informative

      WTF does any part of your rant have to do with Canadian seeds? The US government is not mentioned once in the article, and you don't even attempt to establish a logical connection.

      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
    2. Re:thank god by halivar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's a great and cogent argument. The US government has no business subsidizing "seed" DRM, and genome-patent trolls are squeezing farmers unjustly. I agree with you completely.

      I wish you'd posted this information in your original post instead of the anti-government histrionics, because it is far more insightful and educating.

      Thanks for this post, BTW.

  8. Re:scary stuff by BarryJacobsen · · Score: 2, Informative

    this is scary to think we might eat these crops and become sterile.
    Do you know how digestion works? I think you might have some misconceptions - it does not involve incorporation of the DNA/genes of the food into the eater.
  9. Re:scary stuff by erroneus · · Score: 4, Funny

    So *THAT*s why a girl can't get pregnant from giving a blowjob!

  10. Re:scary stuff by sesshomaru · · Score: 3, Funny

    You mean Heroes lied to me?

    --
    "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
  11. how t-gene can be harmful. by twitter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It might cross breed with normal seed and terminate it. What you would be left with is nothing but what the friendly multinational has to offer each year. That might not be good for you.

    The whole "rape seed" Monsanto insanity is a good primer on these matters. An normal farmer in Canada was forced to destroy his crops because they were contaminated by neighbors using Monsanto seed. The US has pushed these practices onto the Iraqi puppet government, so you can see where they would really like things to go.

    There are fundamental problems with seed patents that need to be corrected. The contamination issue is one that makes the whole idea look foolish and economically harmful.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  12. Did you mean Germinator? by packetmon · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Oh financial FUD

    Monsanto is the world's largest seed company (after its January 2005 acquisition of Seminis for US$1.4 billion).

    The company's 2004 pro forma seed revenues (including Seminis) were US$2.8 billion.

    Monsanto's GM crops and traits accounted for almost 90% of the total GM crop area worldwide in 2004

    Monsanto controls 41% of the global maize market and over one-fourth of the commercial soybean market (both conventional and GM seed).

    Monsanto and Terminator

    This is old news... Like 2000 old news...

  13. Actually.... by Tmack · · Score: 4, Informative

    A farmer in Canada who grew his own seeds his whole life lost a supreme court case so that when Roundup Ready seeds were blown from the highway into his field, now all his crops were owned by Monsanto....

    Actually, he won, partially, and is firing back with another case due in 2008.

    Tm

    --
    Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
    1. Re:Actually.... by zstlaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually you are both wrong. He did win in that he did not have to pay Monsanto fees for having their crop in his fields. (they wanted him to pay $15/acre for having their product in his fields even though he had no contract.) But he only won because he did not benefit from the modified stock. he did not take advantage of the Monsanto spraying regimen and he did not make more than before he had the contaminated plot. That really limits the "victory".

      Monsanto's canola seed completely is immune to Roundup so a farmer can spray the herbicide over a planted field to kill all the plants growing there, but not the crop -- as long as it comes from Monsanto's seed. Schmeiser's fields were almost 80% Monsanto seeds (according to Monsanto funded studies, Schmeiser showed his own evidence that the fields ranged from 0 to 68% Roundup Ready)

      Also the court judged that Monsanto owned the plants and DNA of their crop that had seeded in Schmeiser's field and thus Schmeiser can not use seed from his own field or he would be infringing on the Monsanto Intellectual property. That basically destroyed 40 years worth of Schmeiser's intellectual property and requires that he buys all new seed for his field which may be contaminated again in a couple years.

      That is why Schmeiser was quoted saying "In my case, I never had anything to do with Monsanto, outside of buying chemicals. I never signed a contract. If I would go to St. Louis and contaminate their plots--destroy what they have worked on for 40 years--I think I would be put in jail and the key thrown away,"

  14. Total Cost Of Ownership by nick_davison · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Doesn't this come down to a total cost of ownership decision that any business should make:

    Option A: I buy the traditional option, I lose X% to various natural hardships, I replant the seed I keep back next year.

    Option B: I buy the new version, I lose a smaller Y% to various natural hardships, I have to buy the seed again next year.

    If my profit increases due to decreased loss by more than the cost of annual purchases, I buy the annual purchase option. If my profit increases less than the cost of annual purchases, I keep doing it the old way.

    Cheesy as it feels to see science advance to the point where this happens with crops like it already does with other man made commodities, are the "poor farmers" really being forced in to anything worse [in terms of that business model]? They can still buy traditional seeds, right?

    Now there's the bigger issue with whether we want something in our food chain that turns off the ability to reproduce (even if there's no science for it being passed on, that alone should make awesome advertising for those who don't go with it). There's also the bigger issue with this gene getting passed on to other farmers and their crops getting wiped out - unfortunately, thus far, legislation seems to be siding with the seed producers and not those who fall victim to cross polinization thanks to lobbying funds etc.

