Slashdot Mirror


Activists Destroy Scientific GMO Experiment

Freggy writes "In Belgium, a group of activists calling themselves the Field Liberation Movement has destroyed a field which was being used for a scientific experiment with genetically modified potatoes. In spite of the presence of 60 police officers protecting the field, activists succeeded pulling out the plants and sprayed insecticides over them, ruining the experiment. The goal of the experiment was to test potato plants which are genetically modified to be resistant to potato blight. It's a sad day for the freedom of scientific research."

1,229 comments

  1. Sounds like by gman003 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That sounds like terrorism to me. "Stop making GM plants, or we'll fuck your shit up."

    1. Re:Sounds like by frozentier · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sounds more like a bunch of assholes than a group of terrorists.

    2. Re:Sounds like by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sounds to me like some assholes who need to spend a few years in jail with hard criminals.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Sounds like by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Yes, exactly. Also, the /. headline says:

      It's a sad day for the freedom of scientific research.

      Well, considering what has already happened with the round-up ready stuff and all this Monsanto crap, it might be a sad day for scientific research, but it's a good day for the freedom of eating natural veggies. Thanks, but no thanks, we don't want your GMO anymore, we saw what it does. If you want to do research, feel free to do it IN THE LABS, but absolutely NOT IN THE WILD.

    4. Re:Sounds like by couchslug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agribusiness is far too wealthy to fight in the courts. The whole idea of "peaceful change" is obsolete because the rich rule the earth, and the asymmetric response remaining is protest and force.

      There is no such thing as "terrorism", just "high tech fighting" and "low tech fighting". Kings have always sought to declare the peasants low and unchivalrous.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    5. Re:Sounds like by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Your terrorist is my patriot hero

    6. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sound to me like some assholes who need to be forced to attend some plant pathology classes.

    7. Re:Sounds like by chill · · Score: 0

      Terrorists, or Ford employees?

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    8. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asshats are just annoying, while terrorists kill poor subsistence farmers.

    9. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thanks, but no thanks, we don't want your GMO anymore, we saw what it does.

      Feed billions of people?

    10. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But they do start in a lab, and eventually need to do it in the wild. You need to do a scaled experiment somehow.

      Also, I'm cool with the GMO. As long as they follow reasonable constraints before releasing some engineered strain into the wild.

      I'm not interested in having a random small group of unelected individuals decide for us what is in our interests or not. They can go cream-pie the CEO, maybe go door-to-door and have people sign onto a petition or something, but this isn't cool. I know Monsanto are dirt bags, but not all research should be thrown into the same pool. These people belong in prison with Ted.

    11. Re:Sounds like by DJRumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Odd that they don't simply spread their message by not buying these types of food. They find it acceptable to destroy property that does not belong to them, and which probably cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in lost time and research, just to force people to view things their way. I also found the article to be a bit funny regarding these GM crops being 'forced' onto local farmers.

      If you don't want to eat that shit, don't buy it, or grow your own disease ridden organic food. If they prove that it's safe, then I have no issues with it. Since this crop was still being studied, apparently they weren't interested in it's safety, but rather in destroying it before that fact was determined.

      It's also pretty sad when they announced their plans to do this and the police still failed to do much but slow them down. Pellet guns or water hoses would have seemed to be a good non-lethal solution here.

    12. Re:Sounds like by Barrie_rdv · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This research was happening independently of the industry, with public funding. Also, the research was about making the potatoes immune to a common disease, NOT making them immune to a specific brand of herbicide, so I fail to see how this could lead to a Monsanto situation. Part of the research was also to find out what the environmental impact of GMO is, and you will have to do a field test at some point to scientifically verify this.

    13. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends! Is this modified plant occur naturally or not ? If it does, it's not logical to leave it in a lab. Even if it does not occur naturally it's not up to us to determine where and how they should do the experiment, the experts themselves can assess that.

    14. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      some things cannot be replicated in the labs, on top of that, most veggies you eat (even the 'organic' ones) are genetically modified in some way. Infact right now banana's are all genetically modified, there no longer exists a banana fruit that can reproduce on its own, they were all wipred out by disease and over consumption.If you dont like the way genetically modified expirements are working, join the science field, and come up with a better solution. Aside from that all your doing is spreadding FUD which is no better than the current government. GTFO and RTFM, oh and by the way, YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!

    15. Re:Sounds like by Ironhandx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Research inevitably goes Lab -> Greenhouse -> Uncontrolled conditions.

      Eventually it HAS to be tested in the wild or else you won't ever be able to use the product.

      I'd also like to point out that you have been eating GM plants your entire life. Wheat? Hundreds of years of selective growing of only the best stock. Its the same thing it's just been done on a farm instead of in a lab.

      Corn? Corn didn't even exist in its current form a thousand years ago, yet it was in its current form before the GMO corps were even founded. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts you eat corn or corn products on a regular basis though don't you?

      There need to be restrictions in place on it, but only because they can now make more massive changes to the plant more quickly, not because making changes is in general a bad thing.

    16. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be American to be able to jump to such a conclusion.

      It doesn't sound like an act of terrorism - an act of violence to induce terror in those people that were affected.

      It sounds like a bunch of crazy people who don't understand boundaries.

    17. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thanks, but no thanks, we don't want your GMO anymore, we saw what it does.

      You don't speak for me. I want GMO crops.

      It's funny how you environmentalists take the word of scientists regarding climate change and evolution but ignore scientists when it comes to nuclear power and GMO crops.

    18. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From their point of view it makes sense, because "simply spread[ing] their message by not buying these types of food" does not work, since most people wouldn't care about it.

    19. Re:Sounds like by blackraven14250 · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can't just "not buy it", or "not grow it". There's a big issue here in the states with Monsanto and their GM crops being cross pollinated into smaller, local farmers fields. Monsanto can go to court, then force the farmers to pay for the right to grow those crops that now contain their gene.

      While not 100% relevant in and of itself, it emphasizes how easily cross pollination can occur, and how it's a huge problem to plant a GM crop anywhere near a non-GM crop and keep there from being cross contamination

    20. Re:Sounds like by andydread · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you file patents on any GM product that has the capacity to cross-contaminate natural organisms with your patented gene thereby giving you the opportunity to sue people for growing crop with your contaminated gene then you should be thrown in the same pool as Monsanto.

      If engineering a plant that allows you to douse them with weedkillers killing all weeds while not affecting the plant and you tell the public there will be no repercussions from said practice then superweeds show up on the scene that are resistant to herbicides then you should be thrown in the same pool with Monsanto

      If your internal documents show that you knew of many problems but you lied to the public then you should be thrown in the same pool as Monsanto

      The question then becomes. What procedures are in place to absolutely 100% prevent these scenarios and many more from happening?

    21. Re:Sounds like by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That's certainly one way to look at it.

      Another might be to say that the profit-driven corporations who want to grow these crops have little regard for the potential, irreversible consequences that could occur in the ecosystem and that these people are protecting that ecosystem from catastrophic damage. In which case you could characterise these protesters as Defenders agaust the selfish, and irresposible profit-seeking bio-companies.

      oblig. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    22. Re:Sounds like by elfprince13 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    23. Re:Sounds like by ehrichweiss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Odd that they don't simply spread their message by not buying these types of food."

      Problem being, at some point there may be no other type of food than these. I'm not 100% against GM foods of any sort but there is a real concern that any cross-breeding(which maybe some consider "forcing" it on them, I'm not sure about that though) will result in an entirely unsafe food supply and I can understand that seeing as how there's that corn that was supposed to be the answer to everything that they're now discovering retains its poisonous attributes even after being cooked. If you realize how much corn is in everything you eat, you realize why some might be concerned to act out like this. Again, I'm not saying it's right or that I agree with either side but there are valid concerns.

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    24. Re:Sounds like by IrquiM · · Score: 0

      It's 110% not relevant. Belgium is in Europe, and American patent laws do not apply! What's the difference between a GM crop and a non-GM crop by the way? None of them are similar to the "original" crop that was imported from South-America a few 100 years ago anyway - both have been changed by the hand of humans.

      --
      This is blinging
    25. Re:Sounds like by tibit · · Score: 2

      So, you mean they are self-centered jerks who try to make everyone think like they do, and when it fails they get destructive? Why yes, I do agree!

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    26. Re:Sounds like by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      What? Bananas aren't genetically modified even though they are sterile. You can take cuttings from herbs to propagate more of them and they'll be genetically identical.

      Here in europe, we don't have much genetically modified fruits and veg in the shops.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    27. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhh... What exactly does it do? The stuff has been around fro decades without any obvious detrimental effects, might very well help us end world hunger...

      People are welcome to have "all natural" if they so desire. I, for one, would prefer a better product and really regard these "activists" as ignorant terrorists who would rather the world starve than even consider the possibility that they're wrong.

    28. Re:Sounds like by gman003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Uh, it's kinda important to test GM foods in realistic conditions, especially when testing "how will this grow in realistic conditions?". I'm sure they took plenty of sensible precautions, like "test it as thoroughly as possible in the lab to make sure it's not dangerous", and "keep it separate and distant from actual crops to prevent genetic transfer". Plus, unless they changed science without telling me, experimental products aren't sold as food after the experiment is over. These particular plants were never going to be eaten.

      Plus, what does "Monsanto being evil money-grabbing bastards" have to do with foods not being safe (which seems to be your unstated concern - ignore if I'm picking up on the wrong subtext)? The only two GM foods I can find with actual safety concerns (both triggered allergic reactions) had those problems detected well before even field-study, and were subsequently stopped. I agree that Monsanto is an absolutely evil corporation that should be first against the wall when the revolution comes, but not because they're making and selling unsafe food.

    29. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      actually the research was also funded by a number of GMO companies that would become co-owner of any patents resulting from the research.

      disclaimer: not that I condone the way they protested. I do Sympathise with their concerns.

      (captcha: educator)

    30. Re:Sounds like by blackraven14250 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're a moron; it's a point that is relevant (to some degree) because the situation in the US would not exist if it were not so easy for GM and non-GM crops to cross pollinate. There's also a big difference between artificial selection and GM; we don't know all the consequences of genetically altering an organism, but we can basically see them when selecting over generations.

    31. Re:Sounds like by improfane · · Score: 4, Informative

      Selective pollenation and crossing is not GMO.

      --
      Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
    32. Re:Sounds like by tibit · · Score: 2

      It should be perhaps explained here that there's no such thing as an "ultimate herbicide" -- at least not in the sense of a relatively simple chemical compound. Existing herbicides exploit essentially genetic defects of certain classes of plants. There's nothing fundamentally different between some weed and crop plant that's useful to us. We can't but expect that eventually the weeds will evolve resistant strains. The fact that a plant is to us a weed doesn't make it somehow indelibly marked "bad", subject to infinite weakness in being affected by herbicides.

      In a thousand years or so I fully expect that in developed nations there won't be a single plant that reacts to targeted herbicides: if something will be a herbicide, it will be a universal one. We will have to start using robotic weed-pullers, nanobots, bacteria or viruses, or what have you, but simple chemicals simply won't cut it. It's a fundamental problem, and pretending otherwise is putting one's head into the sand.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    33. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And how is this an insightful counter argument ?

      Wheat ? Not really that good for you. At least there is nothing wrong with spelt.

      Corn ? Natural corn, which exists in many different breeds, making them far less suceptible to a one-size-fits-all bug, would be quite preferrable. But Monsanto is indeed doing its worst to "fix" this, by fighting the proper crops where they exist.

      Also, you totally overlook the basic problem. The wheat and corn from 50 years ago is NOT genetically modified in the modern sense of the word, and you know it. The problem with the current craze is that the changes are bigger and faster than before. And that companies make crops that fit their needs, not the needs of those who need to grow stuff. For example, and yes, this is real, they make crops that have weaknesses so that you need to buy more pesticides of the kind they sell. Letting a company be in charge of the raw material for your food is a very bad idea, because they think on a short term for profit basis, and do not care if they mess up the nutritional value of the food or otherwise make things worse for everyone around them.

    34. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also not at all relevant in this case, given that potatos aren't grown from seeds by anyone other than breeders. Who better be able to control cross-pollination, GMO or otherwise.

    35. Re:Sounds like by sperxios10 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'd also like to point out that you have been eating GM plants your entire life. Wheat? Hundreds of years of selective growing of only the best stock. Its the same thing it's just been done on a farm instead of in a lab.

      Do not spread diss-information.
      These are not genetically modified, crops, they are artificially-sellected crops.

    36. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Eventually it HAS to be tested in the wild or else you won't ever be able to use the product.

      Then it's not science, but product development.

    37. Re:Sounds like by monoclast · · Score: 1

      No. The reality is GMO crops force farmers to purchase more of the patented seed at a premium - often bankrupting them completely and putting them into serious debt.

    38. Re:Sounds like by Permutation+Citizen · · Score: 1

      Eating natural veggies, that what has killed three people in Germany. We can't rely on anything nowadays.

    39. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a big difference between selective breeding among a species and what they currently mean by Genetic Modification. This new GM organism (did not use plant cause it is not wholly a plant anymore) is getting DNA spliced in from other Kingdoms like bacteria and animal. I have real concerns about what those DNA fragments in the food supply will do to human DNA, say in children and developing fetuses, over the long term. Remember, the government said that Thalidomide was safe too.

    40. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I know there are very little if any definite studies completed about the cross pollination problem, in particular about the ability of cross pollination to effectively spread the human modified genes in the crops. It's a possibility, but not so easy to happen by chance if at all.

      All the laws and activism to stop any research on OGM are effectively stopping our knowledge about these issues though.

    41. Re:Sounds like by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I thought "sterile plants" was a basic requirement of the GM business plan - get the farmers dependent on buying seeds every year.

      --
      No sig today...
    42. Re:Sounds like by the_one(2) · · Score: 1

      There is a large difference. Those crops you talk about have been tested for years and they are safe beyond reasonable doubt. GMO's do not even need to be tested at all by the FDA in the US, I believe. And that's only the human safety angle. What if a gene from a GMO plant spread into the wild and destroyed eco systems? Safety is important.

    43. Re:Sounds like by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      And that is the crux of that matter, and also anyone wanting to advertise there view above others calls themselves scientists now anyways. So just because they called themselves scientists does not mean that they were actually running scientifically valid experiments.

      These people could have a point.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    44. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we know how many other pointers there are to the genetic data which is being modified?

      Is the engineered change completely alike to the change that would occur when you breed the wanted result?

      If not, the potato might require a field of different adjustments to accommodate its modifications in tune.

    45. Re:Sounds like by adonoman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      you environmentalists

      You say that like there's just one group - I happen to support reducing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing the use of safer nuclear reactor technologies, and the careful use of GMO crops. I'm against patenting GMO life. I'm against assuming all GMO plants are safe for consumption just because their progenitors were safe - that same protein that protects against potato blight may be toxic to more than just the bugs spreading it. On the other hand, it's more than likely less toxic than dumping insecticides on the plants.

      There are plenty of people out there who don't simply define themselves as "environmentalists", but look at individual issues and see potential issues that should be mitigated against.

    46. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your information is faulty. What Monsanto did was to sue to prevent farmers from growing Monsanto GM crops and selling the resulting GM seed or using the seed themselves to replant to avoid paying Monsanto for seed the following season. Monsanto never sued anyone for pollen drift.

    47. Re:Sounds like by twidarkling · · Score: 2

      No, it's not relevant, the only thing that story is relevant to is that the US courts again prove that they were completely disconnected from reality and patent/copyright laws in general need to be fixed.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    48. Re:Sounds like by Skidborg · · Score: 1

      I might point out that nowhere are companies required to label their products as GM. There is no way to tell if what you are buying is or isn't.

      --
      Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
    49. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most, if not all, GM plants are engineered so that they don't produce pollen. That's why farmers need to buy new seeds every year. This is done in order to prevent flux of engineered material to nature.

    50. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you implying they grew these crops without permission?

    51. Re:Sounds like by JordanL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How arrogant is it of a person secure in their subsistence to say "No, we could save you from starvation with this plant, but I don't believe in this plant, so fuck you."

    52. Re:Sounds like by twidarkling · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem isn't GMO, it's patents and business models. Getting rid of GMO won't fix anything.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    53. Re:Sounds like by jon_doh2.0 · · Score: 1

      Calorie men.

    54. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm against assuming all GMO plants are safe for consumption just because their progenitors were safe - that same protein that protects against potato blight may be toxic to more than just the bugs spreading it.

      So you're against science.

    55. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the criminals should be hard as they have not had their regular release for some time. Assholes, on the other hand tend to be soft and sensitive..

    56. Re:Sounds like by jcaldwel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't see anyone forcing anyone to buy anything. If the GMO crop is worth a premium, the farmers will pay a premium. If not, then not.

    57. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No such thing as terrorism? What planet are you from? Just because you're the underdog doesn't mean you're right or sane.

    58. Re:Sounds like by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Then don't let them patent it.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    59. Re:Sounds like by improfane · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Selective growing/pollination is not GMO.

      Identifying desirable traits and crossing them is benign and not the same as forcing changes or operating on genes directly.

      Shills are trying to represent them as one as the same to amass support for them.

      --
      Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
    60. Re:Sounds like by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      One, vegetables on a farm are not 'natural' anyway. Two, just because Monsanto are assholes doesn't mean that GMO crops themselves are bad.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    61. Re:Sounds like by twidarkling · · Score: 2

      The AC's wrong, but right at the same time. The bananas we know aren't the bananas that were originally found. They were selectively bred to the point where there's basically no resemblance to the original plant. And realistically, I don't see a difference between selective breeding and genetic modification beyond the scale of the timeline.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    62. Re:Sounds like by SMoynihan · · Score: 1

      Hell, orange carrots were only developed back in the 1700's.

      That's why we call "orange" after oranges (oranges were introduced to England in the 1500's - before that the colour was yellow-red)

    63. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll bet dollars to doughnuts you eat corn or corn products on a regular basis though don't you?

      This is part of the problem, you are forced to eat them because you don't have any choice. The US has a horrible problem with food, such that we use corn for sugar, subsidize what sugar we do produce and tariff foreign sugar.

      There need to be restrictions in place on it, but only because they can now make more massive changes to the plant more quickly, not because making changes is in general a bad thing.

      Depends on what the change is, if you have corn which produces insulin, and that corn cross pollinates in the wild that is a very bad thing. If you create special pesticide resistant plant and develop a mono-culture for that plant through the use of aggressive business practices, and then those highly toxic pesticides suddenly stop being effective, that can be a bad thing. Aggressive policy with little foresight into repercussions of wide sweeping changes is in general a bad thing.

    64. Re:Sounds like by anyGould · · Score: 2

      You can't just "not buy it", or "not grow it". There's a big issue here in the states with Monsanto and their GM crops being cross pollinated into smaller, local farmers fields. Monsanto can go to court, then force the farmers to pay for the right to grow those crops that now contain their gene.

      The punchline is that you're starting to see the Monsanto seeds growing in the ditches on the side of the road. I'm waiting for an enterprising village or town to call Monsanto up and demand that they remove their "property" from the roads or they'll be charged with littering.

      And to all the folks saying "what's the problem?", it's not that Monsanto has made a better plant. It's that by making it a sterile plant, they're trying to corner the market on farming. The way it's always been done is this - farmer plants the field. Harvests. Keeps a portion of the seed, sells the rest. Next season, he plants (or if you prefer, "reinvests") the seed he kept to plant the next crop. Monsanto seed is made so that you have to rebuy it from them, every year, forever.

    65. Re:Sounds like by hedwards · · Score: 1

      As opposed to the pro GMO side which is fucking everybody else' shit up. The means were clearly illegal, but given the extremely careless manner in which these "experiments" are set up in the first place, they really shouldn't be pretending that it's a scientific in nature. I mean WTF have these scientists not even heard of cross contamination?

    66. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm against assuming all GMO plants are safe for consumption just because their progenitors were safe - that same protein that protects against potato blight may be toxic to more than just the bugs spreading it.

      So you're against science.

      No, you're apparently simply against a rational discussion over science.

    67. Re:Sounds like by DarenN · · Score: 1

      If you file patents on any GM product that has the capacity to cross-contaminate natural organisms with your patented gene thereby giving you the opportunity to sue people for growing crop with your contaminated gene then you should be thrown in the same pool as Monsanto.

      That's a failure of law, surely. There can be no implicit contract in the case of cross-pollination - it's not a case of stealing. If anything the farmers should be able to sue Monsanto for polluting their crops, because the cross-pollination means that you're not growing what you thought you were and it's unlikely that farmers would be too happy about not being able to guarantee the quality of their crop. It's like someone from General Motors sneaking into a Ford factory, replacing the templates on their machines with General motors patented designs, and then suing them for using the designs while admitting what they did. Nuts!

      Besides, I thought that GM crops had to be sterile to prevent them usurping their non-GM base stock?

      I'm not comfortable with GM foods and I'm definitely not comfortable with the ability to patent modified strains of crops - the idea of anyone "owning" corn, for instance (a possible scenario should a GM strain prove more resilient in the wild than normal corn) is ludicrous.

      I dislike this story, though. It's a form of eco-terrorism and this kind of thing (damage against property) often descends into violence against people which is much more serious.

      --
      Rational thought is the only true freedom
    68. Re:Sounds like by twidarkling · · Score: 2

      Realistically, explain to me the difference beyond the time investment. Cross-breeding of different strains of plants, and of similar plants was occurring decades ago, and longer. It's just that now, instead of waiting 18+ plant generations to see results, we see them in 1 generation, allowing faster, better tweaks, and more thorough experimentation for side effects.

      People who think there's a fundamental difference between selective breeding and genetic modification make me sick due to their ignorance. The only explanation I can come up with is "Well, I won't be around to see the results, so I don't have to care."

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    69. Re:Sounds like by DJRumpy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually they do, but don't let facts get in the way of your argument.

      http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/europe-has-gm-food-label-law-but-consumers-concerned-about-food-produced-with-gm-feed/

      The law requires that any direct ingredients involving genetically modified food must be labeled as such. It does not require indirect use of GM foods for farm animals, but that's irrelevant for potatoes.

    70. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In jail they'd be a charge for the state.

      I say just make them pay a fee equal to the total cost of starting it all over again. They'll brag a whole lot less when the authorities seizes their house and all assets to pay the damage.

    71. Re:Sounds like by hedwards · · Score: 2

      GMO when done right might achieve that. The problem is that it's mostly crap like golden rice which wouldn't even be necessary if farmers weren't encouraged to only grow rice. The blindness that it prevents was never a problem when the locals were eating a balanced diet.

      Additionally, we have plenty of food as it is, growing more via GMO isn't going to solve our problem. At the moment our main problem is distribution. People aren't starving in parts of Africa because there isn't food, they're starving because war and corrupt dictatorships prevent access to food. It's an important distinction to make. Even in places like Zimbabwe where there is plenty of arable land and a recent history of the agriculture necessary corrupt despots like Robert Mugabe rob the people of the ability to feed themselves. GMO won't solve that, at best it's a bandaid over the real issues involved.

    72. Re:Sounds like by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Strictly speaking, artificial selection has modified the genetics of the crops. The difference is that the genes of what we refer to as GMO are being manipulated more directly.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    73. Re:Sounds like by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Wait. I was under the impression that the GM plants were engineered to be incapable of pollination, to require farmers to purchase new seeds every crop. Clearly if they are pollinating to other fields, the plant in question is no longer the patented technology in question

    74. Re:Sounds like by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

      So it's time we bring justice to that fat asshole on the Sea Shepherd?

      --
      Chewbacon
      The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    75. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hundreds of years of selective growing of only the best stock. Its the same thing it's just been done on a farm instead of in a lab.

      Clearly you don't know much about what GMO actually means. And selecting only the best stock is not in any way the same thing. Process is everything. And even if you had the exact same gene modification is done naturally as opposed to being done artificially, it is the process that makes the end product potentially harmful. Researchers at the premier nutrition laboratory in Europe lost their jobs because they dare made their research public that GMO organisms were a threat to public health. Apparently, Monsanto got on the phone with George Bush...who got on the phone with Tony Blair....and presto chango....people lost their jobs and had their careers ruined. Similar firings were done at Health Canada as well as potential bribery of regulatory officials.

    76. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Partly accurate. Monsanto sued farmers for using their GM varieties without paying royalties, and in some of those cases the farmers' defense was that their fields were contaminated by the GM pollen.

    77. Re:Sounds like by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Until they have a means of preventing the genes from spreading to wild and otherwise unrelated plants, they have no right to test in uncontrolled conditions. It's already been documented and it's a big enough problem that Monsanto goes farm to farm in areas where its products are being used to ensure that nobody is accidentally benefiting form its line without paying. This is a serious problem for organic farmers who then can't sell their output as organic and can't compete with the cost of traditionally produced products either.

    78. Re:Sounds like by tkrotchko · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nah, make them work for local farms for 8 weeks. They'll perhaps learn the meaning of hard work and humility.

      --
      You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    79. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its the same thing it's just been done on a farm instead of in a lab.

      No it's not.

      Selective breeding meant only that a few gradual mutations were transferred to each generation. The process may look similar in the lab but it's not just selective breeding in fast-forward; GMed crops can suddenly have characteristics that may not make sense in the real environment, making them suddenly more susceptible to disease, detrimental to the surrounding environment or even poisonous.

      As much as everyone is amazed by genetics, thousands of years of selective breeding & billions of natural evolution simply can't be substituted for a few decades of technological advances. It will take time.

    80. Re:Sounds like by EatAtJoes · · Score: 2

      Wow, can we stop calling every political action that makes us uncomfortable TERRORISM?

      This is vandalism, destruction of property, whatever. Nobody is being "terrorized", nobody's life is in danger (except the activists' possibly).

    81. Re:Sounds like by jbengt · · Score: 2

      Odd that they don't simply spread their message by not buying these types of food.

      Not odd at all, really, seeing as I know of no food being sold that is marked as GM or not GM. In fact, here in the good ol' USA, it is illegal to label your food as not genetically modified.

    82. Re:Sounds like by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      "STOP Frankenstein and his MONSTER!"

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    83. Re:Sounds like by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It seems you didn't hear about the story of that farmer, who unwillingly, had his field infected with GMO, because others around were using it (but not him). Then, enormously-wealthy Monsanto sued the poor farmer for using GMOs without buying the copyright they have on the patented seeds.

      Another issue. In France, they don't produce GMO corn, or things stuffed with round-up, because you see, they care a bit for their health, and very strangely, believe that eating herbicide sprayed-so-much veggies might be harmful. But then, producers on the other side of the ocean use (and abuse) of round-up-ready Monsanto seeds, and of course, have better productivity, which leads to cheaper corn. Guess what! French can't compete with Americans, and of course, US thinks it's a WTO violation to ban GMO imports.

      Now, on the supermarket, sure, nobody is forcing anyone to buy GMO products. But the issue is that we don't know what is made with GMO products. So even if we have that freedom, we can't exercise it. There was once some trials to put stickers on food that contained GMO, but the lobbies are too powerful, and it didn't work.

      There are other examples like that. Hundreds of them. You think people have freedom of not using GMO in their crops? Think again, freedom not what big-seed company wants, and that's not what is happening in many places.

      Now, let's take freedom and market appart. Do you think that, for food, the only think that counts is money? Isn't there is something called health that we should care about?

    84. Re:Sounds like by sed+quid+in+infernos · · Score: 1

      You can't just "not buy it", or "not grow it". There's a big issue here in the states with Monsanto and their GM crops being cross pollinated into smaller, local farmers fields. Monsanto can go to court, then force the farmers to pay for the right to grow those crops that now contain their gene.

      I'm aware of the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser]case in Canada[/url]. Brief research turns up lots of cases in the U.S. accusing farmers who bought round-up ready seed of saving seed from one harvest to plant in later years - including some with examples of very dishonest behavior on Monsanto's part. But thats quite different than what you described. Can you link some examples in the U.S.?

    85. Re:Sounds like by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      You don't know how potatoes work do you?

    86. Re:Sounds like by Khyber · · Score: 1

      You don't see it because you don't know that a large majority of companies you see selling plants are really just microdivisions of the same larger parent corporation.

      So while you have the illusion of a choice the sad reality is that you don't have a choice at all.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    87. Re:Sounds like by hedwards · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not funny at all. When I was doing my undergrad in the natural sciences a decade ago it was pretty well established in the scientific community that the potential for a catastrophic fuck up was there. The question is how much do you trust the folks doing the experiments to not fuck it up in that fashion. It depends on the foods, but not all foods are equally easily cultivated and some food stuffs have gone extinct within the last hundred years, such as the old school bananas.

      Nobody but a shill is going to claim that there isn't a potential for a very serious fuck up and the genes definitely are spreading in the wild as we speak. The only question is how bad is it going to be. Adding one gene here or there alone isn't going to cause too much trouble, but when the genes start to combine in ways that we haven't predicted it could get very ugly very quickly. And things like the round up ready modification have already spread to the weeds for which round up was going to be used.

    88. Re:Sounds like by chronosan · · Score: 1

      I don't see how it's not science, it's part of the scientific method to try to reproduce results. This is trying to reproduce lab results in the field. Science. It works.

    89. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SO they have been GENETICALLY (splicing specific DNA from other organisms to organisms which never had the dna chain) modifying crops for years? You are talking about selective breeding, taking plants of the same type and breeding them together to modify the child. Taking all the big plants an breeding them together. At no time until now has we taken the DNA from a fish and spliced it with a tomato to make tomatoes which survive colder weather?
      I never knew we were able to breed a plant which would be resistant to a certain type of herbicide before? Do you have any clue what a GMO is? Cross breeding is just that, taking two organisms which are close enough to be able to reproduce an organism which is similar to both but also takes the best qualities of both. You still get an apple, or wheat. Not an apple with fish DNA.
      GMO's have not been tested enough, we have no idea about the consequences, and companies like Monsanto now own a patent on a plant, which means that if the wind does blow and the seed does travel, then Monsanto can sue a farmer three fields over that has been using and cleaning seed for generations and never bought a seed from Monsanto. It also allows them to sue and shut down anyone not buying from them. Cleaning seed was an accepted process for generations, now companies like Monsanto have made it illegal.

      I know you think you know everything but there is a big difference between cross breeding and GMO.

    90. Re:Sounds like by Hatta · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Selective breeding cannot create traits that do not already exist in the gene stock. When you insert a completely novel gene there's a much greater chance for unpredictable results.

      GM crops are a good thing, but they shouldn't be treated just like selective breeding. They should undergo safety testing as rigorous as pharmaceuticals.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    91. Re:Sounds like by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "What? Bananas aren't genetically modified even though they are sterile."

      They had modification done, just not directly to the genes themselves, but via selective breeding. Go watch Alton Brown's particular episode on it, I think the show was called Good Eats. The original banana had large seeds, about the size of Buckshot.

      It's still a pressure-based modification, not direct.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    92. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously don't really understand GMO plants. The process basically involves injecting pesticides through the cell wall, resulting in a mutated plant that could NEVER in a million years be created naturally. In fact, these crops would naturally reject what they are being injected with except that scientists have found a way to bypass that particular mechanism.

      I eat GMO food, but it is kind of disturbing and makes you wonder what hidden health costs all this GMO stuff has created.

    93. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever seen a farm? I'm guessing no.

    94. Re:Sounds like by anyGould · · Score: 2

      Corn? Corn didn't even exist in its current form a thousand years ago, yet it was in its current form before the GMO corps were even founded. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts you eat corn or corn products on a regular basis though don't you?

      This is a bit of obfuscation, though - by that logic all lifestock are GMO. Heck, you're GMO - you're the product of highly specific selective breeding yourself.

      Here's the difference - I can go to the store, buy a potato, let it go to seed and plant it. And in a few months, I'll have my own potatoes. GMO crops are built specifically to prevent people from growing their own food. Heck, they're designed to prevent the *growers* from growing their own food.

      In a GMO world, we'll see small farms go extinct, and then eventually gardens - there's no profit in letting people grow their own veggies, after all.

    95. Re:Sounds like by Kitkoan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Europe != the rest of the world. Also your link there states that they don't label any GM feed used for animal production and GM proteins do show up in the animals that are fed the GM feed and those animal food products are sold to the public but not labeled with any warning about GMOs.

      --
      Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
    96. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Funny. Some seem to be local farmers, with a few scientists also into the mix.

    97. Re:Sounds like by IonOtter · · Score: 2

      Well, that's the point they're trying to make?

      The GM plants they're destroying are trying to make it easier for the farmer to plant more crops with less effort and greater use of artificial fertilizers.

      I would actually welcome the opportunity to spend 8 weeks on a fully-organic, self-sustainable farm.

      --
      [End Of Line]
    98. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'd also like to point out that you have been eating GM plants your entire life. Wheat? Hundreds of years of selective growing..."

      Selective growing/breeding is not Manipulation of Genes, it is manipulation of (natural) selection.

    99. Re:Sounds like by mellon · · Score: 1

      The problem of course is that if you practice a patent technique, you have infringed on the patent. When the patented technique is a gene, the way you practice it is by growing and selling produce that contains that gene. This is a statutory obligation, not a contractual obligation; you agreed to it when you elected the bastards who made it legal to patent genes.

    100. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you had read the article (yes, I know, I know...) you would realize that many of the protesters are local farmers. So they probably already worked a few years for local farms. But please don't let facts interfere with your knee-jerk reaction.

    101. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientists have been warning of the issues with GMO's for 20 years. COmpanies like Monsanto get these scientists funding shut down and threaten to sue anyone who publishes information contrary to their company line. When a university gets threatened with a billion dollar law suit, I can guarantee you it does not mater who's science is correct. The university will fold, Monsanto and their lawyers and money will win every time. Do some research, go take a look at what is happening in Mexico and the corn crops there, most farmers told Monsanto no, so Monsanto planted fields and since their GMO corn is more aggressive it is now replacing corn in fields all over the regions. Farmers have not planted it but now are being charged and sued for having it in their fields.

      And have you ever seen the state of the animals you eat? Most chicken that hits your plate cannot stand on their own, their internal organs are weak and they cannot survive very long. But their breast meat grows real fast, so that has to be good. You like GMO's? How's your digestive health these days? good luck

    102. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What he said.

    103. Re:Sounds like by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

      The main difference being that with selective breeding you have to wait for desirable traits to arise by chance in a population, whereas with GMO they can be introduced directly and specifically.

    104. Re:Sounds like by Arancaytar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wait, which is it? Is the plant sterile, or is it cross-pollinating?

    105. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting Anon hardly inspires confidence in the messenger.

      That being said, I'm fine with GMO crops, depending, on what kind of GM is going on, and to what extent it's been verified safe. Monsanto is not making food I want to eat, they are making crops that resist chemical abuse. There is no reason to believe those changes will be beneficial to the humans further down the chain. There is (that I am aware of) no evidence to the contrary... yet. That's hardly a case for putting my faith in scientific study.

      Given the laundry list of contaminates that the Biotech-Industrial Farming and Food companies have exposed us to over the decades, I don't think asking for some basic information is uncalled for.

    106. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, if the food loses its nutritional value or can't be grown profitably, it stops selling well. That's a pretty bad long-term strategy. But keep your tin foil hat on, or the alien brain rays will corrupt your mind too.

      And the "modern sense" of the word is a twisted representation meant to scare the luddites. Selective breeding is genetic modification to keep mutants. The only difference now is that, rather than waiting for some plants to accidentally mutate in a desirable way, we go ahead and pick the mutation. But yeah, science is bad, and ye olden times were way better, right? Idiot.

    107. Re:Sounds like by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 1

      Well tried, but no. Bananas are not genetically modified. They are clones. Not like Doly the sheep, it's a natural process for plants: you take a bit of a banana tree (let's say, maybe a branch, I'm not a banana specialist, so I can't tell which bit...), plant it somewhere else, and there you go, you got another banana tree growing. The fact banana trees are very weak, is because of that reason: they are all clones from the same plants. So they are all sensitive to the same diseases and parasites, which find always the same target and can multiply very fast.

      And yes, there are some banana fruits that can reproduce on their own, but they are very small, and are full of seeds. But you see, it's been decades (centuries?) that we don't eat bananas with seeds, because we don't like it, because they are not adapted for transport, and all sorts of other (silly?) reasons. This might change though, because after lots and lots of clones, our "modern" bananas have lost taste, compared to the reproducing ones which are really sweet.

      You wrote RTFM/WTF/FUD? Well, at least do it smartly...

    108. Re:Sounds like by moonbender · · Score: 1

      It sounds like terrorism to you because anything is called terrorism these days. The word serves no useful function anymore -- it probably never did -- and political conversations would be improved by avoiding it at all costs.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    109. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "

      Then don't let them patent it.

      "++ Gene patents are ridiculous anyway. Out of the billions of potato plants in the world, how would you research prior art - In theory any one of them could have developed the gene through mutation.

    110. Re:Sounds like by MaizeMan · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, what was your major within the natural sciences? I'm not asking to try to discredit you or anything. But it's been my observation at my current institution that undergraduates in two different departments, both within the college of natural resources graduate with wildly different views on the consensus of the scientific community about genetic engineering, both convinced all the evidence was on their side.

      The two departments are Plant Sciences and Environmental Studies and Policy. I'm sure you can guess which is which.

    111. Re:Sounds like by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      Corn? Corn didn't even exist in its current form a thousand years ago, yet it was in its current form before the GMO corps were even founded. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts you eat corn or corn products on a regular basis though don't you?

      I had this discussion with my sister-in-law. She started citing a professor of nutrition at Rice who has published papers showing corn is a very unhealthy thing to eat. (not in its natural form, it's GMO, etc.)

      I'd love to crowdsource the counterarguments^H^H^Hget some feedback from /. about this.

      As I cook from scratch almost every meal, very rarely to I consume anything with corn or HFCS, so it's really an academic exercise. Well, that and wanting my nieces and nephews to grow up big and strong (read: CORN FED like this country boy) if it's safe. :)

    112. Re:Sounds like by josepha48 · · Score: 1
      This sounds more like a terrorist act than anything else. They are killing innocent plants and spraying pesticides that who knows how those plants will react. Get ready for attack of the killer potatoes!

      On a more serious note, we have genetically modified pets today because of people messing with genes. Isn't selective breeding of dogs, cats, fish, horses, pigs, cows, very similar? The only difference here is in once case one is manipulating the genes with the thought that it is better for humanity.

      --

      Only 'flamers' flame!

    113. Re:Sounds like by spire3661 · · Score: 0

      And the Proletariat has always tried to portray themselves as victims. At least in a Republic you can pick yourself up by your bootstraps, regardless of what station you were born in. You have the capability to start a corporation and amass power too, NOTHING is stopping you. If you want to fight symmetrically, become a strong opposing force, instead of a whiner peasant.

      --
      Good-bye
    114. Re:Sounds like by arisvega · · Score: 1

      "+ Insightful" indeed - it really gives insight as to why US is the way it is.

      "few years in jail with hard criminals"? I'm glad you are never going to be a judge.

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    115. Re:Sounds like by TamCaP · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Obviously, you didn't read the whole story. The farmer indeed got accidental Monsanto seeds (that part is true). What happened later, however, is that he used a herbicide on his field and realized "uuuuuu, those plants are still alive" --> collected the seeds from those and used them the next year. That's why he lost the lawsuit - he consciously selected for Roundup resistant plants.

    116. Re:Sounds like by MrLint · · Score: 1

      I can imagine that those people in Ireland who were starving to death from the blight would have fallen all over themselves to get a hold of potatoes that were resistant.

    117. Re:Sounds like by BlueScreenO'Life · · Score: 1

      I thought "sterile plants" was a basic requirement of the GM business plan

      Either it isn't, or Monsanto is doing a sucky job at it and getting away with it (profiting from it, in fact).

      get the farmers dependent on buying seeds every year

      Oh you can do that through lawyers too.

    118. Re:Sounds like by arisvega · · Score: 2

      If you don't want to eat that shit, don't buy it

      You wouldn't know about "that shit" if there was no publicity about it. They way they see it, they are doing you a service.

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    119. Re:Sounds like by adonoman · · Score: 1

      I'm against assuming that they are safe. Potatoes are already mildly toxic, and other plants in the nightshade family are very much so. I don't think it's unreasonable to take a step back, and compare the toxicity of the the new varieties. I'd like to assume that this is already being done before releasing a new variety into the food supply, but I'm not sure that's a safe assumption.

    120. Re:Sounds like by Ironhandx · · Score: 2

      This I admit is a big problem with GMO at the moment.

      However, this is a problem with the corporations themselves and the fact that the bought and paid for government is still allowing patents on genetics. Its not a problem with the practice itself.

      For everyone else: You'\re jumping off the deep end. GMO is the same as selective breeding, its just faster. You could eventually produce crops resistant to bacteria x, or you could just add gene y from species b that does this already then test for side effects.

      The only measureable difference between GMO and selective breeding is the time scales involved. Corn didn't exist, at all. It eventually mutated from some other plants because a genetic mutation that was beneficial to the farmer was found and was mass reproduced after it was found. Another genetic mutation made it larger, then another one caused more cobs on a stalk, until we have modern corn. Theres nothing more or less natural about it. It was probably a mutation that would have caused it to die off in the wild, but was desirable to humans so it lived.

      Same thing with cows, they'd be extinct now except some of them mutated the single best survival mechanism ever: being tasty and docile.

    121. Re:Sounds like by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

      "I'm sure they took plenty of sensible precautions, like "test it as thoroughly as possible in the lab to make sure it's not dangerous", and "keep it separate and distant from actual crops to prevent genetic transfer". "

      I'm not. One drive through an actual farm area should tell you the same. Do you honestly believe they tear up a mile square plop down a few plants and a single bee hive and stand back and use a flamethrower on anything that tries to leave the property? If your answer is no ... then you are leaking genetic information. And just so you know where I am coming from, having made GM crops I have (almost) no problems with them. I always loathe the shotgun approach to field testing however.

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    122. Re:Sounds like by drooling-dog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      when it comes to nuclear power and GMO crops.

      I'm not sure you're helping the cause any by tying it to nuclear power, where there are multiple empirical examples of incidents that occurred despite repeated authoritative assurances of their (theoretical) near-impossibility.

    123. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corn? Corn didn't even exist in its current form a thousand years ago, yet it was in its current form before the GMO corps were even founded. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts you eat corn or corn products on a regular basis though don't you?

      well, yes, unless its got a jellyfish for a dad.

    124. Re:Sounds like by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Breeding a "currently disease resistant" GMO monoculture which virally spreads and "vendor locks" the crops of those who don't want it isn't only bad business, but when (not if) a new disease hits this monoculture it can do massive damage.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    125. Re:Sounds like by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 1

      keep it separate and distant from actual crops to prevent genetic transfer

      It has been proven that one of the vectors of cross-crop genes are insects and bees. How are you going to protect a crop from them?

      what does "Monsanto being evil money-grabbing bastards" have to do with foods not being safe

      Isn't it obvious? Isn't eating food full of herbicide a concern for you? Monsanto itself isn't producing or selling food, only seeds and chemical which you use to do that. But what you do with it is bad food, full of poison (remember: the goal is to kill plants).

    126. Re:Sounds like by gman003 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Biodiversity is not a worthy goal in and of itself. If everything else worked right, I'd have no problems with reducing total species on the planet to the low thousands. If a species does not actually contribute anything, why save it?

      However, I realize the problems with that view, namely that low diversity makes it extremely easy for diseases to wipe out the entire thing. However, I don't see how "genetically modified" necessarily implies "destroys biodiversity". In fact, I could see it overall increasing it (provided we fix certain broken pieces of IP law). If, instead of one company making all the new GM foods, you had dozens, you would end up with several competing GM foods, which are less likely to be vulnerable to the same diseases. Further, if each company segmented their products (ie. you had different "versions" of each company's food), you could increase biodiversity even more. For example, assume the Basic version of Uberfood's GM Corn provided resistance to common diseases and increased growth, while the Resistance edition added low-water survivability and resistance to several uncommon blights, and the Ultra edition provided additional growth increase and resistance to some special pesticide. If some disease finds a vulnerability in the pesticide resistance, you only lose 1/3 of those crops. While potentially making more money for the companies in the process, as you would either lower the price on the Basic (allowing economically disadvantaged farmers to grow them) or increase the price on the others (getting more money from the economically advantaged).

    127. Re:Sounds like by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      I live in fear that a bunch of terrorists will destroy my genetically engineered potatoes! I don't worry that they will kill me or my family, burn down my house, blow up the nearby nuke plant or scatter land mines on my lawn, but I have nightmares about Al Quaida keying my car, the Talliban spray painting naughty words on my driveway, and Osama rising from the grave to call me and ask if I have Prince Albert in a can.
      Real terrorists kill people, not potatoes. A threat of property damage may be extortion, and actual property damage is criminal, but vandalism isn't terrorism by any stretch. No one, and certainly no large corporation, is really terrified that they will live through whatever the 'terrorists' are going to do, survive it in perfect health, and have to sue the 'terrorists' for purely economic damages.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    128. Re:Sounds like by ocean_soul · · Score: 1

      "+ Insightful" indeed - it really gives insight as to why US is the way it is.

      "few years in jail with hard criminals"? I'm glad you are never going to be a judge.

      I disagree. They are terrorists (as in: attacking civilians and/or their properties) so they should be treated like terrorists. Of course, this being `the civilized world, they are already free...

    129. Re:Sounds like by arkenian · · Score: 1
      To be fair to monsanto, its not ALL just a nefarious plot to make money off farmers.... Part of it stems from some of the most basic things in bio-engineering. Every GMO sci-fi story I've ever read has stressed the importance of not letting GMO organisms propagate outside of human control. 'cuz you, know, weed-killer resistant grasses are a good thing only in strictly-limited circumstances.

      That said, there's no question its MOSTLY a nefarious plot to make money off farmers ;)

    130. Re:Sounds like by couchslug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Scientists aren't the problem. Corporations who OWN scientists are the problem. Scientists are serfs like the rest of us.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    131. Re:Sounds like by gman003 · · Score: 1

      Sure he does! You buy them at Wal-Mart, in the form of frozen french fries. Microwave for 45 seconds. Pour on the ketchup. Eat at computer while arguing on /. What more do you need to know about potatoes, other than that you can make a wimpy battery out of them for a lame science fair project?

    132. Re:Sounds like by meerling · · Score: 1

      resistant to potato blight does NOT mean "...less effort and greater use of artificial fertilizers..." !
      Potato Blight is a huge destroyer of entire potato crops worldwide and a cause of famine.
      Have you ever heard of the Great Famine, or the Irish Potato Famine? If you took history in school, I'm sure they covered it, all my schools did, multiple times. Guess what, it was caused by the potato blight, the very thing this experiment was working towards preventing or at least reducing it's impact when it hits.

      Most of the fears of GM foods are unreasonable and just bizarre if you've passed 6th grade science class. You won't get alien genes from eating them. The risk of allergic reaction is about the same as with any new crop variant. They won't turn you into some kind of science fantasy monster.

    133. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOU can feel free to purchase non-GMO products then.

      If -I- consent to eating GMO products, then that's MY CHOICE and MY RIGHT TO PURCHASE.

      Fuck off.

    134. Re:Sounds like by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is total nonsense. Genes NATURALLY spread widely in a unpredictable and random manner. New genes are produced all the time by mutation. Species NATURALLY become extinct all the time.

      The potential for anything going horribly wrong is zero.

      The idea that old school bananas are going extinct is pure BULLSHIT circulated on internet scare sites.

      http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/bananas.asp

      The anit-GMO crowd has completely and 100% certifiably gone off the deep end. There is no none zero scientific basis for what they are doing whatsoever.

    135. Re:Sounds like by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Coincidently what we call a potato is a result of centuries of cross pollination. Technically you could say there were never really any non-GM potatoes, since cross-pollination is just an old technique for genetically modifying crops.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    136. Re:Sounds like by somersault · · Score: 1

      With insecticides!

      Worst. Hippies. Ever.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    137. Re:Sounds like by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      "Terrorism" is pulling up potatoes?

      Get some fucking perspective.

      Terrorism is CREATING FEAR. Fear of death. Suicide bombers are terrorists. These guys are, at worst, vandals.

    138. Re:Sounds like by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      That sounds like terrorism to me. "Stop making GM plants, or we'll fuck your shit up."

      Kinda analogous to what those idiots did to Sony..

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    139. Re:Sounds like by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      In jail they'd be a charge for the state.

      They probably are already, one way or another.

      They'll brag a whole lot less when the authorities seizes their house and all assets to pay the damage.

      This is Belgium we're talking about. By the time the case comes to court the house will either have fallen down or been subducted due to tectonic drift.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    140. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think genetically modifying the DNA of food is good for you, and suggest you eat only GMO foods, nothing with unmodified DNA at all.

      And I applaud your decision to move right next door to that nuclear plant, with the nuclear waste repository buried onsite.

      As to climate change and global warming, you're right, it's an easy fix. Why just.one nuclear winter could easily chill things down a whole lot.

    141. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No nuclear is a perfect example of people not listening to scientists. It's the perfect example of not listening when scientist and engineers say we have better more modern designs that are safer to replace the aging plants we have now. It's the perfect example of not listening when scientists say that coals produces more pollution than any nuclear waste or accident. It's the perfect example of not listening when they say solar and wind cannot produce base load power. It's the perfect example of not listening when they explain radiation isn't the bogey man that most people think it is (Hint plutonium is safe to hold with your bare hands).

      Do you know how they ship new research fuels from Oak Ridge to test reactors in Idaho? They ship them by fed ex and ups.

    142. Re:Sounds like by sc0p3 · · Score: 1

      Its well known politics not shortage are the reason for famine. The reason we don't feed the poor is because if they stop paying for it the price will diminish and industries will collapse. We've had enough to feed everyone for years.

      GMO keeps it value added so they can charge a premium, using suicide seeds keeps it in the control of Monsanto. Its pretty much all an evil-empire sort of reality but life in a capitalist world without sufficient regulation.

      I support GMO research but also support choice, we need to keep GMO's super tightly regulated & in labs to preserve the rights of people to choose organic food. In the US GMO is everywhere - its virtually impossible to choose not to eat it.

    143. Re:Sounds like by elfprince13 · · Score: 1

      Have fun fixing the IP laws first.

    144. Re:Sounds like by IonOtter · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ah, precisely WHAT "billions of people"?

      Have a watch of "We Feed The World", by Erwin Wagenhofer.

      Have a look at precisely what happens to all of this spectacular bounty of surplus food we could be using to feed starving people. Pay particular attention at 52:10, where Karl Otrok, Director of Production for Pioneer in Romania, explains how things REALLY are...

      "It can be preserved, it could be sent to third countries, to countries that really need it, but it doesn't get sent there. It gets sent back to us, and we've got more than enough to eat...and don't need it at all."

      At little later, he explains things a bit more clearly...

      "When 100,000 people die of starvation, its said we can't feed them, or is it just that we don't want to feed them? From where does the money come from? From the poor! The rich won't let go of their money, only the poor. That's how it is. And it's the same with food; we let them die so we can live. "

      After you get done with that, you can comment on the billions of farm subsidies the US and EU governments pay to industrial farmers, so they can undersell everyone else by two-thirds.

      --
      [End Of Line]
    145. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I talked to them (I live in Belgium). They are opposed to open field experiments with GMO's, which I think is understandable. It's not that they are opposed to science, it's that they start growing these plants when many people do not want them in plain air and want more research in labs first. Why not do these experiments in labs?

    146. Re:Sounds like by lyml · · Score: 1

      That's not the definition of terrorists that's a silly definition. The definition of terrorist is: using terror to accomplish ones political goals.

    147. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      common misconception, GMO's don't have increased yields at all, they're mostly just herbicide resistant.
      you are thinking about ammonia based fertilizer and selective breeding.

    148. Re:Sounds like by eldepeche · · Score: 2

      Attacking a civilian's property is terrorism? You're an idiot.

    149. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Billions more than the Earth can naturally support.

    150. Re:Sounds like by MattskEE · · Score: 1

      >Thanks, but no thanks, we don't want your GMO anymore, we saw what it does.
      Feed billions of people?

      If I could pay a 50% premium on my rice, wheat flour, oats, etc. in order to ensure that none of them were GMO, I probably would. GMO may or may not be harmful, but given the unethical conduct of large agribusiness I don't really trust them to be the ones saying if it's safe or not. The problem is that the Monsanto and farm lobbies have made sure that there are no labeling requirements for GMO foods, so consumers cannot easily make an informed choice about the source of their food.

    151. Re:Sounds like by Kirgin · · Score: 1

      Leasing seeds, being unable to replant or risk being sued. GMO companies buy all the seed companies out to prevent farmers from having a choice. Patenting 6000 years of crop variants so they can sue the shit out of you for planting anything but their crops.

      Feed billions, sure, but what farms can afford to lease their seeds indefinately? They can't so corporations buy the foreclosed assets and leverage their licensing agreements with GMO companies and cheap migrant labor to flood the market with cheap crop and bankrupt even more farmers. The end result in 10 years you will have farming corporations all planting the same monoculture crops and risk having massive round-up resistant blights.

    152. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why is this interesting? does /. use that as an insulting euphemism for stupid?

    153. Re:Sounds like by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      There is only one known case where genes have spread to wild plants, and that was contained.

      As far as GMO contamination of organic farms, that is a legal and political issue. My understanding is that this is quite rare and only affects corn in the US anyway.

      As far as organic farms not being competitive economically, we had all sorts of claims that in fact organic farms were more economical? If in fact they are not they probably deserve to fail as a waste of resources.

    154. Re:Sounds like by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      And the same can be said for plane crashes, or ocean liners, or drilling for oil.

      Almost everything we do carries risk, even "safe" things like natural farming - clearing hedges to make bigger fields, leading to a dustbowl effect...

      Science, industrialism and modern progress is not about 100% eliminating risk - you can do that as effectively as running backwards around the Earth to reverse its rotation - but in minimising them. The fact that there have been nuclear accidents does not mean that being pro-nuclear is a bad position. Given the prevalence of nuclear power relative to coal and comparing the economic, human and ecological damage, nuclear is a long, long way ahead. Is it totally safe? No, of course not.

    155. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I am not sure if this is just trolling, or stupidity at its best. Either way, the world is better served with your mouth shut.

    156. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An exponentially growing population necessitates such research. Your kind should be hung for attempted murder on a scale that cannot be fathomed.

    157. Re:Sounds like by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      Actually, as a taxpayers, they have the full right to do exactly what they actually did: to destroy something that they don't approve. Don't you agree!!!!

    158. Re:Sounds like by js_sebastian · · Score: 1

      For example, and yes, this is real, they make crops that have weaknesses so that you need to buy more pesticides of the kind they sell.

      Not sure about that, though they definitely make plants resistant to a herbicide that they then sell you. But for me the worse is the fact that they sell seeds such that the next generation is not fertile (will not grow). So you cannot just plant some of last year's crop, as farmers have done for millennia. Instead, you need to buy more. If there is a serious economic/social or natural disruption to this supply chain, people will starve. This is mass murder waiting to happen. There is no possible justification for this. In my opinion it should be illegal to develop or sell such stunted seeds.

      Letting a company be in charge of the raw material for your food is a very bad idea, because they think on a short term for profit basis, and do not care if they mess up the nutritional value of the food or otherwise make things worse for everyone around them.

      Exactly. I do not have anything against GM crops in general, I just do not trust the interests of the corporations who develop these crops to be aligned with the interests of humanity, though there is some overlap of course (more productive crops are profitable can help feed the world).

    159. Re:Sounds like by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      I suggest you look up how potatoes grow.

      Seriously. Google > potato > click search.

      We'll wait.

    160. Re:Sounds like by Jaime2 · · Score: 1

      There is only enough arable land in the world to feed five or six billion people on non-GMO crops. If we get rid of genetically modified crops, who decides who dies? I agree that we need to fix the intellectual property laws that drive Monsanto's worst behaviors, but they are absolutely necessary to the survival of the current generation of humans. Norman Borlaug already proved that billions can be saved and he predicted that we will have to double crop yield again by 2050 to prevent mass starvation.

      Does your need to eat "natural veggies" outweigh the needs of others to eat at all?

    161. Re:Sounds like by MaizeMan · · Score: 3, Informative

      By that logic evolution itself is impossible since no traits not already present in the population could ever emerge. Selective breeding can also capture and spread new traits that arise by spontaneous mutation (the same way natural selection drives evolution by acting on the same kinds of new variation). Breeders even have ways of speeding up the process called mutagenesis, to increase how frequently new mutations occur. Most are bad, some are good. Dwarf wheat -- which uses fertilizer much more effectively -- and red grapefruits are two example of new traits produced before the era of genetic engineering by using radiation to knock whole chunks of DNA out of chromosomes (a form of mutation that happens in the wild, but at lower rates, given the lower levels of background radiation).
      Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/science/28crop.html?pagewanted=print

      The safety tests already required of GM crops in the US mean it already costs ~$150 million dollars to get a single new GM trait in a single crop approved for human consumption which is one of the reasons only a handful of giant companies like Monsanto are still in the business of engineering crops. You're right, that's still less than a pharmaceutical company would have to spend to get a drug all the way through regulatory approval, but it's a lot less than the laissez-faire modify whatever they like and release it into the food supply approach many people seem to think is going on.

    162. Re:Sounds like by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 0

      More anti-GMO baloney. Of course they have to be tested. In fact the testing is quite extensive.

      As far as a gene destroying ecosystems, what utter hooey. There is no basis whatsoever to believe any such thing can happen. All you are doing is displaying complete ignorance with such a statement.

    163. Re:Sounds like by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      Selective breeding cannot create traits that do not already exist in the gene stock.

      In a world where mutation does not exist, that would be true.

      We, however, do not live in that world.

      Therefore, you are wrong.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    164. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, but no thanks, we don't want your GMO anymore, we saw what it does.

      Feed billions of people?

      Feed insecticide to billions of people?

      FTFY

    165. Re:Sounds like by Pitr · · Score: 1

      No, this is vandalism.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

      Can we stop calling everything "Terrorism" now?

      --

      --Not to be worried, Pitr fix.
    166. Re:Sounds like by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Selective breeding does in fact create traits that do not exist in the gene stock; there are a variety of ways to make that happen without inserting a gene using genetic engineering. However it is much more haphazard and imprecise to do it this way and these techniques are much less sure of getting the desired result.

      In fact genetic engineering is safer than selective breeding because the control of the process is much better.

    167. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How arrogant is it that a rich person develops technology that could feed billions, is being misused to starve billions just so that billions in profits can be made?

      It's not only arrogant, it's evil, and we all know it. Your defensiveness is clearly showing.

      GMO, like most big business, is all about control, greed and excess profits. There's already enough food to feed the world, the problem is the poor can't afford to pay, and big business won't provide without excessive profits. So people starve. And others, like you, deny the facts so you can feel ok about your overly affluent lifestyle.

      Go ahead, deny away.

    168. Re:Sounds like by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      Except in EU, and there is ONE BIG exceptions in USA. Do you know it? It is called aspartam. Try to google it, but be warned, it could make you stop drinking Coke, forever....

    169. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, but no thanks, we don't want your GMO anymore, we saw what it does.

      Feed billions of people?

      Yeah like it would be used to feed people who can't afford it. Nice try.

    170. Re:Sounds like by TJB+Designs · · Score: 1

      Lets put it this way. Im Irish and i eat many many potatoes. I would never eat those potatoes and I wholeheartedly support those "terrorist assholes" as many of you have dubbed them.

    171. Re:Sounds like by gman003 · · Score: 1

      Whoops, forgot my tags.

    172. Re:Sounds like by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      So you are proposing instead of having thousands and thousands software companies, to have only a few, like Google,Apple,MS, and that would be enough? For the biodiversity i mean. Wow, i have so good sense of humour.

    173. Re:Sounds like by NoSig · · Score: 1

      If you file patents on any GM product that has the capacity to cross-contaminate natural organisms with your patented gene thereby giving you the opportunity to sue people for growing crop with your contaminated gene then you should be thrown in the same pool as Monsanto.

      I'll get on that right away then to swim in Monsanto's pool of money!

    174. Re:Sounds like by MaizeMan · · Score: 2, Informative

      But for me the worse is the fact that they sell seeds such that the next generation is not fertile (will not grow). So you cannot just plant some of last year's crop, as farmers have done for millennia.

      You're right that the technology to make such seeds has been developed (and patented). However no company is now, nor have they in the past, sold seeds genetically engineered to produce sterile offspring ("suicide seeds" "terminator technology" etc) and this is one of the most frustrating pieces of zombie misinformation to confront over and over again in the debate over GM crops.

      There are patented seeds where you are not permitted to resow the seeds the next year (once more because of patents), but regardless of whether or not you think gene patents are a good idea (I do not), in the event of a series economic/social/natural disruption, farmers would just plant the seeds anyway and ignore the intellectual property laws.

      I agree with you that selling plants that are designed to be sterile is indefensible on both pragmatic and ethical levels.

    175. Re:Sounds like by gman003 · · Score: 1

      "___ terrorism" is the new "cyber-___".

    176. Re:Sounds like by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 1

      I do not support the eco-terrorist's approach to destroying this study. That said, their anger is understandable. In their eyes the the biotech industry is creating invasive and possibly harmful species and their government is ignoring or their concerns.

      I don't support GM crops. I understand that people have been selecting the largest and best crops for thousands of years to create new plant varieties. The people on /. are smart enough to realize that this is radically different from inserting genes from different species into bacterial dna and randomly firing it into the nucleus of a target species. I do not believe we can adequately determine a risk profile for these crops with the studies that have been done.

