Slashdot Mirror


Monsanto's 'Terminator' Seeds Set To Make a Comeback

ananyo writes "Monsanto and other biotechnology firms could be looking to bring back 'terminator' seed technology. The seeds are genetically engineered so that crops grown from them produce sterile seed. They prompted such an outcry that, as Slashdot noted, Monsanto's chief executive pledged not to commercialize them. But a case in the U.S. Supreme Court could allow farmers to plant the progeny of GM seeds rather than buying new seeds from Monsanto, making the technology attractive to biotech companies again. Some environmentalists also see 'terminator' seeds as a way of avoiding GM crops contaminating organic/non-GM crops." Reader 9gezegen adds that Monsanto is getting support, oddly, from parts of the software industry. From the NY Times: "BSA/The Software Alliance, which represents companies like Apple and Microsoft, said in a brief that a decision against Monsanto might 'facilitate software piracy on a broad scale' because software can be easily replicated. But it also said that a decision that goes too far the other way could make nuisance software patent infringement lawsuits too easy to file." The case was heard today; here is a transcript (PDF), and a clear explanation of what the case is about.

284 comments

  1. So you're saying, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    they'll be back

    1. Re:So you're saying, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With stories like these you immediately know what the first comment's going to be...

    2. Re:So you're saying, by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well DUH! Whenever some CEO says "We won't do it" as soon as something they planned (read: quietly announced to test the waters) caused a public outcry, it only means "we're waiting for you to be occupied with something else".

      They invested money inventing it, it benefits them, they won't just "forget" about it. They wait for YOU to forget about it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:So you're saying, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Score: -1, Missed Reference)

    4. Re:So you're saying, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they never left. After the first planting in open air agriculture, the pollen migrated, cross pollinated, and went on it's merry way. So they never left the market. Why do you think, americans dying younger then the rest. And what did they really add to the golden rice? Lets check the news in a couple f years, and see if other countries start dying off earlier also. Remember the old saying,"better living thru chemestry" nothing about longer, only their definition of better.

    5. Re:So you're saying, by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · · Score: 1

      Well DUH! Whenever some CEO says "We won't do it" as soon as something they planned (read: quietly announced to test the waters) caused a public outcry, it only means "we're waiting for you to be occupied with something else".

      They invested money inventing it, it benefits them, they won't just "forget" about it. They wait for YOU to forget about it.

      I know someone in the mid-west United States Missouri who is the daughter of the brain-child of a filthy rich Monsanto monster. His daughter suffers from serious health issues. There are also a lot of freedom on information requests on Monsanto in the UK but with a bit of luck from honest people and health risks.... this is where the the UK/USA stands and we will not be defeated by lies and cover ups!

      Small Speech;

      Ladies and Gentlemen; Our rights;

      1, To defend the Magna Carta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
      2, The people of America are here to defend the Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States

      Messing with our rights is unfair and actually highly unacceptable in any way shape or form; be it by bad diplomacy, wars, and the amount of other PR (Public Relations can be drummed up in the name of democracy to justify your actions). We do not want wars, we want peace.

      If you do not mind we get on with all people from all religions and we understand that we are 'Friends Together'.

      --
      All cows eat grass!
    6. Re:So you're saying, by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      "Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

      Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

      (And as much as I hate quoting that fat asshat, he's unfortunately very right)

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. I Can't Believe This by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Monsanto’s reaction is that Bowman’s use of the commodity seeds plainly violates its patent. From its vantage point, Bowman might have been free to use the seeds he bought from Monsanto (on the theory that Monsanto’s patent rights for those seeds were exhausted by its sale of them), but Monsanto has never sold the seeds that Bowman bought and planted; Monsanto does not, for example, sell seeds to grain elevators. Because Monsanto has never sold those particular seeds, Bowman’s use of them to create new seeds infringes its patent as clearly as if Bowman had made a new light bulb copying Edison’s light-bulb patent.

    So it has come to this: they are equivocating planting seeds with reverse engineering a light bulb.

    For another thing, Monsanto’s technology agreement (signed by all farmers who purchase Roundup Ready seeds) includes provisions that prohibit Bowman’s activities. Among other things, those agreements prohibit any planting of progeny seed; the only permitted use of soybean seeds grown from Roundup Ready seeds is sale for food and the like. If the Court rules against Monsanto on the basic exhaustion question, it then must confront the controversial question (crucial to, among others, the software industry) of the enforceability of license agreements that govern the rights of users of IP-infused products. On that question, the United States (which firmly supports Monsanto on the central exhaustion question) argues that the conceded sale makes any subsequent licensing restrictions invalid as to those seeds and their progeny; not surprisingly, amici like the Business Software Alliance contest that idea.

    Great, you're free to have those agreements but Bowman didn't sign it. Chase down the guy(s) that put your grain into that elevator and sue the living shit out of them. Then make sure all your current customers know that they're legally culpable for what a grain elevator does with your intellectual property. I'll be sure to remind everyone that Monsanto seed can result in ruination if they find their way back into the soil. Then we'll see how your sales do, mmkay?

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:I Can't Believe This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It doesn't work like that. In most places, if you buy something that was stolen, the good is returned to its owner and you will have to get compensation from whoever sold it to you. What you are saying is that if I somehow get my hands on a cracked copy of of a software and do something with it like use it for myself or share it with everyone on the Internet, nothing should happen to be; the guys who made the cracked software and gave/sold it to me are at fault here, right?

    2. Re:I Can't Believe This by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Chase down the guy(s) that put your grain into that elevator and sue the living shit out of them. Then make sure all your current customers know that they're legally culpable for what a grain elevator does with your intellectual property.

      Except no one in that chain did anything wrong.

      1) Farmer A buys seed from Monsanto
      2) Farmer A grows crop, harvests and sells the result as feed (which they are allowed to do under their license agreement)
      3) Farmer B buys feed from the silo (which is legal for both farmer B and the silo)

      All of that is legal, and no one, not even Monsanto argues against it. Where it gets (a tiny bit) murkier is:

      4) Farmer B realizes that most of his feed is round up ready, plants it
      5) Farmer B sprays the field with round up
      6) Farmer B harvests the result, 100% (or near enough) round up ready seed obtained without signing any agreements with Monsanto

      Monsanto's argument will be that by spraying the field with round up, farmer B was deliberately selecting for the gene that Monsanto has patented. It's a grey area in the law, which is why it's gone to the supreme court. And the annoying thing is, even after the case is decided there's going to be all kinds of wiggle room for both sides of the argument to continue litigating to their heart's content.

    3. Re:I Can't Believe This by andymadigan · · Score: 1

      Actually, the oddity is he did sign that agreement, the background on the story is that he bought seeds from the grain elevator for a late-season planting. For his first planting, he bought the seeds from Monsanto. I suppose the contract was interpreted to only apply to that purchase.

      But aside from that, since the seeds in question were bought from the grain elevator, yes, sue the anyone selling to the grain elevator (which probably includes Bowman).

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    4. Re:I Can't Believe This by pavon · · Score: 1

      [quote]Great, you're free to have those agreements but Bowman didn't sign it.[/quote]
      Actually, from what I've read he did. He bought and used Monsanto seed for his main crop (signing a contract in doing so), but then used grain elevator seed for his second seasonal planting. Some of that seed he planted may very well have been harvested from his crops as he sold soybeans (grown from Monsanto seed) to that grain elevator.

      I worry that the Supreme Court will choose to narrowly rule on contract grounds, and completely ignore the patent exclusion question for another day.

    5. Re:I Can't Believe This by bobthesungeek76036 · · Score: 1



      <quote><p>Great, you're free to have those agreements but Bowman didn't sign it.</quote>

      Bowman must have signed it because it said in the story that he bought Roundup Ready from Monsanto. What I'm confused about is: Is the "commodity" grain Bowman bought already infused with Roundup Ready genome or are they worried that the yield of the "commodity" grain will be infused due to cross-pollination? If the former then I'm really confused because how could Bowman know? If the latter then I would have to read the T&Cs of the agreement to see if Monsanto said no other grain can be planted within X distance.

      My head hurts...

      --
      Karma: Bad
    6. Re:I Can't Believe This by DRJlaw · · Score: 0

      Great, you're free to have those agreements but Bowman didn't sign it.

      Yes, he did. Spefically, as reported by the Court of Appeals (thank Slashdot for the odd character mappings):

      Pioneer HiÃ"Bred (ÃoePioneerÃ) is one of Monsanto's licensed seed producers. à In 2002, Pioneer sold Pioneer HiÃ"Bredî brand seeds containing the Roundup Readyî technology to Bowman, a grower in Knox County, Indiana. à In making the sale, Pioneer required Bowman to execute the ÃoePioneer HiÃ"Bred Technology Agreement,à which contains language and restrictions identical to the Technology Agreements discussed above. à See J.A. 673. à Bowman purchased from Pioneer and planted seeds containing the Roundup Readyî technology each year, beginning as early as 1999. à Bowman planted Roundup Readyî seeds as his first-crop in each growing season during the years 1999 through 2007. à Consistent with the terms of the Technology Agreement, Bowman did not save seed from his first-crop during any of those years.

      In 1999, Bowman also purchased commodity seed from a local grain elevator, Huey Soil Service, for a late-season planting, or Ãoesecond-crop.à à Because Bowman considered the second-crop to be a riskier planting, he purchased the commodity seed to avoid paying the significantly higher price for Pioneer's Roundup Readyî seed. à That same year, Bowman applied glyphosate-based herbicide to the fields in which he had planted the commodity seeds to control weeds and to determine whether the plants would exhibit glyphosate resistance. à He confirmed that many of the plants were, indeed, resistant. à In each subsequent year, from 2000 through 2007, Bowman treated his second-crop with glyphosate-based herbicide. à Unlike his first-crop, Bowman saved the seed harvested from his second-crop for replanting additional second-crops in later years. à He also supplemented his second-crop planting supply with periodic additional purchases of commodity seed from the grain elevator. à Bowman did not attempt to hide his activities, and he candidly explained his practices with respect to his second-crop soybeans in various correspondence with Monsanto's representatives.

      Returning to the parent:

      I'll be sure to remind everyone that Monsanto seed can result in ruination if they find their way back into the soil. Then we'll see how your sales do, mmkay?

      I'll be sure to remind everyone that you lack credibility, and that Monsanto appears to only be pursuing people who intentionally violate its patents.

    7. Re:I Can't Believe This by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But nothing was stolen here.

      Bowman bought the seeds from a grain elevator, the natural market for seed crops. The farmers legally sold their seed into the market, and the market legally sold it to food producers and Bowman. Monsanto's claim to the seed was exhausted.

      Nothing was stolen.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    8. Re:I Can't Believe This by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That somewhat greyer area is what makes this case stand out. The farmer is claiming that his actions are legal via the first sale doctrine. He says the seeds were sold once, and therefore whatever happens after that is fair game. Monsanto says that, because the seeds in question are not purchased seeds but newly produced seeds, the first sale doctrine does not apply, and because the farmer intentionally selected for what he knew were the transgenic seeds, it is a patent violation. I think the case will go to Monsanto because I can't imagine any other case where knowingly producing something under patent would fly. I suppose you could say that the beans were reproducing themselves, but that ignores the human intervention necessary for this to even be a case, which I feel is the key detail here.

      That said, considering the patent on Monsanto's first GE soybean expires next year (at which point anyone will be able to grow their own transgenic soy free from having to deal with Monsanto), I think they're kind of stupid for making this into a case and, right or wrong, generating even more animosity for themselves, although perhaps they actually want this to go to the Supreme Court in the hopes of setting precedent.

    9. Re:I Can't Believe This by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Monsanto's argument will be that by spraying the field with round up, farmer B was deliberately selecting for the gene that Monsanto has patented.

      Saving the best of a crop for next year's planting is also a time honored farming method. Selecting for some quality that is already present in your crop is perfectly normal. It was how crops were improved over centuries. One could probably get by using round up every other year, then Monsanto would be going after grandchild crops.

      Because Monsanto can tweak this crop annually (on once every 17 years, or never, and just pretend they did), this is a patent that will never expire. There has to be some limits, and now is a good time to set them.

      Lets just imagine this same technique is applied to controlling human genetics. Imagine parents paying for a in vitro genetic treatment that prevents cancer (or something) forever. Then the company come's after the children, demanding payment before the are allowed to procreate. This is a dangerous precedent to set.

      So is terminator seed. Big fire at Monsanto, and the world starves because no seed grows? Stupid.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    10. Re:I Can't Believe This by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      Saving the best of a crop for next year's planting is also a time honored farming method.

      One that has not been in wide practice in many places since farmers started growing hybrid seeds, which have greater yields but are not exceptionally suitable for replanting. Hybrid seed has been one of the greatest inventions in human history and we couldn't feed the world without it.

      this is a patent that will never expire

      The patent on their first Round-Up Ready soy expires next year.

      Big fire at Monsanto, and the world starves because no seed grows?

      They don't produce all their seed in one spot you know, nor are they the only seed company out there.

    11. Re:I Can't Believe This by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Well, with a bit of luck the children will be in their twenties when they reproduce, well after the patent has expired...

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    12. Re:I Can't Believe This by pepty · · Score: 1

      Great, you're free to have those agreements but Bowman didn't sign it. >

      Bowman did sign it. Pretty much every soybean farmer in the US signs it.

    13. Re:I Can't Believe This by pepty · · Score: 1

      The licensing terms were exhausted once the seed was sold to the elevator but patent exhaustion doesn't mean that the patent just goes away. If i buy a used widget that is under patent I can't be held to the terms of the license under which it was sold, but I can be sued if I start making copies of the widget and sell them.

    14. Re:I Can't Believe This by icebike · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seed stock are only sold for one purpose. To plant.
      Its not logical that you can buy a seed that can't be planted.

      If it were an animal, could you not breed it? Does the owner of Secretariat get to say a stud descended from Secretariat can't be bred?

      Living things can not be ruled as if they were widgets.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    15. Re:I Can't Believe This by budgenator · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually it does work that way, under the uniform commercial code if you buy something that was stolen, from a business that normally sells those good, the seller is liable not the purchaser. I learned that by watching a case being argued in court; a marina traded a boat to a sign company in exchange for services rendered, the marina failed to inform the bank of the sale of the boat to have it removed from their floor-plan loan, the bank then sued the sign company for the boat and lost because the sign company had no reason to believe that a profession boat seller was selling stolen boats.
      Likewise why would a farmer assume that an elevator whose business is selling seeds and feed be seller stolen seed?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    16. Re:I Can't Believe This by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      I think the case will go to Monsanto

      Perhaps. But then why is the Supreme Court hearing the case? All of the lower courts ruled in Monsanto's favor, so there are no conflicting rulings. If SCOTUS wanted the lower court ruling to stand, they could have just refused to hear the appeal. I would not be surprised by a ruling either way.

