Slashdot Mirror
Genetically Modified Canola Spreads To Wild Plants
eldavojohn writes "A research team conducting a survey has found that about 86% of wild canola plants in North Dakota have genetically modified genes in them, and 'two samples contained multiple genes from different species of genetically modified plants.' Canola usually has little competition when cultivated but does not fare well in the wild. The Roundup Ready and Liberty Link strains of genetically modified canola appear to be crossing over to wild plants and helping it survive. The University of Arkansas team claims that the ease in which genetically modified canola has 'escaped' into the wild should be noted by seed makers like Monsanto because this is proof that it will happen."
Reader n4djs notes that Monsanto has been known to sue farmers for patent infringement when their crops unintentionally contain genetically modified plants.
For infringement of intellectual property. The judge put a restraining order on the bees to remain at least two hundred yards away from all Mansanto plants and fined them $2,320 for each unlicensed strand of DNA collected from Mansanto plants and distributed to a competing plant.
My work here is dung.
im repeating this over and over whenever similar nonsense comes up. there is no evading capitalism come to this point. from property rights, to ownership of ideas, to ownership of genes, and then to ownership of entire species. if you 'let businesses be', this happens.
this, has to be the point where the sane realizes that this does not work.
Read radical news here
Monsanto is doing this, indeed it is and you're next.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
You might want to see the film Food inc. which will give some background about Monsato and the rest of the "modern" food industry. The funniest thing is that in their response to the film Monsato even directly admits they require farmers saving seed to provide "samples for testing". That's right; if you have nothing to do with Monsato, you still have a duty to provide them with samples of your seeds so that they can be sure you haven't "infringed their intellectual property rights".
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Prince Charles must prove his claim that GM crops could cause a global environmental disaster, Monsanto has challenged.
Cylon Number Six of Monsanto Public Relations said it was their "moral responsibility" to investigate whether genetically modified crops, fully owned and patented to the hilt by Monsanto, could help provide a suitably profitable solution to hunger in the developing world. Monsanto famously protect their hard work, having sued and won for patent violation when their seeds have blown onto another farmer's land.
"We see this as part of our Africa strategy," she said. "It's easy for those of us with plentiful food supplies to ignore the issue, but we have a responsibility to use science to get our hooks into the less well off where we can. We certainly wouldn't drive them off their land, they're too useful to us as labour. It's in their own best interest. I think of it as the 'Corporate Man's Burden.'"
Nestlé has also urged the European Union to review its opposition to GM. "People are starting to think Monsanto are a bigger bunch of bastards than we are, and we can't have such strikes against our public image go unchallenged."
http://rocknerd.co.uk
So what's the risk of gene transfer giving us "Roundup Ready" kudzu, poison ivy, etc. in the near future?
It's a good thing this absolutely positively can NOT happen. It's what we were promised. It's what Monsanto told the FDA and it's what the US is telling every-which nation they're trying to push GM foods to.
Nothing to see here. It's not possible. LALALALALA
My problem has always been this. If a pharma company releases a drug that is later proven to be a bad idea then you can do a recall and destroy all known stocks. With GM crops you can't do this as once it is in the wild it is in the wild. The TFA has proved my basic point.
I also have the feeling that less time has been spent trialing GM crops compared with drugs.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
So AOL lost 86% of its customers since 2001 and now 86% of wild canola contain genetically modified genes? Something fishy is going on!
Reader n4djs notes that Monsanto has been known to sue farmers for patent infringement when their crops unintentionally contain genetically modified plants.
This might have happened, but the Percy Schmeiser case is not such a case. The Supreme Court of Canada found that Schmeiser deliberately harvested and planted his field with seed which he knew had Monsanto's genetic modifications.
It rather scares me that one of the leading anti-GMO spokesmen is someone who deliberately planted his field with genetically modified seed and then lied about it when he got caught.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
1) They do a hell of a lot of trials on GM plants. They do a hell of a lot of trials on plants period, but more on GM plants because additional agencies are involved in oversight.