      Everything moves in cycles, and eventually we'll get back to the point where people realize that seed saving, cover crops, and legumes are cheaper than pesticides, herbicides, petro-fertilizers, and GMO seeds. Until then, the organic farmers will happily stumble along in inefficient and dated ways waiting for the world to catch back up.

    177. Re:Sounds like by arkenian · · Score: 1

      I find it highly amusing that half the anti-GMO respondents on this thread are complaining about Monsanto making GMO crops that are sterile, and the other half are complaining that Monsanto didn't do a good enough job making GMO crops that are sterile....

    178. Re:Sounds like by PastaLover · · Score: 1

      This was publicly funded research to end a blight on a major food crop. You might have some problem with GMO (unsupported by the facts), but the intent of this research is pretty damn pure to begin with. Possible consequences to the environment are exactly what these researchers are concerned with in the first place.

      I wouldn't use the word terrorist though. Vandals, more like. Ignorant fools.

    179. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean, 'control the food supplies for billions of people'? You DO see the distinction, don't you?

      GM food is about control first, patents second, science third, and solving world hunger last.

    180. Re:Sounds like by Jesus_666 · · Score: 2

      Well, the post is indicative of how "terrorist" has become a useless word. With certain governments pulling the terrorism card a couple times too often and certain morons seeing terrorists everywhere (remember when Boston was under attack by Lite-Brites?) "terrorism" now carries a connotation of being a heavy-handed attempt at garnering sympathy. A publicity stunt, in essence. Accordingly, "terrorist" has evolved from "scary dogmatic murderer" to "generic bad person".

      Unfortunately, this hasn't discredited terrorism itself, just the term used to describe it.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    181. Re:Sounds like by stanlyb · · Score: 0

      Try to modify your NotePad, and then try to modify your windows directory. Still don't see the difference? What? You mean you don't see anything at all? Sorry, not my fault.

    182. Re:Sounds like by gman003 · · Score: 1

      No, I'm proposing the exact opposite. GM foods are inevitable - we literally could not feed our current population without them. Unless you propose killing off 2 billion people (that's 3.33 hectohitlers, by the way), you're going to have to accept GM foods. So the question then becomes "do we have one GM food company, or one hundred? Do we have one variant of each crop, or a thousand?". Or, to use a computer analogy, "do we want everybody using Windows (one company, only a few variations which are all vulnerable to the same attacks), or do we want everybody using Linux (hundreds of companies, thousands of distros, each different enough that they won't all be affected by the same attack)?".

    183. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, as it turns out, all non-monsanto funded research is pretty clear that higher production yields with GMO crops are a complete fabrication - a scam. You get FEWER crops with GMO. They're still trying to figure out why. One thing's for certain: Doing "scientific research" out in the open, where these proven dangerous GMO crops can contaminate the rest of the food supply is clearly designed to cull the population of humans. Monsanto management should all be tried and hung for treason against humanity, in my opinion.

      Why is called, "Ter

    184. Re:Sounds like by superwiz · · Score: 1

      All terrorists are a bunch of ass holes. So unless you are arguing that this doesn't rise to the level of terrorism, you are not really disagreeing with gp.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    185. Re:Sounds like by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      Try to modify the kernel of your OS, and then try to modify your Notepad. Then you will see the difference Pretty Fast. If you see anything at all of course....

    186. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like activism, or altruism, to me.

      Terrible isn't it, when people have the courage to act upon their convictions?

      The real rebuttal to GMO is here at http://www.onestrawrevolution.net/

    187. Re:Sounds like by gnasher719 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Odd that they don't simply spread their message by not buying these types of food.

      You are absolutely right. And I support one hundred percent a total obligation for all foods to be precisely labelled with exactly what gen-manipulated foods are used in their production. But for some reason Monsanto and friends really don't like people being able to make that decision.

      But actually what you are saying is that in a power struggle between food industry and ordinary people with no power, these ordinary people should only be allowed to use the weakest possible form of protest, while Monsanto can spend 100s of millions to buy politicians.

    188. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think genetically modifying the DNA of food is good for you, and suggest you eat only GMO foods, nothing with unmodified DNA at all.

      I have news for you everything you have ever eaten and will ever eat has had it's DNA modified. You think seedless grapes survived natural selection?

      And I applaud your decision to move right next door to that nuclear plant, with the nuclear waste repository buried onsite.

      I work in a building with a Cobalt 60 source. The experiment I work on produces large amounts of xrays. Do you know how I know it's safe? We measure it. I would rather live next to a Nuclear plant than next to a Coal plant. Did you know that you can hold plutonium with your bare hands? It feels like holding a warm cat.

      As to climate change and global warming, you're right, it's an easy fix. Why just.one nuclear winter could easily chill things down a whole lot.

      And even if every Nuclear power plant in the world suffered a Meltdown simultaneously we still wouldn't be close to a nuclear winter.

    189. Re:Sounds like by superwiz · · Score: 1

      I hope it's a royal "we" in the "we don't know the effects of genetically altering an organism". You may not know. But the people who study it do (or at least will after the experiment is done). Oh, don't forget "what could possibly go wrong" is the epitome of FUD.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    190. Re:Sounds like by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      I would like to see how by artificial selection you could introduce a gene from the deep see fish, in your pretty little corn......I am still trying to see it....Wow, sorry, my imagination is obviously too poor to see how they could "couple"...somehow.....

    191. Re:Sounds like by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Define "unsafe".

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    192. Re:Sounds like by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      I want to see the tests, and result of the tests, please. What? You don't have them????

    193. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You incompetent twit.

      ALL your foods are genetically modified.

      Ancient cultures planting seeds from better-tasting plants? Genetic selection. Spread that out over time and you've got genetic modification.
      Selecting breeding by farmers? A lot more direct, but is almost as ancient as the selective breeding of plants, another method of genetic modification.
      Just because our methods have changed, doesn't mean man's modification of his food to suit his needs is something new.

      You want some un-modified food? Go start gnawing on a pinecone, that's one thing that hasn't been genetically modified for food (yet).

      Last time I checked, the whole Potato Famine of the mid-1800s happened long before scientists in labs accelerated our genetic modification powers. How many famines have been avoided, and lives saved by stronger, better-yielding plants? Latest estimates are at well over 1,000,000,000.

    194. Re:Sounds like by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I wonder what they'd do if potato blight broke out?

    195. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this is what was implied by "what id does"

      “The Failure of Science”: New paper makes a damning case against genetically modified food crops
      http://www.ethicurean.com/2009/06/03/lotter-gmopaper/

      and here

      "Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in your food may make you sick. Studies link GMOs with toxins, allergies, infertility, infant mortality, immune dysfunction, stunted growth, accelerated aging, and death. Whistleblowers were fired, threatened, and gagged. Warnings by FDA scientists were ignored. Expert Jeffrey M. Smith, author of the #1 GMO bestseller Seeds of Deception, and Genetic Roulette, presents SHOCKING evidence why these gene-spliced crops may lead to health and environmental catastrophes. Learn how to protect yourself and discover the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America—a brilliant plan to quickly end the genetic engineering of our food supply."
      http://vimeo.com/6575475

    196. Re:Sounds like by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Artificial selection is a form of genetic modification. There is a certain rate of mutation due to DNA copying process not being exact. "Artificial selection" is just a process of selecting that which has been naturally genetically modified to have preferred traits. The idea that you can't speed the process up by creating DNA changes without waiting for a random mutation to make them is an idea that would only occur to a complete luddite.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    197. Re:Sounds like by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Knowing only after the experiment of planting a bunch out in an open field isn't a very good option.

    198. Re:Sounds like by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      "Defenders agaust the selfish, and irresposible profit-seeking bio-companies" when those companies might prevent disasters like the Irish potato famine of 1740-1741. There are a lot of people on the planet and disease resistant crops are very important in feeding them.

      Another issue is that it is up to food regulators to make reasonable rules to reign in irresponsible companies. An interesting point that the slanted report did not mention; the trial was done by the University of Ghent and not company.

    199. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then if someone does exactly that you'll scream "you can't do anything with that! You only tested it in the lab, not in the wild! You're being reckless and irresponsible!"

      Hell, why am I even trying to reason with some shithead who believes that might makes right? "Hooray, it's a wonderful day! Vigilante violence was used to stop something I don't like! I'd be horrified if vigilante violence was used to keep minorities from voting but when they're sabotaging GMO research, that's A-OK and the end justifies the means!" Dickweed.

    200. Re:Sounds like by Hylandr · · Score: 5, Informative

      To those who haven't been paying attention to the world seed market, this may appear to be an appropriate response. Granted, they hardly did us any favors by taking this path, but their intentions were honorable. Don't Mod me until you have read the rest of this. I have references.

      Genetically altered plants have been engineered in such a fashion that future generations of food bearing plants are *sterile* requiring you to *buy new seeds * every year. As in, You can't save a few ears of corn to re-plant next year. You have to rely on the corporation with the patent on the seed to allow you to buy more.

      In some countries this is illegal, however precedence has been set where one filed of non-altered plants were rendered sterile by another field of steile-altered-plants and the victim with the non-sterile plants ( to start with ) was sued in court and *lost*.

      We have grown accustomed to our freedoms being legislated away but this has dangerous implications on the sustainability our food supply.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology

      http://www.healthy-eating-politics.com/genetically-modified-plants.html

      For the record, and Heirloom seed is a seed that is not genetically altered.

      - Dan.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    201. Re:Sounds like by superwiz · · Score: 1

      They are not fighting kings. They are fighting scientists. Most scientists are middle class. But more importantly, these terrorists, are fighting humanity at large. They are destroying for the sake of destruction the product of human thought.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    202. Re:Sounds like by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      Here you go: http://www.fitnessvenues.com/uk/what-is-aspartame http://www.tpuc.org/node/258 Is that what you call "biodiversity"??? Introducing new illness?

    203. Re:Sounds like by superwiz · · Score: 1

      One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

      No person's freedom was gained nor will be gained as a result of this terrorist act. This is nihilism for its own sake.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    204. Re:Sounds like by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      While it would be amusing to apply that label here, it doesn't fit except by the most repressive government standards of "terrorism". They're attacking a specific economic and political practice, they're not attacking people or facilities unrelated to that practice, and they're not engaging in violence. That makes it quite clearly political, and potentially justifiable.

      GMO presents some real benefits, and some real risks, compounded by the commercial desires to draw profit for genetic modification, by monopolistic practices that encourage single-breed agriculture, by the unmanageable cross-fertilization between GMO and non-GMO plants of all sorts. and aggravated by the _speed_ of development and release of GMO crops. They've little opportunity to be tested against other breeds, they can trigger unexpected food allergies, and the use of such monocultures encourages other worldwide blights.

      This does not justify this kind of attack, but it makes it politically feasible.

    205. Re:Sounds like by anyGould · · Score: 2

      It's supposed to be sterile, but it's not 100% sterile - a small percentage can still reproduce.

      Either that, or Monsanto is seeding this stuff in ditches around Alberta.

    206. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Feed billions of people?"

      Drive thousands of Indian farmers to suicide?

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_suicides_in_India

    207. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ardent "environmentalist" here. I am for responsible use of our land and common resources, and taking care of our atmosphere and oceans. No logging old growth forests, no building roads on the public dime into national forests so that oil and gas companies can easily reach resources at below their true cost (yes, it's happened), I am for responsible subsidies to industries that can realistically lower our carbon footprint, and can reduce waste in general. I'm also hugely pro-nuclear. I am all for GMO crops. Crops that use less water, have higher yields, and can grow more densely? Great! Patents on such a crop? Sure, I guess. If you did the research, you should get the reward. But it should expire quickly, like a pharmaceutical patent, because it's a humanitarian issue.
       
      Crops that are "round-up ready"? Not so much. It's the vested corporate interest and control over the food supply that scares me, not the "scary genetic modifications".
       
      "Environmentalists" have gotten a bad name and have largely been co-opted in the public eye by a fringe wing of new-age unthinking idiots that seemingly would prefer to live in the dark ages without power, personal transportation, modern food, or medicine. Those aren't environmentalists, they're an extremist political group. The rest of us don't like you associating them with us.

    208. Re:Sounds like by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      Yep, and the potato blight is a myth too.....wait a minute, really?

    209. Re:Sounds like by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      Which if you had read my post, I indicated by stating it does not require indirect use of GM foods for farm animals (meaning the 'feed' used on farm animals does not need to be indicated on a food label since it is an 'indirect' ingredient'). I also noted that indirect GM food sources are irrelevant to a potato. I mean really, my post was only 2 sentences long sans the URL. Was it really that hard to read the second sentence?

      The law requires that any direct ingredients involving genetically modified food must be labeled as such. It does not require indirect use of GM foods for farm animals, but that's irrelevant for potatoes.

    210. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wheat ? Not really that good for you

      How on earth is wheat not really good for you? It is basically one of the best foods for human consumption on the planet - with very good proportions of carbohydrates, fat, and protein.

      Unless you were talking about the abuse of wheat: like white bread or anything non-whole wheat, really, then I can understand your statement.

    211. Re:Sounds like by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Is that a thinly veiled suggestion? ;-)

    212. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Starve billions of people?"

      Fixed that. GMO almost guarantees a massive crop failure at some point and it may take years to recover from it. Just focusing on potatoes in Ireland lead to the potato famine. GMO crops are designed to work within very specific conditions so when a factor changes like a new disease or pest they can't cope as well as natural crops. Most people think GMO means super crops that are hardier than traditional crops but that's simply not true. GMO crops have already been shown to kill some insects like butterflies. Who cares about butterflies? well they can kill bees as well, some have built in insecticide and bees happen to be insects. We loose bees and we loose a lot of our crops that are essential for our survival.

    213. Re:Sounds like by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That is such a dumb comment your brain must be completely turned off. As other commenters have mentioned, anything that can be done with genetic modification can be done naturally.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    214. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you need to shut the fuck up.

    215. Re:Sounds like by RussR42 · · Score: 1

      So, basically your argument is "OMG, something bad might somehow happen!"? Perhaps we should all just revert to the freakin' stone age because all that other technology might have some side effect.

    216. Re:Sounds like by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      The plants' own seeds will not grow into plants. The plants' pollen suffers no such restriction.

      To put it into human terms, a man's wife being barren does not prevent the man from finding another woman to bear his child.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    217. Re:Sounds like by KingMotley · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ask the government for a handout, of course.

    218. Re:Sounds like by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      You simply lack imagination. You do realize that ALL genes existing in ALL species randomly mutated at one point or another, don't you? You're denying something that has ALREADY actually happened, unless you are YEC.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    219. Re:Sounds like by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that nearly all crop plants where hybrids since the beginning of the "green revolution" worldwide. Meaning, the wheat, beans, peas and corn that is grown today is sterile. Nothing to do with GM, just hybridizing the crops for better yields and resistance.

    220. Re:Sounds like by chickenarise · · Score: 2

      Both, in a way...The GM corn is sterile, but it does produce pollen with terminator genes. This pollen can pollinate regular corn and cause the next generation of corn to be sterile.

      --
      One convenient locations...in Africa.
    221. Re:Sounds like by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      Isn't it obvious? Isn't eating food full of herbicide a concern for you?

      I would be really worried.....if I were an herb.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    222. Re:Sounds like by rishistar · · Score: 2

      Odd that they don't simply spread their message by not buying these types of food.

      That is actually one of the reasons GM food isn't a big thing in the EU - there is a labelling requirement. Ironically Monsanto et al have been lobbying for this requirement to be removed (as it is in the US) strangely arguing the removal of a GM food labelling requirement would increase consumer choice!

      --
      Professor Karmadillo Songs of Science
    223. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, but no thanks, we don't want your GMO anymore, we saw what it does.

      Feed billions of people?

      - Destroy emerging markets by flooding them with grains cheaper than what can be produce in that country
        - Depress food costs on food that has really shitty nutritional value, leading to an increase in consumption of those foods based on price factor
        - Long term exposure to low levels of chemicals that are specific to certain GMO-style plants (the chemical is produced inside the plant..kinda hard to separate it out)

      The list goes on and on...

      We managed to feed millions and millions of people without this contrived horse crap. Why do we need it now? Give me a really, really good reason, one so compelling that I'll say "yes, we really need it".

      If you say "but think of the children...erm, profits!" I'll fucking deck you.

    224. Re:Sounds like by REALMAN · · Score: 1

      Sounds to me like some heroes who need to be awarded commendations for their service to the future human race.

      --
      - A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
    225. Re:Sounds like by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      How about hybrid varieties of corn and wheat, which has been standard since at least the 1950s?

      These hybrids do not produce viable seeds because they are hybrids. So haven't farmers been buying seed every year anyway?

    226. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It seems you didn't hear about the story of that farmer, who unwillingly, had his field infected with GMO, because others around were using it (but not him). Then, enormously-wealthy Monsanto sued the poor farmer for using GMOs without buying the copyright they have on the patented seeds.

      That's hardly GMOs fault, but rather idiotic american laws.

    227. Re:Sounds like by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      Because in the Western world, if not the entire world, we had this thing called the "green revolution" back in the 1950s, 60s and 70s which resulted in the propogation of hybrid crops everywhere.

      So don't farmers have to buy seeds every year anyway?

    228. Re:Sounds like by chickenarise · · Score: 1
      What the fuck are you blathering about?

      If some disease finds a vulnerability in the pesticide resistance...

      Spoken like a true dumbass.

      --
      One convenient locations...in Africa.
    229. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see no disinformation.

      Selection is still a form of genetic manipulation though not a very efficient one.

    230. Re:Sounds like by stanlyb · · Score: 0

      Actually, it already has happened. If you don;t believe me, try to drink diet coke, only, and call after 1 year (if you are still alive of course, i don't wanna to speak with your long dead spirit)

    231. Re:Sounds like by Graham+J+-+XVI · · Score: 1

      You don't speak for me. I don't ignore scientists when it comes to nuclear power and GMO crops. Nuclear power is efficient and safe - until Fukushima happens. GMO is productive and safe - until something unanticipated happens or, say, five companies own all the patents.

    232. Re:Sounds like by Latinhypercube · · Score: 0

      NO. What demonic companies like Monsanto are doing is TERRORISM. GM food is NOT the same as Organic food. USDA has never even fully investigated the differences. GM proteins are NOT the same as organic proteins. Also, engineering crops that are the only plants that can survive a specific pesticide and then spreading that pesticide everywhere is food terrorism.

    233. Re:Sounds like by navyjeff · · Score: 1

      Both. They try to make it sterile, but as in mules, life finds a way to reproduce occasionally.

    234. Re:Sounds like by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      Most major food chains in the US elected to NOT use GM foods as as is their right, and they should advertise that if they feel strongly about it. I absolutely think that labeling is important so that consumers can choose. EU did it right in that regard. The sad thing is that the use of animal feed that is GM is not considered as a primary ingredient for animal food products like meat or milk. Labeling GM foods, even those that contribute to an animal product via feed, should be required, or at least the product in question should be certified as GM free (there have been instances where tests did show that the use of animal feeds did show up in the animal product itself and that should be indicated on the label). That said, a potato is a tuber and is created from a cloned plant (you plant the potato itself to grow a new crop of potatoes. The chance of cross pollination is pretty remote.

      If these folks were going to protest a 'risky' crop, they should have picked an actual 'risky' variety which would be much more likely to cause cross pollination and they definitely shouldn't have broken the law to demonstrate that point.

    235. Re:Sounds like by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      Yep, and you see aliens in your backyard. And Elvis Presley is still alive. Your logic is rocking.

    236. Re:Sounds like by matunos · · Score: 1
      Except a ruined crop of GMO potatoes just doesn't strike terror into me like two collapsed skyscrapers full of people, or a train bomb.

      I think the word you're looking for is "sabotage".

    237. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After lab experiments, environmental tests need to be done - or are these protesters not interested on the possible effects on the environment (they claim they are, but are they?). That is why they are testing this on fields in open air now.

    238. Re:Sounds like by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      So you're against science.

      Says the person who apparently believes that someone who wants to perform experiments to determine the safety of a product rather than taking the declaration of the High Priest... sorry, the manufacturer... at face value is "against science"

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    239. Re:Sounds like by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, but have you driven through the US anytime since 1950?

      Nobody has been planting seeds harvested from the same farm since then, because nearly all of the crops have been grown from hybrid seeds - which do not reproduce.

      In the 1970s we shipped the hybridizing technology overseas and it significantly changed how crops were grown in places like India. Yes, they were using traditional methods and getting fairly low yields by comparison with the West. New crops (hybrids) changed that and increased the yields significantly. Everyone was getting more food and the farmers were getting more out of the same ground. No, they couldn't plant seeds from their crop anymore.

      Now people are saying that with GMO it is somehow different. I don't see the difference. Nobody in the US, Canada or probably anywhere in the EU has been planting anything except hybrid crops for the last 50 years or so.

    240. Re:Sounds like by Latinhypercube · · Score: 0

      sounds more like your gay fantasy

    241. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You like GMO's? How's your digestive health these days? good luck

      I'm A perfectly healthy 110 lb's (Hint I exercise). No digestive problems what so ever. You do realize that average life expectancy is still increasing.
      http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=united+states+average+life+expectance

    242. Re:Sounds like by gutnor · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You do not need GMO to save the world of starvation. There is plenty enough food to feed everyone. And if you stop subsiding agriculture in first world countries, you will find remaining starvation problems are due to either shitty infrastructure (i.e. complete disregard by the local authority) or civil war/unrest.

      Finding the magic crop to save the world is just another PR line like binging democracy, and the current real life use of GMO are as far from fulfilling that line as you can get.

    243. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    244. Re:Sounds like by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      you would realize that many of the protesters are local farmers.

      yeah, right. And most of the Iranians who occupied the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979 were 'students.'

    245. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where are my mod points when I need them? Mod parent up!
      GM food has caused so much trouble in the environment and our health that it's gonna take ages before nature heals man's "wise" deeds.

      I am pro-science overall but on the topic of GM stuff I'm absolutely firm that it's a step in the wrong direction.

    246. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Don't You Dare Sue Me if your genes escape!

    247. Re:Sounds like by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      I usually don't have to call bullshit on snopes, but they should have mentioned that the Cavendish is the second banana with widespread use. Panama Disease wiped out the Gros Michel banana plantations, and led to the development of Cavendish bananas, which were apparently resistant to Panama Disease (at the time).

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    248. Re:Sounds like by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      it was a lab. Just happened to be an outdoor one.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    249. Re:Sounds like by he-sk · · Score: 1

      Organic farming can feed the world's population (and then some) using the current agricultural land base. Source: http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2007/july/19783.htm

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    250. Re:Sounds like by FatSean · · Score: 1

      A few years for destroying a crop? Advocating prison rape so when they come out they'll be more likely to be violent towards people? You're so cute when you're frothy.

      --
      Blar.
    251. Re:Sounds like by Kitkoan · · Score: 1

      Is it really that hard to think that there are more GMO's then potatoes? Really? Is it that hard? And is it so hard to think that maybe, just maybe, because potatoes are so cheap that maybe, just maybe, they end up in the feed? Really?

      --
      Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
    252. Re:Sounds like by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Your comment doesn't address the point. The genes of domesticated plants differ greatly from the genes of their pre-domestication ancestors, probably to a greater extent than anything that's been done so far by Monsanto and others. Our action has modified them, so calling them 'genetically modified' would be accurate if we are going just by the meanings of those two individual words. What they aren't is DIRECTLY genetically modified.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    253. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope.

      Vandalism, not terrorism. These people didn't cause much terror. Now, if they were killing farmers/scientists/cops, then perhaps you could call it terrorism. Or at least rioting.

      They trampled and poisoned a potato field, and ruined an easily repeated scientific experiment. Unfriendly, but hardly terrorism.

    254. Re:Sounds like by FatSean · · Score: 1

      Wow you are stupid. Leveraging the natural sexual reproduction process vs. cut-n-pasting genes? You should leave this thread, you're too ignorant to participate.

      --
      Blar.
    255. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still don't see the point what's so great about biodiversity?

    256. Re:Sounds like by PReDiToR · · Score: 1

      Most of the fears of GM foods are unreasonable and just bizarre if you've passed 6th grade science class. You won't get alien genes from eating them. The risk of allergic reaction is about the same as with any new crop variant. They won't turn you into some kind of science fantasy monster.

      [citation needed]

      Or proof would do. I think you may be right, but I've got a few decades of life that I'd like to enjoy and the say so of a few guys who can't even tell me how to get rid of my cold doesn't really inspire me.

      Throwing some burnt matches and water into a crucible made of all the trace elements in your body and bubbling hydrogen through it won't lead to life, will it? Yet it somehow did.

      Long term is long, to rip on a meme.

      The terrible thing is that I actually think that research like this is vital to the survival of our race. Getting us into space and relying on this is the only way we're going to avoid killing this planet and dying along with it. I guess I'm playing devil's advocate. Better protection for our ONLY environment and more funding for off world expeditions would give us places to try this stuff without danger to every human being alive if it somehow does manage to create a problem.

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
    257. Re:Sounds like by he-sk · · Score: 1

      Interspecies gene transfer occurs naturally as well, e.g. through viruses.

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    258. Re:Sounds like by nahdude812 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree that there's a lot of inappropriate FUD surrounding GM products, but there are also very good reasons for people to be concerned. GM products tend to be genetically homogenous, and that is very weak from an evolutionary context. It suggests that a new fungus, virus, insect, or other form of danger may arise which can destroy the entire plant line. Over-dependence on GM plants is a monumental leap backwards in terms of survivability to new threats.

      Also GM companies have a pretty shady history and a lot of very dark actions in their past, and I don't trust them to make decisions which are good for anyone in the world other than their stockholders. For example, selling the third world seeds which will grow only sterile plants (removing their ability to be self sufficient). Suing farmers whose plants end up being fertilized with GM products from a neighboring field, and so forth. I trust GM companies to be honest about GM plants and livestock about as much as I trust tobacco companies to be honest about cigarettes in the late 80's and early 90's.

      I think there's nowhere near enough regulation over GM products. I don't think any private entity should be allowed to commercially produce sterile plants or livestock, and I think they should be required to provide funding for genetic seed banks to protect against the damage they do to genetic diversity (I think they should not be allowed to run those seed banks themselves). I think there's a lot of value to GM products, but I think there's a lot of potential danger too, and I don't trust any private entity to honestly tell me about the dangers along with the benefits.

    259. Re:Sounds like by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's likely that they're trying to protect the genetic purity of their own crops.

      When a GM crop is created, it's patented. Natural pollination will contaminate the genetic purity of the natural crop. Eventually, the local farmers won't be able to keep seed for their own crops because they'll all be contaminated by the GM grown nearby. This has happened time and time again. Local farmers are raided and shut down because their crops have been contaminated and they're now infringing on the IP of some bio-tech firm.

      Additionally, GMO toxins have been detected in the blood of fetuses, potentially effecting development. The jury is still out on the safety of GMO foods. God has had millions of years to work on this stuff, but we've been at it for only a few years and already a significant amount of commercially available food is GMO. What are the long term consequences? The bio-tech firms don't care what the consequences are...because they're making a buck.

      So, for all those calling this "terrorism", you need to take your weenie hat off and man-up. I would liken a GM crop grown nearby to an uncontrolled wildfire. The local farmers who are protesting this are trying to protect their own crops.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    260. Re:Sounds like by he-sk · · Score: 1

      What government is claiming that ships don't sink or planes don't crash? Please tell me, so I can stay clear of them in the future.

      OTOH, after Chernobyl most Western governments claimed that such a thing could NEVER happen in the West, because our technology and safety measures are SO much better than those of these (godless, communist) Soviets. And then Fukushima proved them wrong.

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    261. Re:Sounds like by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      So by your logic, all GM's should be banned, even if the risk of cross pollination is remote. One bad apple and all of that. That's a bit like saying we will ban all energy research because Nuclear power is dangerous. If the government lacks regulation/transparency, then they should fix that, but don't destroy research because you simply disagree with it. Belgium is not under a dictatorship. The people do have legal means to get their point across.

      Also consider that this was a test crop. Unless things are drastically different there, I highly doubt this test crop would end up as feed somewhere.

    262. Re:Sounds like by evilviper · · Score: 1

      I don't know what you're talking about, and I don't think you do, either. I've never heard of any GMO research to make crops resistant to any "targeted" herbicides. However, "Roundup resistant" crops is a common goal of GMO research, and Roundup is a decidedly non targeted herbicide. In fact combining targeted herbicide and crop resistance to said herbicide is rather a redundant exercise.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    263. Re:Sounds like by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      Yes, you can do that with a potato. You cannot do that with just about any other current food crop in the Western hemisphere. They are all hybrids and have been since around 1960 or so. In the 70s we spread this around the world so today it is doubtful that you can grow corn anywhere and use it as seed the next year. All of the corn you can buy in seed form today is hybridized and doesn't produce viable seeds.

    264. Re:Sounds like by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      Heh, you think you're clever now?

      Suppose those activists actually do something good for a change and terrorize big pharma, patent trolls, "IP right lobbyists", and politicians.

      Wouldn't it be better than attacking scientific research?

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    265. Re:Sounds like by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      then I trust the free market to make the right decision and choose the seed that is best for the food supply.

      That, actually, is a mistake in an era of regulatory capture and corporatism. You think that only applies to the phone company and ISPs?

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    266. Re:Sounds like by DamienNightbane · · Score: 0

      Sounds to me like someone on that farm should have bought a good hunting rifle or two.

    267. Re:Sounds like by lostthoughts54 · · Score: 1

      I admit dont pay too much attention to GM foods controversy. This comment slightly confuses me. The roundup rdy controversy was about GM planting to be resistant to pesticides and herbicides, making it possible to drench the fields in the stuff. This is bad for the environment, and i agree with people against this case. If i am incorrect about this in something let me know. The case in the article seems to be vastly different imo. from the article: "Ten years of engineering and heaps of money went into developing the so-called ‘DURPH-potato’ which is designed to be resistant to Phytophtora, a potato disease " so this wasnt doing anything to further hurt the environment.No boost in pesticide resistance. It sounds like a good thing to me. I guess my questions are: Are you against all GMing food period or just doing it for things to make the environment worse? If against all, why? using a single example(or alot of examples) of something being used for a bad purpose, doesnt make the thing being used evil, just shows some people are. Why stop something that can solve a major world issue?
      if the later, why go against one of the research projects that seems it might actually help? why not raid one of the pesticide resistant research projects?

      If you want to do research, feel free to do it IN THE LABS, but absolutely NOT IN THE WILD.

      I personally feel it is better environmentally to do this in the wild, rather than destroying a larger section of nature to build a complex to house the lab. did this experiment hurt the "wild" in a way that justifies its destruction? Or was this a case of people seeing GM, and just running in on a misguided notion of principle?

    268. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It saddens me to see utter bullshit like this somehow got a +3 insightful. Guess Monsato's got a few moderators on the payroll.

      You are eating the plant's seeds and/or seed covers. Without pollination, there is no seed and/or seed cover to sell. No corn, no pumpkin, no apples, no oranges, nothing. The reason farmers must buy new seeds every year is because of terminator genes.

    269. Re:Sounds like by Yaa+101 · · Score: 1

      Insightful, my ass...

      It's the other way around, there are billions of people because there is too much food.
      And... the reason some people are hungry has nothing to do with the amount of food being here.

      If you think it through you will see they are part of the same problem.

    270. Re:Sounds like by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2

      Actually, it is the opposite. They cow milk is know to the human race for some few 1000 years, and YET we, the human beings, are still not able to digest it! But of course, playing with the DNA of the animals and vegetables is much more safer, and predictable, right? Btw, in medicine, they have some very simple rule. DO NOT mix 2-3-4 medicine, without knowing after many many years of tests what the final result could be (and even then do it precaution), and yet you MIX the very foundation of life, the kernel if you let me say, and without knowing even the slightest side effect!!!!! Sorry boy, you are plainly 1st grade.

      Ouch. You do realize that the human race has been genetically modifying plants and animals for thousands of years in order to promulgate those characteristics we consider most beneficial to us? Genetic engineering is more direct nowadays, but nevertheless it is nothing new.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    271. Re:Sounds like by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what's more amusing - the non-sequitur about claims of safety regarding air travel or that you think Fukushima is *anything like* Chernobyl at all.

      It's not even in the same ballpark in damage, type of accident, consequences, style of reactor... in fact, just about the only thing they have in common is that both places were nuclear power plants.

      If you can't even acknowledge that the similarities between the two accidents are about as similar as the Hindenburg disaster and the crash of a modern airliner, then I'm not even sure it's worth debating it with you (which I'm more than happy to do).

      Chernobyl really cannot happen in "the west" purely because it's literally impossible (due to the reactor designs in question), not because nuclear power stations are immune to accidents.

    272. Re:Sounds like by Gryle · · Score: 1

      They should undergo safety testing as rigorous as pharmaceuticals.

      I believe that's what the scientists in the article were attempting to do when these "peaceful protesters" (the article's words, not mine) decided it was okay to just rip everything up.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    273. Re:Sounds like by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      So, the scientists have time machines and are able to "know" the long term effects of modifying an organism?

      Even artificial selection relies on the genetic traits already present in the cross-pollinated organisms. Directly modifying the genes can produce the intended result, but also unintended consequences that may not be immediately apparent. What are the long term consequences?

      The problem I have with scientists playing god is that they're directly effecting the lives of others, without being responsible for it (or about it.)

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    274. Re:Sounds like by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 1

      Cows were domesticated in the Neolithic, about 10,000 years ago. They were (and are) used for their meat, their hides, as beasts of burden, in sports, and yes, for their milk, which large swaths of the population can digest just fine. It's rare for children to not be able to digest milk, and as for adults there may be some drop off in the ability to digest milk but that is largely dependent on the genetic background. Scandinavians for instance have the highest proportion of adults able to digest lactose (over 80%) while in China it's rare.

      Nobody's "playing" with DNA much less the "very foundation of life," whatever that is. What we have is minor changes, typically the incorporation of one or a small number of exogenous genes, made to the organisms and rigorous testing goes on long before you get a large scale field experiment that these criminals destroyed. Having worked as a scientist on both agricultural and medical projects I can tell you from experience that the techniques, the science, the ethics, and the governmental regulations have great similarity. It takes a bit more than a decade to go from identifying a target for disease X to getting something through a Phase III clinical trial and FDA approval. Similarly the DURPH-potato experiment had 10 years worth of R&D behind it.

      There are roughly 12,000 approved prescription drugs listed in the FDA's Electronic Orange Book. The vast majority of those 2-4 drug combinations do not go through the same rigorous testing that a new drug goes through; there certainly are not Phase III trials for each possible two-drug combination. What testing I know of usually doesn't go past cell culture and if you have elderly relatives taking many different medications you come across unforeseen and undesirable drug interactions with some frequency.

    275. Re:Sounds like by Hylandr · · Score: 5, Informative

      then I trust the free market to make the right decision and choose the seed that is best for the food supply.

      That, actually, is a mistake in an era of regulatory capture and corporatism. You think that only applies to the phone company and ISPs?

      Screwmaster's This sentiment is correct. Monsanto, specifically, has been suing farms not using their seeds as well. Here's the details:

      http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goliath_and_David:_Monsanto's_Legal_Battles_against_Farmers

      http://nelsonfarm.net/

      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/26/eveningnews/main4048288.shtml

      So much for a free market...

      - Dan.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    276. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to introduce you to my friend Horizontal Gene Transfer.

    277. Re:Sounds like by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      How arrogant is it of a species secure in their subsistance to say "No, we could stop playing God with genetics and artificially engineering superspecies that wipe out their competitors, if we simply solved our starvation problems with sensible population control and by sharing the wealth with those less priveliged, but we'd rather greedily hoard and screw like bunnies while claiming that a mythical sky daddy doesn't want us to use birth control, so fuck any species that's not directly useful to our own."

    278. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there's that corn that was supposed to be the answer to everything that they're now discovering retains its poisonous attributes even after being cooked.

      Maybe that never happened, I don't know. But ehrichweiss clearly gave an example of what was meant by "unsafe", so your questioning what they mean by "unsafe" just makes you look like a Monsato shrill.

    279. Re:Sounds like by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      Then advocate tests (which are almost certainly already being done). Destroying experiments makes you simple terrorists. And who thought the Luddites died out?

    280. Re:Sounds like by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      On top of which GM crops are often crippled so that you can't re-plant from their seeds, forcing you to go back to the supplier to buy more.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    281. Re:Sounds like by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      Well, there is some currency to the idea of anthropomorphising everything.

      So, how would you view it from the potato's perspective? Death, wouldn't you say? Probably pretty terrorising, wouldn't you say? So from the potato's perspective these people are clearly terrorists. Genocidal mass-murderers.

      Just because your worldview doesn't encompass the viewpoint of the potato doesn't mean theirs isn't valid.

    282. Re:Sounds like by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Define "unsafe".

      "Not absolutely, perfectly, risk-free under all conditions"

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    283. Re:Sounds like by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      It was an act of violence to harm a field of scientific research that could help humanity in ways these loons can't even imagine. I'd say that's just as bad.

    284. Re:Sounds like by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Except in EU, and there is ONE BIG exceptions in USA. Do you know it? It is called aspartam. Try to google it, but be warned, it could make you stop drinking Coke, forever....

      The taste of Diet Coke was enough to make me stop drinking it, forever. But you're right: substantial corruption was necessary for Aspartame (originally deemed unsafe by the FDA) to gain regulatory approval. I avoid the stuff, personally. Water and the occasional beer do just fine for me, so far as beverages are concerned.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    285. Re:Sounds like by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      So you are proposing instead of having thousands and thousands software companies, to have only a few, like Google,Apple,MS, and that would be enough? For the biodiversity i mean. Wow, i have so good sense of humour.

      Re-read the GP's comment.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    286. Re:Sounds like by EpitomicIndifference · · Score: 1

      Realistically, explain to me the difference beyond the time investment.

      In the case of biotech transgene injection, the introduced gene doesn't need to be from the same type of organism (e.g. an animal gene in a plant). This produces some pretty sketchy plants, IMO. Also, see the controversy over 'terminator seeds' which don't exist through artificial selection.

    287. Re:Sounds like by elfprince13 · · Score: 1

      Please remind me at which point in my previous remarks I made any comment in support of the behavior of these activists. Thanks, ~Your friendly neighborhood scientist.

    288. Re:Sounds like by bytesex · · Score: 2

      "Genetically altered plants have been engineered in such a fashion that future generations of food bearing plants are *sterile* requiring you to *buy new seeds * every year."

      I thought that was proven to be a myth. And that Monsanto simply relies on contract law, mostly.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    289. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuclear power is efficient and safe - until Fukushima happens.

      You clearly haven't been listening to the scientists about Fukushima. For instance like Nobel Prize winning Physicist Dr. Steven Chu
      http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/15/news/sc-dc-chu-nuclear-energy-20110316

    290. Re:Sounds like by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      There are several kinds of nuclear plants. Some are theoretically near-impossible to be a problem, and some are not. We've had accidents in the ones that are not. Even those still have a better record than basically anything else that generates power at that scale today.

      The similarity between these things is a particularly never-ending invocation of the precautionary principle.

      To be fair, some climate change support comes from that too. Just because people come to the correct answer doesn't mean they got there for the right reasons.

    291. Re:Sounds like by sarku · · Score: 1

      Most, if not all, GM plants are engineered so that they don't produce pollen. That's why farmers need to buy new seeds every year. This is done in order to prevent flux of engineered material to nature.

      Bullshit. They're engineered like that so you have to keep buying their product. Wake up.

    292. Re:Sounds like by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 2

      So you trust the free market to work in a commercial environment where government regulation has created artificial monopolies, namely intellectual property rights on plants? Does not work. Patents are the antitheses of the free market, and only put in place because apparently, the free market is not capable of supporting innovation without government regulation.

    293. Re:Sounds like by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      The reason farmers must buy new seeds every year is because of terminator genes

      This is false. Period. Your own link points out that they aren't used in commercial products.

      Farmers have to buy new seed because:
      1. They agreed to do that when they purchased the seed in the first place.
      2. Many crops are hybridized, and the second generation doesn't produce very well.

    294. Re:Sounds like by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      That said, there's no question its MOSTLY a nefarious plot to make money off farmers ;)

      Exactly. Monsanto sells their GM seed for more than their standard seed, and the farmers have to buy less herbicide and pesticide.

    295. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of people out there who don't simply define themselves as "environmentalists", but look at individual issues and see potential issues that should be mitigated against.

      To take that a step further, isn't everyone environmentalist these days? I mean, we all live in the environment and have no desire to see it poisoned. The only alternative view I'm aware of is the theory that we can always engineer our way out of any problem we engineer our way into - that if cars heat up the planet, we'll build things to deal with the problems that causes as and when they arise. I don't think that argument is very popular. Everyone else has to consider what effect we have on the environment as part of general engineering and political decision making. That makes us all environmentalists and thus makes the word redundant.

    296. Re:Sounds like by Jamu · · Score: 0

      About ten thousand years is not what I'd call a few years. We've been genetically modifying crops from about the beginning of civilization. It's only the methods we use that have changed. Toxins are a product of our farming techniques. Using crops more resistent to the pesticides, then spraying more of it, or using more powerful pesticides. Using inferior technology is not going to solve the root cause of this. We need to look at the way we farm, not champion a bunch of ignorant luddites.

      --
      Who ordered that?
    297. Re:Sounds like by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Except that many Monsanto plants are known to cross-polinate with normal plants in the field. But do not let the facts get in the way to the propaganda here.

    298. Re:Sounds like by Hylandr · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Genetically altered plants have been engineered in such a fashion that future generations of food bearing plants are *sterile* requiring you to *buy new seeds * every year."

      I thought that was proven to be a myth. And that Monsanto simply relies on contract law, mostly.

      No Myth, and still moving forward:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Terminator_seed_controversy

      - Dan.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    299. Re:Sounds like by khallow · · Score: 1
      And of course, he speaks in generalities. "The rich" let them die, not the elite in power or the dysfunctional societies in the countries where the poor exist. It's the language of unfocused guilt. Well, it's not my fault that these societies can't figure out how to duplicate the success of the Western world.

      After you get done with that, you can comment on the billions of farm subsidies the US and EU governments pay to industrial farmers, so they can undersell everyone else by two-thirds.

      Sure, get rid of the subsidies. I've been for that for years. So again, I'm not going to take blame for something I don't control nor am the cause of.

    300. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Destroy biodiversity."

      What?

      Plain, milennia-old farmer crop selection already did that. I mean, do you even understand what farmers have done via selective breeding for ages? That has nothing to do with what people traditionally think of as genetically-modified foods, which usually involves artificially inserting genes, whereas historically farmers were restricted "only" to crossbreeding, physically splicing plants together, and using broad-based mutagens followed by selection.

      In any case, planting monocultures of a single variety on an industrial scale is what destroys biodiversity REGARDLESS of whether what is being planted is a GM or merely an artificially selected variety, and that trend to used a limited number of varieties in agriculture hasn't changed in centuries. It sure as hell isn't any different on a commercial "organic" farm using "natural" (read: artificially selected but not GM) varieties. That's why preserving true natural/"wild" diversity in areas where agricultural plants originated has been important for far longer than GM plants have been around, and it will continue to be in the future. These can still be sources of new and useful varieties, such as variations that are resistant to disease or other desirable qualities.

      All you are showing is your lack of understanding of what biodiversity is and what humans have already done to natural genetic diversity for millenia.

    301. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Wheat ? Not really that good for you.

      Citation greatly greatly needed. This is the first time I've seen someone actually say that freaking WHEAT, a staple crop tracked back 10,000 years when we first started agriculture "isn't good for you".

      Also, you totally overlook the basic problem. The wheat and corn from 50 years ago is NOT genetically modified in the modern sense of the word, and you know it. The problem with the current craze is that the changes are bigger and faster than before.

      The point is to try to counter the insane idea that "natural" (meaning things we haven't changed) is good, and "unnatural" (things humans have changed) is bad. It's simply the entirely wrong idea, since we've been modifying our food supply since we started agriculture 10,000 years ago. Unfortunately what's happened is the "activists" have latched onto the idea that all GMO is "bad". The level of hysterics surrounding the anti-GMO movement reminds me of the crazy Tea party people who compare Obama to Hitler, or are convinced the Government is going to take over all business. Quite frankly it's hard to take anyone like this seriously. The antics of destroying a scientific experiment only make them look like extremists, not someone worth listening too.

      Beyond that, the question is really "is this new way to modify our food supply significantly more dangerous than the traditional method?" Strangely, I don't see the opinions of the anti-GM people backed up with scientific evidence, it's all largely a fear campaign of FUD, "franken food", name calling, and conspiracy theories. (Remind you of any particular group of people named after a popular hot beverage?).

      If you'd care to provide any real evidence that GM food is harmful, please do so. Otherwise I'll continue to ignore your movement. Thank you.

    302. Re:Sounds like by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Except that, altough GMO had the potential to feed bilions of people, it seems there is little money in that, so the comercial varietes are created in a way that reduces costs, at the expense of productivity.

      Or, at least, reduces costs for a couple of years, and then renders the land unusable for anything else, so they must be planted there, despite the costs increasing.

    303. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right that the technology to make such seeds has been developed (and patented). However no company is now, nor have they in the past, sold seeds genetically engineered to produce sterile offspring

      Thank you for your post. It made me feel better. I'm free of the misinformation zombies thanks to you. These corporations are truly wonderful. They must really love developing (and patenting) things. Imagine developing (and patenting) "suicide seeds" at great cost and effort with no intention of ever selling them. I wish I could be more altruistic like them. I would be worried that they might some day start to want to sell them, but your assurances are good enough for me. Thank you for your post. It made me feel better.

    304. Re:Sounds like by w_dragon · · Score: 1

      Or some falls off the back of the truck carrying it to the field...

    305. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real question is: What are the Monsanto executives feeding their children?

    306. Re:Sounds like by adonoman · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. This protest is completely unhelpful, and only serves to enforce the idea that anyone who has any questions about GMO foods is a nut-job.

    307. Re:Sounds like by w_dragon · · Score: 1

      We have plenty of food because modern farming methods, including GMO seeds that produce more and resist pests, are used rather than farming methods used 200 years ago.

    308. Re:Sounds like by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      I do want GMO crops, but I'm radicaly against the way they currently are.

      Take patents out of the way, and they may morph into something acceptable. Or, maybe, let governments work everywhere and impose on poluters their due sanctions, even if such pollution was created by plants that they created (and sold by lies), not directly by their hands. But, of course the second option won't ever happen, so take patents out of the way, and they may morph into something acceptable.

    309. Re:Sounds like by anyGould · · Score: 1

      That's because they've managed to make it the worst of both worlds.

      On the one hand, it's sterile enough that a farmer can't use it for renewable crops - so it's a negative for the farmer.

      On the other hand, it's not completely sterile, so stray seeds get blown into fields and ditches and whatnot. Since it's still resistant to chemicals, they've very difficult to get rid of. Not to mention Monsanto likes to sue people who have their Magical Mystery Seeds.

      So yes, they've managed to Double Fail.

    310. Re:Sounds like by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 2, Informative

      The GM crops were made *sterile* to address the fears of the anti GM crowd that they would cross with non GM crops and contaminate the whole world!

      If you had ever done any farming, you would know that you almost never ever keep "seed" from last years crop, you buy it cus it is so bloody cheap compared to everything else.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    311. Re:Sounds like by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      It seems you didn't hear about the story of that farmer, who unwillingly, had his field infected with GMO, because others around were using it (but not him).

      He deliberately bred his crop to isolate the resistant gene for several years, used the resistance for his own advantage, and sold the resulting crop. The courts saw this as equivalent to recording songs off the radio and selling burned CDs of them.

      More importantly, this has nothing to do with GM. You can't "borrow" other people's heirloom rose varieties, or naturally-bred over-sized pumpkins either.

      In France, they don't produce GMO corn, or things stuffed with round-up, because you see, they care a bit for their health, and very strangely, believe that eating herbicide sprayed-so-much veggies might be harmful.

      Farmers in every industrialized nation use round-up and its generic equivalents. France doesn't allow people to use "Round Up Ready" crops, which can withstand a higher dose of the herbicide. Because they can only use small doses, they need to spray more frequently, so they often end up using more.

      You think people have freedom of not using GMO in their crops? Think again, freedom not what big-seed company wants, and that's not what is happening in many places.

      Even Monsanto still sells non-GM seed, they couldn't care less as long as you buy from them. And when they (Monsanto and the USDA) developed GURT, farmers protested and Monsanto shelved the project - so farmers do have a say in what they plant.

    312. Re:Sounds like by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Intolerance to cows milk is not universal. Many populations, for instance those in Europe, have evolved a high degree of tolerance to it.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    313. Re:Sounds like by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The question is would your ancestors 150 years ago have eaten those potatoes? Just imagine if this particular potato had been available at that time? No Irish diaspora... no mass famine...

      Creating resistance to potato blight is not a bad thing.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    314. Re:Sounds like by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Where did I say we let them out?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    315. Re:Sounds like by Duradin · · Score: 2

      Hybrids will do that, genetically modified or not. Try growing an apple tree from a seed from a grocery store apple. It most likely won't taste anything like the original apple and it probably won't grow very well unless you graft it onto the right sort of root stock.

      Or if if you down have that long to wait try some hybrid sweet corn. What it gets pollenated with with change the taste of the ear and $deity knows what you'll get if you plant a kernal.

    316. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that's just coercion with a threat. Terrorism generally includes terror.

    317. Re:Sounds like by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sounds to me like some assholes who need to spend a few years in jail with hard criminals.

      I don't think we need to be that harsh on the scientists. Maybe just having them clean up the field, promising not to play with GMO crops any more would be enough. Jail time seems a little extreme even for such reckless and arrogant behavior.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    318. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's a valid protest. The issue is that the science leads directly to production, and the people making money off production are refusing to give consumers a choice about whether to buy it or not. If the products were labeled so that consumers who didn't want their revenue going to tainting the planet's plant life with the roundup-ready gene didn't have to, then nobody would have a right to destroy research crops, but because we have no choice, people have an inherent right to fight it.

    319. Re:Sounds like by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      A lot of people fear that GM crops will become all too common. That means more Monsanto-like business practices. This is a good experiment, but we should first protect farmers from patent lawsuits and things like that.

    320. Re:Sounds like by Seumas · · Score: 1

      No, they said this was the activists doing this; not Monsanto.

    321. Re:Sounds like by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      About ten thousand years

      Negative. We've been engaged in artificial selection for probably that long.

      Actual genetic engineering is very new (since the 70's). If compared to the amount of time natural selection has been occurring, 40 years is only a very short time.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    322. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because asking them nicely or holding signs in front of their office is 10 times more effective.

    323. Re:Sounds like by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      then I trust the free market

      Then you are foolish.

      The golem known as the "free market" has stripped the flesh from the bones of working and middle-class families world-wide, siphoning the inherent value of the earth's most important commodity, labor and delivering it to a destructive and monstrous elite. The "free market" would not hesitate to see you and your children die from a readily curable disease because you cannot afford the proprietary medicine, developed with taxpayer funds that you paid. The "free market" would gladly give your child a cupful of mercury to drink if it meant a little bump in quarterly stock prices. The free market would not hesitate to eliminate every "heirloom seed" on earth if it meant that they would be paid a license fee for every morsel of food that goes on your family's table.

      I'm not sure how bad it has to get before you stop trusting the "free market", but if that day ever comes, it'll probably be because you have had children.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    324. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about some rational observed reality check for a change?

      PROTIP: Plants on an open field, will not stay in the field, but spread several miles around the area. And because those are stronger, they displace the natural variants. Until everything is GM-engineered plants. And then GM, having bought in to the crime that is "intellectual property" (Don't DARE to mod this down on this! I'm fighting on YOUR side here, and you'd only fight on your enemy's side if you do so.), GM will sue the crap out of everyone.

      This has already happened with Monsanto Roundup-ready "Corn": http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6262083407501596844#
      Its effects killed thounsands of people in India and South America, put Texan farmers into jail (for 10 years too!) because some Monsanto seeds flew over into their fields and they got sued for copyright infringement (I kid you not!)., causes natural corn to become a rarity, and makes everyone dependent on Monsanto corn, by having to buy their seeds every year, instead of using seeds from you know, THE grown-up PLANTS. (Yes, their plants normally can't reproduce. But sometimes they do, and all their children then too, and that's enough.) Just watch the video.

      Genetic modification is obviously not evil per se. But the sneaky "IP" industrial terrorism, their greed, and the perversity of acting like you "own" a species, is far beyond the plain evil of murdering hundreds of people. It's a global problem.

      And the cause is greedy "IP" terrorists.

      Oh, and to you extremists, everything you disagree with, sounds like terrorism. In that case you're no different from what you hate.

    325. Re:Sounds like by greylion3 · · Score: 1

      I would *love* to see you live on only or mostly GM foods for a year or so.
      Then, if you're still alive, you can come back and tell your story.
      Good Luck.

      Oh, and when you've got time for it, go see a movie called "The World According To Monsanto".

      --
      Privacy begins with ..
    326. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Warning labels" are pointless, because there is no health risk from eating GMOs. It's as simple as that.
      This horse has been beaten to death and the anti-GMO clowns keep saying the same unsubstantiated gibberish.

    327. Re:Sounds like by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      If they prove that it's safe, then I have no issues with it. Since this crop was still being studied, apparently they weren't interested in it's safety, but rather in destroying it before that fact was determined.

      How safe is it, to plant crops that are not proven safe, in my neighbourhood to prove that they might be safe or not safe?
      I rather have the not proven safe plants somewhere else ...

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    328. Re:Sounds like by tibit · · Score: 1

      I think you must have misunderstood my post, and we principally agree -- I think. What I meant was that herbicides are hardly targeted -- just as you say, and that the way they work is not targeted at a particular type/class of plant other than by chance -- it's essentially a seeming genetic defect that we exploit. Said defect can be fixed, and then you have resistance.

      What I further meant to say: eventually, most plants that we care about (read: weeds) will evolve to resist the herbicides that we use. We only control the crop's genetic makeup, after all, weeds simply are given chance to evolve, and some already have.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    329. Re:Sounds like by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, they are not engineered to not produce pollen.
      They are engineered to "not fertilize" other plants.
      So, the effect is: the GM plant produces pollen that is not fertile. That pollen inseminates wild plants. The wild plants are not fertilized by that pollen. So in the long run the wild plants die out.
      The farmers also have to buy new seed every year, as even the FRUITS of the plants they grow wont seed again.
      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    330. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So then what happens in your opinion? The plants do not mature? i.e. soybean without the bean? Of course they produce pollen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollen

    331. Re:Sounds like by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 2

      When 100,000 people die of starvation, its said we can't feed them, or is it just that we don't want to feed them?

      Or is it that the men with guns living much closer to them than us steal everything for themselves and use hunger as a weapon against those around them?

      There is simply zero reason that North Koreans need to be starving so persistently that they average a full 6 inches less in height than their genetically identical, well fed Southern counterparts. Well, there is the fact their now dead God king needed to spend their resources developing nuclear weapons and long range missiles instead of feeding them...

      Look at all the starving people in Africa. How many of them are locals that have been living safely in the same location for more than one generation? How many are displaced refuges who have been shot at or chased away by regional clashes and violence?

      Lack of food isn't why people around the world are starving. Warfare from many levels is why the overwhelming majority are starving. They will continue to starve as well, since the people who care enough to help aren't willing or able to muster up the needed military force to ensure they are safely fed. Meanwhile the ones with the military force needed to see them fed, just can't be bothered to care. And why should they, anyone sending a military force in to 'help' would see themselves immediately blamed as a cause of any continuing suffering and starvation anyways.

    332. Re:Sounds like by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      I should expand on your statements. I think very early gene splicing was hit and miss. A metaphor I've heard before was loading genes into a shotgun and ventilating the target DNA, hoping that the gene ends up in the right place, and all the other copies end up somewhere harmless. But, that's not actually how it works. Basically, you get a virus, yeast, or bacteria loaded up with the gene you want. (This may be done by the aforementioned "shotgun" technique. But viruses and bacteria are simple things, so manipulating their DNA isn't TOO hard, though by no means is it easy). Then, you get a nicely designed enzyme that will cleave DNA molecules at exactly one point. So you mix your easy-to-grow GMO bacteria/virus/yeast (called a vector) in which the target, or host, DNA, add your enzyme, flush the enzyme out, and the genes cleaved out will recombine with the holes left in the DNA molecules. Sometimes you'll get the same gene back inside, and sometimes you'll get them switched. Then you just put that DNA into seeds or whatever, and when they grow, you test to see which gene they got, and you keep the ones that got the right genes. Because these DNA molecules are being cleaved at a SINGLE point only, there is essentially zero chance that the gene will end up in the wrong spot, or that you'll get an unrelated gene from the vector. It's possible, but it's just as possible to get mismatched genes, partial genes, and other nastiness through traditional reproduction. (And I say nastiness but it's probably harmless even if it does happen, which it doesn't).

      The TLDR version of that is that you move only a single gene into the host's genome, and the odds of getting any other scraps of DNA anywhere else are about the same as they are when you breed plants normally, a problem that we normally don't worry about. The thought that there will be recombinant vectors floating around that will pass this gene on to a person eating it is false. The thought that the pasted-in gene will be "loose" and come off and, again, recombine with the eater, is false. The thought that the gene will end up elsewhere in the plant, causing undesired effects, is false. It's almost impossible, and they check to make sure it hasn't happened. (They need to DNA test it anyway to be sure they have a recombinant plant on the hands anyways). And besides which, human DNA is almost all viruses that got accidentally recombined in there by infecting sperm/ova cells during reproduction, and we seem none the worse for wear. (Though yes there are some diseases caused by the activation of these million year old viruses).

      The only legitimate difference between a GMO crop, and one that was made by cross breeding and selective breeding, is that you can get genes in there from entirely different species. Like fish genes into a tomato. This is, strictly speaking, not impossible via sexual reproduction. Just as viruses are used as a vector to splice in foreign DNA in a lab, they can do the same things in the wild. But, that's rare compared to how often we do so in a lab. But ignoring the fact it can and does happen naturally, a gene is just instructions for making a protein. If the protein isn't harmful in fish, it's not harmful in a tomato. The only exception is if the presence of this new gene activates dormant genes already in the plant, or ramps already-present genes, or deactivates genes that are normally active. Possible. But I don't think very likely. Besides which, they do test this shit. Since gene activation is very neat (as in groovy, not as in tidy), geneticists are very keen to get any sort of data point over what can trigger or repress genes. And further more, there are all kinds of ways for dormant genes to be activated by natural mutation or other factors. But we don't let that worry us. Because the odds of this happening are probably greater due to selective breeding than they are for gene splicing. Banning gene splicing because of worry over activating dormant genes makes little sense unless you also ban se

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    333. Re:Sounds like by jon_doh2.0 · · Score: 1

      Someone has really bought into the American dream, i see.
      You really think its so easy for the many born into grinding poverty, who learn few of the necessary skills, to become a CEO.
      Not only is it not easy, its a non-rational choice, when compared to the immediate need to stay alive day-to-day, in which case joining a gang, stealing and whatnot are the rational options.
      Do you think its a coincidence that the poor mainly fill the prisons?
      We do not all have the same privileges, nor the same options.
      Take the wool from over your eyes and stop being so willingly gullible, i know it makes you feel justified in your position in life, but do i have to hear your puerile rationalisations?

    334. Re:Sounds like by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      So far as I know, in one well-publicized case where they did sue a guy who used that defense, he lost because it was shown in court that the guy not only was aware of contamination, but he deliberately selected the contaminated plants, and had a section of his field dedicated entirely to replanting them; furthermore, his treatment of them shown that he very well knew where the strain came from and how it should be treated for maximum yield, and not just doing the usual artificial selection of the crops.

    335. Re:Sounds like by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Europe != the rest of the world.

      This particular story happens to be in Europe...

    336. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You f*cking hypocrite:

      http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/08/08/1240243/Genetically-Modified-Canola-Spreads-To-Wild-Plants

      Life always finds its way.

    337. Re:Sounds like by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Thanks, but no thanks, we don't want your GMO anymore, we saw what it does.

      Who's "we", and why do you guys feel entitled to speak (much less violently act) on behalf of everyone else? I must certainly didn't entitle you to speak and act thus in my name.

    338. Re:Sounds like by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      If only rigging the seed to produce sterile plants actually worked 100% of the time. The difference is that if you have a QC failure with any other product, the manufacturer and consumer are the only ones who might potentially lose out. If your neighbor buys RoundupReady corn, some of it was sterilized properly, and that corn cross pollinates your field, then Monsanto has every right to sue you for not following the terms of a license you never agreed to. I really wish I were kidding.

      Realistically, it wouldn't be so bad if Monsanto were in fact liable for their QC failures. Meaning that poorly sterilized corn infecting a neighboring "organic" farm meant that farm was responsible for ruining their crop (and potentially that farm suing Monsanto for selling defective seed that was able to do so), and of course that Monsanto had no claim against anyone growing crop descended from their poorly sterilized seed under any circumstances (but that would hurt them, and it's wrong to do anything that might hurt Monsanto).

    339. Re:Sounds like by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      It is supposed to be sterile, but they have poor QC. They then pretend they don't have poor QC when it cross-pollinates, claiming either that your hybrid crop is impossible or something you've intentionally engineered to violate their patents.