    17. Re:I Can't Believe This by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      Its not logical that you can buy a seed that can't be planted.

      Why not? We use seed for food all of the time, and much of that can't be planted.

      If it were an animal, could you not breed it? Does the owner of Secretariat get to say a stud descended from Secretariat can't be bred?

      If the owner developed a new breed of horse and patented it, then yes. For example, there are lots of patented varieties of lab mice.

      Living things can not be ruled as if they were widgets.

      Except that, legally, they're treated in much the same way.

    18. Re:I Can't Believe This by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 4, Informative

      But these seeds were never stolen.

      Monsanto does not claim that Mr. Bowman or anybody else stole the seeds. They claim that Mr. Bowman violated their intellectual property rights by planting their patented seeds without their permission.

      Farmers bought seeds from Monsanto, and agreed not to plant them or sell them for seed. They sold them to a grain wholesaler that they assumed would sell them for food. The vast majority of them were sold for food. The grain wholesaler, who did not sign an agreement with Monsanto (why should they?) bought the seed, tossed it in the elevator with all their other soybeans. No violation of the law so far. Mr. Bowman bought the seed. The grain wholesaler did not break any patent law nor break any contractual agreement by selling the seeds to Mr. Bowman. Mr. Bowman, who had not signed any agreement with Monsanto, planted the seeds.

      At what point was the law broken, if any? Monsanto claims that Mr. Bowman broke the law by planting seeds. Appeals courts agreed. It appears that somebody on the SCOTUS either disagrees or wants to clarify or underscore the patent law regarding patents on living organisms.

    19. Re:I Can't Believe This by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2

      Actually it does work that way, under the uniform commercial code if you buy something that was stolen, from a business that normally sells those good, the seller is liable not the purchaser. I learned that by watching a case being argued in court; a marina traded a boat to a sign company in exchange for services rendered, the marina failed to inform the bank of the sale of the boat to have it removed from their floor-plan loan, the bank then sued the sign company for the boat and lost because the sign company had no reason to believe that a profession boat seller was selling stolen boats. Likewise why would a farmer assume that an elevator whose business is selling seeds and feed be seller stolen seed?

      Nothing was stolen. Next!

    20. Re:I Can't Believe This by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Big fire at Monsanto, and the world starves because no seed grows?

      They don't produce all their seed in one spot you know, nor are they the only seed company out there.

      They're trying awfully hard to be.

    21. Re:I Can't Believe This by Demonantis · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You should also mention that Monsanto makes round up. The round up ready was a way for them to sell more pesticide. They are making money from all farmers.

    22. Re:I Can't Believe This by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      Big fire at Monsanto, and the world starves because no seed grows? Stupid.

      Yes, that is a stupid question:

      First, because Monstanto has lots of locations.
      Second, because Monsanto will keep selling other varieties as well.
      Third, because Monsanto isn't the only seed company in the world.
      Fourth, because there are still people (and governments) who have their own varieties.

    23. Re:I Can't Believe This by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      If it were an animal, could you not breed it?

      No. In the case of Glofish, no you cannot bred them.

      Does the owner of Secretariat get to say a stud descended from Secretariat can't be bred?

      Apparently there are different rules for genetically modified organisms vs. natural bloodlines.

      Living things can not be ruled as if they were widgets.

      It appears that if they are GM they can be. I don't agree with it, but apparently the US legal system feels differently.

    24. Re:I Can't Believe This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you dont have to sign an agreement to violate a valid patent. BTW teh patent enbds next year then its free. Thats the way it works

    25. Re:I Can't Believe This by davester666 · · Score: 2

      Actually, the problem is at step 2. Because of the original agreement with Monsanto, Farmer A has taken on the responsibility of ensuring that he sells the results ONLY as feed and not for planting. So as part of the sale to the grain elevator operator, he has to get them to sign as agreement to ensure it is only sold as feed, and that all future purchasers of those seeds also sign and follow a similar agreement.

      Of course, Monsanto doesn't really want this to happen, because it might keep their seed separated from 'regular' seeds, because of their limited use, and reduce their value [because you've got to track them and keep them separated and keep all this stupid paperwork].

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    26. Re: I Can't Believe This by rpjimmypop · · Score: 1

      It's my understanding that the farmer did not buy the beans as seed stock. He bought it under the pretense that it was for resale or end consumption.

    27. Re:I Can't Believe This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Living things can not be ruled as if they were widgets.

      They can, and they will, by psychopaths and sociopaths.
      The question is wether we shall let them.

      Captcha: reviled

    28. Re:I Can't Believe This by wienerschnizzel · · Score: 1

      I'm kinda with Monsanto on this.

      If the ruling goes Bowman's way then it will be trivial to use any genetically modified produce without having to pay whoever developed it

      If copyright worked that way, somebody could take a brand new game, crack it to remove the DRM and sell it to Gamestop anonymously. From then on that copy could be freely copied around on the internet or in person. Companies would simply stop producing games.

      I know Monsanto did some evil things but this is not one of them. If Bowman wins, development in GMO will become unfeasible. The 'organic' crowd would surely rejoice but there are a lot of us who think GMO is really helpful

      Note also that Monsanto doesn't really object to farmers having Roundup Ready plants in their crops (such as due to cross-pollination) as long as they don't use the glycosulphate but people still spread lies about them - how they will sue anybody who had the pollen from Monsanto's plants blown to them by the wind. Ironically, the 'terminator' feature would resolve the cross-pollination issue.

    29. Re:I Can't Believe This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only solution is sure and total war, resulting in a warrior race staunchly defending their rights to plant fucking seeds however the fucking want whenever they fucking want. (Deep narrator voice).

      But I digress this is a symptom of our societies sick philosophical, religious, moral, and ethical issues. This is all. =) have a nice week.

    30. Re:I Can't Believe This by stdarg · · Score: 2

      If the owner developed a new breed of horse and patented it, then yes. For example, there are lots of patented varieties of lab mice.

      The weird thing about this case is there are two angles of attack -- patent, and contract. If you bred a new type of horse and patented it, and then sold it to people, I'm sure you would have them sign a contract saying that they wouldn't allow the horse to breed. This case is now saying that the contract isn't necessary. If you just buy the horse with absolutely no restrictions in the sales contract, you still can't breed the horse because of patent law. Even if you buy the horse from a 3rd party and didn't know that it contained patented genes, and bred the horse, you would be violating the patent. Possibly even if the horse ran away from the rightful owner, entered your property, and bred with your existing horses without your knowledge, you would have violated the patent. (That's a lot like pollen with the patented genes from neighbors' fields getting onto your plants.)

      I mean it's really ludicrous. If you sell something that self-replicates, then you should use a contract to limit the rights of what can be done with it. Otherwise it really seems implicitly allowed that the thing replicates. After all it takes zero human intervention, since it's "self" replicating. How can something that happens on its own, as designed, as sold, get the person who happens to own it in trouble? It certainly doesn't work that way with other things. If I buy a car, get in an accident, and the car is poorly designed so it catches fire easily and kills a bunch of people, then the car manufacturer is held liable. THEY designed it, they made it, they sold it. Why shouldn't it be the same with seeds or horses? You "genetically engineer" something, you take responsibility for the genes and what the genes are capable of.

    31. Re:I Can't Believe This by HCase · · Score: 1

      The problem is that they didn't sell the crop as feed. They *thought* they sold the crop as feed, but they didn't put it in a contract. They only had feed sale rights, but then gave the wholesaler full sale rights. They may have done it on accident, but it could still come back to bite them.

      They should have included a step 2b) Farmer A has buyer sign contract that seeds will be sold only as feed, and buyer takes liability for any seed sold for planting. Distribution rights get tricky because you generally aren't just allowed to say, "Well I didn't break the rule, I sold it to someone without telling them and they broke it."

    32. Re:I Can't Believe This by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Third, because Monsanto isn't the only seed company in the world.

      Yeah, but I think we're getting down to basically only about 3x main seed providers commercially out there anymore...that, to me...is dangerously low.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    33. Re:I Can't Believe This by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Nothing physical was stolen. What I find alarming is seeds fall out of hoppers in transit, pollen blows across property lines, Monsanto has a product that not only competes with other seed lines, it has the power to literaly take over seed lines especially from smaller operations.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    34. Re:I Can't Believe This by Twanfox · · Score: 1

      Ironically, the 'terminator' feature would resolve the cross-pollination issue.

      And less-ironically, I could see this as being a massive problem for farmers trying NOT to have their fields contaminated by Roundup Ready crops. So they have a field, and it gets cross-contaminated with pollen from Roundup Ready plants, and it's enough that the new seeds produced will not germinate. The farmer, having practiced the art of replanting seed stock from his field will find that his fields will no longer grow, and his seeds (or a portion thereof) are useless.

      That totally doesn't cause collateral damage in the market place, does it?

    35. Re:I Can't Believe This by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      So it has come to this: they are equivocating planting seeds with reverse engineering a light bulb.

      No, they are equivocating planting seeds with building a light bulb from a blue print.

    36. Re:I Can't Believe This by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      I think we're getting down to basically only about 3x main seed providers commercially out there anymore

      The numbers I have aren't authoritative, but it looks like Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta put together aren't even half of the global seed market. One of the major reasons they got there was because they took enormous risks (imagine if GMOs failed to work, didn't do anything farmers wanted, or were made illegal) and other companies didn't. And also keep in mind that there are farmers (generally organic or specialty ones) that won't even do business with companies that make GMOs, so smaller organic suppliers have a small, but essentially captive, market.

    37. Re:I Can't Believe This by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      That's a lot like pollen with the patented genes from neighbors' fields getting onto your plants.

      At least so far: you have to know that the cross-pollination has happened, deliberately breed for it, use the engineered trait (e.g. use lots of glyphosate), and (for the most part) use it for for financial gain.

      How can something that happens on its own, as designed, as sold, get the person who happens to own it in trouble?

      That's what I said when my pet lion ate the neighbor's kid! But seriously, as the law has been used so far people have to deliberately do things in order to get into trouble. I'm not saying that it couldn't change in the future or that we should just trust things to work out, but right now that kind of thing isn't a problem.

    38. Re:I Can't Believe This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chase down the guy(s) that put your grain into that elevator and sue the living shit out of them. Then make sure all your current customers know that they're legally culpable for what a grain elevator does with your intellectual property.

      Except no one in that chain did anything wrong.

      1) Farmer A buys seed from Monsanto
      2) Farmer A grows crop, harvests and sells the result as feed (which they are allowed to do under their license agreement)
      3) Farmer B buys feed from the silo (which is legal for both farmer B and the silo)

      All of that is legal, and no one, not even Monsanto argues against it. Where it gets (a tiny bit) murkier is:

      4) Farmer B realizes that most of his feed is round up ready, plants it
      5) Farmer B sprays the field with round up
      6) Farmer B harvests the result, 100% (or near enough) round up ready seed obtained without signing any agreements with Monsanto

      Monsanto's argument will be that by spraying the field with round up, farmer B was deliberately selecting for the gene that Monsanto has patented. It's a grey area in the law, which is why it's gone to the supreme court. And the annoying thing is, even after the case is decided there's going to be all kinds of wiggle room for both sides of the argument to continue litigating to their heart's content.

      It's a good consequence demonstrating the poor decision to allow the patenting of genes. The gene sequence, once it's in an organism, is extant. No license agreement may alter this fact. It would benefit the free market to allow this facet of reality to be used freely. First sale doctrine respects that capital is useful. Patenting genes attempts to restrict available capital.

      For this and so many other reasons, patenting genes is a bad idea.

    39. Re:I Can't Believe This by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Nothing physical was stolen. What I find alarming is seeds fall out of hoppers in transit, pollen blows across property lines, Monsanto has a product that not only competes with other seed lines, it has the power to literaly take over seed lines especially from smaller operations.

      That's not the case for soybeans. Soybeans are a self-pollinating plant. Normally the plant is already pollinated before the flower opens. There can be cross-pollination due to insects, but the prospect of wind-borne pollination is remote. Grain plants like corn and wheat though, pollinate mainly by wind.

  3. Why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why aren't all of those Monsanto people not in prison yet ?

    1. Re:Why... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because of the golden rule: Those with the gold make the rule.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  4. Sounds like a good idea to me by davidwr · · Score: 2

    Assuming that the particular terminator gene doesn't have unwanted side-effects, then I don't see a problem with it. This is the same standard I apply to other genetically modified living things.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Sounds like a good idea to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please do not procreate

    2. Re:Sounds like a good idea to me by ArhcAngel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      First define "unwanted" and then tell me how you determine them without them actually happening? Let's say for instance they cross pollinate with another crop and sterilize that crop as well. Which in turn cross pollinates ad nauseum until there are no fertile seeds. Far fetched perhaps but not unthinkable.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    3. Re:Sounds like a good idea to me by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 3, Funny

      First define "unwanted" and then tell me how you determine them without them actually happening? Let's say for instance they cross pollinate with another crop and sterilize that crop as well. Which in turn cross pollinates ad nauseum until there are no fertile seeds. Far fetched perhaps but not unthinkable.

      As we all can remember from the terrible seedless Watermelon apocalypse that swept the land taking all vegetation with it, this is just too great of a risk to take! We must remember the dangers of producing plants without seeds!

      Never forget!

    4. Re:Sounds like a good idea to me by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      I can think of one potential issue immediately. What happens when the "terminator seed" plants fertilize the regular plants? Spreading genes like that around our food supply is a profoundly stupid idea. Profoundly, incredibly stupid.

    5. Re:Sounds like a good idea to me by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Which in turn cross pollinates ad nauseum until there are no fertile seeds. Far fetched perhaps but not unthinkable.

      Imagine that these seeds wake up one night and start pillaging every town within 100 miles of where they were planted, eating the brains of any human they come across. Far fetched perhaps, but not unthinkable. We must ban the seeds!

    6. Re:Sounds like a good idea to me by msauve · · Score: 2

      "Assuming that the particular terminator gene doesn't have unwanted side-effects"

      Like that gene becoming dominant, cross-pollinating other plantings, and making corn virtually extinct in a few generations?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    7. Re:Sounds like a good idea to me by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Assuming that the particular terminator gene doesn't have unwanted side-effects, then I don't see a problem with it. This is the same standard I apply to other genetically modified living things.

      I would go one step further. Assuming that the particular terminator gene doesn't have unwanted side effects, I am of the opinion that it should be mandatory, because it reduces the risk associated with genetically modified plants considerably.