    Still, in terms of the "poor farmers" - unless there's some kind of monopoly I'm missing, why can't they just not buy the product if they don't like the terms?

    1. Re:Total Cost Of Ownership by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Option A: I buy the traditional option, I lose X% to various natural hardships, I replant the seed I keep back next year.

      Option B: I buy the new version, I lose a smaller Y% to various natural hardships, I have to buy the seed again next year.

      If my profit increases due to decreased loss by more than the cost of annual purchases, I buy the annual purchase option. If my profit increases less than the cost of annual purchases, I keep doing it the old way.


      This is the reasoning that arises if your fundamental assumption is that cost == money. This is the assumption many -- especially business -- make, and it makes sense for them because first you can count money, and second anything that you can avoid paying for ceases to be a cost. For example, pollution is a common "cost" that a business doesn't have to see because unless they get fined it never turns into a dollar amount.

      It's the same thing with engineers, who say "who cares about the license, use the best tool for the job". So they pick some piece of software with a per-seat license model because it has some nice feature or whatever in preference to some free software tool... Then the license server goes down, the software won't run, and where's the 'best tool for the job' now? The license -- what you are allowed to do with the product -- necessarily impacts which tool is "best".

      Same here. You can't just look at the price of buying seeds from Monsanto compared to the benefit of increased yields. You also have to consider what happens down the road, when over-use of Monsanto seeds has made the natural option even less viable (e.g. increasingly resistant weeds), and then you don't -have- Option A. What will happen to the prices of Monsanto seeds then? What happens when the majority of farmers are using one of only a couple strains of crop and a disease wipes them all out? These are the costs -- that cannot be marked in red or black ink on a quarterly balance sheet -- that are truly important.

      Still, in terms of the "poor farmers" - unless there's some kind of monopoly I'm missing, why can't they just not buy the product if they don't like the terms?

      Economic incentive, mostly. Most farmers that aren't huge corporations are struggling already, and the short-term gains are very attractive -- especially when one is concerned with survival in the short term. Right now they may have the choice to not buy the product if they don't like the terms, but the more farmers that buy in the less viable that choice becomes.

      I'll note that many African countries have flat out rejected US offers of agricultural aid, because it came in the form of Monsanto-engineered crops complete with all the legal restrictions. They are able to see the cost, even if accountants can't.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  15. It's this kind of stuff by TheDarkener · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That makes me wonder where humans went wrong.

    Seriously, passing a law that requires farmers to re-purchase natural seeds every year??? When did people get so obsessed with money that they stopped caring about the people that they live with on this planet?

    This kind of shit is what sends me into a spiral of depression.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  16. You don't leave the food supply to the free market by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People starve when you do. The free market is concerned with short term profit (the 10 to 30 years it takes to get filthy, stinkin' rich), not with the long term viability of our food supply. This doesn't mean socialism, but it sure has hell means regulation.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  17. It should be crime against humanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It should not be banned only, it should be declared as crime against humanity.
    Imagine a sudden, global catastrophe that would shut down global transportation, resources or access to harvest and distribute the "designer" seed...

    Corporations want to send people for downloading music or copying a movie, but they are free to put in danger the food supply, that can potentially affect the survival of millions, so that the shareholders of one or a few companies can make more money?

    I challenge any politician to explain the voters how is it more harmful to society to copy illegally a cultural product than putting in danger the food supply.

  18. The bottom line... by FunWithKnives · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The bottom line here is that the only reason for the existance of the terminator gene in the first place is to squeeze more money out of farmers and control crops with their "intellectual property rights" bullshit. The only reason that the Agriculture Minister would be supporting this is because he is a Monsanto shill. This is really one case where what is good for the people and what is good for the corporations can be drawn in black and white. There is absolutely no other reason for the terminator gene to exist.

    They've already declared music, writing, artwork, and source code to be "intellectual property." Next up will be genes and molecules, followed by plants and animals, air, water, you name it. Everything will have a monetary value and a corresponding license. Don't you just love commoditization?

    --
    "We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
  19. even worse by twitter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    encourage a lot more herbicide use, which kills off other species of plants by `accident'

    This also breeds more resistant weeds, so eventually everyone is forced to use pesticide resistant seed ... owned by a single company!

    There is also disturbing evidence of the resistance genes being passed directly into weeds from the crop. The mechanism is not understood.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:even worse by hswerdfe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Lets not forget crop rotation.
      This Years crop is next years weed!
      So if you plant roundup ready canola this year, and next year you want to plant corn. you can't spray your field with round up before you plant, to kill the weeds (ie your seed base form last year).
      You have to use a different chemical. and you probably are using corn that is resistant to chemical X. So in year 3 when you plant potatoes you can't use roundup or chemical X.....

      I new an organic farmer who tried to keep on a 10->17 year crop rotation.
      Imagine a GMO farmer trying to maintain any kind of crop rotation. It would be Insane!