      Also, if you grow their corn, you have to sign a license stating that you won't hold onto seed to replant, just in case some of it is fertile.

    340. Re:Sounds like by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It seems you didn't hear about the story of that farmer, who unwillingly, had his field infected with GMO, because others around were using it (but not him). Then, enormously-wealthy Monsanto sued the poor farmer for using GMOs without buying the copyright they have on the patented seeds.

      Did you actually learn the details of the story?:

      All claims relating to Roundup Ready canola in Schmeiser's 1997 canola crop were dropped prior to trial and the court only considered the canola in Schmeiser's 1998 fields. Regarding his 1998 crop, Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination. The evidence showed that the level of Roundup Ready canola in Mr. Schmeiser's 1998 fields was 95-98% (See paragraph 53 of the trial ruling). Evidence was presented indicating that such a level of purity could not occur by accidental means. On the basis of this the court found that Schmeiser had either known "or ought to have known" that he had planted Roundup Ready canola in 1998. Given this, the question of whether the canola in his fields in 1997 arrived there accidentally was ruled to be irrelevant. Nonetheless, at trial, Monsanto was able to present evidence sufficient to persuade the Court that Roundup Ready canola had probably not appeared in Schmeiser's 1997 field by such accidental means (paragraph 118). The court said it was persuaded "on the balance of probabilities" (the standard of proof in civil cases, meaning "more probable than not" i.e. strictly greater than 50% probability) that the Roundup Ready canola in Mr. Schmeiser's 1997 field had not arrived there by any of the accidental means, such as spillage from a truck or pollen travelling on the wind, that Mr. Schmeiser had proposed.

      And here's why. The guy didn't have the contaminated plants "accidentally" spread and take over his field. He quite deliberately selected the GM strain, separated it from the rest of his plants, and used it to replant:

      He had used Roundup herbicide to clear weeds around power poles and in ditches adjacent to a public road running beside one of his fields, and noticed that some of the canola which had been sprayed had survived. Schmeiser then performed a test by applying Roundup to an additional 3 acres (12,000 m2) to 4 acres (16,000 m2) of the same field. He found that 60% of the canola plants survived. At harvest time, Schmeiser instructed a farmhand to harvest the test field. That seed was stored separately from the rest of the harvest, and used the next year to seed approximately 1,000 acres (4 km) of canola.

      One can argue about the merits of gene patents in general, but in this particular case it's not anywhere "poor innocent farmer who couldn't do anything about it".

    341. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. it's done to move farmers to a subscription model and to protect their "IP" which is what makes them obscene amounts of money. Gene flow happens anyway, GM isn't really an exact science. But if you do happen to harvest any crossbred plantlife on your land, you risk being sued by monsanto for patent infringement.

      Commercial GM is solely intended to make money, not to solve any social, political or environmental problems.

    342. Re:Sounds like by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Nonetheless, it's an artificial genetic modification, which is what GP pointed out.

    343. Re:Sounds like by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      When the end result is exactly the same, what's the difference?

    344. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like a witch!

      Burn him! Burn the witch!

    345. Re:Sounds like by arisvega · · Score: 1

      From TFA, which I doubt you even skimmed it (both of you) in your efforts to get first post

      The officers were unable to stop the 300-400 or more peaceful protesters of all ages, who included local people. During the protest organised by the Belgian Field Liberation Movement (FLM) – an informal collective consisting of farmers, scientists, consumers, and environmental activists

      So, local terrorist farmers and scientists? "A bunch of assholes" of all ages? And you get +mod insightful? That's insightful alright, gives great insight into why the USA is the way it is.

      So excuse people in "Yurop" for being backwards and dare place human values before property.

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    346. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would make perfect sense except the crops are forced onto local farmers, inorganic food is volatile and harmful and the taxpayers are morons who don't fight to have their money used well anyway.

      Also, it's its, not it's - it's mean it is, not possession.

    347. Re:Sounds like by MaDeR · · Score: 1

      Thanks to idiots like you, terrorism became meaningless label to indicate any group of people that we do not like. Thanks, USA.
      And about actual topic... neoluddism lives forever.

      --
      What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
    348. Re:Sounds like by arisvega · · Score: 1

      If you want to get technical, media-style, then they are activists- by your own standards. I mean by your media's standards. Which is, sadly, the same thing in your case.

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    349. Re:Sounds like by MaDeR · · Score: 1

      Aren't you cute neoluddistic troll. Go back to your cave.

      --
      What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
    350. Re:Sounds like by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 1

      I beg you to investigate the issue of outdoor, uncontrolled tests of GMO. In particular, please note that very few of these GM crops are sterile, and thus can cross-pollinate at will.

      This article is relatively balanced on the issue, but manages to highlight some of the costs:
      http://oregonmag.com/GMGrass.htm

    351. Re:Sounds like by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 1

      Alas, no. It is far cheaper to sue those farmers who don't license the "technology" (seeds), than it is to produce vast quantities of a plant that is incapable of producing viable seeds.

    352. Re:Sounds like by arisvega · · Score: 1

      From TFA, which I doubt you even skimmed it (both of you) in your efforts to get first post

      The officers were unable to stop the 300-400 or more peaceful protesters of all ages, who included local people. During the protest organised by the Belgian Field Liberation Movement (FLM) – an informal collective consisting of farmers, scientists, consumers, and environmental activists

      Peaceful local farmers, scientists, people of all ages? "Terrorists" and "a bunch of assholes"?

      And you get +mod insightful? Insightful indeed, gives great insight as to why the USA is the way it is.

      Please excuse the backwards people in Yurop for their ignorance and audacity- how dare they place anything before property-

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    353. Re:Sounds like by MaDeR · · Score: 1

      "Monsanto has every right to sue you for not following the terms of a license you never agreed to."
      And I thought "Corporate Fascist America" is just leftist degoratory term. Seems like in few decades it will be factual description of USA.

      --
      What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
    354. Re:Sounds like by owski · · Score: 2

      So you support the use of violence to prevent other people from eating those potatoes as well. I guess that makes you a terrorist asshole as well.

    355. Re:Sounds like by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Based on your post it sounds like organic corn farmers are screwed. They can't sell their premium product after putting more expense into things.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    356. Re:Sounds like by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Most, if not all, GM plants are engineered so that they don't produce pollen. That's why farmers need to buy new seeds every year. This is done in order to prevent flux of engineered material to nature.

      Apparently not all:

      http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm

      .. he has never, says Schmeiser, purchased seed from the St. Louis, Mo.-based agricultural and biotechnology giant Monsanto Co. Even so, he says that more than 320 hectares of his land is now "contaminated" by Monsanto's herbicide-resistant Roundup Ready canola, a man made variety produced by a controversial process known as genetic engineering. And, like hundreds of other North American farmer, Schmeiser has felt the sting of Monsanto's long legal arm: last August the company took the 68-year-old farmer to court, claiming he illegally planted the firm's canola without paying a $37-per-hectare fee for the privilege. ...

      I wish I shared your optimism that GMO crops are sterile out of a desire to protect the environment rather than a way to finacially lock-in farmers to annual seed purchases.

    357. Re:Sounds like by MaDeR · · Score: 1

      "If a species does not actually contribute anything, why save it?"
      Seems you have miraclous way to know what exactly each species contribute to ecosystem. And by the way, I really doubt low thousand species would be enough for survive of entire Earth biosphere. Good luck with that, corporate drone.

      --
      What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
    358. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would *love* to see you live on only or mostly GM foods for a year or so.
      Then, if you're still alive, you can come back and tell your story.
      Good

      http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/jf200456j This article debunks your article.
      From the linked article

      Other animals than mice have been exposed to RAI from transgenic peas. Rats, pigs, and chickens were fed raw, transgenic peas at around 30% or more of their diet in short feeding trials. The only effects on their health could be attributed to dose- dependent reductions of the digestion of starch due to amylase inhibition rather than immunological effects, diarrhea in the case of pigs, and a reduction of weight gain in the case of chickens.2022
      We found no evidence for increased immunogenicity of the transgenic RAI, and we note that immunogenicity is not sufficient for allergenicity.

      Conclusion some people are allergic to peanuts. This shows no concerns over GMO crops.

      Luck.

      Lets see an advertisement for lecture of a guy that doesn't perform any current research anymore.

      Oh, and when you've got time for it, go see a movie called "The World According To Monsanto".

      When you start posting articles from scientific peer review journals I might start to take you seriously.

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6T6P-4C004D3-3-C&_cdi=5036&_user=409620&_pii=S0278691504000444&_origin=&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2004&_sk=999579992&view=c&wchp=dGLbVzW-zSkzS&_valck=1&md5=ef423dc2441395950524ecce3b73afcc&ie=/sdarticle.pdf

      This is real science.

      Traditional plant sources of food with a long history of use have not been evaluated for safety in a systematic way. Typically, it was by trial and error where the plant was incorporated into the diet, often after some form of processing, e.g. cooking, to make it acceptable from both a taste and safety point of view. Traditional vari- eties of food crops are known to contain both beneficial components (nutrients and other compounds), as well as compounds with a toxic potential (natural plant tox- ins, allergens, and anti-nutritional factors, which reduce the availability of nutrients). However, the toxic poten- tial (hazard) will only be expressed (as risk) if the person consuming the foodstuff is exposed to amounts that are sufficient to cause toxic effects.
      An additional consideration is the balancing of risk of possible harm against the known nutritional benefits of consuming the plant food (as part of a balanced and diversified diet). Such balancing for traditional foods has taken place over the years in a subliminal way (again by trial and error) and is more recently becoming enshrined in nutritional and dietary guide- lines. Therefore, with the introduction of a novel or modified plant into the food supply, it is essential to view its safety in the context of what is already safely used in food.
      As explained in previous chapters, crop breeding by both conventional means and by genetic modification has theoretically the potential to modify the plant com- position beyond that particular trait that was intended, thus resulting in ‘unintended effects’. To analytically determine all possibilities of unintended effects is a huge undertaking with many technical challenges. A further challenge is to determine the real significance of any unintended effect on consumer health. Unintended effects do not automatically imply a health hazard. Hazards may be considered if the nutritional profile of the plant has been altered, if proteins have been altered in such a way so as to affect their allergenic potential, or if new or increased levels of potentially toxic secondary metabolites are produced. However, unintended effects may have absolutely no impact on health, or may even be beneficial by reducing potentially toxic substances.

    359. Re:Sounds like by MaDeR · · Score: 1

      "I don't see anyone forcing anyone to buy anything."
      Yes, they force. Now what? Do you admit this is problem? I do not see problem with GMO, but I see big problems with corporations involved in this. Like suing thrid parties for their own faults, making harder informed consumer choice (GMO should be marked as such) and other typical corporate fascism.

      --
      What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
    360. Re:Sounds like by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 1

      While I'm sure suffers of the potato famine would have consumed the GMO crop and thanked you while doing it, the question then becomes would TJB Designs be here today to protest the use of GMO crops. One of the problems with GMO is that it's effects are long term, and don't show up strongly until generations later. Feed that your kids if you want, but as a person who ancestors fled Ireland during the potato famine I firmly reject GMO crops.

      Also there is and were potato varieties at that time that are resistant to the blight. Ireland's problems then stemmed far more from politics and agricultural practices than it's lack of GMO potatoes.

      Just to be clear, I do believe some GMO is safe, and perhaps the potato is actually safe for consumption, but certain types produce chemicals and enzymes not naturally found in our food system. Others increase level far beyond what is found normally. Until thorough, rigorous, multi-generational long-term studies are completed by transparent process, GMO is to be avoided.

      --
      brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
    361. Re:Sounds like by MaDeR · · Score: 1

      "Someone/something else does this too" is shittest excuse in existence.

      --
      What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
    362. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GM plants they're destroying are trying to make it easier for the farmer to plant more crops with less effort and greater use of artificial fertilizers.

      The GM plants they're destroying are bait for idiots. Monsanto and friends are trying to create a market where farmers must buy every years' seed from them. Their seeds are modified so they can't be propagated and where some do happen to propagate the farmers have the crap sued out of them by Monsanto for Intellectual Property Theft.

      In the software world this would be called a monopoly and broken up by government - why is it allowed in agriculture?

    363. Re:Sounds like by MaDeR · · Score: 1

      In other words, this research would help us, not corporations. And this was destroyed, not some dark strain in corporate experimental lab. Well, since when ecoloonies and neoluddists have any logic?

      --
      What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
    364. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly, that's not working very well than, is it?

    365. Re:Sounds like by MaDeR · · Score: 1

      Retarded analogy is retarded.

      --
      What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
    366. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, its done to increase monsantos stranglehold over supply, and thus make money for the shareholders.
      I thought that was fucking obvious.

    367. Re:Sounds like by dvice_null · · Score: 1

      > we don't know all the consequences of genetically altering an organism, but we can basically see them when selecting over generations.

      You don't seem to know that human race has managed to produce poisonous potatoes with artificial selection. They never saw it coming as they didn't try to increase poison amount, they only tried to increase the size of the potato, but those two happened to be linked together. With GM, we could have done exactly the same, except we could have taken just the gene for the size and leave the gene of poison.

      You can think it this way also. Take 5000 + 5000 balls and mix them randomly and try to guess that the outcome is. Or take 10 000 balls and swap one of them and try to guess what the outcome is.

    368. Re:Sounds like by MaDeR · · Score: 1

      They have altered genes all the same, ecoloonie. Only difference is timescale.

      --
      What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
    369. Re:Sounds like by MaDeR · · Score: 1

      Ever heard about thing called "genetic mutation"?

      --
      What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
    370. Re:Sounds like by owski · · Score: 1

      This produces some pretty sketchy plants, IMO.

      Sketchy in a "I have some evidence that it is bad" or in a "I'm scared of things I've seen in horror movies" kind of way?

      This kind of thing happens a lot in nature, just do a search for Horizontal Gene Transfer.

    371. Re:Sounds like by mrops · · Score: 1

      a group of terrorist are a bunch of assholes too. Different scale and values but same mentality.

    372. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right? Such as?

      Can't be Chernobyl, because nobody ever said that was theoretically safe. It was theoretically massively unsafe and still needed extraordinary circumstances to go bad.

      Can't be Fukushima, that's a 40 year old BWR design, and nobody is saying those are theoretically safe. In fact, you can pretty much only mean modern designs like pebble bed reactors, but of the two major nuclear incidents in history, neither has involved anything like that, so... I don't know, maybe you're just retarded? Go fuck yourself, luddite.

    373. Re:Sounds like by Sabriel · · Score: 0

      Nobody's "playing" with DNA much less the "very foundation of life," whatever that is.

      Not the GP, but Biosphere: irregularly shaped envelope of the earth's air, water, and land encompassing the heights and depths at which living things exist. [...] Disruption of basic ecological activities in the biosphere can result from pollution.

      Our glorious leaders are playing with that a lot, lately.

      What amazes me is not how many idiots don't understand science, it's how many scientists don't understand idiots - i.e., they keep on very carefully and rigorously inventing stuff for ruthless (or outright sociopathic) alphas whose decision tree process is pretty much "will doing X make me more powerful than doing Y?"

      Sadly, we get caught up in making the shiny toys almost as much as the alphas get caught up in exploiting them.

    374. Re:Sounds like by owski · · Score: 1

      It can and does happen though mechanisms like viruses. Do some searching for horizontal gene transfer, might help that poor imagination of yours.

    375. Re:Sounds like by gman003 · · Score: 1

      I was making a point by exaggeration - IF a couple thousand species was enough to make the planet operate flawlessly, then why not? Do we gain anything by having four different types of temperate saltwater bass? Do we gain anything by having three different types of disc-winged bat?

      My point was that biodiversity is not something to strive towards in and of itself. It is not a goal, but a step on the road to the goal. The goal is a stable and beneficial ecosystem, and biodiversity helps to achieve that. However, I believe that once a certain level of biodiversity is achieved, there is no additional benefit to the ecosystem - the stability plateaus after a certain level of diversity. I may be wrong on this (I have no evidence to support my opinion), but I have also seen no evidence to the contrary.

    376. Re:Sounds like by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      What's the difference between a GM crop and a non-GM crop by the way?

      The GM crop contains genetic sequences not in the genome of the altered species. That's the whole fucking point. The "it's no different than selective breeding!" argument is ludicrous.

      GM crops are about profit, not about science and certainly not about feeding people (they have lower yields). Ordinary cross-breeding (which can be supplemented by genetic analysis) gives better and safer results, both for the consumer and the environment.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    377. Re:Sounds like by MaizeMan · · Score: 1

      The much talked about Terminator Technology was developed by a company called Delta & Pine that went broke and were bought out years ago. Who knows what they were planning to do with it. But the fact remains that neither that technique, nor any comparable technology has been commercialized but people lie and claim the corn planted across the country is sterile to scare people.

      Can we at least agree that lying is bad?

    378. Re:Sounds like by loufoque · · Score: 1

      Isn't that the definition of terrorists?

    379. Re:Sounds like by Rewind · · Score: 1

      Except in EU, and there is ONE BIG exceptions in USA. Do you know it? It is called aspartam. Try to google it, but be warned, it could make you stop drinking Coke, forever....

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartam Makes it sound pretty safe tbh. Have anything else?

      --
      ?
    380. Re:Sounds like by carou · · Score: 1

      Isn't it obvious? Isn't eating food full of herbicide a concern for you? Monsanto itself isn't producing or selling food, only seeds and chemical which you use to do that. But what you do with it is bad food, full of poison (remember: the goal is to kill plants).

      Aren't *all* crops saturated with herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and whatever other sprayed chemicals are necessary to make farming it economically viable?

      Oh, and don't say "organic". That word has little meaning outside of marketing buzzword requirements. It doesn't mean ecologically sustainable. It doesn't mean non-intensively farmed. It doesn't mean environmentally sustainable. It doesn't even mean no chemical pesticides - it just means you have to use the ones that are produced by brewing up things of plant origin, i.e. the really nasty ones which kill just about everything and not just the targeted threats to the crop, the ones linked to real human diseases and which are far more dangerous and destructive than anything used by the rest of the world who aren't obliged to pretend that the last 100 years of scientific development had never happened. "Organic" farming is nothing more than a triumph of hippie luddites.

    381. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds more like a bunch of assholes than a group of terrorists.

      You say potayto, I say potahto...

    382. Re:Sounds like by skywire · · Score: 1

      It is not "apparent" that the enactment of patent laws by politicians was due to failure of the free market to support innovation. That is only one of several conceivable factors that might have indirectly induced the political behaviour in question.

      --
      Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    383. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems people are confusing genes with germs, as it looks to be much the same sort of panic here.

      "Oh noes, teh evil nasty yucky germs (er, genes) are gonna get us! Sterilize your kids and veggies everyone! Keep your dog away from that there randy GMO corn unless you want to breed some sort of (cough) corn dog thingamabob!"

      Genes, like germs, are naturally mutable and absolutely necessary for survival. Unlike germs, however, you can't 'catch' genes from being exposed to them. If they provide a net benefit to the organism (as defined by Natural or Human selection) then they are allowed a chance to propagate and live. If they don't, they die out, to be replaced by something that does.

    384. Re:Sounds like by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      There are enough idiots who label anyone who disagrees with them as "terrorists" that it's entirely too credible to think you meant that. Several other responses seem to agree with the sentiment, without any hint of irony.

    385. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet there exists cases where Monstanto has gone to court for just that purpose. With GM foods it's not as simplistic as "to each their own" because invariably "their own" starts to breed with "mine".

    386. Re:Sounds like by Aldenissin · · Score: 1

      Not as arrogant as someone who says "No, we don't care if we destroy the delicate balance and make everyone starve, we want to make a profit, so fuck you."

      --
      Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
    387. Re:Sounds like by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      These are not genetically modified, crops, they are artificially-sellected crops.

      Your implication that there is a difference is quite naive.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    388. Re:Sounds like by Blymie · · Score: 1

      Good grief. For the last 50 years, food production has increased faster than population. Further, over 1/2 our current food just rots, and where I live (and many G8 countries), 1/2 the farmland is fallow. That doesn't even include the farmland that is now under concrete.

      What have *no* problem at all, with food production. The world population could be 50 billion, and we wouldn't even have to stop eating meat, in order to feed ourselves.

    389. Re:Sounds like by advertisehere · · Score: 2

      There's a significant difference between cross-pollination and directly inserting the genes from one organism into another.

    390. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't just "not buy it", or "not grow it". There's a big issue here in the states with Monsanto and their GM crops being cross pollinated into smaller, local farmers fields. Monsanto can go to court, then force the farmers to pay for the right to grow those crops that now contain their gene.

        While not 100% relevant in and of itself, it emphasizes how easily cross pollination can occur, and how it's a huge problem to plant a GM crop anywhere near a non-GM crop and keep there from being cross contamination

      Farmers grow potatoes vegetatively from the tubers themselves, not from the seeds of potato fruit, so this is not really a concern for this crop.

    391. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Love those activists....in jail where they belong.

    392. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Although I think your post is rather insightful, I also want to point out that Cross pollination does not allow for Cod-fish DNA to be used in potatoes. Which has been can and has been done with "modern" GM techniques.

       

    393. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I don't give a good god damn. Science shows no problem with herbicide at all. Your objection is based on common sense. Gut feeling. Folk wisdom. Absolute bullshit.

    394. Re:Sounds like by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Just because you're the underdog doesn't mean you're right or sane."

      Your statement has nothing to do with mine. I observe there are merely variants of fighting, some of which break some taboos. It is SANE if your methods are effective. "Sanity" has nothing to do with observing a particular moral set. Being "right" has nothing to do with the effectiveness of a fighting method.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    395. Re:Sounds like by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      I have the mod points, but will instead counter with reality. Monsanto crops will fertilize, they will produce seeds. If you try to keep seeds from one year to the next, you will be sued into oblivion. Ask the guys who used to get paid to help farmers gather seeds for the next year (from the best plants, obviously). They are out of business, either by lack of demand or by being sued.

      It is easy to "steal" Monsanto's IP. It is also easy to prove that you have stolen it. They "own" that gene, according to our lovely US patent system. Plus, they have more lawyers than geneticists, so pitty you if you try.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    396. Re:Sounds like by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      The solution to that is simple, disallow patents on living organisms and genes.

    397. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when the next strain of blight hits Ireland, don't ask for my taters.

    398. Re:Sounds like by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Genetic engineering is more direct nowadays, but nevertheless it is nothing new.

      The difference between selective breeding and genetic engineering may not be one of kind (depending on your perspective), but it is one Hell of a difference in degree!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    399. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ugh...
      can be, and has been done

    400. Re:Sounds like by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      The "free market" would not hesitate to see you and your children die from a readily curable disease because you cannot afford the proprietary medicine, developed with taxpayer funds that you paid.

      Note, of course, that taxpayer funded research isn't actually the "free market" in action.

      The "free market" would gladly give your child a cupful of mercury to drink if it meant a little bump in quarterly stock prices.

      Oddly enough, that's not the "free market" either. Limited liability corporations are another creation of government.

      The free market would not hesitate to eliminate every "heirloom seed" on earth if it meant that they would be paid a license fee for every morsel of food that goes on your family's table.

      And, oddly enough, neither is this. Note that monopolies are one antithesis of the "free market". And they're usually government induced as well.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    401. Re:Sounds like by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is that GM crops have been found to be fertilizing here & there. Scenario goes: neighbor does GM crops, then next year they GM companies lawyers are pounding on your door saying you'r crops have GM genes in them. Destroy them or pay up. It's really effing stupid. Nature finds a way. Especially when you try to control it on such a large scale. I honestly wouldn't be shocked if this was something helping to kill of bees.

    402. Re:Sounds like by scdeimos · · Score: 2

      You should probably read up on various court cases involving Monsanto. There's more to it than just Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (holding over seed).

      There are other problems for people not even "interested" in infringing Monsanto/Cargill/ADM technology. For example: Pollen Drift and the Bystanding Farmer: Harmonizing Patent Law and Common Law on the Technological Frontier:

      Non-GMO farmers, however, run the constant risk of their crops being contaminated by pollen from patented genetically modified plants. If a farmer has a forward contract for non-GMO corn for sale in Europe, and her corn fields are pollinated by a neighbor’s genetically modified crop, then the farmer will have to breach her contract with the European buyer and possibly have to pay damages. At best, the anticipated premium from selling the non-GMO crop will be lost.

    403. Re:Sounds like by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

      I was somewhat incorrect in my understanding(it wasn't actually poisonous but rather resistant to weed killers) but it was indeed considered potentially unsafe due to hormone levels....

      http://news.discovery.com/earth/is-genetically-modified-corn-toxic.html

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    404. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You ignorant fuck.

      Tell that to the many hundred year old corn varieties in mexico that are getting gene raped by monsanto jumping genes.

    405. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      round up ready soybeans.

    406. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this was true then why would Monsanto sue people who reuse their seed? You're dead wrong on this.

    407. Re:Sounds like by forebees · · Score: 1

      More people should watch the doco before commenting here.

      While I'm all for trying to improve crop yields, I don't support the notion that someone/a company can OWN the plants they modify. Either help or go away, but don't think you can own something like this.

      I'd put it in the same league as attempting to own the rights to anything surrounding the mapping or manipulating of DNA.

    408. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most plants are *not* produced in such a way. It's Monsanto's goal to do this, but only as so much as to not have to fight legal battles like this one:
      http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2000/apr/20000403busi04.htm

      I

    409. Re:Sounds like by Kitkoan · · Score: 1

      Nice try in making it seem like over reacting, but it isn't that simple even if you want it to be. First off, Nuclear power is dangerous but doesn't leak out onto coal/gas/propane/ect... power. GMO's genetic sequences have leaked out onto other non-GMO genetic sequences. Also, it might have been a test crop, but that doesn't mean it couldn't spread into the wild on its own (like GM Canola. And if goes wild, its wild and odds are can't be contained. This has already happened with things like Kudzu in the southern US as it grows wild and chokes the local, native plant life. (It natively comes from Japan and southern China, not the US.)

      The biggest issue is that GMO's have caused many health issues, just not the ones people wanted to see splashed across the newspaper. Thing is, when you take Object A and splice it with Object B you get Object A/B which means that anyone that is allergic to either A or B runs a risk of allergic to Object A/B. Now companies not only don't like telling people that the product already has GMO's in it, but they refuse to tell you what each GMO was crossed with (they claim its a trade secret). That means you have companies that are selling you a product that can have the risks of having an common allergen inside it and can cause a reaction, possibly even death from the reaction, and the companies all sit there and go "Wasn't our fault, we labeled what we put in there." while hiding what had been placed within the GMO (which caused the reaction) and effectively sweeping it under the carpet. You can read more about GMO (GM Soy to be exact) and how GM Soy causes allergic reactions in people due to how it's amino acids resemble common allergens not found in non-GM Soy here.

      --
      Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
    410. Re:Sounds like by Kitkoan · · Score: 1

      GMO's happen to effect everyone, regardless where they are in the world. Its like saying to not worry about things like Swine flu or AIDS since they only started their outbreak somewhere else in the world...

      --
      Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
    411. Re:Sounds like by Kitkoan · · Score: 1

      Guess you were asleep or bought off when it was pointed out that allergic reactions have gone up in people whom ate GMO's, huh? And not every reaction is just a small rash or an upset stomach.

      --
      Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
    412. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i thought america wasn't a terrorist.

    413. Re:Sounds like by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Hybrids are generally sterile, but not always, when they are productive, the hybrid traits usually separate in the offspring. One common trait of hybrids are the are more vigorous than either of their progenitors, so the separation eliminates all of the advantages of the hybrids anyways. It is possible for a gene to crossover from one strand of DNA to the opposing strand, but very rare.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    414. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GM people don't care about fucking everyone else's shit up by spewing their damn pollen everywhere. So it seems like something like this would happen sooner or later. I wouldn't even be surprised if China or Russia would somehow get to the point of threatening WWIII if such pollen started contaminating and messing with their crop yields. (And I wouldn't blame them either. It's the food supply after all.)

      I'm not sure if potatoes are the best crop to make an example of though, but things like various grains and alfalfa have been seriously fucked up with along with neighboring farmers getting seriously fucked over by Monsanto and the like. Turnabout's a bitch, isn't it?

      I've also heard that some beekeepers which have avoided CCD have also claimed to do so by specifically avoiding GM crops. Whether or not they have the science to back it up is one thing, but those beekeepers continue to stick to their guns on that.

      Want to grow your GM plants? Keep them sealed up in a greenhouse. It really shouldn't have to be the other way around when having worries about cross-contamination and other environmental impacts.

    415. Re:Sounds like by he-sk · · Score: 1

      If you can't even acknowledge that the similarities between the two accidents are about as similar as the Hindenburg disaster and the crash of a modern airliner, then I'm not even sure it's worth debating it with you (which I'm more than happy to do).

      You seem to fail to appreciate that both the Hindenburg disaster and a plane crash today resulted in loss of life and property. The Fukushima disaster is a tremendous problem for Japan. It has already hindered the rescue effort after the tsunami in the affected areas, not to mention the resources it will bind in the future that are much needed for the reconstruction effort. Currently, there is a 20-mile evacuation zone that might turn out to be permanent for the foreseeable future. The ongoing exposure of nuclear cooling water into the ocean WILL have an effect in the area, even if most of it is diluted in the large Pacific Ocean. (I'm concerned about effects like such on the wild life in Bavaria, which still has to be checked before human consumption 25 years after Chernobyl. Of course, such a thing was "impossible" if we believed the politicians then.)

      You seem to be interested in the variation at the top, but the whole debate whether Fukushima is a 6 or a 7 on the IAEA scale is boring to me. The fact is that Fukushima is huge fuck-up and will impose a tremendous (and so far unknowable) cost on Japan at a time when it has already been hit by a huge disaster.

      So screw your love for nuclear energy. It is a tremendously complex technology with catastrophic consequences when (not if) things go wrong. Even new, supposedly "safe" designs need to be maintained, so there's always a chance for human error or worse negligence. It's just not worth to assume that risk.

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    416. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there does not exist any "natural" corn anymore, how is this an argument in favor of BT Corn? Isn't it sad and loss to our future generations that they will never get to know/taste something like natural corn? Why would we like the same fate for other plants/species? In fact after knowing this disturbing fact, I am for all out ban and severe punishment for such efforts that endanger natural flora & fauna.

    417. Re:Sounds like by gman003 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure I have been eating mostly GM foods, probably for the past 20 years of my life. With plenty of preservatives, added sugar, caffeine, sodium and every other nasty chemical ever put in food. Never had any diet-related health problems. Healthy blood sugar, healthy immune system, body mass actually slightly under normal but not unhealthily so. Unless GM foods somehow caused my nearsightedness, I think we can safely call that myth busted.

      Also, I believe I have seen that movie. I am aware of the almost comically evil nature of Monsanto. They're third in line on my list of people to line against the wall when the revolution happens (after the professional lobbyists and the MAFIAA). However, "evil corporation" does not imply "unsafe food". The FDA isn't that dickless. Point me at one instance of someone dying from GM food (specifically because the food was GM, mind you, not because it was spoiled or something) and I can point you at ten people who died from normal food, and a thousand more who died from the lack of any food.

      PS: Was marking me a foe really necessary? All that did was make you look like an absolutist - "I AM UNEQUIVOCALLY RIGHT, AND ANYONE WHO DISAGREES IS MY ENEMY!"

    418. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> grow your own disease ridden organic food. If they prove that it's safe, then I have no issues with it.
      You clearly do not realize what an ignorant comment this is? The world is not that simple mate.

      Whilst destroying someone else property is obviously wrong. There is no guarantee that experiments like these make your food safe.
      Why?? Because the people performing the experiments are quite often the same people selling the products.
      The food industry has one goal, making money, not your health. They have extremely powerful lobbies in government. They are
      often sit on the boards of Federal regulators for the food industry, and perform the scientific studies to validate the safety of their own products
      since the government lacks the resources. What do you think the studies are going to reflect? And where is the funding to prove it otherwise?

    419. Re:Sounds like by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      This article would seem to go counter to your claims that GM crops were the cause of a soy allergy increase.

      http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/section-1/1-15-roundup-ready-soy-is-safe-6/

      1. No allergies were found and the studies did not measure soy allergy. These studies have not been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature–they appeared on the York Laboratories’ website. The most significant problems with the claim that GM soybeans caused an increase in soy allergies are that the assays reported in the study cited don’t measure allergies (that is to say, allergies weren’t counted). York laboratories reported that antibodies against soybean proteins were measured in 10 percent of 4,500 individuals in 1996 and that number grew to 15 percent over six-months. The problem is that they measured normally occurring antibodies and did not measure the type of antibody that is specifically associated with soybean allergy. True soybean allergy in the UK remains well below 1 percent (see #4 below) that fact being no consolation for the unfortunate few who suffer from soy allergy.

      The World Health Organization would also seem to go counter to your claims as well.

      http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/

    420. Re:Sounds like by krishkrish · · Score: 1

      Yes. And likewise you don't speak for me. You choice of GMO crops is encroaching upon my choice of natural crop. If you want to eat GMO crop, go ahead, create it, grow in your greenhouse and eat as much as you want. But don't taint my crop with yours by planing it in open space. And if you decide to sell, mark it as GMO so that I can't be fooled into buying it.

    421. Re:Sounds like by MishgoDog · · Score: 1

      Note that monopolies are one antithesis of the "free market". And they're usually government induced as well.

      Technically, monopolies do naturally occur, and are definitely NOT government induced. Not sure where you got that pearler from (though the rest of your ocmment is sound).
      Monopolies (or oligopolies) are almost always due to one of few reasons in a free market economy:

      • an industry where economies of scale have such an impact that large corporations can simply do things much more cheaply than small corporations
      • an industry with such high barriers to entry that there is insufficient demand for multiple players - e.g. microchip fabrication, telecoms, etc
      • where one player has a massive competitive advantage, due to location or technology
      • the market isn't big enough to support more than one player (usually due to to a combination of the first two)

      Standard economic theory shows that in these situations, a government actually *improves* the efficiency of the market by controlling the monopoly/oligopoly.
      Note - it's been 8-10 years since I studied economics, so forgive me if I am a bit rusty.

    422. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically you could say there were never really any non-GM potatoes, since cross-pollination is just an old technique for genetically modifying crops.

      Perhaps if I were a total idiot I would say that. There is a world of difference between applying selective pressure to existing strains to slowly evolve them over many generations, and cutting out individual slices of genetic code to create something you would never get by natural processes. If you really can't see the difference you are either (1) stupid, (2) willfully ignorant, or (3) an industry shill.

    423. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, fuck this kind of "science". Just because scientists are doing it, it doesn't mean it's good. In fact I'm starting to think just the opposite. There's nothing quite as bad as a scientist with no moral compass.

    424. Re:Sounds like by Adam+Appel · · Score: 1

      Yes thanks to Monsanto we have pesticide PROOF ragweed. Yes, thats right. Cross pollen and interbreeding from a GMO similar species used for an industrial property gives us a indestructible allergin thousands of miles away. They are putting antibiotics for humans into the genes of plants and genes from animals so when you eat the rice or whatever you get the antibiotic (its for famine ridden places) or other benefit. Oh yeah, they don't always need to mention it's GMO, even if its in food stuffs at WalMart. Thanks FDA, what was your job again? Oh I remember, its so you can get a lobbying job at a food maker when you leave.

      --
      They come in the dark, only in the darkest.
    425. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. Look up Monsanto's persecution of farmers for keeping their seed.

    426. Re:Sounds like by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      You call it protest, I call it trespass with intent to murder the people these advanced foods would feed.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    427. Re:Sounds like by sremick · · Score: 1

      Most, if not all, GM plants are engineered so that they don't produce pollen. That's why farmers need to buy new seeds every year. This is done in order to prevent flux of engineered material to nature.

      Yeah, I'm sure the reason is to keep it out of nature.

    428. Re:Sounds like by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      It's not so simple though. There will surely be companies who aren't concerned with the loss of ability to defend their "product" as intellectual property, but that won't stop them from creating organisms that might be dangerous.

      Here are some of the more disturbing organisms that should be closely guarded (most are not) to prevent contamination of the natural gene pool:

      Goats that product spiders silk protein in their milk
      GMO cows producing human milk
      Transgenic Salmon
      GM fruit crops producing BT toxin in Hawaii
      Maize, wheat, sweet potato

      To gain a different perspective on GM, look for a movie called "Light Years", an Isaac Asimov adaptation of a novel by Jean-Pierre Andrevon's - Les Hommes-machines contre Gandahar (The Machine-Men versus Gandahar). In the story, the people of Gandahar have genetically engineered the perfect utopia. Things take a turn for the worse when their existence is threatened with complete destruction by an organism which they had accidentally created during genetic experiments 1000 years earlier.

      Unlike the prophecy in the story (...what can't be undone, will be), in our GMO world, what can't be undone - really can't be undone.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    429. Re:Sounds like by metacell · · Score: 2

      The GP said that monopolies are usually government induced, which is true. Historically, there have been a very large number of government monopolies in areas like:

      * Telephony
      * Water
      * Electricity
      * Health care
      * Railroads
      * Postal services
      * Drugs

    430. Re:Sounds like by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      you would realize that many of the protesters are local farmers.

      yeah, right. And most of the Iranians who occupied the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979 were 'students.'

      And this, gentlemen, is the rarely-seen-in-the-wild Straw Man/Non-Sequitor/Category Error! Or, could the great Bing Tsher E please explain what in the name of Zeus's asshole does the Iran Hostage crisis have to do with the protesters in the article???

    431. Re:Sounds like by metacell · · Score: 1

      It's only cheap because anyone can produce it. Once the seed can only be provided by one company, they can and will jack up the prices.

      In the pharmaceutics industry, patented drugs are usually much more expensive than generic ones. Once the patent expires, and anyone can produce generics, the companies start competing by price and the cost plummets.

    432. Re:Sounds like by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Food isn't the only thing that comes from a variety of species. There are many types of trees which make wood for different uses and have different qualities when alive. There is a huge variety of plants grown for their flowers. There are plants useful for erosion control, plants for local climate modification. "The low thousands" just won't cut it.

      Biodiversity IS a worthy goal in and of itself, just not the highest goal. Lots of different plants and animals makes the world a nicer place..

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    433. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask those who starving.

    434. Re:Sounds like by metacell · · Score: 1

      It's likely that they're trying to protect the genetic purity of their own crops.

      When a GM crop is created, it's patented. Natural pollination will contaminate the genetic purity of the natural crop. Eventually, the local farmers won't be able to keep seed for their own crops because they'll all be contaminated by the GM grown nearby.

      But this is ludicrous in itself. If Monsanto crop spreads itself from farmer A's field to farmer B's field, that's Monsanto's problem, not farmer B's. It shouldn't be possible to sue farmer B for not preventing patented crop to sow itself on his fields. If anything, farmer B should be able to sue Monsanto for contaminating his own crop.

      If the consequence of this is that crop patents become hard or impossible to enforce, well, then we have to accept that crop patents are hard or impossible to enforce.

    435. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just the same as all the rich nations of the world telling all the poor nations... "No, we could feed you guys. But we all want to buy a $100,000 watch this year. So fuck you. You'll get some scraps if we feel like it. And get paid to do it."

      Which is somehow normal and ok because money is involved.

    436. Re:Sounds like by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      The problem of course is that if you practice a patent technique, you have infringed on the patent. When the patented technique is a gene, the way you practice it is by growing and selling produce that contains that gene. This is a statutory obligation, not a contractual obligation; you agreed to it when you elected the bastards who made it legal to patent genes.

      We don't elect the Supreme Court. Diamond v. Chakrabarty is what led to being able to patent genes.

    437. Re:Sounds like by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Another example of where "big agriculture" got involved was in IRAQ after the fall of Saddam.
      The provisional administrator in IRAQ passed a regulation requiring the use of GM wheat from the big companies like Monsanto. Said regulation was drawn up by the US department of agriculture. At that point in time, the higher-ups in the USDA had previously been high-ups in big agriculture companies.

      Or take the example of the guy who got sued because he had a machine that was used in the saving-and-reusing of Canola seeds. Monsanto basically said that unless he can prove in court that not a single Monsanto GM seed had passed through his machine, he should be forced to pay big bucks and to get rid of his machine.

      Or for that matter, new regulation being pushed through US congress that effectively bans organic farming, farmers markets, small guys selling food directly from their farm etc. I cant find an exact cite for it or its current status but I do know there was a huge uproar because of what it did and because of how much power it gave to the big agriculture firms (I think one version of the bill even regulated people growing food for their own use and people killing wild animals or catching fish for their own use)

    438. Re:Sounds like by metacell · · Score: 1

      Actually, Monsanto forces their crops on unwilling farmers through natural pollination. Crops from Monsanto fields spread and contaminate other fields. The farmers are just protecting themselves against destruction of *their* property.

    439. Re:Sounds like by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      I doubt Monsanto will ever have a monopoly on seeds. I don't think it's physically/technically/hypothetically possible, but even if it was, it wouldn't last long. They're not planning to jack up prices in the future, you can tell because their seeds are more expensive than those of their competitors and they are already making a healthy/obscene profit.

    440. Re:Sounds like by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The original complaint that started this thread was fairly narrow in scope - namely, that GMO products are not labelled. It was noted that this is not true in Europe, where this particular field was located. There was nothing said about how "GMOs affect everyone" up until your post, and that's a different discussion.

    441. Re:Sounds like by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 1

      And, oddly enough, neither is this. Note that monopolies are one antithesis of the "free market". And they're usually government induced as well.

      Governments are surely responsible for some monopolies, some intentionally and corruptly. However any free enterprise system ultimately trends toward bigger and bigger corporations and fewer and fewer choices. The only hope controlling that system is governments that looks out for the interests of it's people.

      --
      brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
    442. Re:Sounds like by metacell · · Score: 1

      You're a moron; it's a point that is relevant (to some degree) because the situation in the US would not exist if it were not so easy for GM and non-GM crops to cross pollinate. There's also a big difference between artificial selection and GM; we don't know all the consequences of genetically altering an organism, but we can basically see them when selecting over generations.

      How the /%&# did this get modded "+5 Insightful"?

      Patent law is getting more and more inclusive all over the world. The USA is exporting its own "intellectual property" legislation by applying political and economic pressure on other countries. This, in turn, is the result of lobbying from companies who want to outsource production to low-wage countries while preventing the low-wage countries to start producing the goods on their own and competing with the American companies. Having important crops controlled by one or a few companies is a problem for the whole world - if it's not a problem for a specific country today, it will be tomorrow.

      The difference between a "GM crop" and a "non-GM crop" is that the "GM crop" is owned and controlled by a private enterprise. There. That wasn't so hard, was it?

    443. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the police still failed to do much but slow them down.

      They're Belgian. Did we learn nothing from history? It's freaking Memorial Day for Pete's sake.

    444. Re:Sounds like by KarrdeSW · · Score: 1

      Actually, the sterile seed just doesn't exist yet. They have not yet brought plants with terminator genes to market.

    445. Re:Sounds like by john82 · · Score: 1

      you would realize that many of the protesters are local farmers.

      yeah, right. And most of the Iranians who occupied the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979 were 'students.'

      And this, gentlemen, is the rarely-seen-in-the-wild Straw Man/Non-Sequitor/Category Error! Or, could the great Bing Tsher E please explain what in the name of Zeus's asshole does the Iran Hostage crisis have to do with the protesters in the article???

      Lets see... I believe the point offered by the parent would be:

      GMO protesters are to farmers as
      Those who occupied the US Embassy in Tehran are to students

      Parent was insinuating that the protesters in both cases were not what they seemed. Is the point clear now?

    446. Re:Sounds like by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      And, oddly enough, neither is this.

      It's not so odd, since the "free market" does not exist. It has never existed. It can never exist.

      It is a fiction. No matter what example I give you, you'll always be able to say "nope, that's not free market either" because there is no such thing as a free market. The concept was invented, like organized religion, specifically to keep people enslaved and enrich the elite.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    447. Re:Sounds like by metacell · · Score: 1

      I hope it's a royal "we" in the "we don't know the effects of genetically altering an organism". You may not know. But the people who study it do (or at least will after the experiment is done).

      No, they won't. They'll know one of the short-term effects with reasonable certainty, but they'll have no idea of the long-term effects, or what will happen if cross-pollination occurs with other species.

      Do you really think it's possible to investigate all possible effects of a technology with a few experiments?

    448. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find the whole concept of credit cards to be immoral, and yet, me not using a credit will affect no change. In fact there is a system (credit ratings) that will actually hurt me if I choose a competitive method of payment. Choosing not to buy GM foods will not stop the spread of GM foods. Sure a 5-10% market of organics will arise, but issues with GM foods go beyond what I put in my own mouth. It is a complicated issue, and these folks are doing what they feel is best for humanity. Bin laden thought he was doing humanity a favor too, but look at from that perspective. When do the rules off private property fall apart?

    449. Re:Sounds like by Intron · · Score: 1

      The only real problem that I have is that court case and cross-sterilization that you refer to.

      Other than that, if company A sells heirloom seeds that produce tasty food year after year and company B sells GMO seeds that produce tasty food for only one year, then I trust the free market to make the right decision and choose the seed that is best for the food supply. I'm not going to hate a company just because their seed is GMO.

      I trust the free market only when the free market has access to all of the information needed to make a correct decision. When there is legislation to block disclosure of information, for example requiring labeling GMO foods, then the free market isn't very free.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    450. Re:Sounds like by metacell · · Score: 1

      If it were that simple... in reality, genes rarely control a single identifiable trait. Thousands of genes contribute to one trait, and a single gene can affect a number of traits. We can't predict the outcome of modifying a single gene; the only way to see what happens is to subject the crop to practical experiments, whether it's manufactured using artificial selection or direct gene manipulation.

    451. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed

    452. Re:Sounds like by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      First off, that study was a piece of shit. They detected the Bt at levels well below the levels their test was capable of detecting. Have you ever considered that maybe people put out crap studies? Have you ever considered that maybe whenever a study is propped up by journalists and not scientists there's a reason for it? Have you ever considered that those of us in genetic engineering aren't morons? Why don't you cite the Wakefield study while you're at it? Second, whenever any seed is cross pollinated by any other variety, not just GM ones, then farmers can't save the seed. If they planned on doing that anyway. Which most don't because they use hybrids. Third, it was terrorism, no matter what psuedoscience is used to justify it. Fourth, if you know nothing about plant biology, and you very clearly don't please don't talk about it.

    453. Re:Sounds like by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      Proof?

      GM crops have been on the market for 17 years and are spread throughout the world. Billions of people ingest the stuff every day without harm. You can't reasonably ask for more proof than that.

      That's not to say we can't or won't produce a GM crop that cause an allergic reaction, mind you. It's bound to happen eventually. The most common foods that cause allergies are still freely available, however, because we recognize it would be stupid to ban a food that billions of people eat simply because a tiny percentage of people are allergic to it.

      Why should GM crops be treated any differently than non-GM before there's even a single verified allergy, much less an actual death, linked to one?

    454. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, GM plants produce pollen all right. As much as any other plant of the same species. But the seeds produced are often non-viable, and the seeds produced by pollen with the "terminator" gene installed are never viable. GM pollen poisons the seeds saved by non-GM growers.

      GM crops are high yield producers, as long as you use the pesticides and fertilizers they were designed for. But they are also biological weapons in a war to monopolize the world food supply. When Monsanto suspects that their patented intellectual property is present in a non-customer's crops they trespass to take samples, and if confirmed, they sue - often bankrupting the farm in question. Not just "sometimes" or as a result of "over zealous personnel", but as a matter of rigidly enforced global corporate policy.

    455. Re:Sounds like by Intron · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't GMO, it's patents and business models. Getting rid of GMO won't fix anything.

      It will fix the GMO food problem.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    456. Re:Sounds like by okmijnuhb · · Score: 1

      When Monsanto has prevented the labeling of GM foods, how do I not buy them?

    457. Re:Sounds like by BlackBloq · · Score: 1

      While I completely disagree with this, there is a fear based on reality that the GM crops will be in everything without choice or disclosure.
      http://www.naturalnews.co/029168_GMO_foods_labeling.html
      Is an example.
      All gm products should be clearly labeled on the front of the package. But this would kill the sales.
      So people respond with fear and aggression. GMO soy is in alot of shit now adays as soy is in a lot of shit as well.
      There is also unhealthy processing...
      http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?lang=eng&id=1292966244688

    458. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, if you eat junk food you're basically eating corn, same goes for potatoes invariably.

    459. Re:Sounds like by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

      This is done in order to protect their income stream.

      FTFY

    460. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I second you.

    461. Re:Sounds like by thej1nx · · Score: 1

      Will you hate a company if they make GMO seeds that can in essence starve off the existing natural seeds and replace them, and then the said company patents these GMO seeds, and then goes around destroying the crops of farmers just because the GMO seeds got into their fields via cross-pollination? Their GMO seeds cause contamination of natural crops. And then the company has the gall to go and destroy natural crops just because some of their patented seeds landed in the field.

      The seeds they make are designed to be tolerant to their herbicide product Roundup. In essence, Roundup kills all non--monsanto-GMO plants(weeds, natural plants) without harming their GMO seeds/plants. Which is all good and fine, except that Monsanto has been known to frequently hire crop duster planes to spray the herbicide on crop fields of farmers that are not their customers. If your crop survives, they sue you for using their GMO seeds illegally.

      And the Roundup herbicide? It has proven to be significantly toxic to humans and is banned in several countries. It has been shown to cause problems with reproduction system of rats.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_(herbicide)

      Personally, I have no problem if folks like you who would happily sacrifice their reproductive ability for some "tasty food", become recipients of darwin award and remove themselves as contributer to gene pool. But I digress.

      And this is the same company that brought us now-banned DDT and Agent Orange.

      GMO seeds/food need not be "evil", but thanks to the accountability-free corporate-as-a-human-person culture, they WILL be inevitably abused and cause more harm than good. There is currently absolutely no way to ensure that GMO seeds are designed in a responsible manner.

    462. Re:Sounds like by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      Kiwis are in the food supply. Autism diagnosis is on the rise. Prove to me that kiwis do not cause autism in the long term.

      Do you understand why that argument is so poor? The only three traits used in commercially approved GMOs are the Bt trait, which has been used in organic farming for decades, an EPSE synthase gene, a form of which is in plants already, and viral protein coat proteins that would be naturally found in non-GMO infected plants. None of those are particularly good candidates for long term harm.

    463. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most, if not all, GM plants are engineered so that they don't produce pollen. That's why farmers need to buy new seeds every year. This is done in order to prevent flux of engineered material to nature.

      And to make sure that farmers need to buy new seed every year.

    464. Re:Sounds like by Paul1969 · · Score: 1

      Bullshit!
      Who do you think informed people of the problems involved in the disposal of nuclear waste, and the issues that arise from carelessness with GMOs?
      That's right. Scientists.

    465. Re:Sounds like by Paul1969 · · Score: 1

      And the same can be said for plane crashes, or ocean liners, or drilling for oil.

      But none of those events will have consequences that remain deadly for hundreds of thousands of years.

    466. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the world was a happy and peaceful place without any problems and then the white man came an destroyed the diets in all of these countries. Couldn't possibly be that life sucked and vitamin A just isn't very common in some regions, no, that is impossible.

    467. Re:Sounds like by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      Whoa there, monoculture and genetic engineering are two radically different things. Monoculture is a bad thing, polycuture is a very good thin, and biodiverse crops do not receive nearly the funding they should. I mean, you'd really be shocked at how little people care about that one. But keep in mind that this has been a problem long before GMOs came to the market. You wouldn't blame conventional breeding for it, so why would you blame an old problem on new technology? That doesn't make sense. Go the the store. How often do you see salak, yacon, jujube, tef, marula, yellowhorn, chaya, ensete, jaboticaba, pawpaw, oca, fonio, agretti, kutjera, or garambullo? I'm guessing never, and genetic engineering isn't the reason why. If you had to look those up, if you've never heard of them, that's why farmers aren't growing it. It isn't technology, it's people. Sorry to say, but you may very well be part of the problem. This is a problem, yes, but it has nothing do do with genetic engineering. Ideally, we would combine biotechnology AND biotechnology. They're not opposites! I'm a big supporter of both, and I wish people would quite pretending that there was a conflict between the two. In this sense genetic engineering is just a way of improving a plant, just like conventional breeding. And the same thing goes for intra-species variability. Tomatoes for example are not commercially genetically modified, but when was the last time you saw an Ananas Noire, Green Moldovan, Carbon, White Tomesol, Huge Yellow Oxhart, or Kellogg's Breakfast at the store?

      And I've never heard of any company selling sterile seed to third world countries. Where did you get that? Hybrid seed, yet, but hybrid seed, GMO seed, and sterile seed are three totally different descriptions and are not to be used interchangeably (which they often are). I have to explain this all the time, but hybrid seed are better the first generation due to hybrid vigor, but lose genetic stability the second generation, and while that seed can be planted, indeed hybridization is how most stable varieties got started, it tends to have much higher variability, which is not desirable. This happens if it is a non-GMO hybrid or a GMO hybrid. Again, old issue being blamed on a new technology for some reason.

      I also disagree about the regulation. If anything it is too strict. Companies go through years of testing and millions of dollars to bring a GMO to market. If it wasn't so darned strict, maybe Monsanto would have some decent competition, maybe more than just one university developed GMO (that one being the Rainbow papaya) would make it to market. Remember, the stricter you make regulation, the higher the barriers to entry, the fewer people are able to break into the industry, better off Monsanto is at holding a monopolistic position. Remember the true consequences of regulation. Not to say there should be none of curse, this is a serious issue and should have serious regulation, but it should be appropriate, not excessive.

      And no, you shouldn't trust the companies. Everything I've said can be verified by your local land grant university's agriculture extension office. Monsanto's trustworthiness might be questionable but I assure you theirs is not.

    468. Re:Sounds like by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 1

      You are an industry apologist who is attempting to hide the problems present in GMO, and I will make no further attempt at discourse with you.

      In case of future readers of this thread I will make a point to for the reader. Please do your own research. Things like Google Scholar make finding peer reviewed scientific studies exceedingly easy. Take the time to read them. Here is one to get you started.

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/33928396/GMO-Study

      This is only one of several studies I've seen showing adverse, sometimes severe effects of the descendants of mammals raised on diet that is only partially based on GMOs. If you still have confidence in feeding your kids that after you understand the depth of the issue go ahead.

      --
      brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
    469. Re:Sounds like by Sique · · Score: 2

      There is a small difference between customizing a program (e.g. breeding special traits of a species) and copying source code from other programs into the program (genetically modifying livings).

      Breeding is no genetic engineering, you don't introduce new genes into the genome of a domesticated animal or plant. You just select the part of the offspring whose genes are expressed in the allels you like. And even hybridization of different species is different from genetically modifying a species, because the parents of a hybrid come from the same genus and are very closely related. And often even the natural limits between two species of a genus are gradual or geographical, not genetic.

      People who say "we do genetical modifications since the late stone age" have no idea what breeding is and no clue what genetical modifications are. They probably will also fall for the old claim, blondes would die out because the blonde allels are recessive.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    470. Re:Sounds like by Solandri · · Score: 1

      And here's why. The guy didn't have the contaminated plants "accidentally" spread and take over his field. He quite deliberately selected the GM strain, separated it from the rest of his plants, and used it to replant:
      [...]
      One can argue about the merits of gene patents in general, but in this particular case it's not anywhere "poor innocent farmer who couldn't do anything about it".

      The problem with this theory is that Schmeiser's actions don't fit the motive you're inferring. The wikipedia article seems to have had an editing hack job done on it to make him look bad. The large sections you've quoted are from the Federal Court decision. The Canadian Supreme Court affirmed the ruling on infringement (i.e. he did use Round-up Ready canola seed without a license), but overturned the ~$15,000 award to Monsanto because it found that he did not profit in any way from his canola being Round-up Ready. He treated it and sold it just like regular canola. In particular, this section of wikipedia you've quoted seems slanted:

      Schmeiser then performed a test by applying Roundup to an additional 3 acres (12,000 m2) to 4 acres (16,000 m2) of the same field. He found that 60% of the canola plants survived. At harvest time, Schmeiser instructed a farmhand to harvest the test field.

      That kinda makes it sound like he sprayed the entire field. If you read the Federal Court decision, it's clear that he didn't spray the entire field, he merely sprayed a single 12-meter wide test-strip adjacent to the ditch to try to figure out what was going on:

      [39] In an attempt to determine why the plants had survived the herbicide spraying, Mr. Schmeiser conducted a test in field 2. Using his sprayer, he sprayed, with Roundup herbicide, a section of that field in a strip along the road. He made two passes with his sprayer set to spray 40 feet, the first weaving between and around the power poles, and the second beyond but adjacent to the first pass in the field, and parallel to the power poles. This was said by him to be some three to four acres in all, or "a good three acres". After some days, approximately 60% of the plants earlier sprayed had persisted and continued to grow. Mr. Schmeiser testified that these plants grew in clumps which were thickest near the road and began to thin as one moved farther into the field.

      At that point, I'm not quite sure what you expected him to do. Destroy the entire field because he detected Round-up ready canola in it? It sounds more like he figured the contamination wasn't substantial, so just treated the field like any regular field.

      Anyhow, the reasoning in the Supreme Court ruling justifying infringement (that he "ought to have known" the canola contained Monsanto's patented Round-up Ready gene) was invalidated a few years ago, with the discovery of weeds which have developed a natural resistance to Round-up. You can no longer make the assumption that if a plant survives Round-up, then it must have Monsanto's patented gene in it. The only way to know for sure is to perform a DNA test on it. It remains to be seen whether farmers will be required to conduct such tests in order to avoid infringing Monsanto's patent (at the risk of destroying a naturally-occuring Round-up resistant plant if they can't pay). Or if they'll be allowed to assume the resistance is natural until Monsanto tests their field and tells them otherwise.

    471. Re:Sounds like by metacell · · Score: 1

      I don't mean Monsanto will jack up the prices in the future. I mean they are able to charge a much higher price on their patented seeds because nobody else can produce them. The high price gives farmers a reason to save seeds from one season to the next, which in turn gives Monsanto a reason to license their seeds per year.

      Why do you think Monsanto needs to sue farmers who don't obey the license?

    472. Re:Sounds like by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

      Nope. Feed corn has been like that for a long time now. A farmer has to buy seeds every year. It's completely evil, actually, and somehow they got those practical-minded mid-western farmers to buy into it.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    473. Re:Sounds like by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      ... there is no such thing as a free market. The concept was invented, like organized religion, specifically to keep people enslaved and enrich the elite.

      Pay no attention to His Holiness, for he expounds only the most vile and pernicious truths!

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    474. Re:Sounds like by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      That kinda makes it sound like he sprayed the entire field.

      It does? Until you wrote that, I did not in fact even notice that this statement could be construed as meaning that the entire field was sprayed - in my mind it clearly referred to a 3-4 acre part of the whole field.

      At that point, I'm not quite sure what you expected him to do. Destroy the entire field because he detected Round-up ready canola in it? It sounds more like he figured the contamination wasn't substantial, so just treated the field like any regular field.

      I think the catch was that he did separate the grain from those plants from the rest of the field, and specifically used those to reseed - so he didn't treat that particular test strip "as usual". Note the court's claim that the levels of Roundup-ready canola on his field - 95-98%! - could not be reasonably explained assuming regular treatment (after at most two years from the original contamination, and one year after he discovered it).

      Anyhow, the reasoning in the Supreme Court ruling justifying infringement (that he "ought to have known" the canola contained Monsanto's patented Round-up Ready gene) was invalidated a few years ago, with the discovery of weeds which have developed a natural resistance to Round-up. You can no longer make the assumption that if a plant survives Round-up, then it must have Monsanto's patented gene in it.

      I think it would still be rather unusual to expect a contamination level of 60% all of a sudden (the amount of plants that survived in the farmer's experiments) from a wild strain. Not that it's impossible, but it would be pretty tricky to argue on the balance of probabilities.

    475. Re:Sounds like by thej1nx · · Score: 1

      You are either a liar or a total moron.

      http://www.gene.ch/genet/2003/May/msg00044.html

      Mind telling us, if these seeds are sterile, then why is monsanto suing farmers left and right for saving these "sterile" seeds?

      If buying new seeds was cheaper, monsanto has nothing to worry about and should not be suing farmer, correct?

      And apparently monsanto insists that it has right to destroy crops of farmers even if their crops became contaminated by accident. In fact they are so sure of the said contamination happening(they innovatively call it black-market piracy) that they petitioned Argentina government to allow them to collect royalty at harvesting time from ALL farmers, rather than at the time of purchasing of seeds.

    476. Re:Sounds like by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

      Why are they a bunch of assholes?

      Scientific experiments need to be done in controlled conditions, not out in the wild where the can contaminate or affect other natural processes.

      Also, these GM products will be patented and do you really want big companies selling patented seeds and other vegetable products at higher prices? hardly good for the developing world is it.

    477. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've contradicted yourself. Artificial selection and genetic engineering are both genetic modification.

    478. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that companies like Monsanto constantly attempt to ensure that they can bypass or break such laws. They actually sue natural food providers to bar them from advertising that their product is natural, like they did when they sued the Oakhurst dairy in maine for advertising that its milk did not come from cows treated with Bovine growth hormone.