      When it comes to future evolution and survival of the fittest, genetically modified crops, particularly when those modifications involve resistance against weed killer, are likely to be preferentially naturally selected for. In the absence of modifications that prevent those genes from being passed on to future generations, those modified varieties will likely eventually become the dominant variety over all non-modified varieties. If in fifty or a hundred years, we discover that one of those genetic modifications causes harm, it will be an uphill battle to get our agriculture back to safe crops.

      By contrast, if the genetically modified varieties contain terminator genes that make them sterile, the issue of contaminating future generations of plants ceases to be a problem. When farmers stop planting the dangerous variety, it stops growing. This, of course, assumes a completely effective terminator gene, which probably isn't likely, but even an imperfect terminator gene would help balance the odds somewhat.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    8. Re:Sounds like a good idea to me by similar_name · · Score: 1

      Engineering food to not reproduce just seems like a poor idea to me.

    9. Re:Sounds like a good idea to me by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Like that gene becoming dominant, cross-pollinating other plantings, and making corn virtually extinct in a few generations?

      Could you please explain how a gene that causes sterility could become dominant?

    10. Re:Sounds like a good idea to me by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      Let's say for instance they cross pollinate with another crop and sterilize that crop as well. Which in turn cross pollinates ad nauseum until there are no fertile seeds. Far fetched perhaps but not unthinkable.

      No, I really think that sterile crops cross-pollinating generation after generation is pretty much unthinkable. :)

      More to the point, if A plants corn for seed and does nothing to control their reproduction, and B plants a sterile variety, it's true that A may lose some (small) part of his seed because of pollination from B's plants. But you'd get essentially the same effect if B planted a hybrid (their offspring tend to do poorly) or an incompatible variety. Farmer A really just needs to use the standard techniques (that he's probably already using if he's doing his own breeding) to do his own crossing, not go off and demand the right to dictate to the rest of the county what they're allowed to plant.

    11. Re:Sounds like a good idea to me by msauve · · Score: 2

      Never heard of mutation, eh?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    12. Re:Sounds like a good idea to me by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Never heard of mutation, eh?

      You mean a mutation that causes sterility propagating through a population? Aren't "sterility" and "propagating" mutually exclusive?

      Whether it arises from intentional GMO, or random mutation, I don't see how a gene that causes its own extinction could spread.

    13. Re:Sounds like a good idea to me by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Engineering food to not reproduce just seems like a poor idea to me.

      Too late. We have already been doing it for centuries. Visit any grocery store and you will see seedless grapes, seedless watermelons, navel oranges, seedless banana, etc. I doubt if many American or Europeans have ever seen a banana with seeds.

    14. Re:Sounds like a good idea to me by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      First define "unwanted" and then tell me how you determine them without them actually happening? Let's say for instance they cross pollinate with another crop and sterilize that crop as well. Which in turn cross pollinates ad nauseum until there are no fertile seeds. Far fetched perhaps but not unthinkable.

      If we are going to talk about the definition of words you may want to start "sterilize", because I think you might be using it wrong.

    15. Re:Sounds like a good idea to me by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Or the horror of the seedless banana apocalypse! Or the unmitigated disaster of the seedless cucumber apocalypse!

      Oh the humanity!

      All kidding aside, if maize could be convinced to grow as a perennial, that would be really valuable.

    16. Re:Sounds like a good idea to me by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Informative

      well the banana apocalypse is actually real.. for clones of particular banana.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    17. Re:Sounds like a good idea to me by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Er, the parent said something about sweeping the land and taking all vegetation with it. The fact that certain strains of banana are particularly susceptible to a new disease leaves the rest of the world untouched.

      Anyway, the joke was done better further downthread. I forgot about seedless grapes, at least, and I think that post thought up at least one more, too.

      All the moaning about genetically modified food seems to forget that we've been meddling with the genetics of our food since prehistoric times. Admittedly we probably weren't using viruses to do the meddling before, which puts a different complexion on things, but still. Edited DNA is rather the rule, not the exception.

    18. Re:Sounds like a good idea to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming that the particular terminator gene doesn't have unwanted side effects, I am of the opinion that it should be mandatory

      That's quite an assumption you're making there! That's of course fine as long as you realize and admit that's only academic rambling and doesn't relate to current policies and practices.

      You should read up on ddt. It was the miracle cure of its time. It was cheap and worked well. And so it was used absolutely everywhere. And after people noticed it bioaccumulated and started killing predatory animals at top the food chain is now banned in all developed nations.

      I think we shouldn't use the population of this planet as guinea pigs. We should do proper public peer reviewed hard science to determine the pros and cons of new technologies. The current studies are done behind closed doors, much like in the pharmacological business (medicine) and only selected studies which suggest the drugs researched have positive effects are ever published. This obviously gives the public and the authorities deciding whether a drug can be sold a very wrong idea of the actual effects of the drug.

      And the scale of genetic engineering is very much larger than that of the drugs. It has the potential to fuck up all life on earth forever. So we shouldn't do blind gambles and go all in like we're doing now. We simply cannot afford to lose. We must get this right before it's too late. This sickening human experiment has gone on in the US and spread to other countries as well so we might even now have crossed the point of no return. Like with climate change.

      Our parents and grandparents might have lived the great wars but we're living in a far more dangerous era. All this brings to mind the Einstein quote that says "I don't know with what weapons WWIII will be fought but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones".

    19. Re:Sounds like a good idea to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure that "terminator" genes are really going to prevent these crops from reproducing as much as Monsanto thinks; They're not sterile cross-bred seeds, they're modified sequences inserted into the DNA of otherwise reproducing seed crops.

      Similarly to using antibiotics until the rare MRSA mutation becomes rampant, produce billions of a crop and forbid it to reproduce and the one-in-a-million Roundup Ready mutation that produces viable seed will spread.

    20. Re:Sounds like a good idea to me by msauve · · Score: 1
      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    21. Re:Sounds like a good idea to me by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      the parent said something about sweeping the land and taking all vegetation with it.

      editorialize much?

      All the moaning about genetically modified food seems to forget that we've been meddling with the genetics of our food since prehistoric times.

      There is a substantial difference between genetically modifying something and cross-breeding. cross-breeding happens naturally all the time where genetic modification not so much. I believe nature is self healing in most respects and as such the scenario I put forth would be almost impossible with simple cross-pollination. I simply put forth a scenario whereby the genetically altered species might be able to propagate it's genetic alterations into other crops to the detriment of that species. I would label that an "unwanted side-effect".

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    22. Re:Sounds like a good idea to me by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      All the moaning about genetically modified food seems to forget that we've been meddling with the genetics of our food since prehistoric times. Admittedly we probably weren't using viruses to do the meddling before, which puts a different complexion on things, but still. Edited DNA is rather the rule, not the exception.

      But things are a bit different in this case..in the past, it was only cross-breeding between same species.

      Splicing in genetic material from a jellyfish into a soybean plant is quite a bit different.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    23. Re:Sounds like a good idea to me by DedTV · · Score: 1
      Apparently, the concern with these seeds is that the modified genes can be spread through normal pollination causing crops planted from normal, non-GM seed to produce sterile seeds. Eventually, that could cause extinction of natural strains. Obviously, genocidal seed would be bad.
      If not for that big issue though, I don't see any problem with it. If you want the benefits of using GM seed over common, self propagating "open source" seed why shouldn't you have to pay the inventors for it? This is quite a different issue than exists with the Round Up ready seed where they didn't control the spread of their genetics, only their use, which put the responsibility on farmers to somehow know which of the seeds they bought from grain elevators were genetically modified and only plant those which weren't. As GM seeds weren't made to be bright blue or something so they could be easily identified, it was unreasonable.

      As for the safety issue for consumers. I'm not that worried as the genetic modifications are no more radical than those that occur naturally from generation to generation or are induced through selective breeding. They're just more precise.

    24. Re:Sounds like a good idea to me by similar_name · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. I would just note that still doesn't make it a good idea and none of those are staples like a grain (eg. corn). I'll concede the argument though, I have not really investigated the matter enough to defend my position. Sometimes things just don't feel right. I'm all for GMO, I just don't care for the idea of sterilizing the food supply.

    25. Re:Sounds like a good idea to me by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I realize that it's a big assumption that the terminator gene doesn't have any side effects, but it's no bigger an assumption than the assumption that any other genetic modification doesn't have any side effects. The terminator gene at least makes it practical to quickly stop using a variety of GMO crops if a potentially dangerous problem is discovered. Whether that problem is caused by the terminator gene or some other modified gene is largely irrelevant; it's a relatively small increase in short-term risk that results in a relatively large decrease in long-term risk.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  5. BADIMGAGE by davidwr · · Score: 1

    I just had this image of a bunch of mini-Arnolds running around. Bad image, DO NOT WANT.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:BADIMGAGE by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      I just had this image of a bunch of mini-Arnolds running around. Bad image, DO NOT WANT.

      more like Arnold sperm it being "terminator seed"

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  6. Luddites. by The+Shootist · · Score: 0

    Hybridization can also produce sterile seeds, or a germ line that doesn't breed true.

    What's the fucking problem? Generally, the idiot public.

    1. Re:Luddites. by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 1

      Except for the problem that the pollen of these plants is not contained to the field that they are planted. That pollen will blow on the wind and can travel hundreds of miles on trucks, cars, birds and other animals and could then find its way onto other soybean plants which did not have the terminator gene. What happens then?

      Is that pollen never produced on the plants with these seeds (but from my understanding of how these things work, especially when the food substance is the seed itself), you still need to pollinate the plants. I guess you could do it such that you genetically modify the plant to not produce pollen, and then also sell pollen that can be used to pollinate the genetically modified plants, but that is not what is being done here.

      Now back to what happens when the pollen from the GM plant with the terminator gene pollinates a plant without that gene? Is it sterile? If so, what stops the owner of that plant from suing the company that made the other plant that now ruined his future livelihood by sterilizing his plants?

      --
      We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    2. Re:Luddites. by xiando · · Score: 2

      Is it sterile? If so, what stops the owner of that plant from suing the company that made the other plant that now ruined his future livelihood by sterilizing his plants?

      This is probably what would happen here in the EU, but we avoid that altogether by having laws again GMO seeds.

    3. Re:Luddites. by icebike · · Score: 1

      Except for the problem that the pollen of these plants is not contained to the field that they are planted. That pollen will blow on the wind and can travel hundreds of miles on trucks, cars, birds and other animals and could then find its way onto other soybean plants which did not have the terminator gene. What happens then?

      Like many other hybrid seeds, the terminator seed extinguishes its line in a single season. Its likelihood of getting into the wild is vastly reduced. The risk would be to the crops along the boundaries of immediate neighboring farmer.

      Remember that the terminator seed probably has to produce pollen that works enough to allow the plant to produce seed.
      Its just that the seed produced won't germinate (or something). So the neighbor's crop might grow just fine even when cross fertilized, but some portion of his seed may not work the following year. The rest would grow fine.

      Perhaps it could be contrived by engineering the "terminator"crop to produce seed later than normal, when the other crops would have already produced their pollen, and set seed that would be virile.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:Luddites. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't sue Monsanto if your neighbor's crop infects your fields. Your neighbor signed a "technology transfer agreement" with Monsanto saying that HE and NOT Monsanto are fully liable for any contamination of others fields.

      You can't make this stuff up. Seriously you just can't. Read the fine print in all that stuff you sign.

  7. Why should they be? by davidwr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What laws have they, as individuals (vs. as a corporation) broken, specifically? Exclude laws that typically do not result in prison time.

    If the answer is something other than "none," then you need to ask the relevant prosecutors, not Slashdot. If the answer is "none" then there's your answer.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Why should they be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuisance software patents are already too easy to file, as both Apple and Microsoft have so frequently and recently demonstrated.

    2. Re:Why should they be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shelly is that you?

    3. Re:Why should they be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not breaking any laws the way Wall Street guys don't break it already deserves a bullet in the head in my humble opinion.

    4. Re:Why should they be? by MozeeToby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A better question would be: "Why haven't all the people who wrote the laws that make this possible (and legal) been thrown out of office yet?"

    5. Re:Why should they be? by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      I don't know about specific laws, but it seems like they're verging on classic super-villainy. "Our Terminator Seed pollen is spreading the recessive trait into the normal crops. Soon there will be a 40% reduction in available supply! Mass starvation and excessively high food prices. Muhuhahaha!"

    6. Re:Why should they be? by xiando · · Score: 1

      it seems like they're verging on classic super-villainy

      They are, and we threat them accordingly here in the EU. Their GMO crops are illegal and we punish them whenever their seeds manage to find their way here anyway.

    7. Re:Why should they be? by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      it seems like they're verging on classic super-villainy

      They are, and we threat them accordingly here in the EU.

      Didn't some of you guys do the same thing with machinery during the Industrial Revolution?

    8. Re:Why should they be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The industrial revolution started in Europe. Don't kid yourself.

    9. Re:Why should they be? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      A better question would be: "Why haven't all the people who wrote the laws that make this possible (and legal) been hanged for their deliberate and treasonous jepordization of our food supply?"

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    10. Re:Why should they be? by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      I'm just pointing out the irony of a European being proud that a technology is banned from Europe, even though the same attitude (though towards a different technology) appeared a couple of centuries ago, and nowadays we generally see that as a rather unenlightened movement.

  8. Been Raped By Companies Too Many Times to Count by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Assuming that the particular terminator gene doesn't have unwanted side-effects, then I don't see a problem with it. This is the same standard I apply to other genetically modified living things.

    Can you tell me how much testing is done to verify these things are safe? How long and how numerous are the human trials? I mean, I've seen the tobacco industry burn people on this exact same thing before by avoiding rigorous studies. Is this stuff treated just like the FDA treats any sort of medicine that we put into our bodies or does it just get rubber stamped through like a natural food? I would be suspicious that anything developed in the past ten years or less is completely guaranteed to be safe for the duration of a human life. Also, I am rather afraid if we get to a point where symptoms develop but we can't pin down which genetically modified food is doing it because everything's genetically modified and even growing things organically doesn't mean anything because of cross pollination. If you can convince me not to worry about that, I'm all ears! For instance, increases of lead in our body looked safe cosmetically and look at all the studies coming out about that.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Been Raped By Companies Too Many Times to Count by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm all ears!

      So is the corn.

    2. Re:Been Raped By Companies Too Many Times to Count by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Testing? Who needs testing when you have "substantial equivalence"?

    3. Re:Been Raped By Companies Too Many Times to Count by Nrrqshrr · · Score: 2

      Well, when you eat potatos, you don't end up with potato DNA in your cells. Same goes for GMO food, it's not harmful because it contains external genes. (heck, if it was that easy to integrate external genes, curing all kinds of diseases would become quite easier).