2) We've always been modifying plants for a long time.
If you think the foods you get in the store are "natural" as in "The state in which they exist without human involvement," then you are wrong. We've been doing crude genetic engineering for hundreds of years. It started as simply using plants that were more desirable. If a particular plant was more desirable than others, its seeds got more use. It got refined a bit when Gregor Mendel helped everyone understand how genetic traits work. People got better at cross pollinating plants to get desired traits, and doing things like grafting (cutting off a part of a desired plant and fusing it to another).
As an example, go look up a wild banana. They are not what you find in the supermarket, they are squat, thick, and full of hard seeds. That is how bananas were in the wild. They were engineered by humans, though various means, to be easier to hold and have no seeds. There wasn't any direct genetic manipulation, they were created before that, but it was selective engineering of their genetics going on.
What is going on now is just a further refinement of that. Now there is more direct control over the desired genes, and there is less chance undesired traits make it in. No, it is not 100% risk free. Nothing in the world is. However it is pretty safe over all. You may notice that people are not dying from this, we haven't had an epidemic of many people becoming ill or dying because a genetically engineered food was introduced that had adverse side effects.
Caution is needed, of course, as with anything we do. However fear is unwarranted is is basically just Luddism, just fearing things because they are new.
Really. I am no tin foil haberdasher, but Monsanto steamrolls through farm country like a nasty hay-seed (pun intended) Napoleon. And if you think they don't have numerous rural Congress folks in their pockets, please think again. Your food chain is far scarier than most know. I can't say I have some terrible fear of some horrid mutated crop gone wrong, but I can say I fear the corruption of democracy and our food supply that Monsanto perpetuates.
Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
Say I'm in my basement (well, I'm always there so that's a given) and I "create" a dandelion that is resistant to all known forms of weed killer and I release it with a giggle into my back yard, obviously in a few months/years every dandelion in the neighborhood is of my variety. Is this illegal?
How about if I only like to look at grass that is purple (ignoring the fact that purple grass would probably just up and die, but for arguments sake lets say it thrives) and I release that into the wild, maybe by throwing a few seeds along all the borders of my property with the intent that it will cross the property line? How about if I didn't mean for it to do so? Is that illegal?
Now say I run a company that makes weed killer and I release a variant that is _only_ susceptible to my weed killer? Is this illegal?
I'm not arguing for or against what Monsanto is doing and merely questioning the legality of releasing modified plants into the wild, of which can reproduce on their own for my personal benefit (monetarily or asthetically). I'm honestly curious here.
Despite the level of corruption, you find that in generally free societies which are all capitalist based economies (they have varying levels of regulation, but a free market is always the basis) there is the least corruption of any system. Central economies tend to be the very worst. After all, when the people doing the watching are the people with control, well there is something of a conflict of interest, isn't there? It's not perfect, but it is the best we've yet come up with. Doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement or that vigilance and regulation aren't needed, but trying to say "Oh capitalism is the problem," shows a good deal of ignorance of history and current events. As power concentrates, corruption tends to go up and in command economies, you have a hell of a concentration of power.
A completely unregulated, free market tends towards consolidation of power into large companies and ultimately monopoly. This maximizes corruption every bit as effectively as a strong, centralized government.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Here is the story NPR did on this a few days ago - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129010499
"Wilkinson says that just because the plants are genetically modified, doesn't mean they'll be more successful than wild plants. In this particular case, herbicide resistance will provide little edge to plants growing in areas that, almost by definition, don't receive many herbicides. "It's very difficult for either of these transgene types to give much of an advantage, if any, in the habitats that they're in," he says, referring to the genetically modified canola."