    479. Re:Sounds like by Dilaudid · · Score: 1

      It's a religious movement - after Marxism was totally discredited, these guys have got to believe that someone is out to get them. Monsanto, Nike, GAP, Starbucks. I waded through some anti-globalisation literature, there's a whole post-modern framework ("counter-narrative") behind some of these guys. Total bullshit of course, but new religions usually are. Their form of the armageddon is that man's sinful ways (capitalism, scientific advance, industry, the evil pursuit of money) will lead to an ecological catastrophe. They don't provide any solutions, because that's not their job.

    480. Re:Sounds like by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      You honestly think land 20 miles from Fukushima will have "deadly" levels of radiation in hundreds of thousands of years??

      Mr Inverse-Square and Exponential-Decay would like to have a word with you. They're lawyers for common sense.

    481. Re:Sounds like by nhaehnle · · Score: 1

      So effectively, biodiversity is a worthy goal in and of itself - you actually say so yourself - because biodiversity is equivalent to redundancy. And we all know that redundancy is a worthy goal in critical systems.

      I find your views on how diversity could result from market forces to be a bit naive. Biodiversity is incompatible with economics of scale, and the market naturally tends towards monopolies. These tendencies have to be actively resisted.

      That said, reduction of diversity is a problem that is bigger than GM foods. There is a history of short-sighted farmers setting up monocultures that ultimately prove destructive even when no direct genetic manipulation was involved at all.

    482. Re:Sounds like by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

      You put forward 7 examples (most of them dubious) and say that it proves that monopolies are usually government induced? Then, there are only 4 or 5 "natural" monopolies?

      Let's see why some of your "government induced" monopolies fit also with "natural" monopolies.

      Water: What is the high cost? The water itself? Nope, the infrastructure. Passing plumbing down the street is a big cost, connecting it to your house is a small one. Are you suggesting that there should be in each (or most) street of your city several pipes so you can chose from? Nope, first comer wins it all.

      Same for electricity distribution. Note that in most countries there are several companies generating electricity.

      Health care. Where do you live that it is an state sponsored monopoly. Even here in "red" Europe, I can chose to go to private clinic if I want to. There are many of them. And yes, I have mandatory public insurance, but I can chose what I use. And it is part of the government services, not a private company.

      Railroads: 50/50. In the USA there was no monopoly, in Europe it was somewhat common (there did exist private railways, but usually disconnected from the main grid and with a very specific function).

      Drugs: Then again, where? Most that I know of, producers and sellers are private enterprise. Yes, regulations and checks are very strict but it is 100% private enterprise.

      Yes, some of them are legally stablished as monopolies, but even if they were not, they would end up as one. And being a monopoly allows the government to force them to provide an universal service (for example, not only wiring the parts of the city were are the wealthier customers -who consume more- but all of it) and control price.

      Compare that with monopolies like current Microsoft or historycal Rockefeller Oil, and tell me if you still think that monopolies are usually government induced.

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    483. Re:Sounds like by LBU.Zorro · · Score: 1

      Seriously? I appreciate you're trolling but...

      Diet coke has zero calories, therefore you won't make it very long before you starve to death, let alone all of the missing nutrients. Non-diet coke is loaded with calories so at least you will last longer..

      And what has this got to do with milk? or GMO crops?

      You might has well say only have water for a year - it also has zero calories, is missing a lot of vital nutrients and basically you'll starve, get scurvy and die.

      Really stupid statement.

      Z.

    484. Re:Sounds like by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Euhm, actually, no. You are taking the actions of monsanto (making plants sterile) and applying as justification to attack an unrelated university (which is trying to cure a leading cause of famines).

      So unless you find it moral to get put in jail because *I* stole something, find a better argument. Greenies don't cope very well with the complexity of the world in general, of course.

    485. Re:Sounds like by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Most of the fears of GM foods are unreasonable and just bizarre if you've passed 6th grade science class.

      Errr, you've just lost something like 90% of your potential audience there. (What is "6th grade" by the way? In terms of age-of-pupil-when-normally-taught.)

      Sad, but probably close to true.

      Am I going to have to get my bivouac gear out again and the night-vision binoculars? For the war on science.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    486. Re:Sounds like by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      so that you have to rebuy it from them, every year, forever.

      Patents expire after 20 years though?

    487. Re:Sounds like by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Many populations, for instance those in Europe, have evolved a high degree of tolerance to it.

      I think that needs the full reasoning stated.

      ... Because those populations have many generations had cow-milk-tolerating populations having more grandchildren than the cow-milk-non-tolerating populations, because cow-milk is a significant source of nutrition for those populations.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    488. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GM producers seem to lack awareness of the environment. They lack the knowledge that pollen and seeds can get blown about by the wind and cross-pollinate. They plant them in an open field and claim that they won't affect any neighbouring fields or the environment. Surely, they should be doing these tests in a controlled environment - like a sealed greenhouse, BEFORE they let them out in the world.

      Its not like its the environment and our food supply they're screwing with. Oh yeah - it is.

    489. Re:Sounds like by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      I agree that there's a lot of inappropriate FUD surrounding GM products, but there are also very good reasons for people to be concerned. GM products tend to be genetically homogenous, and that is very weak from an evolutionary context. It suggests that a new fungus, virus, insect, or other form of danger may arise which can destroy the entire plant line. Over-dependence on GM plants is a monumental leap backwards in terms of survivability to new threats.

      This isn't really different from the rest of modern agriculture, which also really likes monocultures. It is a huge problem, but not one unique to GM.

      Also GM companies have a pretty shady history and a lot of very dark actions in their past, and I don't trust them to make decisions which are good for anyone in the world other than their stockholders. For example, selling the third world seeds which will grow only sterile plants (removing their ability to be self sufficient).

      They started doing that because of concern for the genes spreading, which would be worse.

      Suing farmers whose plants end up being fertilized with GM products from a neighboring field, and so forth.

      OK, you got me there, that was just a dick move.

      I trust GM companies to be honest about GM plants and livestock about as much as I trust tobacco companies to be honest about cigarettes in the late 80's and early 90's.[...] I think there's a lot of value to GM products, but I think there's a lot of potential danger too, and I don't trust any private entity to honestly tell me about the dangers along with the benefits.

      I agree with that, we shouldn't take what they say for granted, and a lot of the testing should be done by people not directly linked to the companies (how to get them to pay without that being a link is another matter)

    490. Re:Sounds like by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      God has had millions of years to work on this stuff, but we've been at it for only a few years and already a significant amount of commercially available food is GMO.

      God doesn't even enter the equation, every modern crop and farm animal is bred to such extremes that they are in effect man made. It is a process over which we have had no control, GM is a tool for the same end with a little more control. Sure, it might have unintended consequences, and we need to take steps to discover and avoid them*, but the risk of bad consequences cropping up is much less than that risk in traditional breeding.

      *And preferably this testing will be done by someone not linked to the companies.

    491. Re:Sounds like by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      It's that by making it a sterile plant, they're trying to corner the market on farming. The way it's always been done is this - farmer plants the field. Harvests. Keeps a portion of the seed, sells the rest. Next season, he plants (or if you prefer, "reinvests") the seed he kept to plant the next crop.

      Not for at least the last 50 years, probably a lot longer. It is much more efficient to breed a superior wheat once (most often, superior=resistant to a particular disease), and sell that to everyone. That leads to one of the problems of farming today, monocultures, huge areas of land all susceptible to the same diseases.

    492. Re:Sounds like by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Might you have a better citation for that?
      I want to check out the paper.

      unfortunatly I can find nothing except hundreds and hundreds of sites parroting effectively your link over and over and over.

      I did find one which actually gave a citation but it was for this:

      http://www.springerlink.com/content/6566j50u18936604/fulltext.pdf
      which is just a paper about ectopia in hamsters.
      (that one is also the source for some of the images thrown into your link and the source of a number of partial quotes)

      I simply cannot find any paper for the source of this:
      All the earlier mentioned hundreds of articles appear to be based on some email exchange with Alexey V. Surov.

      To quote one such page:

      "The study, jointly conducted by Surovâ(TM)s Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security, is expected to be published in three months (July 2010)â"so the technical details will have to wait."

      yet I can't find anything published in the last year that matches.
      It's hard to examine papers which can't be found.

    493. Re:Sounds like by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      How is it that the goalpost-moving PP gets +5, while the GPP gets +3?

    494. Re:Sounds like by Sandb · · Score: 1

      According to an interview between the two parties on Belgian television (Canvas) yesterday evening: The funding is for a large part private, by BASF, which, as per agreement with the university, forces the university to sell any patents forthcoming out of this research "to the highest bidder".

      So it seems no public usage will come forth out of this "publicly funded" research...

      ---
      Belgian and proud about it. somehow. man... this is weird

    495. Re:Sounds like by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      [...]it might be a sad day for scientific research, but it's a good day for the freedom of eating natural veggies.

      Ahh, yes, the natural vegetable, unadulterated by man. Except for a few millennia of aggressive breeding, making them nothing like anything nature would dream up in her worst nightmares. But don't let that distract you from branding anything you don't like as artificial.

    496. Re:Sounds like by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Small note: organisms are really surprisingly good at horizontal gene transfer.
      Bacteria are masters of it and some even have mechanisms like prophages in their genome to help them steal genes from bacteria around them while others will hook up with random neighbours and swap chunks of DNA.

      Even in more complex organisms genes get transfered every now and then, especially if there's any virus which can infect both species.

      chunks of source code do get copied in now and then naturally.

    497. Re:Sounds like by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      I count myself as an environmentalist but believe that turning our backs on science is completely the wrong answer. We have passed the point where we can rely on the planet healing itself, and there needs to be a concerted effort to resolve the growing problems. Trouble is there is so much wilful ignorance (on both sides of the discussion) compounded by the usual human "Us and Them" mentality.

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    498. Re:Sounds like by metacell · · Score: 1

      I think I see your point. Even if the above monopolies are owned by the government, you're saying they would occur naturally anyway, and the government is just responding to the natural need for a monopoly.

      I'm not sure I agree, though. Let's look at the cases one by one:

      Water: Even if there can only be one water supplier in each geographical area, private water suppliers can co-exist in different areas in the country, and compete for contracts to supply an area with water. This is how it works with collective traffic where I live - only one company can supply collective traffic for a city, but competing companies bid for that contract.

      Electricity: Here in Sweden, one company owns the cables leading the electricity to your house, while a number of companies compete to fill the cables with electricity. Switching electricity provider is as easy as terminating your contract and signing a new one. (The same is true for Internet via ADSL - you can switch ADSL provider at will. The company owning the telephone switch station is obliged to give all Internet providers physical access to it.)

      Health care: Here in Sweden, the government provides universal health insurance AND owns the vast majority of the hospitals and clinics. Private health providers are at a disadvantage, since the left wing parties are opposed to private health care, and the authority running the government health care also decides the rules the private providers compete under. Health providers are not 100% government owned, but they don't have to be to count as a monopoly.

      Drugs: Here in Sweden, prescription drugs could only be sold by a government-owned chain of stores until a few years ago. (Alcoholic beverages above a few % alcohol content can still only be sold in special government-owned stores.)

    499. Re:Sounds like by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      It's not just the alphas.
      The most dangerous person can be one who honestly believes they're working for "the greater good" or something similar.

      http://www.akimbocomics.com/?p=643

      "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its people may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end."

      also the problem with science is that it is normally baby steps all the way and someone somewhere will develop it anyway.

      The same research can make it easy to develop cancer treatments or bioweapons, power stations or nuclear weapons, mining charges or missiles.

    500. Re:Sounds like by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      You're right, they are not the same. We have some control over the result with GMO, selective breeding combined with mutagenesis (or just waiting for mutations) are stabs in the dark where we have no idea what other traits are being introduced.

    501. Re:Sounds like by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't blame conventional breeding for it, so why would you blame an old problem on new technology?

      I wouldn't presume too much about what someone else would or wouldn't do if I were you. If traditional breeding techniques produced genetic monoculture, I certainly would blame them. But they don't. In fact, traditional breeding techniques produce widely varied genetic lines. Two major distinctions are: 1) a monolithic company pushing very hard to have as many farmers as possible producing crops from a single genetic line (one they happen to hold exclusive legal rights to produce), and 2) those plants typically are sterile, so no further advancement of the species is possible except that the owning company chooses to advance it. There's no longer any natural selection occurring in the wild, all selection is unnatural. GM products and GM companies absolutely are dramatically more likely to shut down gene lines than traditional techniques which promote genetic diversity. I don't trust humans to have this as figured out in terms of long term survivability of a species as I do the tried and true Darwinian method.

      You'll notice that the problem I have here is not as much about GM products themselves as they are about the companies and techniques typically behind GM products. Unfortunately it's very difficult to separate the two in actual practice in the modern era. It's not the act of GM itself, it's the nearly 1.0 correlated actions surrounding typical GM product marketing & ownership enforcement techniques.

      How often do you see salak, yacon, jujube, tef, marula, yellowhorn, chaya, ensete, jaboticaba, pawpaw, oca, fonio, agretti, kutjera, or garambullo? I'm guessing never, and genetic engineering isn't the reason why. It isn't technology, it's people.

      I wouldn't presumed to have said so; you presume far too much. Each of these are not produced commercially not because they lack proper marketing, but because of various reasons from producing low yields per acre, requiring fairly specific growing environments and so being limited in where they can be grown, producing food which is not particularly appetizing, producing a fruit with very low shelf life, and so forth. The foods which are most popular to grow today are that way because they are tasty, simple to grow, have a large tolerance for growing environment, keep well, and produce a high yield per growing area.

      Just to pluck one fruit out of your list, (I chose it because it's one we grew in my yard), the Paw Paw tree: the fruit does not keep well at all; it'd be essentially impossible to grow this crop for commercial reasons since it begins decaying almost immediately after picking. Traditional preservation techniques such as canning don't help much, and in fact you're recommended against it because canning Paw Paw has a high risk of botulism. It's also difficult to eat or prepare because it has a large number of inedible seeds all throughout the fruit, pitting it is difficult. Personally I never really cared for the taste; the peach and cherry trees growing nearby were much better targets for us as kids.

      And I've never heard of any company selling sterile seed to third world countries... Again, old issue being blamed on a new technology for some reason.

      Not being blamed on the technology, being blamed on the companies who couple them together with the technology. "Genetic Use Restriction Technology" does exist even if it is not being used commercially. It's something I think the big GM companies have backed away from solely because of public outrage, not because they recognize the many dangers associated with it. Monsanto, for example, continues to advance research in this area: "We’ve continued right on with work on the Technology Protection System (TPS or Terminator). We never really slowed down. We’re on target, moving ahead to commercialize it. We never really backed off" (Terminator Technology Not

    502. Re:Sounds like by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      " sterile seed "

      I think terminator seeds were phased out after the massive public backlash and of course they were banned in the EU.

      It's not regulation that keeps monsanto on top- it's largely patent law.
      If you engineer a new crop you are pretty much certain to have infringed anumber of their patents and they can keep you out of the market with the blunt club that is patent law.

      In india a lot of farmers have been crossing GM cotton with their local varieties to create new breeds which can deal with the local conditions like the native breeds but have pest resistance genes from the GM crops.

      Monsanto don't like this but patent law is a bitch to enforce in india.

    503. Re:Sounds like by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      Because it is not profitable to run farms as they are run today? What, you didn't farmers actually did that whole "saving the seeds" thing anymore, did you*? Seeds are bought each year, and the entire harvest is sold. That way, we can roll out new, superior plants faster, and we can choose the best seed to plant.

      * I'm sure some do, but it has not been the norm for many years, to the degree where local variants die out.

    504. Re:Sounds like by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      What breed of banana are you talking about? I thought the Gros Michel was the old school banana, and it is still being cultivated (both facts according to wikipedia).

    505. Re:Sounds like by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      He's been completely thwarted in this thread with those inconvenient things that we call "facts".

      Got smoked by an AC with actual, real, peer-reviewed, published scientific journals that concisely point out why he's completely wrong.

      Besides which, I know for a fact that pretty much everything I eat that comes from any sort of farm: yes that includes the supposed "organic" farms, is GM. Almost nothing we eat today hasn't been genetically modified from its original version in some way. The only things you can say haven't are wild game. Even wild berries etc probably have some GM in there somewhere due to people farming them at some point then the results populating out through the wild.

      P.S. I'd much rather be eating a GM turnip that due to an additional gene increases my risk of getting cancer by like .02% than eat the ones covered in DDT or its new replacements. Part of the big push for GM foods is as a freaking safety mechanism. So that we're not ingesting small amounts of neuro toxins etc on a regular basis.

    506. Re:Sounds like by trout007 · · Score: 1

      I know this crazy person that bred a male donkey with a horse and the offspring are infertile.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    507. Re:Sounds like by scubamage · · Score: 1
      Not entirely. There are some very big issues with GMO food - not the least of which is the litigation that goes along with it. A crow eating some corn in your field, digests the kernel, and poops it out in another field where it happens to grow. The other farmer is found to have a GMO plant in the crop, and gets sued for a few million dollars for IP theft. Their farm closes, decreasing the amount of food available in total. Monsanto is notorious for doing these things in areas where their large purchasers are located. So in this case, GMO actually decreases the food supply, albiet indirectly.

      Also, recently its been found that Monsanto's GM "Roundup ready" plants seem to have given rise to an organism which can cause disease in both animals and plants, which is directly linked to miscarriages in infected animals link. So no, GM plants are not 100% safe. There are some very real dangers in this toybox that humans haven't quite figured out yet. Until we've worked it out, keep that shit off my plate. I'll continue growing most of my own food until then.

    508. Re:Sounds like by trout007 · · Score: 1

      What is the purpose of sexual reproduction as opposed to asexual? To create diverse genetics that help a species survive. A farmer doesn't want their plants to be too diverse. The want certain traits that make their crop valuable. You want tasty, sweet, large fruit.

      Genetic Modification whether through natural methods, artificial breeding or engineering can create plants with very desirable crops but also have the problem that their offspring don't share those traits. I know some people like that. Heirloom seeds come from plants that have shown the ability to keep desirable traits from one generation to the next. This is most typically with plants that are self fertile where they pollinate their own flower before it opens. This prevents cross pollination.

      http://www.burpee.com/heirloom-seeds-and-plants/

      For trees it's even more interesting. I have citrus trees with root stocks that are disease resistant that have had desirable fruiting stems grafted to it. I have to make sure that whenever a new branch forms below the graft that I cut it off. You can have more than one type of citrus on the same tree but some are more aggressive than others.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    509. Re:Sounds like by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Note, of course, that taxpayer funded research isn't actually the "free market" in action.

      I think you might be missing the point that the "free market" doesn't care whether you live or die unless you can afford to pay.

      Oddly enough, that's not the "free market" either. Limited liability corporations are another creation of government.

      Of course, the natural state of the "free market" is no liability. After all, the free market libertarian says the government exists only to protect property rights, enforce contracts and punish violent criminals.

      And, oddly enough, neither is this. Note that monopolies are one antithesis of the "free market". And they're usually government induced as well.

      Apparently you skipped the chapter on natural monopolies. Monopolies are not the antithesis of the "free market", they're the goal. It is the dream of every capitalist to establish a monopoly so that he can collect monopoly rents. The "free market" is amoral and will gladly murder it's customers if it's more profitable than keeping them alive this for the rest of the fiscal year*.

      * Some capitalists may be insulted that I'm implying they may actually consider what happens after the current quarter, but those people need to understand that the CEO needs to take a long term view and consider the entire year.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    510. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's worse than that. Even if they plants weren't sterile the corporations can still come after you for patent violations.

      So if some patented pollen happens to float over your garden then you may be breaking the law... by not doing anything at all.

      It's fucked up beyond words.

    511. Re:Sounds like by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      The sterility is also killing the honey bees. No pollination and no honey and much much lower crop yields

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    512. Re:Sounds like by arnodf · · Score: 0

      It was not independent. It was for a large part sponsored by BASF. One of the biggest chemical industry giants in the world.
      Although such action may not be the best way to show your opinion I am happy the people stood up for this. I don't want to eat GMO and already produce some of my own vegetables. I don't want my veggies to be contaminated by GMO.
      Disclaimer: I am Belgian.

    513. Re:Sounds like by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I've heard of Monsanta suing farmers who cull the good (roundup) fertalized seed from fields that were cross pollinated. I have not heard of them intentionally spraying farmers fields. I would like a citation.

    514. Re:Sounds like by Hatta · · Score: 1

      By that logic evolution itself is impossible since no traits not already present in the population could ever emerge.

      Evolution is the change in frequency of alleles in the gene pool. It occurs due to mutations and natural selection. Artificial selection is not really relevant.

      Selective breeding can also capture and spread new traits that arise by spontaneous mutation

      Mutation creates the new alleles. Selective breeding just changes their frequency.

      Breeders even have ways of speeding up the process called mutagenesis

      True, but that's not selective breeding. That's mutagenesis.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    515. Re:Sounds like by DrBoumBoum · · Score: 1

      Stop calling any crap terrorism. Terrorism is when you try to further some political agenda by instilling terror in civilian populations with violence. The situation at hand has nothing to do with that. Words have a meaning.

    516. Re:Sounds like by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Perhaps if I were a total idiot I would say that. There is a world of difference between applying selective pressure to existing strains to slowly evolve them over many generations, and cutting out individual slices of genetic code to create something you would never get by natural processes. If you really can't see the difference you are either (1) stupid, (2) willfully ignorant, or (3) an industry shill.

      I do know the difference between cross pollination and gene splicing. I don't endorse the use of gene splicing. I was merely pointing out that coincidently the crop mentioned in the article is man made. The domesticated potato is not entirely a product of nature.

      The reason I pointed it out, in the first place, was because the parent to my post stated:

      I'm not 100% against GM foods of any sort but there is a real concern that any cross-breeding(which maybe some consider "forcing" it on them, I'm not sure about that though) will result in an entirely unsafe food supply...

      I'm not an idiot, but at least I'm not an over reactionary cunt who doesn't even have the balls to post under a pseudonym (this is directed at the AC).

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    517. Re:Sounds like by Hatta · · Score: 1

      In a world where mutation is the same thing as selective breeding, that would be true.

      We, however, do not live in that world.

      Therefore, you are wrong.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    518. Re:Sounds like by BBadhedgehog · · Score: 1

      Oh I don't know about that.

      A friend of mine gave me some of that funky native American multi-coloured corn stuff which I duly harvested a few kernels off and stuck in some mud to see what would happen. At the moment I've got 5 (of 5 kernels planted) apparently healthy corn plants growing in a bucket in the back garden.

      It's a bit early in the year to see whether I'll get any kind of harvest from them but it's looking fairly hopeful so far. Of course, I'm only doing this for the fun of it so I don't know how well it'd work on a larger scale but a 100% germination rate is pretty rare, even (or even especially) for seeds that have been bought specifically for growing produce from.

      --
      Will you PLEASE F off with the Fing beta now?
    519. Re:Sounds like by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      You seem to fail to appreciate that both the Hindenburg disaster and a plane crash today resulted in loss of life and property. The Fukushima disaster is a tremendous problem for Japan.

      Point out to me exactly where I indicated anything of the sort?

      You are attempting to assign meaning to things out of context to support your faulty argument, not me. You keep going on about the "assurances that this couldn;t happen" by politicians [and to some extent, the engineers who design the plants] and then point to a nuclear accident as "proof" they were lying to you, and thus that all nuclear power is unsafe and no one who is pro-nuclear should be trusted.

      I have already explained that the "impossible" claim is very specific to the conditions of the accident that occurred at Chernobyl, and that it really cannot happen in a western plant - they are simply not designed the same way. This is where the Hndenburg disaster comes in. It crashed because the skin of the Zeppelin caught fire and burned away, consuming the whole craft because they had doped the canvas skin with a compound very similar to rocket fuel that burns extremely readily. Excellent for deflecting the sun's rays and maintaining the temperature and thus the buoyancy of the airship, but not so good when it burns. Now, if an aviation expert where to tell you that the accident that occurred was not possible with a modern airliner, you would look very silly if you tried to twist it around and claim that he was talking about *any* accident, or the fact that people die in both sorts of crashes. No one is debating that. I am pointing out that your logic is flawed.

      Now, I don't want to get into a huge debate about the relative environmental impact of coal vs nuclear energy - coal really doesn't come out winning, but hey, at least it doesn't have that "scary" radiation word attached to it.

      Nuclear energy is clean and safe - don't take my word for it, just look at the safety record over the course of its use as a commercial energy source. Even with the extremely unusual and impossible in non-RBMK reactors accident, it is still much safer, cleaner, less environmentally damaging and has killed an order of magnitude fewer people than coal.

      The future is obvious - a base load of nuclear stations (instead of coal and gas), backed by renewable sources for peak power (wind, solar, tidal, hydro etc). We are selling ourselves down the river though, because the big advantage to coal is that it is *cheap* - that is the reason that nuclear power is not our current base load provider and only accounts for about 18% of the load in the UK, less in other places. At least the French have it right, but economies of scale are hurting them.

    520. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So.. having more options limits freedom? I do not recall any part of this research that involves wiping out existing species or preventing people from farming them.

    521. Re:Sounds like by ubermiester · · Score: 1

      You realize that you sound exactly like a conservative reactionary zealot, right?

      Thanks, but no thanks, we don't want your GMO anymore, we saw what it does.

      What does it do exactly? What negative impact have GMO crops had on the world? I can certainly cite hundreds of examples of how modified crops have saved millions of people from starvation and malnourishment.

      And moreover, the G in GMO is a much more focused and safer technique for selection than the radiation-based mutations that have already saved millions of lives (see India in the 1950's).

      a good day for the freedom of eating natural veggies

      You're kidding right? Few, if any, of the vegetables you get at the "organic" market are in the same form they were in when they grew in the "wild". Human selective breeding has been going on for thousands of years, and most of the staple crops the world depends on look nothing like the strains that grew before farming took hold.

      The irony here is that you probably consider yourself a crunchy geek progressive type. Your anger at Monsanto is well placed, but your ignorant rant about GM crops is foolish at best - dangerous at worst. (Check the latest data on projected food shortages for more on your foolishness)

    522. Re:Sounds like by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      That's how the situation plays out with Monsanto IP. If you're growing crops which contain their IP, then you're going to pay. The courts side with the bio-techs every time. The system is fixed in favor of the bio-techs and firmly against the farmers.

      Here's a mainstream story about it.
      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/26/eveningnews/main4048288.shtml

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    523. Re:Sounds like by Kitsune+Inari · · Score: 1

      Additionally, GMO toxins have been detected in the blood of fetuses, potentially effecting development.

      Surely you mean " Affecting ".

      Yes, I'm a grammar talib. Problem?

    524. Re:Sounds like by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 1

      This argument is particularly relevant in the USA as many farmers have already had this happen to them. Corn is the best example, where due to cross pollination from neighbours' patented crops almost all farmers who initially refused to use the patented seed stock are now either paying dues anyway, or being sued for not doing so. If the law were to be changed such that cross pollination of ones crops by patented genetic strains enabled the farmer to sue the seed company for damages to his farm, we would be having a far different argument. As it stands however these farmers face a real threat of losing their livelihood, and it is not a small chance, if these GM crops become commonly used it is almost unavoidable.

    525. Re:Sounds like by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 1

      That sounds like terrorism to me. "Stop making GM plants, or we'll fuck your shit up."

      Were people looking for +1 Sarcastic and just got it wrong? If this guy isn't being sarcastic then he is a troll. Fucking terrorism, give me a break. I guess tagging a wall with spraypaint is terrorism too. Punching someone in the face at a bar is terrorism?

      All the people that have suffered and died due to real terrorism hate you. So do their families.

    526. Re:Sounds like by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      Have you ever considered that those of us in genetic engineering aren't morons?

      Yes, I have considered that.
      I've also considered that no studies have been made on the long term effects of the GMO foods on people.

      Seriously, who's held responsible when long term consequences are identified? Will there be any way back when GMO contamination is widespread?

      I'm personally concerned for my garden. Can I save seeds? Do I dare? I'm not concerned with Monsanto or other bio-techs coming after me for infringing on their IP because my garden isn't very big. What concerns me is feeding potentially dangerous food to my family.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    527. Re:Sounds like by del_diablo · · Score: 1

      I did my 10 minute presentation about GM food last year.
      The conclusion I arrived at was that there are 2 rules:
      1. Does your country have a proper food administration agency?
      2. Is the food specifically designed to allow them to be sprayed with more anti-blight spray?
      If 1 is true, and 2 is false, then there is nothing to even fear for the consumer.
      Now.... if you are living in USA however i feel quite sorry for you.

    528. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read a book called "The Windup Girl", it's set in a future where plants and animals are bio-engineered to be resistant to diseases designed to wipe out edible crops and livestock. You can't but a plant or animal that wasn't bread by the "Calorie companies", and all seeds and animals are sterile so once your crop or animal dies you have no choice but to call them up and order another. Disease and starvation are rampant, global economic collapse..

      It's not that far fetched either, bananas and chocolate are both suffering at the hands of limited bio-diversity and as such diseases are wiping whole fields out. There was a massive banana scare half a century ago which nearly wiped out all man-made banana crops, luckily we had another strain available to continue production, but.

      All this is a scary thought, I can see Monsanto becoming a "Calorie Company"...

    529. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm tempted to grab a bag of Monsanto seeds, and spread the at every Corn farm I come across in the American farmlands. That'll show 'em!

    530. Re:Sounds like by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 1

      For your arguments: if you can't see what the seed market has become, missed the big picture and the danger of patenting life, destroying markets, enslaving farmers, and risking destroying ecosystems with experiments or productions, big lobbies and so on, then never mind. Keep your eyes closed, and think about GMO as if it was sci-fi if you want, but please don't tell me about the selective breeding: that's a totally different thing.

      Now for the words you are throwing at me: I believe you don't know me at all, and don't even have the smallest idea of the extensiveness or absence of knowledge I have on GMO (that's for "ignorant"), or even what I think of myself (that's for my self considering). Nothing in my post gives such clue. The way I see it: you just can't stand someone with a different opinion, and find useful to spit "foolish" words on me. Not very useful, I believe.

    531. Re:Sounds like by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      They have done multigenerational studies. These have turned up negative. They have also looked at the complete proteomics of GM crops. These have also turned up nothing. I don't know how long you mean by long term, but considering the science and the fact that we've been eating them for quite some time now to still expect something drifts dangerously close to invisible pink unicorn territory. I really can't say that there won't be negative long term health effects because that isn't something science can prove. It's non-falsifiable, and you can't prove a negative (and since safety is really just lack of harm, it is indeed a negative). All I can say is there's no evidence it will happen. There's only three traits in GMOs approved fro commercial consumption, the Bt trait, an EPSP synthase trait, and viral resistance traits, and the proteins those traits produce are highly unlikely to hurt you. One has been used in organic gardening for decades, one is just a slightly altered form of something already found in plants, and one is just a viral coat protein. These really aren't nearly as scary as anti-GMO organizations make them out to be. I guess you could say the transformation process itself is what makes things questionable, but that doesn't really make much sense considering that there are radically different ways of doing that and that again there is a grand total of zero evidence to indicate that is the case. If you feed edgy enough about it, that's your call, heck, people still do the same thing with vaccines after nearly a century of use. However, you should be aware that, scientifically, such a fear is misplaced. Who would be responsible if something did happen? I don't know. Who would be responsible if pasteurization had long term negative health effects, as some allege? The evidence so strongly suggests otherwise that a lot of people, and not just companies, would be wrong if there really were an unknown unknown that made GMOs dangerous.

      As for your garden, if you're a seed saver you should know the importance of preventing all cross pollination (bagging blossoms and stuff), transgenes or no. If you're not a seed saver, than you don't need to worry about it.

    532. Re:Sounds like by he-sk · · Score: 1

      You seem to fail to appreciate that both the Hindenburg disaster and a plane crash today resulted in loss of life and property. The Fukushima disaster is a tremendous problem for Japan.

      Point out to me exactly where I indicated anything of the sort?

      Because you keep going on about the technical differences between Chernobyl and Fukushima whereas I'm much more concerned about the similar effect the accidents have on the environment and society.

      When politicians and experts announced that Chernobyl could not happen in the West, how do you think the general public understood that message? That Western reactors were immune to a specific type of failure mode as witnessed in Chernobyl? No, they took it that Western reactors are immune to all type of failures, and that is simply not true as Fukushima has now proven. It doesn't matter whether they deceived themselves or were manipulated, these are just the realities. It also doesn't matter that new designs are supposedly safe, because as I've said, even these have to be maintained and regulated, so the possibility of human failure with catastrophic consequences remains.

      Planes still keep falling out of the sky, even if it happens for different reasons than the Hindenburg accident. And nobody is claiming otherwise. The same is not true with nuclear power plants. These are divided into failed designs where we know or have seen that accidents can occur and then there are designs that are "safe", meaning immune to all types of accidents, regardless how well they are maintained. That is an extraordinary claim, which requires proof. Given the inherent risks in nuclear energy, which we all can see for ourselves, it is very understandable that many people do not want to assume the risks to test these claims.

      Now, I don't want to get into a huge debate about the relative environmental impact of coal vs nuclear energy - coal really doesn't come out winning, but hey, at least it doesn't have that "scary" radiation word attached to it.

      Nobody in Germany who is serious about phasing out nuclear energy is proposing to replace it with coal. That's just a straw man you keep pushing.

      The future is obvious - a base load of nuclear stations (instead of coal and gas), backed by renewable sources for peak power (wind, solar, tidal, hydro etc).

      We'll just have to agree to disagree there. I do not believe in nuclear energy, not only because I think we can generate our needs 100% through renewables (along with a conversation effort), but also because I simply don't like it. Its whole reason d'être is to make nuclear weapons more acceptable and it's very much intertwined with the nuclear weapons industry. Google "atoms for peace". That's why, to this day, the IAEA has the power to censor the WHO with regards to health effects of all things radioactive. I find that simply unacceptable.

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    533. Re:Sounds like by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      Breeding is genetic engineering. With each generation comes the potential for a mutation, an entirely new gene.

      We as humans have been mass breeding and finding the mutations beneficial to us for a LONG TIME.

      You sort of understand what the difference is, but then twist it a tiny bit, possibly to fit your overall world view.

      What GMO amounts to in relation to selective breeding, to use your programming analogy is this:

      Its the difference between customizing a copy of source code based on other programs existing source code, and copying source using a buggy copy protocol that sometimes loses things and sometimes adds things at random until you get the desired trait, then once you find that trait, shifting the master copy of the source to the new lot and starting again.

      The end result is the same the second one is just going to take orders of magnitude longer and throw back even more unexpected results than the first. They're just likely to be slightly less drastic unexpected results, but only slightly.

    534. Re:Sounds like by the_one(2) · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_(Australia) . You should be very careful when tampering with eco systems. Also see the Simpsons.

    535. Re:Sounds like by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      Ok, it isn't actually true that conventional breeding increases biodiversity. I mean, sometimes yes, but mostly what has been done is to take a founding population and narror it down from there. That's why there's Common beans, for instance, came from just two domestication events, just about all of them, leaving the rest of the biodiversity in the wild. While it is true that dividing populations and breeding them from there creates diversity in some cases by and large, in the commercial scene for the past century anyway, the opposite has been true. Companies have been doing this since the early 1900's. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but I must repeat, associating it with anything is a weak connection. And again, those plants are NOT sterile. I don't know where people are getting this. They're hybrids. The seeds can be planted, they just gain genetic instability in the second generation, and hybrid crossings are actually the origins of many stable heirloom lines. And I don't know what you know about genetic engineering, but the notion that those companies want to shut down traditional techniques is absurd because you need them in genetic engineering too. If you are producing a hybrid line you need a line for the initial cross, so companies first breed stable transgenic line from their originally regenerated transformed plant (the one coming out of the petri dish). And I can get if you don't like the companies, a lot of people don't, but that is not relevant to the products they produce if those products have been shown safe and effective.

      Each of these are not produced commercially not because they lack proper marketing, but because of various reasons from producing low yields per acre, requiring fairly specific growing environments and so being limited in where they can be grown, producing food which is not particularly appetizing, producing a fruit with very low shelf life, and so forth. The foods which are most popular to grow today are that way because they are tasty, simple to grow, have a large tolerance for growing environment, keep well, and produce a high yield per growing area.

      Not at all. Chaya is a leaf vegetable that is much more productive than lettuce. In places where they need extensive irrigation, kutjera and garambullo could very well be more efficient choices. My goumi is more productive than my cherry, and as a nitrogen fixing plant, it would be very suitable to poor land. The best example I know of are lychees...best fruit in the world IMO yet most people outside Asia have never heard of them. These things can't all be assumed to be quite so flawed. And it is true that a good number of them have not received the proper development that other crops had, that is a breeding issue, not a GMO one. Compare a wild apple or pear or cherry or grape or potato or tomato or bean or brassica or teosinte or wheat to their cultivated counterparts. The wild counterparts are seedy, small, sour, bitter, poisionous, and/or generally inedible. Breeding has done that. In that sense, breeding has done more for monoculture than genetic engineering ever has. In fact, biotech just might be the answer to undoing that. It has been estimated that (if someone wanted to fund the research) we could replicate a thousand years of breeding by changing a teosinte into corn in just three years with the techniques we have now. Think about that, and what tit means for underdeveloped crops. Like the pawpaw, for instance. To find what genes promote delayed ripening (this has already been done in tomatoes) and insert them from another plant or make the pawpaw's stronger, insert a sterility trait or induce polyploidy for seedlessness, and you've got a commercially viable fruit (and by the way, yours sounds like maybe a seed grown one. There are numerous cultivated varieties out there that lose the unpleasantness in some pawpaws. Just a suggestion, but you might want to give that a shot. Never heard of problems with canning it). Not that there's any funding to do t

    536. Re:Sounds like by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Selective breeding cannot create traits that do not already exist in the gene stock. When you insert a completely novel gene there's a much greater chance for unpredictable results.

      GM crops are a good thing, but they shouldn't be treated just like selective breeding. They should undergo safety testing as rigorous as pharmaceuticals.

      I put it like this: selective breeding is like editing a database through the program's interface. GM is like directly editing the tables by hand. I know which one the vendor will support and which one they won't. I know which one I won't touch. GM bypasses all the checks and balances that should be aborting bad gene mixes.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    537. Re:Sounds like by ubermiester · · Score: 1

      missed the big picture and the danger of patenting life

      Patenting life?!? You mean patenting a particular form of life that did not exist before someone created it, right? Either way, that sounds like a fairly basic thing to patent. It is not possible for anyone to patent strawberries or milk or wheat. They can only patent a particular modification made in a lab. I can't patent "circuitry", but i can patent a unique configuration of circuits that does a very specific thing.

      That said, I agree that it is a problem when giants like Monsanto use those patents as a weapon to eliminate competitors and control customers. But that's a corporate governance issue, not a science or even a moral issue. If there were a FSS in the biotech world (and I'm sure there is), then they wouldn't be saying that no one should make GMOs, they would say that you should make GMOs that benefit everyone and follow a pattern of relative openness.

      [you] don't even have the smallest idea of the extensiveness or absence of knowledge I have on GMO

      No i don't, but both your position and your words betray a (perhaps willful) ignorance of the environment in which GMOs exist. The very fact that you say that selective breeding is a "whole different thing" is evidence enough that you have not really considered the facts.

      When a farmer chooses seeds from the plants producing the most fruit, for example, they are potentially choosing a whole series of other defects or disadvantages that may not become evident for generations. For example, if you pick wheat with the highest output in a given generation and planting those seeds in place of other less productive plants, you may have chosen a plant that was simply better suited to take advantage of transient circumstances - like unusually nutrient rich rain or a temporary reduction of a particular pest. Once circumstances change, those plants may have serious disadvantages. And in times and places where crop output means life or death for a community, such decisions can be utterly disastrous.

      And moreover, there is, for all intents and purposes, no such thing as "natural" food anymore. Just about everything we eat has been modified. Cows look almost nothing like they did when they were first domesticated and most would be unable to survive on their own at this point. Eighty-five percent of the rice grown in the world is the result of radiation-induced mutations produced starting in the 1950s. This "scatter-shot" process was developed to speed the already successful selective-breeding process ("natural" mutations from RNA replication failures are increased by using low-level irradiation), but introduced a whole new set of risks similar to those I mentioned earlier because while certain mutations produce an obviously desirable outcome, others can go unnoticed until environmental circumstances turn them into a serious liability. It was therefore a revolutionary step forward when we gained the ability to modify only the genes responsible for a desirable outcome while leaving the rest of the plant's genome (basically) intact.

      By moving from a selection-based model (with slow and/or fast mutations) to a targeted manipulation model, the impact from bad decisions can mitigated because the particulars of the change are well understood, and undoing or rectifying the issue is much easier.

      you just can't stand someone with a different opinion

      Nonsense. First of all, your opinion is not the issue. Its the facts that matter. And from what I read (e.g., "freedom of eating natural veggies"), you do not appear to have the facts straight. And when you talk about GMO tech as "sci-fi", it indicates that you not only don't understand it, you think it's somehow fictional. It is a very well-understood process that has produced extremely successful outcomes all over the world in many different contexts. It is not a panacea for food production, but is is the only tool we h

    538. Re:Sounds like by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      I feel you're trying to divert my points.

      Lack of genetic diversity is a bad thing, whether it's from the GM process or traditional breeding techniques. The thing with traditional breeding techniques is that for the most part it happens on a small scale. Farmers individually select the most productive seeds from their own fields for planting next year. Perhaps it's simply a matter of scale, but nothing you have said suggests to me that GM processes as they exist today produce genetic variation on par with or greater than traditional techniques. GM practices as they typically exist today promote genetic monoculture more strongly than traditional techniques to. This is not an inherent flaw with GM practices, but it is an outcome nonetheless.

      I'm going to shut down the whole discussion WRT niche plants entirely even though I have plenty more to say on the subject; I never claimed anything about niche plants with relation to GM products. Those are your words, not mine, and I perceive this tangent to be a red herring or a straw man, maybe both, so I don't believe it advances the conversation in the least.

      GURT isn't in place to protect against cross-pollination, it's in place to protect GM companies from having their product grown without someone paying for a license. Distributing GURT seeds absolutely increases reliance on the GM company, which is incredibly damaging to the populations which need improved crops the most - third world farmers. GM companies backed away from it only in a public sense; as cited by me earlier, they still advance the technology internally. It's a matter of time before they feel the public has been sufficiently worn down such that they are able to get away with introducing it on a commercial level.

      What I'm saying is that a lot of this stuff isn't even related to the technology

      Absolutely true. And what I'm saying that at least in the current GM culture it's impossible to separate the technology from the abuses of that technology in any practical manner. When the GM companies clean up their act, people will be a lot more receptive to the things they have to say. Unfortunately they've given the entire class of technology an enormous black eye, and it will probably be a long time before people are willing to believe what those companies have to say.

      I trust those companies about as much as I trust the tobacco industry (a parallel I drew earlier in this conversation). I don't believe the public is well equipped to make evaluations as to the dangers or safety of GMO's, because I believe there is bias in the research, and I believe dissenting research is never published. I do believe they are not all as safe as the GM companies claim they are, and I think people are right to tread cautiously and demand additional oversight, as well as a right to choose whether they consume products with a GM component.

      It all boils down to this: There's nothing wrong with genetic modification as a class of technology. But I don't trust the scientists and companies behind it to be honest about the dangers, not even with themselves. I think there's far too much hubris involved in thinking that we can produce a better species than the millions of years of evolution has produced. Sure in specific observable ways these GMO's will be superior, but in other unobserved ways they may be inferior. The characteristics we select for advancement will only sometimes be based on survivability (such as the potatoes in the article); they will also be selected for non-survivable characteristics such as yield or cosmetics (redder tomatoes, thinner orange skins, smaller grape leaves, etc). This may shut down gene lines which would have thrived in the wild, simply because the fruit is not the right shade of the right color.

    539. Re:Sounds like by guspasho · · Score: 1

      It's like, say you date a guy for a while and he's really great in bed, prince charming, the whole nine yards, and you fall in love and want to get married and have babies. So you get married, but it turns out he's sterile. It doesn't matter how earth-shattering those orgasms are, his sperm are incapable of fertilizing your ova.

      Only you're a plant so you only get one shot at this, so you're fucked, you die childless and alone. That's how being sterile and cross-pollinating works. Thanks, Monsanto!

    540. Re:Sounds like by guspasho · · Score: 1

      "If you don't want to eat that shit, don't buy it, or grow your own disease ridden organic food."

      Only that's impossible. GM food is usually not labeled, and GM food is frequently used as livestock feed, which will not get labeled as "GM-food-fed". Additionally, if you have a problem with consuming GM food, rather than simply supporting companies that trade in it, it's impossible to know what otherwise non-GM food has been contaminated by nearby GM crops.

    541. Re:Sounds like by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      I get tired of the whole "it doesn't CARE" attitude. View economics like natural laws, such as gravity. Gravity doesn't care who falls or doesn't, yet we use the laws of gravity to our advantage. Do you curse gravity when someone falls off a building? Nope.

    542. Re:Sounds like by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      How arrogant is it of a person secure in their subsistence to say "No, we could save you from starvation with this plant, but you won't pay for it every year, since we engineered it to be sterile, and besides, you haven't bought your 2012 seed licence, so fuck you."

      Fixed that for you

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    543. Re:Sounds like by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      So i guess that the fact that one type of GM potato contains DNA from a moth means that this could/would also be the result of selective breeding. You are a fool.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    544. Re:Sounds like by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      They make you sick? You also are a tool.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    545. Re:Sounds like by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Right, because seeds wouldn't be carried by runoff, spillage, or birds at all. Every single one would end up right there in the field.

      But the more interesting question (to me) is how you can tell GM crops just by looking at them...? Does the corn grow a little "Monsanto" sticker on the side like those Chiquita bananas do?

    546. Re:Sounds like by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      You're a fool if you think that a gene produced somewhere can't be reproduced elsewhere in a slightly different set of conditions. The gene may not take that exact shape, however the gene they implant from a moth to the plant isn't going to be the same as it was in the moth regardless. Basically, they would maybe start with gene x from a moth, because it produces an immunity to element y that is problematic for the plant. They would then modify gene x to be able to be added to the plant. The new gene is different from the original, they just started with the same building blocks.

      All that is really needed after that is some better testing regulations. I don't really trust the corporations to "do what's right" on their own. The gene could have an unexpected side effect that causes the plant to become toxic. There should be regulations stating something to the effect of the plant should be demonstrably identical to previously with the sole exception of producing the exact documented desired result. If it is not, but the result that happens is desirable enough, then any variations should be well documented and rigorously tested for safety, both environmental and human, before the final result is allowed to become a product. The element that is added of course needs to be rigorously tested for safety concerns as well.

      There is really a massive lack of education on whats really taking place here. Its partly to do with the fact that many of these companies, and indeed the scientists themselves, feel that educating the public on whats going on would only create more fear and panic.

      Thanks to religious/conspiracy/conservative nutjobs it would also provide a whole bunch of fuel for attacking the practice as a whole. America's over developed fascination with religion makes it severely hostile to any number of scientific endeavors, and actually causes more to be hidden out of public view than should be.

      More knowledge would lead to better regulation, but even those who want better regulation on this stuff also know it needs to continue, and that attempting to educate the public on it is going to be unpopular at best and political suicide at worst. Plus probably create even more backlash against GMO.

    547. Re:Sounds like by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      You really did not finish college, right? Otherwise.....go and tell your teacher to burn their certificates.

    548. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glad to help

      Here is an account of "accidental" spraying of third-party fields with Roundup.

      "You’d think that this would be a clear-cut cause of action, as the legal folks would put it. But the clever folks at Monsanto hire the crop dusters as contractors, and they in turn use a corporate shell with no assets, so when something like this happens and a victim sues, they simply file bankruptcy and then form a new corporation."

      http://organicjar.com/2009/1654/

      It might still seem innocent, if not for this...

      http://www.cafemom.com/group/4388/forums/read/8563268/Can_anyone_help

      and ...

      http://www.gmfreeireland.org/interviews/schmeiser.php

      And to make things worse ...

      http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/7016-round-up-birth-defects-monsanto-qlife-scienceq-a-death-sentence.html

      Apparently as per research, the roundup herbicide spray causes birth defects. Not surprising since Monsanto is also the company that brought us Agent Orange and DDT, both of which later proved to be toxic to humans and are banned in numerous countries.

    549. Re:Sounds like by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      The environmental activists killed the evil mutant potatoes and sprayed pesticides in broad daylight in front of the camera's. They made a total ass of themselves. It's clearly the work of a bunch of idiots who did this on a whim without planning or thinking about anything ahead. What bothers me is that one of our mastermind ministers wants to pay as much as 250K euros (read : taxdollars) for a few potatoes . With the way these neo-hippies acted and the amount of money involved i'd almost think it was a setup , somewhat similar to an insurance scam.

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    550. Re:Sounds like by tbannist · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, there aren't any gravitarians* who go around telling people that the world would be much better if we removed all those "expensive and inefficient" safety rails and let free gravity fix all of our problems. After all, there are few problems that won't be resolved by 100 meters of free fall.

      Specifically, it is exactly because I view economics as a natural law, like gravity, that I have an implicit distrust of libertarian ideology. I actually understand that markets are amoral and thus I don't trust them to produce the result that I consider to be good without intervention.

      * This may because of the holy war being waged between the gravitarians and the intelligent fallers.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    551. Re:Sounds like by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Very interesting, I'm glad there is no Monopoly Gov for the world. It's nice to see the things other governments consider important vs what our gov. considers important.

      on a side note, FUCK this new Slashdot layout. It works ok most of the time, but it has some serious issues. Every time I try to select your links to copy them, the damn thing scrolls to the top parent comment. It does similar stuff trying to edit this comment.

      fucked up shit...

    552. Re:Sounds like by andymadigan · · Score: 1

      Except:

      Company A sells fertile seeds that produce X food on good land (which costs $Y per year to own, till, and harvest). The seeds cost $Y/20.

      Company B sells infertile GMO seeds that produce 7X food on good land. The seeds cost $Y/10.

      Company C sells infertile hybrid seeds that produce 5X food on good land. The seeds cost $Y/15. (Note that many foodstuffs were grown from such hybrid seeds before the introduction of GMO seeds).

      In other words, the fixed cost of the land far outstrips the costs of the seeds. When you take into account the natural organization limit for a 'family' farm in terms of amount of land tended, and the reduced pest and disease control costs with GMO plants as opposed to the other two, GMO seeds end up winning in a free market, assuming the GMO produce sells for the same price as non-GMO produce.

      Remember that keeping seeds also requires the farmer to actually retrieve and store the seeds. There was some use of fertile seeds in the early-to-mid 20th century, but infertile hybrids were common, since they tended to produce larger yields through hybrid vigor.

      I would actually prefer to see the use of non-GMO plants, but I think the best way to accomplish this is to ban the patenting of genes, and remove any other "IP" protection from GMO plants. The market would quickly dry up.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    553. Re:Sounds like by tragedy · · Score: 1

      The initial cause of the Great Famine was potato blight, but most of the actual human tragedy was caused by human nature. A poisonous soup of politics, racial and religious hatred, and moronic attempts to "fix" social problems from the top down.

    554. Re:Sounds like by LBU.Zorro · · Score: 1

      You know, for a while I thought this was someone else - the language was much better.

      Which kinda indicates that you're faking a lot.. What do you get out of it? I'm kinda curious. So you're trolling, do you get a secret thrill out of getting a reply?

      I don't understand your motivation - this took me like 5 minutes to reply and it's amusing so I'm not being detrimentally impacted, so if you're thrilled I'm replying and wasting my time I don't quite follow.

      But back to the point, a quick bit of research shows that actually diet coke has 4 calories so I suppose in theory if you drink enough you might not starve - I have to admit I prefer coke zero over diet coke, and coke zero really does have zero calories. But my original point is correct, drinking only diet coke, or only water will kill you. Neither have enough to sustain life in the medium term.

      If you meant drink only diet coke with meals and you'll be dead in a year, then again I have to say you're wrong - I know people who do 99% only drink diet coke (occasional alcohol) and they're still alive after many years - like 10 or so.

      Ignoring your assumption that I'm american, yes I'm highly educated - but I do have to admit that none of my subjects / courses were in how long you can live on diet coke and I have to say that any education system that dedicates time to how long you can live drinking a particular carbonated beverage probably isn't worth very much.

      And finally, what does this have to do with milk or GMO crops?

      I suspect you'll troll another reply, but you'll only get another bite if you're interesting enough, sorry.

      Enjoy.

      Z.

    555. Re:Sounds like by greylion3 · · Score: 1

      http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/jf200456j This article debunks your article.

      An article hidden behind a paywall. Very clever.

      Other animals than mice have been exposed to RAI from transgenic peas. Rats, pigs, and chickens were fed raw, transgenic peas at around 30% or more of their diet in short feeding trials. The only effects on their health could be attributed to dose- dependent reductions of the digestion of starch due to amylase inhibition rather than immunological effects, diarrhea in the case of pigs, and a reduction of weight gain in the case of chickens.2022
      We found no evidence for increased immunogenicity of the transgenic RAI, and we note that immunogenicity is not sufficient for allergenicity.

      So, some of the animals couldn't digest starch anymore, the pigs got diarrhea, and the chickens didn't gain as much weight as they should have.
      Am I supposed to believe this was due to 'other causes'?
      I wish someone would find some 'long feeding trials', not the short ones where any irregularity can be arbitrarily attributed to 'other factors' and dismissed.

      Conclusion some people are allergic to peanuts. This shows no concerns over GMO crops.

      The example you quoted was about peas, not peanuts. Did you even read it?

      Luck.

      Lets see an advertisement for lecture of a guy that doesn't perform any current research anymore.

      Oh yeah, let's forget about his 30 years of relevant research, and the fact that he was fired for bringing the issue with the GMO potatoes to the public's knowledge.
      Ever heard of ad hominem attacks?

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6T6P-4C004D3-3-C&_cdi=5036&_user=409620&_pii=S0278691504000444&_origin=&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2004&_sk=999579992&view=c&wchp=dGLbVzW-zSkzS&_valck=1&md5=ef423dc2441395950524ecce3b73afcc&ie=/sdarticle.pdf

      Also hidden behind a paywall. How very nice of you.

      As explained in previous chapters, crop breeding by both conventional means and by genetic modification has theoretically the potential to modify the plant com- position beyond that particular trait that was intended, thus resulting in ‘unintended effects’. To analytically determine all possibilities of unintended effects is a huge undertaking with many technical challenges. A further challenge is to determine the real significance of any unintended effect on consumer health. Unintended effects do not automatically imply a health hazard.

      Unintended effects certainly do not either automatically imply, that there isn't a health hazard.

      Hazards may be considered if the nutritional profile of the plant has been altered, if proteins have been altered in such a way so as to affect their allergenic potential, or if new or increased levels of potentially toxic secondary metabolites are produced. However, unintended effects may have absolutely no impact on health, or may even be beneficial by reducing potentially toxic substances.

      .. or they may adversely affect people's health. Nothing new here.

      Ever heard of the Precautionary Principle?

      In case you're wondering how that would apply; let's say some GMO plant starts to be grown on a wide scale, and the modified genome transfers to wild plants.
      Years later, it's discovered that the transgenic part leads to colon cancer, it just takes 8-12 years to develop. The modified genome has now spread to plants in all parts of the world - we can't get rid of it.
      There's one option: We can grow non-GMO plants in greenhouses, taking extreme care not to get them contaminated with pollen from GMO plan

      --
      Privacy begins with ..
    556. Re:Sounds like by greylion3 · · Score: 1

      (I'm from Europe; here it's known as GMO (Genetically Modified Organism). I may call it GM / GMO interchangeably).

      I'm pretty sure I have been eating mostly GM foods, probably for the past 20 years of my life.

      I'm pretty sure you haven't. Luckily, there aren't that many GM foods being grown yet, and used for human consumption.

      With plenty of preservatives, added sugar, caffeine, sodium and every other nasty chemical ever put in food. Never had any diet-related health problems. Healthy blood sugar, healthy immune system, body mass actually slightly under normal but not unhealthily so.

      Almost like me, then. Until I became 32, I was fine too. Then I started feeling weird from drinking Coke, so I stopped drinking soda drinks entirely.
      Since then, things have started tasting weird or made me uncomfortable, one at a time, so I've stopped drinking or eating them.
      Butter, most dairy products, white bread, pork, tea (once I had had green tea, I couldn't drink ordinary tea anymore, it just tasted 'dead').

      Also, I believe I have seen that movie. I am aware of the almost comically evil nature of Monsanto. They're third in line on my list of people to line against the wall when the revolution happens (after the professional lobbyists and the MAFIAA).

      Good.

      However, "evil corporation" does not imply "unsafe food".

      No, but it damn well doesn't imply "safe food" either. The "evil corporation" doesn't care, one way or the other, as long as they can turn a profit, which is why such 'food' should be checked rigorously, for decades, under controlled conditions, before entering field testing, if ever. Once a GMO plant is out, the genome will spread in nature, there's no taking it back. Also, the modified genome can transfer to your gut bacteria, which is very bad.
      Anyway, Monsanto's plan is to get their hands into each and every big and small farmer's pockets: http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm
      They don't give a damn if they destroy the worlds food supply in the process, as long as they can retire with billions in their bank accounts.

      Wrt. FDA, I consider them to be thoroughly corrupt, but we can discuss that elsewhere.

      Point me at one instance of someone dying from GM food (specifically because the food was GM, mind you, not because it was spoiled or something) and I can point you at ten people who died from normal food, and a thousand more who died from the lack of any food.

      Very good point. How would I or anyone else know, if someone who died from cancer or some infection due to a damaged immune system, got that way because he/she ate GM food?
      Human trials with GM food are practically non-existent, because they would reveal all too clearly in what ways one's health would deteriorate once you start eating GM food in quantity on a daily basis.
      Rats are good substitutes for human subjects, though.
      You might also want to read a position paper from the American Academy of Environmental Medicine.

      PS: Was marking me a foe really necessary?

      No. The point I wanted to put across, was that you'll very easily make enemies when discussing GMO, because there's so much at stake; the world's food supply. If it gets irreversibly contaminated with harmful/deadly genes, we're all dead. Game over.
      Anyway, I've read hundreds, if not thousands of pages about GM(O), and I made up my mind a couple of years ago; at the very least, it's harmful, and should be abolished.

      --
      Privacy begins with ..
  2. Not bad compared to animal ecoterrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Animal-based ecoterrorists try to murder you. I guess plant-based ecoterrorists are a bit friendlier.

    1. Re:Not bad compared to animal ecoterrorists by couchslug · · Score: 0

      But, but, they murdered innocent PLANTS instead! This is the equivalent of burning down a lab full of cute rhesus monkeys.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  3. Mutant Tutles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ninjas for the win!

  4. insecticides? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The strict environmentalists spraying poison. No irony there.

  5. GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by ivucica · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Don't treat it as a religion, especially when dealing with stuff that can contaminate things unrelated to your "scientific experiment". Or with "safely modified, strengthened, disease resistant food".

    I don't want your GMO "food" to mix with my food. I don't want my food to even have a chance to be contaminated with your food, even if you think it isn't dangerous.

    You're free to do things as long as you don't infringe on my freedom. And at this time in my life, I want freedom to eat non-GMO food.

    1. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2

      Agreed, but who even says this field was within any appreciable distance of a regular potato field (and thus posed any risk of contamination)?

    2. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by MightyMartian · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It was a blight-resistant potato field, you half-witted fucktard.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by ryants · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What, exactly, do you eat then? All food (save perhaps wild meat) has been genetically manipulated since humans settled down and started farming about 10000 years ago.

      --

      Ryan T. Sammartino
      "Ancora imparo"

    4. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That doesn't justify people destroying others' property, period. We have not progressed as people in a long time. This push for "democratic" means has turned everyone into a bunch of immature people. We truly need to have principles and truths. Sure, not everything can be absolute, but if people want to have liberty, then they need to stop using force against others because their version of life is not congruent with others. This has to do with economic liberty, religious liberty, sexual liberty, etc. If researchers are trying to test some GMO foods, and it is contaminating, or may contaminate, other crops, then sue them, as that is a just cause... if they are not respecting your liberty, then seek justice. They should be free to do the research, but they should also take the necessary precautions to limit its impact on others.

    5. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment shows what an arrogant moron you are.

      People like you don't have the slightest idea what they're talking about.

      Buy yourself a couple of textbooks on Biochemistry 101 and the like and come back when you actually have something to add to the debate.

    6. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by rodarson2k · · Score: 1

      If you want the freedom to eat non-GMO food, I recommend you exercise your freedom to grow your own food.

    7. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by siddesu · · Score: 1

      Lateral gene transfer is a well-described and understood phenomenon.

    8. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by Ptolom · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure scientific experiment is just a general term for a controlled environment which is monitored to test a hypothesis, rather than a direct quote from anybody. Nobody is forcing GMO food down your throat. It may well be more expensive to buy organic, non GMO food, but that's because it's more expensive to produce. The fact is, there is a major overpopulation problem in the world today, and many people go hungry. If we're going to feed everybody satisfactorily and keep populations growing uncontrolled, we need all the technology we have to make food production more efficient.

    9. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The argument against GMO is that it's not just a natural selection process aided along by humans who see the end result of those genetics before choosing the next step, it's that we're taking genes and modifying them without knowing the exact changes made. We can make many permutations of the potato via GM, and have no idea what they'll end up as. However, if we go and use the traditional methods, we see exactly what we're getting, and know to a greater extent that there aren't unintended consequences.