      The problem comes from pesticides. Either the plants get genes that teach them how to make their own insecticides (at which point some testing is needed). Or those plants become tolerant to what you can call a "chemical bath", and thus, agricultors go berserk on the chemicals they use to keep their plants "safe".

    4. Re:Been Raped By Companies Too Many Times to Count by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Can you tell me how much testing is done to verify these things are safe?

      A lot.

      How long and how numerous are the human trials?

      Why don't you tell me why they are necessary. Okay, a corn has a cspB gene, or a cotton has a Cry1Ab gene, or a soy has C4 epsps gene, or a papaya has prsv cp gene, or an apple has an antisense PPO gene. Why should that bother me, especially considering all the other mandatory testing?

      I would be suspicious that anything developed in the past ten years or less is completely guaranteed to be safe for the duration of a human life.

      You should be suspicious of things that you have reason to be suspicious of, not things that could potentially have an unknown unknown, which is pretty much everything. You can't prove that something won't be dangerous because you can't prove a negative, but there is neither reason to suspect that GE crops are dangerous nor is there evidence suggesting that GE crops are dangerous, unless you count Wakefield grade rubbish like the Séralini study. It irks me that when people say that some stuff about wifi or cell phones they are mocked but saying it about biotechnology is enlightened.

      If you can convince me not to worry about that, I'm all ears!

      Read these studies, and statements from various organizations like the WHO, FDA, EFSA, FSANZ,NAP, ANBIO, AAAS, ect. The scientific consensus on genetic engineering is pretty solid. You can hate on Monsanto all you want (although you should be aware that the business end, like the science end, is often fought with misconceptions, half truths, and downright FUD), and I'm not saying there are not nuances that should be rationally discussed (such as herbicide resistant weeds and resistance breakdown, although those are larger issues that have affected non-GE crops as well) but the science behind genetically engineered crops is solid. In many ways, the controversy over genetically engineered crops is the agricultural equivalent to the controversies surrounding evolution, climate change, and vaccines.

    5. Re:Been Raped By Companies Too Many Times to Count by xiando · · Score: 3, Interesting

      the FDA

      Your FDA is a corrupt joke with a revolving door between it and major players like Monsanto. Monsanto basically work periods "part-time" at the FDA where they rubber-stamp their own products.

    6. Re:Been Raped By Companies Too Many Times to Count by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why are you placing the onus and responsibility on the consumer? It isn't the consumer making billions of dollars on this technology ... did you take notes from "Thank You For Smoking" or something?

    7. Re:Been Raped By Companies Too Many Times to Count by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of testing.

      Everything you eat contains tons of different DNA and proteins that have not been characterized or exhaustively tested (surprise). The new protein and DNA added to GMO is not any different.

    8. Re:Been Raped By Companies Too Many Times to Count by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      -It gets approved by the USDA after a minimum of ~5-6 years testing. I can't say how much human testing is involved, though.

      -There was one product (I think a GMO soybean?) modified to have a more complete protein profile by inserting a sequence from cashews.

      This sequence caused expression of the allergen from cashews, so it got caught and the program was shut down.

      -The terminator gene will prevent the escape of GMO traits, reducing the risk of accidental contamination to direct cross-pollination (as opposed to escapes)

      Captcha: benign

    9. Re:Been Raped By Companies Too Many Times to Count by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 4, Informative

      Either the plants get genes that teach them how to make their own insecticides

      Just so you are aware, all plants produce insecticides. Plants can't fight back or run from the things that want to eat them like animal life can, so they evolved other methods of defense, including chemical ones. For example, genetically engineered corn has insecticidal Cry proteins in it, but even the non-GE corn has insecticidal maysin and other compounds in it. I'm not saying we shouldn't test things, just that a plant producing an insecticide internally is only exceptional if you know nothing about plant biology.

    10. Re:Been Raped By Companies Too Many Times to Count by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not a drug, these plants are sterile due to internal biological processes controlled by the genes they have discovered or designed. It cannot harm humans. The reason they are not tested as vigorously as drugs is because there is no scientific reason to do so. Any calls otherwise are just hysteria.

    11. Re:Been Raped By Companies Too Many Times to Count by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, when you eat potatos, you don't end up with potato DNA in your cells.

      That... has got to be the stupidest argument I have ever heard.

      Why?

      Because by utilizing the same "logic", I can claim that any number of poisonous plants and animals are ok to eat, because you don't end up with their DNA in your cells.

    12. Re:Been Raped By Companies Too Many Times to Count by yndrd1984 · · Score: 2

      This sequence caused expression of the allergen from cashews, so it got caught and the program was shut down.

      Except that (so far at least) in situations like this allergen expression was a likely result of the experiment in question, and it "got caught" by people specifically looking for it, as it was an expected result. This shouldn't be any more alarming than finding out that a crash test dummy got its head bashed in - you expect things to go "wrong" during safety testing, because that's the one place you actually want those bad things to happen.

    13. Re:Been Raped By Companies Too Many Times to Count by El+Puerco+Loco · · Score: 1

      Yes! This is obviously a fiendish plot by Monsanto to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids. And if you think that's bad, just wait until you find out what the queers are doing to the soil.

    14. Re:Been Raped By Companies Too Many Times to Count by El+Puerco+Loco · · Score: 1

      Any licensed pesticide applicator that "goes berserk" with their chemicals would be out of business and maybe in jail pretty quickly. And Monsanto's roundup ready crops cut down on the amount of herbicide needed to control weeds. As far as pesticides go, glyphosate is one of the safer ones.

    15. Re:Been Raped By Companies Too Many Times to Count by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's not really any reason to suspect such genes are harmful to ingest, so there's not much beyond your standard food testing. These terminator genes occur in nature, and you've probably already eaten them. We haven't advanced to the point that we can synthetically engineer non-trivial proteins, so genetic engineering is basically copy/paste, perhaps with slight modification.

      As for why there's little risk of harm, it's because we eat innumerable substances (including random mutations of proteins) throughout our lives, most of which with a vested interest in killing us. Plants, for example, are usually poisonous to animals (to discourage us from eating them), but we've adapted to the point that we can eat most of them anyway. (That's why kids and pregnant women are picky eaters, they are more vulnerable.) Our stomach's acidic environment degrades most everything, and our intestines won't absorb complex molecules it doesn't recognize, and the liver breaks down the various things the intestines do absorb before the blood goes anywhere else. Small, membrane soluble molecules might slip by, but you're generally talking about a complex alkaloid produced through a convoluted mechanism, rather than a simple protein encoded by a single gene.

      So, in brief, there hasn't been any evidence of harm and no plausible mechanism for any either. Pharmaceuticals can be dangerous because they are designed to be absorbable. But food is generally safe. Take trans fats for example. Terrible for your arteries, but the harmful ones can only be produced by chemically hydrogenating saturated fats. IOW, there's not a biological method of producing them (aside from some non-dangerous ones naturally present in meat). Coniine, a neurotoxin present in hemlock, undergoes a terribly complex synthetic pathway, which would be difficult to transfer to another organism and near impossible to do accidentally. I'm sure exceptions exist, as is always true in biology, but they're not common enough to worry about.

    16. Re:Been Raped By Companies Too Many Times to Count by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you have an abundance of evidence documenting the corruption and proving that accusation. The revolving door may have some merit, but do you have proof that they are rubber stamping their own products, or are you just playing the same conspiracy canard that everyone who is wrong does? And once you provide that evidence, care to explain how it is that so many other organizations reach similar conclusions to the FDA's on this topic?

    17. Re:Been Raped By Companies Too Many Times to Count by xiando · · Score: 1

      > has a 7 digit uid
      > slashdot submissions including topics such as "Publicly funded GMO research facing destruction", "New study confirms safety of GE crops" and "Greenpeace destroys CSIRO scientific GMO trial".
      > subscribed tags include "biotech" and "gmo"

      Are you even trying not to look like a Monsanto PR-department employee?

    18. Re:Been Raped By Companies Too Many Times to Count by dywolf · · Score: 1

      human trials? it's corn. you eat it. it gets digested and broken down. then you take a dump. they didnt change anything in that process, its the exact same carbs you always got. they just made it so it cant reproduce. bad scifi movies aside, that isnt something to be worried about in terms of your personal health. honestly i expect better intelligence from someone on slashdot.

      no, your concern over human trials is silly. what you should be concerned about is whether or not it has the ability to hybridize in the wild, and decimate the world corn crop. we have stored seed that could still be used, but all it would take is one bad season to make a lot of people very unhappy. they've proven time and again they cant really control the spread of the pollen, and patches of it spring up in other places far from where it was planted. that is the danger here: it cross pollinating with regular corn and causing a season or two of "holy crap our corn seed is useless".

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    19. Re:Been Raped By Companies Too Many Times to Count by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      In many ways, the controversy over genetically engineered crops is the agricultural equivalent to the controversies surrounding evolution, climate change, and vaccines.

      What?
      It's impossible to maintain our civilization without vaccines.
      Evolution is a pillar of the biological sciences.
      Climate change controversy is being generated by the same people that told us cigarettes were good for our health.

      GMO crops are a choice, not a science.
      It's harder to feed the world without them, but not impossible.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    20. Re:Been Raped By Companies Too Many Times to Count by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem isn't that the GM food has different genes (like you say, when you eat potatos, you don't end up with potato DNA in your cells), but that the genes expressed may have unseen effects, such as producing an emzyme that some people may be allergic to.

    21. Re:Been Raped By Companies Too Many Times to Count by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      I work in plant scientist. I do research at a university. I probably could work for Monsanto (and make a lot more money) if I didn't believe in what I do so strongly. When I see people attack an important tool with all the sense of an anti-vaxxer, you bet I'm going to say something. But hey, keep thinking that science is a conspiracy.

    22. Re:Been Raped By Companies Too Many Times to Count by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Is this stuff treated just like the FDA treats any sort of medicine that we put into our bodies or does it just get rubber stamped through like a natural food?

      Well, considering the FDA and USDA are these days, merely turnstiles of people rotating in and out of the industry..basically letting them make up the rules and pass whatever they want in their interests....it really doesn't make much a difference what either dept does, as long as it tows the companies' collective lines...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    23. Re:Been Raped By Companies Too Many Times to Count by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      You do make a rational argument.

      I would posit, however, that we SHOULD have labeling called for to let us know what is GMO and what is not...so the customer can more easily make informed decisions on what they'd like to purchase and eat.

      I dunno what the problem with that is...seems a logical, straightforward thing to do. We have to label processed foods with ingredients, and I'd say that a GMO food is somewhat more 'processed' than the non-gmo versions, no?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    24. Re:Been Raped By Companies Too Many Times to Count by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      It's a bit more complected than that. Whether or not a thing is GE is only one attribute of a crop. There are a lot of similar details about crops I could mention that most people just don't know about. For example, many apples and peaches are bud sports, somatic mutations selected for a particular trait, but the sport is not labeled. Things like strawberries and blueberries don't even have their varieties labeled. Many citrus fruits and varieties of wheat have been altered via mutagenesis, exposing plant tissue to mutagenic radiation or chemicals, yet this is unlabeled. Some crops, like tomato, are improved via wide crosses with wild plants, sometimes so wide that they could not produce viable offspring, so the developing embryo must be cut out and cultured in vitro to produce offspring to introduce the desired genes into the population. Watermelons often have an entire extra set of chromosomes artificially induced, and the technique of artificially doubling chromosomes is used in the production of many types of vegetables. Do you know if the last carrot you ate was a doubled haploid hybrid? There is so much about crop species that many people just don't know, and relative to a lot of these things, which involve changing an unknown number of genes, the insertion of just a few is somewhat minor by comparison, so I would not say that a GE crop is 'more processed' than a non-GE one.

      My point is there is a lot of things we don't label. Why don't we require they be labeled? Because labels are for relevant things. Ingredients, allergens, those matter. How a crop variety was produced, not so much. To require labels for genetic engineering would be inconsistent and not based in science. Even if we did label them, it wouldn't even be informative. Okay, so I say I've got a GE corn that is genetically modified. What does that tell you about it? Not much, unless you already know what genes to expect. You would have to label the genes inserted and what they do to make it actually mean anything, and if you do that, why ignore all other genes that have variable presence in crops? For example, why not label if a raspberry has the A1 gene, or label rice with the sd-1 gene, or tomatoes with the Ph-3 gene? Again, it is too inconsistent and too irrelevant to merit a specific law.

      I get that some people want it, but there is already options for those people. Many supermarkets have entire isles of organic products, and many products are labeled as 'non-GMO' or certified by the Non-GMO Project. It's basically no different than Halal or Kosher. If you want it, that's fine, but you don't deserve a special law requiring that everyone else accommodate you. For example, a product with pig gelatin does not have to be labeled as Haram, and the onus is on Muslims to avoid questionable products, not for the world to accommodate their beliefs. Or consider orlah fruits. If Jews want to avoid them, their call, but the responsibility is on themselves. In this case, if you want to avoid GE crops, that is easy. There are only 8 crop species that are GE: corn, soy, canola, cotton, alfalfa, sugar beet, summer squash, and papaya. Avoid those, or buy organic, and you avoid GE crops. With a little education, it becomes a non-issue. Which raises the question of why it is so often made into an issue.

      I often hear anti-GMO people say of the labels 'They don't label them, so they must be hiding something from you. They must be dangerous.' These same people say of the mandatory labels in Europe 'They must label them there, so there must be something wrong with them. they must be bad for you.' The labeling push is, in my opinion, just an attempt to ignore everything else you could mention and single out genetic engineering under the guise of providing more information when in actuality they are just trying to make GE crops look somehow different and bad, despite their safety. They are trying to scare consumers who do not fully understand the topic (which is pretty much everyone, unfortunately). I compare it to

    25. Re:Been Raped By Companies Too Many Times to Count by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      Another little factoid I forgot to add: in some crops they don't even tell you what species you are eating! If you eat a fresh cherry and a cherry pie, that is not the same species (one is Prunus avium and the other is P. cerasus). If you eat a fresh grape and drink grape juice, that is also two different species (Vitis vinifera and V. labrusca). In the case of blueberries, there are quite a number of species. You might be eating Vaccinium corymbosum, V. australe, V. myrtilloides, V. angustifolium, or V. ashei. Despite being labeled as the same things, they are different species, and most people do not even know about it due in part to the fact that there are no required labels for the different species. Ever seen the species on your blueberries? I haven't, and while I'd certainly like to, I don't feel that my curiosity merits special regulations on the blueberry producers.

    26. Re:Been Raped By Companies Too Many Times to Count by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      I think it should be pretty simple if any vegetable/fruit product has has genetic material from a different species spliced into it to be labeled as GMO....that is so far away from other hybridization in the 'natural' way.