      --
      --meh--
  20. No, you can still blame Monsanto.... by StressGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While I agree that the government should watch out for such abuses, this does not, by extension absolve corporations like Monsanto from responsibility for such an apparantly reckless action.

    For example, if I make a decision to drive home drunk one night, that's a bad decision regardless of whether or not someone is there to enforce the law (i.e. I get caught), or even if there was an accident as a result.

    no...it is not the corporate world's job to put greed above corporate responsibility

    --
    A goal is a dream with a deadline
  21. This is exactly Monsanto's plan. by haraldm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The ultimate goal is to dominate and rule the whole world of seeds. While this may sound like a conspiracy theory, it is the only explanation that makes sense without thinking the Monsanto management has their head stuck up their arse.

    The new Canadian law is exactly this - a lobby effort targeting at domination, against our environment.

    --
    open (SIG, "</dev/zero"); $sig = <SIG>; close SIG;
  22. Crime against humanity by harshmanrob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The creation and endorsement of terminator seeds is a crime against humanity. I cannot believe money and time were spent to develop this. These should be made illegal everywhere on this planet. We already have enough problems with dictators starving their populations for their political ends. Let's not give them anymore tools to do so.

  23. But there is a danger by Luft08091950 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Although plants who take on the gene will not produce offspring they can infect other plants through pollination. So if you're a farmer using unaltered seed and your neighbor is using the t-gene strain the chances are likely that some of his pollen will make some of your next year's crop seed worthless. You'll have a smaller crop because some of your last year plants produced seeds infected with the t-gene and those seeds won't germinate. More farmer's will be forced to buy seed and if they choose the t-gene type the problem grows. Personally I think farmers need a class action suit for damages. If their product infects my product in a negitve way why would I not be able to recover my losses?

  24. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  25. The Future of Food (documentary) by cromano · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  26. Harvest of Fear (Documentary) by calcapt · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  27. bingo by zogger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...glad you saw it or I would have chimed in. The reason for terminator gene seeds is to establish food monopolies/cartels eventually, seeds are the first step and they really want to get this going in the developing world, lock in millions or billions *forever*. They are well on the way there already, this is obvious, along with trying to patent every possible conceivable living thing (and people think software patents are a bad idea), along with the ongoing scam and ripoff of privatization of drinking water supplies for the masses. Control the food and water and that's a *lot* of economic and political power. Add in control of energy, and you got most of the bases covered and can dictate directly or sub rosa from a few steps away from the public facing political puppets how you want society to act.

    Remember, this is the same company that tried to corner old traditional Indian wheat with a "patent", never mind THOUSANDS of years of "prior art", and almost got away with it-this is how they think and act, these are their "corporate values". They are the MS, Enron and Haliburton of "food". If they are "for" something, you can bet the farm it isn't good for you, and only goes to insure vendor lockin and maximum profits. I farm and won't give them turkeys a single penny for anything.

    Now, I think there's a place for some extremely regulated genetic engineering and I think it can be of some good benefit long term-but not that company, not what they do and with their track record, nope, as far as I am concerned they are just *creepy* weird. I mean bad news weird. Can't put it any better than that.

    1. Re:bingo by Plekto · · Score: 4, Informative

      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).

    2. Re:bingo by FellowConspirator · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  28. Off switches are necessary by Bozovision · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It seems entirely sensible to me to insert fail-safe control mechanisms into genetically engineered products: we want a way to limit the damage they can cause in the event that something bad happens. We do NOT want the uncontrolled spread of something that turns out to have been an environmental disaster. For for trains, the equivalent is the dead-man's-switch.

    If this means that farmers can't grow plants from seeds then I for one am happy with this. And actually, I'd like multiple off switches so that we can be as certain as we can that we will be able to contain the inevitable failures.

    Farmers do not have to use the genetic engineered varietals, they do so in the belief that they'll be getting a better return on investment than with a normal plant.

    I say all this as a GM believer. I don't see any way through to feeding the world, except through the use of GM, so I'm pro GM.

    Sidenote: Ooh, I feel a software patent coming on! I started with an analogy to using Break/Ctrl+Alt+Delete/Ctrl+C to stop run-away programs, but these take a positive action to stop the program, whereas failsafe mechanisms require an action to continue. In multithreaded or multiprocess software designed for multi-core processors, if some program goes awry, you want the parts of the program to stop: they should be designed so that without positive input from the controlling process they cease funtioning. For instance one embodiment of the present invention is a computing device programmed such that if the child computation of a parent computation fails to receive a heartbeat signal from the parent computation, or any computation acting in its stead, then said computation should end. Remember you read it here first, and prepare yourself to pay me billionz!!! Oops, forgot to file it, and now it's in the public domain.

  29. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  30. Monsanto is in it only for the loot. by liftphreaker · · Score: 2, Informative

    Monsanto has a long history of using a combination of tactics, bribery, force and unethical means to get their products sold world wide.

    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/chinacotton 060702.cfm

    http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2011/stories/200 30606005912300.htm

    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.