    10. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by The+Dawn+Of+Time · · Score: 1, Funny

      But now they do it with chemicals, which is a scary word. I don't want any chemicals in my body.

    11. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by EdZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And at this time in my life, I want freedom to eat non-GMO food.

      Then go resurrect some crops from fossils a few thousand years old. Genetic modification through selective breeding has been around for as long as agriculture. Direct modification is the same in kind if not in technique. i.e. instead of breeding Regular Tasty Potatoes in the same field as Hardier Smaller Potatoes for a few years and replanting the ones with the least blight, you instead figure out how the hardier variety are resistant, isolate the genetic sequence(s) responsible for this, splice them into your Tasty Potatoes, and breed those for a while to make sure nothing untoward happens. The crops destroyed were at that latter stage.
      Personally, I'd rather eat 'GM food' that requires a lower number and quantity of pesticides than other crops of the same cost, especially when 'Organic' food requires a massive increased land-area and other resources to farm (and thus a higher direct sale price). Then there's the GM foods needed to prevent starvation in countries where regular crops just do not provide enough nourishment to sufficiently feed their populations.

      This is separate from Monsanto et al's massively dickish moves in attempting to patent genetic sequences and impose ridiculous 'licensing terms' on crops.

    12. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then don't eat it.

    13. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has apparently escaped your notice but there's no way to win in the courts against an opponent with unlimited funds. Truth doesn't prevail. Therefore justice is unattainable. Financial wealth creates a freedom distortion-field.

      There is no justice. Example: In the UK, if a police officer commits a crime and a private citizen brings a criminal prosecution, the Crown Prosecution Service is free to take over the case and abandon it to prevent the police officer from risking facing the punishment which he deserves.

    14. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Please help us understand where the GP made his/her mistake...

    15. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by Anonyme+Connard · · Score: 2

      You know the difference between *selection* and *insertion of genes from another species*, don't you?
      For example, selecting at each generation of a given cereal the seeds from the individual plants that performed best with less water IS NOT THE SAME THING as inserting in said cereals some genes from catus or camel.

    16. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Better make your will out now then, your body can't live without chemicals. NaCl and H20 being two big ones. Then there's trace minerals which need only be present in vanishingly small amounts but lacking those few molecules of it you do have will kill you.

    17. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by PIBM · · Score: 2

      Like cats ? We`ve been working on them for centuries, interbreeding them.. Now we have some nice eyes colors with specific forms and `hair colors`, that please the human eyes, but they develop tons of problems later in life. I`d call that unintended consequences.

    18. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between selective breeding and transgenic genetic engineering.

      Bundling it all together in the phrase "genetically manipulated" does not make for an informed or honest discussion.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    19. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      "we're taking genes and modifying them without knowing the exact changes made. "
      "and have no idea what they'll end up as"

      You might have no idea, the geneticists tend to have a better idea what they're doing than you do.

      you're just going with a genetic algorithm rather than straightforward design.

    20. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by andydread · · Score: 2

      yes but through a natural cross-breeding process. Not by using a gene gun to fire a foreign gene from a bacterium into a random place in the genome of a plant and then waiting decades to see what happens. See Monsanto. Do yourself a favor. Just google "The world according to Monsanto" Watch the documentary and see for yourself behind the scenes.

    21. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apparently you haven't heard of things called hybrids. Have you ever eaten a blood orange? How about a grapefruit? Both of those exist because someone intentionally cross-fertilized fruit bearing plants (which for those of you who don't know is the process of inserting genes from one species of plant into another species of plant in order to create a third species of plant with characteristics from both parent species).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    22. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 1

      I'm not a biologist (and I almost failed biology classes in my school years) but if I'm not mistaken the evolution didn't mix toad genes with crops genes - and that's what scientists sometimes do.

      Humans' digestive system is perfectly capable of digesting the things we used to eat in the past, but I somehow doubt that genetically modified crops are absolutely safe for us - alas, an average Joe will never find out if fruits or vegetables on his table are genetically altered.

    23. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, exactly, do you eat then? All food (save perhaps wild meat) has been genetically manipulated since humans settled down and started farming about 10000 years ago.

      How many movies have you seen starting with Tomatoes from Joe's garden evolved into man eating super tomatoes ? None, ZERO. Now how many would start like: in top secret research labs of Ultragro, GMO batch 67 started sprouting spider legs and mosquito wings, 10 days later the last men living on earth are fighting against the venomous blood sucking tomatoes hordes while being hunted down by cyber tomatoes from the future ?

    24. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by tibit · · Score: 2

      Sorry, you're killing yourself with your own argument. If the nature is smarter, than it will prevail, and potatoes will survive no matter what we stupidly (or not) do.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    25. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nonsense. With 'traditional methods', you still have the chance of spreading a dangerous recessive gene across the entire population, or even a dominant gene that later becomes a disadvantage as the environment changes. There are countless examples of food crops becoming extinct in large regions as a result of this. Take a look at the ancestry of a 'French' grape vine some time...

      With GM crops, we are less likely to see that, because we're tweaking smaller numbers of genes at a time.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    26. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by The+Dawn+Of+Time · · Score: 1

      What are you, some kind of scientist? Stop telling those lies, you're getting me pissed.

    27. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      It's not as clear-cut as you might imagine. Retrovial infections move gene sequences between unrelated species all of the time, and often the crop that you decide to use in the next generation of selective breeding is going to be the one that had some genes from another species spliced in giving it a genetic advantage.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    28. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by tibit · · Score: 1

      10,000 years of human-aided selection isn't enough to know there are no unintended consequences. You're furthering a common fallacy. Maybe it has a fancy name, but I simply call it the fallacy of natural method. You romanticize certain methods that give same outcomes as other methods, and claim that the former ones are somehow OK while the latter one's aren't simply because the latter ones require a lab to perform.

      There is no lab-based genetic modification involved in breeding english bulldogs. Yet most of the puppies' heads are too big to fit through the opening in the pelvic bone. Most are born through c-section. This is done entirely via out-of-the-lab breeding. Very natural, huh?

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    29. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by tibit · · Score: 1

      Everyfuckingwhere ;)

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    30. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by phyrexianshaw.ca · · Score: 2

      Every time I hear someone complaining about how they can't stand GMO's: I ask them if they eat grapefruit.
      99.9% of the time the answer is yes, "but only organic grapefruit". to which I laugh and carry on with my life.

    31. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by Krau+Ming · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I want freedom to eat non-GMO food."

      You have that freedom. Grow your own veggies. Eat 'em.

    32. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by jbengt · · Score: 1

      If the nature is smarter, than [sic] it will prevail, . . .

      does not even come close to implying

      and potatoes will survive no matter what we stupidly (or not) do

    33. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by drooling-dog · · Score: 2

      it's that we're taking genes and modifying them without knowing the exact changes made.

      I'd argue just the opposite. With modern genetic engineering methods, we can now know exactly how we're modifying the genome. It's actually the older methods - selective breeding and the use of random mutagens like colchicine - that leave us in the dark about what is actually going on.

    34. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

      People like to make fun when chemically illiterate people express fears of foreign "chemicals" in their bodies, but your counter-argument - i.e., that its silly to be wary of unfamiliar compounds because water and salt are safe chemicals, and therefore all chemicals should be presumed safe - is considerably more asinine.

    35. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      If we go with "Humans' digestive system is perfectly capable of digesting the things we used to eat in the past, but I somehow doubt that genetically modified crops are absolutely safe for us." How do you account for people from one area eating food from another area?

      I'm from South Dakota, I grew up on a diet of wheat, corn, beef and chicken, when I went to the Middle East and Indonesia I ate alot of foods that no ancestor of mine had ever eaten and I was absolutely fine.

    36. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      You're more than welcome to buy a dozen acres, plant, and harvest your own food, you know...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    37. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by SudoGhost · · Score: 2

      The "article" calls them "peaceful protesters". Isn't destroying property considering vandalism? Considering the value of the crops, wouldn't that also be considered a pretty serious felony? I admit I don't know how the courts work over there, but that seems like a pretty serious crime.

    38. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      Which will work great, until pollen from GM crops in the surrounding area contaminates your garden....

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    39. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a biologist (and I almost failed biology classes in my school years) but if I'm not mistaken the evolution didn't mix toad genes with crops genes - and that's what scientists sometimes do.

      They also do tests with live rats and live rats are quite hard to eat. So we must stop them from doing tests on live rats.

      You do realize that scientists don't just take the results of their experiments down to the farmer's market on weekends, right? A scientist splices animal DNA into a plant to see what the DNA does, but that doesn't mean they intend it for human consumption.

      Please find me proof that a plant's gone to market with toad DNA in it. I'd love to see it.

    40. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "article" calls them "peaceful protesters". Isn't destroying property considering vandalism? Considering the value of the crops, wouldn't that also be considered a pretty serious felony? I admit I don't know how the courts work over there, but that seems like a pretty serious crime.

      I gotta remember that one if I ever need to grief a neighbor. "Sure officer, I scaled a fence, tresspassed on private property, avoided police officers sent to stop me, and tore up the garden these people have been working years on, but I did it all PEACEFULLY!"

    41. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 1

      Genetically Modified means that you take a plant, and manipulate/change/modify its genes (in fact, we either remove or add one gene, most of the time, using some vector to transport the gene). It seems simple, but you don't seem to get it. Or is it that you think that 1000 years ago, we had the technology to manipulate genes? Or maybe you think (wrongly) that what we call selection is gene manipulation? It's none of what you wrote!

    42. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Reply-FAIL :-)

    43. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      How many movies have you seen starting with Tomatoes from Joe's garden evolved into man eating super tomatoes ? None, ZERO.

      You seriously have never heard of Attack of the Killer Tomatoes?

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    44. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only movie I've seen vaguely like that involved tomatoes from space.

    45. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by turtledawn · · Score: 1

      Whoosh.

      --
      Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
    46. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Like cats ? We`ve been working on them for centuries, interbreeding them.. Now we have some nice eyes colors with specific forms and `hair colors`, that please the human eyes, but they develop tons of problems later in life. I`d call that unintended consequences.

      Ah, but they all still taste like chicken.

      You see -- this inbreeding hasn't created cats that produce different kinds of hair proteins, some of which have unknown or even dangerous effects when introduced to humans. Let's say you could genetically modify a cat breed that doesn't trigger my aunt's pet-dander allergies; What if new biological molecules were also created in these cats, the research on these is ignored or skewed, discounted because they do not conflict with the solution of a "hypoallergenic" feline?

      Then, someone or some thing ingests a cat and that new biological molecule is adopted by bacteria in that creatures belly, which change it into a dangerous, unstoppable "hypoallergenic" plague.

      Fact is, this is what's happening in GMO foods. They lie to us. They say that some new proteins, although having not been rigorously studied, are harmless in our GM soy; They will break down in the cooking. However, they fail to mention that no one ever cooks soy at that high of a temperature or for the length of time required to break it down, and now we've very rapidity introduced to our diet a new protein that we have no knowledge of its long term effects.

      I'm all for genetically modified organisms, but the trouble is that it is Greed, not Science that is running the show. So what if your Hypoallergenic Siamese Cat allows my aunt to own a cat if it eventually brings about the next black plague?!
      NO, DO NOT BE A FOOL! YOU LISTEN TO ME!

      THIS RIDICULOUS DEVIL MAY CARE ATTITUDE IS WHAT THE GMO FOOD INDUSTRY IS ACTUALLY THINKING AND DOING -- THEY WOULD RATHER HAVE MORE PROFIT SOONER THAN FULLY UNDERSTAND THE RAMIFICATIONS OF RELEASING THEIR PRODUCTS INTO YOUR FOOD!

    47. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by VortexCortex · · Score: 0

      Nonsense. With 'traditional methods', you still have the chance of spreading a dangerous recessive gene across the entire population, or even a dominant gene that later becomes a disadvantage as the environment changes. There are countless examples of food crops becoming extinct in large regions as a result of this. Take a look at the ancestry of a 'French' grape vine some time...

      With GM crops, we are less likely to see that, because we're tweaking smaller numbers of genes at a time.

      Anthrax.

    48. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by PIBM · · Score: 1

      Don`t take me wrong, I was merely pointing the fact that even with the basic inbreeding we are unable to prevent those unintended consequences and we`ve been at it for thousands of years..

    49. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      yes but through a natural cross-breeding process

      At some level, the world "natural" just becomes silly. E.g. Sun is a "natural" thermonuclear reactor - should we use that as an argument to support nuclear power?

      See Monsanto.

      Now you're conflating the basic idea of genetic modification with company which uses the concept to profit, often by immoral means. GM is a tool - it can be used to achieve many great things (most notably, bigger crop yields -> more and cheaper food), and it can also be used to implement "DRM" for gene patents and such. These are orthogonal, and should be treated separately. If you have a tooth to grind at Monsanto, then focus on it, not on GM in general.

    50. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by waveclaw · · Score: 1

      it's that we're taking genes and modifying them without knowing the exact changes made. We can make many permutations of the potato via GM, and have no idea what they'll end up as

      Funny, sounds an awful lot like mutation. You know, that variation a breeder looks for to create the next great thing.

      Oh, I get it: if 'mother nature' aka 'God' aka 'not a guy in a lab coat with a gene gun' does it, then the new genes are good. But if humans did it, then it's bad.

      Bacteria have been performing this trick of inserting new/random genes for longer than we've been around. Humans are just applying it to plants and animals. And eventually our kids.

      --

      "You cannot have a General Will unless you have shared experiences. You cannot be fair to people you don't know."
    51. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by andydread · · Score: 1

      I didn't say i was against GM in general. I am against common practices of the Patented GM for profit brigade read (Agribusiness) in which Monsanto is only one example. Using unorthodox methods such as firing a gene from a bacterium into the genome of soy and corn and not making sure that there is not contamination of crops in the wild or taking care to study the repercussions is the problem.

    52. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't want your GMO "food" to mix with my food. I don't want my food to even have a chance to be contaminated with your food, even if you think it isn't dangerous.

      You're free to do things as long as you don't infringe on my freedom. And at this time in my life, I want freedom to eat non-GMO food.

      Your freedom being a life without even a chance of being exposed to my food? Fine - my freedom is to not even have a chance of encountering you on a road. Stop driving your car.

      We can roll back progress to the dark ages. Or we can just ignore you. Guess which one we've picked? Moron.

    53. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      Oh, it gets juicier. You haven't even hit the good part. Rio Red, one of the most popular grapefruit varieties, was produced by more than just hybridization. You see, most varieties are grown from seeds, one of perhaps tens of thousands of seedlings is selected for the right combination of genetic alterations (conventional breeding is based on mixing thousands of recessive genes & random mutations and hoping for the best, yet people have the huevos to complain about genetic engineering inserting only a few genes), and shoots of the selection grafted en masse to rootstocks, shipped to orchards, and grown. Not in this case. Ruby Red, not Rio Red, came from the seed. Rio Red came from Ruby Red. They exposed Ruby Red cells to radiation and selected the best mutant produced to get Rio Red. That's right, they use mutation inducing radiation and chemicals in plant breeding, and odds are you've eaten this. The only reason those ignorant anti-GMO twats don't complain is because they don't have the level of biological knowledge to see past popular stuff like genetic engineering. Even the organic ones are like this (and for the same reason, the people who set the organic standards are also idiots). Read all about it. Next time you're in that situation, drop that bombshell on them. Might also show them a picture of teosinte, tell them just how much of the genetic code of just about everything is made up of jumping genes (a good chunk, I forget the average amount, but that weirdo corn is 75% genes that move themselves), let them know that something like 30% of the human genome is junk left behind from viruses, and explain to them how many food crops are polyploids that have had their entire genome doubled, sometimes several times (where do they think seedless fruits come from).

      Those anti-GMO people get on my nerves so much. They don't know anything about genetics or botany or agriculture or molecular biology or biochemistry or anything else but love to talk about it. And yes, IIAGE, well, studying to be one anyway. Most of the misinformed comments here make my head hurt, I wish I had the time and moxie to correct them all, but since there's hundreds of them, I think I too shall laugh and get on with my life...at least until they're destroying my research anyway.

    54. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      If you want to hear a real bad one, there were some GMO grape in the news a while back. They were viral resistant, funded by the French government so no corporate stuff involved, and they were rootstocks, meaning no above ground part, so the fruit itself wasn't GMO and there wasn't even the chance of them cross pollinating anything. Yep, they were destroyed too. This is what we're dealing with here. The is no reason here, only excuses, and these people aren't enlightened activists with a noble cause, they're just violently ignorant scientifically illiterate thugs looking for a chance to destroy something. I hope they all rot in prison.

      But of course, I'm just one of those evil GMO scientists trying to contaminate the whole world with my science experiment because we're all just Saturday morning cartoon villains twisting our mustaches and cackling maniacally in out stone castle laboratories guarded by alligator filled moats at the thought of being evil for some vaguely defined end goal. We sure are evil with our virus/fungus/insect/drought resistance genes and nitrogen use efficiency traits and Golden Rice and BioCassava.to prevent blindness, malnutrition, nutrient deficiency, and starvation in the developing world. Yep, people should definitely spit on us and destroy our research and tell us how mean & nasty we are for that stuff.

    55. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      Having fun down modding me aren't you? I feel the love.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    56. Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are? by e_AltF4 · · Score: 1

      Surely you are aware that there have been humans in the Middle East and Indonesia for quite some time and you are eating what they are eating. ... or do you go out into the jungle and eat the first plant you happen to see?
      Surely you won't be quite as fine then :-)

  6. Oh no! by frozentier · · Score: 4, Funny

    Destroying a potato field... WHAT'S NEXT??? This is just more evidence of how badly we need the Patriot Act.

    1. Re:Oh no! by SMoynihan · · Score: 1

      Which is going to help mountains in Belgium...

    2. Re:Oh no! by supaneko · · Score: 1

      Better send our freedom fighters to make sure. The War of Terrorism must be one at all costs!

    3. Re:Oh no! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Which is going to help mountains in Belgium...

      Well, they're more like hills - you need to go down to Switzerland or SE France to find real mountains...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    4. Re:Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we should give up our freedom, and civil rights for an illusion of safty? Don't let fear control you, you pussy. All you pussies that have let your fear and hatred control you. We are all slaves, especially the poor. I am currently dieing because of the greedy government and corporations. I lived with gallstones for ten years before I found a doctor who did a ultrasound and found the gallstones. I am poor, and terminal because of the greed and coruption. SO F&&k you I would beat your face it you pice of shit. We have it worse than the colonists had it before we broke away from the British. you are just to stupid, and scared to see it. We are just as bad as the Nazis.

    5. Re:Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anti-science/technology fools are just as bad as the Monsanto patent trolls. The only thing worse I can think of is a fear mongering wimp. As Ben best said it, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    6. Re:Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean the Potatriot Act?

    7. Re:Oh no! by DiEx-15 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they played this music while they were plucking out the plants?

    8. Re:Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These fools now are planning to destroy another experiment with GM-trees here in Belgium. These trees are engineered to grow on soil with little value, and are much easier to use for bio-fuel production.

    9. Re:Oh no! by IHateEverybody · · Score: 1

      Destroying a potato field... WHAT'S NEXT??? This is just more evidence of how badly we need the Patriot Act.

      You can laugh but until we get super intelligent potatoes which can uproot themselves and travel closer to water in times of drought, we'll have never-ending famine.

      --
      Does this .sig make my butt look big?
    10. Re:Oh no! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Not only that. They were spraying insecticides! We should tell Greenpeace about their ecological wrongdoing!

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    11. Re:Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Destroying a potato field... WHAT'S NEXT??? This is just more evidence of how badly we need the Patriot Act.

      you're a fucking idiot.

    12. Re:Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a very good day for LIFE

    13. Re:Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean the Potatriot Act.

  7. what the ... by bball99 · · Score: 2

    so the activists were protesting gm crops, but resorted to using pesticide? i didn't know the potato was a pest...

    not very 'green' of them, was it?

    1. Re:what the ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so the activists were protesting gm crops, but resorted to using pesticide? i didn't know the potato was a pest...

      not very 'green' of them, was it?

      If you think an herbicide is the same thing as a pesticide, then stay the fuck away from my garden. Or read the article instead of the summary.

    2. Re:what the ... by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      You don't have to be a greeny to be against GMO. I live completely off the grid and I am accused of being an environmentalist all the time. I am not. I am a realist.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  8. idiotism is inevitable by IZN0GUD · · Score: 1

    idiots come in all colors and shades.

    --
    .Play.Open.Minded.
  9. Summary is wrong. by stagg · · Score: 1

    I was wondering why they'd have "sprayed insecticides over them." According to the article, "the trial was also allegedly sprayed with herbicide." There's a real distinction there. The article itself is about as long as the summary anyway.

    1. Re:Summary is wrong. by Bieeanda · · Score: 2

      The 'article' is a blog with the phrase 'food freedom' in the URL. If it was longer, would it have seriously been worth considering as a credible source?

    2. Re:Summary is wrong. by PastaLover · · Score: 1

      They threw balloons filled with herbicide onto the field. Allegedly they contained Roundup which is made by *drum-roll* Monsanto.

  10. RTFA by RealGene · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They sprayed herbicide, not insecticide.
    Open-field testing of GM plants is an inconceivably bad idea. Fifty cops can't stop cross-pollination with unmodified crops.

    --
    Mission: To provide products that consume time and energy as entertainingly as permitted by the laws of thermodynamics.
    1. Re:RTFA by Barrie_rdv · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As I explained in an other comment, part of the field test was exactly to find out the environmental impact. You will have to do a field test at some point. One of the researchers also said that with these potatoes cross pollination does not happen.

    2. Re:RTFA by amorsen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You will not have to do a field test if we succeed in getting GM crops banned.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    3. Re:RTFA by RealGene · · Score: 1

      One of the researchers also said that with these potatoes cross pollination does not happen.

      "I'm simply saying that life, uh... finds a way." -- Dr. Ian Malcolm

      --
      Mission: To provide products that consume time and energy as entertainingly as permitted by the laws of thermodynamics.
    4. Re:RTFA by tibit · · Score: 2

      I would argue whether it could be called a success, though...

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    5. Re:RTFA by Jibekn · · Score: 2

      Wont ever happen, heres why;

      From the ethical point of view, its too obvious of a solution when it comes to the problem of world hunger, and yes, most rational people will allow for a biodiversity hit, to feed billions of people. As pen and teller said, I would personally execute ever single chimp on the planet, to save one human life. So would I.

      From the greed point of view, making an existing farm produce 2-10x as much from the same land will spark some pretty high priced lobbying from the farming industry. Sure, some extreme liberal EU country's may outlaw them for a time, but once they realize the rest of the world is growing GMO, they will overturn the decisions.

    6. Re:RTFA by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      If you are in favor of banning GM crops you are really in favor of letting humans being malnourished and starving.

      But those people are in poor countries and have skin that is a different color than yours, so who really cares?

    7. Re:RTFA by Zironic · · Score: 1

      In what universe is the outlawing of certain species of crop a 'liberal' policy?

    8. Re:RTFA by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      > Open-field testing of GM plants is an inconceivably bad idea.

      You're right. They should skip testing entirely and go straight to market!

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    9. Re:RTFA by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      Always...well, except for mules. For some reason life never saw fit to allow a mule to reproduce.

    10. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're an idiot

    11. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully you morons don't get to that point, though.

    12. Re:RTFA by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Potatoes are not grown from seeds. They are grown from other potatoes. Cross pollination is only an issue when there is a risk of produced a cross-pollinated seed. This was not an act that protects anything. These terrorists were attacking science for the sake of attacking science.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    13. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I explained in an other comment, part of the field test was exactly to find out the environmental impact. You will have to do a field test at some point.

      One of the researchers also said that with these potatoes cross pollination does not happen.

      So their 100% sterile?

    14. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck doing that without a field test.

    15. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Does not cross pollinate".... man did we ever hear that before, and what was that promise worth back then? How naÃve.

    16. Re:RTFA by Jibekn · · Score: 1

      In the same universe that outlaws peanuts in schools because one kid is allergic. The same universe that outlaws booze, because of one groups moral beliefs.

      Fact of the matter, is the people against GMO are a vocal minority. And only in extreme liberal places do we see vocal minority assuaged at the expense of the majority.

    17. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on how the test is run.
      Are potatoes or related plants being grown locally? Does the strain have fertile pollen or has it been deactivated? (terminator gene).
      Also, resistance to one fungus isn't exactly the most devastating trait that could escape into the wild.

    18. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These were POTATOES. You have a clue as to how potatoes are normally reproduced? Not from seeds.

    19. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will not have to do a field test if we succeed in getting GM crops banned.

      One wonders what your position is regarding science and global warming.

    20. Re:RTFA by RealGene · · Score: 1
      --
      Mission: To provide products that consume time and energy as entertainingly as permitted by the laws of thermodynamics.
    21. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, so when that type of potato happens to be found in a neighboring farm, the owner of the type of potato (how disgusting does that sound. someone can own a type of plant...) can sue the hell out of the farm because "hey, that potato cannot cross pollinate. you must have stolen it".

    22. Re:RTFA by RealGene · · Score: 2

      Potatoes are not grown from seeds. They are grown from other potatoes

      Then what's this guy doing?

      --
      Mission: To provide products that consume time and energy as entertainingly as permitted by the laws of thermodynamics.
    23. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why would anyone want to put a full ban on gm foods? sure there may be risks involved but so does anything worth going after. It MIGHT be dangerous if done wrong but it also may reduce or eliminate pesticides, herbicides and reduce needs for the fertilizers and chemicals your current food is marinated in. It might feed thousands or millions of people in drought/blight/disease stricken areas and prevent famine, doesn't that sound like something we should look into? Yes we should be extremely careful, but at the same time when there is something of that magnitude on the horizon, we should not ban it because of a possibility of danger when there is a greater possibility world wide benefit.

    24. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure we will. We'll just have to do them in secrecy, with no regulation or oversight whatsoever. Sounds liberating, actually.

    25. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this.

    26. Re:RTFA by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      The same universe that outlaws booze, because of one groups moral beliefs.

      Pretty sure that's a religious-right thing, there.

      Fact of the matter, is the people against GMO are a vocal minority.

      In my experience, they tend to be the majority. Every person I know seems to think that GM is Teh Devil. The response here on slashdot seems to indicate the same. Of course, I think they're a bunch of idiots whose views are based on fear-mongering and rumor, but that doesn't change the fact that the idiots are in the majority.

    27. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will need data to support banning, won't you!

    28. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want to ban all GM crops? Like the corn and wheat we've been tinkering with for the past few thousand years? Or pineapples, tomatoes, apples and everything else? What do you plan to eat afterwards? For that matter, what do you eat now?

    29. Re:RTFA by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Demand will be low. A War on GM plants would be over and done with in no time at all.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    30. Re:RTFA by amorsen · · Score: 1

      GM isn't the devil. It is just risky and the reward it offers is control of our food source handed to a select few.

      So far mankind has proven itself spectacularly unable to handle risky technologies. The only real "success" so far is the ozone layer recovery.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    31. Re:RTFA by amorsen · · Score: 0

      If you do not donate all your money to the poor, you are in favour of letting humans be malnourished and starving.

      But those people are in poor countries and have skin that is a different color than yours, so who really cares?

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    32. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well Mr Genius, why don't you propose a better solution to the problem potato blight before dismissing GM?

    33. Re:RTFA by amorsen · · Score: 1

      One wonders what your position is regarding science and global warming.

      Easy: the evidence indicates that our CO2 emissions are causing climate change. Caution should therefore lead us to reduce emissions until such time that we can be reasonably sure that we were wrong and CO2 emissions are safe.

      Once we are reasonably sure that we can engineer GM crops to not spread their modified genes to other plants or become invasive species, we can reverse the ban. Assuming they do not compromise the security of our food sources in other ways -- e.g. monoculture is a risk whether it is GM or not.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    34. Re:RTFA by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      GM isn't the devil. It is just risky and the reward it offers is control of our food source handed to a select few.

      Complete bullshit; the kind of nonsense which only people who believe that GM is Teh Devil could convince themselves of. Here in the real world GM is far safer than the kind of genetic tinkering we've been doing for thousands of years, the results are much more stringently regulated, and it has no implications whatsoever for "control of our food". Your conspiracy-theories notwithstanding, Monsanto isn't out to rule the world, and they have no chance of controlling the food supply regardless of what they do. It takes a special kind of stupid to go around screaming that GM is bad because DA EEEEEVIL CORPORATOINS WONT TO ROOL UZ ALL!! It's right up there with General Ripper and his "Precious Bodily Fluids", blaming fluoride on a communist plot. It's completely ridiculous, yet gets taken seriously even by otherwise intelligent people simply because they don't bother to do any research and they have an automatic aversion to someone screwing with their food.

    35. Re:RTFA by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      So if you get GM crops banned, then the scientists will stop these experiments (or, more likely, move elsewhere where they are free to pursue their research).

      Until then, the experiment is both legal and meaningful, and the people who interfered have engaged in vandalism.

    36. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you don't have to do a field test. You can accept that you cannot stop cross-contamination and stop polluting the world with GMOs.

      I am a scientist. That's why I know that GMOs are bad for the world.

    37. Re:RTFA by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1
      In what universe is the outlawing of certain species of crop a 'liberal' policy?

      The Universe in which "liberal" means stealing from those who are financially successful.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    38. Re:RTFA by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      That's about the size of it. Most anti-GMO idiots live in the developed world where food is so abundant and plentiful that for the first time in human history obesity is a problem. Much of the world doesn't even have enough food to get by. Why do we have so much food? Agricultural technology. Where it has been implemented, GM crops have made pretty good strides in warding off pests, and other things like fungal and viral resistant GMOs have proven themselves in field conditions (well, the ones where they aren't destroyed by science hating douchebags anyway). The technology is solidly proven. This is not a controversy among scientists, just the public. And to reject science and oppose a technology that could save the lives of millions of starving people just because you have the heebie-jeebies, can't be bothered to crack a science book or take a few minutes to actually understand the topic, and have a let-them-eat-cake mentality towards people in the developing world, that is just insane. And yes, people are dying. And yes, the technology is just sitting on the shelf. And it isn't that people are going to die over rejection of biotechnology, it's that they ALREADY ARE. But it's true, those poeple are a world away, and if you don't want to take the time to really learn about them you can just keep going on in ignorance, stuffing your face with over-priced organic garbage while telling starving people how to live.

      And you know, by the time you finish reading this post, people will have starved to death somewhere. Maybe if they would've had plants that could resist insect/viral/fungal attach, resist drought, or produce more vital nutrients, they'd still be alive. And that is just sickening. Fuck those illiterate anti-GMO jackasses.

    39. Re:RTFA by arose · · Score: 1

      As pen and teller said, I would personally execute ever single chimp on the planet, to save one human life. So would I.

      I might agree with the overall point but that is a stupid argument, for the most obvious problem try to think about bees instead of chimps.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    40. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please also note that these plants were enriched with genes from other potato strains. These genes are already able to cross-pollinate with 'unmodified' crops.

    41. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah ;-)
      As you can see, the environmental impact was: A bunch of activists where allured and sprayed herbicide.
      I bet this wasnt predicted and not anticipated. So maybe the modified tomates are resistent to potato blight, but have the weakness of alluring herbicide spraying activists that will finish them off :-D

    42. Re:RTFA by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      As pen and teller said, I would personally execute ever single chimp on the planet, to save one human life. So would I.

      Pen and Teller are a pair of arseholes. if you would do that to save one human life then that makes it a trio.. From the greed point of view, making an existing farm produce 2-10x as much from the same land will spark some pretty high priced lobbying from the farming industry.

      But GM crops aren't providing much better yields that the non GM versions. In mnay cases they are providing smaller yields. Even Monsanto attests to this. What is undeniably increasing is the amount of round up being used over the same amount of land when servicing the GM versions..

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    43. Re:RTFA by Jibekn · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately facts mean very little to lobbyists. And my point was, when you have the greedy, able to take a moral high ground stance. You will not stop them.

    44. Re:RTFA by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      You can try. Governments and the rich get overthrown regularly throughout history. Unfortunately these days it seems the same rich people who are being overhrown are guiding the hands of those doing the overthrowing. Like rearranging deckchairs I guess. Apologies for the name calling I was essentially pissed at someone else and mistook the thread as being the same person. My bad.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  11. Dumbasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Funny thing is that the movement that called for the destruction is a movement primarily directed against multinationals. Of course, only one plant on the field was from scientific research of a multinational, the other plants were from a government initiative to do genetic research without relying on hard to regulate multinationals. By doing the research themselves they were hoping to prevent the multinationals gaining the upper hand in such research, and thus making a lot of this obscure by calling in protection of their research via patents and secrecy.

  12. Scientific freedom... by grub · · Score: 1


    Anti-science, torch wielding mobs know best! Like the anti-vax thing on the weekend where 4 cops and 3 security people removed a woman for not drinking the anti-vax kool-aid.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  13. A great day for human beings by rubycodez · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think the submitter of this article is a little unclear on the concept of what companies like Monsanto are trying to do, they are trying to control the food supply, to get a "piece of the action" like a Mafia every time you take a bite of food, and no one who doesn't pay them will have food. They are evil, and this little incident is nothing compared to what should be done to those parasites on humanity. Think of Monsanto and their ilk as the MIAA/RIAA of food.

    1. Re:A great day for human beings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The protesters have two issues: (1) patents and (2) effects of GGO on the environment.

      About (2): the reason for the test was exactly to find out what the environmental effects may be.

      About (1): Patents, at least those on living beings and/or those resulting from university research (in theory paid by the society at large, but due to lack of funding often paid by private sector) should be abolished. And universities need more funding to become independent of industry.

    2. Re:A great day for human beings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does Monsanto have to do with this? They weren't mentioned in TFA or TFS.

    3. Re:A great day for human beings by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 2

      WTF? Seriously, what are you smoking? I understand that Monsanto and the other seed companies have lots of seed crops which cannot reproduce, but the analogy is quite out there. First off, the seed companies are at the beginning of the chain, not the middle and have little to do with controlling what is grown. Market conditions are the overriding factor in that. (For example check out the increase in cotton planting this year versus previous years due to the high price & low supply of cotton). Second of all, the RIAA & MPAA are not innovators nor do actual multi-year research into their products. Seed companies must do both. Third, while non-reproducing seed is a type of lock-in, there is still seed available which does reproduce. It's just not as cheap.

      Agriculture is a multi-billion dollar business which dwarfs the entertainment industry, and while I know there are issues with it, comparing the two is laughable.

      --
      I call it 'The Aristocrats'
    4. Re:A great day for human beings by fermion · · Score: 2, Insightful
      In addition, you can't put a scientist on a project and call it science, at least not ethical science. For instance, a scientist could kidnap a child, put them intending to put that child in the closet for three day will full monitoring and appropriate scientific protocols while not injuring the child in any physical manner. I suppose when the police rescued that child the headline would read "Police disrupt scientific child experiment'.

      These GMO 'experiments' are like kidnapping the whole world because they are ransoming our future food supply for short term profits. They are worse than nuclear explosions because the effect of nuclear explosions are localized, say the massive radiation of the Bikini Atoll, because the effects are much more widespread and may not get better in relatively short periods of time unlike nuclear explosions. We have no idea what the new genes in plants will do, but we do know that they genes will be spead because that's the whole purpose of nature, to spread mutations. Bad mutations will be breed out over time, but it could cause ecosystem to collapse.

      In a larger context GMO exists to reinforce the non-sustainable agricultural methods developed over the past century. One of these is artificial fertilizer and insecticides. The negative effects of this is real. In the recent debate of blowing the levees so the missispii could flood farm land instead of cities, one argument against it is that the rivier is so full of these chemicals that the farm land would be destroyed. We live in a world where we can't even use annual flooding the reinvigorate our land.

      Everyone says GMO is all about increasing food security, but it is really about increasing short term profits. In the Americas and Europe we grow way more food than we need. The issues in Africa is about using unsustainable framing practices and int he process creating desert. In the US where we have way more food than we need, we process it into empty calorie snacks na brainwash out kids into buying it as food. Just look at what happened when FLOTUS said it might be nice for kids to have healthy food. All the lobby dollars of the junk food industry came out and said that if parents though that chips and soft drinks were what parents wanted to feed the kids then they should have that choice. Which I don't disagree with, just let's be honest about what we are doing and why we are doing it.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    5. Re:A great day for human beings by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Third, while non-reproducing seed is a type of lock-in, there is still seed available which does reproduce."

      And the majority of that is covered under the Plant Patent Act, which destroys your argument as unauthorized reproduction is prohibited.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    6. Re:A great day for human beings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't Monsanto it was publicly funded university research, which would of benefitted farmers

    7. Re:A great day for human beings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's great and all that you think Monsanto is evil, but you failed to mention anything about why that makes blight resistant potatoes evil.

    8. Re:A great day for human beings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately everybody else that's commenting on this article seems to be losing that point too.

      Fuck Monsanto and everybody associated with them. All of you need to be rounded up and shot in the back of the head execution-style.

    9. Re:A great day for human beings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the submitter of this article is a little unclear on the concept of what companies like Monsanto are trying to do, they are trying to control the food supply, to get a "piece of the action" like a Mafia every time you take a bite of food, and no one who doesn't pay them will have food. They are evil, and this little incident is nothing compared to what should be done to those parasites on humanity. Think of Monsanto and their ilk as the MIAA/RIAA of food.

      You and most others are missing the big picture. Monsanto is evil not because it is trying to control the food supply, but because the industry is trying to expand the food supply. The earth is already overpopulated. Making it possible to breed more humans is a very bad thing in the long run.

    10. Re:A great day for human beings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not fair. At least the MIAA and RIAA's products don't harm people physically.

    11. Re:A great day for human beings by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Funny thing; the experiment was done by the University of Ghent and not a food company.

    12. Re:A great day for human beings by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

      Funny thing; the experiment was done by the University of Ghent and not a food company.

      The article doesn't say a thing about it, but companies and universities can do joint research... need more data. :)

      --
      I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    13. Re:A great day for human beings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good to know that you support crime as long as you feel some kind of vague sympathy for the criminal's ideology.

    14. Re:A great day for human beings by walternate · · Score: 1

      I think the submitter of this article is a little unclear on the concept of what companies like Monsanto are trying to do, they are trying to control the food supply, to get a "piece of the action" like a Mafia every time you take a bite of food, and no one who doesn't pay them will have food. They are evil, and this little incident is nothing compared to what should be done to those parasites on humanity. Think of Monsanto and their ilk as the MIAA/RIAA of food.

      You are aware this was publically funded University research that was sabotaged? Isn't that exactly what would balance against the negative power you are attributing to Monsanto?

    15. Re:A great day for human beings by Tasha26 · · Score: 1

      Exactly! I'm glad you said that. Reading the other comments you'd think we were dealing with a bunch of kids who have done no research whatsoever on the realities of GM crops. I'm pro research of food crops that will alleviate starvation because let's face it, the world population is only going up. But when I read about that diabolical company called Monsanto, my stomach turned. These guys lobbied hard and employed armies of lawyers to corrupt the patent system. Now thanks to them, life is "patentable." Therefore they own the GM-seed they produce and it's illegal for you to re-grow seeds collected from your previous harvest. You have to buy it fresh from them. Go tell that to the poor farmers of India or Africa. This is simply slavery and I believe India took steps against that. Oh yeah, if their seeds land in a non-GM farm and start to grow, then that farmer is liable of lawsuit. Since Monsanto is a fat company, farmers have no choice but settle out of court. You can definitely go screw yourself if you think GM is all good.

    16. Re:A great day for human beings by CKW · · Score: 1

      > they are trying to control the food supply ... like a Mafia every time you take a bite of food

      Those bits are gross hyperbole and utter BS. The mafia force you to pay them or else you're not allowed to eat at all.

      If Monsanto can invent a form of potatos that have a 50% higher yield, why shouldn't they be allowed to take 20% of that as profit, and we end up with 30% cheaper potatos? Or 50% more potatos for just 20% more cost?

      If you don't want to use Monsanto potatos, don't. They can't force you to pay them. Even without labelling laws (which I'd support btw), you just have to go to the nearest farmers market and there's tons of people selling non-monsanto product. Enough people do that and supermarkets will be forced to sell non-monsanto product too, labelling laws or not.

      And, after saying all that, I'd still agree that Monsanto is much ... "too evil" ... for a corporation. But stick to facts, not gross hyperbole.

    17. Re:A great day for human beings by loufoque · · Score: 1

      Yes, you're right, science is pure evil, "scientists" want to make life better so as to better corrupt and control people.
      Don't fall for this temptation, son, and help us kill the heretics that defy our mother nature!

    18. Re:A great day for human beings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a decent argument for not buying Monsanto seeds or produce derived from them.

      It is not an excuse for destroying a field and the research being conducted there. This is criminal, pure and simple.

    19. Re:A great day for human beings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. I don't think that tearing up plants is the right thing to do (destroying others property is wrong imo), but after learning about Monsanto and their affiliations with other big companies like Microsoft (yes its a fact, not just a conspiracy) I have "grown" to strongly dislike GM foods. BTW, there is nothing but heirloom seeds in my garden!

    20. Re:A great day for human beings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *citation needed

    21. Re:A great day for human beings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A great scifi book, 'The Windup Girl' by Paolo Bacigalupi is based in the future where food companies have incredible power in a 'calorie economy'.

      Won both the Hugo and Nebula awards as well.

    22. Re:A great day for human beings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think of Monsanto and their ilk as the MIAA/RIAA of food.

      This may be, but destroying crops is no more valid form of protest than torching recording studios.

    23. Re:A great day for human beings by mrmaps · · Score: 1

      I'm confused, when was Monsanto mentioned in the article, or the video for that matter? They are attempting to give potatoes resistance to a certain bacteria. This is hardly an evil thing to do. Some may bang pots and pans about genetically modified foods, but all vegetables we eat have had their destinies guided by a human hand. I don't disagree that Monsanto's bending intellectual property laws is frightening, but I don't think the experiment here was in the same vein in the least (at least not yet).

    24. Re:A great day for human beings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting point of view. Would you like to be starving in 10-15 years? Or would you like to impose a global 2 child limit? Those are your other options.

    25. Re:A great day for human beings by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      According to the beliefs of most anti-GMO folk, Monsanto is responsible for all genetic engineering. It doesn't make much sense from a logical standpoint, but unfortunately ignorance is considered a legitimate point of view. If you are against something, but almost every relevant expert and scientist is for it (and yes, they are, I've spoken to a good number of them at my university), then you need a conspiracy to back your point, something to tie everything you don't like to a single shadowy intricate target so that it can be collectively demonized and dismissed. In the case of the anti-vaxxers, it's the pharmaceutical industry. For the 9/11 truthers, it's the US government. For the GMO denialists, it is Monsanto. Monsanto owning an entire branch of science is absolutely critical to the anti-GMO position, therefore, despite the fact that the Flanders Institute for Biotechnology is publicly funded, this research is in their minds done by Monsanto. And there really isn't any point arguing that 'fact' with them because, in my experience, you're better off talking to a brick wall.

    26. Re:A great day for human beings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was an experiment of one of our universities. Nothing to do with Monsanto or other companies.

    27. Re:A great day for human beings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is the gem from Monsanto "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is FDA's job." http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/25/magazine/playing-god-in-the-garden.html?pagewanted=13&src=pm

    28. Re:A great day for human beings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This field was for a research experiment of the Ghent University, and is completely independent. It has no affliliation with Monsanto or whoever.

    29. Re:A great day for human beings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was an independent, government funded, research project, not affiliated with any multinational like Monsanto. Leave it to those treehuggers to attack the wrong people.

    30. Re:A great day for human beings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that if the plants from their seeds contaminate your crops through cross-pollination, they absolutely CAN force you to pay them, and in fact they do.

      The only hyperbole and BS is coming out from you. You seem to be keen on pretending that all the instances of Monsanto bribing environment officials(they got caught in Indonesia for example) and suing farmers left and right do not exist. Only way monsanto would have an ethical case to sue farmers was if they could guarantee that contamination was impossible. But Monsanto has acknowledged in court(in the Percy case) that contamination from their GMO seeds/plants is pretty much likely.

  14. I'm more concerned about the GM business by erroneus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Monsanto is all that anyone needs to say these days to show what is most wrong with GM foods. I'm sure all sorts of amazing and magical things can come of GM foods research. But when it is used as a weapon to destroy people and to control something as vital as food for humanity for profit, I have to say NO MORE GM FOOD. Once the problem of commercial exploitation is resolved, then let's revisit the many potential benefits of GM foods.

    And before anyone says "profits pay for the research" I will just say I don't care. Find another way that doesn't involve using the results to dominate and drive private farmers out of business and off their land.

    1. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by blackraven14250 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think the Monsanto situation could be easily resolved by making them responsible for not allowing the spread of the pollen, rather than making the private farmers responsible for pollen getting into their area.

    2. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The solution is very simple: fund public research on GM. It is already done in some place, and once removed the perverted business model (isn't that similar to DRM? prevent 'copying'?) most problems disappears.

    3. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by thijsh · · Score: 1

      Most problems are easily resolved with a small dose of common sense... Sadly you have to deal with a corrupt government so fat chance of finding even the slightest bit of common sense there.

    4. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by rodarson2k · · Score: 1

      Or they could just accept the fact that they're trying to sell something that reproduces naturally. Pet stores don't say "you can't breed these rabbits" - they either neuter them themselves or they deal with the fact that someone else might someday have extra rabbits to sell. It takes a lot of investment (sort of...as a geneticist myself, it's not even a million dollars or anything until you start futzing with the FDA and other gov't entities) so you should just make your distribution method more convenient than anyone else's & your prices competitive with whatever else is out there, even if the other stuff is basically selling exact copies of your product without the scientific investment.

      If the cost of "food safety research" was borne by the regulatory bodies that demand it instead of the private companies hoping to sell food, there wouldn't be a need to have indefinite gene patents and teams of lawyers protecting the hundreds of millions of investment in a product. Genetics is cheap, it's all the regulatory crap that makes Monsanto have to behave like thugs to maintain profitability.

      (not saying they wouldn't abuse the system to continue behaving like thugs while being incredibly profitable in my alternate setup, but there would be space for alternative, 'nice', companies to exist, and presumably people would recognize that "we hate monsanto, let's buy from otnasnom instead")

    5. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      But when it is used as a weapon to destroy people and to control something as vital as food for humanity for profit, I have to say NO MORE GM FOOD.

      You might be interested in the book, The Windup Girl.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    6. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Monsanto is all kinds of evil, but that doesn't mean the entirety of GM is evil. DuPont was run by massive douchebags as well, but does that mean that research into polymers wasn't worthwhile?

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    7. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another idea is to not allow patents for self reproducing things

    8. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Please cite a case where a farmer was made responsible for pollen from a Monsanto product getting into his area.

    9. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    10. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by Kielistic · · Score: 2

      Not to disagree with your point but dog breeders often make you sign a contract saying that dog you just bought will never breed.

    11. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Oh poppycock. You didn't cite anything by linking to this movie.

      The fact of the matter is that US case law DOES NOT allow collection of damages by a patent owner in cases of accidental contamination. This is clearly established legal precedent.

      http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/BriefScruggsCase5.9.2005.pdf

      page 7

    12. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Just it's clear, I don't care that you don't care. Scientific progress > you. Money is not evil, it's ethics neutral. If a corporation's profits help advance scientific research, then that fact trumps all others.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    13. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 2

      Please cite a case where a farmer was made responsible for pollen from a Monsanto product getting into his area.

      http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goliath_and_David:_Monsanto's_Legal_Battles_against_Farmers#Monsanto_v._Percy_Schmeiser

      A 2000 Environment News Service article on the Canadian federal court judgment noted "Monsanto did not directly try to explain how the Roundup Ready seed got there. "Whether Mr. Schmeiser knew of the matter or not matters not at all", said Roger Hughes, a Monsanto attorney quoted by the Western Producer, a Canadian agriculture magazine.... 'It was a very frightening thing, because they said it doesn't matter how it gets into a farmer's field; it's their property," Schmeiser said, in an interview with Agweek. "If it gets in by wind or cross-pollination, that doesn't matter'". "The legal basis for Monsanto's successful claim for patent infringement was the courts' recognition that they could maintain patent protection in the patented gene even when it had passed by cross-fertilization into Schmeiser's canola crop"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser

      Regarding the question of patent rights and the farmer's right to use seed taken from his fields, Monsanto said that because they hold a patent on the gene, and on canola cells containing the gene, they have a legal right to control its use, including the replanting of seed collected from plants with the gene which grew accidentally in someone else's field.

      Now, the focus seemed to be on the fact that Schmeiser replanted seed from the contaminated field after realizing that 60% of that field was Roundup-resistant. However, some of the tertiary comments made by Monsanto hint at something a bit more nefarious.

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    14. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monsanto is nothing to do with it. Were Monsanto doing the research?

    15. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just it's clear, I don't care that you don't care. Scientific progress > you. Money is not evil, it's ethics neutral. If a corporation's profits help advance scientific research, then that fact trumps all others.

      Just to show how incredibly fucking stupid that statement was, here we go:

      I need to dissect your body, while you are alive, so I can examine the various effects it has on you, with the goal of decreasing suffering for humans everywhere, all in the name of Scientific Progress. I'll be sure to get proper corporate funding for my research so that the time taken will be exquisitely long, detailed, and well documented, all up to the point that you expire. Of course, with such adequate funds available, you'll be resuscitated multiple times during these experiments, should you be unable to physically keep up with them, so you'll never really die. After all, the corporate sponsors will want to get their money's worth, for maximum profit potential! And with ethics-neutral money, we'll all be sleeping easy at night, knowing that the obscene amounts of funding received will have absolutely no effect on our research!

      See, just like you said, If a corporation's profits help advance scientific research, then that fact trumps all others. I may have you turned inside-out slowly over a long period of time while examining your internal organs, but at the end of the day, it's all good, because little Bobby and Suzie will be safer, all because of your brave participation in this experiment!

      Do you get a clear understanding of what you just said AND implied now? Or do you still not understand that Scientific Pursuit, ideally decoupled from ethics, can be swayed (or the results influenced) by profit motive? And how the profit motive can be used both for good and bad? And how it's been easier and easier for the bad side of the profit motive to produce results that harm many while benefiting only the few?

    16. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Funny how you skipped the 147 farmers sued under the patents, cited on your own page 6. The footnote on 7 was based on a federal circuit court of appeals decision (for a completely different circuit, meaning that it has absolutely no precedence in the circuit that this brief was filed in), has it been decided on the Supreme Court level whether it's OK to "accidentally" infringe on patents? Do keep in mind that the law makes it quite clear that "accidental infringement" is still infringement, due to the explicit separation between accidental and intentional infringement by demanding treble damages for intentional infringement. (What other kinds of infringement could there be other than "I meant to" and "I didn't mean to"?)

      The only thing that saves you from completely imploding is that this Scruggs guy was caught seed from previous plantings and reselling it at his supply store.

      He ended up losing, by the way.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    17. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by Fauxbo · · Score: 1
    18. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Then all odds are off. If everything fails, that corrupt government will simply get by force everything it wants from you.

      Seems the first step to deal with a corrupt government is to get ride of the corruption, not attack its simptoms.

    19. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah? Who writes those rules?

    20. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      If you want to take on Monsanto, then more power to you. But the field in question was not a Monsanto field. In fact, it was not any private business, but university research. So what does "commercial exploitation" have to do with it?

    21. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But when it is used as a weapon to destroy people and to control something as vital as food for humanity for profit, I have to say NO MORE GM FOOD.

      Dude, OGM != Monsanto. There's plenty of open research from university and other companies which is being demonized because of ignorance of the subject.

    22. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by Tasha26 · · Score: 1

      Lets not forget that Monsanto, lobbied friends and shareholder governors or senators find it in their interest to cut funding for agricultural research at universities who specialise in it. Seeds produced from publicly funded research are available to all and this is in direct conflict with Monsanto GM-seeds.

    23. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by owski · · Score: 1

      Did you read the article? He wasn't "made responsible for pollen from a Monsanto product getting into his area" the court specifically said he wasn't responsible for that. What he was "made responsible" for was when he then took those plants and replanted the rest of his fields with them knowing full well what he was doing.

      You can agree or disagree with IP laws about "stealing" seeds, but this case doesn't make the point you were trying to make.

    24. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by owski · · Score: 1
    25. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think saying "NO MORE GM FOOD" is attacking the wrong target. The problem is allowing patents on genetic information. The IP laws are what gives Monsanto power to attack small farmers. Take away their IP and they no longer have control of the food supply.

    26. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by rsborg · · Score: 1

      I think the Monsanto situation could be easily resolved by making them responsible for not allowing the spread of the pollen, rather than making the private farmers responsible for pollen getting into their area.

      This would likely make the practice of GM crops infeasible. Monsanto got "ahead of the issue" by posing the opposite from rational position (since it's not possible), and will sound like a hero when they eventually "compromise" on the issue by saying that no one should be held responsible (thus removing the biggest issue to GM crops - infestation of non-GM crops by pollen/hybridization).

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    27. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the Monsanto situation could be easily resolved by making them responsible for not allowing the spread of the pollen, rather than making the private farmers responsible for pollen getting into their area.

      You'd think that would be obvious.

    28. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Terminate all patents, simple isn't it?

    29. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. For anyone that doesn't understand the implications of what companies that create GM food like Montsanto does. Have a watch of the movie "The Future of Food". You can stream it for free at:

      http://www.thefutureoffood.com/

      or

      http://www.hulu.com/watch/67878/the-future-of-food

    30. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because "making businesses responsible" always works. I think that's an excellent recipe for preventing disasters. /sarcasm

    31. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Schmeiser was sued for patent infringement because he selected and replanted seed from plants fertilized by wind blown pollen. His crop when analyzed was found to be 90+% RoundUp resistant corn.

      He WAS NOT sued for the accidental wind blown contamination of his crop.

      Nor did he end up having to pay any royalties.

      So:

      1. The matter he was sued for was not accidental contamination.

      2. He was not made responsible for the accidental contamination.

      Therefore you have failed to provide an example.

    32. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      The lawsuits were of farmers who intentionally violated the terms of their license agreements. NOT due to accidental contamination.

      Whether or not precedence is established at the Supreme Court level is irrelevant. District court cases can equally provide precedence.

      So where is your citation showing farmers are being sued and are paying royalties for accidental contamination?

      Eh?

      Could it be that this is just a big lie?

    33. Re:I'm more concerned about the GM business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I'm more concerned by the laws that made that happen. This is NOT a problem with GM food.

  15. from belgium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i am sorry. we have a bunch of idiots here too.
    we are working on GM people to solve it.

  16. Insecticide != Herbicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Insecticides are for killing insects not plants (they usually target the nerves, digestion or reproduction which are totally different for plants). I think they mean herbicide (or maybe the anti-GMO crowed really didn't know the difference between the two.)

    1. Re:Insecticide != Herbicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA. These 'modified potatoes' had sprouted legs and wings and were buzzing around terrorising the local people. DDT bombing was the only option.

    2. Re:Insecticide != Herbicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Phytophthora infestans is an oomycete that causes the serious potato disease known as late blight or potato blight."

      So, if they sprayed them with something that would prevent them from getting blight, that would invalidate the experiment of whether the genetic modifications would prevent blight.

    3. Re:Insecticide != Herbicide by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Dump enough insecticides on a plant, and you'll kill it regardless.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  17. Lack of background, nuance by mhermans · · Score: 5, Informative
    The comment "It's a sad day for the freedom of scientific research", misses the complexity of the debate surrounding the inherently political balance between technological advances driven by private interest and the opinion and interest of the larger populace. A colleague a has published extensively and recently on this very subject, the debate and issue of GGO's in Belgium, these two publications, available from his homepage are highly recommended:
    • Maeseele, P. (2011) On News Media and Democratic Debate: Framing Agricultural Biotechnology in Northern Belgium. International Communication Gazette 73 (1-2): 83-105.
    • Maeseele, P. (2010) Science journalism and social debate on modernization risks. Interview by Filippo Bonaventura. Journal of Science Communication 9 (4): C02.
    1. Re:Lack of background, nuance by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No it doesn't. This issue is very simple here.

      Physically attacking a scientific experiment in the guise of a protest against commercialization of a technology that you may have political issues with is nothing than a form of terrorism and should be treated extremely harshly.

    2. Re:Lack of background, nuance by solidraven · · Score: 1

      Yes, and we should totally talk to a professor in communication and some political "science" majors about genetic manipulation. They have no clue what they're talking about...

    3. Re:Lack of background, nuance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you explain to me why it is called, "Terrorism" when plants are killed but it is called, "Technological Progress" when thousands of humans are made sick, some of whom die who otherwise wouldn't have but for the spread of these GMO foods?

      Exactly which species do YOU belong to? I am a human and I feel quite strongly that businesses who profit by making humans sick and killing some should be exterminated and their management teams tried and either jailed or shot. The world is now too small for sociopathic dickheads to be allowed to poison large parts of it for short term profits.

    4. Re:Lack of background, nuance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientific experiment its not something sacred by definition, I could burn babies under 3yo, making soap from their fat, and document the cleaning properties of it, in a perfectly valid and very usefull (for some), scientific experiment...so what is your point?

    5. Re:Lack of background, nuance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, let's kill some people!

    6. Re:Lack of background, nuance by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Hiding behind cross-pollination argument is what misses the point here. Potatoes are not grown from seeds. Cross pollination is irrelevant in this case. This is destruction of human endeavor for the sake of destroying a product of human thought. These terrorists deserve to be treated the same was as all other terrorists.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    7. Re:Lack of background, nuance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no it's not, troll. Terrorism is violence or threat of violence targeted at *humans* - unless your GMO 'tatoes at least passes the turing test they are still vegetables.

    8. Re:Lack of background, nuance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really?

      By the same token the GMO is a biological weapon which when released becomes unstoppable and will spread to the rest of the world, leaving no one safe from its effects. That _is_ terror and it is already happening (see Monsanto e.t.c.).

    9. Re:Lack of background, nuance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You get to call that "terrorism" when you have rooted out the corruption that allowed GM crops to get fielded in the first place. Nobody but Monsanto, their paid off ilk and pure breed idiots want it. And yet it's pushed onto the consumer, who according to representatives of the business in the future shall be denied information that the food they are about to buy is manipulated in order to prevent any free choice, because if the consumer gets that, the evidence shows they will turn their lab-food down.

      Monsanto and their ilk are totalitarian autocratic fascists, and their tail of followers fawning at their feet is no smarter than any other tail following and doing the dirty deeds of any other such dictator in history.

    10. Re:Lack of background, nuance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it doesn't. This issue is very simple here.

      Physically attacking a scientific experiment in the guise of a protest against commercialization of a technology that you may have political issues with is nothing than a form of terrorism and should be treated extremely harshly.

      Holy fucking Facist, Batman! Stop the press! Wear your brown shirt often? You're fucking kidding me. Who was on the receiving end of said terrorism? The god-damn potatoes? Are you out of your fucking mind? Do we suddenly ascribe anthropomorphic traits to tuber roots?

      When potatoes vote and have civic duties, then I'll be worried about terrorism and how destroying this field is undermining our society. In the meantime, I suggest you re-think your attitude towards what is at worst property destruction. You seem to be suggesting that it's a horrible horrible thing done to humanity in general because, well, we're all starving or some other bullshit. Stop equating the potato loss with something it isn't. People starve not for lack of volume of food, but for the politics that prevent that food from being received. The world makes - and throws away - tons and tons of food, but people go hungry because "they're different from us", or some other bullshit excuse not to give people food.

      In fact, if you're so god-damn concerned about the potatoes, I'll be sure to cut one up tonight into little tiny bits, and throw it into boiling water while it's still alive! See, I'm a horrible, horrible butcher, a real boogeyman! Oh the humanity!

    11. Re:Lack of background, nuance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, my...

      Physically attacking a scientific experiment in the guise of a protest against commercialization of a technology that you may have political issues with is nothing than a form of VANDALISM and should be treated AS USUAL.

      FTFY

      Misuse of the term "terrorism" is nothing but another form of terrorism.

    12. Re:Lack of background, nuance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they are terrorists, then what was the political gain sought? And whom was harmed? How was terror created in the civilian populace?

      Stop bending over, pointing your ass towards the keyboard, and spewing your thoughtless troll shit onto the screen. At best, you're a troll. At worst, you're a mouthpiece.

    13. Re:Lack of background, nuance by Raenex · · Score: 1

      form of terrorism

      Bullshit. If they threatened the scientists or other people behind this experiment, that would be terrorism. Instead, all they did was damage the potato experiment.

      I wouldn't call that a peaceful protest, as they destroyed property, but neither is it "terrorism".

    14. Re:Lack of background, nuance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Physically attacking a scientific experiment in the guise of a protest against commercialization of a technology that you may have political issues with is nothing than a form of terrorism and should be treated extremely harshly.

      Excellent! I propose a new scientific experiment. Let's put poison in your water supply to see what happens! What's that? You don't want poison in your water supply? Too bad, I am rich and you're not, so it doesn't matter what you say. What's that? You're going to physically stop me from dumping poison in your water supply? You are a terrorist and should be treated extremely harshly.

    15. Re:Lack of background, nuance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't an attack, it was fixing a flaw. They were out in the open in incontrolled nature.
      Scientific experiments such as this are to be done in a controlled environment, otherwise it's not a scientific experiment... It's a beta run. Beta runs are done after all well known possible issues have been ironed out.