      I'd say also, if a virus was used to splice in genetic material to do this..label that.

      Both of these methods are so far removed from natural, or more traditional man driven mutations/hybridizations that labeling at least those resultant plants would be a prudent set to label.

      What would be the problem with that?

      Heck...I'd appreciate it if varieties of strawberries/oranges, etc, in your example were labeled too....? That would just be nice for information purposes only if nothing else.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    27. Re:Been Raped By Companies Too Many Times to Count by PraiseBob · · Score: 1

      It's harder to feed the world without them, but not impossible.

      In the US: 91% of the soybean crop is GMO.
      88% of the corn crop is GMO.
      Yield differences can be significant.

      Estimates are that over 1 billion people have been saved from starvation due to GMO crops over the past 40 years. The population of the planet is increasing. There is almost no practical way to feed the planet without them.

  9. Good only for Monsanto. by holmstar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If this works:
    Positive: Monsanto would no longer be able to sue farmers claiming that they are using Monsanto seed to produce a seed crop to use for planting the next year.
    Negative: If the gene causing infertility is transmitted via pollen, then farmers that try to produce an heirloom seed crop near a field planted with a Monsanto variety would be screwed since their seed crop could end up infertile.

    1. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds like destructive virality to me.

    2. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by crath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Negative: If the gene causing infertility is transmitted via pollen, then farmers that try to produce an heirloom seed crop near a field planted with a Monsanto variety would be screwed since their seed crop could end up infertile.

      This is exactly what will happen, and so Monsanto will put and end to many farmers' current practice of saving part of this years crop as next year's seed--since their seed yield will be reduced they negatively impact their future yield due to a percentage of the seed being sterile.

    3. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      If this works:

      Positive: Monsanto would no longer be able to sue farmers claiming that they are using Monsanto seed to produce a seed crop to use for planting the next year.

      Negative: If the gene causing infertility is transmitted via pollen, then farmers that try to produce an heirloom seed crop near a field planted with a Monsanto variety would be screwed since their seed crop could end up infertile.

      Wouldn't that give the farmers cause to engage in class-action style legal recourse against Monsanto?

      I guess what I'm saying is, where's the negative?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Positive: Monsanto would no longer be able to sue farmers claiming that they are using Monsanto seed to produce a seed crop to use for planting the next year.

      I've been beating that drum for years now, with few following along. Congratulations, though!

      Negative: If the gene causing infertility is transmitted via pollen, then farmers that try to produce an heirloom seed crop near a field planted with a Monsanto variety would be screwed since their seed crop could end up infertile.

      That's true, but at least it will still be possible to produce seed in greenhouses with filters. Granted, that's the environment to which I believe we should be limiting GM crops at this stage...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if there would be grounds to sue your neighbor or Monsanto if your neighbor's Monsanto crop caused your non-Monsanto crop to become infertile.

    6. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      The solution for monsanto is easy.

      Sell a "seed mix".

      Seed mix contains an unaltered heirloom seed, and a terminator carrying seed that makes a mature plant that produces no pollen.

      The unaltered heirloom seed in the mix provides the field with pollen. Resulting seed from the vastly more productive GM corn is sterile. All seeds that grow are unprotected heirloom only. Neighboring fields are not contaminated with GM pollen.

      All problems solved!

      (Unless of course, your GOAL is to be the only supplier of seeds worldwide, of course. Then being negligent and prducing pollenating GM crops is directly involved in the business strategy!)

      [Repost. Slashdot seems to have eaten the previous one.]

    7. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Negative: If the gene causing infertility is transmitted via pollen, then farmers that try to produce an heirloom seed crop near a field planted with a Monsanto variety would be screwed since their seed crop could end up infertile.

      This is exactly what will happen, and so Monsanto will put and end to many farmers' current practice of saving part of this years crop as next year's seed--since their seed yield will be reduced they negatively impact their future yield due to a percentage of the seed being sterile.

      Doesn't this seem like it's a single plot twist away from eliminating the ability to grow any major crop and causing the collapse of civilization as famine sweeps the globe?

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    8. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say only aloow it, if Monsanto take ALL liability with regard to ANY mutation, natural or not, for any 'Terminator' seeds that they sell.

      If they can't control their product in its intended environment, meaning: if they can't keep natural spreading factors like wind, insects, etc... from interacting w/ their sold seed to produce an interative secondary seed, then they have no business marketing it as stated, much less being allowed to sue individuals for patent infringement.

    9. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Negative: If the gene causing infertility is transmitted via pollen, then farmers that try to produce an heirloom seed crop near a field planted with a Monsanto variety would be screwed since their seed crop could end up infertile.

      Technically, if you're grown heirloom seeds, you'd want the contaminated ones to be sterile. You don't want Monsanto's genes. You're certainly not going to spray them with Round-up and replant seeds from the ones that survive like Percy Schmeiser testified to doing in court.

    10. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 1

      If ever there was a horrible doomsday scenario, this is it.

      How long before we have that dystopian apocalypse future that all those movies were warning me about?

      Tank Girl, Mad Max, 1984, Brazil, Max Headroom (I know, TV, not movie, but work with me here), Johnny Mnemonic, Buckaroo Banzai, Logan's Run, Planet of the Apes, A Boy and His Dog, etc...

      I've always loved those future dystopia movies, but the idea of actually seeing that kind of shit happen for real? Damn greedy bastards.

      --

      The Digital Sorceress
    11. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This doesn't stop until all food is proprietary. I think this fact is where the discussion should start. The corporate holy grail is for all life to be covered by "intellectual" property. Where not a breath is taken that doesn't put money in the pockets of a certain segment of the population.

      Parents are going to have to sign license agreements before they can take their baby home from the hospital soon.

      You know the joke about how you don't buy beer, you only rent it? We're going to live to see the day where you don't buy beer, you only license it.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by radtea · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Negative: If the gene causing infertility is transmitted via pollen, then farmers that try to produce an heirloom seed crop near a field planted with a Monsanto variety would be screwed since their seed crop could end up infertile.

      This is not an "if" but a "when". It is as near to a certainty as anything can be.

      If anyone other than a large, politically generous American corporation were proposing to do this it would be considered at act of bioterrorism to release terminator seeds into the wild, because cross-pollination with wild-type seeds is a certainty and therefore everyone not buying new seed every year will suffer from yield reductions due to Monsanto's seeds.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    13. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      then farmers that try to produce an heirloom seed crop near a field planted with a Monsanto variety would be screwed since their seed crop could end up infertile.

      If you grow heirlooms you are screwed anyway if your crops are cross pollinated because next year's crops will not be the same line, they will be a hybrid. If someone is growing If the seeds can be tested for viability tested and only saved from the center of the field where cross pollination is less likely to occur, sounds like those grown heirloom varieties would be better off.

    14. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by Grayhand · · Score: 2

      And in the third world where many can't aford Monsanto seeds they get to starve when the next years seeds fail to germinate. On the plus side Monstano will increase profits.

    15. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is very unlikely that every flower of every plant on the heirloom seed farmers farm will be pollinated by the Monsanto seed. That farmer may have a fraction of his seed sterile, but not all of it.

    16. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 2

      will put and end to many farmers' current practice of saving part of this years crop as next year's seed

      Most farms don't save seed anymore and haven't since the rise of hybrid seed in the 1930's.

    17. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by icebike · · Score: 1

      This is exactly what will happen, and so Monsanto will put and end to many farmers' current practice of saving part of this years crop as next year's seed--since their seed yield will be reduced they negatively impact their future yield due to a percentage of the seed being sterile.

      Except your crop is mostly pollinated by itself, and you can largely protect against cross pollination by simply arranging your crop planting to be earlier than the neighbor with Terminator seed, or later. Or, if you don't get along with your neighbor, threaten to sue.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    18. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by icebike · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This doesn't stop until all food is proprietary. I think this fact is where the discussion should start.

      Agreed.

      This is a dangerous road to go down, and there is really no need to go down it.

      We need the courts or congress to just tell Monsanto that their rights to the seed extinguished upon the bag of seed leaving their factory. As far as terminator seed goes, I suspect the market will take care of that. Farmers just won't buy it.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    19. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Just wondering, what do they do instead? At some point, there's going to be a crop around that can be contaminated, right?

    20. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      They repurchase new hybrids every year. The various seed vendors maintain lines that they cross to produce the hybrids, then they make the crosses in fields where they are specifically producing seed to be grown by farmers, then the farmers grow that seed. Farmers get the benefit of not having to worry about the genetics of their seed, not having to clean their seed own seed (by clean I mean get nice clean seed from, say, a tomato, which you do by fermentation), getting superior yielding seed, and getting seed that companies are actively competing to improve.

      At some point, there's going to be a crop around that can be contaminated, right?

      Yes, and this holds true for a lot more than just genetically engineered crops. What happens after that depends on the situation and how people react.

    21. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      The solution for monsanto is easy.

      Sell a "seed mix".

      Seed mix contains an unaltered heirloom seed, and a terminator carrying seed that makes a mature plant that produces no pollen.

      This is how seedless watermelons work. You have to plant them intermixed with "normal" watermelons to provide the pollen.

    22. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      their seed yield will be reduced they negatively impact their future yield due to a percentage of the seed being sterile

      A small percentage, yes, but certainly not enough to ruin a whole harvest.

      More importantly, if you're growing something to produce seed you should be practicing "safe sex" and controlling your plants pollination anyway. Genes from a sterile variety won't get far (one generation), but genes for a low-yield variety can get in and cause significant problems.

    23. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If such a scenario were possible, it would have happened long ago. Viruses have been mucking with DNA for much longer and at an incomprehensibly larger scales than humans, and nothing we do couldn't happen naturally.

      But, if it were possible to eradicate heirlooms, it'd probably be a boon to humanity. Heirlooms are the result of selective breeding, which is the poor man's genetic engineering. In order to get the desirable traits a lot of undesirable traits were tolerated (unlike a GMO where one trait can be selectively added). Often heirlooms are just empty calories, as they're too imbred to properly produce high levels of vitamins. It's not like the farmer tests for nutritional content, they just want a 16 ounce tomato of a certain color and shape.

    24. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      Negative: If the gene causing infertility is transmitted via pollen, then farmers that try to produce an heirloom seed crop near a field planted with a Monsanto variety would be screwed since their seed crop could end up infertile.

      This is not an "if" but a "when". It is as near to a certainty as anything can be.

      No, it's pretty much impossible to do that to an entire field. And if they're trying to keep a pure heirloom variety they're going to need to carefully control pollination anyway.

      cross-pollination with wild-type seeds is a certainty and therefore everyone not buying new seed every year will suffer from yield reductions due to Monsanto's seeds.

      Sterile seed doesn't spread much of anything.

    25. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Sadly, I doubt it will end like those movies.

      Reality isn't Hollywood. The bad guys tend to win out here.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    26. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As far as terminator seed goes, I suspect the market will take care of that. Farmers just won't buy it.

      Just like gamers won't buy DRM encumbered games? I think we had a discussion about that recently.

    27. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add in an oil crisis and a couple plagues and you've got The Windup Girl.

    28. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly what will happen, and so Monsanto will put and end to many farmers' current practice of saving part of this years crop as next year's seed--since their seed yield will be reduced they negatively impact their future yield due to a percentage of the seed being sterile.

      Current practice? That's bullshit unless "current" to you is the 1940s. Most if not all hybrid seed varieties that have been in use for decades produce sterile seed. The farmers who plant crops that can be used as seed are certified or registered seed growers. If they have any of the Monsanto varieties, they will be working with Monsanto to grow them.

      What's next? People complaining about mules being sterile and that it's a plot by the people who raise horses and donkeys?

    29. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as terminator seed goes, I suspect the market will take care of that. Farmers just won't buy it.

      Sure they will. You have to look what other features that Monsanto engineered into the crops. They made them resistant to Monsanto's herbicides so that the farmers can plant them with "no till" farming methods that minimize working the soil to help save moisture and stop soil erosion. Both of those help reduce the cost of raising the crop and keep the soil in good shape. The terminator gene is also meant to keep the pesticide resistance ability from being transferred to the unwanted plants that the herbicides are designed to kill.

    30. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by radtea · · Score: 1

      Sterile seed doesn't spread much of anything.

      Who is talking about "sterile seed"? Do you understand how the terminator gene works? Terminator plants still produce pollen that can fertilize other plants, but those seeds will not germinate due to the terminator.

      The cleverness in the process is that Monsanto has produced a fertile strain that will generate seeds that will grow into infertile plants.

      So the detrimental effects of the terminator are not limited to heirloom varieties, they will universally decrease yields for any farmer who is depending on putting aside pollinated seeds from this years crop to plant next years (this is a bigger deal in the developing world, still.)

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    31. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      universally decrease yields for any farmer who is depending on putting aside pollinated seeds from this years crop

      There may be a small loss, yes. But it won't be any bigger than if the other farmer(s) had planted hybrids, incompatible varieties, or varieties with undesirable traits. If you want to control what kind of seed your crops produce, you have to take responsibility yourself - which is something seed producers (and heirloom keepers) already have to do.

      e.g. If you have an expensive purebred Pomeranian dog you want to breed, you can just let in run loose and you'll probably end up with puppies. But you can't get mad at the Poodle owner down the street because the puppies aren't worth what purebred puppies would be worth.

      Terminator plants still produce pollen that can fertilize other plants, but those seeds will not germinate due to the terminator.

      But that's the limit of the damage it can do, so I don't know why "cross-pollination with wild-type seeds" is something to worry about. Again, the damage won't be significantly worse than if someone planted a low-yield variety nearby.

    32. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      Again, the damage won't be significantly worse than if someone planted a low-yield variety nearby.

      Actually, the "damage" would be significantly less worse than if someone planted low-yield varieties that pollinated into your field. With Terminator seeds, that's it: the damage stops there and you lose a small fraction of your yield for this particular planting. If someone's low-yield variety pollinates your crop, and you replant the resulting seeds, that can affect your crop for generations, bringing your yield down more and more over time as those low-yield varieties continue to cross-pollinate from planting to planting.

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

  10. Uhmmm.... by mark-t · · Score: 2

    Wouldn't it be even better if they just didn't produce seeds at all?

    Because if they produce seeds, even sterile ones, there's still the possibility of accidental contamination. While this might not pose any great threat to Monsanto, because of the seeds' strerility, the outcome could well be a potentially highly *reduced* crop count for places that were not ever intending to use Monsanto's seeds, spelling disaster on a global scale that could well result in the deaths of thousands, if not millions.