I hate Monsanto and GM because of their legal views and actions on DNA patents. I also hate how their products require tons of chemicals to grow and how it gets into the environment. I hate it how it promotes growing "all one type of plant" which turns niche problems and pests into giant clusterfucks because of the lack of biodiversity that would have naturally kept the problem in check. Google "pig weed" which is now ultra resistant to all known herbacides thanks to GM/Monsanto. The list goes on and on.
I do not think that Mother Nature gives a damn.
Monsanto usurped Mom and Mom p'ownd Monsanto.
Man, meet earth.
And that statement is as useful as saying "A green sky would lead to plants growing poorly."
We do not, and never have had, a completely unregulated free market. What we do have in the US, and in all other free countries, is a fundamentally free market. This means people are free to choose to work in the field they please, and that prices, products, etc are generally set by free market principles. The result is the most efficient, least corrupt economy humans have yet been able to create.
Trying to spin it doesn't change the reality. The free market works. That does not mean it is a be-all, end-all, that does not mean that regulation is not useful and necessary. It does mean that so far, we've got nothing better, regardless of if you like that fact or not.
You can't know that the free market works, since we've never had a free market, as you claim.
Or, you could take the reality that there was a completely free market before governments got organized, and apparently people hated it enough to organize governments.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
The roundup-ready gene patent has already expired. We are currently multiplying roundup-ready Canola seed for Pioneer Seeds on a couple hundred acres.
The real issue isn't the patents at all but the fact that the scientists found was that these genes are now found in most of the volunteer Canola growing. And the volunteers were found in some cases miles from where any Canola has been grown in a farmers field. This tells us that not only is the round-up ready gene travelling to other plants naturally, it's also travelling tremendous distances. So we have to be careful what we do with genetic engineering. Much more careful than we thought we had to be in the past.
The fact that the specific round-up ready genes are in the wild volunteers doesn't bother me that much. If you have to use a herbicide in another crop, any broad-leef killer will work. The risk of Canola being a super weed is overblown. Canola is already fairly hardy and aggressive; these resistance genes don't really affect that that much. Grass can easily out-compete Canola. In fact I've see Canola deliberately planted in the ditches of newly-constructed roads because it gets going fast and provides ground cover to prevent erosion, etc. Then a year later the grass that was also planted has taken over and the Canola is gone, without any herbicides.
We're getting out of the GMO seed multiplication business, though. Mainly because it's hard to control volunteers in other crops such as peas, which can contaminate the seed crop; with commercial, we don't typically care that much about the volunteers. We'll still grow the GMO'd varieties, but commercially (for crushing, not seed multiplication).
Actually what usually happens is that "mother nature" carries the Monsanto-owned genes to standard natural plants, which absorb the genes and pass them on to their seedlings. Then Monsanto sues the farmers for owning their genes without paying for it, enve though it's not the farmers fault (it's the bees and wind that did it). Then the farmers find themselves driven into bankruptcy by legal expenses.
Pretty soon Monsanto will have driven all the independent farmers out of business, and they'll have no competition.
Isn't copyright great?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Uhhhhh - "absorb" the genes? I'm no geneticist - in fact, I didn't even LIKE high school biology. But, I know that living organisms don't just "absorb" DNA. Digesting doesn't count as absorption.
The plants have been cross bred, and the resulting seedlings carry the gene.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
>>>It's not patent infringement, it's willful theft of DNA that is the property of Monsanto.
For those who think this is a joke, go watch the video "Food Inc" especially the second half. They interview a number of farmers who did nothing wrong, but were sued by Monsanto because their DNA-modified lants had cross-pollinated with the natural wheat (or corn or soy plants). These farmers were driven into bankruptcy trying to defend themselves (according to the video).
It's equivalent to if RIAA started mailing-out copies of songs to random people's computers, and then sued that person for "possession of intellectual property", even though said person did nothing wrong.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Give this shit 10 years and we end up with complete mono-cultures of our most important food plants. And then, let one epidemic destroy the whole corn or wheat harvest of North America... Fun times ahead.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.