      Thanks for playing

    16. Re:Lack of background, nuance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I'm terrified by your use of the word "terrorism" in this context. What we're seeing here is the standard form of extremist activism. Does it really terrify you? Oh those poor poor potato plants! Oh the poor scientists! The fear! The bowel loosening terror!

    17. Re:Lack of background, nuance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Physically attacking...a science experiment?

      Call me crazy, but I think the protesters are against GM foods and not science experiments as a whole. Given how well the corn and cotton turned out (and how much publicity that gets), I'm not surprised something like this has happened.

    18. Re:Lack of background, nuance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Those 'experiments' are contaminating nature. Any referendum in Europe will tell you that citizen don't want GM food. There is nothing scientific in those testing: it is Monsanto is pushing his agenda for years and years and years. You can paint that as some 'political stuff', but this is not true. What Monsanto is doing is evil, and resistance is the citizen-way to react.

    19. Re:Lack of background, nuance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WOW, we are throwing around the word terrorism a bit loosely these days, are we not?

    20. Re:Lack of background, nuance by s-whs · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't. This issue is very simple here.

      Physically attacking a scientific experiment in the guise of a protest against commercialization of a technology that you may have political issues with is nothing than a form of terrorism and should be treated extremely harshly.

      Terrorism? No it is not. It's an obvious protest against what this sort of research produces. As others have pointed out, the problem of cross pollination (and that the researches say it doesn't happen isn't convincing in itself), but also that of needing a licence to grow food is bad. There is no obvious threat against the people in the experiment.

      Even thinking about naming this sort of action terrorism means you're nuts, saying it means just one thing: You are insane.

    21. Re:Lack of background, nuance by Theotherguy_1 · · Score: 1

      That's irrelevant. The issue here is that a bunch of people went out and destroyed someone else's scientific experiment by force. It wasn't a protest. It wasn't a counter-argument. It was a bunch of thugs going out and trashing an experiment because its implications scare them. This is an obviously illegal and immoral action which these activists should be ashamed of.

    22. Re:Lack of background, nuance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right... Because all scientific experiments are legally and morally above reproach.

      Asshat.

    23. Re:Lack of background, nuance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IF it's a scientific experiment then why is it outdoors where it interacts with the rest of the world?
      When they can do this without any affect on the world around, then they can do it outdoors. In the meanwhile do it in a lab.

    24. Re:Lack of background, nuance by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      Ok. You are right. But when your grandchildren have to forced into a form of econmic slavery because of the fact tha GMO crops have almost total control of the food supply whose side do you think they will fall on. Yes, That was wrong to do. But seriously, this can't continue. I say that sadly GMO is too tired up into the 'I must make profit' off it to continue. Dozens of companies are not inherently evil because they want money and don't give a flying f about anyone. But If someone cut off their food or power or water supply to them and their families, hell would break out. So forgive those people who are trying to protect their descendants ability to plant potatoes.
      For the record, Bananas, watermelon, most chocolate, and certain varieties of tomatoes don't reproduce anymore because GMO has gotten so bad. There is only one generation of bananas left. They go, bananas are extinct. Its not just Monsanto. We are destroying our food supply by trying to make it resistant for profit. Not everything can be monetized. That has to be learned.

    25. Re:Lack of background, nuance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you miss the meaning of the word "terrorism". Destroying a potato field cannot be considered equal to killing hundreds of people. Unless you think people equal potatoes, that is.

    26. Re:Lack of background, nuance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever heard of civillian disobedience?

      Your freedoms and privileges was won exactly in this types of ways. The companies in question can undoubtedly recover from this. The same can't be said for the serfs^H^H^H^H^Hfarmers Monsanto has ruined and killed over the years.

    27. Re:Lack of background, nuance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad you see fit to equate pulling up some potatoes with things like bombing public spaces or 9/11. Do you really think anyone felt a genuine sense of terror from potato-pulling? Because terrorism should, by definition, instill a sense in terror in people.

    28. Re:Lack of background, nuance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please, Monsanto's been snatching-up farms by accusing farmers from infringing on DNA patent rights when their useless crops cross pollinate with neighbouring farms. The activists had every bit of a right in burning down GMO plants, it's a question of survival as an independent farmer and as a state capable of sustaining their own population using natural foods as opposed to handing over all their arable land to patent-peddling thieves.

    29. Re:Lack of background, nuance by krazytekn0 · · Score: 1

      what about attacking private farmers and driving them out of business under the guise of "scientific experimentation"? BTW I know nothing about this situation, or the key players but I think passing judgement so quickly and so harshly reminds me of something I read in junior high, oh yeah, Animal Farm.

      --
      Not all life is cyber. Extra Income
    30. Re:Lack of background, nuance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Political issues are one thing, safety issues are another. Also don't use the word "terrorism", it does not magically make your point valid.

    31. Re:Lack of background, nuance by xhrit · · Score: 1

      I'm just going to point out that the Nazi's human experimentation was done under the guise of scientific research. Just because something is done in the name of science does not mean it is right.

    32. Re:Lack of background, nuance by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Bzzzzt. Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies.

    33. Re:Lack of background, nuance by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Yes, and what safety issues were the "protestors" responding to?

    34. Re:Lack of background, nuance by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      I have seen this claimed many times by GMO opponents. I've asked many times for a citation or reference to a case where this has actually occurred. Guess what, NOBODY has one.

    35. Re:Lack of background, nuance by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Generally civil disobedience does not entail the active destruction of private property. It is normally a passive act.

    36. Re:Lack of background, nuance by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Dictionary.com, Free Dictionary etc.

      Terrorism:
      the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

      Violence:
      the exercise or an instance of physical force, usually effecting or intended to effect injuries, destruction, etc.

      It doesn't say anything about killing here.

    37. Re:Lack of background, nuance by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Bull. GMO patents are already expiring. The original Roundup patents have expired. There are non-profits etc. involved in the field.

      Just because you don't like the business practices of some of the companies in the business doesn't mean the technology is bad. In fact we are looking at some pretty severe constraints on food production on this finite planet which are going to lead to some severe issues in the near future. GMOs are one of the few hopes we have to solve them.

      If you want to make a difference go after the laws around the commercial exploitation of the technology. Not the technology itself.

    38. Re:Lack of background, nuance by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      In what way?

      Please provide actual citations to cases where contamination of nature has occurred in any of these experiments.

      If what you say is true about Europeans not wanting GMOs, why don't they pass laws against this sort of experiment?

    39. Re:Lack of background, nuance by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Please provide evidence that these materials are poison.

      The fact is that they are much more carefully tested and controlled than the rest of your food supply.

    40. Re:Lack of background, nuance by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Please show me a definition of terrorism that limits the term to violence against humans.

    41. Re:Lack of background, nuance by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are right. Scientific experiments are subject to certain ethical standards. Baby soap would violate these standards.

      Similar ethical standards have been established through much debate within the scientific and regulatory communities for plant tests of this nature. Tests adhering to these standards have been conducted many times without damage to the environment. You have provided no evidence that this experiment failed to observe these well established ethical standards. If you have any such evidence I am sure that a legal challenge to this testing protocol would have been successful, as such challenges have been in the past.

      This destructive action was not a challenge based on any rational basis. It is simply an expression of hate manipulated by people who are manipulating others using fear for their own political gain.

    42. Re:Lack of background, nuance by e_AltF4 · · Score: 1

      Could you please define terrorism for me, and vandalism too if you don't mind.

    43. Re:Lack of background, nuance by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Vandalism is a random act of violence without political goal.

    44. Re:Lack of background, nuance by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Please cite a case where thousands of people were made sick by eating GMO food.

      Note: Every day thousands of people are made sick by eating all kinds of food so your citation must include evidence that the sickness was caused specifically by the genetic modification.

    45. Re:Lack of background, nuance by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      So you have some evidence that this experiment was legally or morally wrong?

      Please provide it. And no bullshit about potato pollen either.

      > Asshat

      I am stunned by the cogency and insight of your arguments. I am sure you will influence many with such ideas.

    46. Re:Lack of background, nuance by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      BULLSHIT. I used to run an experimental farm. Unless you are running the experiment under realistic conditions you are always going to have unanswered questions.

    47. Re:Lack of background, nuance by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Violence with a political motive intended to intimidate is the definition of terrorism.

      Look it up. You might learn something.

    48. Re:Lack of background, nuance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contamination doesn't occur at the experiement itself, but at the commercialisation phase. You can find a truckload of info at http://www.coextra.eu/, for instance.

      On the very funny "why don't Europeans pass laws", well, politicans are in bed with biotech, and refuse to pass the law that people want. Examples among others, several Franch departments (Gers & Gironde) tried to organise referendums on OGM. Those were killed by central state, on technical basis (aka: none of your business).

      The rare cases where restrictive laws have been passed are attacked by the biotech corporations (for instance, http://www.infogm.org/spip.php?article4820 -- in French, but the bottom line is that Monstanto attacks France on the decision not to allow culture of Mon810).

  18. Don't care either way. by laughingcoyote · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't care for the tactics used here, and of course many researchers in this area really are just legitimately working on ways to increase food yields.

    On the other hand, there really are plenty of rapacious Monsantos and wannabes out there, who have quite legitimately given the whole thing a bad name. So I do understand the backlash.

    Honestly, they'd do a lot better to try and get genetic patents eliminated. That's what causes a great deal of the harm here, whereas those interested in altruism or a reasonable profit don't need them. Unfortunately, those aren't so easy to uproot as a potato.

    --
    To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    1. Re:Don't care either way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, those aren't so easy to uproot as a potato.

      Have you ever tried to uproot a potato? It's very har... oh wait...

    2. Re:Don't care either way. by tobiah · · Score: 1

      Good point about the genetic patents. The harm of agribusiness would be greatly reduced by removing government-enforced monopolies and subsidies.

      --
      "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
    3. Re:Don't care either way. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      a reasonable profit

      Please define that, specifically. For example, many people may consider the fact that you personally take home more money at the end of the week than you need to cover the costs of two meager meals per day, two sets of clothes, and a cot in a tent to be ... completely unreasonable profit-seeking on your part. Do you seek to make enough money to set some aside? To improve what you can do with your existence? To handle new projects of one sort or another? How many dollars is reasonable for that purpose, and by which standards? What would you say to someone who told you that you're wrong in your personal choice of those standards, and so they're going to trash your belongings until you agree with them?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Don't care either way. by laughingcoyote · · Score: 1

      You have a point regarding the definition of reasonable. But though that definition may have some flex, it's not unlimited. There comes a point at which the vast majority would agree you've crossed the line from "highly successful but reasonable" to "obscene and rapacious".

      I think a company who designs its "products" to deliberately infect farmers' fields without their knowledge, and then proceeds to club them over the head with "patent infringement" if they don't agree to a perpetual "license fee" (and to not even being allowed to save their own seeds), is way over that line. If you think that type of behavior is reasonable, then I guess I wouldn't know what to say.

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    5. Re:Don't care either way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Patents on GMO / food are not acceptable.

  19. Could be justified by NFN_NLN · · Score: 2

    There may be some controversy over the "evilness" of GM foods. We've done artificial selection for hundreds of years to create the crops we have now. If you look at pictures of wild corn and wild wheat it is unidentifiable to the lay person. In fact most people laugh at the idea of banana seeds, which are basically gone now. I don't have a problem with GM foods that are properly tested. I do have a problem with the legality. I think GM foods should be a government/international effort. When you hear stories of Monsanto suing farmers which GM strains in their crops from cross contamination or killing off seed banks that gets me riled up.

    1. Re:Could be justified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There may be some controversy over the "evilness" of GM foods. We've done artificial selection for hundreds of years to create the crops we have now."

      That second statement is true but unrelated to GM foods. Selective breeding is very different from tinkering with DNA. The purpose may be the same (crops/livestock that better suits our needs) but the technology is entirely different.

    2. Re:Could be justified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Selective breeding is not the same as modifying the genetics of a plant using a virus.

    3. Re:Could be justified by wygit · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't the cross-pollination, it's the patents on the seeds themselves. Once a farmer plants Monsanto seeds, they are forever giving up the right to seed-harvest their own crops and have to buy new seeds from Monsanto every year. http://goo.gl/C5RwG

      "Monsanto controls roughly 90 percent of GE soy, cotton and canola seed markets and has a large piece of the corn seed market. "

    4. Re:Could be justified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The big difference, of course, being that selection takes traits already present in the genome, and GM tries to add traits to that genome, the consequences of which might not appear now or in the forseeable future. Gm could very well be the route to starvation through crop extinction. And trying to cure that with more GM would be akin to building anti-missile missiles etc.

    5. Re:Could be justified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem isn't the cross-pollination, it's the patents on the seeds themselves. Once a farmer plants Monsanto seeds, they are forever giving up the right to seed-harvest their own crops and have to buy new seeds from Monsanto every year.

      What? Not as long as someone else sells normal seeds - you can buy and plant normal seeds. If you're worried about lawyers, keep the receipt.

      "Monsanto controls roughly 90 percent of GE soy, cotton and canola seed markets and has a large piece of the corn seed market. "

      The "GE" means genetically engineered, right? How much of the total market does Monsanto control? (Not just that subset they specialize in)

      Given the usual discussion on the subject - genetically modified stuff being banned or tightly controlled in large parts of the world - clearly there must still be plenty of unmodified sources. (And the climate in US farmland isn't terribly different from the climate in European farmland; it's not like we're talking about growing Cambodian rice in rocky Maine soil or something).

    6. Re:Could be justified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you by artificial selection mate a fish with a potato? That's what GM is about, not cross pollination and selective breeding, the confusion of which is a deliberate measure of disinformation spread by the GM-crop business and "useful idiots". Please declare in which category you belong.

    7. Re:Could be justified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've done artificial selection for hundreds of years to create the crops we have now. If you look at pictures of wild corn and wild wheat it is unidentifiable to the lay person. In fact most people laugh at the idea of banana seeds, which are basically gone now.

      The difference is, however, that these selectively bred varieties have stood the test of time, slowly evolving over generations and are refined to (for our needs, anyways) near-perfection. Genetic modification can have tons of unpredictabilities, we have no way for sure to know what effects it can have on our ecosystems and ourselves on the long term. You don't want to fuck up an ecosystem in perfect balance because Monsanto accidentally released aggresively colonizing organisms into the wild.

  20. what makes me chuckle... by buddyglass · · Score: 0

    What makes me chuckle is that these activists most likely have an extremely low opinion of those who oppose embryonic stem cell research on ethical grounds.

    1. Re:what makes me chuckle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So the stereotypes you imagine to keep your world simple make you chuckle? Aw, that's nice.

    2. Re:what makes me chuckle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I know, the research on embryonic stem cells don't pursue a genetically modified superhuman capable of fighting any current deceases, hereby pushing the evolution of human deceases to overdrive and killing the rest of us in the process.

    3. Re:what makes me chuckle... by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      Were you planning on eating that fetus?

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    4. Re:what makes me chuckle... by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      So, you figure these anti-GMO activists are also anti-embryonic stem cell research? Or are sympathetic to, say, evangelical Christians who are? I admit its possible, but it seems unlikely.

  21. Sad day for food freedom by hexsprite · · Score: 1

    It's a sad day for those who wish to live in a world free of frankenfoods. It wouldn't be so bad if GMO could live happily ever after all by itself, but we all know that it's going to cross and contaminate everything else. We should have a right to choose whether or not we want GMO but it's existence seems to threaten normal (organic) food. If a coal fired power plant is spewing sulfur into your backyard and you shut down their plant or force them to install scrubbers is it a sad day for power generation freedom??

    1. Re:Sad day for food freedom by siride · · Score: 1

      We've been eating frankenfoods for a long time and live with frankenanimals, like dogs and cats, which were bred to be amenable to humans and their needs.

    2. Re:Sad day for food freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand it, therefore it's bad. Just like vaccines! I hear they're toxic.

    3. Re:Sad day for food freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom means ability to choose. If GMO foods cross contaminate regular foods then it threatens food freedom. Whatever you want to put in your belly is up to you, twinkies, hotdogs, etc. Don't push your idea of nutrition on the rest of us.

  22. Ludites by troll+-1 · · Score: 1

    Everything is genetically modified. It's called evolution. Large scale production of GM crops has been around for about 30 years and there's no evidence of any adverse affects in any of the data. This is like when Copernicus and Galileo said the Earth goes around the Sun, every body got freaked out. The irrational fear of science and discovery lives on in spite of facts.

    1. Re:Ludites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is like when Copernicus and Galileo said the Earth goes around the Sun, every body got freaked out.

      Fail.

      Firstly, with hindsight, it's clear that the earth does go around the sun and so there was a clear choice between correct and incorrect information. The choice isn't so clear here. The introduction of GM foods into the wild risks destroying the whole ecosystem (quite useful for sustaining life). They're stepping into unknown territory. People aren't afraid of truth, they're afraid of the consequences of mistakes. Consequences which may affect the whole planet.

      Secondly, it's more than a question of GM-crops being able to increase food-production. Presumably no right-thinking individual would be against that. The problem is that certain evil corporations *cough* Mansonto) */cough* are claiming patents on particular strains and then ensuring that those strains are hardier, those strains will push out all other varieties meaning that anyone wishing to grow the particular crop will need to pay licensing costs to Mansonto. They will be able to tax all food-production. Perhaps you see a problem with this?

      Update: Apparently, Mansonto have filed for a patent on pigs :D
        * http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/monsanto-pig-patent-111/

    2. Re:Ludites by camperdave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Gene splicing is not the same thing as evolution.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:Ludites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does this have to do with patents or Montesano? FTFA: Opponents claim we don’t need GM crops, “what we need is sustainable agriculture that contributes to food sovereignty ...." "Food sovereignty" is an emotional argument that lacks scientific validity.

    4. Re:Ludites by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      FAIL.

      Gene splicing is actually one of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs in some organisms.

    5. Re:Ludites by boombaard · · Score: 1
      Wrong, there is ample evidence that there are adverse effects. But the reason you believe that is because these contraindications get almost no press, either in the MSM or in US-based journals. Never mind that it is nearly impossible to get funding for research for it, thanks largely to the US government actively funding only that research which does not "threaten" the health of large US companies like Monsanto.
      See here

      The basis of both letters and much of the research is the herbicide glyphosate. First commercialized in 1974, glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world and has been for some time. Glyphosate has long been considered a relatively benign product, because it was thought to break down quickly in the environment and harm little other than the weeds it was supposed to kill.

      According to the National Pesticide Information Center, glyphosate prevents plants from making a certain enzyme. Without the enzyme, they are unable to make three essential amino acids, and thus, unable to survive. Once applied, glyphosate either binds to soil particles (and is thus immobilized so it can no longer harm plants) or microorganisms break it down into ammonium and carbon dioxide. Very little glyphosate runs off into waterways. For these reasons, glyphosate has been thought of as more or less harmless: you spray the weeds, they die, the glyphosate goes away, and nothing else in the environment is harmed.

      But Huber says this is not true. First of all, he points out, evidence began to emerge in the 1980s that "what glyphosate does is, essentially, give a plant AIDS." Just like AIDS, which cripples a human's immune system, glyphosate makes plants unable to mount a defense against pathogens in the soil. Without its defense mechanisms functioning, the plants succumb to pathogens in the soil and die. Furthermore, glyphosate has an impact on microorganisms in the soil, helping some and hurting others. This is potentially problematic for farmers, as the last thing one would want is a buildup of pathogens in the soil where they grow crops.

      The fate of glyphosate in the environment is also not as benign as once thought. It's true that glyphosate either binds to soil or is broken down quickly by microbes. Glyphosate binds to any positively charged ion in the soil, with the consequence of making many nutrients (such as iron and manganese) less available to plants. Also, glyphosate stays in the soil bound to particles for a long time and can be released later by normal agricultural practices like phosphorus fertilization. "It's not uncommon to find one to three pounds of glyphosate per acre in agricultural soils in the Midwest," says Huber, noting that this represents one to three times the typical amount of glyphosate applied to a field in a year.

      Huber says these facts about glyphosate are very well known scientifically but rarely cited. When asked why, he replied that it would be harder for a company to get glyphosate approved for widespread use if it were known that the product could increase the severity of diseases on normal crop plants as well as the weeds it was intended to kill. Here in the U.S., many academic journals are not even interested in publishing studies that suggest this about glyphosate; a large number of the studies Huber cites were published in the European Journal of Agronomy.

      If Huber's claims are true, then it follows that there must be problems with disease in crops where glyphosate is used. Huber's second letter verifies this, saying, "we are experiencing a large number of problems in production agriculture in the U.S. that appear to be intensified and sometimes directly related to genetically engineered (GMO) crops, and/or the products they were engineered to tolerate -- especially those related to glyphosate (the active chemical in Roundup® herbicide and generic versions of this herbicide

    6. Re:Ludites by camperdave · · Score: 1

      So the fruit fly invented the geneticist and the gene sequencing machine in order to evolve?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    7. Re:Ludites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gene splicing is not the same thing as evolution.

      Why, exactly?

      Even nature sometimes gets it horribly, horribly wrong. If it's enough wrong (or doesn't do enough right), it dies and propagation of the gene can't be sustained. Exactly the same thing with GMO genes once they're out of the lab...if it's good for the organism, it'll get passed on. It's simply the mechanism used to generate the gene mutation that is different...random Nature vs planned Human methods.

      (posting as AC due to mods)
      CCarrot

    8. Re:Ludites by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Nature does a one off. If it pans out, the mutation spreads, taking generations. The environment has time to adapt. When man does it, a full fledged subspecies is introduced and the environment gets no time to adapt. Also, with nature, change is subtle; a thicker beak here, a shorter leaf there. With gene splicing, it's BAM!!: Glow in the dark, Buzz Lightyear themed potatoes.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    9. Re:Ludites by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      No, but viruses can certainly transfer genes via splicing.

      Plasmids transfer antibiotic immunity by splicing.

      In fact the lab techniques for genetic splicing were developed by studying how splicing occurs in nature.

    10. Re:Ludites by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      The environment has time to adapt?

      Interesting. Hmm so what is that adaptation. OH! I know, the natural process by which species extinction occurs!

      The fact is that nature is a constant flux of species waning and waxing as their environment changes!

      So now how is this different from the introduction of some engineered crops. I KNOW! The introduction of the crops is actually controlled!

      Crikey.

    11. Re:Ludites by camperdave · · Score: 1

      The fact is that nature is a constant flux of species waning and waxing as their environment changes!

      Exactly. Natural changes are a constant flux, waning and waxing. Genetically modified crops just pop into the environment. They are effectively an invader species that the environment doesn't know how to cope with.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  23. Clearly you don't understand the problem w/GM food by MrJones · · Score: 2

    Its not only about science, its about a company controlling the seeds and controlling the price market.

    --
    Get my e-mail after a captcha test in: http://tinymailt
  24. Subjects are farms. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A sympathetic farmer was quoted as saying, “They [the GM lobby] talk a lot about farmers, but we are never heard. This type of action strengthens us and seems like the only way forward for consumers and small producers who are independent of powerful interest groups like big agribusiness. “

    Which amounts to small indie software studios saying: "The developers of that new hot 3D engine keep saying that they are doing it for the developers, but they never come around to my studio asking if I even want competition from better looking 3D accelerated games, or if I want to buy their engine. which I don't!. So we are going to raid there server-farm in a peaceful way, delete all their code an replace it with more developer friendly opensource code."

    Farmers are a dying breed, and thank god for that, they all seem to be ignorant idiots who believe that it's the duty of politicians and pretty much the whole rest of society to make it profitable for them to make a living by inefficiently harvesting each of their individual little plots of lands. We are already throwing money at them like crazy to keep them happy, now they also want to stop all progress because some farmers are scaling up, and taking new measures to allow bigger better farms with lower overheads. So the small farmers collect to tear appart their fields.... Nice. I'm looking forward to the day when the lone farmer is just a bad memory.

    1. Re:Subjects are farms. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah all they're doing is supplying the world's food; why should they be compensated? Your analogy is great because food is a luxury, just like videogames. Who cares if they are happy? Let them get a different job if they don't like it! The food will undoubtedly make itself. Your hostility is well-placed.

    2. Re:Subjects are farms. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      They are supplying an unnecessary, poisonous product (research the organ damage in rats caused by Monsanto corn, for instance) in lieu of proper food. Proper farming can produce the same yields as GM crops without the risks and without allowing a cartel to control the food supply

    3. Re:Subjects are farms. by solidraven · · Score: 1

      Belgium is not the US. Situations like Monsanto aren't likely to happen here.

    4. Re:Subjects are farms. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... so said Mansonta-troll.

      Yes we realize you want to own the whole planet's food industry but that's not going to happen :D

    5. Re:Subjects are farms. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are already throwing money at them like crazy to keep them happy, now they also want to stop all progress because some farmers are scaling up, and taking new measures to allow bigger better farms with lower overheads. So the small farmers collect to tear appart their fields.... Nice.

      That's a nice story, here's a real one instead.

      GMO's are engineered to be sterile. They won't produce viable seeds no matter what plant pollinates them, and their pollen will cause any plant to either not fertilize, or produce non-viable seeds. This means if someone plants a field next to your normal crops, a sizeable chunk of your crop will either not yield seeds, or will yield seeds which turn out to be non-viable when you plant them next season.

      The farmers destroyed the field to protect their own crops, not to protest the science itself (although I'm sure it did "double-duty" for many of them).

      And to add insult to injury, it's up to YOU to keep the GMO out of your crops or else you're stealing their property by growing a GMO without a license. There is no requirement for them to keep theirs contained, and nothing which makes them liable for destroying the seed-bearing ability of your own crops.

      I'm looking forward to the day when the lone farmer is just a bad memory.

      It will never happen. What will happen, however, is the day when you will not be able to find a potato which produces seeds that you can in turn plant for more potatoes. Luckily with potatoes, you can clone them fairly easily by cutting them and starting more sprouts off the 'eyes', but for most food crops that doesn't work.

    6. Re:Subjects are farms. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      That's laughable, as Monsanto has a manufacturing plant in Antwerp and office in Belgium and its experimental Franc-Waret farms south of Belgium were found to have contaminated crops for many kilometers. They are busy getting your government lawmakers in their pockets.

    7. Re:Subjects are farms. by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      I have researched this. It was a Greenpeace funded paper published in a non-refereed journal that collected a bunch of Monsanto data into a meta study and then applied a series of statistical methods to the data until they found a correlation and then released the publication to the world's press agencies.

      In other words, complete 100% bullshit.

    8. Re:Subjects are farms. by solidraven · · Score: 1

      There is one issue with that. Pretty much the entire European Union is against patenting or copyrighting genetic code. Some company also tried to patent some anti-cancer research a few years ago as well, that also sort of backfired.

  25. It's called protesting by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 1

    > That sounds like terrorism to me

    Yeh, I guess people concerned with public health should limit themselves to shouting. Because megacorps pay attention, y'know.

    (Most forms of protesting must sound like terrorism to you.)

    1. Re:It's called protesting by gman003 · · Score: 1

      You're not good at picking up on sarcasm, are you?

    2. Re:It's called protesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is destroying a research project run by a team of publicly funded scientists who are looking to create a product that would allow a food staple to become more tolerant to a pathogen that has caused a famine or two in the past protesting? It's one thing to picket, disrupt shipments, and generally make a fuss. It's another when you're destroying property.

      Then again, I guess the Weathermen Underground were just protesters too by your reasoning.

    3. Re:It's called protesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They illegally entered and killed private crops. That's like if the protester in front of a building entered said building and starting ravaging everything. It's not protesting at that point.

    4. Re:It's called protesting by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Terrorism isn't going to stop the commercialization of GMOs. Mostly it will just expose the anti-GMO people as the nut cases they truly are.

  26. Potato Famine II by SMoynihan · · Score: 1

    Looks like we Irish are going to be screwed again...

    1. Re:Potato Famine II by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      A corporate mono-culture is what caused the great blight.

      This is the single most threatening aspect of big-agribusiness like ConAgra and Monsanto. They fixate on a small number of plant varieties and prevent farmers from owning their own seed. So-called eco-terrorists are not the problem.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  27. I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If these same people also piss and moan about the starving people around the world. Without GMO produce many many more people would be starving. Do you think we could feed 6 billion+ people with all natural foods? Think again.

    1. Re:I wonder by camperdave · · Score: 1

      World hunger is a distribution problem not a production problem. We have always had more than enough food to feed everyone even without genetic modification. Get rid of the warlords and the corrupt governments, and everyone would eat.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:I wonder by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Do you think we could feed 6 billion+ people with all natural foods? Think again.

      In my experience, most of the 'direct action' eco-loons I've met on the Internet also believe that there are far too many humans on the planet and want to reduce the population to a fraction of its current level. Of course when you ask them how they plan to do that, and whether they plan to start by killing themselves, they generally shut up.

    3. Re:I wonder by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Yes, any competent farmer will tell you we can grow crops without laboratory GM technology. Now, without fertilizers and pesticides, that's another matter.

  28. Antispud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, it's not like the potato blight is serious or anything.

    Let's ship all the diseased potatoes to them.

  29. dont humans have to be harmed for terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    unless humans are injured/die, its just vandalism isn't it?

    1. Re:dont humans have to be harmed for terrorism? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      No, humans have to be terrified for it to be terrorism. For example, an IRA bomb in a rubbish bin is terrorism, even if they phone in a bomb scare and get everyone evacuated before it explodes.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:dont humans have to be harmed for terrorism? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      unless humans are injured/die, its just vandalism isn't it?

      So when the IRA blew up a large chunk of the City of London in the 80s or 90s, that was just vandalism?

    3. Re:dont humans have to be harmed for terrorism? by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Terrorism is the sowing of fear. You dont have to kill anyone for that.

      --
      Good-bye
    4. Re:dont humans have to be harmed for terrorism? by rasmusbr · · Score: 1

      No, humans have to be terrified for it to be terrorism. For example, an IRA bomb in a rubbish bin is terrorism, even if they phone in a bomb scare and get everyone evacuated before it explodes.

      George Carlin, is that you?

      First of all there is no agreed upon definition of terrorism. We are going to have to invent our own. IMHO terrorism is mean to be a word reserved for people who pose a serious and realistic violent threat to human life. I think that an organization armed with bombs (or the balls to make bomb threats) plays in a whole different league than an organization with herbicide spray cans. If you refer to both as terrorist groups you have not only vilified a relatively harmless group of people, but also devalued the word terrorism.

  30. Genetically Modified Dandelions.... by SIR_Taco · · Score: 1

    I have hundreds of genetically modified dandelions on my unprotected yard.... where are the activists when you need them?!

    --
    I say don't drink and drive, you might spill your drink. Before you get behind the wheel just stop and think.
  31. Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by melchoir55 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can QQ about the moral implications of scientific progress all you like, but you won't be stopping it. Don't like stem cell research because it is an affront to God? Don't like genetics research because it isn't natural? Tough tiddly winks. It takes one researcher spending time on a subject, doing it right, and publishing their results. There is no stopping science.

    If you are so terrified of a universe humans understand, shed the hypocrisy. Shut off your computer and all your lights. Refuse antibiotics next time you have a major infection. Reject models like the heliocentric solar system, gravity, electromagnetism, and all the rest.

    Having a powerful model for genetics has the potential to outshine all the theories mentioned above in practical use for human life. It will doubtless be necessary if ever we get off our asses and go to the stars.

    1. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by XManticore · · Score: 2

      I think you're missing the point here. The issue seems to be that GM food 'invented' by EvilCorp can be used to exploit the vulnerable.

      If the crop is fertile, then it can cross-contaminate a non-GM field; the owner of that field may have to pay royalties to EvilCorp. If EvilCorp decides to make the crop infertile to prevent this, then farmers will have to buy seeds from EvilCorp every year, probably at extortionate prices.

      It's all very well to bash irrational responses to science and progress, but some of these issues are real and involve the livelihoods of poorer people.

    2. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by camperdave · · Score: 4, Informative

      For those over 25:
      GL;HF = Good Luck; Have Fun
      QQ = cry (supposed to look like eyes with tears)

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      There has never been a case of an accidentally cross contaminated crop owner having to pay royalties. It is utter and complete fiction.

    4. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GMO has been happening for a very long time. The ancients may not have understood genetics but they played with them through hybridization. It was not until Gregor Mendel that science began to understand that hybridization was really a means of manipulating genetics.

      While Wikipedia doesn't provide the detail of other sources, the ancient Incan farmers developed potato varieties to flourish in the micro-climates of the Andeas. This development of potato varieties created bio-diversity which insulated them from potato blight. The ancients had created/discovered genetically resistant strains purely by accident. When potatoes were imported to Europe, they selected only a few varieties (don't recall if this was because of European climate). Some Europeans became dependent on the potato crop and, thus, when potato blight hit Europe, the Great Famine resulted. I find it somewhat ironic that the blight that is being solved with GMO in this instance was actually something that was dealt with by ancient GMO.

      I do not find direct manipulation of genetics anymore frightening then "old-fashioned" hybrids because the same concept is involved - it just takes longer the old way.

    5. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you'd condone the tactics of Unit 731?

    6. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you are so terrified of a universe humans understand, shed the hypocrisy. Shut off your computer and all your lights. Refuse antibiotics next time you have a major infection. Reject models like the heliocentric solar system, gravity, electromagnetism, and all the rest."

      It is not a question of understanding. Not everything developed by science is good, and not everything science does has happy results. Your notion that
      one must either accept everything developed by science or reject everything developed by science is so absurd it boggles the mind. An intelligent
      person examines things on an individual basis and makes a decision about those things after careful consideration. Your "accept everything or reject
      everything" idea is as nonsensical as the ideas of creationists and Luddites. Along with the ability to create new things, judgement and ethics
      are necessary in science, and you have completely missed this in your little "all or nothing" rant. Jesus, you need to learn how to think about the
      things which really matter in this world, son.

    7. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by ubergeek65536 · · Score: 1

      Many people that are against GMO foods are more worried that asshole companies like Monsanto will try to patent everything we eat. Once they have done that the oil cartels will look like boy scouts. Who were the idiots that let companies patent biology in the first place? Just in case you missed something, it was ex Monsanto execs that were appointed to high positions in the dept of agriculture and FDA. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's fact.

    8. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sincerely doubt that.
      1. Have there also been no cases where Monsanto (threatened to) sue(d) a farmer "without winning"? Because most farmers I know are not really in a position to pay for those trials, and will settle out of court out of desperation. And Monsanto will likely demand they keep this quiet (bad PR) while simultaneously dropping hints whenever they 'contact' another farmer.
      2. how sure are you that they aren't doing this in countries that aren't being represented by US newspapers?

    9. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by exabrial · · Score: 2

      Not to steal your thunder, but this wasn't religiously motivated. No where is there a mention in the article about God. If you look at the big time American environmentalists (Al Gore, Obama, et all), none of them are religiously motivated in fact... If you have an external source saying this incident was religiously motivated, I'd be interested.

      However, I do agree with your point before you got off topic. Stopping Science _is_ stopping thought and prevents people from questioning their beliefs. Also, stopping religion is also stopping thought. Both must continue and neither should be accepted without the converse.

    10. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      1. Have there also been no cases where Monsanto (threatened to) sue(d) a farmer "without winning"? Because most farmers I know are not really in a position to pay for those trials, and will settle out of court out of desperation. And Monsanto will likely demand they keep this quiet (bad PR) while simultaneously dropping hints whenever they 'contact' another farmer.
      2. how sure are you that they aren't doing this in countries that aren't being represented by US newspapers?

      This is a complete baloney. You are making up the possibility of unverifiable cases to justify a statement. Sorry, but that doesn't qualify as evidence in support of an argument. You have to come up with actual evidence, not some fantastic idea that there MIGHT be evidence.

    11. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're not scared of advancement, we're scared of Monsanto claiming ownership of our food, which they do whenever their GM crops pollinate organic crops with their patented genetic material.

      GM has the potential to solve world hunger, but it wont, starving people are broke and GM crops have royalties that need paid.

    12. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      The country of Belgium is an EvilCorp?

    13. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I was confused for a bit there because QQ was always previously a reference to signing out of a MUD.

    14. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by melchoir55 · · Score: 1

      You're missing my point. The argument is that genetic research is on the bleeding edge of scientific discovery. This means change. Some people find change scary. The other theories I mentioned were all also once on the bleeding edge of thought, and were also attacked for their inevitable tendency to destroy mankind.

      The point is that someone is going to do this research. It is a force-of-nature where mankind is concerned. We should be considering what to do with it (regulation, possible application, etc) not whether it should be done. Arguing about whether we should be doing genetic research is like arguing about whether the sun should one day burn itself out. I don't think it should! That would be very bad for life in our solar system!

      Hopefully the sun is listening. If it doesn't shape up I'll go spray some insecticide on it.

    15. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by melchoir55 · · Score: 1

      Herbicide... thanks no "edit" button.

    16. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see any posts in this thread in which anybody is arguing for what you are against.

      I don't care into what scientific inquiry a person delves -- with few exceptions -- but the agribusiness biotech industry has a very clear and well documented history of CONTAMINATING other farmers crops by their "experiments" and then preemptively suing them. I don't have any faith that any experiment performed outside with GMO crops will not contaminate other crops.

      Your right to "scientific inquiry" stops at the safety of my family's food supply! This has nothing to do with anybody's "God".

    17. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, wow. Nice strawman you built there. Reading througn most comments, I've failed to see the attitude you critcize here.

      It's not scientific progress people here have an issue here with. It's just plain and simple corporate greed.

      And oh, lest you say "it was an university project", you should check out how many university departments Monsanto has practically bought out. *This* is the "sad day" for the freedomof scientific research.

    18. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by superwiz · · Score: 1

      They are not out to be honest. They know they are hypocrites. They are out to be destructive.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    19. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will doubtless be necessary if ever we get off our asses and go to the stars.

      Hell, with the current population we'll need every break we can get even before we get off this rock. Also, +5 seems a little underrated for how solid your comment is.

    20. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      What i don't like is actually EATING it. If you want to research, just do it, but then don't try to feed me with your crap, without even letting me know that i am eating your crap, please.

    21. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      The famous canada's farmer? Just google it my friend, just google it.

    22. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the understanding of the physical forces is one thing most sane people can agree on.

      But truly we are craptastic engineers and child hackers when it comes to biological engineering. On top of which, those who are truly genious have written tiny pieces of code that are the equivalent of copy protection.

      So, we can all agree Sony is the last organization we'd want to keep the world's Cinematographic history, due to their wonderfully advanced efforts in DRM (which included rootkits and the like.) And that this sort of thing should be kept to the world's librarians, and archivists. This argument is incredibly popular on Slashdot, and one I tend to agree with.

      Luddites who fight technology (like the Menlo Park, RF Detector belt cult) for the sake of fear are daft, and have no place in the modern world. Those who attacked Sony after it became obvious they gave two shits about their customer's security, well you can almost understand that. Likewise, those who attack crops of a GM producer known to be asshats to the world at large, well I can understand that.

      Organizations like Sony, and Monsanto, strive to create a repeatable business. The organization model of a corporation has no thought towards their customers, other than their repeat business.

      When it comes to creating a product, that by it's very nature, transfers "ownership" to their organization by sheer adjacency you can bet your ass they'll do it. Damaging their business for the "sake of humanity" again, i can understand that. I don't condone it, nor would I participate, but honestly these organizations have no motive to make sure humanity doesn't starve. They are out to make sure their seed coating machines are spinning at full capacity and they're shipping at their target level.

    23. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God gave men brains so they wouldn't hump women's legs at cocktail parties, though, your own genes cause you to have significantly impaired cognitive functioning. Many countries that have taken your attitude left millions dead all for the progress of science. Only adult stem cell research is ethical and successful, embryonic research has already lead thousands of humans to death for no logic at all. Hitler liked research as much as you do, but unfortunately no one gets to genetically modify your head. Genetically modified corn has feed countless millions in Africa and North Korea, stem cell research not so much, but I hope you won't be hypocritical and step up when it comes to testing your skull's cells.

    24. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can approach any topic in scientifically rigorous manner. Good research on human survivability limits. How much radiation can brain tissues take with minor degradation in performance? Genetic modifications on humans to increase said resistance, to improve skin performance, to develop a chitinous protective layer covering more sensitive areas.

      It will doubtless be necessary if ever we get off our asses and go to the stars.

    25. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by camperdave · · Score: 1

      It morphed. It started out that way. People with thin skins and over-inflated estimates of their skills would complain when they got their clocks cleaned by truly good players. The complaints would be answered by the inevitable "If you don't like it, feel free to QQ, crybaby!" This, probably influenced by the horizontal "Japanese" emoticons, eg: [*_*], lead to QQ being mis-defined as crying.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    26. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your response is the scientific equivalent of HURRRR AMERICA LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT. Just want you to know that.

    27. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you are aware that most of us over 25 grew up sitting at efnet all night making smileys and talking 1337.
      But hey, thanks I just realized I'm old enough to start shouting "Get off my lawn."

    28. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Informative?
      uhuh... well last I checked, those of us over 25 were the ones who invented email/im/sms and the rest.
      I can only hope that people dropping a few emoticon-types aren't the limiting factor to this conversation.

    29. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Science is irrelevant here - it is the politics. Monsanto wants total control of the whole food chain.

    30. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You can QQ about the moral implications of scientific progress all you like, but you won't be stopping it."

      Scientific progress can not and should not be stopped. No one is arguing that. But a corporation with a history that reads like a demon's resume (Monsanto) can and should be stopped. I realize this might be confusing to the many Slashdot readers who apparently learn about the world exclusively through Fox News, but these corporations are not benevolent institutions, toiling day and night for the common good. I don't want them ending up with total control over such an important field of research, which is where we're heading now.

      The goal isn't to stop all research. It's to do enough damage to companies like Monsanto, through means like destroying their experiments, that they eventually cease to be profitable and go out of business or at least abandon their nightmarish GMO ambitions. If we can push corporations out of this field, then the work can be done by academic institutions. At least then the research will be conducted in a more open fashion with the added benefit of peer review and critical analysis.

    31. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      How amazing - people not trusting corporations. Damn Luddites. I bet there isn't a single example of corporations poisoning their customers in the whole of human history [/sarcasm]. I'm not terrified of a universe we understand, I'm terrified of some crap destroying our food supply, or else our whole food supply being dependent on organisations who have shown over and over again that they cannot, in any circumstances. be trusted.

    32. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, so you must be a person inline with Josef Mengele thoughts on experimentation. I say that as someone who is against these "activists".

      Science without ethics is blind. Ethics without science is empty.

    33. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by tibit · · Score: 0

      OK, you work for Monsanto, we get it.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    34. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by tibit · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and the research here was obviously done by EvilCorp. Haha.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    35. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally I'm not worried about the science behind all this at all. What I'm worried about is the profit motive and the manager in the back of the engineers pushing for a deadline which might result in a potentially harmful product (X generations later). The biosphere is quite complicated and so is the genome of all of these crops introducing new food sources or modifying food sources or removing them will have unexpected effects further down the line. Especially if it is done by the same people who would happily put a nuclear reactor on top of a major fault line.

    36. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Science is not part of the GM food debate. It died when the corporations bought the FDA and introduced "substantial equivalence".

    37. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought Get Laid, Have Fuck.

    38. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see what you did there, but if you really want to read a cool rant about technology denying hippies you must read "Homo Faber" ;)

    39. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, cookie, I'm as big a trekkie as the next nerd, but you get to get this "we're going to the stars soon" thing out of your vocabulary if you're going to have an intelligent conversation. There's only one known place that humans can survive space radiation that we've found so far, and that's right here on the big blue ball. We ain't going anywhere for a long time yet, it's hideously expensive, and you better pray hard that we haven't completely fucked our biosphere before this magical go-to-the-stars technology just pops up and requires your mutant crops to feed the spaceracers. I'm not terrified of technology or electrickery or anything other such wild accusation and characterisation you want to throw around to discredit rational discourse, I'm only scared of some psychopathic prick running his groovey little experiment in the wild and fucking things over once and for all for good.
      It's almost happened before, and we ALL need to watch that it doesn't happen again.
      We can't even keep a handle on dumping of toxic waste, controlling our power station's waste, and not eliminating species on this planet like it's a competition.
      Prudence, my dear friend, in this case, equals survival of the HUMAN species too. Try not to be so greedy for your fabulous flying cars and shit that you steal the future from your grandchildren.

    40. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i remember the first time i *heard* myself saying to a kid, "please, quit whining!" and appreciated how *wrong* i was

      don't know why this book came to mind, but...
      Three Scientists and Their Gods: Looking for Meaning in an Age of Information by Robert Wright

    41. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by superwiz · · Score: 1

      dude, this is slashdot. we knew that before those who are 25 today knew how to read.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    42. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can dislike something and avoid using/having/eating it IF you know it's there. I agree, if you don't like something then don't take it, but conversely don't shove it down my throat and pretend everything is all fine and dandy. When will these magical "non-hypocritical" people you refer to start labeling this stuff as what it is, stop trying to hide it, and allow me to make these decisions for myself?

      I don't support or agree with actions such as what these people did but I can understand the mindset of feeling that what they were doing is what they felt is the only way available to them.

    43. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Some people find change scary.

      Oh, how naive! How naive is anyone who thinks the campaign against genetically modified foods is a popular movement of retards who spew on its behalf. The movement started about 20 years ago (at least started picking up) mostly by the French. What most Americans don't know (and don't care about) is that at that time (perhaps still today) the most influential political group in France were the french farmers. Because US started using genetically engineered plants in the feed of the animals, the feed became cheaper and, by extension so did the meat. France did not have the technology. So the French farmers were priced out of many international markets. So they started a global fear campaign of genetically modified foods. This isn't about "private farms" vs "big corporate farms". At its core, this is about US farms vs French farms. Most US "private" farms would much prefer genetically modified plants because they end being huge cost savers.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    44. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by superwiz · · Score: 1

      This is potatoes!!!!!! Cross contamination is not an issue. Potatoes are not grown from seeds.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    45. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by superwiz · · Score: 1

      How can you proclaim to have respect for human life and at the same time "hope" that some human being gets experimented on? You have completely lost sight of your priorities for the sake of being pissed off at the side which doesn't agree with you.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    46. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser

      Thanks for playing, come again.

    47. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, QQ is from warcraft alt+q+q quit the game (ragequit). Lrn2meme.

    48. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by owski · · Score: 1

      Once you've googled it you may want to read beyond the sensationalist headline. He was found guilty of deliberately cultivating the crop once he knew what it was and where it came from, not for the contamination of his fields. For that the court found no evidence of wilful misconduct.

    49. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      Science isn't the problem. Its the greed and oligarchic nature tied to it that are, Shall I remind you who what nationality Werner van braun was? Has it not been for people going after Hitler, The third Reich would have had rocket power. There are NO altruistic scientists anymore. Morality has to be a part of science or we will be in a technological Rome complete with plebes and slaves. And unless you are uber wealthy you will be one of them (or your children)

    50. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more like over 35

    51. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks!

    52. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have missed the point of the protest, look at some other posts here. Imagine this - you are a farmer, planting seeds that your family has slowly created using artificial selection over the last two hundred years. A neighbor of yours purchases seeds from Monsanto. All is fine till now. Unfortunately for you, your neighbor's plants are in the open air in fields, and pollen from them come to your fields. This year, when you collect your seeds for next years crop, you have contaminated seeds. You just lost the two hundred years of painstaking work that differentiated your seeds from your neighbors. Your seeds were *good*, and the GMO traits are not adding any value to yours.

      Put some more salt in your wounds now - next year when you plant *your* seeds, Monsanto comes along and sues you for using their seed. You think - what! They should compensate me for destroying *my* seed line!

      Unfortunately, you lost your court case, because Monsanto has millions of dollars to spend on their lobbying and on their lawyers. You, on the other hand, just lost your farm, and the shirt off your back.

      Let us now see you continue to be gung-ho for GMO research!

    53. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the hell is QQ easier than just fricken typing cry?!?

    54. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Tooke · · Score: 1

      Thank you, that makes it much clearer.

      And I'm 16, by the way.

      --
      Anybody want a peanut?
    55. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lead thousands of humans to death for no logic at all. Hitler liked research as much as you do, but unfortunately no one gets to genetically modify your head.

      Do you think it is more preferable to waste human embryos then? You don't like research because liking research is thinking like Hitler? Israeli scientists have no problems performing this research. It must be very ironic for you.

    56. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      QQ is rage quitting from warcraft (not wow). alt-q-q ended a match. This doesn't change the fact that the GP is a moron. Messing with stem cells might or might not piss off a god that may or may not exist, but messing with genetics -of our food sources- at this stage in our understanding is like having a 5 year old on the bomb squad. I'm sure you can find 101 situations where that kid can fit in a space no one else can, but the crowd will still be covered in kid goo sooner or later.

      Taking things slowly is not automatically wrong. Even in science.

    57. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shift + q + q = 3 keystrokes

      cry = 3 keystrokes

      Therefore using QQ is a pointless waste of time and you are a muppet.

    58. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by ningaui · · Score: 1

      Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean that sort of thing doesn't happen. In 1998 Percy Schmeiser was sued by Monsanto, and lost. Admittedly the courts didn't rule that he had to pay royalties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser

    59. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. I pretty much figured out GL,HF, but was pretty baffled about QQ. In conclusion, XINyOEn3 3E:m300z;@#

    60. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      acquiring the knowledge is one thing.

      using the knowledge to leverage profits at the cost of environmental destruction and dissolution of the food supply, as well as the loss of genetic diversity that we will most likely NEVER be able to replicate in an artificial environment (e.g. the loss of numerous cultivars of food crops since the introduction of industrial agricultural methods) is quite another thing.

    61. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Stem cells are not "An affront to God." Have you read what the religious people opposed to the research have actually written?

      The issue is about killing human life. People disagree upon when humans should be considered alive, which is why there's controversies over fetal stem cells and abortion - but don't pretend the issue is over the stem cells themselves. It just shows your ignorance.

    62. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can QQ about the moral implications of scientific progress all you like

      This has less to do with the development of the GMO's, and more to do with the fact they are being planted to intentionally cross over into other people's fields. Then Monsato sues the shit out of them for not paying for their patented crops, and takes everything they own.

      They uprooted the plants to stop them from spreading to their own crops, not to halt the research. Although a good number of the other farmers are also opposed to the research, that is not the motivating factor in this incident.

      The solution to the problem is simple- Belgium needs to start holding Monsato liable for damages to the other farmers' crops instead of allowing them to pollute and then sue them for something out of their control.

    63. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I managed to play online games since the MUD years without knowing what precisely QQ meant...until today. Damn you :)

    64. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There is no stopping science."

      Wish that applied to the science of anthropogenic climate change. At least half the population of my country (Australia) either denies humans are having an impact, or doesn't think what needs to be done, should be done to mitigate it. Science is second to money and people's interests.

    65. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Alioth · · Score: 1

      I thought QQ was short for "quick quit" (from a MUD) and changed to mean leave effectively without saying "gg" in Starcraft, essentially rage quitting.

      Incidentally glhf was used in Starcraft 1 so the reference is well known by people over 25. I'm 39 and having played SC1 back in the 90s (and now SC2) have known exactly what glhf means for well over a decade.

    66. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, you saved me a headache.

    67. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by arnodf · · Score: 0

      correction: over 18

    68. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Experiments that will spread Genetically Modified pollen to contaminate wild crops with unknown results are not in the same category as the rest of the science you seem to be so proud of. Understanding physics won't contaminate and destabilize atoms across the planet.

    69. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      Missing 3 problems:
      1) There are lack of sufficient safe guards. Learning is good but building nuclear power plants without any safety equipment is dangerous and stupid.
      Right now mansota et. al, have such an unregulated industry that they are doing all kinds of stupid things. Take the case of the farmer from Canada who was sued
      for using their, patented genes'. How did he get them, bees carried the genes into his crop, he was on organic farmer who reused seed from year to year.
      That wasn't supposed to be possible, all it would take is one instance of someone who genetically engineered grain to produce any one of several human hormones, which is already been done. If genes from one of those get's loose, the food supply of every non-controlled, aka non-owned, grain plant the can cross breed with it could be rendered , poisoness for human consumption. so , nuclear research yes, irresponsible, unregulated use of refined plutonium, no thanks.

      2) It is an extremely bad precedent to make living things patentable, if people can find a way to patented the process for coming up with genes' fine, if a profit can be made without legal protections, that truly free enterprise. But to suggest it is possible to have so much control over any living things that 'it' is not allowed to reproduce, or even live , without your permission is chilling, from a legal perspective and stiffing from a scientific perspective.

      3) Just because, science will be done, doesn't mean the method chosen is a moral one. During WWII there was a large amount of data collected
      on human tourcher and humans under under extremely circumstanced in the concentration camps. Most researches will have nothing to do with that
      data because of the way it was collected. Some use it because it is there, but no one is suggesting it is a good thing that the data is there at all.

      The reality is much of the experimentation being done, is not being done with sufficient protection, it is using all kinds of draconian, legal tactics to shore up it's funding , and because of that the WAY it is being done, not necessarily the research itself, should not be permitted. The shortest distance between two points is not the best path if it gets you killed !

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    70. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Don't like stem cell research because it is an affront to God? Don't like genetics research because it isn't natural?.....There is no stopping science.

      Complete non-sequitur. The reason people are against stem-cell research-- and not even ALL stem-cell research, just one form (embryonic)-- is because of the belief that embryos are as fully human as you or I, and that humans are being killed.

      To put the argument another way, I rather doubt you would be standing on the sidelines giving approval to Japanese or German medical experiments on prisoners in WWII; everyone seemed to soundly condemn them and the history books dont report many people crying "but the science!" Some discoveries just arent worth it, and if embryos can in fact be considered human, then such research should by all means be stopped.

      If of course you have some metric whereby we can show where "human worth" begins, by all means feel free to step in and end this controversy with wisdom.

    71. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Stem Cell research is the perfect example of why the public should have a voice in what science is allowed to do. I have never met anyone who has an issue with it. Plenty of people have an issue with embryonic stem cell research. There are plenty of strong ethical arguments to support that position as well. Meanwhile despite the radical lefts success in protecting / obtaining more tax dollars ( read contributions at gun point ) and the legality of doing work with embryonic cells, all the major break through recently have come from using cord blood, skin and other body cells as sources.

      If anything the evidence available shows not only is there no real need for embryonic cells they are probably not even the best candidates for most therapeutic applications.

      But go on murdering babies on the chance you might help some Parkinson's or MS patient 50 years for now and calling yourself a humanitarian; I am libertarian and unlike I won't use guns to force my views on you.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    72. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get over yourself. What people are pissed about is the misuse of scientific advancement. Look up the abuses of big food in general, and Monsanto in particular. The idea that you can add genes to plants to be a form of rights management is what is so repulsive. This doesn't add any value except to make Monsanto money by making sure you can't reuse the seeds. It doesn't help humanity. It hurts humanity.

      Perhaps we should look at other scientific advancements that have been stopped by treaties. Land mines can be brutally effective. Chemical and biological weapons could end a war very quickly. We could even make a missile carry a hundred or more nuclear warheads. We don't. We are prohibited by international treaty. These things are detrimental to humanity, and we as a people have decided we are better off without them.

      If you want to genetically modify crops so they grow in arid environments, you could be savings millions of lives. On the other hand, many current GM crops are made specifically to ensure the customer is locked into repeatedly buying seeds, fertilizer, and pesticides from IGotPriceGouged brand food company, and that makes them evil, and their science detrimental to humanity.

    73. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is the dimwit who imagines that the reason behind opposition to Stem cell research and GMOs is that "it is an affront to God" or that "it isn't natural"? This is the stratagem that GM corporations always use, to conceal the most important scientific debate and the issue of scientific ethics involved in GM research. This argument is a good example of technocratic high-handedness and obfuscation by suppression of facts.
        Please be informed that no one opposes any scientific research as long as it entails domination and exploitation of people. The comments by erroneus (253617) above is very apt. If one knows that the aim and objective of a research project is to ensure hijacking food security of countries and to enslave farmers to a corporation, then down with that science!
        Of course here is the fundamental issue of ethics involved. Will any sane person allow any "scientific" experiment to quantify the effect of chlorine gas (or TCDD or arsenic or sulfuric acid or gamma ray....) on human babies? (If you still argue that such experiments are necessary for the "advancement of science" or such bullshit, please expose your own babies and yourself to those things, publish the results in a scientific journal, and prove your integrity!)
          As a great Indian scientist Sir P.C.Ray once said, "Science can wait, but freedom cannot!" Can the corporate stooges fathom the meaning of these words?

    74. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except this is so much more complex than "the moral implications of scientific progress"

      First. Progress suggests we're getting somewhere. The consequences of GM food have been one step forward, two steps back in terms of the actual goal, which is to increase and protect the world's food supply from famine and blight.

      So the companies who produce the seeds sue farmers out of existence who have the audacity to be cross-pollinated by GM crops in nearby fields. Basically, the economic/legal controls on GM crops cause far more harm than good, and centralize (rather than decentralize) the production of food. This is, organizationally, very short-sighted.

      So don't give me "progress"
      And, it has less to do with the moral implications of anything scientific, and far more to do with the moral implications of economic and legal protection rackets that threaten the world's food supply.

    75. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by sjames · · Score: 1

      You seem to be confusing the debates. I don't know anyone who's opposition to GM foods is based simply on it being 'unnatural'. There may be some, but they're hardly in the majority.

      Most who object do so on the much more reasonable grounds that once the trait is out there, it inevitably gets into the wild where it may have unforeseen and irreversible effects. For example, in the midwest, we now have weeds immune to roundup now that they have cressbred with roundup ready canola.

      Others object to the legal tactics used by the companies producing the GM crops. They truly do seem hellbent on owning the ability to produce food on Earth.

      Still others object to those same companies promoting polluting and unsustainable production methods like using herbicide resistant crops and then saturating the field in herbicides which inevitably enter rivers, streams, and groundwater.

      Meanwhile, combining GM with the nasty legal tactics, they attack farmers for carrying out the otherwise standard practice of saving a portion of last year's harvest as seed for this year.

      All taken together, as much as I hate attacks on science, I must side with the protesters.

    76. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      Don;'t forget that when these comapnies little experimetns manage to blow up in their face that they then have a source of perfectly preserved heirloom seeds thatthey have stored away in a vault. They make money even if GMO fails.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    77. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      WRONG. Schmeiser selected and intentionally replanted seed from corn that was fertilized by wind blown pollen. Tests of his crops showed over 90% of his corn had Roundup resistance. This was quite obviously intentional infringement of the Monsanto patents.

      Nothing accidental here.

    78. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      I'm STILL looking for a case where somebody had to pay royalties for ACCIDENTAL contamination of his crops.

      Schmeiser -

      1. Wasn't accidental.
      2. Didn't have to pay royalties.

    79. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      The thing is though the resistance to Roundup occurred through natural selection, not transference of the resistance gene from the crops.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html

    80. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by sjames · · Score: 1

      Resistance to roundup can and has evolved in some weeds, but the trait is artificially added to food crops. There is also evidence that the trait has crossed from GMO canola into wild species.

      Of course, the appearance of roundup resistance is a pretty big downside to saturating fields with herbicide and planting roundup ready crops. A downside that Monsanto swore couldn't happen when it promoted that method. They continue to swear (in court, under oath) that such a trait cannot evolve naturally.

      Absolutely none of that has any bearing on wanting to fight companies that expect to exert patent controls on food production. Note that you can't patent an evolved trait even if you crossbreed it intro another plant line, only a gene artificially inserted into the genome can be patented.

      For example, if you have a highly valuable line of flowers and I plant a different but compatible variety on my property, you can do nothing about it if they hybridize with yours, even if I then use careful breeding techniques to produce a variety indistinguishable from yours. However, if you artificially insert a trait into your flowers and it shows up in mine, you can sue me for infringement (as proven by Monsanto's all too numerous court cases).

      There are questions about the genomic stability of GMO vs. naturally bread varieties.

    81. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem completely oblivious that the point is not that GM foods are "not natural"; It's that companies like Monsanto are trying to control food supply. Do the research. You'll be horrified.

    82. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Patent coverage is read according to a theory of strict construction, so that in principle if you have a patented trait showing up in your crops you are considered to be infringing.

      However US case law has established the principle that accidental contamination of your plants by wind blown pollen etc. is not infringement. As such any lawsuits that are brought involving accidental contamination are not being decided for the plaintiff.

      As far as I have been able to determine there has never been a case where accidental transfer of a trait has resulted in a finding of infringement. There has always been some intent such as seed saving or further selection of the accidental contamination.

      Patent coverage of food crops is not a new phenomena.

      http://cls.casa.colostate.edu/transgeniccrops/patent.html

      Where were the protests prior to the development of GMOs?

      As far as transfer of RoundUp resistance from Canola, the only evidence I have seen is transfer to other varieties of Canola. This doesn't rise to the standard of transfer to weeds. If you have references to scientific articles please let me know.

      And Monsanto claiming in court that evolution of RoundUp ready weeds is not possible? Seems unlikely given their public statements as published here:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?pagewanted=all

    83. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by sjames · · Score: 1

      Monsanto has apparently been forced to change their tune, but they have argued since day one that a crop not dieing when round-up is applied was proof positive that their patented gene had been pilfered.

      There was no outcry before GMO because before that, patents for plants were very narrow and quite limited. It just happens that in conjunction with GM efforts, the same parties lobbied hard for broader patent rights.