    1. Re:Uhmmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Er; the seeds are the product.

    2. Re:Uhmmm.... by Spy+Handler · · Score: 2

      yes, it would be. And actually, it'd be even MORE better to engineer the plant so that the it automatically detects illegal activity by a poaching farmer and report him directly to Monsanto police via a 4G LTE connection. However in the real world, we must deal with what's feasible vs. what we would really like. And I'm guessing it was easier to engineer the plant to produce sterile seeds (which happens in nature all the time) vs. removing seeds completely.

      And also btw, most grains ARE seeds, so if you have a grain with no seed, you have no grain.

    3. Re:Uhmmm.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I was referring to the byproduct seeds produced by growing the product, not the seeds that Monsanto sells themselves.

    4. Re:Uhmmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, the seeds are the product.

    5. Re:Uhmmm.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... true, that. I'd still be very worried about what cross-contamination could do to world food supplies, however.

    6. Re:Uhmmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think Monsanto fucking cares? Everything they do is about reducing fertility, making sure no living thing can reproduce on its own without their permission and stamp of approval. Playing God, if you will. And if you think I'm trolling or not serious: link

      another.

      But I'm sure you know how to use Google, you can find a lot more for yourself.

    7. Re:Uhmmm.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Right... sorry, I was thinking of something else. Still, the worldwide consequences if cross contamination should occur could be HUGE... this is almost like an independent company offering to build and sell nuclear weapons to anybody... regardless of where they are from. It's just a colossally stupid idea that can't possibly end well.

    8. Re:Uhmmm.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      The situation that Monsanto is in a position to institute is absolutely nothing short of an unconscionable crime against the human race. That they don't even care should be grounds for immediate dissolution of the organization and summary execution of the people who would ever advocate it, The number of people that this sort of choice could kill is *STAGGERING*. It's like if some independent company found a way to cheaply make biological weapons and was selling them to whoever wanted to buy them.

    9. Re:Uhmmm.... by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't it be even better if they just didn't produce seeds at all?

      That works great with watermelons. But if you are growing... I don't know... wheat. Or corn. It's a little problematic if your lush green fields don't actually produce any product to sell.

      Seedless wheat defeats the whole point.

    10. Re:Uhmmm.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I don't give a crap whether or not Monsanto cares.... they are taking an action that will, when, and not if, contamination occurs, compromise world food supplies in a extremely negative way.

      It is, in my opinion, tantamount to biological weaponry, and should be penalized accordingly.

    11. Re:Uhmmm.... by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      The solution for monsanto is easy.

      Sell a "seed mix".

      Seed mix contains an unaltered heirloom seed, and a terminator carrying seed that makes a mature plant that produces no pollen.

      The unaltered heirloom seed in the mix provides the field with pollen. Resulting seed from the vastly more productive GM corn is sterile. All seeds that grow are unprotected heirloom only. Neighboring fields are not contaminated with GM pollen.

      All problems solved!

      (Unless of course, your GOAL is to be the only supplier of seeds worldwide, of course. Then being negligent and prducing pollenating GM crops is directly involved in the business strategy!)

    12. Re:Uhmmm.... by c++0xFF · · Score: 1

      As others point out, you're not making sense. But here's an alternative...

      A gene that would prevent pollen production would be helpful. Then, the modified genes won't be able to spread to neighboring crops at all. Even a reduction in pollen would potentially make a difference.

      Of course, now I'm the one talking nonsense. Without pollination, the crop won't produce anything at all.

      So, here's a more viable option, looking at wheat for an example. Maybe engineer the pollen with some sort of defect so it can't spread as easily in the wind. Wheat self-pollinates, often before the flowers have a chance to even open, so hopefully this defect would allow self-pollination but not cross-pollination.

      How do you prevent pollen from spreading? I have no idea (make the pollen heavier?). Again, I'm probably talking nonsense. IANAF (I am not a farmer), IANAGE (I am not a genetic engineer). IANAL, too, if that makes a difference.

    13. Re:Uhmmm.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know. For some reason I was thinking of fruit when I started talking about not producing seeds.

    14. Re:Uhmmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would buy and plant that seed just to harvest 4G LTE antennaes and chips.

    15. Re:Uhmmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really, if these are sterile plants, they will naturally take themselves out of the gene pool. This is hysteria.

    16. Re:Uhmmm.... by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Contamination only matters if the crop contaminated is being grown for seed rather than as food or some other purpose. Crop that is grown for seed is generally rigorously controlled if done in a large mass and often time the seed from the outer plants of the field will be discard due to contamination risk anyway. Keep in mind that you need 1 seed to grow a plant and most plants produce far more than 1 seed so you can probably safely discard 50% and still end up with enough seed to grow at least a 100 times as many crops as you had planted to generate seed.

      If you're truly worried about cross-contamination then you simply grow the plants in a controlled environment.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    17. Re:Uhmmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      seedless corn would only be useful for silage or cellulose alcohol production.

  11. ABCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to Roundup(tm) these guys
    lock em up end starve em to death

  12. Time to start some serious seed banks by twistofsin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To repopulate all the crops after their doomsday crops pollinate every other farmers fields and causes famine.

    1. Re:Time to start some serious seed banks by runeghost · · Score: 2
    2. Re:Time to start some serious seed banks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      7 billion people vs a couple of tins of seeds in cold storage.

    3. Re:Time to start some serious seed banks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To repopulate all the crops after their doomsday crops pollinate every other farmers fields and causes famine.

      Oh mai gawd, what if a person evolved sperm/eggs that would only create infertile children, think of the disaster if they were allowed to copulate with the entire world at once.

  13. Good. by John+Hasler · · Score: 2

    It's a useful technology. It can be used to prevent volunteer glyphosate-resistant corn from infesting a following glyphosate-resistant soybean crop. It can also be used to prevent the spread of "engineered" genes to wild plants and crops in nearby fields, and it can eliminate many plant-patent lawsuits.

    It will have no negative impact on most farmers because most of those who plant commercial seed understand that bin-run seed does not reproduce itself well, has poor germination, and often contains weeds. There are many vendors of traditional/open-pollinating/heritage seeds out there. Buy from them if you like that sort of thing. You will then be able to replant your own seed to your heart's content.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:Good. by crath · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It can also be used to prevent the spread of "engineered" genes to wild plants and crops in nearby fields, and it can eliminate many plant-patent lawsuits.

      This assertion flies in the face of common sense; pollen from this seed will float through the air and contaminate non-engineered fields and now those farmers will also have a percentage of their crop that produces sterile seed. This time, lawsuits will flow in the opposite direction: farmers who replant seed will sue Monsanto due to reduced germination rates and reduced yields in future years.

    2. Re:Good. by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Except that it does not actually prevent contamination. You still have cross pollination, cross pollination which no one can predict what it will produce.

      Yes, the exact species that they plant will not be released into the wild as it dies out in one generation (in theory at least, but then you are talking about billions of billions of lifeforms many with errors in there genetics). But what will the pollen from a terminator variety do to a neighbors field or the other plants in the area?

      Is it conceivable that it will create seeds that will not grow? Or 10000 times worse, is it possibly it will create seeds in other species that will grow into plants and sprout seeds and pollen but these second generation seeds are sterile? Creating a spreadable effect that could spread like a virus anywhere and everywhere?

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    3. Re:Good. by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      What are you talking about. Those farmers obviously stole Monsanto's patented terminator genetics and will be sued by Monsanto.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    4. Re:Good. by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      This assertion flies in the face of common sense; pollen from this seed will float through the air and contaminate non-engineered fields and now those farmers will also have a percentage of their crop that produces sterile seed. This time, lawsuits will flow in the opposite direction: farmers who replant seed will sue Monsanto due to reduced germination rates and reduced yields in future years.

      From what little I understand of Monsanto contracts... responsibility for all the side effects are hoisted upon the farmers. It will more likely be farmers suing other farmers than anyone suing Monsanto.

    5. Re:Good. by smchris · · Score: 1

      Yeah, lawsuits are the American way. And farmers are so rich they can hire lawyers to easily match Monsanto's legal team.

    6. Re:Good. by Grayhand · · Score: 1

      In a perfect world maybe. Anyone that tries to sue will have to prove Monstano did it then take on an army of lawyers. Remember Monsanto has been getting away with contaminating crops for years and even successfully sued the victims. Until the courts get more educated the odds are Monsanto will continue to win. In our system the big stick general wins and Monsanto comes bearing nukes. Even if they win a few cases odds are Monsanto will only have to pay the losses. At worse tens of thousands maybe a few hundred thousand? We're talking billions in seed sales. A few lost cases would barely show up on their balance sheets.

    7. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      monsanto already has sued farmers for exactly that

    8. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could also wake up Godzilla.

    9. Re:Good. by crtreece · · Score: 1

      You will then be able to replant your own seed to your heart's content.

      Unless one of your neighbors plants the Monsanto seed with the terminator gene or a roundup ready gene.

      If they use the terminator seed, now you are left with some percentage of your saved seed with this gene.

      If they plant the roundup ready version, you'll end up being sued by Monsanto for violating their IP rights.

      --
      file: .signature not found
    10. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the only ones that would sue would be the certified seed growers who are growing seed for the various seed companies. They have to meet lots of different qualifications anyway and being a certain distance from fields with these terminator genes would be a must (unless you are actually growing the seed for Monsanto, of course).

  14. Microsoft, Monsanto, Apple by drankr · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    And people ask me why I run Linux.
    Well I actually run it because it's secure, plays well with my hardware and has all the software I need to do my work, but next time I'll tell them about this little gem as well..

    1. Re:Microsoft, Monsanto, Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft, Monsanto, Apple
      ...but next time I'll tell them about this little gem as well..

      So, where's Farmville in your books?

      (ducks)

  15. Tinfoil hat by CrackP0t · · Score: 1

    Ok, I admit this qualifies as a little bit paranoid. Why do I want to have, in the wild, the ability of a species to self-terminate: a purposeful genetic dead end. Our understanding of the genome is so complete and its interactions with other species that we have zero risk of this showing up elsewhere and rendering the entire ecosystem null and void? Call me paranoid, but I can't see how the benefits out weight the risks.

    1. Re:Tinfoil hat by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Yeah, too bad there no, like, network you could log into and find a huge array of arguments for and against.

    2. Re:Tinfoil hat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see mutated humans in the future. I call it the "Babies Born Dead Apocalypse".

    3. Re:Tinfoil hat by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Ok, I admit this qualifies as a little bit paranoid.

      Why do I want to have, in the wild, the ability of a species to self-terminate: a purposeful genetic dead end. Our understanding of the genome is so complete and its interactions with other species that we have zero risk of this showing up elsewhere and rendering the entire ecosystem null and void?

      Call me paranoid, but I can't see how the benefits out weight the risks.

      You are, obviously, not a successful Capitalist.

      FYI, that's not a bad thing.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:Tinfoil hat by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Sure you can't. But then again, you're not selling the crap. For Mosanto, it's just the other way 'round. Just like the dealer selling dope blended with poisonous crap doesn't give a shit how it fucks up his customers, so don't they.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  16. predict by shentino · · Score: 1

    Monsanto is a big corporation and a well represented special interest.

    Therefore, they will win.

  17. Maybe I'm just cynical... by SIGBUS · · Score: 1

    ...but I can't help but think that such an effect would be intentional. But they have the money, er, "protected speech," to push this through.

    --
    Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
  18. Hybrid seeds already aren't good for replanting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Many crops, like corn, commonly use hybrid varieties. These varieties exhibit 'hybrid vigor', which is a result of being heterozygous - they have one set of chromosomes from parent A and the other from parent B, so for all traits they have both an A and a B gene (AB). Replanting hybrid seeds would result in plants of three types (AA, AB, BB), unfortunately the AA and BB plants are usually very inbred and have low crop yields. You can do even better yields with a double-cross, which further decreases the effectiveness of replanting.

    So conventional corn farmers haven't been saving seeds to replant since the the 1930's. 'Terminator' corn therefore wouldn't be much of a change.

  19. Confusing Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think mine is better:

    Monsanto is considering commercializing terminator seeds, because they are in danger of losing a case at the Supreme Court which would allow farmers to plant second-hand Monsanto due to the concept of "basic exhaustion" of patent rights. This concept was affirmed in a recent court case of LG vs Intel in 2008; i.e. LG sold Intel chips which Intel used in an extra-patent manner, and LG was not happy. LG sued and lost because Intel was allowed to use the chips anyway they pleased because they legally purchased said those chips which gave them the "patent" rights. Because these Round-Up ready seeds happened to be in the grain elevator through legal means, any patent enforcement was gone. So Monsanto plans on selling terminator seeds so second-hand seeds won't exist. If the Supreme Court finds against Monsanto this would potentially cause patent protection to be lost for copies of software. So you could perhaps expect Microsoft to release a version of Word which is compiled for 1 computer, and if it finds itself running on a different computer, it promptly deletes itself.

    The long and short of it is: If Monsanto wins, extreme economic uncertainty is averted, but common sense is suspended, and if they lose, we will slowly lose the right to read.

    1. Re:Confusing Summary by void* · · Score: 1

      Based on the links in the article, there's an easy way to make sure it doesn't apply to most software. The critical point is 'self-replicating'. Most software is not self-replicating.

      --


      Code or be coded.
    2. Re:Confusing Summary by hawguy · · Score: 2

      So you could perhaps expect Microsoft to release a version of Word which is compiled for 1 computer, and if it finds itself running on a different computer, it promptly deletes itself.

      Doesn't MS already do that? If you install Word on another computer without a valid license key, it will either refuse to start or start a limited number of times with a nag screen warning you that it's not registered and will quit working.

  20. U$A by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you're pathetic...

    1. Re:U$A by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The US are a great country. It's the dipshits that run it that are pathetic.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  21. black market business idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    create business to resell seeds from farmers to farmers. buy seed as sale for food. run it thru some reseller agents. sell back to farmer at significantly less than monsanto prices. GM seed laundering as it were.

  22. gotta watch by no-body · · Score: 1

    that the terminator genes won't spread over to other crops as the roundup-ready goodies did. That would be real fun to watch...

    1. Re:gotta watch by iamacat · · Score: 1

      Not being to reproduce is not an evolutionary advantageous trait, being able to survive crap sprayed on the fields is.

  23. There is no good way to handle this by subanark · · Score: 1

    So, Monsanto, who spends lots of money on research of GMO, wants to benefit from its research.
    They can try too:
    1. patent their product and take measures against anyone who uses it and doesn't pay.
    -- Accidental use is far too easy. Plants don't label themselves
    2. Use BRM (bio rights management) like terminator gene, or one that requires a chemical activation.
    -- Like DRM you reduce the quality of the product to protect it. Also requires extra research time to do this.

