Slashdot Mirror
Judge Rejects Approval of Engineered Sugar Beets
countertrolling writes "A federal judge has ruled that the government failed to adequately assess the environmental impacts of genetically engineered sugar beets before approving the crop for cultivation in the United States. The decision could lead to a ban on the planting of the beets, which have been widely adopted by farmers. Beets supply about half the nation's sugar, with the rest coming from sugar cane. The Agriculture Department did conduct an environmental assessment before approving the genetically engineered beets in 2005 for widespread planting. But the department concluded there would be no significant impact, so a fuller environmental impact statement was not needed. But Judge White said that the pollen from the genetically engineered crops might spread to non-engineered beets. He said that the 'potential elimination of farmer's choice to grow non-genetically engineered crops, or a consumer's choice to eat non-genetically engineered food' constituted a significant effect on the environment that necessitated an environmental impact statement. There's still hope, isn't there? That we can at least get this stuff labeled properly?"
What about Round Up ready Corn?! http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_and_the_Roundup_Ready_Controversy
He's referring to a case in Canada. Monsanto claimed he had gotten hold of some Roundup Ready rape seed, and used it to grow a seed crop of his own. Monsanto has the patent on that, and farmers are required to pay Monsanto a fee when they grow it. This, btw, is long established practice - the first patent was granted Burpee for the Red Delicious apple tree, and every single RD Apple tree in existence is a graft linking back to that tree - and if an orchard decides simply to graft from one they have already and establish 50 more trees, they still owe Burpee the license fee. Same with hybrid roses.
The farmer claimed that it was wind blown pollen from a neighbor's field that contaminated his seed crop. A couple of things that came out at the trial were that
a) it wasn't a scattering, it was a whole field, and
b) it occurred over multiple seasons, which negated his claim that he didn't know.
c) Despite Monsanto's claims, contamination by windblown pollen can occur.
Best guess is that he DID have a small patch of seed corn contaminated with the RR variant, but instead of destroying it and claiming damages from his neighbor, he selectively harvested it and planted another seed crop with it. Which is illegal, and he knew it. But since the story had the words "Monsanto", "GMO", "contaminated", and "farmer" in it, we wound up with most people forming opinions like the GP. If it would have been one of Monsanto's other patented but NOT GMO strains, the story wouldn't have gone farther than the local grange newsletter.
Monsanto sucks for plenty of other reasons than using 50 year old precedent to enforce plant patent rights against someone who violated them.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
This is human progress. These rulings about genetic engineering are foolish because they defend intellectual property for the expense of feeding people. The problem isn't the genetically engineered crop - its clearly better. The idea that humans should not be allowed to alter genes in the environment is stupid. Genes are altered all the time by everything, whether or not people do it is quite alright because we are not somehow separate from the eco-system.
The problem is financial: it's that Monsanto and others have a habit of showing up on your doorstep with a bill because one of their genetically modified seeds may have blown onto your doorstep. If you modified the laws so that people who GM stuff blown onto their land could just use it, or, if their crops were dimished by the GM, they could sue, then you would not have this problem. It's like that for regular seeds. Why not be that way for anything else?
I'm in strong favor of intellectual property rights, but clearly, intellectual property rights should not trump the rights of land ownership.
This is my sig.
Actually, I teach them. And while yes, there are a lot of misconceptions regarding evolution and genetic engineering that I am working hard to fix, the vast majority of Christians are for GM foods. There are extremist wackos that get in the news but there are more non-Christians in the community screaming against GM than Christians. We use a considerable amount in crops on missions projects, we distribute modified grains to populations around the world. The GM foods allow for agriculture in places that would normally starve.
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
"I do not know you as an individual so I cannot say 'you'."
Yes you can, you were replying directly to my post
However, I can address the population that uses the phrase that you have used as that population I have had many experiences with.
No, you can make assumptions and generalisations based on what you think I'm like due to a combination of life experiences and media characterisation. This gives you an excuse to address stereotypes and straw-men rather than the content of my argument.
And it does have quite a bit to do with the argument at hand, artificial selection and natural selection are all mechanics of evolution and a means to change genetic material. Semantics matter, no educational debate can be had without an agreement of terms. In this particular instance, to say that artificial selection isn't evolution negates your argument. Personally I blame poor teachers and pop culture for indoctrinating you into believing otherwise.
I didn't say anything about artificial selection not being evolution. I was talking about deliberate chemical or viral manipulation not being the same as either form of selection.
I'm sorry if that was ambiguous, I didn't think it was *that* ambiguous though.
Don't tell the sugar farmers in Florida and Southern Texas (not to mention all of the sugar beet farmers) that their crops don't exist. It will just ruin their fantasy! Nobody likes a killer of a good fantasy!
-- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
Comment removed based on user account deletion