      As far as transfer of RoundUp resistance from Canola, the only evidence I have seen is transfer to other varieties of Canola. This doesn't rise to the standard of transfer to weeds. If you have references to scientific articles please let me know.

      Here's one. Note, oilseed rape = Canola before marketing decided the name was unfortunate. Here's another.

    84. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Rexdude · · Score: 1

      QQ = cry (supposed to look like eyes with tears)

      T_T is way more recognizable...this one looks like the tears slant sideways defying gravity.

      --
      "..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
    85. Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks - my stats brain took over and I went for Q-Q Plot

  32. Hard to take these people seriously by Elviswind · · Score: 1

    Aren't most vegetables and fruits that are grown today the result of genetic modifications, i.e. selective cross-pollination to promote beneficial qualities and mutations. I can't take these people seriously without ignoring 10,000 years of human agricultural practices. I understand and appreciate the people are concerned about long-term health effects, but anytime someone makes an argument based on some arbitrary limit, as in this is good and then you cross the line and now it's bad, I can't take them as seriously as I possibly should.

    1. Re:Hard to take these people seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a world of difference between traditional plant breeding and GM crops.
      The former breeds particular traits that are desirable using only the genes from the species being bred.
      In a GM world genes from other animals/plants are introduced into the subjects genetic makeup. This is the thing that people in Europe don't want in their food thank you very much.
      That is why every shipment of Soya arriving in Europe from the US is tested for the presence of GM strains.This testing may well apply to other types of food.
      Then there is the high doses of Antibiotics & Growth Hormones found in most US gov certified meat. That mixture is illegal in several European Countries despite the protestations from the US Gov.

    2. Re:Hard to take these people seriously by Elviswind · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry. I don't see a world of difference between random mutations that propagate through the genetic code which may or may not be beneficial and purposely introduced mutations that may or may not be beneficial. It's all just "bits" of DNA; introducing some human code into the DNA of a potato and then claiming the potato is part human is like examining machine code to prove software IP infringement.

      Antibiotics, growth hormones, and selling US meat in Europe are a completely separate set of issues. The need to bring them up in this context just highlights how flimsy the argument against GM is.

  33. Good for scientific research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No isolation in wild. Cannot isolate variables, grow it in a phototron where you can control all variables. Instead of trying to cross-contaminate the gene pool with "genetically engineered" aka not well thought out due to the lack of ability to quantify genetic interactions. When engineers use "science" for profit maximization you have disasters...nuclear energy anyone, bananas?

  34. Sad day for the bugs too by Ashenkase · · Score: 1

    "and sprayed insecticides over them, ruining the experiment. It's a sad day for the freedom of scientific research." And a sad day for the bugs too, innocent by-standers in all of this.

  35. Progluddites strike again by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

    A couple months back I read a blog where the blogger coined the term "progluddite" as a description of most self-identified progressives. This group demonstrated the complete aptness of that term.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    1. Re:Progluddites strike again by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      I was with you until you said "most". Anti-technology progressives are in the minority, they're just really freaking loud and obnoxious.

      Can I take a moment to bash both anti-technology progressives (your "progluddites") and conservatives with big-screen TVs and SUVs? Technological progression and social/political progression are inextricably linked. Demanding 21st century technology with 18th century social values, or vice versa, is as perverse as demanding a horse-drawn carriage with Bluetooth.

    2. Re:Progluddites strike again by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I take it you prefer 21st Century Technology with 1st Century values (there is very little to distinguish between what progressives call "modern" values and those of the Roman Empire)

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    3. Re:Progluddites strike again by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      (there is very little to distinguish between what progressives call "modern" values and those of the Roman Empire)

      ..apart from slavery, colonial hegemony, autocracy, military control of the state, massive government corruption, starvation as a political tool, suppression of religious freedom, capital punishment, and torture of political prisoners for the entertainment of the masses.

      What was your point again?

    4. Re:Progluddites strike again by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Sounds like all the Progressives I know (or at least what they are willing to tolerate as long as the people who do it favor the "correct" policies).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  36. Klebsiella planticola by lpp · · Score: 1

    This is a good reason to think twice about fast tracking genetic modification and testing things in the wild

    Yes, through preferential selection we have been practicing GMO for millenia. And yes, there's probably a good safe way to accelerate that process. But sometimes I think we play a little fast and loose with our food supply.

    1. Re:Klebsiella planticola by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm, yeah, and that's why they were testing it...

    2. Re:Klebsiella planticola by lpp · · Score: 1

      From the quoted text:

      The bacteria had been tested--as it turns out in a careless and very
      unscientific mannner--by scientists working for the biotech industry and
      was believed to be safe for the environment. Fortunately a team of
      independent scientists, headed by Dr. Elaine Ingham of Oregon State
      University, decided to run their own tests on the gene-altered Klebsiella
      planticola.

      So the company which developed the GMO product and had plans to actually produce and sell it, had done very slipshod testing. It was only due to an independent lab that decided to run their own tests that the error was caught.

    3. Re:Klebsiella planticola by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Transgenic GMO does not happen in nature.

  37. Those fools... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That crop was infected with rage. 28 days from now we're all catching hell...

  38. Rule of Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Here's something to ponder fellow Slashdot readers...

    I've noted over the years of reading Slashdot a general liking of activist protests. I've also noted a love of science (don't we all?). Invariably though, these two movements come to clash. In some cases, we even see scientist activists, which in my opinion is in fact not science due to selection bias. Ultimately, each of us individuals will need to make a choice of whether to support the law abiding scientists or law breaking activists.

    My personal view is that Rule of Law should be adhered to by activists. Just because society has overruled their agenda based on complex factors, doesn't give them the right to break the law. If they don't like something, they should voice their views in legal ways and understand that sometimes their agenda is not everyone else's.

    1. Re:Rule of Law by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      The law is made by evil power and money grubbing scum in the back pockets of corporations. Your Rule of Law is evil oligarchs enslaving people. I reject your notion that all law is something to be respected and adhered.

  39. scientific freedom != exposing the public with all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Scientific freedom and exposing the public with all you can think of is not the same.

    You can put gmo inside a laboratory to experiment all day and nobody will object.

    But introducing it into the nature is not something that goes hand in hand with scientific freedom.

    Else we could have Mengele's everywhere - or where should that freedom stop?

    There are a lot more arguments I could bring all day against it, just simply keep gmo into confined areas and nobody will ever object against it (or at least not me) - but don't cry if you put it into public areas and activists come and stop you.

  40. Re:60 police officers? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

    Since when did the police start actively guarding privatized scientific research?

    When thugs are planning to destroy other people's property?

    Presumably you don't want the police protecting your house from vandals either.

  41. Update from Belgium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    About 20% of the potatoes on the field have been destroyed, the researchers who are involved say that the end result is not too bad. There is however a lot of damage on the infrastructure.

    The Flemish government will spend 250,000 Euros to keep the experiment on track

    One researcher of the Catholic University of Leuven participated in the destroying. She will be punished by the university.

    Bart Staes, a member of the European parliament for the Flemish Green Party, called the action "a democratic form of protest" and "civil disobedience". The Flemish Green Party distances itself from his statements.

    The scientists have not yet decided if they will sue the protesters. They will decide this after they have seen the police reports.

    Coverage in English on Flemish public radio/television. (The word "Flemish" is used so often in this post because Belgium is a federation, and the action was in Flanders.)

  42. Different plants are DIFFERENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1) the total number of lawsuit Monsanto has files against farmers is in the low hundreds. (And most of these were for saving patented seeds to replant the next year. Which I still think is an abuse of intellectual property law, but has nothing to do with cross pollination).
    2) Different plant species have different rates of outcrossing (mating with another plant instead of itself). A corn plant for example, will mate almost entirely with other corn plants and very little with itself. A tomato will mate almost entirely with itself.
    3) Potato plants are at even less risk of outcrossing because they are propagated clonally. Potatoes from one year are cut up and planted in the ground to grow next year's crop and produce plants genetically identical to their single parent. No mating = no cross pollination.

    In conclusion it seems likely you have not taken a course in biology since high school (which you likely slept through) and despite clearly feeling very passionate about the debate on genetic engineering, have not bothered to inform yourself on the issue, despite abundant and diverse sources of information.

    1. Re:Different plants are DIFFERENT by jdpars · · Score: 0

      Wow, it's like you could have been informative and nice, but had a stick up your butt today so you went off on someone for not being a biologist. Grats to you!

    2. Re:Different plants are DIFFERENT by Khyber · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Potato plants are at even less risk of outcrossing because they are propagated clonally"

      Not always. I always carry a stock of true potato seed. Guess what caused the blight in the first place? Lack of genetic diversity and natural selection.

      Looks like where the poster above slept through biology, you slept through history and critical thinking. You apparently slept through biology as well, as potatoes are nightshades and spread pollen like wildfire with their particularly light and fluffy pollen.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    3. Re:Different plants are DIFFERENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GP started calling people morons based on false information. There's nothing wrong with not understanding biology. I understand a lot less about most of the topics slashdot covers than the average commenter. But I don't pretend to know more than I do. And it probably wasn't helpful to the overall tone of the discussion to sink down to his or her level, but you're right, rude ignorant people who don't even realize they don't know what they're talking about do drive a stick up my butt.

    4. Re:Different plants are DIFFERENT by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      Let me explain it to you sloooowly and simply. Potato selection from year to year is like updating your apps at user level. GM, is like poking and mixing the bytes and the bits of the KERNEL itself, it may work, it may not, but once it stops, it will stop, forever. Oh, and btw, please give your admin account, to show you in practice what GM actually means...

    5. Re:Different plants are DIFFERENT by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      He's a moron because he thought my point was about patent law in the US and not cross pollination. Just look at his post for evidence of that.

      I was also plenty wrong on the actual biology of the situation if my original post in this tree was taken as a thought on potatoes in particular, rather than a general statement about GM crops.

    6. Re:Different plants are DIFFERENT by tgd · · Score: 1

      This is the US -- evolution isn't covered in biology. What makes you think that potato pollenation would be?

      Shit, I doubt most biology doctoral students would've run across that.

    7. Re:Different plants are DIFFERENT by dvice_null · · Score: 1

      > Potato selection from year to year is like updating your apps at user level

      No, it is about taking half of a source code from two different kernels and mixing them randomly together. We can partially predict the outcome. E.g. 1/4 of the results will be something what we like, with unknown side-effects. If sex would be invented today, it would never be allowed by anyone because it is so random and dangerous. Think about genetic diseases.

      > GM, is like poking and mixing the bytes and the bits of the KERNEL itself

      No, it is about changing one, well known place is the source code to something well known, where the end results can be predicted. Think about fixing genetic diseases.

    8. Re:Different plants are DIFFERENT by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Such is the sad state of education in the USA today. I got very, very lucky with my unique combination of schools that I attended as a youth from the 80s-90s. I acquired 4 years of agricultural and horticultural science in high school ON TOP of my biology, which I actually had to re-take because I was a total fuckup my first year of high school and voluntarily skipped 150+ days my first freshman year.

      The majority of what people seem to know about horticulture now comes from cannabis forums, which in themselves have tons of myths and nonsense. Blue for veg, red for flower. WRONG.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    9. Re:Different plants are DIFFERENT by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      > Potato selection from year to year is like updating your apps at user level

      No, it is about taking half of a source code from two different kernels and mixing them randomly together. We can partially predict the outcome. E.g. 1/4 of the results will be something what we like, with unknown side-effects. If sex would be invented today, it would never be allowed by anyone because it is so random and dangerous. Think about genetic diseases.

      > GM, is like poking and mixing the bytes and the bits of the KERNEL itself

      No, it is about changing one, well known place is the source code to something well known, where the end results can be predicted. Think about fixing genetic diseases.

      No, it's like taking two cars of the same make and model, and roughly the same year, and making a new car out of duplicate parts from each of the two cars. You can be fairly certain that it will work, although in some cases there may be defects since a part from one car may be slightly incompatible with a part from the other car. GM crops are like taking rolls royce and replacing the timing belt with one taken from a pinto. You don't know exactly what you'll get, but either way it will be an abomination.

    10. Re:Different plants are DIFFERENT by metacell · · Score: 1

      1) the total number of lawsuit Monsanto has files against farmers is in the low hundreds. (And most of these were for saving patented seeds to replant the next year. Which I still think is an abuse of intellectual property law, but has nothing to do with cross pollination).

      The number of lawsuits is not very relevant. The threat of a lawsuit is enough to force people to change their behaviour (or, in this case, pay up). In fact, when the legal system works well, people don't need to go to court, because the result is predictable.

  43. Not the first time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From 1999, Activists Destroy British Columbia Research Trees. This action destroyed several years of research, caused the startup company to fold financially and put over a dozen people out of work.

  44. What selective breeding really means by MaizeMan · · Score: 1

    Selective breeding is not the same as modifying the genetics of a plant using a virus.

    Selective breeds often means altering the genetics of a plant by a transposon insertion or gene deletion. These changes are just as drastic and unpredictable as those produced by genetic engineering, occur in nature all the time, and produce much of the variation that is selected for in traditional breeding. It's just that since traditional breeds selects based on the effect, rather than the gene itself, no one can tell you what strange and never before seen genetic alteration has just been introduced into the food you are eating.

    A great example of this is a lab at Cornell that has actually tracked down the genetic alterations behind those delicious purple and orange cauliflowers that started showing up in organic grocery stores across the US about a decade ago. Both were caused by transposon insertions (genomic parasites often related to plant viruses) that changed or broke genes. But nobody protests or rips up the fields because no one, not even the breeders at the time, know what was responsible for the change.

    Sources:
    Purple: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2971621/ Orange: http://www.plantcell.org/content/18/12/3594.full

  45. GM also means by tepples · · Score: 2

    I might point out that nowhere are companies required to label their products as GM.

    In Detroit they are. Every Chevrolet that rolls off the line is labeled as GM.

  46. Re:Clearly you don't understand the problem w/GM f by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

    Then the answer is to stop that practice, not to stop GMO.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  47. Fishy Tomatoes? by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 2

    Well, the main difference is that GMOs can and do incorporate genetic material from completely different species, like the GM tomato that incorporated genes from a species of salmon, creating organisms that NEVER could have arisen naturally or through traditional agricultural techniques like crossbreeding and artificial selection.

    Of course, if you know of a way that a fish can successfully crossbreed with a plant without laboratory manipulation, please let us know...

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    1. Re:Fishy Tomatoes? by arkenian · · Score: 1

      Well, the main difference is that GMOs can and do incorporate genetic material from completely different species, like the GM tomato that incorporated genes from a species of salmon, creating organisms that NEVER could have arisen naturally or through traditional agricultural techniques like crossbreeding and artificial selection.

      And perhaps that's a fair argument. But...

      1.) In the 5000 or so years humans have been working to modify crops and livestock to their own needs, there have been numerous technical advantages which supply significant qualitative leaps to their ability to do so. "Traditional agricultural techniques" also include things like grafting, and cross-pollinations which are impossible in the natural world by hand pollination. Grafting, one notes, specifically allows one to generate the properties of two breeding-incompatible species into one plant. Your argument is that all the technologies which went before are 'good' and this newest technique is 'bad'. I note that things like monoculture etc. were becoming prevalent before this newest technique came around.

      2.) With enough time and determination you can artificially select for almost anything. Round-up-ready crops are one of our oldest GMOs, and, unsurprisingly, various weeds like ragweed are increasingly starting to have round-up-resistant strains. Note that round-up resistant ragweed is NOT a cross-species jump, but an entirely different mechanism to accomplish the same thing. I note that this is also a good reason to be careful about not misusing our GMO organisms: scientists note that this happened so quickly because farmers went to using just round-up to suppress weeds, rather than more traditional combination of methods, which made it much easier to breed round-up resistant rag weed (which is definitely not a good thing.)

      3.) Finally, yes it wasn't 'natural' in some indefinable magical sense to use a salmon gene in a tomato. That said . . . I am reminded long ago of listening to someone from the food chemical industry talk about strawberry flavoring. Artificial strawberry flavoring, he noted, was something created in the lab to be as close to chemically identical to the chemical(s) which produce strawberry flavor in an actual strawberry as was possible. "All natural" strawberry flavoring, on the other hand, included about a dozen different plants none of which, one notes, was related to an actual strawberry and was chemically a fairly different substance. Which would you prefer?

    2. Re:Fishy Tomatoes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First you have to get the fish really drunk.

    3. Re:Fishy Tomatoes? by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      So would you be fine with GMO plants if they promised not to insert genes they found in animals (unless they also found them in non-GMO plants)? Assuming the promise could be guaranteed by an authority you trust.

    4. Re:Fishy Tomatoes? by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      First you have to get the fish really drunk.

      Well, that should be easy. After all, he drinks like a fish! (Thank you! I'll be here all night!)

    5. Re:Fishy Tomatoes? by flex941 · · Score: 1

      I would prefer strawberry itself. Simple as that.

    6. Re:Fishy Tomatoes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which would you prefer?

      ...

      actual strawberries anyone ?

    7. Re:Fishy Tomatoes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cross-breed some Japanese and German porn an you'll see how.

  48. Good for them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They are heros for saving our food supply.

    GMO foods have serious health effects on people who eat them. Way more dangerous than the corn fructose they are already forcing millions to eat.

    GMO corn causes liver, kidney problems in rats: study

  49. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  50. Re:Ah, my bad. Here's my excuse: by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

    I don't think "terrorist" is especially appropriate. But when they graduated from protest to the willful destruction of other people's property, they certainly DID cease to be *activists*; and became nothing more than common criminals, who should be forced to pay restitution and then locked away from society.

    --
    Imagine all the people...
  51. A mad day for reading comprehension by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    I think you need to read the article again, this doesn't have one thing to do with Monsanto.

  52. Old news: by Hartree · · Score: 1

    Hardly unexpected or new.

    Destruction of such experiments has been pretty standard in parts of Europe for as long as they've been being tested.

    In the past, a lot of experiments were moved to the US or other GMO tolerant countries to avoid this. Do a search on "gmo field destruction" if you want lots of examples.

    It's an issue that combines opposition from those who genuinely don't like GMOS with other groups that want a ban on foreign produce for competitive reasons. The latter often runs afoul of the WTO when done directly, but it can often be done successfully when it's presented in terms of banning GMOs or in terms of food safety regulations.

    1. Re:Old news: by tibit · · Score: 1

      It's not only in agriculture. Animal rights crazies are there too. At the school I go to, the animal lab building is locked 24/7 and requires an access card, whereas you can walk straight in from the street to most of the hospital wards.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  53. Not science, only greed by ubergeek65536 · · Score: 2

    They are not in it for the science. GMO foods have been created in order to patent our food. If they were really altruistic and trying to save humanity from starvation they wouldn't be suing organic farmers that had their crops negligently pollinated by their neighbours GMO crop.

    1. Re:Not science, only greed by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Who "they"? The field in question was not owned by Monsanto, which is the one suing people.

  54. This was NOT "a sad day for science." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...because this type of GMO plant research is NOT science. It is product
    development.

    Science looks for theories that explain how nature works. But this type of
    GMO research is all about taking the bits we already know and using
    brute-force approaches to try and plug them together like Legos in ways
    that can then be patented, and marketed, and push non-GMO produce out
    of the market.

    At its best, the end result is less diversity of agricultural products controlled
    by a few large companies. At its worst, well, we don't know what it is at its
    worst but horizontal gene transfer has been proven to happen and could
    bring about some more ecological nightmares.

    But in no way is commercial GMO research science... so this was NOT
    "a sad day for science".

  55. Movie about GMO Food by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  56. It's a Mengele / Übermensch dilemma by Qwrk · · Score: 0

    Preventing Mengele from creating the Übermensch is a good thing. Preventing a complete fuck-up of a natural balance is a thing to be praised, not criticised.
    *ploink* me if you will. I don't care.

  57. Ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These ignorant fools make me sick. I wish this happened in America where they would have been shot on sight.

  58. Hmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On one side I would not mind GM food... but only after much, much testing.

    The problem I have is that genetic manipulation is still a, pardon the pun, growing field. Interactions between GM and a natural environment should NOT be 'left on the breeze'. Cross pollination is GOING to happen no matter what you do if you have a field in the open and interaction between GM and 'natural' occurs. Much will, hopefully, be benign or neutral in nature, but I certainly hope that a 'previously unknown' interaction won't result in something nasty. It doesn't even need to be toxic to humans--just creating something like super-kudzu would have huge environmental impact. NORMAL kudzu can grow like crazy but a GM kudzu that is hardier and faster to grow would be... bad.

    Now if the super-kudzu had equally super fruit then it might be another story but even so....

  59. Track record by goodmanj · · Score: 1

    I've got no problem with people having a say in what foods they eat. But it's worth pointing out that, so far, potato blight has contributed to the deaths of millions of people, while GM crops have killed exactly nobody.

    Yes, there were extenuating political circumstances for potato blight deaths, and yes, the GM folks are worried about the future, not the past, but it seems to me that dismissing the known body count as irrelevant is the first sign of political extremism.

    1. Re:Track record by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      Asbestos probably saved a lot of lives too as it was used in the equipment of firefighters... until it claimed even more.

    2. Re:Track record by Jibekn · · Score: 1

      Ide wager that asbestos have saved way more lives than they've ended. When you do the research, the only real asbestos deaths where from industry workers who either mined the stuff, or the installers who worked with materials with very high asbestos content, its a very hyped toxin which you can find trace amounts of in the air you're breathing right now.

      Also bear in mind that the rats which grew 'alarming' chest tumors after asbestos exposure, where subjected to the equivalent of putting a human into a sealed prison cell with 2kg of asbestos being ground on a grinding wheel several times. I wonder what other materials when inhaled at such a large quantity would produce chest tumors, my layman opinion would be, "Most"

      Should we take precautions? Yup. but we shouldn't demonize a very useful substance.

    3. Re:Track record by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      While I agree that asbestos hazards are overrated, I won't go as far as you. Even if the risk is small, there's no reason to keep using it since good alternatives exist.

      But back on topic, Issarik's analogy doesn't work, because the anti-GM folks aren't balancing real risk vs real benefits (what you did with asbestos), they're balancing the *fear* of risk vs real benefits.

  60. Don't Like GM Cars Either by oakwine · · Score: 1

    Like Monsanto even less than GM. Activists were acting against a malign corporation. Good for them.

    1. Re:Don't Like GM Cars Either by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      This was Dutch government funded research, no Monsanto involved. Why do people keep saying that? It makes no sense. Saying that everyone who does genetic engineering is Monsanto is like saying that everyone who cooks hamburgers is a McDonalds.

  61. Re:Clearly you don't understand the problem w/GM f by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    You find me those potato seeds, OK?

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  62. obligatory: carrot juice is murder by Cyko_01 · · Score: 1

    Listen up brothers and sisters,
    come hear my desperate tale.
    I speak of our friends of nature,
    trapped in the dirt like a jail.

    Vegetables live in oppression,
    served on our tables each night.
    This killing of veggies is madness,
    I say we take up the fight.

    Salads are only for murderers,
    coleslaw's a fascist regime.
    Don't think that they don't have feelings,
    just cause a radish can't scream.

    Chorus:
    I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream, scream, scream)
    Watching their skins being peeled (having their insides revealed)
    Grated and steamed with no mercy (burning off calories)
    How do you think that feels (bet it hurts really bad)
    Carrot juice constitutes murder (and that's a real crime)
    Greenhouses prisons for slaves (let my vegetables go)
    It's time to stop all this gardening (it's dirty as hell)
    Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade is a spade is a spade)

    I saw a man eating celery,
    so I beat him black and blue.
    If he ever touches a sprout again,
    I'll bite him clean in two.

    I'm a political prisoner,
    trapped in a windowless cage.
    Cause I stopped the slaughter of turnips
    by killing five men in a rage

    I told the judge when he sentenced me,
    This is my finest hour,
    I'd kill those farmers again
    just to save one more cauliflower

    Chorus

    How low as people do we dare to stoop,
    Making young broccolis bleed in the soup?
    Untie your beans, uncage your tomatoes
    Let potted plants free, don't mash that potato!

    I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream, scream, scream)
    Watching their skins being peeled (fates in the stirfry are sealed)
    Grated and steamed with no mercy (you fat gormet slob)
    How do you think that feels? (leave them out in the field)
    Carrot juice constitutes murder (V8's genocide)
    Greenhouses prisons for slaves (yes, your composts are graves)
    It's time to stop all this gardening (take up macrame)
    Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade, is a spade, is a spade, is a spade.....

  63. Nasty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GMO are horrible for the planet. GMO contamination plus all those patents nasssty.

  64. Superweeds (no it's not what you think) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slightly OT - but still relevant.

    Roundup-Resistant Superweeds Are Evolving to Invade U.S. Fields

    http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-05/roundup-resistant-superweeds-invade-us-fields

  65. We have very different definitions of "natural" by MaizeMan · · Score: 5, Informative
    There is no natural (as in wild) corn anywhere in the world. The wild ancestor of corn, teosinte, can still be found in some places, but you would not have any luck trying to eat its seeds the way you would corn kernels. The beautiful photos illustration the vast genetic diversity of corn are all breeds of corn that have been under artificial selection for thousands of years by farmers from Chile to Canada.

    You are correct that "The wheat and corn from 50 years ago is NOT genetically modified in the modern sense of the word" however I believe the point the GP was making is that the changes made by artificial selection were equivalent to, if not greater than, those that are now being produced with genetic modification "in the modern sense of the word."

    The genome of B73, a completely un-genetically modified variety of corn, was published back in 2009 and I've had my head buried in it ever since. I've seen broken genes, moved genes, genes missing the sequences that should control when and where they are turned on, even frankenstein genes assembled from the pieces of other genes. All these changes occurred naturally in individual corn plants and are found today in B73 as the result of either artificial or natural selection.

    For example, and yes, this is real, they make crops that have weaknesses so that you need to buy more pesticides of the kind they sell.

    Citation needed. I know there are GM crops resistant to certain herbicides, but in the absence of those herbicides they grow identically to their unmodified siblings. I don't even know how an effect like the one you describe could be produced. But if you can back it up I will certainly look into it.

    1. Re:We have very different definitions of "natural" by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The genome of B73, a completely un-genetically modified variety of corn, was published back in 2009 and I've had my head buried in it ever since. I've seen broken genes, moved genes, genes missing the sequences that should control when and where they are turned on, even frankenstein genes assembled from the pieces of other genes.

      Wow. I admire your geneticist master skill.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:We have very different definitions of "natural" by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      "I don't even know how an effect like the one you describe could be produced. "

      Well, at least I'm glad you are a bit curious about what you don't know yet.

      Plants of a given leaf area have a fixed amount of energy from the sun and nutrients from the soil (including water). They can either invest that in plant defense compounds or they can invest that in producing filling-to-humans but unhealthy-to-humans-in-excess starch and sugar. Some of these plant defense compunds seem essential to human health as antioxidants as we have adapted to use them to our benefit, plants without them are less nutritious to eat, but this is not obvious in the short term usually, just when you get cancer etc... Plants have been altered to have less investment in plant defense compounds, which the pesticides substitute for, and invest more in starch and/or sugar which sells well in the (ignorant-by-design-and-schooling) market. Such plants may also have weaker root systems as they expect to be drenched in synthetic fertilizer. So, take away the pesticides and fertilizer from modern GMO plants (or even many no GMO hybrids) and they do much worse that heirloom varieties (even as they may outproduce them in starch and sugar under the right circumstances).

      See also:
          "Towards Holistic Agriculture: A Scientific Approach" by R.W. Widdowson
          http://www.amazon.com/Towards-Holistic-Agriculture-Scientific-Approach/dp/0080342116

      By the way, grinding up rock for fetilizer works well and produces healthy big plants:
          http://remineralize.org/

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    3. Re:We have very different definitions of "natural" by MaizeMan · · Score: 1

      Thank you.

      Let me start out by saying the parts I completely agree with. Modern breeds of most crops have been selected to identify varieties that use fertilizer efficiently, converting as much as possible of it into extra food instead of, say, longer stalks (an issue that crops up when you heavily fertilize older varieties of wheat and rice). So in the absence of fertilizer, older varieties developed prior to the development of cheap synthetic fertilizer will outperform varieties developed to take advantage of the fertilizer.

      The trade off in investing energy in yield (usually in the form of starch and sugars) vs defense is a real one, and it wouldn't surprise me if there has been some accidental selection towards less investment in defense related compounds and more in yield during conventional breeding programs, since, as you point out, yield is a much easier thing for a plant breeder to measure. However this is where we part ways. I've read extensively on the small handful of traits introduced to plants by genetic engineering and none of them have been aimed at knocking out or reducing the plant's innate defenses. Maybe such a strategy might work (defining work as increasing yield), but if so, no one has successfully done so yet.

      The original post I was replying to made it sound like plants had been crippled in order to require specific pesticides sold by the same company. Which would require an intentional act, not simply a focus on yield over immunity to disease and pests during the breeding process.

    4. Re:We have very different definitions of "natural" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need to cripple the plant, just make a herbicide that will kill both your crop and weeds. Design an enzyme that will break up the poison or pump it out, and then insert the gene into your crop.

      Maybe I've missed your point.. I work with humans though

    5. Re:We have very different definitions of "natural" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corn is shit, for first it needs about seven times more water than wheat.
      We, EU, don't want your modifed corn,
      Will you hear that?

    6. Re:We have very different definitions of "natural" by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your reply.

      Another complexity:
      http://newhope360.com/food/stressed-plants-could-create-next-gen-functional-foods-say-usda-experts
      "Compounds extracted from plants exposed to stressful conditions could be used to create a powerful new generation of functional foods, according to scientists.
      Advertisement
      A research team from the US Department of Agriculture said that these substances â" known as phytoalexins â" were naturally induced in plants as a defence mechanism against stress or fungal attack. They could also be prompted to appear using elicitor treatment and other stress inducing techniques.
      In a paper published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, the scientists said that although phytoalexins had been investigated for their possible role in plant defence, until recently they had gone unexplored as nutritional components in human foods."

      It's been argued by organic farmers that somewhat chewed on plants are going to be healthier for humans to eat if we are adapted to make use of these compounds. This is a potential problem with plants grown under optimal conditions in greenhouses, too.

      It comes down to budget. If the plant has been bred or genetically engineered (and much of this is just conventional breeding) to put its resources into starch and sugar then it is going to be a weaker and less generally nutritious plant. I could believe what you say, that genetic engineers are not "intentionally" crippling plants, at least not any more so than conventional breeding. But the fact remains that we are still left with breeds, conventional or GMO, that are in many ways less healthy to eat. In general, nature has already created fairly optimal plants (it seems). Messing with that can push around things like risk, but you end up making tradeoffs. That may not be completely true, because look at the wonderful crops we have now from 1000s of years of breeding, but in general, it seems there may be no way to make everything better in a plant while not losing some other essential quality we may not even appreciate yet. How many phytonutrients do we really understand yet, as Dr. Joel Fuhrman talks about?
      http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx
      "Nutritional science in the last twenty years has demonstrated that colorful plant foods contain a huge assortment of protective compounds, mostly of which still remain unnamed. Only by eating an assortment of nutrient-rich natural foods can we access these protective compounds and prevent the common diseases that afflict Americans. Our modern, low-nutrient eating style has led to an overweight population, the majority of whom develop diseases of nutritional ignorance, causing our medical costs to spiral out of control. "

      Monoculture agriculture (whether GMO or conventional) may produce other problems in practice, though sometimes complicated by GMO initiatives:
      http://www.biotech-info.net/blind_rice.html
      "The genetic engineering of Vitamin A rice deepens the genetic reductionism of the Green Revolution. Instead of millions of farmers breeding and growing thousands of crop varieties to adapt to diverse ecosystems and diverse food systems, the Green Revolution reduced agriculture to a few varieties of a few crops (mainly rice, wheat and maize) bred in one centralised research centre (IRRI for rice and CIMMYT for wheat and maize). The Green Revolution led to massive genetic erosion in farmers fields and knowledge, erosion among farming communities, besides leading to large scale environmental pollution due to use of toxic agrichemicals and wasteful use of water. "

      Sometimes GMOs are taking the heat for a larger frustration with monoculture farming....

      Humans have been co-evolv

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    7. Re:We have very different definitions of "natural" by MaizeMan · · Score: 1

      As far as I know are two ways to make a crop resistant to an herbicide. Either the way you describe, or substituting another enzyme that can do the same job as the one inhibited by the herbicide (IIRC the second is what has been done to produce crops resistant to roundup but I believe both have been used). I guess my point is that if you do either of those things in the absence of that specific herbicide the GM crops should perform a lot like the same variety without the transgene.

      This discussion got started as a response to a fellow who was saying companies had engineered crops to do worse in the absence of specific herbicides (made by the same companies) than non-GM varieties. To me that's a very different thing from engineering plants to resist specific herbicides.

    8. Re:We have very different definitions of "natural" by MaizeMan · · Score: 1

      I grew up in the middle of the American midwest, earned the money for my first computer working hot summers in cornfields, and if you don't want our (US) corn, just don't buy it! And don't buy South American soybeans (which are almost all GM).

      The EU is a huge food importer, mostly to feed to livestock.

      If you don't like the kinds of the food the rest of the world wants to grow, you could grow your own. Or you could eat a lot less meat. Nobody is going to come in and make you plant GM crops if you guys decide to stop importing it from across the globe.

      And corn produces four times as much food per acre as wheat while using more (but not seven times as much) water. Which is why we grow so much of it over here. But once more, if you'd like to start growing your own food again instead of outsourcing to the western hemisphere, you can make your own decisions about whether you'd rather cut down more forests and plow more prairies for farmland or grow crops that produce more food on less land.

    9. Re:We have very different definitions of "natural" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice reply.

      About corn, I'll take your word for it. However, I do not find this to be a big flaw in my reasoning. So maybe the guy in an earlier post eats a lot of corn that is selectively bred for ages, but that does not mean that if this crop had not existed, he would not have food on his table. Things may be messed up, someone may be trying to set things right, even though he has not himself been able to get out of the mess. Also I still feel the distinction between selective breeding and genetic modification is very important (more about that below).

      About wheat changes being "equivalent" to the GM modifications, I totally disagree. The difference is the combination of speed and big change, not just the big change. Slowness in change gives many potential advantages. You get to see how your crop fares in different years with slightly different situations (a certain bug may be the big problem one year, the next year the temperature may be the most important thing and so on). You also get to see the effects of the crops on the environment and on people over time. Now, I do not suggest they have done proper experiments over time with these crops and how they influence human health, but certainly if some strands contain something very harmful that you only see after a few human generations, you can still have different groups of people growing different strands of the crop, and the ones growing something harmful being outcompeted. I also do not suggest they did no studies on humans with these crops, but my understanding is this is a rather superficial process, testing for a few known problems, and the company, whether it is Monstanto or another company will have the wrong incentive here, in that quick profit is their goal, not sustainability.

      About the "artificial weaknesses" of crops, I may have overplayed my hand on that one. Obviously, if Monsanto finds a crop that fits their business model they will sell it. Over time they find crops that fit better and better. It is not like they set up a set of rules on a computer and "implement" them in "genetic code" in one go. I am convinced this is happening, but I maybe should not have made such a claim.

    10. Re:We have very different definitions of "natural" by mpe · · Score: 1

      I know there are GM crops resistant to certain herbicides, but in the absence of those herbicides they grow identically to their unmodified siblings.

      How does their herbicide resistance actually work. Does the plant only react to the chemical or does produce a counter agent as part of it's normal metabolic process? If the latter then the GM plant isn't growing identically to a non GM plant and you'd have a mechanism for the GM plant producing a poorer yield than the non GM plant.

    11. Re:We have very different definitions of "natural" by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you can shed some light on this for me. What seems of much greater concern is the insertion of genes from far flung species in the genome of our food supply. A current, industrial example,if I'm not mistaken, is the use of a gene from the grouper in a large number of tomato's on the market.

      Of greater concern however is using grain, and or food plants, to produce chemicals such as antibiotics, or insulin for harvest, which I've read reports on experiments and test being done with. Given that ingestion of too much insulin etc, could be harmful or deadly to human population , it seems that unless extreme measures , like never letting these plants produce pollen, are taken there is real potential to destroy the ability to reuse seeds from previous croups without high tech tests and procedures in place, effectively poisoning large portions of the human food supply.

      Given, the proven track record, of certain companies, that 'patented' gene's have been found in seeds, used by organic farmers who save seeds for the next year.
      Do you believe there are sufficient regulatory safe guards in place to prevent poisoning of corruption of the existing food supply.

      The problem is one 'accident' here could be more damaging long term then anything a nuclear power plant could do.

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    12. Re:We have very different definitions of "natural" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The genome of B73, a completely un-genetically modified variety of corn, was published back in 2009 and I've had my head buried in it ever since. I've seen broken genes, moved genes, genes missing the sequences that should control when and where they are turned on, even frankenstein genes assembled from the pieces of other genes

      Be careful: some of those bugs may actually be features.

  66. Re:Ah, my bad. Here's my excuse: by gman003 · · Score: 1

    I was mocking that exact thing, how you can call anything terrorism. Bullying? That's "child terrorism". Reckless driving? That's "commission of terrorism with a vehicle". Begging on the street? "Economic terrorism".

    I'm actually kind of disappointed that it was rated "+5 Insightful". I was expecting "+5 Funny". I did, however, nab my first first post, so I'm still happy with it.

  67. Its economic, rather than scientific by tanveer1979 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I do not think many slashdotters would understand, that world over, resistance to bio engineered and gene modified plants is mostly due to business reasons.
    Or the "Monsato" model.
    Most GM food is owned by corporations.
    They sell you seed, and you grow the plants.
    Then you need to buy seed again the next year.... and so on.
    So as local less hardy varieties vanish, the corporation can set its own prices.

    Traditionally, farmers buy seed just once, and then keep reusing in normal circumstances.
    GM model is trying to alter whats being done for many millenia.

    Its more difficult than making old world studios embrace the internet.

    So around all this, you have a whole slew of conspiracy theorists and wack jobs who basically add fuel to the fire.

    So here is the opposition.
    In countries where farmers are a powerful vote bank(eg India), govt mostly does the GM corp kicking here and there.
    In the west, I guess, its the activists.

    --
    My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
    FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
    1. Re:Its economic, rather than scientific by uira · · Score: 2

      Not really, today most commercial seeds are already hybrids, that is, you have to buy the seed every year. Off course, you are free to buy "organic seeds" and plant them, but you wont have the bebefits of the highly-selected hybrid seeds. Being a GMO has nothing to do with being a hybrid.

    2. Re:Its economic, rather than scientific by elsurexiste · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I do not think many slashdotters would understand, that world over, resistance to bio engineered and gene modified plants is mostly due to business reasons. Or the "Monsato" model.

      Agreed, but I'm out of mod points, so I'll add my two cents.

      Monsanto don't sell you seeds: they sell you a license to use the seeds you bought for that year; if you didn't use them all then you're SoL. Plus, if some seeds pass their genetic material to your own seeds, they'll want to destroy them.

      It's a nice spin to this story, isn't it?

      --
      I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    3. Re:Its economic, rather than scientific by PReDiToR · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not quite as nice as that.
      They won't come after you necessarily, but they know that any bees (or other insects) that try to pollenate your crops (so you don't have to buy off them next year) will be unsuccessful as their GM plants are sterile.

      Blowing sterile pollen and seeds around the globe will kill off wild species in time, including desirable mutations, and the only thing that will grow is the rapidly diminishing supply of human created life that doesn't support the same ecosystem that we have adjusted to on this planet.

      PLEASE! Only use this stuff in a firewalled environment (as in a few miles of space, Mars or the moon spring to mind) before you bring it home to a place where you can't fix any accidental mistakes in time for our species to survive.

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
    4. Re:Its economic, rather than scientific by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Blowing sterile pollen on the wind is going to kill off all the wild corn? Besides, I don't think you understand how this "in time" thing works...sterile plants are at a rather steep selective disadvantage, so there is no problem with them spreading and killing off wild species.

    5. Re:Its economic, rather than scientific by muridae · · Score: 2
    6. Re:Its economic, rather than scientific by tixxit · · Score: 1

      Food, Inc is a fantastic movie that makes a lot of these points. The parallels between software patents and patents on seeds and the like are uncanny. The movie is not preachy at all, and definitely not anti-meat. I'd highly suggest Slashdotters watch it.

    7. Re:Its economic, rather than scientific by Adam+Appel · · Score: 1

      Monsanto modle in effect. Check your neighbors crops, find your patented genes, sue and WIN. They do it, they do it. Monsanto is indirectly [sic] responsible for the loss of many natural species of at least rice and possibly others (I lack the knowledge to make a definitive statement). Selling seed that does not propagate is not in the best interest of the planet (though possibly in the best interests of those geeks that favor the dark scifi future and is defiantly in the interests of the corporation.)

      --
      They come in the dark, only in the darkest.
    8. Re:Its economic, rather than scientific by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Blowing sterile pollen and seeds around the globe will kill off wild species in time

      You can't possibly be that stupid. Please spend however long it takes to figure out that not only is your conclusion wrong, it's self-contradictory.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    9. Re:Its economic, rather than scientific by metacell · · Score: 1

      *woosh*

    10. Re:Its economic, rather than scientific by PReDiToR · · Score: 2

      So, am I wrong in thinking that when pollen hits a stamen that particular stamen stops collecting pollen?

      If a plant considers itself fertilised does it not close up and try to seed? Does it know that it has been duped by something infertile attaching to all the right receptors on the flower?

      If the birds are eating the seeds from sterile fruit and crapping them out like nature dictates then the areas and routes that they frequent will have fewer viable young plants in them and the weaker ones will survive where they would have failed before due to competition, no?

      I'm always open to new information, and not ashamed to admit I have something wrong.

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
    11. Re:Its economic, rather than scientific by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      Nope, that's just an excuse. These same poeple are also against the Rainbow papaya, a GMO produced by the University of Hawaii, the copyright of which is nothing of the sort. You argument is invalid. Anti-GMO people are just common scientifically illiterate denialists looking for something to make themselves appear reasonable to those not familiar with the field.

    12. Re:Its economic, rather than scientific by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      Except in this case the field in question was used for research by the Ghent University and the idiots criminals who destroyed it say they did it to "avoid contamination of surrounding fields." No mention of your objection, which is one of the few that actually make sense in the whole debate.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    13. Re:Its economic, rather than scientific by hihihihi · · Score: 1

      i know, too old story, but thanks for explaining.
      was wondering myself how could sterile species could cause other natural species to vanish.

      --
      everyone downmodding this post will be prosecuted for reading my post without first buying a license!!!
    14. Re:Its economic, rather than scientific by guspasho · · Score: 1

      Except that we keep planting them anyway.

  68. Sorry, but this is wrong by Pecisk · · Score: 1

    I know that Slashdot has kinda anti-GMO crowd here, and it is quite mainstream for activists to be that way, but this is wrong. I'm all about carefulness dealing with GMO but this anti crowd is no better than homofobs - afraid about something you can't explain. I know, I know that this is again all about big bad corps again, but we don't live in socialism, guys. Corporations are doing good job with researching new products. However, they tend to neglect or ignore possible risks and side effects. But in nutshell - if goverment would do all GMO research, you would still be protesting, right? Because you are just damn freaking not reasoning.

    Genetic modifications has happened since life on Earth, with or without help of other living beings. Heck, bees are doing this for million years. And one thing is quite sure - yes, you can screw up something big time, but it is also true that you can't really create Frankenstein - forces of nature it will tearn down/apart.

    Now about gen-corps ugly pratices - genetic patents, cross field poluting, suing farmers out of existance - this should be solved by laws not by vandalism. Put your money on Avaaz.org or other organisations who does it proper way, pusing lobbying. Shouting angrily won't help your case in long run, no matter how righteous you are or feel.

    --
    user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    1. Re:Sorry, but this is wrong by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      if goverment would do all GMO research, you would still be protesting, right?

      And since in this particular case it was Belgian government funded research that was destroyed, I'd say your prediction is 100% accurate.

    2. Re:Sorry, but this is wrong by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      Corporations are doing good job with researching new products.

      I would simply say, I disagree. They're doing a horrible job. It doesn't sound like you've done much reading on the subject.

    3. Re:Sorry, but this is wrong by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      These are the same people who destroyed a French government GMO grape test too a while back. Considering that the anti-GMO folks destroy government funded research, and also oppose university developed GMOs like the Rainbow papaya (a virus resistant papaya developed by the University of Hawaii), and charity NGO ones like Golden Rice and BioCassava, the whole anti-corporation thing looks an awful lot like just an excuse to justify their unscientific beliefs.

  69. Disease-ridden "organic" food...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DJRumpy: "If you don't want to eat that shit, don't buy it, or grow your own disease ridden organic food."

    Disease-ridden? Really? What are you claiming? That if food is not genetically modified it is not safe to eat? When the fuck were you born? 1995? Honestly, what the fuck is wrong with you? Do you have any clue as to how long food has been grown "organically" without the supposed benefit of genetic modification?

    "Shut up, dumb ass. Allow Monsanto to imbue your crops with their own molecular-based pesticides and insecticides. Poison-drinking and poison-producing plants are GOOD for you, idiot! Shut up and drink your poison already; jeez."

    I'm about sick of dipshits like you referring to studies from groups whose sole purpose is to prove what they were paid to prove. Fuck the bullshit already, please -- do a little research instead of just believing what you read. Real scientists tell the truth with absolute disregard to political, social, or neighborhood consequence. Those men and women are the true rebels that a "free" society needs; they don't just do what they're told like weak ass bitches obeying their scum-fuck pimps. Real scientists give a shit about the QUALITY of their conclusions, not just the pay-off they receive from obtaining those conclusions.

    1. Re:Disease-ridden "organic" food...? by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      What are you claiming? That if food is not genetically modified it is not safe to eat? When the fuck were you born?

      He's probably talking about things like "organically" spreading "organic fertilizer," i.e., "shit," on the produce that is then sold to the consumer to eat. Unfortunately, even 100% organic non-GMO antibiotics-free shit can make you sick enough to die.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
  70. "No to GMO" by xigxag · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile if some weird corn or wheat fungus emerged that threatened to bring massive starvation to first world countries, people would be blaming geneticists for not developing modified crops fast enough.

    --
    There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
    1. Re:"No to GMO" by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      You mean like Ug99, the wheat fungus that could kill millions if it gets even worse? I guarantee you, these anti-GMO morons in rich developed countries would be the first to start screaming for this technology if THEY were the ones who had to go to bed hungry. But when some poor schmuck in Africa or Asia starves to death or gets some nasty medical condition like blindness because of malnutrition, well, that's ok, as long as we aren't tainting the nature goddess's purity with evil technology, or some asinine bullshit like that. Out of sight out of mind.

  71. Our civilization's real life 12 Monkeys moment by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The problem here is that potentially we could have another terrible outbreak of something that destroys crops across the globe of stables like rice or potatoes (irish potato famine anyone?)

    By destroying such research, these groups are potentially dooming BILLIONS of people to starvation when the next wave of plat disease strikes.

    I'm sure they believe they are doing the right thing but they endanger us all.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  72. Not playing fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's another demonstration of the hypocrisy of the environmental movement. This has been going on in Europe for a very long time. In America the location of these trials is kept secret but in Europe it's public information.

    In the USA when GMO's were first legally grown the British critics said we need to run these trials ourselves, we can't trust American process. That's perfectly fine if that's what happened. But the activists then proceeded to destroy the trials while at the same time proclaiming they couldn't be used without scientfic research. That's similar to someone murdering their parents and then asking consideration at sentencing because they're an orphan.

    You can't prove something if your opponents won't let you complete a trial. Note that the environmentalists complete that by making an entirely emotional appeal. A careful examination of the facts clearly show there is zero basis for their beliefs.

  73. Stepping back by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bad day for scientific research? No. It's set back of limited duration.
    Is GM food "bad"? Dunno, jury's still out on that and it really depends which camp you want to listen to.
    Is the licensing and patenting of GM crops bad? Oh hell yes. The goal of "crop lock-in" is real, demonstrated and rather scary IMO.
    Would this be a good time to discuss licensing or policies to halt this type of corporate behavior? Definitely. In fact it's so long overdue we may have passed the tipping point five years ago.

    For your consideration:
    Haitian rice
    Monsanto Lawsuit / canola
    Monsanto Lawsuit / soybeans
    Patented disease
    University gene patents

    I think that this imbroglio underscores the need to limit or do away with gene patents, as there is little chance that the men in white coats (or the ones in black suits that pay them) will stop their tinkering, and I'm not sure that it needs to stop.

    --
    Some days it's just not worth
    chewing through my restraints.
    1. Re:Stepping back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is GM food "bad"? Dunno, jury's still out on that and it really depends which camp you want to listen to.

      If the camp you're listening to has a financial interest in the verdict, I'd take whatever they say with a grain of salt.

    2. Re:Stepping back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OOH you used the phrase 'tipping point' so you must be learn-ed and korrekt!

    3. Re:Stepping back by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Plant varieties have been patented for a long time, ask any rose grower. If it pisses you off that a plant you want to grow is under patent, then wait for the patent to expire. Why are you so impatient?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    4. Re:Stepping back by Kentari · · Score: 1

      The set back is indeed limited: The field is not completly lost and the scientists involved have stated the trial will continue. In addition the Flemish goverment committed another 250.000 Euro to further fund the project. The reason this is a bad day for science is that a very small group tried and almost succeeded in destroying scientific research. The immediate consequence is that it just became a lot more expensive to carry out this kind of research (now added security must be budgeted as well) and money is diverted away from research and future projects may be canceled entirely because of this. A small group of fundamentalists destroying the ability to do research is a very bad day for science indeed.

      The irony is that this research was publicly funded and carried out by the University of Ghent especially to keep this kind of knowledge from being monopolized and patented by Monsanto & co.

      One of the activists claimed during an interview that GMO's are bad because there are no field tests. So they tried to destroy this field test. That's how fucked up they are...

    5. Re:Stepping back by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      "wait for the patent to expire."

      +5, Funny.

    6. Re:Stepping back by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      Is GM food "bad"? Dunno, jury's still out on that and it really depends which camp you want to listen to.

      You could just as easily replace 'Are GMOs bad' with 'Do vaccines cause autism' or 'Is evolution real' and get the same conclusion for the same reasons. Just because there are two conflicting sides does not mean the jury is still out on an issue, as one side may be entirely wrong. If you ask any scientist in a relevant field, odds are they've pro-GMO. I'm at a major university in plant biology/agriculture, and of all the plant biology and agriculture and biochemistry and molecular biology and genetics experts I've met, not one has been even remotely anti-GMO; in fact, many strongly support it, some very much so. On the other hand, if you ask some uneducated activist, odds are they will be anti-GMO. But you need to realize that the opinions of those two groups, quite frankly, are not equal. People don't like being told that not everyone's take on something is equal, but it's true, ignorance isn't a point of view.

  74. What the heck is wrong with GM potatoes, anyway? by gmarsh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Other than, "it's new and people don't fully understand it" ? Or, ?

    If people had that same mindset/fear of the unknown that they did when penicillin and vaccines came out, I think we'd be seriously fucked as a human race.

    I seem to remember the potato blight being a terrible thing that killed millions of people in the Irish/Scottish/European famines. And I personally know a family in Newfoundland who were farmers - several years back their potato crop contracted late blight, antifungals didn't help, they lost the crop and ended up bankrupt at the end of it. A blight resistant strain of potatoes seems like a pretty fantastic idea to me.

    Besides, the more food that we grow that doesn't need antifungals, pesticides and other "of course they're toxic, they wouldn't work otherwise" chemicals sprayed on it for it to grow, the better. I'd eat a GM vegetable any day over that.

    (Mind you, I'm personally against engineering salmon to be 10 times bigger and growing them in offshore fish farms. Grow that shit in an inland fish farm where it's guaranteed that they won't take over and fuck up an ecosystem.)

  75. There is no Rule of Law; its just a phrase by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Some nations are better than others, but in the USA the "Rule of Law" is just a phrase used when it sounds nice; seemingly, the people who use it more respect it less.

    Reality is that the law which was initially something a citizen could comprehend and manage, it has grown into a job protection jargon and raised in complexity for political, power, and for extortion. Politicians are usually lawyers so they are trained in the game and they create complicated things they can later become consultants on or to help some benefactors. It can be made complex enough that even experts have a difficult time unless they created it. Its much easier to create mazes than it is solve them.

    The most powerful lobby is the lawyers. Here in the USA, the legal code is so vast and complex just about anybody is likely in violation of something (depending upon how hard one looks.) Legal procedure is made overly complicated and the power of juries and judges to reason is greatly undermined and narrowed with the excuse of their errors but never mentioning that policies are brain dead rules where 1 size fits all which grossly oversimplify reality down to the level of some hollywood B movie.

    We all see the rich and powerful get almost no punishment, conviction, or even prosecution while some powerless citizen is "made an example of" with inequitable "punishment" and even more insane we call the system "corrections" as if it does treatment and re-education.

    Then we have large scale systematic idiocy like the black and white approach to crime and punishment. Mental cases largely get treated as if they are some "evil" person and locked up with the sane people and THEN RELEASED after a fixed time period!! A pedophile is sick in the head, if not "cured" they should be in for LIFE; drugged or whatever treatments fit their condition. Sure, there are error rates and we often use imperfection as an excuse to screw things up and make it worse. There is no utopia, when will the public wake up? I bet the schizophrenics off their meds do LESS harm than when we locked them all up for fixed time periods; at least in the public they CONTRIBUTE $35k per year average instead of costing $40k per year to jail.

  76. Not safe enough for testing out of a containment f by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, GMO experiments should and must be performed in a location such as Plum Island where there is absolutely no danger of plasmid release off the island. Plant genetics is not sufficiently understood to test engineered mutants in the wild or in a setting where they can escape the containment and once released they become wild and uncontrollable. I have applauded Europe's general resistance to GMO foods. I am a biowarfare defense scientist and can safely state that engineered mutants are never absolutely understood even when tested in the lab. One can never tell the unexpected results when populations mix. That is why places like Plum Island exist although the FDA hasn't tested GMO crops there for a very long time. Now that it is owned and operated by Homeland Security perhaps this may change and these kinds of crops can be tested safely in an environment sufficiently similar to the natural world to be able to ascertain after many years if there are any unforeseen results.

  77. What if you can't choose not to buy it? by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well in Canada consumer groups wanted the government to require genetically modified foods to be labelled as such - so consumers could choose. The government refused. Why? Because people might be scared off and not buy it.

    Part of me doesn't like the kind of mob action described in the summary but OTOH if governments are going to choose the well being of corporations over the rights of citizens to know what they are eating... it kind of seems like they are asking for this sort of thing to occur.

    --
    The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    1. Re:What if you can't choose not to buy it? by w_dragon · · Score: 1

      How do you define genetically modified? Who checks that they label correctly? Is intentional cross-pollination genetic modification? Does it have to be done in a laboratory setting? If I intentionally introduce a virus am I performing genetic modification, since that's how viruses work?

    2. Re:What if you can't choose not to buy it? by Duradin · · Score: 1

      You should ask the Dutch about their tulips. They were doing GM (via viruses) way back then.

    3. Re:What if you can't choose not to buy it? by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      Who checks that they label correctly?

      Who checks that they label correctly (for protein, fat, calories, % RDA etc.) now?

      Is intentional cross-pollination genetic modification?

      I don't know - is it? Is it creating genes that never existed in that species before?

      Does it have to be done in a laboratory setting?

      Yes almost certainly it will be done in a laboratory setting. That is the best way to arrive at patentable material and gain control of the food chain.

      If I intentionally introduce a virus am I performing genetic modification, since that's how viruses work?

      If that is your intention (to create a species with a different genetic code).

      I'm sure we can come up with reasonable definitions... for example if you are gene splicing from one species into another. If it creates an organism sufficiently different from all prior organisms that it can be patented.

      I think it would be interesting to see how many of the people who froth and foam because of copyright enforcement of digital media see no problem with patenting food. Or taking risks with the food chain such as GM organisms cross pollinating with non-GM organisms.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    4. Re:What if you can't choose not to buy it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OTOH, the people that actually care that much will find out which foods contain that stuff. I'm not sure safe foods should get a government mandated stamp that would appear to be a health warning. That's a good way to make sure a product never sells, scare people about a whole range of foods that are (thus far) safe, and in effect, enact a backdoor ban on these foods.

      Now if one product might pose an allergy risk to someone who has another allgery (like the soy/brazil nut thing), then the food should contain a warning like any food with peanut allergy warnings. That's just an obvious safety thing, to my mind, and not the same as, "ZOMG CONTAINS 3% SCARY SCIENCE LAB FOOD".

    5. Re:What if you can't choose not to buy it? by Yaur · · Score: 1

      how are they going to find out? at least here in the US there is no requirement to label GM foods and I think it is illegal to label non-GM food as such. So if you go to the produce section how are you going to know which potatoes, corn, etc are genetically modified?

    6. Re:What if you can't choose not to buy it? by Zibodiz · · Score: 1

      This is the most sensible comment on this article. The problem was started by the big businesses, infuriated by the governments, then retaliated by the people. They may go too far with retaliation, but the problem here didn't start with the protesters.

    7. Re:What if you can't choose not to buy it? by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      Yeah, interesting isn't it? You can label food as "Organic", as "Fair Trade", as "Mountain Grown!", as "Contains PYSLLIUM!!!!" etc. etc. but for some reason you can't label it "non-GM" or "Produced using only non-genetically modified crops"... seems kind of bizarre to make that one restriction given all the other kinds of labelling allowed.... whose interests are being served I wonder?

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    8. Re:What if you can't choose not to buy it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they're dangerous, and there's proof of it, then there's no need to differentiate from the regular stuff at all.

      Look, you don't really have to buy this stuff, just send it to third world countries that actually need it. If you can be this picky, then you don't know what hunger is.

    9. Re:What if you can't choose not to buy it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because there's nothing special at all about GMO food. If there's no health impact, they should not be required to disclose.

      As a hypothetical example, I could demand to know if any of the input products came from Saskatchewan, claiming the right to know what I'm eating, but unless I have some evidence to show that things from Saskatchewan may have an impact on my health, the government's not going to make disclosure mandatory.

      Continuing this hypothetical, if Manitoba-based food providers want to stamp '100% made in Manitoba' on their food, that's their prerogative. They shouldn't be allow to make false claims, but they should be free to make true ones. Saskatchewan-based food providers wouldn't be able to claim that, because it would be false, though they wouldn't have to disclose that their food is from Saskatchewan.

      Now, if there's evidence that GMO foods are different from other foods in important ways that are not reflected in the currently mandated disclosure, then that's all moot.

    10. Re:What if you can't choose not to buy it? by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      then that's all moot.

      It's all moot anyhow - people should have the right not to be experimented on - because how do you know it has no dangerous effects until it has been consumed by a generation? Non-GM food has demonstrated safety (or danger for that matter) because of the length of time it has been consumed. Not quite the same thing as "look let's diddle this gene and see what happens... hey nobody died after two years? OK fine let's feed it to everybody then."

      And people should have the right to know what they are eating... period, end of story.

      Finally your analogy (made in Manitoba) doesn't fit because the government won't allow food producers to put "100% Non GM" on their products.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    11. Re:What if you can't choose not to buy it? by Yaur · · Score: 1

      All of your examples have more to do with marketing than they do with anything tangible, but when it comes to specifics like rgbh, disease testing, and GMOs the government is fairly consistent about being pro-agribusiness and anti-consumer.

    12. Re:What if you can't choose not to buy it? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      What is GM food? Just about every crop we use has been modified over the centuries. If you ever found the ancestors of corn, chickens, and potatoes you would find they are very different from what we grow and eat today. In many ways all the problems people worry about with GM crops are still with us from the standard crops including the destruction of the orignal plants.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    13. Re:What if you can't choose not to buy it? by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      the government is fairly consistent about being pro-agribusiness and anti-consumer.

      Uh, that is what I have been saying.

      All of your examples have more to do with marketing

      All my examples have to do with the amazing variety of things companies are allowed to stick on their packaging and the one (relevant) thing that they are prevented from putting on. What legitimate interest does government have in interfering in this?

      The point is that you can't decide not to buy GM food if you can't look at the package and see whether or not it is GM food. Every other label and claim is allowed but this is specifically prohibited. Ought to make anyone suspicious.

      OK: "Contains Flouristat 9000!"
      NOT OK: "Contains flour from genetically modified wheat."

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    14. Re:What if you can't choose not to buy it? by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      I've already commented on this - please see my previous comments.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    15. Re:What if you can't choose not to buy it? by Reblet · · Score: 1

      Certainly GMOs should be labeled as such so that consumers can make an informed choice and pressing governments to introduce such legislation should be encouraged. However, in Belgium, EU laws clearly state that products which contain GMOs must be labelled as such. In addition genetically modified crops must be handled in such a way that 'normal' crops are not affected. So in this case it would seem that these activists were not so much concerned with regulation but rather with the very existence of these GMO crops. http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/regulation/regulatory_process/156.european_regulatory_system_genetic_engineering.html

    16. Re:What if you can't choose not to buy it? by fredmosby · · Score: 1

      If the government requires GMO food to be labeled people might assume there is evidence that GMO food is dangerous. It would make more sense for producers of non-GMO food to label it that way.