    So what would be an ideal solution to this problem, assuming that Monsanto can't afford to simply let farmers buy it once and propagate it as much as they like?
    1. GMO is evil, and everything they do is bad. Their research should not be allowed to exist.
    2. Create legislation where the government pays Monsanto for their work based on how much of their product is adopted. Then anyone can use the seeds.
    3. Some other solution??

  24. seeds and pollen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if they've solved the problem of the seeds being sterile, slowing unlicensed use, but the pollen still virile, allowing genetic contamination with neighboring crops?

  25. BSA connection by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 1

    Is that Bill Gates owns a large amount of Montesanto shares. If they go up he becomes richer so of course he is promoting them through BSA.

    --
    Just saying it like it are.
  26. BSA by hawguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't see how they can equate biological replication with software:

    BSA/The Software Alliance, which represents companies like Apple and Microsoft, said in a brief that a decision against Monsanto might “facilitate software piracy on a broad scale” because software can be easily replicated. But it also said that a decision that goes too far the other way could make nuisance software patent infringement lawsuits too easy to file.

    Software isn't self replicating, a human you have to explicitly make a copy of it to get it to replicate. That's completely different than seeds that naturally replicate themselves and that replication is why you plant them in the first place. Someone could take one copy of software and install it on multiple computers, but it's not the software that's doing the replicating, it's the human.

    And even if they stretch and claim that installing a program multiple times is the same as a growing plant self-replicating the seed it grew from, then there's no reason a decision against Monsanto couldn't be made narrow enough to apply only to living plants.

    1. Re:BSA by xiando · · Score: 1

      Software isn't self replicating

      What about The Computer Virus? It's true that they usually need some kind of human interaction, but they do replicate without humans doing something to intentionally make it happen

    2. Re:BSA by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Software isn't self replicating

      What about The Computer Virus? It's true that they usually need some kind of human interaction, but they do replicate without humans doing something to intentionally make it happen

      I don't think anyone is claiming that malicious computer viruses should be protected by patents.

      But let's say someone writes a benevolent computer virus (maybe one that automatically cleans up a malicious virus infection). The writer of the software shouldn't be able to sue me for compensation if his program inadvertently ends up on my computer. Not even if I plugged my computer into a university network (that had paid for the software) and the software ended up installing itself on my computer automatically.

      I may have reaped the benefits from the software, but I didn't ask for it to be installed, so I shouldn't have to pay for it.

  27. Whos side should I be on? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "that allowed Bowman to use Roundup indiscriminately to kill weeds without any risk of harming the soybean crop. "

    Oh great.. what about the risk to humans who eat this shit? Are people round-up ready?
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=weed-whacking-herbicide-p

    I keep thinking the answer to this is not biotech but robotech...how hard can it be to create an army of roombas that kill weeds? Some hyperspectral cameras, pattern recognition and burners or pullers. It has got to be possible to engineer something workable and cost effective.

    Anyway here is my delimma... if Monsanto wins they will be happy which will mean I will be sad.

    If the farmers win they will be happy which means we all get to eat even more shit "indiscriminately" laced with roundup.

    It seems I loose either way.

    1. Re:Whos side should I be on? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      You do realize that the article you cited refers to an in-vitro test of isolated cells exposed to a wetting agent (common terminology: soap) used in conjunction with Round-Up. right? And that almost ANY soap would show similar toxicity?

      It is one of the most PREPOSTEROUS attacks on a chemical I've ever seen.

    2. Re:Whos side should I be on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your Roundup fears are wacky, but I love the idea of billions of tiny killer robots being released into fields, shooting locusts with little lethal lasers or something. It's perfect and nothing could possibly go wrong.

    3. Re:Whos side should I be on? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      You do realize that the article you cited refers to an in-vitro test of isolated cells exposed to a wetting agent (common terminology: soap) used in conjunction with Round-Up. right? And that almost ANY soap would show similar toxicity?

      These chemicals purpose is to make it easier for roundup shit to be abosrbed into cells causing damage. See the safety datasheet for their own stinkin product.

      http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/fletcher/programs/xmas/pesticides/labels/Roundup-orig-max-msds.pdf

    4. Re:Whos side should I be on? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Did you even read the MSDS? It isn't mentioned anywhere.

      The purpose of the soap is to wet the surface of the leaf so the herbicide won't run off after being sprayed.

      The tallow amine fatty acids are widely used in thousands of products besides Round Up. Including low irritation baby shampoo, liquid detergents etc etc. They are not considered hazardous except when fish or amphibians are exposed because they adsorb onto gills.Even then exposure is very unlikely because the soap adsorbs on soil and sediments very rapidly, generally before it adsorbs on gills.

      You don't have any gills, right?

      As I said before, the article and the study cited are flat out preposterous. The ignorance and lack of understanding of the science is appalling.

    5. Re:Whos side should I be on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    6. Re:Whos side should I be on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I keep thinking the answer to this is not biotech but robotech...how hard can it be to create an army of roombas that kill weeds? Some hyperspectral cameras, pattern recognition and burners or pullers. It has got to be possible to engineer something workable and cost effective."

      Now there is a thought I've come up with repeatedly myself. It would be a very interesting robotic problem. Solar powered so you don't have to refuel them and small enough to not require much charge to do their work but tough enough to deal with pig-weed and other fibrous weeds.

      Given the amount of "roundup ready" weeds that have mutated over the last 16 years (something Monstanto said "would never happen") we may need them because spraying won't work and killing weeds by hand is hugely time consuming and expensive.

    7. Re:Whos side should I be on? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Did you even read the MSDS? It isn't mentioned anywhere.

      I read the part where the ingredients are trade secrets. I reckon we are just left to guess whats inside.

      As I said before, the article and the study cited are flat out preposterous. The ignorance and lack of understanding of the science is appalling.

      The combination of the ingredients working together is what is dangerous as mentioned in the article. Evaluating each component separatly is not sufficient.

  28. Does Microsoft & Apple Understand Basic Biolog by IonOtter · · Score: 1

    If you drop a CD into the soil, it won't do anything except break down over a few million years. If you drop a CD into a computer, it still won't do anything without user intervention. It might start an auto-run routine, but it won't fully install. (Unless it's a virus or trojan, but that's another kettle of fish.)

    However, if you drop a seed...well...pretty much anywhere that doesn't immediately kill it, and it gets wet? It's going to self-replicate. It will complete it's life-cycle and produce more seeds, no human intervention required.

    So from a software company, this case has already been decided?

    Nature has prior art. The BDS's arguments are invalid.

    --
    [End Of Line]
  29. BSA's position doesn't make sense by hawguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't see how they can equate biological replication with software:

    BSA/The Software Alliance, which represents companies like Apple and Microsoft, said in a brief that a decision against Monsanto might “facilitate software piracy on a broad scale” because software can be easily replicated. But it also said that a decision that goes too far the other way could make nuisance software patent infringement lawsuits too easy to file.

    Software isn't self replicating, you have to explicitly make a copy of it to get it to replicate itself. That's completely different from seeds that naturally replicate themselves and which is why you plant them in the first place. You could take one copy of a program and install it on multiple computers, but the human is doing the replicating, not the software itself.

    1. Re:BSA's position doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legislations and regulations are full of industry specific rules. Absolutely no such generalizations by analogue can be derived as the BSA suggests. Oh, that was the case for criminal law, but since we are talking about Monsanto and BSA..

  30. Re:Does Microsoft & Apple Understand Basic Bio by IonOtter · · Score: 1

    Arrggh. BDS = BSA/The Software Alliance

    --
    [End Of Line]
  31. Terminate Monstano's corporate charter instead? by runeghost · · Score: 1

    And those of every other rent-extracting legacy megacorp along with them?

  32. Does Microsoft or Apple Understand Basic Biology? by IonOtter · · Score: 2

    If you drop a CD into the soil, it won't do anything except break down over a few million years. If you drop a CD into a computer, it still won't do anything without user intervention. It might start an auto-run routine, but it won't fully install. (Unless it's a virus or trojan, but that's another kettle of fish.)

    However, if you drop a seed...well...pretty much anywhere that doesn't immediately kill it, and it gets wet? It's going to self-replicate. It will complete it's life-cycle and produce more seeds, no human intervention required.

    So from a software company, this case has already been decided?

    Nature has prior art. The BSA's arguments are invalid.

    --
    [End Of Line]
  33. BSA is NOT in the software industry by Skapare · · Score: 3

    BSA is in the legal assault industry.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  34. "Oddly". You keep using that word. by idontgno · · Score: 1

    Reader 9gezegen adds that Monsanto is getting support, oddly, from parts of the software industry.

    It's not odd at all.

    Monsanto's "innovation" is protected under US Patent law. Traditionally, patents were protected by suing the infriging party. However, the "terminator gene" is a technological self-help measure: Monsanto can enforce their patent on their own, without intervention of the law, by simply making it literally impossible to grow a second generation of crops by planting the first. It's genetic DRM.

    That's the BSA's angle. They're arguing to protect DRM. For the purposes of protecting proprietary rights, patent (genetic behaviors) and copyright (copying software) are close enough that a precedent against Monsanto would make software pigopolists nervous about their own out-of-court self-help measures.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  35. GET A BRAIN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i support this, because it doesn't contaminate regular crops..
    go get a fucking a brain!!!

    1. Re:GET A BRAIN by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      yes it does contaminate other crops thats the whole problem here. pollen from roundup ready terminator crops spreads to neighbors normal crops offspring inharite terminator gene terminator gene is recessive not killing this generation but out competes natural plant due to the built in genetic alteration so most third generation plants have two copies of the terminator gene render sterile. Simple mendelian genetics you should have learned in 8th grade science class.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  36. Sometimes even greed leads to a good result by Hentes · · Score: 1

    While I understand that this removes the ability of a farmer to further breed the crop they've bought, I still prefer sterile GMOs to crosspollenation.

    1. Re:Sometimes even greed leads to a good result by xiando · · Score: 1

      While I understand that this removes the ability of a farmer to further breed the crop they've bought, I still prefer sterile GMOs to crosspollenation.

      There is a third choice: Outlaw GMOs. GMO crops are illegal here in Sweden and I'm glad they are. We don't have to choose between two evils, we just reject both.

    2. Re:Sometimes even greed leads to a good result by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      We don't have to choose

      And your farmers don't have the ability to choose for themselves. Do they not have the right to choose for themselves? Sweden and other countries really aren't doing themselves any favors by limiting their farmers' ability to use technology that other farmers in the US, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, China, ect. can use and making a blanket ban on technology. Historically, technology bans haven't worked out so well in the long term. I once talked to a European plant biologist who basically said of European bans on GE crops, 'Well, they'll probably change their minds when climate change comes around.'

  37. Cuttings? by Dwedit · · Score: 1

    Many plants don't exclusively reproduce from seeds, they can also reproduce from cuttings.

    1. Re:Cuttings? by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      This is an interesting thought. Anyone have any idea what legal status there is to propagating Monsanto plants by cuttings? I acknowledge that it isn't really feasible for many crops on a large farm, but plant cuttings is an interesting take on this subject.

    2. Re:Cuttings? by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      It would most likely be the same. There are patented varieties of crops that are propagated entirely asexually (like apples, peaches, grapes, ect) and it would be illegal to propagate those without a license, so I doubt doing the same with one of Monsanto's crops would be any different.

    3. Re:Cuttings? by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      most grains won't grow from cuttings. But food crops that due such as bananas are in a lot of trouble do to lack of genetic diversity leading to whole breeds dying in mass from disease.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  38. Monsanto's track record by static0verdrive · · Score: 1

    Scientists in Canada confirmed Posilac (the growth hormone they give many dairy cows in the USA) causes cancer, which makes sense considering what cancer is. What would seeds that don't reproduce naturally do to us? (SEEDS! that grow plants that don't reproduce?!) Is anyone else concerned?

    --
    ========
    77 77 77 2e 6d 65 6c 76 69 6e 73 2e 63 6f 6d
    1. Re:Monsanto's track record by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      the seed won't do anything to us (they won't give you their genes transferring gene between cells is a lot of work) but the will kill off other non modified crops which leads to lack of genetic diversity which can make the species susceptible to disease and lead to their extinction (see bananas) and mass starvation.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  39. Monopoly by AndyCanfield · · Score: 1

    Patent, and Copyright, is basically a government-issued monopoly on making copies.

    I'm going to do like Monsanto. I'll write a computer virus, copyright it, spread it, and sue the ass off of anyone who gets infected.

    A patent on a life form makes no sense. Life forms, by their very nature, make copies of themselves. How can Monsanto claim an exclusive right to make Widget Seeds when the Widget seeds themselves are dedicated to making widget seeds?

    What will happen when Monsanto makes a human gene that cures epilepsy? Will the law prohibit cured epileptics from having children?

    Perhaps ONLY 'terminator' seeds should be patentable.

  40. Corpiragation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know wtf that word means just like I don't see the point in GM seeds other than to line some corporate wallets.

    Is there something wrong with the seeds evolution has provided?

    1. Re:Corpiragation by neminem · · Score: 1

      There are *plenty* of things wrong with the seeds evolution has provided - that is why we've been modifying them (through *human* selection) since well back into prehistoric times.

      I have no issue with trying to make plants "better" - there are loads of things we could improve in just about any plant. I don't even have any issue with trying to make plants better by fiddling with their genes in a lab and seeing what comes out, as opposed to the standard way: fiddling with their offspring and seeing what comes out (which really amounts to much the same thing, just takes a lot longer and is a lot harder to control). I only have issue with any plants getting out that threaten to destroy their *parent* subspecies. After all, *diversity* is key to long-term survival, evolution teaches that, too. If you want a plant that's better, but can't reproduce? Fine. That's no different from a mule. Just as long as you don't try to force every donkey and horse to only have mulish offspring, none of their own species, then kill all the donkeys and horses, so you can reign supreme in the mule-cloning business, bwahaha! Cause that's just evil.

      (Yes, I am totally willing to agree, Monsanto is rather evil. Just not for GMO *generally*, only for their own behaviors specifically.)

    2. Re:Corpiragation by iamacat · · Score: 1

      Well one thing wrong is that humans have been eating non-engineered plants for thousands of years with no ill effects, and where there have been ill effects either plants or sensitive humans involved have been purged from gene pool.

      The same can not be said for a newly engineered plant enhanced with genes from harmful bacteria to kill insects that are trying to munch them.

  41. Author rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm pretty sure Monsanto didn't obtain modification rights and commercial exclusivity of gene code from the original author. What of software, binary or source, with no identified author or license rights?

    - Armando

    1. Re:Author rights by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Gives me an interesting idea. Can't we somehow sic the bible thumpers on them for defying God or some shit like that? I mean, for a change they could do some good.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Author rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get them a train crusade to the death

  42. And when it breaks loose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A great fiction book that is based in a world where this tech ran amok is Paolo Bacigalupi's The Windup Girl. Highly recommended to the SciFi fans out there.

  43. Did you notice the dates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because I don't think you did.

    1. Re:Did you notice the dates? by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      GP stated that "Bowman didn't sign it," not that "Bowman didn't sign it for his second plantings." The first suggests to the reader that he never agreed to the planting restrictions or was somehow innocently unaware of what he was doing. The second suggests that he was perfectly aware that what he was doing would violate at least the patents, if not the contract itself (there's no reason for the contract to be specific to that planting. as opposed to a period of time up until the patents expire).

      It's funny how including what Bowman actually did gets the post moderated as a Troll, but accusing a company of suing 'innocent' farmers who purchase seeds in a very unusual way is +5 informative. Bias much?

  44. Re: US people, Europe has th solution for you by xiando · · Score: 2

    If the gene causing infertility is transmitted via pollen, then farmers that try to produce an heirloom seed crop near a field planted with a Monsanto variety would be screwed since their seed crop could end up infertile.

    This is exactly why GM seeds are illegal here in Europe (Except Spain who allow them for some reason): Fields near fields with GM crops get polluted. Sometimes people buy seeds they think are not GM but turn out to be GM and farmers are in those cases ordered to destroy their entire fields (and sometimes nearby fields) just to make sure we keep GM-genes away. Look to Europe, we have a very simple solution to this mess: Just outlaw GM and you're done.

    I suspect that the US will be forced to import natural seeds from Europe if they want/need them in the near future, everything in North-America will be infected with GM seeds pretty soon if you irresponsible people in the USA keep this up.

  45. Dr. Ian Malcolm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Nature finds a way.

    1. Re:Dr. Ian Malcolm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would mod you up :)

    2. Re:Dr. Ian Malcolm by iamacat · · Score: 1

      Like competition from non-sterile plants.

  46. Oh Baloney by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    There is no evidence that Monsanto would resort to terminator genes when other techniques like careful hybridization would get the same results.

    Not to mention it's pretty unlikely the Supreme Court is going to rule against Monsanto in the first place.

    Really the article is pretty much a ridiculously transparent troll.

  47. it can be in fact a much better option. by mad+flyer · · Score: 1

    Guys, you are totally missing the big picture. If Monsanto sell only their sterile seeds, that also means there is no way for their crap to cross polinate and takeover the original non modified seeds. That is BRAZILIUN times safer for everyone... no more accidental contamination.

    Now Monsanto deserve to die, but for once... their greed is good... from an ecological standpoint...

    1. Re:it can be in fact a much better option. by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 1

      Am I missing something? What's stopping these wretched GMO crops from pollinating and contaminating non-GMO crops, producing usable seed that can be planted for the next year, but by the time next fall rolls around... a large percentage of your new seed stock is now infertile, completely useless? Give it a few years of continuing cross-contamination and you're fucked.

  48. A terminator seed = can't sue farmers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    A terminator seed = can't sue farmers.
    .

    Monsanto has been doing a great job of suing farmers, driving away its competition (non-Monsanto seeds). If Monsanto released a seed that didn't reproduce, it couldn't sue farmers for "stealing" Monsanto's seed because it wouldn't be possible.

    So let's assume that if they are bringing it out now it is because they are already the 800 pound gorilla in the marketplace, with everyone scared stiff and already using their seed. So now is the time to force everyone to buy their seed yearly...

  49. And that's how life on Earth ends by MpVpRb · · Score: 1

    Terminator genes escape and propagate throughout the plant world

    1. Re:And that's how life on Earth ends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would they do that?

  50. BSA supporting Monsanto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course the BSA would support Monsanto: soulless corporate monsters gotta stick together, ya know.

  51. Why the **** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are they really trying to mess with how plants grow and reproduce? there is NO reason to "fix" this, even if it has 'tech implications" which make me laugh. Let's relate seed "copying" (otherwise known as NATURE) to filesharing/copying.

    What a crock, me being of a family that has done farming for years here in Michigan, this is a complete crock of bullshit. Leave the plants alone, businesses. Stop trying to modify foodstuffs genetically, instead of evolutionar-ily (I made a word!)

  52. Re: US people, Europe has th solution for you by icebike · · Score: 1

    You keep banging that drum, but your own scientists tell you its crazy talk.
    To date, nobody has found a single health risk in GM food or GM Grain.
    I suspect EU will hit a famine one of these days and will be eating GM food or nothing at all.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  53. In this case by pepty · · Score: 1

    Farmer A = Farmer B. Bowman signed the agreements.

  54. Misleading headline by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

    Monsanto isn't saying they will release terminator seeds, some guy who specializes in IP says they might want to. Where does it say anywhere that they are 'set to make a comeback'?

  55. What's good for the goose is good for the gander by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe that Monsanto should be fully responsible if their property infects others property. If the pollen from the Frankenseeds is mixed with natural plants were the Frankenseeds were not planted, the Monsanto should pay punitive damages and should be required to not only reimburse the farmer for a years wages, but the farmer shouls also have the option to make Monsanto buy the entire crop for twice the current market value. Perhaps this would make Monstanto a little more wise to their decisions.

  56. Gonna get ugly, one way or another. by pla · · Score: 1

    Most of you have completely missed the point with all your clever tricks to get around Monsanto's arguably-legal (if unethical and immoral) IP rights and to prevent cross contamination and what-have-you.

    If you think this looks ugly, c'mon geeks, project this out 50 years. We have hyperbole in this discussion already about "patenting" human offspring. Do you all really think that exact case won't make it to the USSC a few decades from now, as long as we allow slime like Monsanto to claim ownership of genetic material?

    Write your politician. March on Washington. Burn the fuckers to the ground (metaphorically, of course - Though I certainly won't cry if someone does). Whatever it takes. This hasn't even started to get ugly yet, and we have the entire future of US agriculture hanging by a thread in this one petty little contract dispute.

  57. not stealing, and not a valid patent license by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Or maybe it's just not a very good business model, and we don't need to extend the jurisdiction of patents to prop up such a business?

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  58. Ugh - this company needs to just go away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These "bio-tech" companies which purport to be good for the Earth with their claims to feed an ever growing population are just a ruse to grow their profits. Monsanto is a monster company which is making people sick - truly sick. Their genetically modified seeds and whatever else they're producing in whatever conglomerate factory in their Latin American company, are intended to eventually take over normal seeds. GMO seeds have not been studied----yet people (specifically Americans--- uneducated Americans) will continue to just eat blindly --- then wonder why they get cancer, or some other life-altering chronic medical condition.

    People - education is everything - read about what you're eating. Don't eat blindly then expect no consequences from that blind eating. And you can bet your ass these lousy executives from Monsanto and other "bio-tech" firms are NOT themselves---eating what their monster farms are producing. Monsanto has been protested numerous times in their country because people know they are producing garbage. They will advertise it as "good for you, or hell---not advertise it at all" -- they'll just work their garbage into the food chain and of course, Americans----- will simply shove it into their maws. People--- you need to know what you're eating. This company is producing truly garbage that will eventually kill you.

    MONSANTO IS GARBAGE------MONSANTO IS PRODUCING KILLER CROPS THAT WILL MAKE YOU SICK, SICK, SICK. DO NOT EAT ANYTHING THAT CONTAINS GENETICALLY MODIFIED CRAP---- IT WILL MAKE YOU SICK SICK SICK. Think I don't know what I'm talking about? Then go ahead---and continue to shove their KILLER CRAP into your body--- you'll eventually get sicker and sicker.

    DO NOT EAT THEIR SHIT------ READ LABELS--- EDUCATE YOURSELF SO YOU AND YOUR FAMILIES CAN ENJOY A HEALTHY LIFE----DO NOT BUY INTO THE LIES THIS COMPANY IS FEEDING THE MASSES------MONSANTO IS GARBAGE ON THE GRANDEST SCALE----TRULY, IT'S GOT TO BE A PRODUCT OF SHIT.

    ALSO----this company will dump its garbage on the biggest American company that U.S. shoppers frequent---that being WALMART---- ugh--- just read people----- go with your instinct. These companies are counting on Americans continuing to be blind to what they're eating. Meanwhile, these Monsanto executives are living the high-life, off American wages and backbreaking work. And you will get sicker and sicker and sicker. No one's telling you that you need to be a damn vegetarian (although there's nothing wrong with that)---and yes, I know vegetables can be just as polluted as the "meat" Americans are eating--- I'm just saying you need to know the source of the food you're eating. Cows injected with steriods, and other harmful chemicals---they all work their way into your blood stream; then pregnant women will have babies with small medical conditions---- shit that everyone thinks is harmless and doesn't affect them--- MONSANTO IS GARBAGE. I WOULDN'T FEED MONSANTO GARBAGE TO A KILLER ON DEATH ROW----- but I'd love to see a Goddamned Monsanto executive eat this shit themselves---and feed it to their own family for a prolonged period of time. Below is a link to Monsanto's commercial from YouTube----

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUHTBABXbu8

    You will notice that the rating system normally accessible on YouTube has been DISABLED--- because Monsanto knows people are posting the truth---and they don't want anyone to read it. Also---if you try to post a negative comment - it automatically says: "Comment pending approval"----well hell yeah--- they're not going to approve anything negative about their commercial. MONSANTO IS SHIT PEOPLE.. IT IS SHIT--- PRODUCING SHIT AND THEY WANT YOU TO EAT THEIR SHIT.

    DO NOT BUY INTO THEIR MASS MARKETING----- they will eventually make you and your family SICK SICK SICK.

    And this post says that I'm posting as "Anonymous Coward"---- I'm no coward--- My name is Carolyn McEvoy

  59. And what exactly is the downside? by iamacat · · Score: 1

    Monsanto will have no more claims against farmers who want to save and replant seeds as their product by definition is not capable of doing that. Organic farmers and wild plants are protected from contamination. And anyone who wants to plant commercial seeds and play by the rules doesn't lose anything.

    I say mandate that bioengineered plants be made sterile.

  60. Re: US people, Europe has th solution for you by doom · · Score: 1

    Yes, and actually it's one of the better arguments in favor of GM foods in general: Europe banned them, but in the US we've been eating them for many years. No health problems have been found in the US that's attributable to this. As Stewart Brand comments that's a massive experiment conducted on large populations. What more do people need before they'll calm down about this?

    (In a way, it's a shame that California voters shot down that bill calling for mandatory labeling of GM foods: it might've made people suddenly realize how much of it they were eating without any problems... And once it sunk in that GM foods were better environmentally, you might find people arguing that if you can't afford Organic you should buy GM.)

  61. Re: by kurkosdr · · Score: 1

    Nahh, unless Monsanto can create genetically modified humans (with patented genes) and then sue you for having a child with such a person, our world is not Orwellian enough. Monsanto, you 've got to try harder. The fact you can own all the seeds is not good enough. Go and bribe some senators a bit more so that they abolish that pesky law about not creating genetically modified humans. Anyone thinks this terminator seed will become a reality again? Ever since Monsanto discovered they could own all the seeds by letting their genetically modified products mix with natural ones *in the wild* and then claim ownership of said genetically modified ones, they have no reason to go back.

  62. Re: by kurkosdr · · Score: 1

    of said genetically modified ones = of said "natural" ones

  63. I fracking do! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good friggin' riddance!

    Google:
    round up kills bees
    round up kills amphibians

    Killing the 99% to benefit the 0.1% again are we?

    Captcha: undoes

  64. Root worm insecticide gene kills bees. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The root worm insecticide gene kills bees, not the Round Up stuff.

  65. Re: US people, Europe has th solution for you by Talderas · · Score: 1

    Environmentally, organic vs GM shouldn't matter much. You're talking more or less the potential usage of pesticides.

    Where crops have an impact environmentally is whether or not they are locally grown which is independent of organic vs GM.

    --
    "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  66. BSA relations with Microsoft/Monsanto by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    No suprise Monsanto is having relations with BSA, look who the members are...
    http://www.bsa.org/country/bsa%20and%20members/our%20members.aspx

    ...And one of the members is having relations with Monsanto
    http://naturalsociety.com/bill-gates-foundation-buys-500000-shares-of-monsanto/

    ..and if you were wondering what they do with all those seeds...
    http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_f__willi_080123__22doomsday_seed_vault.htm

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  67. WAR!!!!! KILLING!!!! by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Seriously, if these seeds are released commercially. It'll be time that we'll need all those AR15s...and several tanks of gasoline.

    It has already been shown that GMO crops interbreed with wild/natural crops.

    Having a terminator corn that winds up interbreeding could wipe out ALL corn.

    This is such a preposterous and dangerous action. That the mere taking of it is justification for The People to literally wage war on a physical level with Mosanto.

    Sorry, potentially risking the starvation of humanity is BAD SCIENCE. And threatening the lives of billions is justification for the use of physical force.

    1. Re:WAR!!!!! KILLING!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monsanto Ghalughara.

      --
      || 10G + 5K = 1699 ||

  68. boycott monsanto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they'll get the message

  69. GMO Market share is dropping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the first time since their introduction farmers are turning away from GMO seeds and the market share is stagnant at best. The reason is simple. It costs $100 per acre more and the yields are not better than conventional. The re-introduction of the terminator gene is Monsanto's last grasp at keeping their 80% market share. They are failing in the field and soon "roundup ready" weeds will be too big of a problem to ignore. Already 100 hectares of land is contaminated with roundup ready weeds. That wasn't supposed to happen.

    I have a hard time believing anything that Monsanto says. If I told you I baked a turkey, at normal turkey baking temperatures, and there was no salmonella found but later you found out I'd baked the turkey for 2 WEEKS non-stop what would you think? Well that is exactly what Monsanto did with their RBGH for milk. Any "residuals were destroyed at normal pasteurization temperatures" was the line they trotted out. They kept it at that temperature for 30 minutes! That is the equivalent of a 2 week turkey bake.

    Monsanto is also famous for testing their food on rats for 3 months and claiming all is well. If you did tests in humans from birth to 10 years old and claimed lifetime safety would that be valid? No.

  70. Re: US people, Europe has th solution for you by doom · · Score: 1

    Environmentally, organic vs GM shouldn't matter much. You're talking more or less the potential usage of pesticides.

    Reducing the use of pesticides is certainly a good thing, but actually there's supposed to be another advantage of some GM crops in reducing the need to till the land, which is apparently a large source of greenhouse gas emissions.

    But sure, local food sources will burn less energy in transporting the stuff, which is also to the good.

  71. Monsanto by CHIT2ME · · Score: 1

    Someone needs to sterilize Monsanto!

    --
    My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!