    17. Re:What if you can't choose not to buy it? by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they will assume it is superior... "SOYLENT ORANGE! GENUINE GM FOOD!"... let's not decide whether or not to accurately label something because people *might* not interpret it the way you want them to.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    18. Re:What if you can't choose not to buy it? by fredmosby · · Score: 1

      In order to have 'accurately labeled' foods by those standards every product sold would need to have fifty different labels describing the various properties of the food that goes in it. This would cause consumers to stop reading government mandated labels, including actual warning labels.

      If the government mandates labeling GMOs, but all the other mandatory labels are warnings, people who haven't studied the issue will assume 'may contain GMOs' is also a warning.

    19. Re:What if you can't choose not to buy it? by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      If the government mandates labeling GMOs, but all the other mandatory labels are warnings, people who haven't studied the issue will assume 'may contain GMOs' is also a warning.

      As I said: let's not decide whether or not to accurately label something because people *might* not interpret it the way you want them to.

      I suppose I can add to that: let's not decide whether or not to accurately label something because you think "people who haven't studied the issue" *might* not react the way you want them to.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
  78. And its a great day for my stomach by unity100 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    after seeing what the genetically modified crap monsanto propagates around (curiously after a while the crap propagates itself without help from anyone), this is a win for my stomach.

    http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/13/0328221/Organ-Damage-In-Rats-From-Monsanto-GMO-Corn?art_pos=1

    https://www.facebook.com/notes/wood-prairie-farm/the-complete-text-of-dr-don-m-hubers-letter-to-usda-secretary-vilsak/197340006962367

    http://vimeo.com/22997532

    1. Re:And its a great day for my stomach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The crops had nothing to do with Monsanto. This was university research.

    2. Re:And its a great day for my stomach by unity100 · · Score: 1

      all the same. genetically modifying an ENTIRE species that has evolved through billions of years in tandem with other species, is not something logical. it is NOT something logical.

  79. Who is "we"? by DesScorp · · Score: 1

    "Thanks, but no thanks, we don't want your GMO anymore, we saw what it does."

      Speak for yourself, and not for the rest of us.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  80. straw man much? (Stopping Science/Thought) by feepcreature · · Score: 1

    If you are so terrified of a universe humans understand, shed the hypocrisy.

    This seems like a straw man argument. While there may be wild-eyed protesters with ill thought out objections to change, it's crazy to pretend that everyone who disagrees with you does so for the poorest of reasons:

    Don't like genetics research because it isn't natural?

    At least some of the objections are because

    • the rate of change of genetic material is very high, and genetic interactions are hard to predict, so slow to detect harmful effects seem hard to rule out
    • the tests are often out in the open, and if there are harmful effects, the pollen will already have escaped into the wild
    • the eventually produced GM food is not clearly labelled (thanks, lobbyists & industry) so the "market" aka consumers can't really decide.

    Unnatural is not the only objection - it's not even a good one.

    Don't like stem cell research because it is an affront to God?

    At least some of the objections are because

    • For human embryonic stem cell research, some critics believe that the enbryos which die to produce the stem cells are actual humans. You may not agree with that judgement, but it's about respect for human life, not necessarily what some clergy say.

    There is no stopping science.

    There can and sometimes must be. During the last world war, scientists performed all sorts of barbaric experiments on those they thought of as less human. In very very few of these cases, useful science was produced. In more recent decades, coloured people in the americas were deliberately infected with diseases by scientists, to "advance medical knowledge". But it is ethically unacceptable to treat humans in that way. In third world countries, drug studies are carried out that would be unethical in the west.

    Sometimes scientists need to be stopped. Science is not the supreme good.

    --
    Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
  81. Prohibited != Impossible by MaizeMan · · Score: 1

    As all slashdotters know, no one EVER violates IP restrictions.

    More seriously, yes intellectual property law is broken. But the one great thing about patents is that they still expire (in reasonable lengths of time, unlike copyrights).

    Right when it first became possible to patent hybrid crops there was a big rush by the seed companies to do just that. But to do that one of the requirements was that they deposit seed with the ATCC, and now you can order all the inbreds you'd need to make your own copies of those hybrids from the ATCC website (which yes costs some money) but once you have the seed in had you can happily propagate the inbred parents and produce your own hybrid seed from now until the sun burns out without paying anyone a dime. Of course your hybrid seed would be a coupe decades out of date, so it won't perform as well as modern ones (and that's the reason not many people do this). But it'd be yours free and clear of any patents on plant variants or transgenes.

    1. Re:Prohibited != Impossible by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Funnily enough the ATCC uses me for landrace preservation.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  82. I think fighting GM food is the right thing by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    I will be honest that I don't know enough about how they genetically manipulated specifically these potatoes but I find the whole idea of directly genetically engineering food is bloody scary when you consider _all_ the risks and potential disadvantages.
    I know that hybridising and cross breeding for selective traits has been going on for millenia and the food crops we have today wouldn't ever have evolved naturally, however direct modification of the core organic mechanisms of our food is a whole other level. Doing it while at the same time admitting we don't know everything is plain crazy.

    Apart from the whole safety of our food issues, do we really want our whole food ecosystem to be under tight patent control by megacorps like Monsanto?

    History shows us over and over that with any decision made by a megacorp, maximising profit is the ONLY factor. Morality, safety, common sense and whats actually the best for the people/planet NEVER affect corporate decisions.

    1. Re:I think fighting GM food is the right thing by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      will be honest that I don't know enough about how they genetically manipulated specifically these potatoes but I find the whole idea of directly genetically engineering food is bloody scary when you consider _all_ the risks and potential disadvantages.
      I know that hybridising and cross breeding for selective traits has been going on for millenia and the food crops we have today wouldn't ever have evolved naturally, however direct modification of the core organic mechanisms of our food is a whole other level. Doing it while at the same time admitting we don't know everything is plain crazy.

      Like what? I mean, it really isn't that big of a deal, it's just inserting a few genes. It isn't like this is going to cause some sort of crazy chain reaction or something. If that were possible, we'd all be dead already - 30% of the human genome is inserted leftover viral genes. No, you can't know anything with omnipotence, but also keep in mind that you can't live in perpetual fear of unknown unknowns that probably don't exist. I mean, you could have made that exact same argument against the smallpox vaccine, and no one could prove it wrong, but without evidence, there would be no reason to think so. I'm studying plants and plant biotech, and I have never seen a convincing peice of evidence to suggest GMOs are dangerous. I've seen some pretty crappy studies claiming it, hears some guys lying their assess off to sell their new books, but nothing convincing. It is true that we don't know everything, but we don't know everything about normal breeding either. And I simply don't understand how moving around one gene is inherently more unpredictable than moving around thousands of genes. Yes, genetic engineering is new and different, but it isn't that far removed, and it can cross species barriers, I do not see how that is relevant outside an appeal to nature fallacy. Plants don't care where they got their genes from, they really don't, and once a trasngene has integrated into the genome, it's just the same as any other gene basically. All the concern about companies and stuff is fine, but about the science itself, it is hugely misplaced.

      Apart from the whole safety of our food issues, do we really want our whole food ecosystem to be under tight patent control by megacorps like Monsanto?

      History shows us over and over that with any decision made by a megacorp, maximising profit is the ONLY factor. Morality, safety, common sense and whats actually the best for the people/planet NEVER affect corporate decisions.

      This was government research.

    2. Re:I think fighting GM food is the right thing by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> Like what? I mean, it really isn't that big of a deal, it's just inserting a few genes.

      I can easily imagine that kind of thinking will become:
      a) scarily common
      b) the last thing some crazy scientist says before unwittingly unleashing global genocide.

  83. Uhhh... by DG · · Score: 1

    I digest cow's milk just fine, thank you.

    Is there a correlation between lactose intolerance and an inability to process logic?

    DG

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    1. Re:Uhhh... by stanlyb · · Score: 0

      Apparently you logic is.....lost....... I cannot drink milk, as well as most of adults. and 99% of the babies. And pleeeeeease, pleeeeease, don't ever ever give your baby a cow milk. I beg you, PLEASE.

    2. Re:Uhhh... by russotto · · Score: 1

      Apparently you logic is.....lost....... I cannot drink milk, as well as most of adults. and 99% of the babies. And pleeeeeease, pleeeeease, don't ever ever give your baby a cow milk. I beg you, PLEASE.

      Other way around. Most babies can digest cow's milk just fine, most adults (worldwide) can't. Lactose tolerance is an example of neoteny, where adults retain juvenile characteristics

    3. Re:Uhhh... by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 1

      Wow, you are an willfully ignorant moron. What do you think babies drink? Do yourself a favor read up on lactose intolerance, and it's history. Of any group of humans that doesn't need to worry about drink milk(almost regardless of it's source mammal), babies are it.

      --
      brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
    4. Re:Uhhh... by cvtan · · Score: 1

      If you can't drink milk, then don't drink it. Leave the rest of us alone. And of course babies drink milk all the time.

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
  84. A Sad Day in the History of Slashdot by hydrofix · · Score: 0

    Whoa. The amount of political bias of this story is just absolutely baffling. Have you ever heard of ethics of technology? By the logic of this story's submitter, the sadistic Nazi human and animal experiments were absolutely legit science, and someone disturbing them in the name of a resistance movement, a Luddite.

    There are enormous risks involved with genetically engineered plants in the wild. The big capital involved in GM food research has been largely successful in silencing or marginalizing their opposition by a process that is hardly too democratic. These people are heroes, exercising civil disobedience in defense of the most valuable we have - the nature itself.

    GM food companies are also in the forefront of lobbying new Intellectual Property legislation, such as patenting genes and even whole strains of species. If the software ecosystem has been hit so severely by monopolizing patents, how bleak does the future of life on this planet seem, if it has to fight off similar burdens of proprietary opportunism?

  85. Good on them by Dasher42 · · Score: 1

    By genetic manipulation, you might think Mendelian genetic selection with a little extra juice, but when you're talking plants with animal genes that secrete pesticides that wipe out other key species and are cross-pollinating into the wild, and have health implications? That have weird switches on the seed to insure that farmers are completely dependent on suppliers like Monsanto?

    When the inter-generational studies that haven't, by definition, been done in humans are done in hamsters, yield frightening results? http://www.naturalhealth365.com/food/lorem-ipsum-is-simply-dummy-text.html

    Biggest thing of all that I would expect the Slashdot crowd to be wise to, when we're talking a whole food supply built on plants modified with *patented* genes?

    When it's like that I say the FLM come off as heroes!

  86. You do realize that.... by DG · · Score: 1, Informative

    ....EVERY crop grown for human consumption has been generically modified?

    EVERY SINGLE ONE.

    There is not a single food staple crop that exists in its as-evolved state. Every single crop has been changed by humans to better suit us.

    Most of them were done over time, through breeding programs. Recently, it has been possible to speed up the process using more direct methods. But the same process has been going on since the Sumerians discovered agriculture some 6000 years ago,

    And you are calling people "morons"? Glass houses, mon ami.

    DG

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    1. Re:You do realize that.... by PReDiToR · · Score: 1

      Most of them were done over time, through breeding programs.

      Important because

      Recently, it has been possible to speed up the process using more direct methods.

      If insects or the wind are spreading sterile (because their payload is copyrighted or whatever) seed/pollen around the world, we're gonna be SOL when it comes to plants that will survive to feed the one or two pockets of our species that survives the next ice age.

      Put more money into getting off this rock and into environments where this kind of technology won't kill the homeworld and is actually vital to survival, not just for catering to overpopulation and bad political decisions about farming.

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
  87. Actually, it's a GOOD day for safe food. by REALMAN · · Score: 1

    The people don't want their food to be genetically modified. The purpose of genetically modifying food is to patent crops with the result being the control of all food by companies like Monsanto. We don't want them to control our food. We don't want to have to use their seed when we can save our own seed. If the government refuses to listen to the will of the people then the people have every right and even the responsibility to destroy those crops to protect themselves and their future generations.

    --
    - A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
    1. Re:Actually, it's a GOOD day for safe food. by the+linux+geek · · Score: 1

      This was research by the Belgian government into developing potatoes resistant to disease.

      Where are the Generic Evil Megacorps in this story?

    2. Re:Actually, it's a GOOD day for safe food. by brillow · · Score: 1

      Then don't plant Monsanto crops. Monsanto isn't forcing people to buy anything. It just happens they have the best varieties.

      I mean, if Monsanto was offering people such a bad business proposition, why would they be doing it?

  88. Bravo. by DG · · Score: 1

    Well said.

    DG

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
  89. Different in many countries by tanveer1979 · · Score: 1

    For example, in India hybrid varieties are mostly produced by govt funded universities.
    Farmers are free to re-use seed without fear or persecution from law.

    --
    My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
    FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
  90. I find it funny that you are so uneducated. by REALMAN · · Score: 1

    Refusing to buy GM foods is IMPOSSIBLE. GM foods aren't labeled as GM foods. You have no way to know that any food item you buy is GM. I also find it funny that you are so uneducated as to be totally ignorant of the fact that companies like Monsanto create these GM foods in order to force farmers to buy their seed (yes potatoes are just like seed and are used to grow new potatoes). Companies like Monsanto contaminate the farms of those who refuse to buy seed from them with their PATENTED GM seeds then they SUE those farmers for using their PATENTED seeds when they were the ones who contaminated the land through cross pollination accomplished by merely driving by a field and throwing a handful of their patented seed in the field. These people are HEROES and should be commended for their service to humanity for destroying these evil crops.

    --
    - A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
  91. Re:Conflated Arguments by stanlyb · · Score: 1

    I want to hear the well supported claim that the GM food is safe. With tests, statistics, etc. Please.

  92. What natural veggies? by westlake · · Score: 1

    it might be a sad day for scientific research, but it's a good day for the freedom of eating natural veggies.

    Like sweet yellow corn?

    The fruits and vegetables you eat can be thousands of years removed from their wild kin. Most, I suspect, like Golden Bantam, or the Fordhook Lima Bean, are little older than this century.

  93. Re:Clearly you don't understand the problem w/GM f by MrJones · · Score: 1

    We humans are not perfect, so we still can not separate those 2 topics.

    --
    Get my e-mail after a captcha test in: http://tinymailt
  94. Re:Clearly you don't understand the problem w/GM f by MrJones · · Score: 1

    lol, you're right. But you get the point right?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato#Growth_and_cultivation

    --
    Get my e-mail after a captcha test in: http://tinymailt
  95. LOL by FatSean · · Score: 1

    Such outrage! I see you disagree with these people and are trying your best to paint them as the boogey-man-word of decade I'm more concerned with the terrorism being practiced by the US Government in the middle east.

    --
    Blar.
  96. I am no environmentalist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Green is mostly a sham. We aren't running out of oil, and WE are not causing global warming. That would be the Sol's job.

    That aside, I find GMO foods being released to be offensive, and the idea of food corporations releasing for instance GMO Salmon into the wild to be preposterous, and frankly should be a crime. Your body is composed of 21 amino acids for all of the proteins that comprise it, genetically altered food has added many hundreds of amino acids. That alone is worthy of a battery of extraordinary, and long term testing. What do they do, other than making a crop disease resistant? Who knows? Who cares? Testing alone isn't enough in this case either, especially the paltry testing that our companies are so well known for. We should actually understand all of the genes in the human body, and all of the structures of every aspect of the cellular machinery, so that we could accurately predict what effect it would, or would not have. Until we can do this even much more thorough testing would still be a game of chance.

    You want GMO food? Fine, make your choice. On the condition that you label it. I won't be eating that garbage, and frankly no one should tolerate someone else making that decision for them. Sure 'scientists' claim...'Scientists' have claimed many, many stupid things, most of them wrong historically.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#United_States

    Growing GMO anything should frankly be treated as a biohazard, in regard to tolerance for labeling, since it may very well be in the long term. If any of you believe that our current testing for food or drugs to be adequate, then you are ignorant:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_effects_of_fluoroquinolones

    Oops, how did that one slip through the 'testing'?

    The FDA says that it is so pervasive that no company can claim to not have GM ingredients:
    http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/millenium/fdadisallowsgmo-freelabel.php

    Sending a bunch of Jackboots to keep Stonyfield from using a 'GMO Free' label, while allowing GMO Salmon into the wild is horseshit. Keep your McDonald's business model. I will support companies that pay attention to more than their bottom line.

  97. Unintended consequences by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    This is a classic case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. I'll bet these ecoterrorists will turn right around and bitch about how people are dying of starvation in sub-Saharan countries. They are NIMBYs. They have the same warped moral compass as those yelling and screaming for "green" energy but will fight tooth and nail to keep a wind farm or solar plant from going up in their neighborhood. These are the same people who demand that we all buy from local farmers but will file lawsuits to stop the same farmers from drilling new water wells. These are the same people that claim Cuba has the best healthcare system or that North Korea is a "worker's paradise" yet won't emigrate there to prove it to the rest of us.

    1. Re:Unintended consequences by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Ignoring the issue is, by definition, Ignorant behavior.

      This is a classic case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. I'll bet these ecoterrorists will turn right around and bitch about how people are dying of starvation in sub-Saharan countries. They are NIMBYs. They have the same warped moral compass as those yelling and screaming for "green" energy but will fight tooth and nail to keep a wind farm or solar plant from going up in their neighborhood. These are the same people who demand that we all buy from local farmers but will file lawsuits to stop the same farmers from drilling new water wells. These are the same people that claim Cuba has the best healthcare system or that North Korea is a "worker's paradise" yet won't emigrate there to prove it to the rest of us.

      These are the same people concerned with the unknown consequences of too quickly introducing new organisms to new environments. These are the same people who would be able to roast American chestnuts over an open fire while Jack Frost was nipping at their noses, but now can't thanks to introduction of a new species in our collective American back yards.

      These are the same people who can read a history book and find accounts of races of people becoming effectively extinct after only briefly encountering another people carrying a few diseases they had no resistance against. These are the same people who would be foolish to have casual sex without wearing condoms in order to avoid diseases that were once only threatening to another species, but now are harmful or deadly to ours.

      And that's really all I know about these people.

      You are the kind of person (not the same as saying "the same people/person") that belongs to a political "faction", and points fingers at the others; Grouping others with terrorists, rapists, or whatever will advance their political agenda, while not having any factual evidence to support your claims. You are the kind of person that fails to realize that all political "factions" are just gears in the same machine advancing towards the same goal. We're all in this together, and people who share your penchant for uninformed divisionism are tearing the world apart.

      You are the same person that has picked a side of an issue, yet has probably not fully considered the concerns of the other side.

      You are the same person that has argued your stance via deflection: Name calling instead of logic and reason.

      You are the same person that has come to the ridiculous conclusion that these "Eco terrorists" are the same people that support socialized health care, green energy, local farming, and bitch about "starvation in sub-Saharan countries".

      You are the same person that needs to re-evaluate their outlook on the world, because your current practice of ignorant finger-pointing is just as ineffective as any Political Party would have you be.

    2. Re:Unintended consequences by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      You are the same kind of person that brought back preventable diseases like measles because some vacuous fear based argument is all it takes to make you stop thinking rationally. These people did nothing noble. They're just science hating thugs who complain about corporations while destroying completely unrelated research and ignoring the mountains of evidence proving them wrong.

  98. Re:Clearly you don't understand the problem w/GM f by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    lol, you're right. But you get the point right?

    My grandparents (immigrants from Europe) started US life as potato farmers in American Falls, Idaho... I'm all too familiar with the growing patterns - and harvesting - of potatoes! Plenty of relatives who still do it...

    But this is a great example - idiot feel-good-anti-GM folks who attack EXACTLY the wrong crop, to try to make a point. They're so upset about the "corruption of science" and how it's "destroying our food system" that they show their scientific AND farming ignorance and destroy potatoes. Ignorance all around, and then they wonder why much of the populace who could actually care, simply ignore their rantings. Might as well go out and start a campaign to ban dihydrogen monoxide since it kills hundreds of thousands every year...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  99. GM Crops only used for control of food supply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go watch the documentary "The Future Of Food". Here's some points:

    1. GM Food allows for the patenting of life
    2. Stops farmers from sharing seeds and using seeds from their grown crop
    3. Stops farmers who want to do organic food because of cross pollination that is then used to force them to start growing GM Crops through endless lawsuits
    4. Farmers who do grow GM Food now have extra costs including having to pay for seeds for the first time ever
    5. GM Crops that were advertised in India as being a cost saving caused many farmers to go bankrupt and commit suicide
    6. Except for in the US, GM Crops are not really grown elsewhere
    7. In the US, GM Crops are subsidized so you're paying for them whether you like it or not
    8. In the US, Organic food is much more expensive because of the subsidizing of GM Crops
    9. In the US, the approach was "Is GM Food dangerous?", while the rest of the world asked "Is GM Food safe?"
    10. Only in the US does it not require labeling of food that is GM so consumers can't even make the decision not to buy GM Food

  100. Re:Clearly you don't understand the problem w/GM f by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

    Not granting patents for GMO would eliminate most if not all of the concern here.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  101. Science or fascism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Genetic dictatorship meet scorched earth.

  102. There is an accountability issue by etudiant · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The absence of control over the cross fertilization from GM plants is a legitimate issue that is thus far not adequately addressed.
    People breeding pure strains that are inadvertently contaminated from adjacent GM plants may see their business destroyed with no recourse. This has happened in the case of some orange growers. It also is a concern for those seeking to market GM free vegetables that command market premiums.
    Thus far, the proponents of GM plants have essentially had a free ride on this issue and no consequential damages have been paid. This is unjust, as it puts the burden of adjustment on the injured party, rather than on the originator of the damage. When the law acts thus unjustly, people will respond similarly.
    I would not be happy either if someone moved a contamination source into my neighborhood and told me that adjusting to it was my problem.

  103. Re:Ah, my bad. Here's my excuse: by bky1701 · · Score: 1

    They became rioters, although I seriously question if that was not their intention. Organized, politically-motivated destruction of property... not so sure terrorism is the wrong term.

  104. Monsanto by jlbprof · · Score: 1

    Monsanto in the U.S. has made it illegal to label produce as "not" being genetically modified. There is no way to know if the produce we buy is GMO or normal. We have to assume it is. That has to stop. Allow us to be informed and make choices then I don't care. But when I serve my family corn or potatoes I want to know they are not GMO.

    --
    I go out of my way to complicate the simple things, so that I can simplify the complicated things.
    1. Re:Monsanto by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      That's not true. Go look at, say, Naked Juice. You can label something as non-GMO. You just don't have to label things as containing GMO products if they do. Just like you can label something as kosher or halal if you choose, but no one makes you label them as non-kosher or haram if you don't want to. You want to make an informed decision? Learn about it. Study the topic, and not from bullshit scare stories, but from an actual science text. You want everyone to label things so that you don't have to learn about it to support your magical thinking based superstitions about GMOs. Nope, not happening.

  105. i love it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what i love is that people are standing up for what they believe in. we stand back and say "well that's dumb" when in reality, for them, it's one of a few things they can do in order to send a "NO GMO" message.

    even if you don't understand or don't care, you have to respect someone with guts and drive to do something they feel strongly about.

    1. Re:i love it by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      even if you don't understand or don't care, you have to respect someone with guts and drive to do something they feel strongly about.

      Yeah, really? Do you "respect" neo-nazis and the Fred Phelps church too?

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
  106. What is a Luddite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google "Luddite":
    Def: Luddite
    noun
    Luddites, plural
    - A person opposed to increased industrialization or new technology
    - Someone who opposes technological change
    Usage of "Luddite" in a sentence:
    "A small-minded Luddite resisting progress"
    "This will be remembered as a Luddite moment ..., where fear triumphed over hope and ideology triumphed over science."
    These kinds of "environmentalists" are descended from a proud line of witch burners, flat-earthers, and, yes, Luddites. In the tradition of their forebears, in fear and ignorance, they fall back on their false beliefs, burning and denouncing that which they don't understand. Their default solution to the problem of hunger is not more food, but fewer people. Alas! If only we could choose to have fewer Luddites.

  107. more like victorius day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for the diversity of native plant life.
    A win for the poor man, and I hope a wake up for all companies trying to GM food to enrich their pocketbooks.
    melchoir is an asshat as well who probably supports monsanto and all their evilness.

  108. GMO companies are giving GMO a bad name by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    Everyone seems to have an opinion on this yet we don't have the capability to understand the long term evolutionary implications of human endeavours be it GMO or highly aggregate seed selection.. both place negative pressures on genetic diversity and can trigger large scale disruptions at any time.

      A GMO disaster could occur. A natural food disaster could also occur. Our current capability to predict the future is extremely poor. GMO companies with their rediculous IP schemes, lobbying/corruption, offloading of risk to farmers and "terminator gene" copy protection schemes all suck ass and deserve to be globally outlawed, disbanded and referred to the hauge for crimes against humanity.

    There are plenty of natural things that grow on trees, shrubs and in the ground that can make you sick or kill you. There are plenty of ways to engineer unsafe food that can produce the same effect.

    My personal view is rather than trying to legislate methods I would rather see time and energy spent into legislation and efforts that insured food is safe to eat without regard for "how" it was made. Natural does not mean good for you. Natural does not mean good for you....Natural does not mean... Capiche?

    Nature conducts genetic experiments automatically itself continually in the form of genetic mutation and evolution. This can and has lead to blights, invasive species and sometimes better versions of their parents. Globalization even before the age of direct genetic manipulation has wreck havoc on many ecosystems.

    Unfortunatly sustaining world population requires modern farming techniques. I think there is a way forward with some genetic tinkering if we are extremely careful and respectful of nature.

    Unfortunatly this is not happening due to regulatory environment that does not properly internalize externalities and government corruption/lobby activities.

  109. Thank God somebody stands up for humanity! by crhylove · · Score: 1

    I can't be the only one on slashdot who thinks this is great. Giant corporations are tampering with the fabric of life itself with virtually no safeguards or restraint. We need more of this.

    Amen! Down with the corporatocracy!!!

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    1. Re:Thank God somebody stands up for humanity! by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      So, what part of government funded trials aren't you understanding? No corporation owns an entire branch of science. That's like saying that any restaurant that cooks burgers is a McDonalds. By your logic, and I'm using the term logic very loosely, because I don't like Wal-Mart I should burn down the local mom & pop grocery.

    2. Re:Thank God somebody stands up for humanity! by crhylove · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure a mom & pop grocery would not fall under the category of giant corporation.

      --
      I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    3. Re:Thank God somebody stands up for humanity! by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      That's the point! This was government funded research, NOT a giant corporation. How often does that need to be said? Why do people think a single corporation owns biology itself? Destroying this research to get at Monsanto would be like burning down your local burger joint then standing back and saying 'I sure taught McDonalds a lesson.' No, you've lessened the competition, that's what you've done. These anti-GMO fucktards are always going on and on ad nauseum about how corporations are so bad and can't be trusted with this stuff, then they trash publicly funded research too, which basically means that the anti-corporate thing is just a mask for their science hating nature worship.

  110. Labeling laws by wfstanle · · Score: 1

    The problem with your reasoning is this...

    At least in the US, laws have been en acted to prevent GM content of foods. There are also laws against labeling non-GM foods that say only non-GM foods are used. The corporations praise the virtues of consumers making informed choices about what to buy. At the same time, they prevent the consumer from making an informed choice by keeping relevant information from them.

    1. Re:Labeling laws by wfstanle · · Score: 1

      Woops! I actually meant in the first sentence to read...

      At least in the US, laws have been enacted to prevent the labeling about GM content of foods.

      (I pressed the "submit" button instead of the "continue editing" button.)

  111. Re:What the heck is wrong with GM potatoes, anyway by VortexCortex · · Score: 0

    Other than, "it's new and people don't fully understand it" ? Or, ?

    This. Only the "people" that don't "fully understand it" are the scientists/biologists working to produce genetically modified organisms -- The other people panicking: Some are scientists that can at least admit their lack of knowledge -- others may have just read a few history books in grade-school.

    CHESTNUTS, Mother Fucker! Find An American One!

    All you self important "scientists/biologists" producing GM crops are dumb if you think you really know what you are doing today!
    Future "scientists" will look down their nose at you and say, "It wasn't their fault... They didn't really know what they were about to do."

    FACT: We are introducing these organisms into the global environment much faster than we should. More research is required, unfortunately the Profit making machine cares not about the science, they get the product to market faster than it should be.

    Hint: It only takes one biological fuck-up to kill a race or species. Don't take my word for it, ask the Incas. This is why History was required for your Science degrees, dumb-asses.

  112. Re:What the heck is wrong with GM potatoes, anyway by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

    "If people had that same mindset/fear of the unknown that they did when penicillin and vaccines came out, I think we'd be seriously fucked as a human race."

    As far as I know, they had. There were entire civil wars fighted by the pro and against vaccines populations.

    Also, you seem to be ignoring that most GM crops that reduce the need of pesticides do so by being toxig themselves.

  113. Re:Clearly you don't understand the problem w/GM f by MrJones · · Score: 1

    I don't know who "idiots" are you talking about.
    People protested and they do to make a point. If Monsanto loses some PR, that is not a back step for science.

    --
    Get my e-mail after a captcha test in: http://tinymailt
  114. Bravo!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Three cheers for these heroes ...

  115. Give me liberty or i'll set you on fire. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem with GM foods is that they are used outside, The winds carry the seeds or spores and contaminate anything within the winds' reach. It's simple property rights, and there unfortunately no laws in place to stop them from doing it. These people [activists] have every right to protect their property and keep it free from mutant plants intended to reap rewards from roundup sales and intellectual (not really property) property rights profits. Sure, our bodies can probably handle a some toxins and mutant food, but why do it in the first place? There are plenty of other solutions to yield problems besides rearranging genes and dumping toxic chemicals on our food.

  116. Couldn't be a farmer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I grew up with farmers They had no time for screwing around like this during the planting and growing season.

    Sounds like its people who have seen farms on TV and on the internet.

    In any event, some hard work is the ticket to learning to respect the property of other people.

  117. Use their methods against thwm by cela0811 · · Score: 1

    If they think spraying GM crops with herbicides is okay because they disagree with genetic modification, does that mean I can spray them with poison because I disagree with them?

  118. Patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To all the posters complaining about Monsanto taking over the world.
    This year their patent for RoundUp Ready soybeans runs out in Canada, meaning next year farmers can plant RR beans, keep the seed and plant it again the next year with no limitations.

    To counter this Monsanto introduced RoundUp Ready "2" beans, which are supposed to have better gene sequencing etc. etc. but of course has a fresh new patent on it. They are showing a slight yield advantage over the traditional RR beans but it will need to be significant to counter farmers planting their own seed.

  119. GM D'ough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The idea that this study was done in the name of empiricism is total horse $hit. I'm sorry, but this is product research done with little regard for the welfare of our food supply or the human population. GMO plants DO cross-pollinate with "regular" plants on a fairly regular basis (despite the wishes of the unwittingly copyright-infringing farmers). Europeans on the whole are much more hesitant about mass-produced food and GMO in particular. Furthermore, there are lots of non-GMO solutions to potato blight (e.g. don't mono-crop). With the American food lobbyists forcing this stuff into the EU, I think these people are taking appropriate action based on their views in dire circumstances. I wish more Americans would act like this.

    That being said, humans have been "genetically modifying their domesticated plants and animals for a long-time running (Punnett squares anyone?) but the talk of Terminator genes, the general untrustworthiness of American corporations. How about some more research about the drawbacks of GMO?

    Sidenote: I have been reading Slashdot (and the comments) for years but this is the first time I've felt compelled to comment.

  120. Re:Clearly you don't understand the problem w/GM f by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    So, what company controlled the seeds on that particular field?

  121. terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny how many people think saccaging a field of crops equates to terrorism. Looking for a reason police did not stop the "terrorists"? Because Belgium ain't Syria.

  122. We, THE HUMANS digest milk just fine... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    It is some GROUPS of humans that have problems with it. You know... those that weren't using cow milk for those couple of millennia that much.
    And even some among them are fine with it.

    So like... They don't teach about googling shit in your kindergarten?
    Or are you home-schooled, since you mention do "the very foundation of life", "the kernel" as you put it.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  123. Idiots Experimenting with the Food Supply by hackus · · Score: 1

    I would be in favor of GMO foods as long as they are:

    1) Not patented.
    2) Are marked.
    3) Cannot contaminate the biosphere with naturally growing varieties with some of the interesting side effect proteins they produce as part of the GMO process.

    If they really are superior foods, then people will naturally pick them. That is how the free market works.

    But for some reason, the large GMO companies don't want you to know what corn you eat is GMO.

    Why?

    ????

    -gc

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    1. Re:Idiots Experimenting with the Food Supply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your points are all spot on.

      Except for the thing about "The free market".

      A free-market without regulations of any kind would mean that I get to shoot you if you don't choose my product. Heck, I might just steal your wallet.

      That's the free market.

      The legal system regulates which behaviors are acceptable and which are not. Regulation is good.

      Without regulation, the Free Market is simply a return to the wild. Only predatorial personalities want to have us devolve back into wolves and rabbits. Free Market propaganda was written by the wolf.

    2. Re:Idiots Experimenting with the Food Supply by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 1

      If they really are superior foods, then people will naturally pick them. That is how the free market works.

      WRONG! If they really are superior money makers, then people will naturally pick them. Market is in the favor of money, not good products.

    3. Re:Idiots Experimenting with the Food Supply by Rayonic · · Score: 1

      1) Not patented.
      2) Are marked.
      3) Cannot contaminate the biosphere with naturally growing varieties with some of the interesting side effect proteins they produce as part of the GMO process.

      So you're okay with GM crops as long as:
      1) There's no inventive to research them.
      2) They're singled out for no health-related reason.
      3) They can't cross breed, but I'm also guessing you'd complain if they're sterile. (i.e. seeds need to be bought each year.)

      But for some reason, the large GMO companies don't want you to know what corn you eat is GMO.
      Why?
      ????

      GMO companies don't want their products singled out by ignorant fearmongers? You're right, that is a mystery.

      If it were up to some people the official GMO symbol would incorporate a skull and crossbones.

    4. Re:Idiots Experimenting with the Food Supply by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      3) They can't cross breed, but I'm also guessing you'd complain if they're sterile. (i.e. seeds need to be bought each year.)

      They actually developed transgenic lines that are sterile to avoid the cross-pollination issues, but they underestimated just how crazy and ignorant the anti-GMO lot really is. They completely flipped out at the thought of farmers needing to buy their seed every year...you know, like farmers have been doing with hybrid seed since the 1930's. Facepalm

  124. Monsanto? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wait, why is this tagged "Monsanto"? Where does TFA mention Monsanto?

  125. Really? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

    I hope they get to watch their families and friends starve to death.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  126. GM Solution by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 3, Funny

    Nah, make them work for local farms for 8 weeks. They'll perhaps learn the meaning of hard work and humility.

    We are talking GM crops here. Surely a more elegant solution would be to make the crop protester resistant? Once we have Triffid(TM) Potatoes they'll be no more problems with annoying protesters.

  127. GM, whats new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a bit curious here about all this novelty in GM food. As far as I know, mankind has always selected specimen from each plant-type which provide the best crops since they started farming somewhere in the stone-age, thus influencing the genetic composition of each generation crops.

    The only thing that changed with the introduction of so called GM crops is that they've been a bit more thorough this time.

  128. Your distinction is invalid by cbhacking · · Score: 1

    On the hope that your writing skills are simply lack of English language knowledge rather than intentionally trolling, please answer this question:

    What is the difference?

    No, seriously, what is the real-world difference between waiting until random mutation produces a trait you want, cross-pollinating that plant with another that has a different trait you want, selecting only the resulting strain that has both desirable traits (and no crippling undesirable ones), and then repeating forever... and manipulating the traits directly?

    There are only two differences: one of them takes much, much longer (how long would it take to produce a disease-resistant potato strain with otherwise desirable traits by random mutation and selection? Well, it hasn't happened yet, in thousands of years), and one of them involves "scientists" in a lab, while the other involves "farmers" in a barn (in quotes because the practical difference is less than you might think; it's mostly a matter or emotional investment in the term).

    If you want natural crops, go find them where the seeds were dropped by birds, and scatter some of the seeds around as you eat. Otherwise, please get out of the way of human advancement. I would applaud you if you were taking a stand against unethical corporate behavior, but you're not. Genetic research and unethical behavior are not inextricably linked, and people like you actually promote the latter (indirectly): you get people scared about things they shouldn't be scared about, which makes progress more difficult, which rises costs for those trying to make progress, which makes it harder to make a profit ethically.

    Out of curiosity, would you have also opposed the concept of selective horse breeding back when everybody else just let the horses work it out among themselves? I mean, sure, it felt like the selective breeders were "cheating" and it reduced genetic diversity somewhat when some lines wouldn't be allowed to breed, but it could also give you faster, stronger, sturdier, and/or healthier horses at a rate far above that of simple evolution. I'm sure it seemed "unnatural" to some people at the time, though.

    So, I ask you again: what is the difference?

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  129. You just made me feel old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... because I just turned 30 and did not know any of those abbreviations.

    1. Re:You just made me feel old by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      I just turned 20 and I don't know any of them either.

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
  130. Tater Terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, that the activist group name is known by authorities, so as to make this article possible as a whole report regarding those responsible for this destruction, I'd imagine every member will be under arrest in short order.

    Potato terrorists! How pathetic. An agenda that declares humanity should suffer and die, rather than progress.

    And "anonymous coward"? LOL As opposed to pimp for membership?

  131. Cart before the horse by cbhacking · · Score: 2

    Wow, irrational much? Here's an equivalent for you (the scale is lesser, but the validity is equal), complete with your whacky grammar left intact:

    Microsoft is all that anyone needs to say these days to show what is wrong with PC. I'm sure all sorts of amazing and magical things can come of PC software development. But when it is used as a weapon to destroy competition in the marketplace and to control something as vital as global information technology for profit, I have to say NO MORE PERSONAL COMPUTER SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT.

    The last part of your post actually gets close to making sense, but you're still completely backward about it. The problem isn't GM crops, it's Monsanto and its behavior. The solution isn't to shut down the research, it's to enforce ethical behavior upon the corporation. It's easy to target Monsanto because they're big and in the news, but there's lots of smaller-scale efforts going on (just as there was with PC software). Slap down the giants when they get out of hand, but don't condemn an entire industry because of what the biggest player in that industry is doing.

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  132. Anonymous Coward Dyslexics Untie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have to recall the psychosis that posts on the net that Monsanto is Evil. Google the keywords and one will see terrorists like those reported in this article have been attacking progress, and Monsanto, for years. Monsanto from 1901 to 2011.

    Fear that. These are the same activist types that would have thought X Rays were of the Devil. Antibiotics challenged Jesus domain and objected to the first surgeon washing his hands, after so many doctors had been put to death for daring to cut into the human body so as to find out what god did to make the human anatomy work. Because, they avowed, prayer and god's will was all one needed.

    Now, scientific progress is again considered "Evil".
    Which funnily enough means god fails again. But god is evil, according to the Bible, so who are the activists really working for?
    The destruction of the human population. Oddly enough, Eugenics didn't die when WW2 was over. These "activists", really Terrorists, hate that.

  133. Monsanto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The evil of all EVILS............
    Do some something besides playing games and posting.
    GMO foods are killing people where they are being used.
    For a while EU had enough smarts to **just say NO* but it looks like money won again.

    Do you know that Roundup chemicals are still in the plants that are Roundup Ready, the plant just does not die like weeds.
    And no studies [think gazillion dollars and years] were done on the safety by the FDA.
    Again the money won.

    Well ya'll go ahead and vote GOTP because you will not need Medicare and will definitely want to *die quickly* instead

  134. Point of view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is clearly just one point of view.

  135. Be Informed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is always a pleasure to enjoy the educated comments contained in the Slashdot comment sections. To further your knowledge of GMOs here is some food for thought:

    http://www.hulu.com/watch/67878/the-future-of-food

    http://printsngs.com/natgeo/gallery/114845/photo/9400789/?o=12

    http://www.foodincmovie.com/

  136. Did Slashdot Read the article? by the+plant+doctor · · Score: 1

    The potatoes were sprayed with a herbicide, not an insecticide!

    Not to mention that the article is incorrect. Phytophthora infestans is the pathogen that causes the disease called late blight. It is not the disease itself.

    Harrumph.

  137. FLM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What no Monty Python comments? What about the Liberation of Fields Movement or the Movement for the Liberation of Fields? I hate those Bastards!

  138. GMOs...the last word in vendor lock-in by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 1

    The parent has identified the problem pretty well. I've seen articles that referred to Monsanto as the "Microsoft of seeds", with little exaggeration. Once we take the patents away, Monsanto will have to send their kids to college using some other scheme. It's worth noting that a lot of this research can be or is funded by governments suckered into the promise of patented food.

    If there is anyone who should be called a terrorist, it's Monsanto and their ilk. Why? Take the farmer who is sued by Monsanto, not for using seed without a license, but for growing plants that were pollinated from patented crops planted upwind. Who's fault is that? Should Monsanto be able to take ownership of an entire crop due to upstream pollen? *That* is legal terrorism of the worst kind. To add insult to injury, Monsanto uses government intervention for protection of their "intellectual property" while blathering about the free market with the other face.

    The sad part about this is not the destruction of the experiment, but rather, carrying out these experiments and placing GMO's into the food chain without clear and proper labeling and without popular consent.

    --
    The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
  139. scientific freedom: where do you draw the line? by squiggly101 · · Score: 1

    "In Belgium, a group of activists calling themselves the Child Liberation Movement has freed several children from a basement where they were being held prisoner as part of a psychological experiment into how children develop in the absence of social contact. The goal of the experiment was to better understand social development disorders such as autism. It's a sad day for the freedom of scientific research."

  140. Re:Clearly you don't understand the problem w/GM f by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    The idiots are those that destroyed the potatoes. Apparently they didn't realize how they grow and propagate. And if you would have read TFA you would notice the LACK of "Montsanto" in it. This is just scare-mongering and terrorism. And a lot of displays of ignorance - including those who cannot read the article and realize that Montsanto wasn't involved.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  141. No, you are still wrong. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    Genetically altered plants have been engineered in such a fashion that future generations of food bearing plants are *sterile* requiring you to *buy new seeds * every year.

    Your statement implies that the technology is currently in use, when in reality it is still in development. Presumably such seeds would be marketed as having this gene, if they are not I'd think a farmer would stop using them after a year in the event they were planning to reuse the seeds (since they'd have to buy more). As the parent pointed out, farmers are already barred from planting the seeds they've grown by the contracts they've signed. You're playing it like this is some insidious backdoor "gocha" GMO manufacturers are trying to pull over on farmers, and that really isn't the case. It's stupid to get on the case of GMO manufacturers over this, since selling these seeds is their bread and butter and they obviously don't want someone else producing the seeds and under-cutting their prices (which would be easy to do). The people you should be complaining about/to is farmers, who are ok with buying the seeds year after year.

    1. Re:No, you are still wrong. by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      What a lot of people don't know (and what you'd learn in an introductory biology course if the anti-GMO people actually took one) is that farmers don't save seed anyway. Here's the deal; there are two types of seed, the hybrid lines, and the open pollinated (or heirloom) lines. Hybrid are better due to hybrid vigor, but only for one generation, and then next year (that is, if you save the seed), they lose genetic stability and you get all sorts of traits in a field you ideally want to be uniform. Farmers have found that the benefits of purchasing new hybrid seed every year outweighs the costs, so typically, they don't save their seed anyway, and that's how it's been since the early 1900's (so buying new seed every year predated GMOs by a long time, but you can't tell that to the people who confuse hybrid seed with GMO seed), which means that the terminator trait doesn't actually affect most farmers (to a degree neither do the contracts, unless one was planning to piggyback on Monsanto and after they get the transgene out there breed it into your own line). So who does it affect? Those who grow the other type. Open pollinated seeds can be saved year after year, but only if they don't cross with something. Even another variety of heirloom will hybridize with them, and if you want to keep saving your seed, this is not desirable. The terminator seed technology was not designed to force hybrid growing farmers into having to buy seed year after year (because they already do that), but to protect those who do, because that way, any crossed seeds just wouldn't grow, and they wouldn't have to worry about cross pollination. You'd think the anti-GMO people would be pleased by that, but Monsanto grossly underestimated just how ignorant and crazy the anti-GMO people are. People make the terminator seed tech out to be so evil, but really, it isn't. Unfortunately, it has largely become such an emotional issue that there's no way to defend it without people who have no idea what's going on calling you evil for preventing farmers from saving seed. I'm not saying it's my favorite genetic trait, but it is very misunderstood.

    2. Re:No, you are still wrong. by godefroi · · Score: 1

      I don't know whether you're right or not, but I can confirm that farmers (I practically grew up on my grandfather's dairy farm) do indeed purchase new seed every year. As far as I know my grandfather never used Monsanto seed, but they ALWAYS used new seed every year. I can't even imagine how they'd go about storing corn kernels to plant the next year... the corn is harvested by a chopper and fed to cows.

      I guess what I'm saying is that your argument has merit, and I'm willing to believe it.

      --
      Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
  142. Do research in the lab, not outdoors! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this was a research expriment, then that means nobody was sure of how it could behave. While I am ok with GM experiments in the lab, I think it is quite scary to do that outdoors. Contamination of neightours by GM species is a well known problem, and running outdoors experiments is therefore foolish IMO. Such "expriment" is unsafe and deserves being destroyed

  143. For dealing with assholes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    time to send in Team America, The World Prick.

  144. this is a good thing by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    it's in belgium. the belgians were probably trying to crossbreed the potato and the waffle. the belgians are always doing dark science with waffles. who wants to eat a belgian potato frankenwaffle? not me. stop messing with the holy sanctity of the waffle you evil belgians!

    although i do like your experiments with potato fries. have at the potato fry belgians, your science there is good

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  145. GM food is a Weapon! by Myhem · · Score: 1

    Corporations that create genetically modified food have to be looked at closely. Do you think they do this for the benefit of human kind? Genetically Modified "Anything" created by large companies (private or public) will be used as a weapon against the masses.

  146. Blame the victims? by Paul1969 · · Score: 1

    Funny, I never heard the spread of Roundup-resistant weeds being blamed on farmers using only Roundup.
    I read that it was due to the marketing of Roundup to suburban home-owners, as an easy one-step way to keep their lawns free of dandelions and crabgrass.
    BTW, suburban lawns (and lawns in general) are TERRIBLE for the environment in multiple ways.

    1. Re:Blame the victims? by arkenian · · Score: 1

      Funny, I never heard the spread of Roundup-resistant weeds being blamed on farmers using only Roundup. I read that it was due to the marketing of Roundup to suburban home-owners, as an easy one-step way to keep their lawns free of dandelions and crabgrass. BTW, suburban lawns (and lawns in general) are TERRIBLE for the environment in multiple ways.

      I don't disagree on the lawns. One of the most upsetting things of moving back east is that there are places where you are actually REQUIRED to have a lawn. I think this is an abomination. On the other hand, of course, they more or less have the water to support it. When water falls from the sky, i guess you can waste it on frivolity -- which is not to say you should.

      As to the roundup resistant ragweed, that's probably due to farmers. For evidence I cite the recent scientific american article on the very topic. But really, it doesn't surprise me. Very few home owners use roundup in the quantity, and in the scope of area large enough to truly create large numbers of resistant plants.

  147. Um, no by Paul1969 · · Score: 1

    Your distinctions between "high tech" and "low tech" fighting actually refer to guerilla warfare vs. "traditional" warfare.
    Terrorism is a tactic, violence intentionally directed against civilian targets in order to damage morale.
    What's happening now in Afghanistan and Pakistan, for instance, has elements of both. IEDs and ambushes of NATO and government forces are guerilla warfare. Suicide bombers targeting markets and mosques are using terrorist tactics.

    1. Re:Um, no by couchslug · · Score: 1

      All warfare has the objective of damaging morale because unless you break morale the enemy will require extermination.

      It is popular now to distinguish between enemy civilians (they used to be called "enemy civilians" instead of "civilians" which was adopted for propaganda purposes) and "combatants", but some fighters don't shirk from disrupting civilian enemies by striking their markets (logistics) and gathering places (high yield targets).

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  148. NOT a multinational experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm from Belgium, so I have a little more info about this:
    For all those talking about Monsanto, this is NOT a private project, even not financed by money from private companies. It's a governement project aimed to decrease the dependency on foreign multinationals.
    Besides that, the aim of the experiment is creating potaties that are immune to some fungus disease. This can also be done with a natural breeding process, but that takes a lot more time.

  149. Vandalism and the destruction of Science - Good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Say what?

    No one said you needed the Patriot Act or anything like it. Just how about some police enforcement and prevention of crimes against property and in this case against possibly research which would have wide benefits for people in some parts of the world.

    I'd see them charged with vandalism but their ought to be an additional charge for the destruction of research in the public interest. Beyond that, how about a charge for deploying a chemical weapon or at least a potentially dangerous substance on someone else's land....

    The police performance here was underwhelming. That ought to spark some firings. There's not much of an excuse for a failure to control rowdy crowds intent on vandalism.

  150. Bill Gates! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems to me Monsato wants to be the Micro$oft of agriculture.......?

  151. Sounds like hysteria to me by KreAture · · Score: 1

    Nonono...
    The GMO seeds are sterile to prevent spreading, to avoid them "taking over" in the wild.
    This is a very natural safety technique and I would be very concerned if they did not use it.
    The sterile GMO seeds do not flower so can not cross-pollinate with neighbouring fields. Further more, if they make people sterile it is due to compounds created and not directly from the self propagation limits. This undesired effect could also happen with normal breeding and cross-pollination techniques and as such have no bearing on a case at all.

    I agree that it can appear unfair to be forced to buy new seed every planting, but this is where free market should come in and force pricings on non-heirloom seeds to drop. Unless ofcource the martked deems the increased yelds, reduced infections, increased shelf-life and better taste to be compensating for this.

    1. Re:Sounds like hysteria to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to the farmers who had their fields pollinated by GMO seeds.

      Nature finds a way.

    2. Re:Sounds like hysteria to me by KreAture · · Score: 1

      I have not been able to find a single reference to any cases where this has been the case.
      There have been headlines about it but all the storys seem to be newspapers wanting to sell papers, thus headlines don't necessarily have much to do with the actual cases.

      Some links to proper journalism and actual expert statements would be nice.
      And no, flipping soil and harvesting corn for 2-3 generations doesn't make one an expert.

  152. This corn toxicity thing seem to be bad science by Mathinker · · Score: 1

    Not all scientific articles which are published are correct. Far from it. The two articles about GM corn upon which you are basing your argument were funded by Greenpeace and seem to be more propaganda than science. Read the Wikipedia article about it.

    That doesn't mean I don't agree with you that this could be a problem. The articles merely rehash the (forcibly) published data from Monsanto's studies, and I was appalled to see that those studies were: (1) very short-term (only 90 days compared with an average lifetime of 2-3 years), and (2) seem to have been run on very small numbers of animals (it's hard to understand the wording of the anti-GM paper but it seems to me that no more than 80 mice ate the GM corn, of which only 40 had extensive testing like blood tests).

    This seems to be because separate studies were done which just fed mice large doses of the pesticide which is being produced by the introduced gene (and the results were negative for significant toxicity). Still, living systems are complex and I'd prefer that the authorities would make Monsanto fund an independent lab to do more comprehensive testing of the whole plant.

  153. US media by dugeen · · Score: 1

    I thought we wouldn't get an unbiased presentation of this story on Slashdot - the US media have done their job well in shilling for the agrogiants. In Europe we take a much more sceptical view of genetically modified food. We aren't about to allow organisms to be released into our environment that have only been tested by people who have a very strong financial incentive to keep quiet about the dangers.

    1. Re:US media by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      In Europe we take a much more sceptical view of genetically modified food. We aren't about to allow organisms to be released into our environment that have only been tested by people who have a very strong financial incentive to keep quiet about the dangers.

      Which is exactly what this government funded potato trial was doing. Europeans aren't being skeptical, they're being ignorant science hating denialists.

  154. Monsanto started out the same way by bl8n8r · · Score: 1

    Let's do some research to develop an resistent strain of . It will be a boon for food crop. .....20 years later farmers are getting sued* by Monsanto because the bees decided to pollenate non-Monsanto crops with Monsanto pollen.

    Maybe the people trashing the field were protecting their future food supply from a corrupt legal system.

    [*] - http://foodchronicles.blogspot.com/2007/01/monsanto-problem.html

    --
    boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
  155. Most opponents of GM foods aren't against science, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    `they're against rapacious and irresponsible corporations in general and Monsanto in particular for not caring about the damage they cause to farming communities, heirloom gene stocks of foods that belong to the people who grow them, and genetic patents in general.

    Monsanto has successfully sued farmers who live down wind of Monsanto's patented genetic foods in the field for "stealing" their genetics due to Monsanto's pollen drifting freely with the wind! This is unconscionable in my book, and something is badly wrong with the legal system as well as Monsanto's management when something like this can happen.

    In my opinion, Monsanto is responsible for keeping their polluted pollen off my organic crops - it is not my responsibility to keep my crops unpolluted by their genes!!

    There is something deeply wrong and extremely creepy with businesses being able to patent genes in my ( and your ) body - not to mention in my food!

  156. This is supposed to be non-violent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love how the article calls those vandals non-violent protesters. Apparently it has become acceptable to destroy someone else's property to make them bow to your will. What times we live in. Also, the Belgian police are fucking useless.

  157. Darwin begs to differ by DG · · Score: 1

    That's a self-rectifying problem.

    Assume the "sterile" gene is carried in the pollen - and we're making a HUGE assumption here; that all GM plants are coded to be sterile. But let's go with it for now.

    Let's also assume the sterile gene is recessive.

    Assume those plants fertillize 50% of the next crop through cross-pollination, and that the "sterile" gene expresses itself in 50% of those plants. Now 25% of the seed from those plants are sterile, and 50% total carry the "sterile" gene.

    Well, the seed from the sterile plants won't grow - so those ones are gone from the gene pool.

    Assuming the same proportions each successive year, the "sterile" gene will breed itself out, because the progeny from the an expressed sterile gene don't grow, and so are culled from the pool.

    If the "sterile" gene is dominant, it happens even faster - in a single generation, in fact.

    This is basic Darwinism - genes with a negative survival value, given sufficient time, breed themselves out. If we assume that your "ice age" (are we done with "Global Warming" and back to the 1970s "Global cooling"?) stops the production of new GM "sterile" seed, the gene pool will purge itself fairly quickly

    DG

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    1. Re:Darwin begs to differ by PReDiToR · · Score: 1
      Thanks for an interesting answer rather than some of the others I've had on this topic.
      Low UIDs typically denote high IQ, and here was another example. Either that or you get wiser as you get older.

      negative survival value, given sufficient time, breed themselves out

      This is a foodstuff we're talking about, who says we're not giving ourselves at negative survival value with these actions? But I digest (no, I digress, but everyone loves a comic aside).

      I have no idea how this thing will play out, I guess nobody would be able to say "I told you so". Making people question every aspect of interference with the ecosystem and food chain without hinderance from lobbyists and enablement by politicians is the only way that this process can be done safely, IMO.

      We have made some utterly n00b mistakes with drugs, let's try really hard not to do it with the whole planet.

      And sometimes I have a nice Guinness and post about stuff that I should probably research before commenting on things I deem important.

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
  158. if it's a sad day for monsanto, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's a good day for life as we know it. belgium: take note of u.s. corn and soy beans.

  159. damn hippies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad I wasn't there with a baseball bat, there would be 0 potatoes lost. thank you feces smelling hippies for costing many lives, and hunger

  160. Ignorant Fools by joerog · · Score: 1

    The action of this mob is reminescent of the story of the ignorant idiots with torches and pitchforks going after Frankenstein's monster. That there have been no arrests and prosecutions is regrettable. These terrorists trespassed on private property and destroyed that which was not theirs. They had no right to do it, no matter how against genetic modification they are. As for the GM experiments, I don't understand why some people are so afraid of it. The products created from these experiments are the ones selected as successful modificaitons and the others are rejected as failures or unusable. There are no insecticides or poisons, no radiation, no gasses or biohazards. The end result would have been ordinary potatos that were resistant to potato blight. The previous commenter's concerns about cross-fertilization are legitimate, but can be addressed with simple and effective precautions. The hysteria of anti-GM activists is similar to the religious fanatics against stem-cell research in the U.S., both based in ignorance and superstitious fear of the unknown. Genetic modification is now producing better foods, synthesizing medicines and other chemical substances which were previously hard to manufacture or extract, and many other benefits. The activities of scientitists and growers to selectively breed and cross polinate plants in efforts to emphasize good genetic traits and minimize traits that are not desired. Is this not GM, but approached over generations of the plants or animals being modified, so is this not GM too? Humans beings now have the ability to speed up the selection process and the quickly weed out unsuccessful modificaitons, and this is just another extension of the growth of our technology in this industrial age. The bottom line is that I am all for designing and breeding plants that can survive and thrive in adverse conditions, produce more edible material than non-modified plants for higher yields to better be able to feed the growing human population. The people doing this research may not be as altruistic as they are seekers of profit, but with each successful accomplishment that betters the human condition, I say, God bless them all-they are unsung heroes.

  161. Monsanto = Pathalogical Liers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Genetic engineering of foods is the classic scientific double edged sword. Just like nuclear power. In the 1960s they ran a LiFTR nuke for 5 years and it was one hell of a great design. Making bombs from it was excruciating due to the extremely low amount of plutonium produced. It got canned for political reasons and now we are stuck with hundreds of LWR that are nowhere near as good at producing energy. Take some time and watch this then think about how different the world could have been and might still be if science was allowed to progress without political blockage:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8&feature=player_embedded

    So here we are again with a technology that is promising a lot but with companies demanding that we trust them. The revolving doors at the FDA and USDA are full of people from Monsanto. It is legal bribery. You get this through and we give you a consulting contract for millions a year. Monsanto does not have science on their side, that is why they rely on politics to push their stuff through. They know they would lose on any serious and properly done study.

    On the RBGH for milk they claimed that any residuals were be destroyed at pasteurization temperatures. Sounds good to me as all the dairy I consume has been pasteurized but then you find out they "pasteurized" it for 30 minutes! That is like baking a turkey for 2 weeks and claiming that there was no salmonella found. No shit Sherlock, you have a lump of charcoal not something someone would eat.

    The lies from Monsanto go back for decades and they should not be trusted by any sane person. Just ask the vets involved with the agent orange claims.

    Now Monsanto makes farmers sign a "Technology Transfer Agreement" that amongst other things requires the farmer to assume liability for any cross pollination damage to other crops!

    While I do have hope for genetic engineering of foods I do not have any hope for Monsanto. They have proven themselves completely unworthy of trust time and again. Only a fool would trust them now.

  162. Pure Greed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is another bad day for science, but not in the way you imply! As others have said, this is really a just another case of corporate greed perverting the goals of science into something ugly. Only this time it is our food they are getting greedy with, leaving water and air for another discussion.

    Indian farmers are committing suicide, in cultures where it has never happened before, due to inability to save seed. This is of course because Monsanto and others have brought their high tech magic and lawyers into the ancient fields to help the "poor heathens" feed themselves. Now if the farmers have one bad season, they truly do starve because they can't afford to buy seed next year. The suicides are due to a proud farmer being unable to feed his family for the first time in his life.

    Yea sure - science experiment ... non-nutritive cereal varnish...

  163. hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    those cops used to be potatos. monsanto grew them a few days before . also i believe that monsanto now contractually owns the protestors children and childrens children. its in the fine print.

  164. Re:Sounds like lack of education by sChatwin · · Score: 1

    GM often (but not always) uses genes from a completely different species. Monsanto's Soy has an insect gene inserted to make it resistant to Round-up (Gramoxone). This makes it fundmentally different from selective breeding which was what drove the 'Green Revolution' in the 60's producing today's high yield, low waste crops of rice, wheat and others. However genetic researchers are now finding that there is some natural cross-infection between very different species, though it appears to be rare and I don't believe the mechanisms are well understood.

  165. Re:Conflated Arguments by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

    Here is some good info. Plenty of information from just about every government and university in the world. Just need to look.

  166. Re:Conflated Arguments by stanlyb · · Score: 1

    You did read them, right? And there are from some respectful source, right? And there with all the documents and statistic, right? Otherwise.......there a plenty of monkeys doing better job than the before mentioned "authors", literally.

  167. Who needs GM ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As more and more peole start to ask themselves "what the hell is in my plate ?" we must re-examine the food situation in light of its evolution over the last decade, as the industry has come to be under total control of private interests over the years :

    - Famine has not been eradicated, poor countries become exporters to rich countries instead of moving towards better self sustainabilty.

    - Farmers have to pay more and more license fees to use "performance" seeds and become shackled customers instead of producers of plant diversity.

    - Conventiona Seed companies and GM lobbies have taken extremely aggressive stances towards the traditional agriculture, pushing and using european laws to ban all "non-certified" plant varieties.....that includes plants that have bee grown for centuries, are naturally more pest-resistant than expensive hybrids sold by those companies. Read

    - Several studies have shown that farmers growing GM crops use pesticides and herbicides more indiscriminately than when treating conventional crops, leading to increase soil pollution and contamination (and guess who sells the stuff)

      And there is more if you care to do your own research....all showing that not only are the world agricultural and food policies entirely immoral, corrupted by private interests, and immensely damagable in the long run, they are also ineffective and contradicted by nearly all scientific studies that attempt to evaluate them fairly.

  168. Belgian Terrorists! by I.S.Bear · · Score: 1

    Damn the Belgians! Full Spud Ahead!